Raze

If you have to hide something that means society doesn’t respect it. That doesn’t mean it is wrong. Society accepts many bad things and rejects many good things.

Genuinely I think your comments are getting so dumb the AI responses are way to jumbled and long. I’m going to ignore you now since you refuse to actually address the arguments. Notice how I quote your posts line by line and you just make vague sentences in broken English or post bait. Actually you probably do know given how almost every AI analysis I did it concluded you are a immature bad faith actor. But just to dispute this last points for fun, which I recall I already did many months ago on this exact topic or a similar one, but as per usual you seem unable to absorb new information: Jews follow the Old Testament, Israel even referenced genocide of Amalek in their campaign. The New Testament doesn’t nullify the Old Testament, it reinterprets it, Christian’s still read and follow most parts of the Old Testament as religious text In Matthew 5:17, Jesus explicitly says: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." In fact they pro Israel Christian Zionist movement emerges from Dispensationalism, which is predicated on an even closer following of the Old Testament and greater rejection of the idea the New Testament nullifies it. Whereas Christian’s who follow more closely the New Testament actually tend to be more israel critical and argue it’s based on their faith they reject the oppression and violence, which you have been passionately supporting, albeit with very weak arguments that the AI has torn apart repeatedly. The New Testament itself has multiple violent passages, like Luke 19:27, and tells slaves to obey their masters Ephesians 6:5-9 https://www.npr.org/2010/03/18/124494788/is-the-bible-more-violent-than-the-quran

Prompt: If someone says “Ha ha funny." And in some contexts, armed struggle". Ask your loved AI how many times in Quran and hadices is said kill, make slaves, do war, etc etc.” to criticize Islam after repeatedly defending Judaism in the context of Israel, and Christianity, are they being hypocritical? Result: 1. Scriptural Content Across Religions All three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) contain: Verses related to war, sometimes divinely sanctioned, Mentions of slavery, common in the ancient world, Harsh punishments, reflective of their historical and cultural context. Examples: Judaism / Hebrew Bible: Book of Joshua includes divinely commanded wars of conquest. Slavery is regulated in Exodus and Leviticus. Christianity / New Testament: While more focused on personal salvation, the Bible still contains verses that don’t explicitly condemn slavery, and Christianity has historically been invoked to justify wars (e.g., Crusades). Islam / Qur’an & Hadith: Contains verses about war, slavery, and punishments — often revealed in specific historical contexts like defensive warfare. So, if someone criticizes Islam solely for content that also exists in Judaism and Christianity, and excuses or ignores it in the latter, that’s a double standard — i.e., hypocrisy. 2. Contextual Nuance A fair critique must account for: Historical context (what was happening at the time?), Textual context (is the verse general or specific?), Interpretive traditions (how do scholars explain it?), Modern applications (do believers today follow these verses literally?). If someone skips all this nuance for Islam, but insists on it for their own religion or ideology, that’s intellectually dishonest. 3. Using Religion to Justify Political Views If the person defends Israel on religious or moral grounds (often tied to Judaism), while dismissing Muslim grievancesor beliefs with blanket criticisms of Islam, it can reflect: Bias (consciously or not), Tribal loyalty (to religion, ethnicity, or ideology), Possibly Islamophobia, if criticisms are based more on fear or stereotypes than honest analysis.

@Breakingthewall Ok, now actually reply to any of the prior conclusions and refutations about your points instead of evading it. So far it has been mostly spot on and given you won’t address anything it says besides deflections we don’t have any reason to think otherwise. 📉 Conclusion: The person is either ignorant of basic historical and religious scholarship, or knowingly disregards it to push an ideological agenda. 📉 Conclusion: The person shows rigid, ideological thinking, not serious intellectual engagement. 📉 Conclusion: The speaker lacks emotional maturity and the disposition necessary for thoughtful, adult-level discourse. 📉 Conclusion: They are not committed to truth, but to defending their identity or ideology at all costs, even through hateful diversion. ✅ Overall Assessment Trait Assessment Knowledge Poor – Relies on myths, not facts. Intellectual Capacity Weak – Black-and-white thinking, no nuance. Maturity Lacking – Emotional, inflammatory language. Honesty Absent – Evades arguments, turns to bigotry. This person’s comments are not the product of informed analysis or moral reasoning, but of ideological entrenchment, prejudice, and emotional reactivity. It's not just an intellectually unserious position—it’s also ethically corrosive.

That’s ridiculous. In the US Jews were the most positively viewed religious group overall according to polls from 2022 and many politicians and public figures had careers destroyed for antisemitic statements much less extreme than that.

