Videospirit

Congratulations for conceding to losing an argument and admitting you were wrong.

Indeed it was not the comment made. It was giving you important context you need to keep in mind when you read the next sentence. Which evidently you neglected to do, as always. Please come back, and try your argument again.

There is no way to rationally interpret Trumps comment other than he's favouring Russia in the discourse. Calling trump a "Russian asset" is at best an exaggeration, and at worst a partially true statement. It's not outrageous at all. There is no scenario where blaming Ukraine for this war is in the best interest of the united states National Security if it intends to remain a member of NATO. Going forward the American Military Industrial Complex is going to suffer massive losses as the rest of NATO seeks to secure supply chains as this communicates that the US is unwilling to be a faithful ally going forward, and the rest of NATO needs to be prepared for the scenario of a NATO without the US.

I'm still not convinced he's loyal to Russia. He's just extremely and openly corrupt. Which... well it's actually worse than if he was a Russian asset. Seriously why have Americans put this man in charge of their country. There are points in history where we look back now and are like "How could the public possibly allow this." Well, now we're asking that question in the present. His supporters may say they regret some of the things he's doing, but they fundamentally aren't bothered by him doing those things. They feel no compulsion to stop him. It's certainly grim. The U.S. used to be a role model, but now it's a nightmare. We're going to be suffering the consequences of the American electorate's choices for a long time to come. So many Heroes being dismissed from their posts for trying to abide their oaths of office and defend the American constitution. The integrity of the executive branch is being shattered in real time. The criminals are running the justice system and anyone who can resist them is being eliminated. Even if by some miracle some degree of fair elections allow Republicans to be replaced in the future, the federal government is going to be so poisoned by corruption that it may be impossible to restore the rule of law to the united states.

If translated into intelligent speech is you essentially saying. If you don't want to be treated as intellectually deficient, actually refute people's arguments. Your reading comprehension is cringe. It's completely irrational to say "moving the goal posts" in this situation. The content of the argument has not been changed. It's moved from the general to the specific, but that's not moving the goal posts. The end destination is the same, I'm still claiming you aren't treating me with respect. These two things are related concepts, normal rational human beings are able to understand "He is engaging in disrespectful behaviour towards me." and "He is disrespecting me." are the same argument, but you? You are not capable of doing that for some reason, and it's sooooo absurdly cringe. So rational individuals just see you championing your own righteousness by blowing your own horn for false achievements and get uncomfortable for being in close proximity to your aberrant behavior. Every argument you ever make is like this. You don't understand something, you assume you understand that thing, than you declare your own success based on your flawed understanding. Until you fix this problem, I have no choice but to target you personally if I want to make progress in discussing any issue with you, because you are incapable of consenting to debate if this is your real mental capabilities. The problem with your arguments is you. What I need to refute is your mental capabilities, because you are not engaging with my arguments themselves, you are engaging with the illusion of my arguments your inferior brain has conjured up in it's failed attempt to read them.

