Anonymous #1 5d

I don’t wish, actually. For two reasons: A: I have proof. B: Wishing would involve wishing that children are raped. Which I don’t wish for! Odd you think I would. Odd you think that’s normal.

23

Anonymous OP 5d

Where’s A?

-4

Anonymous #2 5d

… book with your optometrist. an appointment, clearly, is long overdue.

8

Anonymous OP 5d

That doesn’t mean anything for your original statement lol, if you can even call it that

-4

Anonymous #2 5d

… see my previous statement. or rather, don’t. it’s clear your perscription is outdated

9

Anonymous #2 5d

So either you’re illiterate, or you read that a girl blew her own head off after getting raped by that fucker and don’t care. What the fuck dawg, genuinely

10

Anonymous perry_theplatypus 5d

You’re illiterate, I’m reading the blanket statement in the original comment and that’s about the mentality of a group of people who follow a social ideology. In what world do you live in where that is related to “Point A”. Literally two completely different subjects.

-2

Anonymous #2 5d

Logically, if somebody says that Trump is “all they ever wanted” or says “this is what I voted for” (both statements I run into regularly around here) and he is proven to be a child rapist, the conclusion would obviously be that that is what they wanted. Especially if they stick to it after everything

8

Anonymous perry_theplatypus 5d

That’s not logical at all. If someone says that “Trump is all they ever wanted”, in order to reach the conclusion that what they wanted was in fact the pedo characteristic you would have to ask for more details because that sounds like someone who doesn’t know what they’re saying would say. What is “this”? You would be more accurate in your diagnosis if you asked more questions, so why not be accurate?

-1

Anonymous #2 5d

I agree, almost always someone who doesn’t know what they’re saying. Still a stance people take. And I think the world all is inherently all encompassing. That’s literally what the word means

1

Anonymous perry_theplatypus 5d

Yes, but that’s why you give someone the opportunity to fix their statements by explaining themselves, otherwise, not only do you condemn them, but you take their opportunity to be open. This is to do with anyone, really. Things people are emotionally attached to have a tendency to come out contrived when explained, and often come from lack of understanding. Not everyone is capable of the self-awareness to restate or reevaluate, so that’s why you give them the opportunity to do so.

1

Anonymous #2 5d

Absolutely, of course you do. The thing is you can give them an infinite number of chances to rephrase, or to articulate themselves better, and they’ll just double down and/or call you something derogatory lmao. Like you can only give people so many chances at redemption before you just kinda have to accept that nothing you do will encourage them to actually educate themselves

1

Anonymous perry_theplatypus 5d

Yeah, so allow them the chance. They either get derogatory or you see the nuance meat of their beliefs and the latter you can debate the former you don’t need to respect. My main issue with the statement comes also from other statements in which I know people who are the subject of the statement and it’s usually a negative statement; this person makes judgment on the whole and thus the people I know, which I know the statement to be untrue of, and so I take some offense.

1

Anonymous #2 5d

For the most part I agree with you, I do. In any debate I have I always try my best to find some nuance to argue with in good faith. But at the end of the day, the man is a rapist. And a child rapist at that. If you still support him after everything, that’s almost as bad as outright agreeing with it. Even if they (like most normal individuals) consider it to be wrong, if they still support him, they are supporting the sexual abuse of children. And that I will stand by

5

Anonymous #4 5d

So if every single one of his perspectives was different? That’s such an arbitrary argument to make. I could say the same about Kamala, if all of her perspectives were flipped. That’s not some kind of gotcha lmao. But at the end of the day Trump is still a pedo and a rapist, so probably a similar amount of shit.

6

Anonymous #4 5d

kevin spacey was a lib. so… yes?

6

Anonymous OP 5d

like we cancelled the FUCK outta that guy

6

Anonymous #4 5d

Yes, it’s not a republican or democrat issue. It’s a child predator issue

1

Anonymous perry_theplatypus 5d

What you mean is an indirect support of a behavior that the individual may not actually support, but for one reason or the other disregards it in the consideration of whether or not they “support” him. Support I think also is a bit of a blanket. Supporting policies does not mean the support of the policyholder, as anyone can be a policyholder of those policies. The fault becomes the support of the individual and therefore their behavior, which is where we have what you are describing.

1

Anonymous #2 5d

If someone supports policies but denounces the policyholder, the discussion becomes about policy and not the policyholder. If they support the policyholder despite behavior x, the debate becomes about why behavior x does not take as much precedence in the consideration of whether or not to support, and why. I think if you get to the root of that for those people, you’ll see who supports it and who does not believe it has weight, or who does not support him individually at all.

1

Anonymous #2 5d

of course that’s if you can actually get someone to open up lol

1

Anonymous #2 5d

There is no difference between the policy and the policyholder at this point, he and his administration have irrefutably gone out of their way to cover up and in the case of his AG straight up deny the existence of the files. There is no separating trump and the Epstein files anymore. Even if he isn’t in them he has appointed individuals and directed them to protect the people who are in them.

5

Anonymous #5 5d

Even if that’s how you feel, if you want to engage with someone you’ll have to put it into their terms, which means if they find there is a metaphysical separation, until you change their perception, that’s the medium you have to communicate through (if you can get it to be permeable). Physically the written policy is not the policyholder. But depending on how you associate the two there can be variations.

1

Anonymous #2 5d

I agree, and I think any normal rational person can realize that Trump has both personally and policywise been involved with the Epstein files. The problem lies in the word rational. There are a high number of both conservatives and liberals/leftist that are so single minded that they will not even consider an opposing viewpoint. I should not have to coddle and be berated in order to have a basic conversation with them. Those people need to be told what they are, ignorant...

4

Anonymous #2 5d

Going slightly off topic, we need to reflect and determine how as a country this type of willing ignorance became acceptable to the point where we don’t mock and shun people who behave like that because they are a detriment to civilized society. I’ve have to my regret spent way to much time debating people online who wouldn’t even consider my view no matter how much I broke it down or tried to explain it from the opposing pov. Some people are just bull headed

10