@BladeoftheS Those people should look to their government for answers. We are under no obligation to fill every gap in shithile countries caused by its corruption and integrity.
@Thizlam87@Darkmechx It doesn’t really matter. Forever was never meant to be a clone of Vanilla. Forever is intended to carry the spirit of Vanilla to present day and incorporate everything they’ve learned in the last 2 decades, both good and bad.
@KPASKSWHY Slavery - democrats. Jim Crow - democrats Segregation- democrats. Yet they still cling strongly to the name democrats. Makes sense given that they’re just a bunch of racists and very much fight to keep their wage slaves.
@Lisaunbothered I'd like to remind you that nobody said they had nuclear weapons, but everyone, including Iran, agrees that they were actively working on nuclear weapons. And, the Straight of Hormuz is open, btw.
@ashpraxis_ I'm sure if it was Antifa screaming their chants, or anti-ICE activists, you'd be just fine. You don't have a problem with what they're doing, you have a problem with their message.
@chrisfigliuzzi@Noioso2A@S10Sinner@colonelhogans OK, I realize that you really want these numbers to match your perception, but I can stop that right here. According to the Rockefeller Institute, which only includes mass public shootings, since 1966 there have been 517 mass shootings, with 1,741 killed and 4,480 injured.
@colonelhogans Oh, but you do. You pick the data that is in the proper context to the question. This is something that is always done for every single statistic that is created. Sometimes the data is chosen in order to "prove" one's point, sometimes it's done with integrity.
You have to define "mass shooters" because I'm sure that you're using the most common definition, which is any shooting that has 4 or more victims. That's going to include all of the gang violence, and other events which the general public would not include when they hear the term mass shooter. So, narrow your dataset to political and ideological shootings and let's see your numbers. As someone who has done this in the past, I'm pretty sure you're not going to like the results.
Funny, because y'all had a school shooting on Feb 10 of this very year that killed 6 people.
And, by "paying a fraction of what you do" I'm sure you're not including the extra taxes you pay to have "free" healthcare. Also, let's not forget how long it takes to get simple, and sometimes very important, procedures and tests done.
@nakedpastor Seems like naked pastor should do a little more reading of his bible and a little less reading of leftist ideology. Should we help anyone who is in need? Absolutely, but that "help" doesn't mean affirming things which are clearly forbidden in scripture.
I'm good with it. I'm in a similar boat, so when I need to do a dungeon run, I set something up ahead of time with my guild or other friends so that once I'm in, we're all ready to go. Seriously seems like he needs to find a decent guild that is more than a bunch of people who accepted a guild invite.
Nobody is seriously calling for women to lose the right to vote. Pete Hegseth has removed persons from the military who were unfit for their roles - it's as simple as that, and if it doesn't fit into your DEI view of the world, then I'm sorry, but not sorry.
You seem fixated on the phrase “love your neighbor,” yet you appear to misunderstand what it actually means. Loving someone doesn't mean affirming every decision they make. Sometimes love requires telling someone they're wrong, confronting harmful behavior, and having difficult conversations.
Would a good parent encourage their child to trespass in a neighbor's home and refuse to leave? To steal simply because they want something? To kill someone because that person's existence creates hardship or inconvenience? Would a good wife encourage her able-bodied husband to neglect his responsibilities to his family simply because he'd rather spend his days fishing?
Of course not. Love isn't unconditional approval, and disagreement isn't inherently hatred.
That's the fundamental problem with your interpretation of “love your neighbor.” It's simultaneously too broad and too narrow: broad enough to excuse behavior you approve of, yet narrow enough to exclude expressions of love that challenge your beliefs.
You've effectively redefined love as ideological agreement. But genuine love sometimes requires saying things people don't want to hear. If your definition of love leaves no room for correction, accountability, or moral disagreement, then you're not describing love. You're describing affirmation.
@HennaOnboard Muslims killed an estimated 10-20 million during the Muslim conquests, during a time when the population was much, much lower than it is now. Who does that? Oh, I guess I answered my own question.