Shit for Brains Dave “D” wrote…. “The "Iran War Cost Tracker Reveals War's Hit To American Pocketbooks". I guess that he’d prefer Iran to have a Nuclear Boy”!
Hakeem Jeffries was asked POINT-BLANK if a Democrat-controlled House would BRING BACK the illegal aliens Trump already deported to third countries (like Africa): Reporter: “Will the Congress under your leadership bring back the [illegal aliens] deported to third countries?” Jeffries NODS YES repeatedly 👀 and says: “We do.” Then drops this bombshell: “Trump’s mass deportation machine does NOT get a DIME.” Translation? Hand Democrats the gavel in November and they’ll DEFUND ICE, halt deportations, and try to REVERSE the ones already done — flying people BACK into America on YOUR dime while families struggle with groceries, rent, and crime. This is the plan. Out loud. No hiding it. If they take the House, this is what “repair work” looks like to them. MAY SURE TO VOTE..AND VOTE REPUBLICAN. AND SHARE THIS. Don’t let them undo all the good things that Trump did.
Yeah, because trying to hold criminals accountable is terrible. Democrats shouldn't have resisted his coup and just allowed him to stay in office despite losing the election, right?
//But... let me get this straight... Nazis are socialists because "socialist" was in the party name. And it's inconceivable that Hitler lied.
He was not providing workers with what socialists proclaim to provide: wellfare, control over owners, more fair dustribution of wealth, even more wealth in the future under direction of government?
So, all that benefits workers of Germany recieved -- was a lie?
//Democrats absolutely are lying about being opposed to Communism and are all secretly Communist.
Why they lying about national-SOCIALISTS being socialists? What other reason coukd be?
Yawn.
And well... isn't that FDR -- most prominent president from USA Democrats -- was i one who colluded with Cimmies of USSR, took em as allies, provided BILLIONS in military products???
//Transition to the NSDAP: In February 1920, the DAP changed its name to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party), which became known as the Nazi Party.
Not just socialistic. Workers party!
SAME as commies in USSR was pounding -- that they not just mere socialists, which they called traitors and liars to working class. And called itself "party of workers and peasants" (but, not "progressive"... because that workers and peasants did not know that word...)
//Appealing to Workers: The party was originally founded as the German Workers' Party (DAP) in 1919 and renamed the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) in 1920 to attract blue-collar working-class voters away from left-wing parties like the Social Democrats and Communists.
Same voters. Same promices.
But... "not socialists". ))))))
Because any party can appeal to any public, and promice just anything????
And not because they naturally defined by to whom and what they propose, yes cretin? %^P
//Crushing Labor Unions: In May 1933, the Nazi regime immediately banned independent trade unions, arrested socialist and communist leaders, and replaced unions with a state-controlled organization called the German Labor Front (DAF).
Yes, both Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong effectively stripped trade unions of their independence, banned the right to strike, and turned labor unions into state-controlled instruments for maximizing industrial production
//Privatization: Rather than nationalizing industry, the Nazi government actually pioneered large-scale privatization, selling off state-owned railways, banks, and steel mills to private capitalists who cooperated with the regime.
But to party members ONLY?
Yes, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong controlled nationalized industries by installing loyal Communist Party members into management positions. However, while these party officials possessed immense authority over day-to-day operations and enjoyed massive economic privileges, they did not legally own the factories, nor could they pass them down as private inheritance. Instead, they acted as custodians of a state-monopolized system.
We came to -- who exactly do spread that lies. ;-p
//Scholarship: As detailed by historical institutions like the Holocaust Memorial Museum and Britannica, mainstream historians classify Nazism as a far-right, totalitarian, and fascist ideology built on racial supremacy and extreme nationalism, not socialism.🛑
The idiots of MAGA La-La Land still believe the 2020 election was "stolen" from them. Although every legitimate data point proves the "Steal" was nothing but a BIG LIE...
And the Great Orange Turd is working on a repeat of his 2020 insurrection attempt. Only this time the insurrection effort will be to illegally retain control of congress and the senate.
Fascism exists in America and it is controlling the mechanism of government now and will fight like hell to never lose their filthy desire to control everything.
Minus: Yes, let's give the Fraud Party Democrats another hundred billion in social services to steal... so much for "accountability", eh Derv?
Electing republicans enables theft from public treasuries. In my lifetime it's always been republicans doing the stealing. Remember that gwb used the Afghanistan and Iraq wars to shovel money to their cronies. donald trump is doing the same by giving government contracts to his cronies and sons. Elon was rewarded for his help by allowing him into government so he could kill all investigations into his companies. And now he's throttling starlink, stopping Ukraine from retaliating. And trump has dropped all pretenses of not being 100 percent with Putin.
Any Democratic corruption pales in comparison. Many Turd-2 officials need to end up in prison when this is over. Charged with war crimes and corruption. And you think I should vote for republicans to hold Democrats responsible? I'd say "get real", but I know you're incapable of doing so. You're only going to keep praising trump and crying about how Democrats were mean to him. Also "TDS" (which you have bigly).
Qtard: We came to -- who exactly do spread that lies. ;-p //Scholarship: As detailed by historical institutions like the Holocaust Memorial Museum and Britannica, mainstream historians classify Nazism as a far-right, totalitarian, and fascist ideology built on racial supremacy and extreme nationalism, not socialism.
Yeah, to you... truth... that's lies.
And AGAIN you are "remembering" things I wrote that I never did.
"I remember you saying -- if it happen before your birth, it -- not important to you".
That's something that never happened. I said I wasn't responsible. And HOW could I be? If I did not even exist, HOW could I be responsible for decisions made? But you won't give a non cretinic answer. Because the entire idea that someone can be responsible for decisions made when they did not exist... is completely cretinic.
btw, the things you mentioned (WWII war crimes committed by the United States) are all VERY important to me. Why I support the international laws that were created in response to these atrocities (among others). To have a framework for addressing them in the future. While you think past war crimes excuse future war crimes. And think that one side committing war crimes gives license to the other side to commit war crimes.
When NEITHER of your of your cretinic -- and extremely EVIL -- beliefs are true.
Qtard: How dare you to doubt their holly intention??? %^P
"Holly intention"? )))))
Via Gemini...
Holy is an adjective that means sacred, divine, or devoted to God.
Holly is a noun that refers to an evergreen shrub or bush with glossy, prickly green leaves and bright red berries, often used as a Christmas decoration.🛑
Or maybe you meant some woman named "Holly"? Maybe Holly Hunter? I like her performances in "The Firm" and "Copycat". What movies of hers do you like?
What is Democrats "Holly Intention"? To watch more Holly Hunter movies?
🤪Qtard: //Stalin is dead. Nobody in the United States is "following his orders". Your Father Founders are dead too. Does that mean that nobody need to follow their testament -- Constitution?
People who never existed can't be dead. The United States Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers, not some non existing "Father Founders".
But the Constitution is a legal document that remains in effect. Stalin never wrote any legal documents that are legally binding on the United States, cretin.
And ZERO Democrats say (or think) that the writings of Joseph Stalin are "orders" the Democratic Party should be following.
ALL Democrats say (and think) we should be following the Constitution.
But not that Constitution written by the never existing "Father Founders". Only the one written by the Founding Fathers.
Because of discrepancy with your cretinic slang -- where lies are truth, and truthful facts -- you cretin call lies (like quotes of your cretinic claim -- factual quotes -- as "I never said it", yawn)
I asked AI to give example EVEN VERY DUMB PERSON SHOULD UNDERSTAND
how consequences and responsibilities related, for a later generations -- explain as for very dumb person
Think of it like a campground or a borrowed car. When one group of people hangs out at a campground, whatever they do creates consequences (the results). If they leave trash everywhere, break the benches, and burn down the trees, those are the consequences. The people who arrive at the campground next week are the later generations. • They didn't make the mess. • But they are stuck with the consequences (a dirty, broken camp). • Now, they have the responsibility (the chore) to clean it up, fix the benches, and plant new trees if they want a nice place to live. Here is the breakdown of how they connect: • Action: The older generation does something today (like using up all the water or leaving a massive debt). • Consequence: The younger generation inherits the result (less water, bills to pay). • Responsibility: Even though it isn't fair, the younger generation must deal with it because it is their reality now. They also have a responsibility to not make it even worse for the next people inline. In short: What one generation changes, the next generation has to live with and take care of.
Abdul El-Sayed used the word "asshole" during an August 31, 2026, press conference . The comment followed a July 2026 incident where El-Sayed similarly referred to U.S. Senator John Fetterman as "an asshole" during a discussion about Democratic Senate obstacles, which prompted Fetterman to publicly respond regarding El-Sayed's campaign.
🤪Qtard: You tryed to avoid calling war crime -- a war crime. Because USA did it. Yawn.
You're "remembering" things that never happened. Again. I can only guess why. Either due to being a huge liar. Or maybe mental illness.
🤪Qtard: Even though as in case of Israel you feel no restreint, even without any proven facts.
LOTS of proven facts. Enough facts for The International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on November 21, 2024. But there would still be a trial, if he was arrested and turned over to them.
But my opinions on the matter wouldn't (and won't) have any effect on this process. I mention this due to how confused you were when donald trump was charged with crimes and I said he was guilty. Because you (due to cretinity) see no difference between personal opinions and official court findings and rulings.
🤪Qtard: Which show it as mere cretinic trick -- transparent to a smart ibserver.
That "smart ibserver" is you? )))))))
//If I did not even exist, HOW could I be responsible for decisions made? 🤪Qtard: And who asked you "to be responsible"?
YOU did. But you forgot? Similar to how you see citizens of Gaza responsible for what Hamas did and say they are "accomplices" that should be killed.
//Because the entire idea that someone can be responsible for decisions made when they did not exist... is completely cretinic. 🤪What a cretin. )))) If some criminal killed a man -- was that man be able to continue living? Will other people be able to live like if he stayed alive???
Word salad. Yet you think this is somehow proof that a person can be held responsible for decisions made before they were born? So why don't you say what country you live in? Then we'd know what crimes committed by past (and present) rulers of your country of residence that YOU'RE responsible for?
🤪Qtard: That is called -- consequencies.
So, what consequences should be imposed on YOU for crimes the leaders of your country of residence committed?
🤪Qtard: We'll test -- how stupid you are. Yawn. I asked AI to give example EVEN VERY DUMB PERSON SHOULD UNDERSTAND how consequences and responsibilities related, for a later generations -- explain as for very dumb person. Think of it like a campground or a borrowed car. When one group of people hangs out at a campground, whatever they do creates consequences (the results). If they leave trash everywhere, break the benches, and burn down the trees, those are the consequences. The people who arrive at the campground next week are the later generations. • They didn't make the mess. • But they are stuck with the consequences (a dirty, broken camp). • Now, they have the responsibility (the chore) to clean it up, fix the benches, and plant new trees if they want a nice place to live.
WTF? Of course people have to deal with consequences for what people before them did. You (due to cretinity) think I disagree? HOW would they not have to deal with them?
🤪Qtard (quoting an AI, he says): Here is the breakdown of how they connect: • Action: The older generation does something today (like using up all the water or leaving a massive debt). • Consequence: The younger generation inherits the result (less water, bills to pay). • Responsibility: Even though it isn't fair, the younger generation must deal with it because it is their reality now. They also have a responsibility to not make it even worse for the next people inline.
Of course. But responsibility is different than guilt. You say citizens of Gaza are guilty ACCOMPLICES. You've written this many times. But you forgot?
