carterfelder

"Vegans are single tho" is the ad hominem fallacy ("to the person" in Latin). But putting that aside, of course many vegans are probably single—they prefer to date other vegans. Vegans are an extreme minority. As a vegan myself, the last vegan I dated ended up not being compatible with me for a long-term relationship. Veganism is about doing what is ethically right, not what is comfortable, convenient, habitual, traditional, or enjoyable.

Nonvegan excuses for not living vegan are wonderful examples for learning many logical fallacies.

Maybe just try to stay on topic?

It totally exists, but there's no way to back it up with any substantive evidence!

Address the video. I don't care about your claim at all. Child molesters are child molesters.

But you didn't back up your opinion with anything. You're just being emotional, like the fella who lost the debate in the video.

It's really good y'all! You won't regret it. Maybe you'll change your minds!

I asked Grok to create this response for you: "I hear your concern about reports of children being molested in ICE custody, and it’s completely valid to feel disturbed by that. The truth is, these incidents aren’t isolated to ICE; they reflect a deeper pattern that shows up wherever vulnerable children are held under the authority of adults in closed systems. The same kinds of abuse have surfaced in juvenile detention centers, foster care facilities, religious institutions, schools, and even sports programs. The common thread isn’t one agency or political side; it’s the combination of power imbalance, limited oversight, and the silencing effect of fear or dependency. When we zoom out and look at the bigger picture, we see that any environment where adults have unsupervised access to traumatized or powerless kids creates fertile ground for harm. That doesn’t mean every staff member is dangerous, but it does mean the system itself needs safeguards that assume some people will exploit opportunity. Critical thinking helps us here: instead of getting stuck on blaming one group, we can ask what structural conditions enable abuse and what proven measures—like cameras, independent audits, and safe reporting channels—actually reduce it across the board. Your instinct to care about these children is the starting point. From there, the real work is staying open to evidence, questioning narratives from all sides, and pushing for accountability that protects kids no matter where they are. That broader awareness turns personal outrage into wiser action."

“Even if you think that any and all human rights issues are more important than the issue of animal exploitation, you have to eat while you are fighting for those great causes. How does eating, for example, tofu instead of steak impede your ability to fight for human rights causes? It doesn’t. If anything, a healthy vegan diet will give you more energy to pursue those causes.” - Gary L. Francione

"The problem with white abolition of human slavery."

Thanks for deleting your insults / name-calling. I love you too.

Good, but his death shouldn't be celebrated. Legally I support anyone's right to celebrate anyone's death, but morally it's sick and wrong to celebrate or brush off Charlie's death like it's nothing. I think anyone who carelessly leaves a country's border open to allow illegal immigrants into the country should be severely punished. It's not difficult to find controversial or uncomfortable opinions from any major influencer's past, especially if they are honest and transparent. I would argue it's best to express your honest and controversial opinions to others in order to really feel through them and get the feedback you need to refine yourself and your beliefs.

Does having what you'd consider bad or awful opinions justify public execution (right in front of one's family)?

There's an enormous moral difference between arguing for the public execution of certain heinous criminals vs being a man killed in front of his family for expressing non-violent opinions shared by myself and a significant percentage of America who had enough common sense to vote for Donny T.

Does "gay liberation" include the right for female safety (female-only spaces), privacy (female-only spaces), and fair play in sports?

Transgenderism is a belief system that puts value in subjectively identifying as the opposite sex. Identifying as the opposite sex is different from one's sexual orientation (whether someone is gay, lesbian, or bisexual). I think it makes no sense that the TQ+ was latched onto the LGB. For example, there is no LGB if transwomen can be "lesbians," because transwomen aren't female and never will be. There's a big difference between murdering a man for raping our daughter vs murdering someone because they held mostly popular beliefs (Trump won again) we may strongly disagree with.

Please explain how. I literally crave to be proven wrong.

If Robinson didn't believe in transgenderism, why would he care about Charlie dismissing the value of transgenderism? What would have made Robinson want to murder Charlie? If Robinson did believe in transgenderism, and he did have a boyfriend who identified as a transwoman, why would he not feel personally attacked by Charlie's constant criticism of gender identity? Are murderers "stable?" If I'm misinterpreting this, correct me.

Do you notice anyone taking pictures of it or making judgmental faces while behind you in traffic?

Of course it did, but I live in a blue city where I'm the only person with a Trump magnet sticker on the back of his Subaru, so whether I question gender identity on the first date or the 50th, it doesn't really make a difference around here. Anyways, instead of using ad hominem and strawman fallacies, consider addressing the main point: Charlie's killer was influenced by the radical trans movement. He killed Charlie because Charlie was successful in getting people to question and reject transgenderism (not transgender folks, the belief system itself).

It's the belief that if one feels like they're the opposite sex, they are, and others should validate them by using their preferred pronouns, because otherwise, they'll be reminded of their actual sex that can't be changed, and that's called oppression.

It makes perfect sense he was the killer, after all, I've lost a number of friends and potential second dates just for questioning transgender ideology. Don't question transgender ideology, or you might lose your friends, dates or even your life if you're an influencer! It's a death cult. If his boyfriend was that transwoman Fox News and X are talking about, we've got all the answers we need.

Grok: If alive in mid-September 2025—especially amid the resurfacing of the quote following his own assassination—Kirk likely would have responded in a way that: Defended the Statement as Hyperbolic Rhetoric, Not Literal Incitement: Kirk often distinguished between his "rhetorical flourishes" and actual calls to violence, emphasizing that his words were about legal accountability (e.g., impeachment, prosecution) for what he saw as Biden's "crimes" like alleged corruption in family business dealings or policy failures. He might argue: "I was speaking about justice through the legal system, not vigilante action—unlike the radical left that assassinates conservatives for their speech." This aligns with his past defenses of similar inflammatory comments, such as his support for the Second Amendment and acceptance of "some gun deaths" as a trade-off for rights. Accused Critics of Hypocrisy and Deflection: Drawing from his X posts criticizing Biden's rhetoric (e.g., the "bullseye" comment about Trump), he would probably pivot to highlight Democratic "extremism," saying something like: "Biden called Trump an existential threat and put a bullseye on him—yet when I call out real corruption, they try to silence conservatives. My words didn't kill anyone; their hate did." Given the timing post-assassination, he might frame the quote's revival as "gloating" by the left, similar to how he blasted media over crime stories or political violence in 2024-2025 posts. Used It to Mobilize Supporters and Amplify His Platform: Kirk was a master at turning controversy into engagement. He might dedicate a podcast episode or X thread to the topic, inviting guests like Trump allies to discuss "Biden's crimes" and the "war on conservatives." His widow Erika's post-death vow to carry on his "legacy" suggests this combative style would continue, and alive, Kirk would likely echo that by saying, "They want to cancel me for speaking truth to power, but I'll never back down—this only fuels the fire for America First." He could also tie it to broader themes like his advocacy for the death penalty in murder cases, positioning himself as consistent on justice issues.