3
Thisisnotanexit 3 points ago +3 / -0

Your comment wasn't debating, you were off topic then and also off topic now. There are plenty of other places to drag my name thru the dirt, you had leniency with that here and you have abused it.

4
Thisisnotanexit 4 points ago +4 / -0

Vlad has abused the leniency given to criticize mod/actions. It wasn't on topic and had no argument to save for your discussion, otherwise I would have saved it for you.

4
Thisisnotanexit 4 points ago +4 / -0

Same ol song n dance

3
Thisisnotanexit 3 points ago +3 / -0

Removing your rule violations is not an attack, you are the one attacking.

2
Thisisnotanexit 2 points ago +2 / -0

Seems the post duplicated. Do you wanna delete this one, the other one has a comment.

2
Thisisnotanexit 2 points ago +2 / -0

Removed for rule 1 violation. Can be edited for rephrase and approved.

I took this comment to be against OP and not the content (let me know if I misunderstand) and I think it's a good time to remind you to refute the beliefs you disagree with and not attack the person who thinks differently from you.

2
Thisisnotanexit 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think people are allowed to think differently and attacking a person and not their argument tends to stifle discussion where other ideas meet and minds have the opportunity to change, or not but the odds are at least better.

2
Thisisnotanexit 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't disagree with the point of this probably being a 'create a problem situation to inspire a reaction and then come in with the solution', which I think will be the technocratic prison planet (10 kingdoms plan stuff), my wonder is in regards to violence and hatred and if there is a Godly way to hate and use violence? I think of this often and don't necessarily mean to lay the burden of answer on you, it's just what comes to mind at the moment.

2
Thisisnotanexit 2 points ago +2 / -0

Misquoting is very unhelpful.

3
Thisisnotanexit 3 points ago +3 / -0

There are ways to defend your argument without resorting to attacking the person.

If I was refuting the comment you are I'd say something like: "the natives have the right to defend their homeland, the immigration is at a point of replacing the native people and demolishing the culture on which the country was founded. Have you seen violence be used righteously in the bible? Is all violence of the devils? How does one use violence righteously?"

Does this get your point across while not personally attacking the person but rather their argument, which you disagree with?

2
Thisisnotanexit 2 points ago +2 / -0

Removed for rule 1 violation: be respectful, attack the argument not the person.

2
Thisisnotanexit 2 points ago +2 / -0

If a giant tyrannical empire promulgates bad law, the whiners who complain that the Jews contributed a Noahide slice to it, as if that's the only salient point, will be steamrolled in their ignorance of the whole of the problem; same as with other such problems.

Don't miss the forest for the trees kinda stuff.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›