Monica Lewinsky , 53, is glowing on the red carpet in a recent appearance. While Lewinsky rose to stardom as a former White House intern who was involved with President Bill Clinton , the star’s credentials go far beyond her rise in the ’90s. Now a successful podcaster, Lewinsky is a frequent face in the media. (She even just scored a Signal Award for Best Host for her hit podcast, Reclaiming with Monica Lewinsky .) She just landed on the red carpet at the Make Equality Reality Gala 2026 at Cipriani 25 Broadway in New York City, and made it clear that she’s only getting more and more stunning as the years go by.. While Bill Clinton looks like Shit.
🤪Qtard (quoting AI, he says): In short: What one generation changes, the next generation has to live with and take care of.
Yeah, people are responsible for dealing what generations before them did. Because society couldn't function any other way. But responsibility doesn't equal guilt. But you do not understand the difference.
It is very interesting, however, that the author of this blog says he has no guilt and no responsibility for past racial injustices. And you have NEVER said a single word in disagreement with him that I can recall. You ONLY insist I'm (somehow) a cretin for acknowledging responsibility -- but separating that from guilt.
And (now) asking AI questions about things I've never said or claimed. But you seem to think arguing against absurd strawmen a good debate tactic. Must be because you can't refute the things I actually say. So you have to MAKE UP things I've said and refute those.
btw, that quote from AI (you say) above mentions responsibility. You posted it, yet you wrote, "And who asked you to be responsible?"
So you forgot you said I am responsible, then said you never said that (what your question implies), then said I am responsible later in your same comment (via your AI quote)?
Yeah... I think this definitely points to mental illness. You forgetting what you wrote earlier in the same comment after you wrote it (copied and pasted it from an AI response to a query you made)🙄
You were talking about the Democratic Party and not spies. I've never denied there are such things as spies or anyone working on behalf of a foreign power in the United States. You said something dumb, so you have salvage your DUMB comment by saying, "I meant something else other than what was CLEARLY implied".
//🤪Qtard: Even though as in case of Israel you feel no restreint, even without any proven facts.
//LOTS of proven facts.
Like Enola Gay flight?
Yawn.
//Enough facts for The International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on November 21, 2024. But there would still be a trial, if he was arrested and turned over to them.
Like they did to pilots of Enola Gay? %^P
//But my opinions on the matter wouldn't (and won't) have any effect on this process.
Yeah.
Because you as well as Lessy are nazi scums wanting genicide if Israel.
And nazis have no power in the World now.
Yawn.
//Because you (due to cretinity) see no difference between personal opinions and official court findings and rulings.
Yeah.
Wanting "final solution of a Jewish question" -- was mere opinion of a nazis.
And verdict of Nurnberg court trial -- was official.
But in your cretinic la-la-land -- it all VICE VERSA. Yes, cretin?
That's why you UNABLE to condemn HAMAS terrorists and USA mass-muderers... but claim that "Israel crimes" are proved.
//WTF? Of course people have to deal with consequences for what people before them did. You (due to cretinity) think I disagree? HOW would they not have to deal with them?
YOUR OWN WORDS. IN THIS *SAME* POST.
JUST ABOVE *this* your words.
What, already lost track of em? Because some OTHER alter-ego written em??? %^P
Quoting: """ Word salad. Yet you think this is somehow proof that a person can be held responsible for decisions made before they were born? So why don't you say what country you live in? Then we'd know what crimes committed by past (and present) rulers of your country of residence that YOU'RE responsible for?
🤪Qtard: That is called -- consequencies.
So, what consequences should be imposed on YOU for crimes the leaders of your country of residence committed? """
//Of course. But responsibility is different than guilt. You say citizens of Gaza are guilty ACCOMPLICES. You've written this many times. But you forgot?
And... of course, you can quote MY exact words? But will not do that... because, brcause... just bevause (toom stooopid?%^P)
And... you can EXPLAIN why that should matter and why? But, AGAIN, will not do that... because, brcause... just bevause (toom stooopid?%^P)
//Must be because you can't refute the things I actually say. So you have to MAKE UP things I've said and refute those.
Yeah.
I always do "make up things" -- with providing FACTUAL quotes -- which can be copy-pasted, and checked with Ctrl-F -- and found that they ARE your words. And then can use Logic and references of FACTUAL information like meaning of words from dictionaries and historical facts...
When a person labels verifiable statements as "lies" or claims they are "refuted," despite being presented with direct, copy-pasteable quotes (verifiable via Ctrl-F) and factual evidence (like dictionary definitions or historical records), their behavior can be analyzed through several psychological, logical, and communication frameworks. Here is a breakdown of what this behavior indicates:
1. Psychological Mechanisms
• Cognitive Dissonance: When faced with undeniable evidence that contradicts their deeply held beliefs, self-image, or public stance, a person experiences intense mental discomfort. To eliminate this discomfort, they may completely reject the reality of the evidence rather than change their mind. • Gaslighting or Reality Denial: By insisting that objective facts and your own direct quotes are "made up," the person is attempting to distort the truth and make you (or onlookers) question your own memory, perception, and sanity. • Confirmation Bias and Motivated Reasoning: The individual is motivated by a desire to defend a specific conclusion or ego stance. They actively filter out or mischaracterize any evidence—no matter how irrefutable—that does not align with their narrative.
2. Logical and Rhetorical Fallacies
• The "Bare Assertion" Fallacy (Ipse Dixit): The person relies on a dogmatic statement ("That is a lie") without providing any actual logical reasoning or evidence to back up their denial. • Deflection and Ad Hominem: Instead of engaging with the literal text of the quote or the historical facts provided, they attack your character by claiming you "always make things up." This shifts the focus away from their own verifiable words. • Splitting / Black-and-White Thinking: A defense mechanism where the person cannot tolerate being wrong or flawed, so they categorize any opposing evidence as malicious falsehoods rather than engaging in a nuanced discussion.
3. Communication Implications
• Bad Faith Argumentation: This individual is not engaging in a rational debate or a collaborative search for truth. Because they reject baseline objective reality (such as literal quotes and dictionary definitions), it is logically impossible to have a productive discussion with them. • Audience Manipulation: If this conversation is happening publicly, their denials are often not meant to convince you, but rather to signal defiance and maintain an appearance of innocence to an outside audience who might not take the time to Ctrl-F or check the facts.
No, the statement itself is not inherently "deeply irreversibly amoral," but applying it hypocritically—claiming it for oneself while denying it to others—creates a profound ethical and logical contradiction. When a person holds a double standard of this magnitude, it directly invalidates their claim to be objective, universally truthful, or reliable in their accounts. Here is an elaboration of the moral, psychological, and logical dimensions of this scenario.
1. The Core Claim: Is it Amoral?
In isolation, the statement "You cannot inherit guilt for someone else's actions" is a standard viewpoint in modern ethics, law, and psychology. • Moral Philosophy: Most frameworks (outside of historical concepts of tribal or generational blood-feuds) dictate that guilt requires personal agency. You can only be guilty of what you choose to do. • Psychology: Feeling responsible for historical tragedies you did not cause is often classified as misplaced guilt. The quote's assertion that this can sometimes border on narcissistic self-absorption (making an objective, external tragedy all about your own internal emotional state) is a recognized psychological critique. Therefore, the philosophical position itself is a defensible intellectual argument, not an amoral one.
2. The Hypocrisy: Applying to Self but Denying to Others
The moral crisis emerges when this principle is applied asymmetricly. If a person says: • "I am free from the guilt of my ancestors' actions because I have no personal agency in them." • BUT • "You (or your group) are actively guilty and must carry the moral stain of what your ancestors or strangers did." This asymmetry transforms a philosophical principle into a weapon of convenience. In ethical philosophy, this violates the Principle of Universalizability (most famously articulated by Immanuel Kant). For a moral rule to be valid, it must apply to everyone equally under similar circumstances. Exempting oneself from a moral rule while binding others to it is the definition of bad-faith actor behavior.
3. Compatibility with the Claim of Being "Truthful"
If this person claims that they "speak only truth" and are "truthful in all accounts," this double standard exposes an irreconcilable logical contradiction. • Logical Incoherence: Truth, by definition, is consistent. If it is a objective truth that "stranger/ancestor guilt is a cognitive mix-up," then it must be a cognitive mix-up for everyone. If the person claims it is a truth for them but a lie for others, they are rejecting objective truth in favor of subjective utility. • The "Truthful" Illusion: People who behave this way often suffer from severe cognitive dissonance or possess narcissistic traits. They may genuinely believe they are being truthful because their emotional reality alters how they perceive facts. In their mind, they are uniquely innocent, while others are uniquely flawed. • Veracity of Accounts: From an outside perspective, this person cannot be considered "truthful in all accounts." If they are willing to warp a fundamental rule of moral responsibility to suit their immediate emotional or social needs, their accounts on other matters are highly likely to be biased, self-serving, or structurally dishonest.
Summary
The philosophical claim is normal; the asymmetric enforcement of it is a severe moral and intellectual failing. A person who operates on a double standard regarding human agency and guilt cannot logically claim to be a universal arbiter of truth.
Means... you are hypocritic narcissist Derp, just like dRump. That's why you are so agitated by his behavior -- because it closely mirrors yours. And narcissists dislike it the most. ;-p
//LOTS of proven facts. 🤪Qtard: Like Enola Gay flight? Yawn.
But don't you think bombing Hiroshima was necessary? Japan did attack Pearl Harbor. So, all Japanese people were "accomplices". Using your logic.
//Enough facts for The International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ... But there would still be a trial, if he was arrested and turned over to them. 🤪Qtard: Like they did to pilots of Enola Gay? %^P
The ICC didn't exist at the time.
//But my opinions on the matter wouldn't (and won't) have any effect on this process. 🤪Qtard: Yeah. Because you as well as Lessy are nazi scums wanting genicide if Israel.
I wish Israel well and only hold the Netanyahu government responsible for the war crimes they are committing. I do not want any genocide. And I hate Nazis. Those are your viles lies... that I'm a Nazi wanting genocide for the people of Israel.
Qtard: And nazis have no power in the World now. Yawn.
Except Nazis are being represented by the trump administration currently. That's not "no power".
//Because you (due to cretinity) see no difference between personal opinions and official court findings and rulings. 🤪Qtard: Yeah. Wanting "final solution of a Jewish question" -- was mere opinion of a nazis. And verdict of Nurnberg court trial -- was official. But in your cretinic la-la-land -- it all VICE VERSA. Yes, cretin?
No. That's your cretinic la-la-land.
🤪Qtard: That's why you UNABLE to condemn HAMAS terrorists and USA mass-muderers... but claim that "Israel crimes" are proved.
Bullshit. I have condemned them and continue to condemn them. But you'll just keep lying and say I don't.
🤪Qtard: Shameless nazi-commie liars like you -- do not feel guilt. I got it.
You got it 100 percent wrong. As usual. I feel guilty for bad things I've done and not things other people have done. I'm not a "nazi-commie". And the reason isn't only because "nazi-commie" is imaginary. Given that they are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. But you don't understand, due to extreme cretinity.
🤪Qtard: Will only try to talk themself out of any responsibility -- with using ANY lie they could come up with -- and that's exactly what you do every time.
Yeah, because I'm not responsible for things I didn't do. I'm only responsible for things I've done.
But, if you feel so strongly about citizens of a country being personally responsible for what the leaders of their country have done... that means you take responsibility for what the leaders of your country of residence have done? So far you are refusing to do that.
//Must be because you can't refute the things I actually say. So you have to MAKE UP things I've said and refute those. 🤪Qtard: Yeah. I always do "make up things" -- with providing FACTUAL quotes -- which can be copy-pasted, and checked with Ctrl-F -- and found that they ARE your words. And then can use Logic and references of FACTUAL information like meaning of words from dictionaries and historical facts...
