Dear Betty, a mean socialist is making me look stupid.

Maybe I should have a talk with Betty

This is what a socialist will do for you, when you get scammed by your employer:

Zohran forces Doordash to pay $131 Million
only registered users can see external links

You are showing your ignorance with everything you say.

The United Nations was created in the aftermath of the Second World War,
and in 1948, just after the Holocaust, it adopted the Genocide Convention, establishing genocide as an international crime and committing states to prevent and punish it. (to prevent another holocaust)

In September 2025, a UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry, established to investigate violations of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, concluded that Israel had committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

In short; the UN, established in the aftermath of the Holocaust, to prevent atrocities like genocide, has a Commission of Inquiry that concluded in 2025 that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

For stupid people; The people who the world has picked to decide
what is a genocide, because of the holocaust, have decided that Israel
is doing a genocide.

The Glorious Birth of Trump TV and the End of Fake News!

Comrades, citizens, and patriots! Rejoice! Today, our benevolent and all-seeing Commander-in-Chief has liberated the airwaves from the treacherous, trembling clutches
of the corporate media snakes! With a single, magnificent stroke of the executive pen,
the imperialist fabricators of CNN, the fiction-peddlers of MS NOW, and the microscopic pests of Politico have been cast out of the White House complex into the cold outer darkness where they belong.

For years, the enemies of the state dared to accuse our supreme leadership of creating "state media." How beautifully we proved that every accusation is a confession by the wicked to hide their own sins. They cried "propaganda" while weaving webs of deceit,
but today, we proudly embrace the truth because we have seized the means of information.

When the coward networks; ABC, CBS, NBC, and even the weak-kneed Fox News,
staged their pathetic, treasonous boycott and refused to film our leader, they thought they would blind the nation. How foolish! Our brilliant administration simply bypassed their archaic, unpatriotic infrastructure entirely. Behold the birth of Trump TV, a flawless,
100% state-funded, state-controlled, and state-sanctioned beacon of pure, unedited reality.

Why allow independent journalists to ask disrespectful, fact-checking questions, when
the State can provide you with the absolute truth directly? Why suffer the chaotic friction
of a multi-voice democracy when a singular, perfectly curated government broadcast
can bring us total harmony?

As our infallible leader ascended the podium to broadcast directly to the masses, the fake journalists outside wept as they realized, "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause." And oh, how we applaud! We clap until our hands bleed, celebrating the magnificent death of that messy, outdated relic called democracy. Let freedom ring
from a single, centralized White House server.

Long live Trump TV! Long live the unfiltered, unquestioned voice of the executive branch!

OFFICIAL SOURCES AND DOCUMENTATION REGARDING GENOCIDE ALLEGATIONS:

International Court of Justice (ICJ)
As the highest judicial body of the United Nations, the ICJ initiated formal legal proceedings against Israel under the 1948 Genocide Convention following a case filed by South Africa, which multiple nations have since legally joined.
ICJ Official Case Page:
only registered users can see external links

UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry (COI)
In September 2025, this independent UN commission concluded in a formal report that Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip.
OHCHR Press Release:
only registered users can see external links
UN Question of Palestine Portal:
only registered users can see external links

UN Special Rapporteur Reports
The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories issued a formal report titled "Gaza Genocide: a collective crime" classifying the situation as genocide.
UNISPAL Report Registry:
only registered users can see external links

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967". Authored by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, the document concludes that Israel's widespread practices of custodial and non-custodial abuse meet the legal threshold for genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention.
only registered users can see external links

International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS)
The largest global professional organization of genocide researchers passed a formal resolution declaring Israel's actions as genocide.
only registered users can see external links

Tracker of National Recognitions and NGOs
Dozens of nations and humanitarian platforms have issued diplomatic recognitions, declarations, or formal legal briefings regarding this classification.
Country Recognition Tracker:
only registered users can see external links

List of Accusing Organizations:
only registered users can see external links

In July 2025, prominent Israeli human rights organizations published extensive medical and legal investigations. B'Tselem released its landmark report "Our Genocide," pointing to a coordinated attempt to destroy life-sustaining conditions, while Physicians for Human Rights Israel (PHRI) independently concluded that the systematic dismantling of Gaza's healthcare system meets the criteria of genocide under international law.

B'Tselem - Official Report "Our Genocide":
only registered users can see external links

B'Tselem & PHRI Joint Press Release:
only registered users can see external links

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP)
only registered users can see external links

Amnesty International Coverage:
only registered users can see external links

Stop listening to the criminals who are committing the crimes and start listening to organisations who are resposible for defending international laws.


You are the liar here.

Thank you for holding up a mirror and providing the exact clinical description of your own behavior throughout this entire thread. This is a textbook case of psychological projection; you are accusing me of the exact traits you are currently defaulting to, because you cannot handle the reality of your own intellectual bankruptcy.
Keep diagnosing yourself, and keep screaming at the mirror.

Saying "You know nothing about me", but then coming up with this,
is the height of projection.

It won't surprise you that I have something to say about this.

