🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

@louis

And yet, I had no trouble seeing the obvious dementia in 2020 and was clearly correct. The only difference is the dementia progressed to the point that it got worse and at a certain point no amount of denial will get you through it.

But the fact is, reflect on that. Clearly people were screaming he had dementia, the fact that you didnt think he did and it turned out he did suggests perhaps you were blinded to the truth and couldnt see what was obvious to everyone else.

The real takeaway here is if you couldnt even tell a person with severe rapid onset dementia has a problem, what other issues are you unable to see due to biases? Perhaps you should rethink how harshly you criticize someones opinion of your candidate as well if you were blocking people who said that.

Remember that time we elected a president with rapidly progressing dementia and all the democrats would block you or call you a Nazi and disagree with you when you pointed it out. Then his own party dropped him for having dementia....

Good times, good times.

#USPol #Biden

@TheOldGuy

One day Robert Reich will get something right... one day... today is not that day.

@freeschool We plan on reactivating that after the next update which looks like is a day or two away. it would really slow down the upgrade otherwise.

@kilroy_was_here In america we light fireworks by shooting guns at them. No need to guess :)

@realcaseyrollins They as a group cant, a cell or collection of cells can.

For example during the attack initially, one cell came up with the idea and then spread it to the other cells. The cells that wanted to contribute joined in, the cells that objected didnt. Then they attack. But did the organization dictate it, or was it just an organic process of agreement of some people?

So how would that look for a surrender, if asked to surrender and 10 out of 100 cells agree to surrender, does that count as a surrender inthe same way that 10 out of 100 cells attacking count as an attack?

@realcaseyrollins How can a decentralized cell-based terrorist organization ever surrender? Cells are formed and operated independent from eachother. No one commands them.

@realcaseyrollins I mean they have bee n damn nnear whiped out. They couldnt attack even if they wanted to... The war really did turn into a genocide. The death toll has been astronomical.

@realcaseyrollins Its not about who initiated the offensive at all. Its about who is willing to honor the Truce. Ukraine is willing to honor the truce. In fact since they refuse to attack into russia itself they are in compliance by default. Russia is unwilling to honor the truce, so they are in violation. Russia being the aggressor prior to the truce is irrelevant.

Likewise, the attack from palestine into israel was before the truce period. During the truce period palestine hasnt been attacking israel, only attacking within their own borders. So Israelis the only one in violation, this again is underlated to who was the initial agressor.

@realcaseyrollins Because they are purely defensive and willing to engage in a truce.

@realcaseyrollins The olympic Truce is a principle of the olympics that all participants must agree to a war truce on all offenses during the period of the olympics and atleast 1 week following. This Truce isnt just a principle, it was passed as a resolution of the UN itself specifically for the purpose of the Olympics.

Any country committing war offenses during the period shall be banned from the Olympics.

Russia is banned from the Olympics this year because they are attacking Ukraine and therefore have been banned.

@realcaseyrollins

Moreover, because theIsrali violated the "olympic truce" but palestine has not, technically Israel should be banned entirely and Palestine should be allowed (their offensive was not during the truce period).

@realcaseyrollins What, Palestine is recognized as a country by over 75% of the UN, **not** a territory... Why are you asserting something as absolute fact when it is in fact entirely arbitrary and decided by each country AND the exact opposite of your assertion is the overwhelming majority of the opinion?

@ambulocetus @medley56

Im sure it is, just too many trolls for too longnso now he is scared toninteract meaningfully. Sad, bit understandable.

@medley56

Yea, I must admit, being worried about being wrong by discussing the facts and seeing that as a "trap" sounds like the wrong mentality to have in so many ways.

@ambulocetus

@mattsheffield

Conservatives love their facism, as do the democrats (not sure i can actually call them liberals anymore).. thats the problem, its all facism these days.

@dangillmor

@ambulocetus

> No, I won’t give you specific word for word examples, because that smells like a trap to me, and I’m not falling for it.

What does a "trap" mean.. If it means somethign that may prove your assertions wrong, then I fail to see how its a bad thing. If you think it will be used in bad faith, then when have I ever argued with you in bad faith?

Refusing to be specific and to only speak in vaguties that simply arent supported by what actually said sounds like the real trap to be honest, though if you gave specific examples I might have changed my mind.

> If you disagree with me, that’s your prerogative, but I’m not watching it again just because you can’t see my point.

The part where he talks about creationism lasts for about a minute or two, so not really a huge ask when I just watched the whole 30 minutes in consideration of your own point. But do as you like of course.

> I never said that he said anything factually incorrect, maybe you should read what I wrote one more time.

You used the term "misinformation" many times. Misinformation is by definition "factually incorrect". Can you explain to me how you feel he stated misinformation that was somehow also factually correct then? Sounds like back peddling though I give you the benefit of the doubt your discussing in good faith and it is unintentional.

> In my experience, when someone creates a straw-man like that, it usually means they have an agenda.

Strawman, what strawman is that?

> People can watch the video, and keep in mind what both of us have said, and make up their own minds.

They sure can, problem is you didnt actually elucidate your point of view or how you arrived at it in any meaningful way what so ever. You claimed he did several things then when asked for examples to back that up made no effort to really do so. Saying something is so isnt really getting you anywhere if you cant even point int he general direction of the examples that back up your claim. So you simply havent given anyone any real content with which to even consider your point.

In fact I detect a strong undertone to what your saying and defensiveness to an earnest inquiry on your perspective. It seems to me the most likely explanation is you have a strong bias and disgust on anyone who would even discuss spiritual matters along side science (even me who has not explicitly supported the argument) and that that extreme hate/bias is likely fueling your perspective here more than an objective reading. I think this is causing you to attribute things by reading between the lines that simply isnt even there. This is evident because you kept talking about a book you swear this guy is promoting and yet he never mentioned it once in his videos. So clearly you were filling in some things with your own emotional response here that led to a distorted view of what was said. Again I think this is all in good faith and not something you are doing knowingly.