Bullshit. You quote me, then make up meanings for my words. Like I'm a "nazi-commie", when I've said many times I hate nazis and disagree strongly with communism. But you think (due to cretinity) that dictionaries prove otherwise.
🤪Qtard: When a person labels verifiable statements as "lies" or claims they are "refuted," despite being presented with direct, copy-pasteable quotes ... and factual evidence (like dictionary definitions or historical records), their behavior can be analyzed through several psychological, logical, and communication frameworks.
But that's never happened with your quotes of my words. Which you then say mean something other than what I meant.
🤪Qtard (quoting an AI, he says): The moral crisis emerges when this principle is applied asymmetricly. If a person says: • "I am free from the guilt of my ancestors' actions because I have no personal agency in them." • BUT • "You (or your group) are actively guilty and must carry the moral stain of what your ancestors or strangers did."
I've never said that. That's what YOU say. Well, you are constantly blaming me personally for WWII war crimes and war crimes of Hamas. While saying war crimes of Netanyahu government are excusable and even necessary.
🤪Qtard (quoting an AI, he says): Compatibility with the Claim of Being "Truthful" if this person claims that they "speak only truth" and are "truthful in all accounts,"...
Again, I've never done this. I only say I try to be truthful. But now you'll say (due to cretinity) that I've "admitted" to not being truthful.
🤪Qtard (quoting an AI, he says): People who behave this way often suffer from severe cognitive dissonance or possess narcissistic traits. They may genuinely believe they are being truthful because their emotional reality alters how they perceive facts. In their mind, they are uniquely innocent, while others are uniquely flawed.
Yeah, that does describe you.
🤪Qtard (quoting an AI, he says): The philosophical claim is normal; the asymmetric enforcement of it is a severe moral and intellectual failing. A person who operates on a double standard regarding human agency and guilt cannot logically claim to be a universal arbiter of truth.
I'm not and have never claimed I am.
🤪Qtard: Means... you are hypocritic narcissist Derp, just like dRump. That's why you are so agitated by his behavior -- because it closely mirrors yours. And narcissists dislike it the most. ;-p
Bullshit. I've never claimed to be a universal arbiter of truth. That's you making stuff up again.
FYI, there is a difference between personal and societal responsibility. I'm not personally responsible for anything that happened before I was born. It is IMPOSSIBLE. While society (which, yes, I am a part of) is responsible. But you don't understand the difference. Due to extreme cretinity.
But I'm sure you will persist with your cretinic arguments. So WHY don't you tell me what crimes committed by the government in the country where you reside that YOU are responsible for? You won't, because you're a huge hypocrite and a liar.
One bs accusation more, one less... what's the difference?
//I wish Israel well...
die?
Because that is ONLY possibility under rules you prescribe to em -- to *NOT* retaliate. Death -- is the only option, if there is killer pointing gun at you, and you unable... not allowed to respond.
That's THE SAME picture as in your usual mass-shoting cases -- when one with a gun coming to "gun free" zone -- where NO ONE have gun, and no chance to protect oneselfs... and your DEMN community whining -- that it, is lije it SHOULD be.
Yawn.
Because of that "stranger/ancestor guilt is a cognitive mix-up" explanation -- your brain-dead AI provided.
You REALLY tout that shit?
That feeling no shame, no guilt... for neighbour little girl dying... and you was not there, did nothing to prevent it?
Then... it EXPLAINS a lot... about your current situation. Deep moral downfall. Of which dRump is very little and unimportant simotom... like snizzing.
But the only target Democrats? And Democrats are eagerly complying with what these foreign Communist powers what, right?
Because Putin and Netanyahu don't need "spies". They just call up donald trump and republicans and tell them what to do. But that's not something that concerns you at all.
You only care about orders from Stalin that Democrats are following... in your delusions🙄
//Those are your viles lies... that I'm a Nazi wanting genocide for the people of Israel.
Nazis ALSO... was not wanting genocide. "Final solution" they called it. So, your masking your intention -- predictable. (do I need to provide historical accounts how nazis LIED about not wanting/not doing anything bad to a Jews? But you will call it non-facts, AGAIN)
////Because you (due to cretinity) see no difference between personal opinions and official court findings and rulings. 🤪Qtard: Yeah. Wanting "final solution of a Jewish question" -- was mere opinion of a nazis. And verdict of Nurnberg court trial -- was official. But in your cretinic la-la-land -- it all VICE VERSA. Yes, cretin?
//No. That's your cretinic la-la-land.
Yeah, cretin.
Thank you for confirming.
I stated that Nurnberg trial verdict is official -- and you calling it "your cretinic la-la-land." And their "final solution" must be justice??? What more confirmation one would need of your pro-nazi stance?
//🤪Qtard (quoting an AI, he says): The moral crisis emerges when this principle is applied asymmetricly. If a person says: • "I am free from the guilt of my ancestors' actions because I have no personal agency in them." • BUT • "You (or your group) are actively guilty and must carry the moral stain of what your ancestors or strangers did."
//I've never said that.
Yeah.
You DID NOT tryed to cover crime of your ancestors over Hiroshima and Nagasaki? %^P
And not tryed to accuse me in "my ancestors" crimes?
And not tryed to excuse Gazans.
While same time condemning Israelites.
Nothing of that is true? And no quotes of such your words can be found here in this blog?
And you never lied about it SAAAAH cretinicly "I never said it"???
//But don't you think bombing Hiroshima was necessary? Japan did attack Pearl Harbor. So, all Japanese people were "accomplices". Using your logic. MY logic?
YES. YOUR logic. You've claimed that all innocent citizens of Gaza are "accomplices" and need to be killed. You forgot your own arguments?
🤪Qtard: And NOT your hypocritical double standards? Killing (unproved) of Gazans by IDF -- you call "war crime... and nothing else".
I never said that. There is a war going on. Unfortunately innocent civilians will be killed. What I object to is innocent non combatants being targeted. And the ICC agrees this is happening.
🤪Qtard: And. Absolutely open. Self-admitted. Horendous. Destruction of whole towns "just because WE CAN -- not? And I -- just pointing to it. But welk, you can take stance of moral relativism. And proclaim that it is O.K., while USA doing it. %^P
No. I've never done that.
🤪Qtard: Why not? As you already did it. Covertly.
"Covertly" meaning never.
🤪Qtard: Do it openly. And so be it. )))o)
I won't write a comment that goes against what I believe because you tell me to. FVck off.
//The ICC didn't exist at the time. 🤪Qtard: One bs accusation more, one less... what's the difference?
WTF? That's a fact that it didn't exist and not BS.
//I wish Israel well... 🤪Qtard: die? Because that is ONLY possibility under rules you prescribe to em -- to *NOT* retaliate. Death -- is the only option, if there is killer pointing gun at you, and you unable... not allowed to respond.
I never said Israel should not retaliate against Hamas attacks. That's more of your lies.
🤪Qtard: That's THE SAME picture as in your usual mass-shoting cases -- when one with a gun coming to "gun free" zone -- where NO ONE have gun, and no chance to protect oneselfs... and your DEMN community whining -- that it, is lije it SHOULD be.
Gemini: The debate isn't about wanting people to be defenseless; it's about how to best keep communities safe. While some believe more armed citizens create safety, public health data shows that introducing more firearms into crowded spaces often increases the risk of accidents, confusion for law enforcement, and lethal escalation. The focus is on implementing preventative measures—like universal background checks and red flag laws—to keep weapons out of dangerous hands to begin with
🤪Qtard: Because of that "stranger/ancestor guilt is a cognitive mix-up" explanation -- your brain-dead AI provided. You REALLY tout that shit? That feeling no shame, no guilt... for neighbour little girl dying... and you was not there, did nothing to prevent it?
No. And not only because that's never happened to me. But, why should I feel guilty about things I can't prevent because (for one) I didn't know it was happening (and it wasn't).
Then... it EXPLAINS a lot... about your current situation. Deep moral downfall. Of which dRump is very little and unimportant simotom... like snizzing.
You don't know shit about my current situation. But most of what you write is word salad again. What is "snizzing"?
//Those are your viles lies... that I'm a Nazi wanting genocide for the people of Israel. Nazis ALSO... was not wanting genocide. "Final solution" they called it. So, your masking your intention -- predictable. (do I need to provide historical accounts how nazis LIED about not wanting/not doing anything bad to a Jews? But you will call it non-facts, AGAIN)
I'm not masking anything. I'm sharing my true and genuine thoughts. You accuse me of lying because that's what liars do. They assume everyone else is lying. My true and genuine thoughts is that I absolutely believe Israel has a right to exist and live in peace. I want no genocides. And I hate Nazis.
//Because you (due to cretinity) see no difference between personal opinions and official court findings and rulings. Qtard: Yeah. Wanting "final solution of a Jewish question" -- was mere opinion of a nazis. And verdict of Nurnberg court trial -- was official. But in your cretinic la-la-land -- it all VICE VERSA. Yes, cretin? //No. That's your cretinic la-la-land. 🤪Qtard: Yeah, cretin. Thank you for confirming. I stated that Nurnberg trial verdict is official -- and you calling it "your cretinic la-la-land."
Bullshit. You said "it is all vice versa". That is what I said is your cretinic la-la-land. I never said Nurnberg trial verdicts were not official. But I suppose you'll argue that dictionaries somehow prove I meant what you say I meant.
🤪Qtard: And their "final solution" must be justice??? What more confirmation one would need of your pro-nazi stance?
My stance is anti-Nazi and I very strongly disagree with the words you lyingly try to place in my mouth.
//That's why you UNABLE to condemn HAMAS terrorists and USA mass-muderers... but claim that "Israel crimes" are proved. //Bullshit. I have condemned them and continue to condemn them. But you'll just keep lying and say I don't. 🤪Qtard: AFTER... I revealed your hypocrisy. And pressed into a corner with MY logic.
No. Always and from the beginning. Your "logic" is not existing. Your "logic" involves lying about my words. Saying dictionaries prove my sentences mean what you say they mean.
//Qtard: Shameless nazi-commie liars like you -- do not feel guilt. I got it. //You got it 100 percent wrong. As usual. I feel guilty for bad things I've done and not things other people have done. 🤪Qtard: Yet one admition you,ll be crying "I never said it".
No. I've never denied writing anything I've written. That's your lie -- that I'm always writing "I never said it" about my own words. I stand by everything I write.
🤪Qtard: But... continue-continue your coming-out, cretinic nazi-commie.
There is no such thing as a "nazi-commie", so I couldn't possibly be one. Aside from the fact that I strongly disagree with both political ideologies.
//Bullshit. You quote me, then make up meanings for my words. 🤪Qtard: How? ))) With writing em into dictionaries??? )))
How? By "words" I mean all of them. Meaning sentences. You're unaware that people can interpret sentences differently? Due to being a cretin? O a liar. I say both are true in your case.
//But that's never happened with your quotes of my words. Which you then say mean something other than what I meant. 🤪Qtard: And meaning given in dictionaries? %^P Ah... but I "made em up", like entered into that dictioneries and changed meanings of words there -- so then I could give web links to em???? ())))))
No. I'm not disputing the meaning of individual words as defined by dictionaries, dipshit. I'm disputing your interpretation of my words strung into sentences. Which is a thing people do ALL THE TIME. But you've apparently never heard of it. One example would be people who call themselves "originalists" in regards to the Constitution. They say they want to get back to what the Founding Fathers "really meant" with their words. But you dunno anything about it, right?
🤪Qtard: With a sole purpose to win an argument over some miserly cretin on the web???b )))o
That does seem to be the case with your twisting of my words to mean things like me saying I don't want Israel to be able to defend itself. When I never said that. Because you are a miserly cretin on the web.
