So you could go point for point for rebuttal but don’t and instead write 5 paragraphs of arm waving and whataboutism - “what about other old institutions” - I don’t care, we’re talking about the church.

The comment I replied to, you said “considerable force for good for centuries” now you want to limit it to 2025?

Go ahead and rebut how millions of lives were lost by actively sabotaging condom use and every other crime I mentioned.

I said they’re an overall negative, anti-human institution with a long well documented history of points to back it up.

I didn’t say “nothing good” has come out, beautiful flowers come out of excrement too.

You held on to the “dark ages” - but skipped over the destruction of knowledge that led to them and you wrote what you consider a rebuttal. So let’s talk about that:

They didn’t systematically keep fuck all.

Some scribes kept some books, the ones they could hide from the church. Most of the old writings of classical authors have been lost.

Between 500-1000AD the Church systematically destroyed classical libraries and learning centers. The burning of the Library of Alexandria and closure of philosophical schools eliminated centuries of knowledge in science, mathematics, and philosophy.

The Church controlled virtually all education, restricting literacy to clergy and limiting curriculum to religious doctrine.

Church prohibited dissection and medical research, leading to the loss of advanced Roman medical knowledge. Illness attributed to sin rather than natural causes, impeding medical advancement for centuries.

The Church burned books, destroyed manuscripts, and executed or exiled intellectuals who challenged religious orthodoxy.

It’s an obscene rewriting of history to thank the executioner for the rivers of blood that fed what came after.

I have no idea what you’re basing this comment on.

The sins of the catholic church are many and global and as large and unforgivable as their wealth and reach and history:

From the very beginning they were antithetical to plurality - soon as they got power first order of business was the destruction of classical Hellenistic learning centres.

Then crusades, inquisitions, colonialism and forced conversions, complicit in slavery, the witch trials, and interference with politics all over the world.

Opposition to human rights, anti-science (dark ages anyone), support for dictatorships, residential school systems targeting indigenous children, and the ongoing sexual abuse crisis with institutional cover-ups.

And their worst crime of the modern era: their response to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s.

Strict opposition to condom use (in fact actively lobbied against condom distribution and sex education) even as HIV/AIDS spread globally - particularly devastating in heavily Catholic regions like sub-Saharan Africa, the Philippines, and Latin America where the Church wielded significant influence over public health policy (as they still do). Millions of infections and deaths directly attributed to this crime against humanity.

But yes, “force for good”.

Don’t worry everyone, this is just their love language.

Has this one done it? or how many such watches in do you get to be happy?

Probably simpler maths than that: the many hundreds of millions that have been flowing from the gulf states and the domestic oil industry can’t compete with musk’s contributions and his terrible polling closed the deal. More money, more better.

The downfall from self inflicted injury will be faster and more severe than anything seen in history.

When two planes love each other very much…

I’m also in possession of original hand-written letters by Jesus Christ himself, inside the original envelope complete with the “par avion” stamp that my neighbour gifted me.

Wondering how long has this been cooking? A year or so ago musk started attacking signal for no discernible reason and recommending telegram instead.

Also “car” - can my local mechanic service it and give it a flying certificate? If not, it’s not a car.

More like a barely road-worthy airplane.

“Where are you coming from?”

…suspect smoking pipe…

“Alright then, keep your secrets”

“Amiable” is not “very friendly” - complete nonsense.

Brill. One of us.

A fallacy matters if it’s central to proving the argument, otherwise it probably doesn’t. Eg Bringing up an anecdote, or a subjective experience as a way of illustrating a point could be said to be fallacious, but is not, if the argument is well supported enough that would stand without it.

I just had an argument where I ended my point with the words “this is a pure could have been:” and added a very likely scenario that may well could have come to pass it some events were different. Obviously it was speculation and not central to the previous argument, but in my estimation likely.

Then other person instead of responding to actual points took the last part and accused me of should’a, would’a, could’a.

Dude, yes! But not the point, also I was the one that pointed it out. The type of person that would explain to a comedian their own joke.

Most people here: Yes, I bought an advertiser’s device, hooked up in a million ways to that advertiser’s services, who’s well known for monitoring every aspect of the life of every person they can, but how dare they monitor this part?

All of it, they’re human estimates.

In this timeline he already killed Trotsky and Che is female (or I can’t tell who the person in the beret is).

My first thought.

I’m not sure it’s a winning argument that’s all.

Most people aren’t political if they don’t have to be, the only time they think of politics when they have to vote or something is taken from them.

To call them the opposite of what you are just because they feel like they are unsure because they haven’t thought about it as a way to shame them into your position is to lose them and play into your opposition’s hands - “these crazy people are calling you Nazis/Communists”.

Two sides can play the centrist card to grab the unsure while driving a different agenda - I don’t see what’s stopping the left.

Eg Most people are not aware of how much damage France is doing in west Africa through proxy colonialism - if you ask them they’ll probably shrug. If you ask them to vote on it they’ll pick someone that seems somewhere in the middle. Are they colonialist oppressors? Seems like a far fetch.

Now try to strong arm them into a position, how do you think it’s going to go?

I’m not trying to cause or win an argument, I’ll stop here.

Seems a bit suspect and authoritarian…

Does it work in reverse? If not, why not?

My first thought was, that’s just GWB’s “if you are not with us you are against us”, with different words.