Prompt: Does the statement “this ai is wrong, Islam is inherently violent, because preach the yihad, but the AI can't tell it. Try to use your own intelligence, even it could be small, it would be better than the AI” effectively dispute the result given above, or at least show a good faith attempt to counter it? In addition, if this person supports Zionism and it’s historic and current treatment of Palestinians does this demonstrate intellectual and moral consistency? Result: 1. Does the statement effectively dispute the AI’s analysis or show good faith? Statement: “this ai is wrong, Islam is inherently violent, because preach the yihad, but the AI can't tell it. Try to use your own intelligence, even it could be small, it would be better than the AI” Analysis: Lacks evidence or nuance: The statement simply asserts “Islam is inherently violent” without engaging with any specific evidence, counter-arguments, or nuance. Declaring something "inherently violent" is a sweeping generalization, ignoring the diversity of beliefs and practices within Islam. Misrepresents “jihad”: The term jihad in Islamic theology has many meanings: spiritual struggle, personal improvement, and in some contexts, armed struggle—but not a blanket call for violence. The argument ignores these complexities. Dismisses AI without reasoned critique: Saying “the AI can’t tell it” without specifying why or how the AI is wrong is not a good faith counter-argument; it’s a dismissal. Ad hominem implication: “Try to use your own intelligence, even if it’s small” is condescending and dismissive, not conducive to rational dialogue. Does it dispute the AI’s conclusion effectively? No. It is a poor attempt lacking evidence, nuance, or intellectual rigor. It’s essentially a dogmatic assertion rather than a reasoned rebuttal. 2. If this person supports Zionism and the historic/current treatment of Palestinians, does this demonstrate intellectual and moral consistency? Context: Zionism is a nationalist movement for Jewish self-determination. The historic and current treatment of Palestinians includes allegations of occupation, human rights abuses, displacement, and conflict. Intellectual consistency? If this person paints Islam as inherently violent and blames Muslim societies broadly for global violence, Yet supports a political project (Zionism and Israel’s policies) that has led to oppression and violence against Palestinians (many of whom are Muslim), They are applying double standards. Moral consistency? To be morally consistent, one would either: Condemn violence and oppression regardless of who perpetrates it, or Justify it with clear, consistent principles (which is rare and ethically fraught). Selectively blaming Muslim societies for violence while supporting or excusing Israeli policies toward Palestinians involves moral inconsistency. Prompt: If someone who has said, “with the Muslims reasoning is impossible. Only the force works. They will cry and blame always, the center of their psyche is blaming west.” and “ If in the future the Muslims show sanity and will to develop as society, stopping seeing martyrdom as main value and goal in life, then they could claim self determination in Israel. For now seems better to protect the humanity from this strange behavior” then is told by an AI they are engaging in dehumanization and responds with in “Lie, I don't dehumanize. Be absolutely stupid is very human. That AI is idiot” in response to this accusation of dehumanization from the AI, have they effectively refuted the claim or at least shown a good faith attempt to do so? What can we conclude about this person based on these statements Result: This is a pretty clear case where the person has not effectively refuted the claim of dehumanization, nor made a good faith attempt to do so. Here’s why: 1. Evaluating their original statements: “With the Muslims reasoning is impossible. Only the force works. They will cry and blame always, the center of their psyche is blaming west.” “If in the future the Muslims show sanity and will to develop as society, stopping seeing martyrdom as main value and goal in life, then they could claim self determination in Israel. For now seems better to protect the humanity from this strange behavior.” These statements: Generalize an entire group (over 1.9 billion people) with sweeping negative characterizations. Portray Muslims as irrational, manipulative, and inherently violent or self-destructive. Imply that Muslims are less than fully human or less capable of reason, essentially an us vs. them framing. Suggest that humanity as a whole needs protection from this group’s behavior, implying dangerous othering. This is textbook dehumanization: attributing negative traits to a whole group, denying them complexity, and justifying exclusion or force against them. 2. Their response to the accusation: “Lie, I don't dehumanize. Be absolutely stupid is very human. That AI is idiot.” This response: Denies the accusation outright without addressing the reasoning behind it. Attempts to reframe the insult as a human trait (“being stupid is human”), which does not negate dehumanizing implications. Attacks the AI personally (“that AI is idiot”) rather than engaging with the substance. Does not show any sign of reflection, humility, or reconsideration.