//Qtard (quoting an AI, he says): The moral crisis emerges when this principle is applied asymmetricly. If a person says: • "I am free from the guilt of my ancestors' actions because I have no personal agency in them." • BUT • "You (or your group) are actively guilty and must carry the moral stain of what your ancestors or strangers did." //I've never said that. 🤪Qtard: Yeah. You DID NOT tryed to cover crime of your ancestors over Hiroshima and Nagasaki? %^P
I did not. Even though they aren't my ancestors. I don't have any relatives that were involved in that.
🤪Qtard: And not tryed to accuse me in "my ancestors" crimes?
I exposed your hypocrisy of saying I'm personally responsible for war crimes committed by leaders of the country where I live. Even though I was not born. While (it definitely seems) you are arguing you are not responsible for any crimes committed by leaders of the country where you live (past or present).
🤪Qtard: And not tryed to excuse Gazans.
I don't need to "excuse" innocent people of anything. Due to them being innocent.
🤪Qtard: While same time condemning Israelites.
No. That never happened. I condemn the rightwing Netanyahu government and any Israeli soldiers committing war crimes. Not all Israelis support the war crimes their government is committing.
🤪Qtard: Nothing of that is true? And no quotes of such your words can be found here in this blog?
Right. That's all false. There are ZERO quotes to be found to support that BS accusation on this blog.
🤪Qtard: And you never lied about it SAAAAH cretinicly "I never said it"???
I did dispute ever saying that. Because I never have. It's not what I believe, so why the fVck would I say it?
//Bullshit. I've never claimed to be a universal arbiter of truth. That's you making stuff up again.
Just in next paragraph (here below), you trying to judge me and calling names, like that is some "undeniable truth". Or what? Maybe you'll admit that that is just some bullshit accusations, which you neither can prove nor even itself think are true -- just trying to throw in direction of much smarter opponent with a hope (utterly futile hope) that it woukd stick to, or for at least -- scare off me??? )))())
//FYI, there is a difference between personal and societal responsibility. I'm not personally responsible for anything that happened before I was born. It is IMPOSSIBLE. While society (which, yes, I am a part of) is responsible. But you don't understand the difference. Due to extreme cretinity.
I perfectly know what Logical Contradiction is. ;-p
A is equal to not A.
You responsible, but NOT responsible.
Broken Logic -- exactly what cretins very like. ))))
🤪Qtard: And who interesred in white-washing socialists from being in one busket with nazis and commies??? Republicans??? )))))
Neither political party. And not only because Nazis and Communists are on OPPOSITE sides of the political spectrum. So I'm unconcerned with this. But I am concerned with republicans saying that fascism is just what the United States needs. Because that's actually happening.
Qtard: They can do it out of their own volition.
Yeah. But they have no volition to do so. Except in your delusions.
🤪Qtard: I perfectly know what Logical Contradiction is. ;-p A is equal to not A. You responsible, but NOT responsible.
No. I never said I am responsible but not responsible. That would be dumb.
🤖Via Gemini...
...the other commenter does not have a valid logical point. He is using a common rhetorical trick—setting up a straw man—by intentionally misrepresenting your distinction between individual and collective responsibility.
From a strict logical perspective, your argument does not contain a contradiction. Here is a breakdown of why your logic holds up and why his "A equals not A" formula fails.
1. The Fallacy of Equivocation.
The commenter treats the word "responsible" as if it only has one absolute definition. In philosophy and logic, this is called the fallacy of equivocation. You clearly used the word in two entirely different contexts:
• Individual/Moral Responsibility: This requires agency, choice, and existence. You cannot have individual moral culpability for events that occurred before you existed.
• Collective/Societal Responsibility: This refers to the historical, financial, or systemic obligations that a nation-state or society inherits over generations. Because you are using "responsible" in two different senses, your statement is not "A is equal to not A".
A more accurate logical formula for your argument is: "I am not individually responsible (A), but the society I belong to bears historical responsibility (B)." There is no logical contradiction in saying a whole group carries a legacy that an unborn individual did not personally cause.
2. The Fallacy of Division.
By demanding that you personally answer for actions taken by the US military in World War II, the commenter commits the fallacy of division. This error occurs when someone assumes that what is true for a whole group must also be true for every individual member of that group.
While the United States as an ongoing geopolitical entity holds the historical legacy of the actions it took in 1945, it is a logical error to divide that collective legacy down to the level of an individual citizen who wasn't even alive at the time.🛑
🤪Qtard: You forgot to provide quotes and explain YOUR logic -- how you came to such cretinic conclusions.
ACCURATE conclusions. You completely forgot calling the citizens of Gaza accomplices? If they are accomplices, then they would be legitimate targets. That is completely logical. But you don't understand?
That is you trying to threat as equal: consequencies (to which I was pointing -- if you choose HAMAS as your government -- it is your mistake, and consequencies of that mistake is yours too), responsibility (as individual, as well as your cretinic "communal" whatever it could mean -- because in result bombs falling on the heads of individuals... not on some abstract "all people", "society", "government" or whatever) and guilt(which AGAIN must be differenciated -- is it internal feelings, or something assigned from outside as court verdict)
//A more accurate logical formula for your argument is: "I am not individually responsible (A), but the society I belong to bears historical responsibility (B)."
Yeah.
I checked out that bullshit they tout you... in schools???
About some abstract "Societal Responsibility". Which concockted for the sole purpose -- to free decision-makers from responsibility for their deeds. With assigning "responsibility" to abstract "all people", but nobody in particularly.
Yawn.
But such a trick -- do not free from consequencies.
As just now USA feel surge of diesel prices.
Of which nobody in particularly are respinsible(yeah... even dRump -- by your OWN lo... falacious sophistry), BUT... consequencies do feel ALL.
//While the United States as an ongoing geopolitical entity holds the historical legacy of the actions it took in 1945, it is a logical error to divide that collective legacy down to the level of an individual citizen who wasn't even alive at the time.🛑
Being citizen of USA is also just a historical legacy.
Yawn.
So? It also cannot be divided "down to the level of an individual citizen"?
Yawn.
Surely you'll start screaming "it is not! it is different!", yes, cretin? %^P
While it looks *beneficial* to you -- you calling it your personal rights.
If not -- communal/societal responsibility.
Or, in simple terms, even for cretin to understand.
When recieving money (like some "fair salary") -- you feel good and not complaining.
When giving money (like to build some new factory) -- it's bad for you and you redirecting it to some "government", "society", "rich and oligarchs", etc
Yawn.
That's exactly where all and any ideas of Socialism GOT BROKEN.
And only through some totalitarian and even martial law enforcement it can be done.
97 comments:
You mean the plan to hold Turd-2 accountable for being the most corrupt administration in history? That's a "coup"?
Will YOU be in the croud of that "holding accountable? %^P
If no, then yes -- it'll be a coup.
Without your utterly (a?)moral supervisung. )()))
PS See... I did not copy-oasted question.
But... will it be anyhow better, easier to anser to you, cretin? )))))))
naaaaah
Democratic motto: Reward political friends, punish political enemies.
That is precisely the MAGA Fuhrer's modus operandi. So, I say 💩 on your assessment
Leave to republicans to get it back assward.
Shit for Brains Dave “D” wrote….
“The "Iran War Cost Tracker Reveals War's Hit To American Pocketbooks".
I guess that he’d prefer Iran to have a Nuclear Boy”!
America will NEVER be a communist country.. No matter how much Abdula El-Sayid tries!
Looking in the mirror again? Shit for brains anymouse.
First El-Sayed has never said that. Second you'll be dead someday and who knows what the distance future will be.
Hakeem Jeffries was asked POINT-BLANK if a Democrat-controlled House would BRING BACK the illegal aliens Trump already deported to third countries (like Africa):
Reporter: “Will the Congress under your leadership bring back the [illegal aliens] deported to third countries?”
Jeffries NODS YES repeatedly 👀 and says: “We do.”
Then drops this bombshell:
“Trump’s mass deportation machine does NOT get a DIME.”
Translation? Hand Democrats the gavel in November and they’ll DEFUND ICE, halt deportations, and try to REVERSE the ones already done — flying people BACK into America on YOUR dime while families struggle with groceries, rent, and crime.
This is the plan. Out loud. No hiding it.
If they take the House, this is what “repair work” looks like to them.
MAY SURE TO VOTE..AND VOTE REPUBLICAN.
AND SHARE THIS. Don’t let them undo all the good things that Trump did.
Oh STFU
That's a riot considering what Democrats did to him
"Distant" being 4 years from now given the Democrats trajectory.
Yeah, because trying to hold criminals accountable is terrible. Democrats shouldn't have resisted his coup and just allowed him to stay in office despite losing the election, right?
No.
Yes, let's give the Fraud Party Democrats another hundred billion in social services to steal... so much for "accountability", eh Derv?
Okay 2.
//🤪And rhen tout generations after generations -- that national-SOCIALISM is not socialism? ;-p
//Hitler did "sweet talks" and lied about the party
Means... he did SAME what each and every Socialist do.
Yawn.
Like Lenin and Stalin did said that there'd be Great Purges.
Like Pol Pot, who as I was providing historical facts was calling himself democrat, did said about death fields pre-planned
//Qtard: You have inly two choices. But equally bad for you.
//🐂💩 Your two qtarded choices aren't my only choices
Oh, sorry.
I constantly forget that I talk with insane cretin.
YOU always have a choice -- to stay cretin.
))))))))
Of course. %^P
//Stalin is dead. Nobody in the United States is "following his orders".
Your Father Founders are dead too.
Does that mean that nobody need to follow their testament -- Constitution?
I remember you saying -- if it happen before your birth, it -- not important to you. %^P
//Qtard: 2. That did commies of USA, disguising themself as "democrats"... %^P
//No Democrats are disguised communists.
Yeah.
They going undisguised today. ))))))
//But... let me get this straight... Nazis are socialists because "socialist" was in the party name. And it's inconceivable that Hitler lied.
He was not providing workers with what socialists proclaim to provide: wellfare, control over owners, more fair dustribution of wealth, even more wealth in the future under direction of government?
So, all that benefits workers of Germany recieved -- was a lie?
//Democrats absolutely are lying about being opposed to Communism and are all secretly Communist.
Why they lying about national-SOCIALISTS being socialists?
What other reason coukd be?
Yawn.
And well... isn't that FDR -- most prominent president from USA Democrats -- was i
one who colluded with Cimmies of USSR, took em as allies, provided BILLIONS in military products???
Strange "opposing". Yawn.
//Even though all the historical evidence proves the Nazi party under Hitler wasn't socialist.
Conkockted by liars evidances?
Yawn.
//Transition to the NSDAP: In February 1920, the DAP changed its name to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party), which became known as the Nazi Party.
Not just socialistic. Workers party!
SAME as commies in USSR was pounding -- that they not just mere socialists, which they called traitors and liars to working class.
And called itself "party of workers and peasants" (but, not "progressive"... because that workers and peasants did not know that word...)
//Appealing to Workers: The party was originally founded as the German Workers' Party (DAP) in 1919 and renamed the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) in 1920 to attract blue-collar working-class voters away from left-wing parties like the Social Democrats and Communists.
Same voters. Same promices.
But... "not socialists". ))))))
Because any party can appeal to any public, and promice just anything????
And not because they naturally defined by to whom and what they propose, yes cretin? %^P
//• Nationalism vs. Marxism: Adolf Hitler and party leadership redefined "socialism"
Just SAME as any other Socialists in the wild.
Lenin redefined it as Leninism.
Stalin as Stalinism.
Mao as Maoism.
Peron... as Peronism.
