carterfelder

Don’t ban me.

I wasn't directing judgment of people expressing no remorse or celebrating Charlie's death toward you. Sorry if it came out that way. I wouldn't consider any of his consistent viewpoints "insane rhetoric." Most of his beliefs and viewpoints are shared by many, not that I'm saying what most or many believe makes something correct or morally good. Where I agree with you is that Charlie did take a risk by saying what many conservatives or free thinkers are afraid to say. He knew he was taking a risk. That's one big reason I admire Charlie, or anyone who isn't afraid to say whatever the heck they want to say.

Yes, Christianity has got some problems, and a whole lot of people do take most of what the Bible says quite literally. Should we celebrate them being killed? Should we show no remorse for them, their family members, friends and loved ones if they're killed? Should we get all emotional when they're killed and say, "they had this awful belief! They had it coming!" I think not.

It sounds like the problem you have might be coming from within instead of out there, my friend.

I think not being able to condemn Hamas is just as disgusting, but I'm not going to celebrate or express no remorse for someone who died and never caused physical harm to anyone else, and who had a family and loved ones.

How immature and pathetic is it to be okay with someone being shot and killed just because they had beliefs you disagreed with? Everyone has the right to think for themselves, and everyone should be encouraged to share their honest beliefs and opinions without having their life threatened or taken away for it. If you want others to believe in what you believe, you need to communicate with those who disagree with you, not celebrate or say "I don't care about" the death of an influencer who shared beliefs you disagree with.

I'm looking up some of the more extreme views and I'm not finding any direct quotes. A lot of these other supposed quotes/beliefs aren't "vile" in any way. You know what's vile? Not letting people have any opinion they'd like to have, as long as it doesn't involve threats, because if we limit people's viewpoints and honest opinions, we don't give them a chance to realize if or when they're wrong in order to learn from it.

What "vile" things do you speak of? Valuing objective reality is not "vile." No, I'm not talking about his Christian beliefs or pro-life stance, which were innocent enough anyways.

"It's worth to have the cost of, unfortunately, some guns deaths each year so we can have the 2nd Amendment." This logic makes perfect sense. Think about auto accidents, for example. As long as we have cars being operated by humans, we will have many deaths. There's always a price to pay for the complex tools we use. Self-driving cars will soon end our car-driving privileges, because it will eventually become safe enough to drastically reduce auto accidents and deaths.

Charlie was most likely talking about Hyper-Empathy. "Hyper-Empathy is when your empathy for others makes you lose yourself by prioritizing the needs of others over yours. This can take the form of abandoning your personal boundaries, perceiving reality in a less objective or non-objective way, or losing energy in the form of pain and exhaustion. The DSM-V labels Hyper-Empathy as a characteristic of personality disorders." Paul Bloom wrote a whole book about this called "Against Empathy."

The man in the video I mentioned isn't the shooter but being investigated. The shooter is still at large.

There's a video of the man who supposedly shot Charlie circling around on X right now. He's being arrested on his knees while saying "I have the right to remain silent." He looks around 70 years old.

Who wouldn't? It's better than sharing an article from a media outlet that doesn't care about objective reality. Grok makes a wide search through the Internet. A single person writing an article doesn't do that, unless they're using AI, or have a lot of time on their hands. You're avoiding the vegan elephant in the room and criticizing my wonderful and helpful use of AI to contribute objective facts to this forum.

I've never heard that claim. That's a wild one.

Grok on today's strike in Qatar: Netanyahu's stated reasoning for Israel's strike on Hamas leaders in Doha, Qatar, on September 9, 2025, centers on retaliation for a deadly terror attack in Jerusalem the previous day, as well as a broader policy shift ending immunity for terrorist figures regardless of their location. The Jerusalem incident involved Palestinian gunmen from Hamas's Izzadin al-Qassam brigade opening fire on a bus at Ramot Junction, killing six Israeli civilians and wounding over 20 others; Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack as a "successful operation." In statements following the strike, Netanyahu described it as "entirely justified," emphasizing that it was ordered directly in response to the Jerusalem attack. He further argued that there is "no more immunity for terror leaders in particular places," signaling Israel's intent to target Hamas operatives even in host countries like Qatar, which has sheltered them while mediating cease-fire talks. Netanyahu also suggested the action "can open the door to an end of the war in Gaza," framing it as a strategic move to pressure Hamas into concessions. Israel took full responsibility for the "precise strike," which targeted senior Hamas leadership but reportedly did not kill key figures, according to Hamas claims. The operation drew international condemnation, including from the White House and Qatar, for violating Qatari sovereignty.