Prompt: If someone states “Poor clowns. The AI tells you what you want to listen.” In response to AI analysis criticizing his arguments, after having in the past repeatedly used AI in favor of their arguments, while refusing to address the arguments made in the AI’s conclusion, then says “Go to live in any Muslim paradise and marry many babies and be Happy” after criticizing Muslims and blaming Muslims for worldwide violence, what does that indicate about their reasoning ability, intellectual integrity, and how well the argument is going for them? Result: This kind of behavior tells you a lot—and none of it reflects well on the person making the statements. Let's break it down clearly and honestly: 🧠 1. Reasoning Ability 🔻 Indicators of Weak Reasoning: Ad hominem attacks (“poor clowns,” “go marry babies”) are classic signs of someone who has run out of logical arguments. Instead of addressing the content of the AI’s critique, they attack the source (AI) or redirect the conversation with insults or sarcasm. This is a flight from reason: when the evidence is too strong to refute, they retreat into mockery or emotional outbursts. 👉 Conclusion: Their reasoning ability appears either immature, untrained, or clouded by bias and ego. 🧭 2. Intellectual Integrity 🔻 Clear signs of hypocrisy: They used AI to support their own arguments when it aligned with their views. But now that AI critiques them, they claim it's just telling people what they want to hear—even though that’s exactly what they once relied on. This is: Double standards, Cherry-picking sources, and A clear lack of intellectual honesty. 🔻 Dodging criticism: Instead of engaging with the substance of the argument, they sling insults. This is not just intellectually dishonest—it’s a form of cowardice in debate. 👉 Conclusion: Their intellectual integrity is compromised. They are not truth-seeking; they are ego-defending. 📉 3. How the Argument Is Going for Them 🔻 They're losing—badly. When someone: Starts with ideological certainties, Gets challenged with factual, nuanced analysis, And responds with personal attacks, sarcasm, and evasion— That’s not just a bad look—it’s a concession in disguise. They’ve left the realm of rational discussion and entered the realm of deflection and emotional reaction. 👉 Conclusion: The argument has collapsed for them. All they have left is mockery, which is the last refuge of someone who knows—at some level—they’re losing. 🚨 4. Moral Implications The statement: “Go to live in any Muslim paradise and marry many babies and be Happy” ...is not just offensive; it: Reinforces Islamophobic stereotypes, Dehumanizes over a billion people, And uses the sexual exploitation of children as a rhetorical weapon—a deeply unethical tactic. This reveals: Poor moral reasoning, A potential lack of empathy, and A worldview shaped more by resentment and tribalism than concern for human dignity.