//Crushing Labor Unions: In May 1933, the Nazi regime immediately banned independent trade unions, arrested socialist and communist leaders, and replaced unions with a state-controlled organization called the German Labor Front (DAF).
Yes, both Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong effectively stripped trade unions of their independence, banned the right to strike, and turned labor unions into state-controlled instruments for maximizing industrial production
//Privatization: Rather than nationalizing industry, the Nazi government actually pioneered large-scale privatization, selling off state-owned railways, banks, and steel mills to private capitalists who cooperated with the regime.
But to party members ONLY?
Yes, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong controlled nationalized industries by installing loyal Communist Party members into management positions. However, while these party officials possessed immense authority over day-to-day operations and enjoyed massive economic privileges, they did not legally own the factories, nor could they pass them down as private inheritance. Instead, they acted as custodians of a state-monopolized system.
And in the end.
We came to -- who exactly do spread that lies. ;-p
//Scholarship: As detailed by historical institutions like the Holocaust Memorial Museum and Britannica, mainstream historians classify Nazism as a far-right, totalitarian, and fascist ideology built on racial supremacy and extreme nationalism, not socialism.🛑
How dare you to doubt their holly intention??? %^P
The idiots of MAGA La-La Land still believe the 2020 election was "stolen" from them. Although every legitimate data point proves the "Steal" was nothing but a BIG LIE...
And the Great Orange Turd is working on a repeat of his 2020 insurrection attempt. Only this time the insurrection effort will be to illegally retain control of congress and the senate.
Fascism exists in America and it is controlling the mechanism of government now and will fight like hell to never lose their filthy desire to control everything.
^^The babbling brook of anymouse BS^^
That you about Zari-bama and Bi-den? That tryed to shut in a head of their political opponent.
Yawn.
Definitely fascists. %^O
^^^said cretin that unable to find "Reply" button to answer in proper thread EVEN. Yawn^^^
Used the only reply button available.
And yes, I agree and you possess a sleepy mind.
Minus: Yes, let's give the Fraud Party Democrats another hundred billion in social services to steal... so much for "accountability", eh Derv?
Electing republicans enables theft from public treasuries. In my lifetime it's always been republicans doing the stealing. Remember that gwb used the Afghanistan and Iraq wars to shovel money to their cronies. donald trump is doing the same by giving government contracts to his cronies and sons. Elon was rewarded for his help by allowing him into government so he could kill all investigations into his companies. And now he's throttling starlink, stopping Ukraine from retaliating. And trump has dropped all pretenses of not being 100 percent with Putin.
Any Democratic corruption pales in comparison. Many Turd-2 officials need to end up in prison when this is over. Charged with war crimes and corruption. And you think I should vote for republicans to hold Democrats responsible? I'd say "get real", but I know you're incapable of doing so. You're only going to keep praising trump and crying about how Democrats were mean to him. Also "TDS" (which you have bigly).
Qtard: We came to -- who exactly do spread that lies. ;-p
//Scholarship: As detailed by historical institutions like the Holocaust Memorial Museum and Britannica, mainstream historians classify Nazism as a far-right, totalitarian, and fascist ideology built on racial supremacy and extreme nationalism, not socialism.
Yeah, to you... truth... that's lies.
And AGAIN you are "remembering" things I wrote that I never did.
"I remember you saying -- if it happen before your birth, it -- not important to you".
That's something that never happened. I said I wasn't responsible. And HOW could I be? If I did not even exist, HOW could I be responsible for decisions made? But you won't give a non cretinic answer. Because the entire idea that someone can be responsible for decisions made when they did not exist... is completely cretinic.
btw, the things you mentioned (WWII war crimes committed by the United States) are all VERY important to me. Why I support the international laws that were created in response to these atrocities (among others). To have a framework for addressing them in the future. While you think past war crimes excuse future war crimes. And think that one side committing war crimes gives license to the other side to commit war crimes.
When NEITHER of your of your cretinic -- and extremely EVIL -- beliefs are true.
Qtard: How dare you to doubt their holly intention??? %^P
"Holly intention"? )))))
Via Gemini...
Holy is an adjective that means sacred, divine, or devoted to God.
Holly is a noun that refers to an evergreen shrub or bush with glossy, prickly green leaves and bright red berries, often used as a Christmas decoration.🛑
Or maybe you meant some woman named "Holly"? Maybe Holly Hunter? I like her performances in "The Firm" and "Copycat". What movies of hers do you like?
What is Democrats "Holly Intention"? To watch more Holly Hunter movies?
🤪Qtard: //Stalin is dead. Nobody in the United States is "following his orders".
Your Father Founders are dead too.
Does that mean that nobody need to follow their testament -- Constitution?
People who never existed can't be dead. The United States Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers, not some non existing "Father Founders".
But the Constitution is a legal document that remains in effect. Stalin never wrote any legal documents that are legally binding on the United States, cretin.
And ZERO Democrats say (or think) that the writings of Joseph Stalin are "orders" the Democratic Party should be following.
ALL Democrats say (and think) we should be following the Constitution.
But not that Constitution written by the never existing "Father Founders". Only the one written by the Founding Fathers.
^^^said cretin that unable to find "Reply" button to answer in proper thread EVEN. Yawn^^^
Despite the pointers, the cretin who wrote this was talking about himself.
))))))))
//Yeah, to you... truth... that's lies.
Yep.
Because of discrepancy with your cretinic slang -- where lies are truth, and truthful facts -- you cretin call lies (like quotes of your cretinic claim -- factual quotes -- as "I never said it", yawn)
Holly is a Somali overseas receiving billions in Minnesota Medicaid remittances
//"I remember you saying -- if it happen before your birth, it -- not important to you".
//That's something that never happened. I said I wasn't responsible. And HOW could I be?
Naaah, cretin.
You tryed to avoid calling war crime -- a war crime.
Because USA did it.
Yawn.
Even though as in case of Israel you feel no restreint, even without any proven facts.
Which show it as mere cretinic trick -- transparent to a smart ibserver.
//If I did not even exist, HOW could I be responsible for decisions made?
And who asked you "to be responsible"?
//Because the entire idea that someone can be responsible for decisions made when they did not exist... is completely cretinic.
What a cretin. ))))
If some criminal killed a man -- was that man be able to continue living?
Will other people be able to live like if he stayed alive???
That is called -- consequencies.
Now.
We'll test -- how stupid you are.
Yawn.
I asked AI to give example EVEN VERY DUMB PERSON SHOULD UNDERSTAND
how consequences and responsibilities related, for a later generations -- explain as for very dumb person
Think of it like a campground or a borrowed car.
When one group of people hangs out at a campground, whatever they do creates consequences (the results). If they leave trash everywhere, break the benches, and burn down the trees, those are the consequences.
The people who arrive at the campground next week are the later generations.
• They didn't make the mess.
• But they are stuck with the consequences (a dirty, broken camp).
• Now, they have the responsibility (the chore) to clean it up, fix the benches, and plant new trees if they want a nice place to live.
Here is the breakdown of how they connect:
• Action: The older generation does something today (like using up all the water or leaving a massive debt).
• Consequence: The younger generation inherits the result (less water, bills to pay).
• Responsibility: Even though it isn't fair, the younger generation must deal with it because it is their reality now. They also have a responsibility to not make it even worse for the next people inline.
In short: What one generation changes, the next generation has to live with and take care of.
Abdul El-Sayed used the word "asshole" during an August 31, 2026, press conference .
The comment followed a July 2026 incident where El-Sayed similarly referred to U.S. Senator John Fetterman as "an asshole" during a discussion about Democratic Senate obstacles, which prompted Fetterman to publicly respond regarding El-Sayed's campaign.
//And ZERO Democrats say (or think) that the writings of Joseph Stalin are "orders" the Democratic Party should be following.
Yeah.
Instructions to a spyes/agents of unfluence -- are open, and anybody can read em or check that there was no such.))))))
In a world of cretins Lessy and Derpy. )))))
Cretinic la-la-land. %^))))))))))
DAVE Dubya, and Les You Both are extremely mentally disturbed individuals who have been totally brainwashed
Naaaah... just natural cretins.
Yawn.
🤪Qtard: You tryed to avoid calling war crime -- a war crime. Because USA did it. Yawn.
You're "remembering" things that never happened. Again. I can only guess why. Either due to being a huge liar. Or maybe mental illness.
🤪Qtard: Even though as in case of Israel you feel no restreint, even without any proven facts.
LOTS of proven facts. Enough facts for The International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on November 21, 2024. But there would still be a trial, if he was arrested and turned over to them.
But my opinions on the matter wouldn't (and won't) have any effect on this process. I mention this due to how confused you were when donald trump was charged with crimes and I said he was guilty. Because you (due to cretinity) see no difference between personal opinions and official court findings and rulings.
🤪Qtard: Which show it as mere cretinic trick -- transparent to a smart ibserver.
That "smart ibserver" is you? )))))))
//If I did not even exist, HOW could I be responsible for decisions made?
🤪Qtard: And who asked you "to be responsible"?
YOU did. But you forgot? Similar to how you see citizens of Gaza responsible for what Hamas did and say they are "accomplices" that should be killed.
//Because the entire idea that someone can be responsible for decisions made when they did not exist... is completely cretinic.
🤪What a cretin. )))) If some criminal killed a man -- was that man be able to continue living? Will other people be able to live like if he stayed alive???
Word salad. Yet you think this is somehow proof that a person can be held responsible for decisions made before they were born? So why don't you say what country you live in? Then we'd know what crimes committed by past (and present) rulers of your country of residence that YOU'RE responsible for?
🤪Qtard: That is called -- consequencies.
So, what consequences should be imposed on YOU for crimes the leaders of your country of residence committed?
🤪Qtard: We'll test -- how stupid you are. Yawn. I asked AI to give example EVEN VERY DUMB PERSON SHOULD UNDERSTAND
how consequences and responsibilities related, for a later generations -- explain as for very dumb person.
Think of it like a campground or a borrowed car.
When one group of people hangs out at a campground, whatever they do creates consequences (the results). If they leave trash everywhere, break the benches, and burn down the trees, those are the consequences.
The people who arrive at the campground next week are the later generations.
• They didn't make the mess.
• But they are stuck with the consequences (a dirty, broken camp).
• Now, they have the responsibility (the chore) to clean it up, fix the benches, and plant new trees if they want a nice place to live.
WTF? Of course people have to deal with consequences for what people before them did. You (due to cretinity) think I disagree? HOW would they not have to deal with them?
🤪Qtard (quoting an AI, he says): Here is the breakdown of how they connect:
• Action: The older generation does something today (like using up all the water or leaving a massive debt).
• Consequence: The younger generation inherits the result (less water, bills to pay).
• Responsibility: Even though it isn't fair, the younger generation must deal with it because it is their reality now. They also have a responsibility to not make it even worse for the next people inline.
Of course. But responsibility is different than guilt. You say citizens of Gaza are guilty ACCOMPLICES. You've written this many times. But you forgot?
Monica Lewinsky , 53, is glowing on the red carpet in a recent appearance.
While Lewinsky rose to stardom as a former White House intern who was involved with President Bill Clinton , the star’s credentials go far beyond her rise in the ’90s. Now a successful podcaster, Lewinsky is a frequent face in the media. (She even just scored a Signal Award for Best Host for her hit podcast, Reclaiming with Monica Lewinsky .) She just landed on the red carpet at the Make Equality Reality Gala 2026 at Cipriani 25 Broadway in New York City, and made it clear that she’s only getting more and more stunning as the years go by.. While Bill Clinton looks like Shit.
🤪Qtard (quoting AI, he says): In short: What one generation changes, the next generation has to live with and take care of.