"Musk tho."

Grok: The argument suggests that going vegan has limited impact on climate change because (1) factory farming is just one of many contributors to climate change, and (2) the broader lifestyle of a vegan, including the non-vegan actions of others (e.g., those who manufacture their clothes, cars, or provide services), still contributes to emissions. Let’s break this down logically. Factory Farming as One of Many Contributors: It’s true that climate change is driven by multiple factors, including energy production, transportation, industry, and agriculture. Data indicates that global agriculture, including animal farming, accounts for roughly 14.5% of greenhouse gas emissions, with livestock being a significant portion of that (FAO, 2013). While this is substantial, it’s not the sole driver—energy and transportation sectors contribute larger shares (e.g., energy ~40%, transport ~15%). However, this doesn’t negate the impact of individual dietary choices. A vegan diet can reduce an individual’s food-related emissions by about 75% compared to a standard diet with animal products (Poore & Nemecek, 2018). This reduction is significant within the scope of personal consumption, even if it’s a fraction of total global emissions. Dismissing veganism because it doesn’t address all sectors overlooks the cumulative effect of individual actions. Non-Vegan Actions of Others in a Vegan’s Lifestyle: The claim that a vegan’s lifestyle indirectly supports non-vegan systems (e.g., clothes, cars, banking) has some merit but is flawed in its conclusion. All individuals, vegan or not, operate within a broader economic system where others’ actions (e.g., manufacturing, services) contribute to emissions. However, this doesn’t negate the direct impact of personal choices. For example, a vegan’s choice to avoid animal products reduces demand for high-emission livestock farming, which has a measurable effect. The fact that their banker or car manufacturer isn’t vegan doesn’t directly undermine this reduction—it’s an indirect critique that applies to any individual’s environmental efforts, not just vegans. By this logic, no personal action (e.g., reducing car use, recycling) would matter because others in the system aren’t fully aligned, which is an overgeneralization that dismisses incremental progress. Logical Flaw in the Argument: The argument commits a form of the “perfect solution fallacy,” implying that because going vegan doesn’t solve all climate change issues or align every aspect of one’s lifestyle, it’s ineffective. No single action addresses all causes of climate change, but collective individual actions (like dietary shifts) can drive systemic change by reducing demand for high-emission products. Additionally, the argument ignores that vegans can (and often do) make other sustainable choices, like buying eco-friendly clothes or using public transport, further reducing their footprint. Conclusion: While factory farming isn’t the only driver of climate change, it’s a significant one, and adopting a vegan diet can substantially lower an individual’s food-related emissions (by ~75%). The fact that others in a vegan’s life may not be vegan doesn’t negate this impact—it’s a separate issue about systemic change. Individual actions matter, especially when scaled, and dismissing them because they don’t address every aspect of climate change is logically flawed.

I'll never understand why anyone seriously concerned about climate change doesn't eat vegan. "Switching from a typical diet including animal products to a fully plant-based one would reduce an individual's greenhouse gas emissions from food consumption by approximately 75%. In other words, consuming animal products accounts for about 75% of the climate impact from a standard diet, compared to just 25% for an equivalent plant-only diet." - Grok

Grok: Yes, it’s true that most Swiss people rent apartments rather than own houses, with approximately 58% of residents renting, according to the Swiss Federal Statistical Office, while only about 42% own their homes—one of the lowest homeownership rates in Europe. Several factors discourage homeownership in Switzerland. First, property prices are among the highest in the world, particularly in urban centers like Zurich, Geneva, and Basel, making it difficult for many to afford a home. Second, strict mortgage regulations require substantial down payments, often 20% or more of the property’s value, which poses a significant financial barrier. Third, high interest rates on mortgages, combined with ongoing costs like maintenance and property taxes, make owning less attractive than renting, especially when tenant-friendly laws provide stable, controlled rents for long-term leases. Additionally, Switzerland’s efficient public transportation and stable job market reduce the need to relocate, further diminishing the incentive to buy. These economic and regulatory hurdles, alongside a cultural acceptance of renting, encourage most Swiss to opt for apartments over house ownership.