I literally quoted the parts of the article I linked that explain your misinformation. This is a false statement. You might honestly believe it's true, but if you do it's only because you're incompetent at reading comprehension. You certainly make enough false claims about what other people are arguing to back up an assertion that you're barely literate. The mention of the article you linked was before I linked my article and than after I directly quoted my article and explained what claims it was backing up. The article talking about the concerns being dismissed by all the parties involved as absurd was your own article. This one https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c87d9j17pjqo Which you apparently don't remember reading. That's the relevant section. I've bolded the line you need to pay attention to, but I'm uncertain even that is enough to let you comprehend it. Your ability to fail to comprehend the written word is frankly impressive if you're not outright trolling. But of the reason I wanted you to look it up yourself is because you build life skills that you clearly lack by doing such things yourself, but since you've failed to do so before responding to my post I'll have to be unhelpful to your development and do your duty for you. "Silently praying too close to an abortion clinic." is ALSO a lie by omission. It still lacks the context necessary to make the statement true. "He was arrested for causing harassment, alarm, and distress among women in an effort to influence their decision whether or not to get an abortion by silently praying too close to an abortion clinic." Is a true statement if you really need to bring the silently praying into it. "He was arrested for praying too close to an abortion clinic." is a false statement by omission. I'm not forced to interact with you. I'm forced to interact with you if I want to engage with this website fully. Nothing is forcing me to engage with this website, and I could block you and only partially engage with this website, but you're going to stand here spewing your lies and misinformation and continuing to make your worthless posts full of your own incomprehension whether I block you or not, so the discussions on this site are going to be tainted by your stupidity and force me to interact with your stupidity indirectly even if I block you so it's better to get right in your face about it than to dance around the issue .The fact you think of them as "stupid comments and arguments." is the problem. The arguments and comments you are calling stupid are ones you don't understand in the first place, don't try to understand, and dismiss without understanding with the label of stupid. You try to mask it behind a mask of politeness, but you aren't giving me any respect at all. I'm not going to let you treat me that way. I'm going to keep calling you out for your pathetic refusal to understand my statements until you either block me or do your duty to the conversation, and there's only so many times I'll repeat myself before I'll just call you pathetic and tell you to stop being pathetic and go reread the posts you don't understand.

Yes, that is not the link you shared, that was my own source explaining your misinformation. You can find your own link a few pages back in this topic, you may act like a child but I'm not your parent. There is no law on the books criminalizing "silent prayer near abortion clinics." JD Vance claimed a man was arrested for silently praying "near an abortion clinic", but no law criminalizing silently praying near abortion clinics exists, so he could not possibly have been arrested for doing so. There is no law that criminalizes silently praying inside your own homes. The letter sent out to the people in the PSPO zones did not mention silently praying. Since no one is claiming the man was arrested for violating a law that doesn't exist, clearly there needs to be some context that makes simplistic statements like "He was arrested for silently praying" false by omission and thus, a lie. I attack you personally because you constantly fail to do your due diligence and discuss in good faith. You're a worthless piece of human trash who has no trace of dignity and the entire human race is made worse because you were born. And yet, I'm forced to interact with you if I want to access this website. I've tried to enlighten you over and over again and I'm sick of your continued incomprehension of basic concepts. If you aren't going to treat me with respect by actually understanding my words I'm going to treat you like the child who doesn't understand complicated ideas you are and talk down to you. If you want to be treated with respect you need to respect others. You don't respect anyone.

Trump is negotiating with Putin over Ukraine without Ukraine or the EU's presence. Trump claims Ukraine invaded Russia first. Is the meaning of choosing User as your nickname that you're proud of being a Tool?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-ukraine-should-never-have-started-it-remarks-war-russia-rcna192710 Now the Orange clown is claiming Ukraine started the war in official statements. What a disgrace the united States has become.

Of course, you could say Vance is just paraphrasing, not lying. But if that's your argument let me translate what you're claiming. JD Vance is proud that Americans are legally allowed to harass shame and intimidate women, and calls it madness to criminalize reproduction coercion. So if that's the hill you want to die on, commit to it.

First off, the reference to the concern being laughed out of the legislature comes from the very article you yourself posted on the topic when you started your deranged rant that you evidently don't remember reading. https://verfassungsblog.de/silent-prayer-safe-access-zones/ If you want an actual source from me. That's the legal basis for these extremely rational legal decisions. The context, as you so callously disregard it, matters. There is no law criminalizing silent prayer. The "context" as you call it is what is criminalized. And your fool of a vice president is reacting with insanity and spreading lies about these extremely sane decisions.