Yeah, people are responsible for dealing what generations before them did. Because society couldn't function any other way. But responsibility doesn't equal guilt. But you do not understand the difference.
It is very interesting, however, that the author of this blog says he has no guilt and no responsibility for past racial injustices. And you have NEVER said a single word in disagreement with him that I can recall. You ONLY insist I'm (somehow) a cretin for acknowledging responsibility -- but separating that from guilt.
And (now) asking AI questions about things I've never said or claimed. But you seem to think arguing against absurd strawmen a good debate tactic. Must be because you can't refute the things I actually say. So you have to MAKE UP things I've said and refute those.
btw, that quote from AI (you say) above mentions responsibility. You posted it, yet you wrote, "And who asked you to be responsible?"
So you forgot you said I am responsible, then said you never said that (what your question implies), then said I am responsible later in your same comment (via your AI quote)?
Yeah... I think this definitely points to mental illness. You forgetting what you wrote earlier in the same comment after you wrote it (copied and pasted it from an AI response to a query you made)🙄
You were talking about the Democratic Party and not spies. I've never denied there are such things as spies or anyone working on behalf of a foreign power in the United States. You said something dumb, so you have salvage your DUMB comment by saying, "I meant something else other than what was CLEARLY implied".
//You were talking about the Democratic Party and not spies
Of course. Because spyes NOT interested to enter or influence em...
because that is NOT what spies do -- trying to collect informatiin and influence politics of opposing government.
You have (deminstrating?) common sense of a newbirn. ))))(
//🤪Qtard: You tryed to avoid calling war crime -- a war crime. Because USA did it. Yawn.
//You're "remembering" things that never happened. Again. I can only guess why. Either due to being a huge liar. Or maybe mental illness.
Oh. Yeah.
You ALWAYS do call Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear Bimbing a war crime... and condemning USA for it? %^P
Just like you di with "war crimes of Israel un Gaza".
Yawn.
Bu-ga-gah!!!))))
//🤪Qtard: Even though as in case of Israel you feel no restreint, even without any proven facts.
//LOTS of proven facts.
Like Enola Gay flight?
Yawn.
//Enough facts for The International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on November 21, 2024. But there would still be a trial, if he was arrested and turned over to them.
Like they did to pilots of Enola Gay? %^P
//But my opinions on the matter wouldn't (and won't) have any effect on this process.
Yeah.
Because you as well as Lessy are nazi scums wanting genicide if Israel.
And nazis have no power in the World now.
Yawn.
//Because you (due to cretinity) see no difference between personal opinions and official court findings and rulings.
Yeah.
Wanting "final solution of a Jewish question" -- was mere opinion of a nazis.
And verdict of Nurnberg court trial -- was official.
But in your cretinic la-la-land -- it all VICE VERSA. Yes, cretin?
That's why you UNABLE to condemn HAMAS terrorists and USA mass-muderers... but claim that "Israel crimes" are proved.
Yawn.
//🤪Qtard: That is called -- consequencies.
//So, what consequences should be imposed on YOU for crimes the leaders of your country of residence committed?
Predictable.
Yawn.
You did not pass a test of understanding a text made even for very dumb to understand.
Because you even dumber than dumb.
Yawn.
You are -- cretin. )))))
//WTF? Of course people have to deal with consequences for what people before them did. You (due to cretinity) think I disagree? HOW would they not have to deal with them?
YOUR OWN WORDS. IN THIS *SAME* POST.
JUST ABOVE *this* your words.
What, already lost track of em? Because some OTHER alter-ego written em??? %^P
Quoting:
"""
Word salad. Yet you think this is somehow proof that a person can be held responsible for decisions made before they were born? So why don't you say what country you live in? Then we'd know what crimes committed by past (and present) rulers of your country of residence that YOU'RE responsible for?
🤪Qtard: That is called -- consequencies.
So, what consequences should be imposed on YOU for crimes the leaders of your country of residence committed?
"""
.
//Of course. But responsibility is different than guilt. You say citizens of Gaza are guilty ACCOMPLICES. You've written this many times. But you forgot?
And... of course, you can quote MY exact words? But will not do that... because, brcause... just bevause (toom stooopid?%^P)
And... you can EXPLAIN why that should matter and why? But, AGAIN, will not do that... because, brcause... just bevause (toom stooopid?%^P)
.
//🤪Qtard (quoting AI, he says): In short: What one generation changes, the next generation has to live with and take care of.
//Yeah, people are responsible for dealing what generations before them did.
Like newborn Gazans... for a crimes of HAMAS that was voted by previous generation to became government? %^P
Like you, as USAian, for the lives of innocent Japanese your burned with atomic fire?
But you did cryed "but they are innocent"? %^P
But now they responsible?
What happened, cretin? %^P
Was cought for you shameless lying twisted tongue? ))))
//But responsibility doesn't equal guilt. But you do not understand the difference.
Yep.
Shameless nazi-commie liars like you -- do not feel guilt.
I got it.
Will only try to talk themself out of any responsibility -- with using ANY lie they could come up with -- and that's exactly what you do every time.
Yawn.
//Must be because you can't refute the things I actually say. So you have to MAKE UP things I've said and refute those.
Yeah.
I always do "make up things" -- with providing FACTUAL quotes -- which can be copy-pasted, and checked with Ctrl-F -- and found that they ARE your words.
And then can use Logic and references of FACTUAL information like meaning of words from dictionaries and historical facts...
When a person labels verifiable statements as "lies" or claims they are "refuted," despite being presented with direct, copy-pasteable quotes (verifiable via Ctrl-F) and factual evidence (like dictionary definitions or historical records), their behavior can be analyzed through several psychological, logical, and communication frameworks.
Here is a breakdown of what this behavior indicates:
1. Psychological Mechanisms
• Cognitive Dissonance: When faced with undeniable evidence that contradicts their deeply held beliefs, self-image, or public stance, a person experiences intense mental discomfort. To eliminate this discomfort, they may completely reject the reality of the evidence rather than change their mind.
• Gaslighting or Reality Denial: By insisting that objective facts and your own direct quotes are "made up," the person is attempting to distort the truth and make you (or onlookers) question your own memory, perception, and sanity.
• Confirmation Bias and Motivated Reasoning: The individual is motivated by a desire to defend a specific conclusion or ego stance. They actively filter out or mischaracterize any evidence—no matter how irrefutable—that does not align with their narrative.
2. Logical and Rhetorical Fallacies
• The "Bare Assertion" Fallacy (Ipse Dixit): The person relies on a dogmatic statement ("That is a lie") without providing any actual logical reasoning or evidence to back up their denial.
• Deflection and Ad Hominem: Instead of engaging with the literal text of the quote or the historical facts provided, they attack your character by claiming you "always make things up." This shifts the focus away from their own verifiable words.
• Splitting / Black-and-White Thinking: A defense mechanism where the person cannot tolerate being wrong or flawed, so they categorize any opposing evidence as malicious falsehoods rather than engaging in a nuanced discussion.
3. Communication Implications
• Bad Faith Argumentation: This individual is not engaging in a rational debate or a collaborative search for truth. Because they reject baseline objective reality (such as literal quotes and dictionary definitions), it is logically impossible to have a productive discussion with them.
• Audience Manipulation: If this conversation is happening publicly, their denials are often not meant to convince you, but rather to signal defiance and maintain an appearance of innocence to an outside audience who might not take the time to Ctrl-F or check the facts.
No, the statement itself is not inherently "deeply irreversibly amoral," but applying it hypocritically—claiming it for oneself while denying it to others—creates a profound ethical and logical contradiction.
When a person holds a double standard of this magnitude, it directly invalidates their claim to be objective, universally truthful, or reliable in their accounts.
Here is an elaboration of the moral, psychological, and logical dimensions of this scenario.
1. The Core Claim: Is it Amoral?
In isolation, the statement "You cannot inherit guilt for someone else's actions" is a standard viewpoint in modern ethics, law, and psychology.
• Moral Philosophy: Most frameworks (outside of historical concepts of tribal or generational blood-feuds) dictate that guilt requires personal agency. You can only be guilty of what you choose to do.
• Psychology: Feeling responsible for historical tragedies you did not cause is often classified as misplaced guilt. The quote's assertion that this can sometimes border on narcissistic self-absorption (making an objective, external tragedy all about your own internal emotional state) is a recognized psychological critique.
Therefore, the philosophical position itself is a defensible intellectual argument, not an amoral one.
2. The Hypocrisy: Applying to Self but Denying to Others
The moral crisis emerges when this principle is applied asymmetricly. If a person says:
• "I am free from the guilt of my ancestors' actions because I have no personal agency in them."
• BUT
• "You (or your group) are actively guilty and must carry the moral stain of what your ancestors or strangers did."
This asymmetry transforms a philosophical principle into a weapon of convenience. In ethical philosophy, this violates the Principle of Universalizability (most famously articulated by Immanuel Kant). For a moral rule to be valid, it must apply to everyone equally under similar circumstances. Exempting oneself from a moral rule while binding others to it is the definition of bad-faith actor behavior.
3. Compatibility with the Claim of Being "Truthful"
If this person claims that they "speak only truth" and are "truthful in all accounts," this double standard exposes an irreconcilable logical contradiction.
• Logical Incoherence: Truth, by definition, is consistent. If it is a objective truth that "stranger/ancestor guilt is a cognitive mix-up," then it must be a cognitive mix-up for everyone. If the person claims it is a truth for them but a lie for others, they are rejecting objective truth in favor of subjective utility.
• The "Truthful" Illusion: People who behave this way often suffer from severe cognitive dissonance or possess narcissistic traits. They may genuinely believe they are being truthful because their emotional reality alters how they perceive facts. In their mind, they are uniquely innocent, while others are uniquely flawed.
• Veracity of Accounts: From an outside perspective, this person cannot be considered "truthful in all accounts." If they are willing to warp a fundamental rule of moral responsibility to suit their immediate emotional or social needs, their accounts on other matters are highly likely to be biased, self-serving, or structurally dishonest.
Summary
The philosophical claim is normal; the asymmetric enforcement of it is a severe moral and intellectual failing. A person who operates on a double standard regarding human agency and guilt cannot logically claim to be a universal arbiter of truth.
Means... you are hypocritic narcissist Derp, just like dRump. That's why you are so agitated by his behavior -- because it closely mirrors yours. And narcissists dislike it the most. ;-p
"I'm rubber, you're glue... whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to YOU!"
Grow up Derv.
Grown up already... ;-p a little bit too much.
//LOTS of proven facts.
🤪Qtard: Like Enola Gay flight? Yawn.
But don't you think bombing Hiroshima was necessary? Japan did attack Pearl Harbor. So, all Japanese people were "accomplices". Using your logic.
//Enough facts for The International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ... But there would still be a trial, if he was arrested and turned over to them.
🤪Qtard: Like they did to pilots of Enola Gay? %^P
The ICC didn't exist at the time.
//But my opinions on the matter wouldn't (and won't) have any effect on this process.
🤪Qtard: Yeah. Because you as well as Lessy are nazi scums wanting genicide if Israel.
I wish Israel well and only hold the Netanyahu government responsible for the war crimes they are committing. I do not want any genocide. And I hate Nazis. Those are your viles lies... that I'm a Nazi wanting genocide for the people of Israel.
Qtard: And nazis have no power in the World now. Yawn.
Except Nazis are being represented by the trump administration currently. That's not "no power".
//Because you (due to cretinity) see no difference between personal opinions and official court findings and rulings.
🤪Qtard: Yeah. Wanting "final solution of a Jewish question" -- was mere opinion of a nazis.