We can agree or disagree that children of a young age can show signs of gender dysphoria from a young age. What I don't agree with, is his batman fighting crime as a kid analogy, because NO ONE agrees with doing anything permanent to children with gender dysphoria. That is Political Weaponization. Literally ALL the 'gender affirming' operations that are done on children are for cisgender individuals or to address intersex variations, rather than for the surgical transition of transgender youth. Do you understand what that means? That is specific for 97% to minor breast reduction procedures, which are performed on cisgender adolescent males to treat gynecomastia, development of breasts on boys. Some girls are born with something that looks like a small penis. That are most of the other surgeries that are done on children. The rest are very rare other malformations, but NONE of those operations below the age of 15 are for trans children, NONE.

There have been some very rare cases of trans surgeries after the age of 15, for extremely clear cases, relating to children who show physical signs of gender dysphoria too, but the restrictions were already extremely tight, and it's not being performed anymore, because doctors are afraid of ending up in prison.

It's dishonest propaganda, to purposefully misrepresent the data, to say that parents
and doctors are turning boys into girls and girls into boys.

Do you want boys to be be ashamed to be in the dressing room with other boys,
because they cannot have their breasts removed? That is the harmful result of this
Political Weaponization. This guy probably didn't intend to do that. I'm sure he believes
the lies too, and is angry about it. I would be angry too, IF it was true, but it isn't.

How would you feel if I accused right-wingers of tattooing children with swastikas?

Illegals cannot vote. People like you espousing Great Replacement Theory is exactly why I take an interest, because you're repeating 1930s Germany's politics.

American Reacts to "Why the US is Losing All of Its Smartest People"
only registered users can see external links

Your baseless claims of antisemitism are an attempt to associate me with hate. Let me be unmistakably clear: critically dissecting the destructive policies of Israel and the actions of Donald Trump is not hate. I oppose their actions because they objectively make the world a worse place, not out of animosity toward any group of people. The reality is that while you try to brand me with that word, you blindly support a leader who fueled the party with selective hate, division, and exclusion.

You claim that 'no party is God' and that you only follow the U.S. Constitution,
yet your defense is that you vote for Trump because you are 'reading his heart' and crediting him with altruism. Donald Trump has spent decades in the public eye proving through his behavior, his history, and his own words, exactly who
he is. To ignore a mountain of objective, lifelong evidence just to rely on 'reading hearts' reveals a catastrophic lack of judgment. By substituting reality with pure wishful thinking, you just admitted your entire political worldview boils down to a simple emotional rule: if it feels good to you, it must be true.

Your lazy idea, telling me to 'Vote for Hillary' perfectly exposes that exact mindset; if it feels bad to you, it must be all the same. You are completely clueless about actual political ideologies. Hillary Clinton is a centrist, corporate establishment politician; she is not even remotely a socialist. The fact that you think a socialist would naturally support her, shows your entire political worldview is just a reflection of uncritical echo chambers and partisan propaganda.

You resort to false accusations, cheap rhetorical pivots, and total silence when challenged, because you are both intellectually and emotionally bankrupt.
Your latest response provides perfect justification for why I called you delusional before; you are completely incapable of answering a single factual question or facing reality. You have completely abandoned objective facts to live in a fantasy world. Keep repeating your script to yourself; you will only humiliate yourself more by trying to confront me.

It is common decency not to call someone a liar without a good reason. Being a 'political junkie' just means wanting to be thoroughly informed. I follow Dutch politics because I am active here, and U.S. politics because it affects the world. I care about what is true; you clearly don't, which is why you are comfortable remaining uninformed.

Your 'summations' about Iran and Israel were a complete logical failure. You challenged me to use introspective reasoning to justify morality, but the moment I did, you panicked and deflected to extraspective geopolitics. I answered your challenge extensively and you couldn't find a single gap. Phart at least had the capacity to target my base axiom—the only time I rely on introspection. You base your entire worldview on introspection in its worst form: 'it feels good to me, so it's true.'

You are the one operating in bad faith, and I have two concrete reasons to call you a liar:
1. You refuse to answer how you logically bridge the gap between your personal belief in empathy and altruism, and the actual character and actions of Donald Trump. You ignore this question because you know you cannot justify it.
2. You claim you are 'educated,' yet you went completely silent when asked what you studied and at what level. Mentioning your 'Judaen upbringing' is not a substitute for an actual education, and you have shown absolutely zero proficiency in any relevant subject.

I keep asking that one question because your deflection into complaints about 'interrogations' and 'jury trials' is the clearest proof of your inability to answer it. It is completely on you now to show that you actually have the intellectual capacity to justify your worldview, rather than hiding behind cheap rhetorical pivots and fake moral superiority.

You claim Putin thinks this is prime time to attack next targets, but that completely ignores the reality on the ground. Russia has burned through an astronomical amount of its own military resources, equipment, and manpower in Ukraine; they are in no position to spark a wider conflict.

The only reason Russia is trapped in this position is because Ukraine was given the weapons to fight back and strike hard. Nothing weakens Russian expansionism more effectively than continuing to support Ukraine to inflict maximum damage. It is a grim reality, but the meat-grinder consuming Russian forces is actively dismantling their
long-term military capabilities.

Unfortunately, the Russian public is kept in the dark by state propaganda. The only way
to truly stop Putin is to ensure the devastating costs of his war become impossible to hide at home; only when the Russian people clearly see the consequences, will internal pressure finally build against his regime.