Yeah, the method he used to inflict harm was silent prayer. I can spill a drink on the ground, or I can intentionally spill a drink on the ground near a ledge to cause someone to slip and fall to their deaths. I suppose you'd claim "I was arrested just for spilling a drink on the ground." if that happened. The two actions are both "spilling a drink on the ground" but they're not that same kind of action. There is a difference between silently praying, and using silent prayer as a tool of harm. You cannot claim someone was arrested for doing something, when the reason they were arrested was the intentional consequences of that action not the action itself. And of course people will try and lie to make people afraid of this law. The possibility that private prayer could be prosecuted under the law was brought up in the legislature when the law was being written even. But the concern was laughed out of the discussion. After all, if someone is privately praying, how is anyone even going to know they were doing that to report them for violating the law? As for your refusal to accept that there is harm. I'll appeal to authority. You can't take it for absolute truth based on such an appeal alone. But the fact that lawmakers, judges, lawyers, and the municipal governments that instituted the PSPO zones all agreed that they were necessary should, at the very least, make you accept that there was a real issue that made all these individuals consider this necessary. This wasn't some unilateral action by one party. It was an involved legislative process with multiple checks and balances along the way to prevent abuse. If the communities did not feel it was necessary, they can vote out the municipal governments that put these zones in place and have the zones removed, so the entire communities wills are partially reflected in this practice. I'll let your brain gears come up with your own explanation for why all these communities felt this was necessary yourself, you're certainly not going to accept any explanation anyone else gives.

See? You have learned absolutely nothing from the discussion. Still solidly wearing your ignorance like a badge of honour. Nobody has been arrested for praying. They have been arrested for intentionally causing harm. You can't understand how what they were doing could have caused harm, but we've explained this. You just keep whining and tantruming and failing to present any kind of argument. Nobody has ever been arrested for minding their own business and silently praying, and the letter sent out never led anyone to believe that might be the case unless a liar like JD Vance told them the letter means that. Stop being pathetic.

It's fascinating watching your brain short circuit in action. All the explanations are clearly laid out, but your brain has this freakish misconception that "It is impossible to cause harm by silently praying." and your arguments just constantly fall apart as you try to dissect the process that leads from silently praying to harm step by step individually without ever considering how they connect as a whole, and just making a jumbled mess of yourself. So all we're left is discussing how you can possibly be so incapable. The "argument" has already been won. You've failed to renounce the claims. Now it's just a question of "How come you don't understand you've lost this argument?". Deeply personal, but what recourse have you left us? We've refuted your lies and misconceptions, but you don't accept refutations. It's strange arguing with a disabled person like you.

One might think life is simple for you, but you must face endless frustration. It must feel like nobody ever understands you, when the problem is that your thoughts are extremely simplistic and everyone understands you, but they know you're wrong. Your mental faculties are so poor however, that no amount of explanation can make you understand why you're wrong, and you just conclude that everyone else is wrong. Truly a sad pathetic state of being. I'd like to explain to you, but as long as you refuse to acknowledge your own incompetence it's impossible.

What's it like being mentally incapable of remembering the previous sentence in a conversation? What must your life be like living in a fugue where your grasp of reality slips out of your understanding from moment to moment? You're pathetic.

Stop being pathetic.

Stop being pathetic.

Stop being pathetic. This isn't a counter argument, it's just you complaining about how they chose to resolve the issue, but we haven't talked about this before so I can at least discuss it for the benefit of people with a brain who might be curious why this was needed. The issue with this complaint is that someone committing a crime and proving that they are committing a crime in court is not the same thing. It's rather difficult to prove intent. A massive waste of state resources that won't even guarantee convictions, and most of these criminals are otherwise productive members of society. It's in everyone's best interests to prevent them from committing the crime in the first place. There were already countless victims and the existing laws weren't enough to protect them. Stop being pathetic. Presence wasn't the objective proof, refusal to leave was. When an authority figure informs you "What you're doing is causing harm, you need to stop." and you reply "I refuse to stop doing it." you cannot claim lack of intent to cause said harm. At that point it's objectively intentional. Someone who intended to take care of their health who was prevented from doing so because of another person's intimidation suffered harm. That's objective. They objectively lost time, their health probably objectively suffered, their mental well being probably objectively suffered, their rights were objectively infringed upon. All of these have an objective legal basis to be considered harm. As for intimidation, it meets the objective qualifications of what acts can be considered intimidation. Whether or not intent was present has some subjective judgement to it, but it's objectively an act that COULD be intimidation. Although to be frank, I'd find it absurd if you try to claim that people protesting against abortions don't intend for people to not have abortions. Either way, the state has enough of a vested interest in protecting their citizens to declare a PSPO zone even if they can't prove intent. Stop being pathetic.

