aptidude187

6 ms·

1.
by aptidude187 5y ago
The number 1 choice of criminals is still and will always be fiat. It doesn't require any sophisticated tools or knowledge and is accepted everywhere. The 'crypto is for criminals' narrative has been debunked so many times, b
2.
by aptidude187 5y ago
Same for traditional banking + if you happen to be a journalist ( or whatever ) living under an oppressive regime, they can freeze your assets on a whim, because you criticised the wrong people. If someone still prefers trusting a central a
3.
by aptidude187 6y ago
>I linked an article on Wikipedia in response to someone’s question. It’s hardly Chinese propaganda. Really? What kind of absurd bait and switch is that? I am talking about your propaganda right above. You are omitting years of oppressio
4.
by aptidude187 6y ago
>You're really going to double down on the idea that the youtube comment section is some bastion of intellectual greatness? No, I have never described it as some "bastion of intellectual greatness", but as place where peop
5.
by aptidude187 6y ago
>And "What The Bleep Do We Know" made tens of millions of dollars (which is worth way more then 62k likes, but instead millions of people paying to watch it). It's still a load of horse crap. That's again a terrible c
6.
by aptidude187 6y ago
>I'd suggest you look at how documentaries like "What the Bleep Do We Know" and "The Principle" are created out of editing together unrelated emotionally impactful set pieces and out of context statements from au
7.
by aptidude187 6y ago
Well if people like you spread pro ccp talking points then I see absolutely no reason why he shouldn't repeatedly post the evidence dismantling your propaganda. The absurdity is that China's reign is a literal reign of terror and
8.
by aptidude187 6y ago
You'd be better off not shilling for the ccp by attacking the validity of the video with petty remarks instead of specifying what exactly you are missing sources for. Most of the content was from well known research and is visible dire
9.
by aptidude187 6y ago
>If it is possible, by a simple intellectual process, to make the choice to renounce religion, it can then not possibly be integral or essential to your identity. That's completely antinomic. You either don't understand those w
10.
by aptidude187 6y ago
>The fact that apostasy is possible and exists, in France or elsewhere, is precisely the proof that religion is not 'essential' Straw man. No one denied that apostasy is possible and exists. The claim was that for some religion
11.
by aptidude187 6y ago
>It almost feels like you're being misunderstanding and misquoting on purpose. Says the guy who responds to a fraction of the arguments and makes absurd arguments expecting to be taken seriously. >Genuinely voluntary apostasy, pu
12.
by aptidude187 6y ago
People can succumb to societal pressure and change parts of their identity, doesn't change the fact that it can be a part of their identity. Out of all points made you pick a single one out and make rubbish arguments. You are not worth
13.
by aptidude187 6y ago
>You're understanding of french values and society, especially of Laïcité [1], couldn't be farther from the trust. My understanding of the french values is based on evidence, on the things I see and experience and based on the
14.
by aptidude187 6y ago
Why is it ok to force kids to remove their hijabs but not ok to force them to do <insert horrible thing>. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scarf_controversy_in_F...
15.
by aptidude187 6y ago
Exactly, now we need schools in Britain to respect women more, instead of persecuting them for wearing skirts that are 'too long'. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jan/12/school-thr...
16.
by aptidude187 6y ago
>As a French who went to french public schools, I take exception to that, as it is totally false and offensive. Last time I checked the french people couldn't care less about something being 'offensive' or not, since it&#x
17.
by aptidude187 6y ago
It works perfectly well. The only thing that stands is your bias.
18.
by aptidude187 6y ago
Thanks for clarifying. I still don't see your point. Fact is that the hyperbolic statement that one is punished for 'just existing' is false. The arguments dealing with that are quite simple & concise, so what exactly are
19.
by aptidude187 6y ago
> jedimind wrote the response I'm quoting. No confusion. I disagree, much confusion. I can't see any hyperbole in the statement you quoted.
20.
by aptidude187 6y ago
>In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind who you are defending wrote You are really confused, it was "LatteLazy" who made the hyperbolic statement, not jedimind. >So a discussion of acting on it non-pub
21.
by aptidude187 6y ago
I am only responsible for what I state, not what others (mis)understand. AGAIN, it was in reference to the hyperbolic statement that the root comment made about being punished for just 'existing'.
22.
by aptidude187 6y ago
>Furthermore the law doesn't interfere with what's private. If that indeed was to mean "it's fine as long as you do not get caught", that's a pretty pointless argument when discussing laws Wrong again, I sta
23.
by aptidude187 6y ago
>Nothing is bizarre about that question. Something can be illegal in public, but legal in private - meaning that even if evidence of it is discovered or published against any of the parties will it's not punished. Nonsense, so it&#x
24.
by aptidude187 6y ago
> I'm afraid no amount of appeal to the evils of moral relativism are going to be enough to convince me that homosexuality is legal in most countries where the judgments of sharia courts are routinely enforced by the government. Tha
25.
by aptidude187 6y ago
>He seems to have a definition of "in private" which essentially renders his statement tautological. Of course the law can never punish anyone for a crime that isn't detected Interesting change of rhetoric after being call
26.
by aptidude187 6y ago
I really love John's presentations. His candidness and passion make his talks not only compelling, but also entertaining.
27.
by aptidude187 6y ago
> The article below contains a long list of cases where courts determined peoples sexualities and punished them Can you cite one from your linked article that fits your classification and contradicts his argument? I couldn't find on
28.
by aptidude187 6y ago
He explicitly wrote: "Furthermore the law doesn't interfere with what's private nor is it allowed to breach the individual's privacy. Someone who doesn't wilfully disrupt the social order should have no problems in
29.
by aptidude187 6y ago
> All the OP pointed out was that this person had strong ties to Bangladesh, both in heritage in business, No he didn't, can you quote that part for us please?
30.
by aptidude187 7y ago
>Well for one, they rely on figures from Chinese reporting, which I assume you wouldn't trust. These are propaganda articles for domestic consumption after all, and according CCP propaganda logic, would be over inflated to look good

More ›