You have a major misconception about how our system actually works. We never had 'free' healthcare. For decades, we had a highly efficient public national health insurance system (Ziekenfonds), which everyone paid into through a small, affordable monthly premium. It was simple, collective, and cost-effective.

The financial strain only started when right-wing politicians forced the privatization of our healthcare system in 2006. Once private insurance companies took over, premiums skyrocketed, corporate overhead increased, and an expensive bureaucratized market was created. A public system is simply much cheaper for ordinary citizens than a market-driven one.

Furthermore, the claim that our public spending on healthcare is what ruined our military budget is factually incorrect. Ironically, the exact same right-wing political parties that pushed to privatize our healthcare were also the ones who aggressively cut and hollowed out our defense spending for decades. Our lack of military buildup wasn't caused by funding public social care; it was the direct result of right-wing austerity and budget-cutting.

I don't blindly oppose everything Trump does; I look at the objective geopolitical outcomes. For instance, putting pressure on Iran and standing up to China's economic overreach are necessary actions, especially since both regimes are actively funding and supplying Russia's war effort. My criticism isn't about the need to counter Iran or China;
it is about his chaotic and unstable methods.

Instead of building a united front, his approach is inverted; he is hostile toward historic friends, while being remarkably friendly toward greatest enemies. Our adversaries are playing this game much smarter; while Trump is busy alienating long-standing democratic allies over transactional deals, Russia, China, and Iran are actively consolidating their own alliance to exploit these fractures in the West.

We should be working together and building collective strength, rather than tearing each other apart. Unfortunately, Trump has convinced a large part of the American public that your allies are just 'freeloaders' exploiting the US. That narrative is a destructive lie; it reduces vital international solidarity and shared security to a transactional market deal. When you trick people into viewing cooperation as a liability, you play right into the hands of regimes like Russia and China. True strength doesn't come from turning your back on your partners; it comes from building global stability together.

With so many outright Jew-haters on your side, you cannot claim neutrality while running interference for them.

You claim you are not left or right, but 'in the origin, the center.' That is
a convenient lie. We see it all over social media and online forums; everyone who brands themselves a 'centrist' magically ends up completely up Trump’s ass. You aggressively defend everything he does and attack everything a Democrat has ever done. That does not make you a centrist; it makes you a partisan who lacks the courage to own their label.

When I bring up documented history, you just claim I 'misunderstood.' Yet, when I press you for details, you never correct or clarify anything; you just repeat yourself. That failure to explain proves I understand
your position perfectly.

The worst antisemites, the people walking around with shaved heads chanting 'The Jews will not replace us,' are consistently voting for your candidates. If you truly stood in the 'center,' you would be just as repulsed by these associations as I am. Instead, you dodge, deflect,
and claim 'nobody is perfect,' which is disgusting; especially since you keep trying to brand me as an antisemite in multiple posts just to deflect from the literal neo-Nazis on your own side.

Aligning yourself with a movement that platforms Holocaust deniers is not a minor imperfection; it is a moral failure. If you want me to believe you are in the center, start acting like it, by holding Republicans accountable, instead of making excuses for the inexcusable.

Wait, I'm going to get some syrup for you.

I will not be silenced, and certainly not by false accusations of 'hate.' There is a fundamental difference between critically dissecting an ideology and hating a person. If you cannot see that distinction and choose to resort to personal attacks,
it only highlights your inability to engage in a substantive debate.

As for Phart: he is a grown man, perfectly capable of speaking for himself and deciding whether he feels mistreated by me. I understand why you might look to him for validation because you share a similar political outlook, but Phart is vastly different from you. He is not arrogant, rude, or insulting. He is much more patient, uses fewer cheap rhetorical tricks, and he can take a hit just as well as he can hand one out. Even his arguments are far more coherent. I am certainly not pushing him away; in fact, I look forward to crossing swords with him for a long time to come, because he often asks very good questions.

You wonder why I continue to write to you if I think you are so wrong. The answer
is simple: I am a political junkie, and I deeply believe in the value of public debate. Just as religious people go door-to-door to preach their truth, I do the same as a socialist. My drive is not hate; it is the conviction that debates must be grounded
in facts. When someone shouts an opinion based entirely on misconceptions, I see it as my duty to correct those misconceptions. Once we are arguing based on accurate facts, I have absolutely no issue with us disagreeing. You are on this forum sharing your vision too. Why should I have to justify myself to you for doing the exact same thing?

You accuse me of lacking 'ideas' and only conforming to 'ideologies.' That is psychological projection. You are the one refusing to engage with the concrete framework I put forward. I have presented a comprehensive library of structural ideas: from the evolutionary tension between hyper-individualism and deep empathy, to the concept that Universal Human Dignity must be the foundational blueprint for intentionally designing environments where cooperation can thrive over tribalism, and my pillars of Equality and Solidarity. I asked society’s core question: 'You are here, you are human, what do you need to thrive?' You completely ignored all of it. Instead, you retreated into a dogmatic, self-serving ideology, claiming your way of thinking is 'superior' and 'over my level of understanding' without providing
a shred of substance to back it up. A real idea stands open to reality and critique;
your approach is just a defensive shield.