I asked Grok about Israel and pedos: Why Does Israel Appear to Be a Haven for Some Child Sex Offenders? The issue of Israel being perceived as a haven for child sex offenders, particularly foreign fugitives, comes from a mix of historical, legal, and practical factors. Below, I’ll explain why this happens, addressing whether it’s due to Israel prioritizing a safe haven for Jews or taking time to refine its policies. The situation isn’t about deliberate leniency but rather unintended consequences of policies clashing with enforcement challenges. Key Reasons Behind the Situation Historical Purpose of the Law of Return: Enacted in 1950 after the Holocaust, the Law of Return allows Jews and their descendants to gain rapid citizenship with minimal barriers. This was designed to provide an immediate refuge from persecution. Background checks exist, but they’re not always thorough or timely, so offenders can arrive and gain status before records are flagged. The law excludes those with a "criminal past likely to endanger public welfare," but proving this is tough and subjective, letting some slip through. Extradition Delays and Legal Protections: Israel has extradition treaties with countries like the US, but the process involves appeals, psychiatric evaluations, and dual citizenship issues, which can delay cases for years. For example, Malka Leifer delayed extradition to Australia for over a decade by claiming mental unfitness (later debunked). Some ultra-Orthodox communities shield offenders, discouraging cooperation or enabling integration. Unlike the US or UK, Israel lacks a public sex offender registry, so offenders can blend in during delays. Enforcement Gaps and Broader Context: Israeli officials argue the country isn’t a haven, pointing to extraditions like Leifer (2021) and Jimmy Julius Karow (2020). Reforms, like a 2017 law restricting offenders from child-related jobs, show progress. But critics highlight "systemic failures" in handling abuse cases, including underreporting and inconsistent enforcement. The 2025 case of Tom Alexandrovich, an official released after a US arrest amid murky diplomatic immunity claims, fuels perceptions of favoritism. Globally, similar issues exist—think Roman Polanski in France—but Israel’s unique immigration framework amplifies the problem. Addressing the Questions Trying too hard to give Jews or descendants a safe place? Yes, this is a major factor. The Law of Return’s low-barrier design reflects Israel’s ethos as a refuge from antisemitism, seen in mass immigrations from places like the Soviet Union. Tightening it risks excluding genuine refugees, but this creates loopholes for bad actors. Israeli media and advocates push for better screening without dismantling the law’s purpose. Allowing time and experience to teach how strict to be? Somewhat, but it’s more reactive. Reforms—like the 1970 amendment clarifying eligibility, 2017 restrictions, or the 2022 denial of Baruch Lanner’s citizenship—often follow scandals and advocacy from groups like Jewish Community Watch. Progress is slow due to political debates (balancing Zionist ideals with security) and bureaucracy. It’s less about "allowing time" and more about navigating competing priorities. Conclusion The perception of Israel as a haven isn’t about intentional forgiveness but a side effect of a system built for survival, now grappling with modern crimes. Accelerating reforms could close loopholes while preserving the Law of Return’s intent.

Just sharing this video Tim Pool has recently uploaded explaining the whole Russian smear campaign against him. Tim doesn't like Putin. I won't keep bringing him up or sharing his videos out of respect for Leo's rules here. Sorry for doing so in the past. https://youtu.be/L1BLaRSL0WQ?si=UpuLSHg4idF6Sotx

It should be illegal to smoke anything in public.

Heetlah succeeded in controlling around 90 to 250 million people. His 1938 Weapons Law restricted gun control to loyal followers of his regime.

“To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.” - Adolf Hitler