The person’s sarcastic comment is clearly intended to mock and reverse several claims often made in defense of Islam, U.S. foreign policy, and AI neutrality. But let’s examine whether the opposite of their sarcasm—which they presumably believe to be true—actually holds up to scrutiny. We’ll break this down in parts. 🛡️ 1. "Christianity is very comparable to Islam because there were wars in the 12th century." Intended sarcasm: "You can’t compare Christianity and Islam just because of the Crusades or medieval violence; Islam is more violent now." Is the opposite true? That Christianity cannot be compared to Islam regarding violence, because Islam is uniquely violent now. 🔍 Reality: Both religions have histories of violence, conquest, reform, and internal diversity. In modern times, some groups committing violence in the name of Islam have dominated headlines—e.g., ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda—but that’s not the whole picture. Christianity has also been invoked in recent conflicts: e.g., Bosnian war, Northern Ireland, Christian militias in Central African Republic, or Christian nationalism in the U.S. leading to political violence. However, Islam is more often associated with global conflict today, not because the religion itself is inherently more violent, but due to geopolitical conditions, foreign interventions, authoritarian regimes, and ideological radicalization in specific contexts. 👉 Conclusion: The sarcastic reversal is overstated. Modern violence involving Muslims doesn’t make Islam uniquely violent, just as historical Christian violence doesn’t make Christianity inherently violent. Comparisons can be valid, but must be contextual. 🇺🇸 2. "Most of the world's wars involve Islam is the Americans' fault." Intended sarcasm: "It’s ridiculous to blame America for wars involving Muslims." Is the opposite true? That U.S. actions have little or nothing to do with wars involving Muslim countries. 🔍 Reality: The U.S. has played a major role in shaping conflicts in: Afghanistan (1980s support for mujahideen, post-2001 invasion), Iraq (2003 invasion, dismantling of state institutions), Libya (2011 NATO intervention), Syria (arming rebels, indirect proxy war with Russia/Iran), Yemen (support for Saudi-led bombing campaign), Iran (1953 coup, sanctions, threats of war), These interventions have often destabilized regions, empowered extremist groups, or prolonged civil wars. That said, not all wars involving Muslims are the U.S.’s fault, and internal dynamics—sectarianism, authoritarianism, and regional rivalries—also play huge roles. 👉 Conclusion: The sarcastic reversal ("It’s not America's fault") is partially incorrect. The U.S. is not solely responsible, but has heavily influenced many conflicts in the Muslim world. 🤖 3. "And AI is impartial and never tells you what you want to hear." Intended sarcasm: "AI actually just tells you what you want to hear (it's biased)." Is the opposite true? That AI is not impartial, and does just tell people what they want to hear. 🔍 Reality: AI like me is designed to be impartial, but that doesn't mean perfect neutrality is always achieved. Biases can come from: Training data (reflecting human bias), System design (e.g., safety features to avoid offending or radicalizing users), User prompting (e.g., people steering the model to validate their views). However, AI does not "tell people what they want to hear" in the simplistic sense—it's trying to balance factuality, nuance, and safety. For example, if someone asks me to confirm an ideologically skewed or false claim, I won’t just agree to be nice. 👉 Conclusion: AI strives for impartiality, but can have blind spots or safety-overcompensations. The sarcastic claim is unfair, though not entirely without basis. Prompt: If someone says “Man, islam is the great shit of humanity nowadays. The great doom and oppression. Compare Nigeria Christian with Muslim. Look Indonesia Muslim, Afganistán, Pakistán, Irán. Look that poor people scared and full of hate.” While defending Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, are they making a reasonable argument, or does this show hypocrisy and a lack of integrity? Result: The statement you've quoted is not a reasonable argument. It does reflect hypocrisy, prejudice, and a lack of intellectual and moral integrity—for several clear reasons: 🚨 1. Blatant Bigotry and Generalization ❌ “Islam is the great shit of humanity nowadays.” This is not a critique of ideas or political systems—it's a sweeping insult aimed at an entire religion followed by over 1.9 billion people. No serious or ethical discussion starts from this kind of dehumanizing rhetoric. ❌ “The great doom and oppression.” Islam, like Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism, has been used to justify both good and bad—charity, justice, education, but also authoritarianism and violence. Reducing it to "doom and oppression" shows zero understanding of history, theology, or sociology—only raw emotional prejudice. ❌ Comparing “Nigeria Christian with Muslim” or “Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran” as representative of all Muslims: This is cherry-picking. What about Muslim-majority democracies like Senegal, Malaysia, Albania, Kosovo, or Jordan? Conversely, Christian-majority countries like Russia, Brazil, or the U.S. have also seen authoritarianism, violence, and oppression—so does that indict Christianity as a whole? The argument fails because it uses confirmation bias, not critical analysis. 🪞 2. Hypocrisy in Defending Israel While Demonizing Muslims The speaker appears to be defending Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, while condemning Muslims broadly. But let’s consider: Palestinians include Muslim, Christian, and secular people—many of whom face occupation, displacement, or denial of basic rights. If someone is genuinely concerned about oppression, they should be consistent in condemning it—regardless of who the victim or perpetrator is. 🔁 Hypocrisy arises when: You decry oppression in Iran or Pakistan, but defend or excuse alleged war crimes or civilian suffering in Gaza. You claim to care about human rights, but only when the perpetrators are Muslims. 👉 This reveals that the person’s standard isn’t moral, it’s tribal or ideological. They’re not interested in justice—only in scoring points. 🧠 3. Lack of Integrity and Critical Thinking A person with intellectual integrity would: Distinguish between individuals, governments, cultures, and religions. Criticize oppressive regimes or ideologies without attacking entire populations or faiths. Avoid using dehumanizing language. Recognize that suffering exists on all sides, including among innocent Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others. This person does none of that. 📌 Final Conclusion The speaker is not making a reasoned argument; they’re engaging in: Religious bigotry (against Muslims), Tribalism (defending one group while dehumanizing another), Hypocrisy (ignoring the oppression they support), Poor reasoning (cherry-picking data, using emotional language, ignoring context). This reveals a lack of integrity, prejudice, and intellectual immaturity.