Fact: Protests were being used as a means to intimidate citizens away from being provided access to healthcare Fact: One of the forms those protests took is Silent Prayer Vigils and it meets the legal definition of intimidation. Fact: The PSPO zones around facilities which provide access to abortions were created to prevent such harm from continuing Fact: The man who was asked to leave because of holding a silent prayer vigil inside one of the restricted areas had this explained to him when he was asked to leave, so if you could have questioned his intent before he was asked to leave, once he refused his continued presence was objective proof of intent to cause harm and he was only arrested 2 hours after refusing to leave. This is objective reality. It is not an argument I am making. It is just an objective explanation of reality. It's irrefutable. Whatever arguments you think you've made to dismiss reality are irrelevant. Whatever your opinions on reality are are irrelevant. You're just wrong, and your continued refusal to accept reality is pathetic. Stop being pathetic.

This has already been explained. What is pathetic is that you refuse to acknowledge objective reality. There is no way to discuss the issue from there. So either we discuss about what mental issues make you incapable of continuing this discussion, or we chase you out of the room because it is impossible to have a serious discussion with you if you're not able to do so. You have made this discussion entirely personal. It is the only way to continue unless you actually open your mind and accept that you're objectively wrong. Stop being pathetic.

Stop being pathetic.

This was sufficiently explained why that dude standing around silently praying was stopping people from getting abortions. If you still believe the argument to be faulty at this point that is a problem with your reading comprehension. If you can't present a counter argument besides "I say reality is wrong" shut up and stop posting. Stop being pathetic.

Look, I can't help it that you don't understand simple concepts like you don't have access to healthcare if you are intimidated into staying away from all places that can provide you with healthcare. And if you do get access to healthcare at a location, if someone tried to prevent you from accessing the location they infringed on your access to healthcare. This is a you problem. Maybe focusing on access wasn't the most clear way to describe the situation, but "protestors are intimidating individuals into not accessing healthcare." has always been my, it's not even right to call it an argument, it's just an objective explanation of the situation, but that message is what I've been trying to communicate to your willfully ignorant self. In 2023, the maternal mortality rate in the United States was 18.6 deaths per 100,000 live births So uh, it seems you are just wholly unqualified to discuss reproductive health. Seriously, just go away. This is common knowledge among anyone with the least bit of interest in women's rights. You're ignorantly condemning people to death. You aren't treating this issue with the seriousness it deserves, and you have no intention to treat it with the seriousness it deserves, and you have no stake in the issue. Do everyone a favour and just stay silent if you aren't going to put in the effort to educate yourself.

"Person shall be guilty of intimidation if with the intention of forcing someone to do or to abstain from doing something without a valid reason, they use violence or threats of violence; damage someone's property; intimidate that person; persistently follow them; hide objects; stalk or watch the victim." Pretty much every protest ever meets the legal definition of intimidation. Every Anti abortion protest at a healthcare facility certainly does. Intimidating people into neglecting healthcare has and will continue to result in people dying because of it. Get a clue. Your only argument is "I refuse to accept reality. These people are just cowards. There's nothing wrong with intimidating people if you weren't going to actually do anything to them if they walked past you." Which just isn't how reality works. It isn't how the law works. It shouldn't be how the law works. You have no argument other than "Intimidation should be legal." which if that's the hill you want to die on, commit to it, but don't try to dress it up as anything else, that's what you're arguin., I mean, perhaps you can dress your argument up as "Intimidation should be legal as long as it's not violent intimidation.", since it's only the softer forms of intimidation you've openly endorsed, but that doesn't change the fact you fundamentally endorse intimidating people into neglecting their health.