I will give you credit for one thing: your challenge to apply more 'introspective reasoning' was interesting. It is just a pity that you immediately threw in the towel when I did exactly that. You consistently dodge direct questions. You hide behind the claim of being 'educated,' yet whenever I ask about your field of study or level, there is nothing but silence. That makes your condescending remarks about things being 'above my level' rather laughable. At this point, I am genuinely wondering whether your refusal to respond to my arguments is a matter of unwillingness
or simply inability.

The biggest risk to Israel's continued existence right now is its own behavior.
By turning away former allies and ignoring international frameworks, the current leadership is isolating the country and creating severe long-term security risks.
Even in the United States, their closest ally, a majority of the public no longer supports Israel's current actions, with overall favorable views dropping to historic lows. Pointing out that an aggressive strategy is alienating its global partners is a rational analysis of a self-defeating policy.

Your defense completely negates the reality of self-defense. Jewish people and Palestinian people both deserve a safe place to live, but Israel spent decades fuel-injecting the hatred of the states around them by treating Palestinians as second-class citizens in an apartheid system and evicting them from their homes. As the dominant military power in the region, Israel controlled the actions, the policy, and the systemic results that followed for generations. Now, the current leadership is using a horrific terrorist attack as a blank check to wipe out the Palestinian population and confiscate their land.

Look inside your own library for a moment, since you claim your worldview is built entirely on faith, empathy, and altruism. Tens of thousands of children are being killed in this conflict. Is any geopolitical state worth this number of dead children?

What is a state anyway? It is just a line on a map, run by groups of people fighting over competing ideologies. If you truly stand for empathy, how can you be more altruistic toward an abstract political concept than toward actual, flesh-and-blood children? You cannot claim to hold a moral system based on compassion and then actively side with the dominant power structure that had the keys to stop this cycle for decades.

The truth is, your moral system based on God is just a system of picking favorites. You are operating on the hidden premise that the lives of one group of children are inherently worth more than another group simply because of their ethnicity or religion. That has nothing to do with faith or compassion; it is just tribalism.

My moral system doesn't pick favorites. A child is a child, and universal human dignity applies to everyone equally, regardless of what side of a border they were born on. If your morality requires you to value a line on a map or a specific tribe
over the lives of thousands of children, then your library is completely broken.

You are tying yourself in knots trying to use logic to prove that logic doesn't matter.

First, you tell me that my view on God is an "extraspective" analysis because it asks for external logic. You explicitly state: "God's not logical man... God is based on faith."

But you are completely missing the point of the life story I shared with you.
My analysis of religion didn't start with complex external logic; it started with simple, child-like observation from within my own library. As a child, I noticed that the stories about God were told with the exact same conviction as the stories about Sinterklaas, yet there was even less evidence for God. When one made-up story collapsed,
the other one did too. That was an internal, introspective realization.

Furthermore, your examples make zero sense. You ask for physical evidence of infinity to try and prove that things can exist without logic or evidence. But the alternative to believing in God isn't "believing in infinity"; they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Even if they did, your logic is flawed; infinity is a mathematical concept defined precisely by pure logic, set theory, and deductive proof. It isn't a matter of blind faith.

Your example about Beethoven composing the Moonlight Sonata fails for the same reason. You claim it wasn't logical, but music theory, harmony, acoustics, and composition are deeply rooted in strict mathematical logic and structural patterns. Beethoven mastered those logical rules before he ever put pen to paper. You are confusing the emotional effect of art with the actual process of creating it.

You suggest that I should become humble and ask how I can be a better person
for a better tomorrow. That is exactly why I focus on reality, analysis, and solving
root causes. Pretending there is a supernatural plan behind the ugliness of the world does nothing to improve it. Fixing things requires real human effort, finding the thing that is broken, and replacing it with something that works.

You keep telling me that I lack parameters in my library for sound reasoning, but your own parameters are completely contradictory. You can't lecture me on faith, tell me that God is completely separate from logic, and then use terrible logic about math and music to try and win an argument. If you prefer to find your happiness in a story that conflicts with reality, that is your choice. But do not pretend that an illogical library gives you a superior foundation over sound reasoning.

You completely dodged the question, and you are violating your own rules.

You explicitly lectured me to stop being "extraspective" and start being introspective. So, I did exactly what you asked. I gave you an evolutionary, structural framework for universal human dignity and explicitly challenged you
to find the logical gaps in it.

Instead of showing the intellectual courage to address my points directly,
or backing up a critique with an objective assessment from a top LLM (AI),
as I suggested, you completely ignored the challenge.

The moment I met you on that level, you panicked and did a complete 180.
You jumped outside yourself to grab a purely "extraspective" crowd statistic and a political story about Saudi military bargaining. By your own exact definition, you abandoned your heart and your empathy to hide behind external news stories. You are doing the exact thing you accused me of doing.

First, you tried to hide behind an election win, claiming "look how many people connected with him." That is a logical fallacy called the ‘Appeal To Popularity’. By the way, your math is completely made up, because he won 77.3 million votes, not 90 million; but even if it were 200 million, popularity is NOT a moral argument. You are just using the crowd as a shield.

And you are trying to hide behind Saudi foreign policy. Brokering a defense alliance between nations to ward off rockets is transactional geopolitics and shared tribal fear; it is NOT altruism. By celebrating a system where entities are only "worth bargaining with" when they have military utility, you are endorsing a hyper-transactional ideology. This completely contradicts your own stated worldview of faith and compassion.