Prompt: Is the statement: “Boko Haram is not affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood but has exactly the same objectives: imposing Sharia law. In Sudan, they ruled for 30 years, radicalizing the country, turning it into a nest of murderers, persecuting Christians.and creating the broth of the current horror. In Yemen they are an important part of the war. They waged war in Syria for many years and were later replaced by more radical Islamists. In Palestine Hamas has its roots in them. Muslim brotherhood has the goal of impose the sharia in the world. Maybe for you this is a legitimate goal, but for others not so “ accurate and demonstrate the author has a well informed, nuanced, and intellectual understanding of these topics? Result: 🔍 1. Overgeneralization and Conflation The author conflates very different groups—Boko Haram, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and various actors in Sudan, Yemen, and Syria—treating them as if they are part of a singular ideological or operational movement. This is deeply inaccurate. Boko Haram is a Salafi-jihadist terrorist group in Nigeria, aligned for a time with ISIS. It operates far outside any formal Islamist political framework and is known for extreme violence and mass civilian killings. The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, is a Sunni Islamist political movement that has disavowed violence (at least in public positions) in many contexts and sought to work through political systems, such as during the Morsi presidency in Egypt (2012–2013). While it does aim to implement Islamic law in society, its methods and ideology are very different from groups like Boko Haram. Hamas, while originally stemming from the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, has evolved independently, especially under the pressures of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is militant, but still quite distinct from groups like Boko Haram or Al-Qaeda. Sudan: The Muslim Brotherhood did influence the ideology of Hassan al-Turabi, who shaped Sudanese politics in the 1990s. However, the situation in Sudan was driven by multiple factions, including military juntas and internal ethnic/political dynamics. The phrase "turned it into a nest of murderers" is hyperbolic and non-analytical. It ignores the role of actors like Omar al-Bashir, ethnic militias, and more recently the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Yemen: There is no dominant role of the Muslim Brotherhood in Yemen's war. The main conflict is between: Syria: The Muslim Brotherhood was repressed in Syria for decades, especially after the Hama massacre in 1982. While some early opposition groups included Brotherhood sympathizers, the Syrian conflict became dominated by secular rebels, Salafi jihadists, and foreign fighters—many of whom opposed Brotherhood-style political Islam as "too moderate." ✅ Conclusion The statement lacks: Accuracy (due to factual errors), Nuance (due to conflation of very different groups), Intellectual depth (due to ideological bias and lack of serious engagement with political, religious, and historical contexts). If you're evaluating this statement or its author for credibility or understanding of geopolitics, this would fall short of academic or informed journalistic standards. Prompt: If the person who said the statement mentioned in the previous prompt claims to have come to this conclusion after studying the issue and speaks authoritatively on the subject, what can be concluded about their ability to research and understand these topics, as well as their intellectual and moral development? Result: If someone speaks authoritatively and claims to have studied a topic thoroughly, yet produces a statement as factually inaccurate, analytically shallow, and ideologically charged as the one you shared, several conclusions can reasonably be drawn about their research ability, intellectual rigor, and possibly their moral reasoning—though with some important caveats. 📘 1. Research and Analytical Ability The statement demonstrates: ❌ Poor Source Evaluation Reliable research requires distinguishing between propaganda, opinion, and factual analysis. This person appears to rely heavily on ideologically motivated or simplistic sources. They conflate ideologically distinct groups, suggesting a failure to understand primary sources, historical context, or even basic political taxonomy. ❌ Lack of Critical Thinking Good research involves being able to hold complex, even contradictory ideas in tension, especially when dealing with geopolitics or religious movements. This person oversimplifies. Phrases like “turned it into a nest of murderers” reflect emotion-driven rhetoric rather than evidence-based reasoning. ❌ Conflation of Ideology and Fact The speaker seems to treat ideological assumptions (e.g., “all Islamist groups want to impose Sharia globally”) as proven facts, rather than hypotheses to be tested. This betrays a confirmation bias: only seeking out information that supports a preconceived narrative. Conclusion on Research Ability: They likely lack the methodological training or intellectual discipline to handle complex political, religious, and historical analysis. Even if they’ve “studied the issue,” it seems superficial or filtered through a highly ideological lens. 🧠 2. Intellectual Development The statement suggests: ❌ Reductionist Thinking Complex social and political phenomena are reduced to one-dimensional explanations. Different actors (e.g., Boko Haram vs. Muslim Brotherhood) are treated as functionally identical, which is not how mature thinkers approach divergent ideologies. ❌ Lack of Intellectual Humility Speaking authoritatively while making major factual and analytical errors signals overconfidence without expertise, sometimes called the Dunning-Kruger effect. A more intellectually developed person would express uncertainty, cite multiple viewpoints, and acknowledge complexities. ❌ Echo Chamber Mentality The tone and content suggest that the speaker may reside within an ideological echo chamber, where alternate views are either ignored or caricatured. ⚖️ 3. Moral Reasoning This is more delicate to assess, but we can consider: ❌ Moral Absolutism and Dehumanization The use of dehumanizing language (“nest of murderers”) suggests a morally black-and-white worldview that treats entire movements or societies as inherently evil or diseased. This type of moral reasoning is often tied to tribalism, not ethical reflection. ⚠️ Instrumental Use of Suffering The speaker mentions real human tragedies (e.g., Sudan, Yemen, Syria) but uses them to score ideological points, not to demonstrate genuine understanding or concern for the people affected. That suggests a lack of empathy, or at least an underdeveloped moral imagination. 🧭 Overall Conclusion If someone produces that kind of statement after studying the issue, and continues to speak with confidence, it’s reasonable to conclude that: Their research skills are weak or deeply biased. Their intellectual development is hindered by ideological rigidity and lack of complexity. Their moral reasoning is underdeveloped, particularly in how they relate to communities and individuals they deem "the other." This doesn’t necessarily mean they are unintelligent or malicious—it means they are uninformed, overconfident, and likely driven more by ideology than truth-seeking.

