zurew

You are not an idiot, you just don't know the surrounding facts on this specific topic and you seem to be downplaying Trump's rhetoric. Read the this https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf and watch this and see his "peaceful" rhetoric

1) You are generally 10x more unhinged than me especially if we take a look at the I/P thread or any Destiny thread, so stop with the tone policing. Im good buddy. You are the last person who could go around calling people out for their tones. 2) No its not against the forum guidelines to call someone utterly clueless or a waste of time. There are plenty of links in this thread that anyone who wants to approach this topic without empty preaching can go and read, and mutliple arguments have already been made why democracy and Trump don't go together. You were clueless as well btw, because Leo had to educate you on basic facts that you should have known a long time ago, before you started to go around arguing with people. Neither of you have the basic knowledge to have the ability to argue on this topic (because you lack the basic facts), what you do is fish around for answers and then attack them without actually getting read up on the topics first.

You are wasting your time. That person definitely haven't read anything on these topics and he is utterly clueless but he is running around preaching how everything is relative or that there is nothing serious going on. Complete lack of epistemic humility, completely being ignorant of the facts, while being in preacher mode while thinking they are highly conscious . The worst person to waste any time on.

If you have questions about Trump, read this motherfucker in full and then come back. https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

Its not even worth sharing information like that on here, because people will spin it and they can't engage responsibly with it. Some conservative people already using it as a conspiracy theory

You are completely wasting your time with him. He is going to double, triple and then quadruple down on everything he says, even though he literally knows nothing about ethics or about nutrition science. He is jumping from claim to claim to see what sticks and when he is cornered it all of a sudden becomes "its all relative and its just opinions, bro"

Nope, not Elon. https://x.com/AdrianDittmann/status/1812977753974796387

Lol https://x.com/TheOmniLiberal/status/1812697897848213960

How many streams of his have you watched in full? Does he update his moral stance easily or whats happening is that the content of the situation is different compared to the other and thats why his stance on it is different? Or another very common explanation is that given that he becomes aware of more information about a given situation, he starts to lean in a different direction. And even this doesn't completely exhaust the possibility space how it could be explained. Im surprised you haven't considered those options or if you did considered them, I would ask you to walk me through your thought process how you end up with "he is easily switches moralities" rather than ending up with one of the options from what I listed above. Candace Owens convo was absolutely horrible. Destiny and Candace disagree probably on 99% of the things they have a political stance on, but she characterizing that as Destiny just being contrarian is intellectually lazy and bad faith. Think about how lazy and intellectually bankrupt it is to just throw labels on the person and then not engage with his arguments, just because you two disagree on most things. This is what Destiny has always been very frustrated about, that the vast majority of people (including most political commentators) would rather make a bunch of assumptions and assertions about why Destiny doesn't believe in what he states he believes in and they would rather spend 99% of the time questioning his motivations (making claims what his "true" beliefs are) than actually engaging with the arguments that he is putting out. Whats the argument for this? Whats the argument for this?

Destiny is debating conservatives live on twitter about Trump https://x.com/i/spaces/1yNGagagVMRxj

@Raze You were right for sure. Appreciate the correction. This link reassures your claim https://www.fastpeoplesearch.com/name/thomas-matthew-crooks_15102 Fuck, there is so much misinfo.

Yeah, that probably settles it. I stand corrected.

Either this the case or the case is what I said that its the old guy, because the name matches perfectly and the city matches perfectly. I became agnostic on this, right now im not sure anymore.

Thats interesting. Here is a question though: on the link that you gave earlier (https://x.com/Mssr_le_Baron/status/1812512311669887290/photo/2) the city is Pittsburgh and not Bethel Park , how would you explain that? And the other question is regarding the name mentioned there. Why is it just Thomas Crooks and not Thomas Matthew Crooks?

It doesn't let me to open the link, could you show me the page with an image? According to the link that I posted earlier, the old guy has the exact same zipcode (first image) https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1812543831889313897/photo/1

That guy from 0:25 - 1:00 is not the real killer, he just pretended to be the killer , he is a troll.

@Raze Yeah, but look at the city, it says "Pittsburgh" and the name is just Thomas Crooks , not Thomas M Crooks The old guy has the exact same zip code

From 0:25 to 1:00, yes.

That wasn't the killer, that was a troll video.

That claim seems to be false https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1812543831889313897

from 0:30 to 1:00 thats not the guy , he is a twitter troll who looks kind of similar to the shooter. "you've got the wrong guy " - should be incredibly obvious that it is a troll. Its insane how some media outlets fell for it or they disingenuously pretend as if that video would be true (so that they can run with the "he wasn't a republican voter" narrative). https://x.com/Shayan86/status/1812357824992718981

With this literally everyone here would agree with, but originally you didn't frame it this way thats why you got the pushback that you got. Originally you were talking about that vegans are rejecting reality just because they don't eat meat, which is obviously a very stupid statement. The analogy about crocodiles was unnecessary and irrelevant and even framing this whole thing through the lense of veganism was stupid as well. Now you can pretend that the above claim was your only point that you were trying to make, while in reality you were forced to walk back all your other stupid claims that you failed to defend.

Buddy,Im not vegan, but you are not making any sense, your explanations are weak and none of them really address any of the objections that were laid out by others in this thread. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises that you laid out. It seems that you haven't thought through this at all or you are incredibly bad at communicating whatever you are trying to communicate. The argument that you laid out here is 4chan level quality. High consciousness forum and moderators cant track the basic implications of what they are saying. This is just incredibly sad,especially given that you think you have delivered some deep profound insight here.

@integral Okay, I will get more serious and will engage since you seem to actually think that you are making some deep profound argument here. 1) Veganism is compatible with not demonizing eating meat, so your long ramblings about that is unnecessary (if you want to target all vegans) because it only target a fraction of vegans. 2) In some cases you are asserting that acceptance entails doing an action (vegans don't just need to accept that their body might sometimes crave meat, but they have to act on it and they actually have to eat meat ) and in other cases you are saying you don't necessary have to act on it (in a cannibal's or in a raper's case - you seem to be saying that they can accept that they have desires without needing to act on those desires). - this seems to be a very obvious contradiction that you will need to untangle. 3) You also seem to be making a seperate claim from all of those, namely that there are some actions that are absolutely necessary for one's survival and not doing those specific actions would be the rejection of your own biology. You keep bringing up the crocodile example, where the croc actually have to kill and eat meat in order to survive , but you are yet to establish why humans have to eat meat in order to survive.