Lots of vtubers following me Hii!

Ahhh, sweet delusion

I have no words...

The party of understanding science everybody

Eliminating the thing that causes Down Syndrome does not remove people with Down Syndrome from existence. It just makes it so that they don't have Down Syndrome.

Repeating yourself like this with a retarded take is hearby called: Retard Looping.

🚨Morning Case Alert🚨 This one is brutal, and I cannot wait to see how feminists use mental gymnastics to defend this one! It is my opinion that the parents need criminal charges as well. (TLDR: A woman babysat a baby and wounded its genitals. The parents left the twin with her while they got healthcare for their severely injured son. She then killed the other child while the parents were away again. If she pleads innocent, trial starts 10/1) Victim recognition: Ari Katz - (Recovered) Leon Katz - 🕊️ Nicole Virzi - June 2024: Nicole Virzi, a clinical-psych PhD student, is visiting her friends in Pittsburgh. Earlier on the 15th, she’s with the six-week-old twins, and she flags an injury to Ari’s genitals — blood in the diaper, red and swollen, per the complaint. Parents take Ari to the hospital; prosecutors say she caused that injury. While they’re gone, she stays with the other twin, Leon, in Shadyside. That night, she calls 911 about him. He dies a few hours later from head trauma. She’s arrested the next morning, charged with homicide plus assault/endangerment on both boys (Allegheny County, Judge Rangos), says not guilty, and she’s been in jail since. By late August, the DA’s already going for the death penalty. Her lawyers try to keep her police interview out; in February 2026, the judge says no, it’s coming in. Defense has floated that they’re still talking plea; no public insanity plea that I’ve seen. Next up: motions Sept 28, then trial set for Oct 1. who was Ms. Virzi? ✅ A clinical-psych PhD student who researched depression, trauma, and eating behavior. ✅ She reportedly admitted to having anxiety, depression, and an eating disorder in the past, as stated in custody. Is killing and injuring your friend’s kids post partum too? seems like a phd student would know 🤷🏼‍♀️

CORRECTION: SHE WAS THE RAPIST! The wikipedia page itself exposes it. THE TRUTH: she raped a 15 yo child. He fought back. She made a false rape accusation as retaliation. The raped child was jailed, and the female rapist is now walking free, still fantasising about her victim.

Spread word. Utah is not safe.

It's China, there's a reason no one is helping. Someone did once and the "victim" sued him after blaming him for their injuries. They won. Now nobody risks getting their life ruined by being a good Samaritan.

You still haven’t explained to me why you expect a fetus to live in a place it’s not designed to survive in when you don’t expect yourself to survive in a place you wouldn’t survive in.

Insane circular logic If you claim the fetus has rights, actually no it doesn’t, so it has no rights So I can have all the sex I want and kill babies because it’s not alive? What the fuck

Trump’s “34 felonies” explained in detail. Now here’s the ammo you need for the next time some braindead liberal screeches “34-count convicted felon!” This is actual footage of a sitting JUDGE testifying in Congress about how completely botched and illegal this case was: • Jury instructions were a mess • Misdemeanors illegally elevated to felonies • The whole process was weaponized garbage The judge’s own words under oath: “I have very little doubt that this matter will be reversed upon appeal.” SHARE THIS. SAVE THIS. Use it as verified, irrefutable evidence the next time they try that line. #34Felonies #Weaponization #CorruptJudge #Trump FOLLOW ME, THE NEXT DROP WILL BE SHOCKING

When he said wars, the only ones in his mind were WW1 and WW2 😂

Her commentary exposes a critical confusion around the concept of "rights," and it's very important, but it'll take me a second to get to the point: 1. Women generally conceive of "rights" as privileges or entitlements, i.e., things they're allowed to do. Thus, more "rights" means more "freedom." This concept of rights can defined as "being without constraint." The primary influence here is Rousseau. 2. Men, on the other hand, tend to think of freedom as a state of undisturbed accountability, i.e., "being without restraint," i.e., no one is preventing them from acting but they're fully accountable for the results. The primary influence here is Locke, and it's more prominent in the U.S., whereas the other variant is more common elsewhere. The meaning of this is that men tend to associate rights as a restriction on others. Women tend to think of rights as an obligation on others. So, the statement "I have the right be safe walking the streets at night" is nonsense to a man. He thinks he has the right to walk at night and he has the right to defend himself from attack, but the claim that he has the right to be "safe" is incoherent. To a woman, the statement means "it is the duty of others to ensure that I am able to do this thing." Another example is "I have a right medical care." This means "someone is obligated to provide this to me" in the Rousseauean sense. In the Lockean sense, it means "It is morally permissible for me to use violence to acquire healthcare." So, to a man, rights are a static thing that define their relationship to coercive force, i.e., under what conditions they can use force or it can be used against them. To women, in general, rights can increase. You can get more of them. This is why a constant political concern is "expanding rights." They're using the state to compel more and more people to service their list of expectations. The result of all of this is that men and women have radically different emotional responses to rights because: 1. To women, this means the more rights they have, the more people are working to satisfy those rights. More rights = more provision, security, and so on. It means more people are working to take care of them. Rights are the means by which they manufacture of collective/public husband or father. 2. To men, their rights are static but whether or not they're respected by the state is in question. Thus, "more rights" means more domains in which the state isn't interfering, which means FEWER people are working on his behalf and more is on his plate. Thus, emotionally, "more rights" to women feels good, whereas "more rights" to men feels burdensome or even scary. For women, "rights" are an unqualified good. More is always better because it has no relationship to their personal aptitude or character. For men, rights mean more is on their plate and they might actually not be capable of handling that, and so limiting or restricting rights accordingly could be to their own benefit. Rights, to a man, depend on capacity. This is why children don't have full rights, along with dementia patients, and so on. Your rights correspond to your capacity. But not to women. Rights are a measure of how much you're being supported by the community. Thus, children and even animals have "rights." It's a measure of care and support, and has nothing to do with capacity. So this woman says that white women have so many rights, this is what she means. She means that Western society is largely oriented towards taking care of white women, and said women don't appreciate that. It has nothing to do with the Lockean notion of rights as defining a moral constraint and duty. This is why women hold on to the notion of voting as a "right" because if it is a right then it's necessarily good because it's "more." If we just started saying "your duty to vote" instead of "your right to vote," fewer women would be as emotionally attached. A huge amount of politics in a liberal democracy is explained by this concept.

We learned No means No. We understood the assignment and left y’all alone.