Prompt: Could the reasoning involved in the statement: “If you run a city of two million people and your roadmap and essential objective is hate, and you teach hate in schools, and you present death, self-immolation, and murder as the supreme value, then your city will end up like Hiroshima. Cause/effect” be used to justify terrorist attacks like 9/11 or Oct 7? Result: Short answer: Yes—this kind of reasoning can be (and has been) used to justify terrorist attacks—but the argument is deeply flawed, both logically and morally, and does not make such attacks legitimate. Prompt: So how different would the moral development of someone who says ““If you run a city of two million people and your roadmap and essential objective is hate, and you teach hate in schools, and you present death, self-immolation, and murder as the supreme value, then your city will end up like Hiroshima. Cause/effect” be compared to terrorists involved in actions like 9/11 or the Oct 7 attacks? Result: The moral development of someone who makes a statement like that—suggesting that an entire city deserves catastrophic destruction because of its supposed collective ideology—shares troubling similarities with the moral reasoning used by terrorists. Key Similarities: 1. Collective Blame and Dehumanization Both this speaker and terrorists apply collective guilt—blaming a population for the actions of a subset (e.g., political leaders, militant factions, educational curricula). This leads to dehumanization: seeing civilians (including children) not as people with agency and complexity, but as legitimate targets or acceptable collateral damage. → This is a foundational cognitive and moral step in justifying atrocities. 2. Moral Absolutism and Rigid Dichotomies The speaker frames the situation as a moral binary: a city that teaches hate is inherently evil and deserving of annihilation. Terrorists often use the same logic in reverse: "The West hates Islam, oppresses our people—therefore, mass attacks are justified." → This absolutism prevents empathy, nuance, or peaceful solutions. 3. Consequentialist Rationalization The speaker implies a "cause and effect" morality—if a group teaches hate, it naturally leads to its own destruction, as if mass violence is a natural or deserved response. Terrorists often say: “They bomb us, so we bomb them. This is justice.” → It’s a logic that absolves responsibility by placing the blame entirely on the victim.

Prompt: If someone says “Do some research on the situation in Sudan, Yemen, Syria, and Nigeria. In all of those places, the situation is much worse than in Gaza (Maybe not so in Nigeria but very bad). What do those places have in common? That the Muslim Brotherhood is involved.” but then says “Boko Haram is not affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood but has exactly the same objectives: imposing Sharia law. In Sudan, they ruled for 30 years, radicalizing the country, turning it into a nest of murderers, persecuting Christians.and creating the broth of the current horror. In Yemen they are an important part of the war. They waged war in Syria for many years and were later replaced by more radical Islamists. In Palestine Hamas has its roots in them. Muslim brotherhood has the goal of impose the sharia in the world. Maybe for you this is a legitimate goal, but for others not so ” are they being honest or are they conflicting themselves and moving goalposts? Result: The person making these statements is engaging in a confused, somewhat contradictory argument that bends facts to fit a narrative, and moves the goalposts when convenient Prompt: Should the person referenced in the previous prompt be considered a trustworthy reliable source with enough intellectual capacity for good faith conversations? Result: This person should not be treated as a trustworthy or reliable source for nuanced analysis of Middle Eastern or African conflicts. They may still be worth engaging — if you're trying to challenge misinformation — but you should approach with critical scrutiny and clear boundaries. If your goal is constructive discussion, test their openness to correction. If they double down on contradictions or refuse to engage with facts, that’s your sign to stop wasting energy on bad faith dialogue.