And verdict of Nurnberg court trial -- was official.
But in your cretinic la-la-land -- it all VICE VERSA. Yes, cretin?
No. That's your cretinic la-la-land.
🤪Qtard: That's why you UNABLE to condemn HAMAS terrorists and USA mass-muderers... but claim that "Israel crimes" are proved.
Bullshit. I have condemned them and continue to condemn them. But you'll just keep lying and say I don't.
🤪Qtard: Shameless nazi-commie liars like you -- do not feel guilt. I got it.
You got it 100 percent wrong. As usual. I feel guilty for bad things I've done and not things other people have done. I'm not a "nazi-commie". And the reason isn't only because "nazi-commie" is imaginary. Given that they are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. But you don't understand, due to extreme cretinity.
🤪Qtard: Will only try to talk themself out of any responsibility -- with using ANY lie they could come up with -- and that's exactly what you do every time.
Yeah, because I'm not responsible for things I didn't do. I'm only responsible for things I've done.
But, if you feel so strongly about citizens of a country being personally responsible for what the leaders of their country have done... that means you take responsibility for what the leaders of your country of residence have done? So far you are refusing to do that.
//Must be because you can't refute the things I actually say. So you have to MAKE UP things I've said and refute those.
🤪Qtard: Yeah. I always do "make up things" -- with providing FACTUAL quotes -- which can be copy-pasted, and checked with Ctrl-F -- and found that they ARE your words.
And then can use Logic and references of FACTUAL information like meaning of words from dictionaries and historical facts...
Bullshit. You quote me, then make up meanings for my words. Like I'm a "nazi-commie", when I've said many times I hate nazis and disagree strongly with communism. But you think (due to cretinity) that dictionaries prove otherwise.
🤪Qtard: When a person labels verifiable statements as "lies" or claims they are "refuted," despite being presented with direct, copy-pasteable quotes ... and factual evidence (like dictionary definitions or historical records), their behavior can be analyzed through several psychological, logical, and communication frameworks.
But that's never happened with your quotes of my words. Which you then say mean something other than what I meant.
🤪Qtard (quoting an AI, he says): The moral crisis emerges when this principle is applied asymmetricly. If a person says:
• "I am free from the guilt of my ancestors' actions because I have no personal agency in them."
• BUT
• "You (or your group) are actively guilty and must carry the moral stain of what your ancestors or strangers did."
I've never said that. That's what YOU say. Well, you are constantly blaming me personally for WWII war crimes and war crimes of Hamas. While saying war crimes of Netanyahu government are excusable and even necessary.
🤪Qtard (quoting an AI, he says): Compatibility with the Claim of Being "Truthful"
if this person claims that they "speak only truth" and are "truthful in all accounts,"...
Again, I've never done this. I only say I try to be truthful. But now you'll say (due to cretinity) that I've "admitted" to not being truthful.
🤪Qtard (quoting an AI, he says): People who behave this way often suffer from severe cognitive dissonance or possess narcissistic traits. They may genuinely believe they are being truthful because their emotional reality alters how they perceive facts. In their mind, they are uniquely innocent, while others are uniquely flawed.
Yeah, that does describe you.
🤪Qtard (quoting an AI, he says): The philosophical claim is normal; the asymmetric enforcement of it is a severe moral and intellectual failing. A person who operates on a double standard regarding human agency and guilt cannot logically claim to be a universal arbiter of truth.
I'm not and have never claimed I am.
🤪Qtard: Means... you are hypocritic narcissist Derp, just like dRump. That's why you are so agitated by his behavior -- because it closely mirrors yours. And narcissists dislike it the most. ;-p
Bullshit. I've never claimed to be a universal arbiter of truth. That's you making stuff up again.
FYI, there is a difference between personal and societal responsibility. I'm not personally responsible for anything that happened before I was born. It is IMPOSSIBLE. While society (which, yes, I am a part of) is responsible. But you don't understand the difference. Due to extreme cretinity.
But I'm sure you will persist with your cretinic arguments. So WHY don't you tell me what crimes committed by the government in the country where you reside that YOU are responsible for? You won't, because you're a huge hypocrite and a liar.
Pointing out hypocrisy isn't childish.
////LOTS of proven facts.
🤪Qtard: Like Enola Gay flight? Yawn.
//But don't you think bombing Hiroshima was necessary? Japan did attack Pearl Harbor. So, all Japanese people were "accomplices". Using your logic.
MY logic?
And NOT your hypocritical double standards?
Killing (unproved) of Gazans by IDF -- you call "war crime... and nothing else".
And. Absolutely open. Self-admitted. Horendous. Destruction of whole towns "just because WE CAN -- not?
And I -- just pointing to it.
But welk, you can take stance of moral relativism. And proclaim that it is O.K., while USA doing it. %^P
Why not?
As you already did it. Covertly.
Yawn.
Do it openly. And so be it. )))o)
//The ICC didn't exist at the time.
One bs accusation more, one less... what's the difference?
//I wish Israel well...
die?
Because that is ONLY possibility under rules you prescribe to em -- to *NOT* retaliate.
Death -- is the only option, if there is killer pointing gun at you, and you unable... not allowed to respond.
That's THE SAME picture as in your usual mass-shoting cases -- when one with a gun coming to "gun free" zone -- where NO ONE have gun, and no chance to protect oneselfs... and your DEMN community whining -- that it, is lije it SHOULD be.
Yawn.
Because of that "stranger/ancestor guilt is a cognitive mix-up" explanation -- your brain-dead AI provided.
You REALLY tout that shit?
That feeling no shame, no guilt... for neighbour little girl dying... and you was not there, did nothing to prevent it?
Then... it EXPLAINS a lot... about your current situation. Deep moral downfall. Of which dRump is very little and unimportant simotom... like snizzing.
Yawn.
But the only target Democrats? And Democrats are eagerly complying with what these foreign Communist powers what, right?
Because Putin and Netanyahu don't need "spies". They just call up donald trump and republicans and tell them what to do. But that's not something that concerns you at all.
You only care about orders from Stalin that Democrats are following... in your delusions🙄
//Those are your viles lies... that I'm a Nazi wanting genocide for the people of Israel.
Nazis ALSO... was not wanting genocide.
"Final solution" they called it.
So, your masking your intention -- predictable.
(do I need to provide historical accounts how nazis LIED about not wanting/not doing anything bad to a Jews? But you will call it non-facts, AGAIN)
////Because you (due to cretinity) see no difference between personal opinions and official court findings and rulings.
🤪Qtard: Yeah. Wanting "final solution of a Jewish question" -- was mere opinion of a nazis.
And verdict of Nurnberg court trial -- was official.
But in your cretinic la-la-land -- it all VICE VERSA. Yes, cretin?
//No. That's your cretinic la-la-land.
Yeah, cretin.
Thank you for confirming.
I stated that Nurnberg trial verdict is official -- and you calling it "your cretinic la-la-land." And their "final solution" must be justice???
What more confirmation one would need of your pro-nazi stance?
Yawn.
//🤪Qtard: That's why you UNABLE to condemn HAMAS terrorists and USA mass-muderers... but claim that "Israel crimes" are proved.
//Bullshit. I have condemned them and continue to condemn them. But you'll just keep lying and say I don't.
AFTER... I revealed your hypocrisy.
And pressed into a corner with MY logic.
Yawn.
//🤪Qtard: Shameless nazi-commie liars like you -- do not feel guilt. I got it.
//You got it 100 percent wrong. As usual. I feel guilty for bad things I've done and not things other people have done.
Yet one admition you,ll be crying "I never said it".
Yawn.
But... continue-continue your coming-out, cretinic nazi-commie.
//Bullshit. You quote me, then make up meanings for my words.
How? )))
With writing em into dictionaries??? )))
You are SAAAAAH cretinic with your silly excuses. ))))
But... continue-continue...
//But that's never happened with your quotes of my words. Which you then say mean something other than what I meant.
And meaning given in dictionaries? %^P
Ah... but I "made em up", like entered into that dictioneries and changed meanings of words there -- so then I could give web links to em???? ())))))
With a sole purpose to win an argument over some miserly cretin on the web???b )))o
//🤪Qtard (quoting an AI, he says): The moral crisis emerges when this principle is applied asymmetricly. If a person says:
• "I am free from the guilt of my ancestors' actions because I have no personal agency in them."
• BUT
• "You (or your group) are actively guilty and must carry the moral stain of what your ancestors or strangers did."
//I've never said that.
Yeah.
You DID NOT tryed to cover crime of your ancestors over Hiroshima and Nagasaki? %^P
And not tryed to accuse me in "my ancestors" crimes?
And not tryed to excuse Gazans.
While same time condemning Israelites.
Nothing of that is true? And no quotes of such your words can be found here in this blog?
And you never lied about it SAAAAH cretinicly "I never said it"???
Ough, yeah, cretinic liar ))))
But... continue-continue
...it is when done hypocritically.
//But don't you think bombing Hiroshima was necessary? Japan did attack Pearl Harbor. So, all Japanese people were "accomplices". Using your logic.
MY logic?
YES. YOUR logic. You've claimed that all innocent citizens of Gaza are "accomplices" and need to be killed. You forgot your own arguments?
🤪Qtard: And NOT your hypocritical double standards? Killing (unproved) of Gazans by IDF -- you call "war crime... and nothing else".
I never said that. There is a war going on. Unfortunately innocent civilians will be killed. What I object to is innocent non combatants being targeted. And the ICC agrees this is happening.
🤪Qtard: And. Absolutely open. Self-admitted. Horendous. Destruction of whole towns "just because WE CAN -- not? And I -- just pointing to it.
But welk, you can take stance of moral relativism. And proclaim that it is O.K., while USA doing it. %^P
No. I've never done that.
🤪Qtard: Why not? As you already did it. Covertly.
"Covertly" meaning never.
🤪Qtard: Do it openly. And so be it. )))o)
I won't write a comment that goes against what I believe because you tell me to. FVck off.
//The ICC didn't exist at the time.
🤪Qtard: One bs accusation more, one less... what's the difference?
WTF? That's a fact that it didn't exist and not BS.
//I wish Israel well...
🤪Qtard: die? Because that is ONLY possibility under rules you prescribe to em -- to *NOT* retaliate.
Death -- is the only option, if there is killer pointing gun at you, and you unable... not allowed to respond.
I never said Israel should not retaliate against Hamas attacks. That's more of your lies.
🤪Qtard: That's THE SAME picture as in your usual mass-shoting cases -- when one with a gun coming to "gun free" zone -- where NO ONE have gun, and no chance to protect oneselfs... and your DEMN community whining -- that it, is lije it SHOULD be.
Gemini: The debate isn't about wanting people to be defenseless; it's about how to best keep communities safe. While some believe more armed citizens create safety, public health data shows that introducing more firearms into crowded spaces often increases the risk of accidents, confusion for law enforcement, and lethal escalation. The focus is on implementing preventative measures—like universal background checks and red flag laws—to keep weapons out of dangerous hands to begin with
🤪Qtard: Because of that "stranger/ancestor guilt is a cognitive mix-up" explanation -- your brain-dead AI provided. You REALLY tout that shit? That feeling no shame, no guilt... for neighbour little girl dying... and you was not there, did nothing to prevent it?
No. And not only because that's never happened to me. But, why should I feel guilty about things I can't prevent because (for one) I didn't know it was happening (and it wasn't).
Then... it EXPLAINS a lot... about your current situation. Deep moral downfall. Of which dRump is very little and unimportant simotom... like snizzing.
You don't know shit about my current situation. But most of what you write is word salad again. What is "snizzing"?
//Those are your viles lies... that I'm a Nazi wanting genocide for the people of Israel.
