LukeAlmighty 🇨🇿 @LukeAlmighty@gameliberty.club

@cowanon
You think that's bad, wait till they start blackmailing you into joining some guild.

@cowanon@neckbeard.xyz
Christian when their loved one had 3rd Virgin birth

@cowanon
oh no... I would have to google 3/4 pf them

@cowanon
I don't understand the bingo...

@cowanon@neckbeard.xyz
Sadly, this simple motte-and-bailey strategy seems to be working on the feable minded like Tim Pool.

The word racism was re-defined to exclude what is now called CRT, and CRT is claimed to be so intellectualy challenging, you need PHD to understand it.

But the core of Huwite man bad is still the same.

@newt
And no, I am not making a strawmen.
If a law is created I will refuse to comply.
If cops are send, they will either arrest or kill me.

It is that simple. And this is the message you have to tell to people to understand what a LAW means.

@newt
Oh, I do understand malice. That is not the hard part. But I saw these "smart people" solving differencial equasions myself. And while I do not believe in EQ or other new age shit, inability to think in a layered action/consequence style has nothing to do with your ability to understand abstractions.

There are many inteligences. And people who lack the ability to see chain of actions and reactions are stupid. I am sorry, but I doubt you will change my mind on this topic.

And yes, there are people who believe in mandating the jab. Just in my family, there are 2 believers, and I am not sure, how low should the number of these people get to be insignificant in your opinion.

@newt
No, that is the entire core of the issue.

Dumb person thinks, that the question is:
(Moral) Should people get the jab?

But in fact, what they are advocating for is:
(Legal) Should we lock up/shoot people who refuse the jab for any possible reason?

That is why I say, it is an IQ question. If you can say there should be a law, while a question of the enforcement said law is not triggered in your brain for 1/2 a second required to see the result, you are stupid. That is the definition.

@newt
Well, there we truly disagree.

The concept of legal enforcement is just too foreign for people to understand on instinctual level, and it is never triggered on the intellectual one.

That is why you should demonstrate to people on both instinctual and intellectual level what they are realy saying.

My brother used to say pro-vax shit without hesetation, until I outright said to him, that if he gets what he wants, a fining squad will shoot me. It took THIS DIRECT message for him to get my problem with his "informed opinion".