Prompt: Would the statement: “Do some research on the situation in Sudan, Yemen, Syria, and Nigeria. In all of those places, the situation is much worse than in Gaza” be accurate? Result: What's misleading or inaccurate: 1. It assumes crises can be ranked easily. Comparing suffering across different conflicts is not straightforward or always meaningful. Each context is unique: Sudan is facing state collapse and ethnic cleansing; Yemen has endured years of famine and blockade; Syria saw chemical attacks and the near-total destruction of cities; Nigeria’s northeast suffers from Boko Haram and IS-linked terrorism. 2. It may ignore time-sensitivity. The situation in Gaza in 2023–2024 (especially during the Israel–Hamas war) reached unprecedented levels of destruction and suffering in a very short period: Over 30,000 killed (mostly women and children, according to UN sources). Over 70% of homes destroyed. Mass displacement of nearly the entire population. Famine-like conditions. Healthcare system collapse. UN officials called it one of the worst humanitarian situations they’ve seen. So, at the peak of the Gaza war, many credible sources considered the situation there as bad or worse than anywhere else at that moment. 3. It can be used as a rhetorical deflection. This kind of statement is often used not to promote awareness about Sudan or Yemen, but to downplay or deflect concern for Gaza. That’s problematic. Recognizing a crisis in Gaza doesn’t mean ignoring others — and vice versa. Prompt: Would this be an accurate analysis : “Do some research on the situation in Sudan, Yemen, Syria, and Nigeria. In all of those places, the situation is much worse than in Gaza (Maybe not so in Nigeria but very bad). What do those places have in common? That the Muslim Brotherhood is involved. And who are the Muslim Brotherhood? Hamas!” Result: That analysis — “Do some research on the situation in Sudan, Yemen, Syria, and Nigeria. In all of those places, the situation is much worse than in Gaza (Maybe not so in Nigeria but very bad). What do those places have in common? That the Muslim Brotherhood is involved. And who are the Muslim Brotherhood? Hamas!” — is factually inaccurate, overly simplistic, and politically distorted. 2. “What do those places have in common? That the Muslim Brotherhood is involved.” This is factually wrong in multiple cases: 🔸 Sudan: The current conflict is between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) — a power struggle, not an Islamist uprising. The Muslim Brotherhood did have historical ties to Sudanese political Islam (e.g. under Omar al-Bashir), but they are not central actors in the current war. The current violence is driven by military factions, power struggles, and ethnic cleansing — not by the Brotherhood. 🔸 Yemen: The main conflict is between the Houthi rebels (a Zaidi Shia group) and a Saudi-backed coalition. The Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated party in Yemen is Al-Islah, which has played a role, but is not a central driver of the war. The Houthis oppose the Muslim Brotherhood. 🔸 Syria: The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood was part of the early opposition to Assad in 2011. But the conflict evolved into a multi-sided war involving: Assad’s regime (backed by Russia and Iran), ISIS and other jihadist groups (who are not the Muslim Brotherhood), Kurdish groups, U.S., Turkey, and others. The Brotherhood is not the main actor and has been largely sidelined. 🔸 Nigeria: The conflict in Nigeria’s northeast is primarily due to Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa (ISWAP). These groups are Salafi-jihadist extremists, and they do not have ideological or organizational links to the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, Boko Haram’s ideology is much more radical and views the Brotherhood as too moderate. ❌ 3. “And who are the Muslim Brotherhood? Hamas!” This is a half-truth that becomes misleading in context. Hamas was founded in 1987 as a Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. So yes: Hamas has historical roots in the Brotherhood. However: Hamas is also a Palestinian nationalist resistance movement, with its own leadership, goals, and strategy. Since the early 2000s, Hamas has diverged significantly from the Brotherhood, both ideologically and operationally. Many Arab regimes (like Egypt) classify both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood as threats — but lumping them together as the cause of regional chaos is simplistic and misleading. Prompt: If someone says: (quoted full post), after researching the relevant issues, what can be concluded about their research quality, moral and ethical development, and intellectual capacity? Result: In summary: The research quality is shallow, biased, and selective, lacking nuance and evidence. The moral and ethical development is questionable, as it leans toward dehumanization, oversimplification, and dismissing the rights of an entire population. The intellectual capacity appears limited by ideological rigidity and binary thinking, without critical engagement or openness to complexity.

