User

No, this is the lie evil people like you use to butcher and drug children. A dullard is someone like you who believes trans women are really women. A disgusting, perverted, sick, and demented person is someone like you who wants to push dudes into girls' personal spaces. An evil depraved person is someone like you who wants to butcher children and drug them up to push the trans madness onto them.

You are the one engaged in an emotional outburst right now.

Yes, it is quite evident you don't know what I am saying because you keep making up crap and have demonstrated no reading comprehension.

Well, feel free to actually quote me next time instead of making up crap. You are the one crying. Once again, not what I said. Once again, not what I said. Keep crying.

Says the guy who pulled out a meme to respond to me because you have no reading comprehension and make up crap I never said...

Try this again, only in English this time.

Still crying. Then the only point you have is that you have no reading comprehension.

And you are still crying. Once more, did you have a point?

This continues to be the stupidity of your whole schtick here. You are conflating human morals and reasoning of right and wrong with what animals instinctively do. Which is why you keep running like a coward when I keep pointing this out and making the point about how animals also do a lot of other violent nasty things to each other.

This continues to be the stupidity of your whole schtick here. You are conflating human morals and reasoning of right and wrong with what animals instinctively do. Which is why you keep running like a coward when I keep pointing this out and making the point about how animals also do a lot of other violent nasty things to each other.

I’m not claiming they’re the same thing. I’m taking your rule and applying it somewhere else to show why that rule breaks down. If your logic only works in one very specific case and sounds ridiculous everywhere else, that’s usually a sign the logic itself is the problem. That’s exactly where your argument fails. Yes, Canada didn’t exist before Confederation. No disagreement there. But it didn’t appear out of nothing either. It came directly out of existing colonies, legal systems, populations, and institutions. You’re treating “newly formed” as if it means “historically disconnected,” and those are not the same thing. The constitution didn’t summon a legal system out of the void. It formalized and reorganized systems that already existed. British common law didn’t suddenly materialize in 1867. Governance structures didn’t spring into existence like a game loading screen. They were carried forward and reshaped. This is just flatly not how history works. People didn’t lose their property overnight. Legal traditions didn’t vanish. Courts, systems, and administrative structures didn’t evaporate and get replaced with brand new ones from scratch. There was continuity, adaptation, and consolidation. Not a total wipe. No, and this is where you’re forcing a false choice. Something can be a new entity and still be a continuation of what came before. Those ideas are not mutually exclusive. The U.S. is not Britain, but it absolutely emerged from British colonies and inherited legal, political, and cultural structures from them. Same concept here. No, that’s something you keep inserting so you can argue against it. No one is saying Canada “personally owned slaves” like an individual commits an act. The point is about continuity of origin, not moral or legal guilt. And yet it is still born into a context shaped entirely by what came before. It doesn’t pop into existence in a vacuum. It inherits conditions, environment, and structure from its origins. That’s the only parallel being drawn. This was never about legal liability. This is about historical continuity. You keep pivoting to “legal responsibility” because it’s easier to argue, but that’s not the claim being made. In a narrow, post-Confederation legal sense, sure. But that framing only works if you ignore the continuity between Canada and the colonies, systems, and societies that became it. You’re drawing a hard line at the label and pretending everything before it is unrelated. That’s not how history works, it’s just a convenient cutoff point. A new entity can be legally new and still historically continuous with what created it You’re trying to treat those as mutually exclusive, and that’s where your argument keeps falling apart.

This continues to be the stupidity of your whole schtick here. You are conflating human morals and reasoning of right and wrong with what animals instinctively do. Which is why you keep running like a coward when I keep pointing this out and making the point about how animals also do a lot of other violent nasty things to each other.

No, just pointing out that you are a sick depraved evil person who wants to butcher children and drug them up to further prop up your love for this fetish and mental illness so you can feel better about yourself. Again, you keep ignoring: This continues to be the stupidity of your whole schtick here. You are conflating human morals and reasoning of right and wrong with what animals instinctively do. Which is why you keep running like a coward when I keep pointing this out and making the point about how animals also do a lot of other violent nasty things to each other.