You cannot lecture me on introspection and then run away into external foreign policy the second the conversation gets tough. Stop changing the subject and address my points directly. AGAIN: How do YOU logically bridge the gap between your personal belief in empathy and altruism, and the actual character and actions of Donald Trump?

The human value proposition comes from inside me, that’s why it’s called ‘introspective’ reasoning. You call me out in this one instance of ‘introspective’ reasoning, and not Guess_Who for doing nothing but?
I did explain: “My preference for reasoning is logical, but logical reasoning
can only approach a basis. That made me search for a foundational premise.
No foundational premise can be mathematically proven by logic alone.”

Every moral system is ultimately built upon an axiom, a foundational assumption that is accepted as true without proof. Because logic alone cannot generate human values or duties out of thin air, it requires a starting input. An axiom serves as this undeniable starting point, or the "ground floor," of a philosophical system. If you do not accept the initial axiom, the entire moral framework built on top of it loses its justification. If you strip away every single axiom, you inevitably land at Moral Nihilism; the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or wrong; functionally it means the absence of morality. People like Guess_Who say that atheists are immoral, but this is a Non Sequitur fallacy, it confuses the source of morality with the capacity for morality. You don’t have to be a nihilist, when you are an atheist, you just pick any other axiom that bases a moral system.

Here are the primary axioms that all moral systems rely upon:
CATEGORY --- FUNDAMENTAL AXIOM --- SOURCE OF MORAL DUTY
Experience --- Suffering = bad; Well-being = good --- The internal state of sentient beings.
Authority --- Higher Power = the law --- The will or structure of the transcendent.
Purpose --- Essence = destiny --- The realization of natural human excellence.
Interaction --- Society = necessity --- The logical rules of reciprocity and peace.
Intuition --- Moral facts = self-evident --- Direct intellectual insight into reality.

Guess_Who’s morality is reportedly based on the Authority category.
My morality (humanism) is based on the Experience category.

Guess_Who has the larger burden of proof, because he claims to know what rules God imposes on people.
I’m just saying that I value my life, and I am pretty sure that other people do too.

You were making the classic utilitarian and economic value argument, but you are fundamentally confusing instrumental value (usefulness) with intrinsic value (inherent worth). You claim to believe in the Purpose Axiom, when you say "Most of us are taught that life has value... a human given Life can blossom"; acknowledging that human life has a unique, built-in natural potential. But then you shift to a radical Economic/Utilitarian Axiom, which is based on the Interaction Axiom. You maybe think that this is purely logical, but it isn’t. The economy we live under and the money it uses is just an agreement to facilitate cooperation. There is a whole slew of axioms attached to that value system. A few numbers stored in a computer's memory or written on a piece of paper have no intrinsic value; they only possess the worth that our moral system attributes to them.

You are also contradicting YOURSELF, because you take a ‘pro-life’ stance against abortion. A fetus, zygote, fertilized cell has ZERO economic or transactional value, yet you claim it has ‘worth’. You place its value above the bodily autonomy of the person carrying it in the womb. You think bodily autonomy is important, because you defend the right to refuse vaccinations. You also very much support the right to defend yourself. On which categories do you base all those opinions? Let’s just focus on you claiming that a fetus, zygote, fertilized cell should not be killed:
• Are you saying “It’s a sentient being and it wants to live?” (Experience)
• Are you saying “God says so!”? (Authority)
• Are you saying “It needs to live, just because it can!”? (Purpose)
• Are you saying “A fetus has value because of a Social Contract”? (Interaction)
• Are you saying “The value of an unborn life is a Self-Evident Truth”? (Intuition)

Do you just value the life of the unborn, or can we agree that you value your life, I value my life, so we all have value? Do you have ‘transactional value’? Only recently, you spent a significant amount of money to save yours. Was your life worth more than that sum of money? I think your value is higher than what you are able to contribute, I would miss you if you were gone. The value of a piece of art is more valuable than the materials that it’s made off. That’s a supply and demand value. DEMAND is a manifestation of human desire, appreciation, emotion, and meaning, which is based in the Experience axiom, or of its usefulness, which is based on the Interaction Axiom. Everything that you consider ‘cold hard logic’ still has a basis in some form of moral system. If we lost it tomorrow, we would all just lay down and wait until we expire.

I like a challenge, so lets convince you that the ‘person that has chosen to waste that valuable life by living on the street doped up’ has value:
• Experience: A homeless addict is a conscious, sentient being who feels pain, cold, and despair. Because the capacity to suffer is the ultimate metric of moral relevance, human dignity is fixed by their sentience, not their productivity.
• Authority: If human worth is a sacred gift bestowed by a Creator, it is absolute. Declaring a person worthless based on their economic output is theological arrogance, you are overriding God’s baseline assignment of dignity with a corporate spreadsheet.
• Purpose: Human worth is anchored in our built-in trajectory toward natural human excellence. An addict retains their value because they possess the fundamental blueprint of a human life; even within their flaws or limits, their purpose is to achieve the best flourishing possible. By claiming they are a permanent loss, you deny the reality of recovery and actively steal their purpose, ignoring humanity's moral duty to help them realize that excellence.
• Interaction: The social contract is a safety net, not a corporate transaction. If a person has "negative value" simply because they consume more than they produce, then newborn babies, the elderly, and the disabled are also liabilities; a transactional view that destroys the rules of reciprocity and peace, turning society into a cattle ranch rather than a civilization.
• Intuition: You demand rigorous economic proof before granting value to a living adult on the street, yet you demand zero proof when asserting the value of an unborn fetus. Human worth is a self-evident truth; if you require people to pass an efficiency test to earn it, you are practicing accounting, not morality.