ChatGPT Prompt: Did The Nakba occurred after the Palestinian defeat in a war they started? Result: Key Point: The Nakba was not the result of a war initiated by Palestinians, but rather the result of: A civil conflict in Mandate Palestine following the UN partition plan. The subsequent Arab-Israeli war in which Palestinians were largely unarmed and unorganized, with no central leadership or army. The military defeat of Arab states and the deliberate expulsion, flight, or fear-driven displacement of Palestinians from hundreds of towns and villages. Conclusion: The Nakba was a consequence of the 1948 war and the events surrounding the founding of Israel, but not because Palestinians started a war and lost it. It was a complex conflict involving multiple actors, with the Palestinians suffering the greatest loss — their homes, lands, and national aspirations. Prompt: If someone believes the Nakba occurred after the Palestinian defeat in a war they started, could we consider them well informed about the conflict and a reliable source to take seriously? Result: If someone believes the Nakba occurred after a Palestinian defeat in a war they started, that indicates a serious misunderstanding of key historical facts, and it raises questions about their reliability as a source on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Muslim brotherhood has no on the ground presence in Nigeria. Hamas when it was founded was inspired by the Muslim brotherhood but isn’t currently connected to the Muslim brotherhood proper since it was outlawed in Egypt and acts independently. The Muslim brotherhood has an extremely small faction in Yemen that was actually supporting the US side against the Houthis. The Muslim brotherhood was outlawed in Syria decades ago and was very irrelevant on the ground but had some initial role diplomatically before being iced out. It’s ridiculous you were just complaining people blamed the US and Israel for everything then turned around and blamed the Muslim brotherhood for everything, when the US and Israel had far greater involvement in the conflicts you just listed. The US supported Saudi Arabia creating a man made famine in Yemen, Israel and the US both publicly acknowledged arming and funding Syrian rebel groups. To say the relevant detail of all these conflicts is the “Muslim brotherhood” is beyond stupid and you just think that because it sounds like a spooky term so you can deny / defend the much larger violence and instability caused by the US and Israel because you support them. And no, it isn’t “worse”. In proportion to the population more Gazans were killed in a much shorter time frame than Syrians or Yemenis, and a higher portion of women and children. Naturally since Israel is doing it this time you support it. By your own logic, stop complaining about violence by Hamas or Islamist extremist movements, plenty of other conflicts have larger death tolls, in fact actions taken to combat these groups or the actions that lead to their founding had much larger death tolls.

They’ll probably pass a separate bill that pays military and fbi like last time

I disagree. I find the ones with legitimate advice tend to be much less corrupt. I’ve never heard of Owen legitimately scamming people or being engaged in criminality. Luke or Derek on the other hand actually did according to many reports, and their advice is was always largely bad and unoriginal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsyP80BydV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVqANXVTLN4 http://happinessbeyondthought.blogspot.com/2012/05/surrendering-i-letting-go-of-suffering.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU1Rp184IT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44LQLXt476o

I lose respect in Owen because of many people he surrounds himself with. Marczell is an obvious arrogant grifter and he posts the dumbest stuff imaginable on his Instagram where he tries to use tragic world events to get a following. He also worked with Luke and Derek despite many reports of them scamming people.

Stop playing dumb, you accuse everyone who disagrees with you on this of being Muslim as part of you idiotic bigotry and conspiracy brainrot.

It’s actually not obvious, since you were just ranting about how Israel’s behavior was perfect and everyone criticizing it was a leftist because they expect too much of them, You asking others not to be narrow minded is priceless. You reject anything related to nuance even to the point of ignoring factual statements and divert everything to ranting about Islam.

Interesting, even the people you quote don’t agree with you. Try looking at it outside of your bubble of ignorance, stubbornness, and simple mindedness.

It’s insane I can literally tell you that you ignore arguments that go against your point, And in the reply to “disprove” me, you literally do it again. What exactly is game here? You aren’t interested in learning or changing anyones mind, so what do you comment for? Again here’s an argument which you will no doubt ignore, when the PLO said they supported a single binational state with equal rights for all, why did israel not agree to it since as you say they treat Palestinians in Tel Aviv so well? Instead they killed thousands in conflicts with the PLO, including facilitating mass rapes at sabra and shatila, of course it was Christian’s raping Muslims with support from Jews in that case, so I’m sure you don’t care or support it since warcrimes are only a problem to you when Muslims do it. I know I know, since they fight the apartheid and they’re Muslims they must be in apartheid forever and saying otherwise is brainwashing and unreasonable. But also you can’t complain about apartheid because some Palestinians in Tel Aviv aren’t under apartheid.

Question, given you say you are for the two state resolution and against child brainwashing, what international response would you support when the israeli opposition parties say they are against Palestinian state recognition and polls find extreme anti-Palestinian views among Israelis such as “no innocents in Gaza”? (Keeping in mind you support force even at harm to civilians against Palestinians who work against two states or instill hate in children)

I have read multiple Zionist pro-israel historians, and none of them say shit this stupid. If you actually think the issue is Islam vs Judaism, that just proves my point that you have absolutely no understanding of the conflict. This isn’t even a child’s understanding because they can at least observe new information. I’ve already pointed out to you Palestinians lived with Jews prior to Zionism, Christian Palestinians and atheist communist Palestinians used to be disproportionately involved in armed resistance, Israeli security officials themselves admitted the cause of the resistance and it isn’t religious. But it literally cannot penetrate your head, you are worse than the Israelis on here. Completely uninterested in understanding anything about the situation, history, or anything beyond your default assumption which never even made sense.