Animals engage in all sorts of activities. So once again... This continues to be the stupidity of your whole schtick here. You are conflating human morals and reasoning of right and wrong with what animals instinctively do. Which is why you keep running like a coward when I keep pointing this out and making the point about how animals also do a lot of other violent nasty things to each other.

Nope, you were the one crying. I am merely pointing out the obvious, that if you clowns are not going to act like our allies, why should we continue to prop you up? It seems you agree with me now, so did you have a point?

Yes, humans do those things, but they are condemned as wrong... not celebrated as "natural" and OK like you are trying to do here. Again, you keep ignoring: This continues to be the stupidity of your whole schtick here. You are conflating human morals and reasoning of right and wrong with what animals instinctively do. Which is why you keep running like a coward when I keep pointing this out and making the point about how animals also do a lot of other violent nasty things to each other.

You are the one who tried to compare humans to animals in their sexual activity to say it was "natural." Lots of shit is "natural," and that doesn't make it OK. Again, you keep ignoring: This continues to be the stupidity of your whole schtick here. You are conflating human morals and reasoning of right and wrong with what animals instinctively do. Which is why you keep running like a coward when I keep pointing this out and making the point about how animals also do a lot of other violent nasty things to each other.

It is amazing how they never give us the full statistics. There are tons of promotions going on for women and black people... did Hegseth stop them all? No. Of course not. Yet, he is a racist or sexist because he intervened in whatever small percentage he did? Was he a racist or sexist for firing the white member of the Joint Chiefs this last week?! OOPS, guess not, he was white! There goes the narrative.

Me: That cat is not a dog You: DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR eRmAgAwD wHeReD u gO tO vEt sChOoL DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Reality disagrees with me on what? You once again refuse to respond to the point. Do you think men should roam around killing other men, killing their children, and taking their women as their own? Should we expect the weak, old, or sick to just wander off and die alone? This continues to be the stupidity of your whole schtick here. You are conflating human morals and reasoning of right and wrong with what animals instinctively do. Which is why you keep running like a coward when I keep pointing this out and making the point about how animals also do a lot of other violent nasty things to each other.

What false narrative? I provided a source for a simple fact. You are the one who refuses to accept that and has to play this stupid game. Even now, you put this in quotes like it is not real. Holy shit man, you are a pathological liar. I don't even know if you know you are the way you are. It is just a condition and you can't help yourself but lie like this at this point.

So... basically just another Trump-has-mean-tweets thread.

No, you have offered nothing but your own baseless claim that the trees were just part of those routinely planted. On the other hand, I have offered actual official Canadian government sources claiming they were part of the special program. You just can't admit you were wrong. You are so committed to not only this lie, but doing this in almost any discussion you are in.

And yet again, you keep lying, arguing against things not said and ignoring the actual point already made you have already lied repeatedly about. The argument was never about if some trees are planted routinely. Duh. Of course they are. It was that there was in fact a special Canadian program to plant a shit ton of trees across the country and they did in fact include the military in this special program. You can't be honest, you can't admit you were wrong, no... You have to repeatedly fabricate something to mock instead.

Same in the US. But you clowns want to fear-monger and use edge cases to spite America because you hate Trump. I have come to Canada many times as well as for work, and I have to bring a letter from my company stating how we promise, really really promise, that I am not "working" in Canada and everything I am doing is being done by Canadians and I am just there to say hello and then the customs guys interrogate me on what I do for a living demanding to know that I will not be doing any of that in Canada as they detain my consultant for hours because he needed the letter from his consultant company, because mine was not good enough for him. You are so damn ignorant, I know more about your own damn country than you do.

Why would he have? The decision to go to war was not made during the campaign. Duh. The point I asserted was that Trump has made his position clear before; this did not come out of left field. What a stupid argument you are making like usual. Just make up some convoluted thing to argue against.