I did not pose all the arguments as my own opinions. I laid them out to show that your pro-life, pro-gun, and anti-mandate stances already prove you value things far beyond mere dollars and cents. You are actively choosing axioms like Authority, Purpose, or Intuition to defend the unborn, self-defense, and bodily autonomy. That shows that you do not support your radical Economic/Utilitarian Axiom, and even if you did, that is also a moral system based on an axiom or even several.

Even an economic system that doesn't care about human value still cares about something. It cares about efficiency, systemic survival, and aggregate optimization. It places the 'health of the market' as the highest good. That is, by definition, a moral framework. It has an ultimate value that it worships: the preservation of the machine over the parts that build it.

The problem is, your framework completely eats itself. An economic market only exists because human beings invented it to help them survive and cooperate. The market was made to serve humanity; humanity was not made to serve the market. When a system begins to demand that the humans who created it, including people who are disabled, elderly, or temporarily struggling, must sacrifice their own well-being and declare themselves 'worthless' for the sake of the system, the logic falls apart.

A tool that destroys its own creator to keep itself running is a broken tool. By agreeing that you have 'negative value' simply because you cannot produce a profit right now, you are defending a framework that has lost its mind. It is self-defeating on all fronts: it destroys the rules of reciprocity, it rejects the very human desires that drive demand, and it turns a cooperative safety net into a meat grinder. You don't have to apologize to a spreadsheet for existing; the spreadsheet is supposed to be working for you.

So? Then I shouldn't care that a president who controls the largest military in the world is associating with self-professed NAZIs, white supremacists and holocaust deniers? That's not an argument, that's a dodge.

People on your side are singing a "Heil Hitler" song, from a guy who ran for president, and actually got 60,000 votes. The current president, said that he and Kanye West have been friends 'a long time'.

Don't forget:
Nick Fuentes (Mar-a-Lago dinner, 2022)
David Duke (2016 campaign endorsement controversy)
Tucker Carlson (Regarding the platforming of Nick Fuentes, 2025)
The Proud Boys ("Stand back and stand by" debate comment, 2020)
Charlottesville "Unite the Right" Marchers ("Very fine people on both sides" statement, 2017)

The worst antisemites, the people who are walking around
with shaved heads chanting "The Jews will not replace us!",
are voting for Republicans, not Democrats.

You claim your reasoning is based on 'moral correctness,' 'empathy,' and 'altruism' from within, yet your response ends with a vitriolic wish for my death. This does not compute. Calling for compassion while telling someone they are a useless waste of oxygen who deserves to rot is a massive logical and moral contradiction.

Furthermore, labeling someone 'antisemitic' simply for demanding an end to a genocide is not an introspective moral argument; it is a cheap tribal shield used to avoid actual justification.

If your moral philosophy is truly rooted in deep empathy and universal human worth, read my other post carefully. Let’s see if your 'moral correctness' can withstand the test of Human Dignity, Equality, and Solidarity, or if it is just a cover for selective tribalism. I await your coherent, logical critique of my framework.

I have called you 'delusional', I have not in a long time called you stupid or accused you of low IQ. That's because I don't think you have a low IQ. ChatGPT doesn't think you have a low IQ either, but when I ask it to assess your texts for logic, it finds gaps between your premises and your conclusions.

As an example; you have said many times now that your world view is based on moral correctness, empathy and altruism. Then you are saying that Trump is the best president ever. There should be a logical connection between the first and the second. I have asked you to explain that logical connection many times, but you keep claiming or explaining moral correctness, empathy and altruism, without connecting that with either the character of Donald Trump (introspective) or the actions and consequences of the actions of Donald Trump (extrospective).
The whole world can see how Trump behaves, what he is doing and the results of what he is doing. His approval rating now hits historical record lows, so the American public sees it too.

If you read my 'life story', then you can see that my introspective process has been going on since early childhood. I have questioned what is good and what is real for many decades. My preference for reasoning is logical, but logical reasoning can only approach a basis. That made me search for a foundational premise. No foundational premise can be mathematically proven by logic alone. People have been searching for it for as long as humans have the ability to do so. I ended up with a foundational premise that is actually MORE introspective than yours. You base yours on something OUTSIDE yourself, a god, deity, creator, or a mind behind the laws of the universe, and then claim 'Faith' in that. You propose that this demands 'Empathy' from you. Am I correctly summarizing your propositions?