Nazis ALSO... was not wanting genocide.
"Final solution" they called it.
So, your masking your intention -- predictable.
(do I need to provide historical accounts how nazis LIED about not wanting/not doing anything bad to a Jews? But you will call it non-facts, AGAIN)
I'm not masking anything. I'm sharing my true and genuine thoughts. You accuse me of lying because that's what liars do. They assume everyone else is lying. My true and genuine thoughts is that I absolutely believe Israel has a right to exist and live in peace. I want no genocides. And I hate Nazis.
//Because you (due to cretinity) see no difference between personal opinions and official court findings and rulings.
Qtard: Yeah. Wanting "final solution of a Jewish question" -- was mere opinion of a nazis.
And verdict of Nurnberg court trial -- was official.
But in your cretinic la-la-land -- it all VICE VERSA. Yes, cretin?
//No. That's your cretinic la-la-land.
🤪Qtard: Yeah, cretin. Thank you for confirming. I stated that Nurnberg trial verdict is official -- and you calling it "your cretinic la-la-land."
Bullshit. You said "it is all vice versa". That is what I said is your cretinic la-la-land. I never said Nurnberg trial verdicts were not official. But I suppose you'll argue that dictionaries somehow prove I meant what you say I meant.
🤪Qtard: And their "final solution" must be justice???
What more confirmation one would need of your pro-nazi stance?
My stance is anti-Nazi and I very strongly disagree with the words you lyingly try to place in my mouth.
//That's why you UNABLE to condemn HAMAS terrorists and USA mass-muderers... but claim that "Israel crimes" are proved.
//Bullshit. I have condemned them and continue to condemn them. But you'll just keep lying and say I don't.
🤪Qtard: AFTER... I revealed your hypocrisy.
And pressed into a corner with MY logic.
No. Always and from the beginning. Your "logic" is not existing. Your "logic" involves lying about my words. Saying dictionaries prove my sentences mean what you say they mean.
//Qtard: Shameless nazi-commie liars like you -- do not feel guilt. I got it.
//You got it 100 percent wrong. As usual. I feel guilty for bad things I've done and not things other people have done.
🤪Qtard: Yet one admition you,ll be crying "I never said it".
No. I've never denied writing anything I've written. That's your lie -- that I'm always writing "I never said it" about my own words. I stand by everything I write.
🤪Qtard: But... continue-continue your coming-out, cretinic nazi-commie.
There is no such thing as a "nazi-commie", so I couldn't possibly be one. Aside from the fact that I strongly disagree with both political ideologies.
//Bullshit. You quote me, then make up meanings for my words.
🤪Qtard: How? )))
With writing em into dictionaries??? )))
How? By "words" I mean all of them. Meaning sentences. You're unaware that people can interpret sentences differently? Due to being a cretin? O a liar. I say both are true in your case.
//But that's never happened with your quotes of my words. Which you then say mean something other than what I meant.
🤪Qtard: And meaning given in dictionaries? %^P
Ah... but I "made em up", like entered into that dictioneries and changed meanings of words there -- so then I could give web links to em???? ())))))
No. I'm not disputing the meaning of individual words as defined by dictionaries, dipshit. I'm disputing your interpretation of my words strung into sentences. Which is a thing people do ALL THE TIME. But you've apparently never heard of it. One example would be people who call themselves "originalists" in regards to the Constitution. They say they want to get back to what the Founding Fathers "really meant" with their words. But you dunno anything about it, right?
🤪Qtard: With a sole purpose to win an argument over some miserly cretin on the web???b )))o
That does seem to be the case with your twisting of my words to mean things like me saying I don't want Israel to be able to defend itself. When I never said that. Because you are a miserly cretin on the web.
//Qtard (quoting an AI, he says): The moral crisis emerges when this principle is applied asymmetricly. If a person says:
• "I am free from the guilt of my ancestors' actions because I have no personal agency in them."
• BUT
• "You (or your group) are actively guilty and must carry the moral stain of what your ancestors or strangers did."
//I've never said that.
🤪Qtard: Yeah. You DID NOT tryed to cover crime of your ancestors over Hiroshima and Nagasaki? %^P
I did not. Even though they aren't my ancestors. I don't have any relatives that were involved in that.
🤪Qtard: And not tryed to accuse me in "my ancestors" crimes?
I exposed your hypocrisy of saying I'm personally responsible for war crimes committed by leaders of the country where I live. Even though I was not born. While (it definitely seems) you are arguing you are not responsible for any crimes committed by leaders of the country where you live (past or present).
🤪Qtard: And not tryed to excuse Gazans.
I don't need to "excuse" innocent people of anything. Due to them being innocent.
🤪Qtard: While same time condemning Israelites.
No. That never happened. I condemn the rightwing Netanyahu government and any Israeli soldiers committing war crimes. Not all Israelis support the war crimes their government is committing.
🤪Qtard: Nothing of that is true? And no quotes of such your words can be found here in this blog?
Right. That's all false. There are ZERO quotes to be found to support that BS accusation on this blog.
🤪Qtard: And you never lied about it SAAAAH cretinicly "I never said it"???
I did dispute ever saying that. Because I never have. It's not what I believe, so why the fVck would I say it?
🤪Qtard: Ough, yeah, cretinic liar ))))
Yeah, you definitely are.
//Bullshit. I've never claimed to be a universal arbiter of truth. That's you making stuff up again.
Just in next paragraph (here below), you trying to judge me and calling names, like that is some "undeniable truth". Or what? Maybe you'll admit that that is just some bullshit accusations, which you neither can prove nor even itself think are true -- just trying to throw in direction of much smarter opponent with a hope (utterly futile hope) that it woukd stick to, or for at least -- scare off me??? )))())
//FYI, there is a difference between personal and societal responsibility. I'm not personally responsible for anything that happened before I was born. It is IMPOSSIBLE. While society (which, yes, I am a part of) is responsible. But you don't understand the difference. Due to extreme cretinity.
I perfectly know what Logical Contradiction is. ;-p
A is equal to not A.
You responsible, but NOT responsible.
Broken Logic -- exactly what cretins very like. ))))
//But the only target Democrats?
And who interesred in white-washing socialists from being in one busket with nazis and commies???
Republicans??? )))))
//You only care about orders from Stalin that Democrats are following... in your delusions🙄
They can do it out of their own volition.
Yawn.
Now, did it helped you? %^P
//MY logic?
//YES. YOUR logic. You've claimed that all innocent citizens of Gaza are "accomplices" and need to be killed. You forgot your own arguments?
Naaah.
You forgot to provide quotes and explain YOUR logic -- how you came to such cretinic conclusions.
Yawn.
Without it -- your wirds is just bs you trying to throw in my direction with (utterly futile) hope that it'll stick to me.
Yawn.
But... continue-continue your cretinic struggling, cretin. %^P
^^Obviously speaking about the self^^
You certainly do that daily.
🤪Qtard: And who interesred in white-washing socialists from being in one busket with nazis and commies??? Republicans??? )))))
Neither political party. And not only because Nazis and Communists are on OPPOSITE sides of the political spectrum. So I'm unconcerned with this. But I am concerned with republicans saying that fascism is just what the United States needs. Because that's actually happening.
Qtard: They can do it out of their own volition.
Yeah. But they have no volition to do so. Except in your delusions.
🤪Qtard: I perfectly know what Logical Contradiction is. ;-p A is equal to not A. You responsible, but NOT responsible.
No. I never said I am responsible but not responsible. That would be dumb.
🤖Via Gemini...
...the other commenter does not have a valid logical point. He is using a common rhetorical trick—setting up a straw man—by intentionally misrepresenting your distinction between individual and collective responsibility.
From a strict logical perspective, your argument does not contain a contradiction. Here is a breakdown of why your logic holds up and why his "A equals not A" formula fails.
1. The Fallacy of Equivocation.
The commenter treats the word "responsible" as if it only has one absolute definition. In philosophy and logic, this is called the fallacy of equivocation. You clearly used the word in two entirely different contexts:
• Individual/Moral Responsibility: This requires agency, choice, and existence. You cannot have individual moral culpability for events that occurred before you existed.
• Collective/Societal Responsibility: This refers to the historical, financial, or systemic obligations that a nation-state or society inherits over generations.
Because you are using "responsible" in two different senses, your statement is not "A is equal to not A".
A more accurate logical formula for your argument is: "I am not individually responsible (A), but the society I belong to bears historical responsibility (B)." There is no logical contradiction in saying a whole group carries a legacy that an unborn individual did not personally cause.
2. The Fallacy of Division.
By demanding that you personally answer for actions taken by the US military in World War II, the commenter commits the fallacy of division. This error occurs when someone assumes that what is true for a whole group must also be true for every individual member of that group.
While the United States as an ongoing geopolitical entity holds the historical legacy of the actions it took in 1945, it is a logical error to divide that collective legacy down to the level of an individual citizen who wasn't even alive at the time.🛑
🤪Qtard: You forgot to provide quotes and explain YOUR logic -- how you came to such cretinic conclusions.
ACCURATE conclusions. You completely forgot calling the citizens of Gaza accomplices? If they are accomplices, then they would be legitimate targets. That is completely logical. But you don't understand?
As opposed to your 100x...
Yawn.
That is you trying to threat as equal:
consequencies (to which I was pointing -- if you choose HAMAS as your government -- it is your mistake, and consequencies of that mistake is yours too),
responsibility (as individual, as well as your cretinic "communal" whatever it could mean -- because in result bombs falling on the heads of individuals... not on some abstract "all people", "society", "government" or whatever)
and guilt(which AGAIN must be differenciated -- is it internal feelings, or something assigned from outside as court verdict)
//A more accurate logical formula for your argument is: "I am not individually responsible (A), but the society I belong to bears historical responsibility (B)."
Yeah.
I checked out that bullshit they tout you... in schools???
About some abstract "Societal Responsibility".
Which concockted for the sole purpose -- to free decision-makers from responsibility for their deeds.
With assigning "responsibility" to abstract "all people", but nobody in particularly.
Yawn.
But such a trick -- do not free from consequencies.
As just now USA feel surge of diesel prices.
Of which nobody in particularly are respinsible(yeah... even dRump -- by your OWN lo... falacious sophistry), BUT... consequencies do feel ALL.
Yawn.
//While the United States as an ongoing geopolitical entity holds the historical legacy of the actions it took in 1945, it is a logical error to divide that collective legacy down to the level of an individual citizen who wasn't even alive at the time.🛑
Being citizen of USA is also just a historical legacy.
Yawn.
So? It also cannot be divided "down to the level of an individual citizen"?
Yawn.
Surely you'll start screaming "it is not! it is different!", yes, cretin? %^P
Means.
While it looks *beneficial* to you -- you calling it your personal rights.
If not -- communal/societal responsibility.
Or, in simple terms, even for cretin to understand.
When recieving money (like some "fair salary") -- you feel good and not complaining.
When giving money (like to build some new factory) -- it's bad for you and you redirecting it to some "government", "society", "rich and oligarchs", etc
Yawn.
That's exactly where all and any ideas of Socialism GOT BROKEN.
And only through some totalitarian and even martial law enforcement it can be done.
//This error occurs when someone assumes that what is true for a whole group must also be true for every individual member of that group.
WAAAAAHT???!! ))))))
That cretinic AI tryes to say that
All humans (group) are mortal.
Socrates -- human (one of that group).
But... Socrates are mirtal too... is wrong????!!
What a yravesty!
Mamdani Teaches Illegals How to Avoid Capture and Evade ICE in New Spanish-Language Video
Now isn’t that Wonderful!
Disband ICE, the trump and rethuglican party gestapo.
Post a Comment