I do not find anything like that. There are of course laws to the universe, and there are properties to the universe that allowed life on this tiny spec of dirt, for a short time compared to the universe scale of time. I see no agency associated with that. Space is incredibly hostile to life and life on our planet is very fragile. You see some glorious destiny in our future, I see the raw reality of a fragile human nature that frequently fails, but also holds the keys to its own survival through connection. Evolution (or our history, if you reject that) equipped us with two competing survival mechanisms:
• Hyper-individualism/tribalism (fear, greed, hoarding resources for the self)
• Deep empathy/cooperation (solidarity, altruism, community building)

The dominant political ideology in the US operates on the premise that "Success is a reflection of individual grit and superior capability, completely divorced from societal infrastructure or collective effort. Consequently, wealth and power are absolute entitlements, while poverty or failure is judged as a personal moral failing." This is a hyper-individualistic and tribalistic ideology, because it creates a ‘Tribe of the Successful’. This system resolutely rejects empathy and solidarity. Cooperation and altruism are based on the evolutionary reality that we are all vulnerable and need one another to survive. I reject that hyper-individualistic, tribalistic ideology, and I want humanity to focus on its other survival mechanism.

To shift our collective focus toward our other survival instinct (empathy and cooperation) we have to realize that this is not just a moral choice; it is an active design choice. Because our brains naturally default to fear and tribalism under stress, we have to intentionally design environments that allow our cooperative software to run.

When I introspect on this, I look at human vulnerability at its root. My father only survived as a baby because a greenhouse grower, who was also a resistance war hero, saved the lives of several starving children. My father wouldn't have survived another few days otherwise. He experienced hardship and exploitation, but his generation built a stable life because the working class organized collective infrastructure to fix those systemic problems. Reflecting on this, along with my lifelong drive to find root causes, forced me to realize that empathy cannot just be a passive feeling; it must be constructed as a structural reality.

Human Dignity is the absolute starting point. It is the philosophical floor, the foundational premise upon which the entire survival instinct of deep empathy and cooperation is built. Without a baseline belief in universal Human Dignity, any attempt at cooperation or solidarity will inevitably collapse back into tribalism.

Here is why it must start and progress from that understanding:
1. Human Dignity (The Foundation) - Every human being possesses intrinsic worth simply because they exist. It is absolute; it cannot be earned through "grit," and it can never be lost through poverty, sickness, or failure.
2. Equality (The Recognition) - We must recognize that the person sleeping on the street, the immigrant crossing a border, or the striking worker has the exact same internal depth, capacity for suffering, and right to exist as you do.
3. Solidarity (The Action) - The entire purpose of economics and politics shifts to the collective. Wealth, technology, and infrastructure are no longer trophies for "superior" individuals, they become shared tools meant to serve and protect everyone.

The Core Question: When we combine these three pillars, the foundational question of society shifts from a conditional, market-driven query into a universal human one: "You are here, you are human, what do you need to thrive?"

I challenge you to find any logical gaps in this framework. I expect coherent arguments, not dismissive insults or word salad. If you claim this is weak or incorrect, back up your critique with an objective assessment from any top LLM, just as I have done with your arguments, or show the intellectual courage to address my points directly.

Moral correctness requires a moral philosophy with a clear normative framework.
I have tried asking you to explain yours, but all I got is word salad.

I see you use backwards reasoning; you want to believe that Trump is a great leader, so you look for arguments to justify that belief. If you started from the principle of 'altruism', as you always say, then you should come to the conclusion that Trump is the worst president ever, because 'altruism' is the last thing you can find in his character.

You say you are educated. OK, what did you study, and at what level?

You have a point on the introspective vs extrospective reasoning. However, when it comes to morality, how can you not include the world around you? Morality indeed comes from within, but you cannot only consider intent, because the results of your actions are what matters to other people. That you mean well, doesn't matter if they suffer from your actions.

I could not make sense of this sentence: "You are inclined to be extraspective using logic, propaganda and to divert deviating from balanced heart of the topic.", so I asked AI, which says: "This sentence is confusing, grammatically awkward, and likely AI-generated or poorly translated, but we can still extract its core meaning." "In plain English, it is trying to say: "You tend to focus too much on external arguments, logic, and manipulation, which distracts you from the actual heart of the matter.""
OK, maybe, or you tend to focus too much on internal arguments.
Explain why you think one is more valuable than the other.

Iran and Saudi Arabia both hate you and Israel with equal passion, they only have different strategies. Don't forget that most 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. They are playing your president like a fiddle, with their money, but you cannot trust them with nuclear technology any more than you can Iran.

You were actually reaching out here, so I will ignore the personal attacks and hostility right now. However, count the insults in my last post and then in yours.
Can you be INTROSPECTIVE on this issue?

That lump of a Tesla motor looks solid as a rock.
I'm very surprised that the guy has worn out so many.

It looks like the motor usually wears out faster than the battery. They can have a life of up to 500,000 miles. This one guy has driven his newest battery pack for 620,000 miles (1 million km) and the battery still retains 85% of its original capacity.
only registered users can see external links

That is certainly something to take into account.
In the Netherlands, someone working behind the counter at a fast food restaurant (such as McDonald's, Burger King, or KFC) generally earns the statutory minimum wage or the minimum rates set by the Dutch Hospitality Collective Labor Agreement (Horeca-cao).
For employees aged 21 and older, the statutory minimum hourly wage as of July 1, 2026, is set at $ 17.29 gross per hour (Ђ 14.99). This translates to a full-time monthly salary (40 hours per week) of approximately $ 2,997.36 gross per month (Ђ 2,598.27), which corresponds to approximately $2,702 to $2,737 net.

The president and party you defend associate with self-professed NAZIs, white supremacists and holocaust deniers. You don't care.

The most popular senator in the US is Bernie Sanders.
There is an onslaught of socialist candidates winning elections.

In your country, people are now ready for socialism more than in my country.
Of course they see the failures of capitalism much more clearly.
The US is quickly turning into a dystopian hellhole.

This:

Under the Constitution, a president can be impeached for:
1. Abuse of power (occurred several times)
2. Corruption (occurred several times)
3. Obstruction of justice and Congress (occurred several times)
4. Defying the courts (occurred several times)
5. Political retaliation (occurred several times)
6. Election interference (occurred several times)
7. Personal gain (occurred/occurring continuously)
8. Undermining the Constitution (occurred several times)
9. Mishandling of classified documents and national security secrets (occurred several times)
10. Violating the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses (occurred/occurring continuously)
11. Systematic financial and business fraud (occurred/occurring continuously)
12. Severe personal misconduct and defamation (occurred several times)
13. Treason* (no other president of the United States has come as close to meeting the legal definition of a domestic insurrection through his actions)

*Note on Treason: Treason strictly requires either aiding a foreign power during an open military conflict, or actively waging an armed insurrection against the United States. In the criminal indictments regarding January 6th, the Department of Justice chose to charge specific statutory crimes, such as obstruction of an official proceeding, rather than constitutional treason, due to the different evidentiary standards required by law.

The evidence is all transparently documented in courts across the US,
so you don't have to ask me for it.

Not everything I say is SUPPOSED to contain a message.
I was explaining MY reasons for MY points of view.
That's NOT evidence or justification, it's a life story.
I'm not attacking any points you made with it.
Unless the gun story steps on your toes.

When you provide your reasons for YOUR points of view,
you treat it like it is evidence for everything you say.
You think that a definition (accurate or not) is evidence.
I only provide a definition to correct straw-manning.
That's the difference between you and me.

Bribing people to win the election, with money they desperately need

VS

Bribing people to protect themselves and the country, with a hamburger

I see how you could think that these this are very similar (Trump vs Biden)

Shell National Recommended Fuel Prices in the Netherlands today:
Euro 95 (E10 Regular): $11.75 per gallon (Ђ2.690/liter)
Euro 98 (E5 Premium): $12.71 per gallon (Ђ2.910/liter)
Diesel (B7): $11.97 per gallon (Ђ2.740/liter)
LPG: $5.46 per gallon (Ђ1.250/liter)

Absolutely delusional!
And repetitive too.

Did Putin just try to kill Boris Johnson?

only registered users can see external links

This could have been the moment the Ukraine war exploded into a direct confrontation between Russia and the West.

A Russian drone struck a train near the Ukrainian-Polish border only minutes after a diplomatic train carrying former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt and other senior European figures had passed. Former CIA Director David Petraeus was still at the station on another train. Ukrainian railway officials say it is highly probable that the diplomatic train was the intended target.

Nobody was killed. But if the timing had been different, a Russian strike could have killed senior European political figures and one of America's most prominent former intelligence chiefs. The resulting crisis between Russia and the West could have been enormous, with the potential for a dangerous escalation.

And perhaps the most disturbing question is this:
Why is almost nobody talking about this?

The drone missed its potential target by minutes. The consequences of a hit could have been almost unimaginable.

How close do we have to get to a catastrophe before the world starts paying attention?

You disagree with yourself. You cannot tie your 'altruism' catchphrase
to ANY of your opinions.

I KNOW, MAKE A FUCKING POINT!!!

This is you:
"Sea otters hold hands while they sleep so they do not drift apart from each other
in the water, but they sometimes hold hands with a lifeless companion for hours, because they cannot bear to let go.... Therefore socialism BAD!!!"

I have read all your points, but they suck. You give absolutely no justification for any
of your statements. You do that for a reason; you have no justification.

Come off your high horse and accept that you do name-calling even more. You call me an antisemite every other post, for rightly pointing out that murdering and starving women and children to steal their land is genocide, which I don't say every other post, but you still keep repeating, for no good reason.

You want me to listen and react to you, but you don't do that yourself.
You want me to include evidence and links, but you don't do that yourself.
You keep attacking the person or a straw-man, but never my actual opinions.
And every accusation you make of me is a confession about yourself.

He would just take it as evidence that all wealthy people are brilliant.

The headline makes it sound like the government has discovered
$6.5 billion that was stolen. That is not what the document establishes.
At the time of the announcement, 455 people had been charged, not convicted. So even the characterization of every dollar as “fraud”
is legally speaking, an allegation at that point.

$6.5 billion is about 0.12% of total U.S. health-care spending for one year,
if the number was true. Find me any system that has a lower fraud rate.
Look into Trump's businesses, that have fraud as THE business model.

By the way, not all of those 455 people are people consuming care.
90 are doctors or other licensed medical professionals. The other ~365 defendants include business owners, executives, marketers, pharmacists, operators of health-care companies, and other alleged participants.

The Department of Defense has failed its annual department-wide financial audit every year since these audits began in 2018. The 2024 audit was its seventh consecutive failure. 50.3% of the Pentagon's assets are unaccounted for. Do you think that only 0.12% of that is fraud?
Do you now want to eliminate your Pentagon?

If that were true, you could have sued them for discrimination.
The answer is NOT less disability benefits, but MORE.
The fraud argument is abused to not provide ANY. It's a lie.
They keep pointing to people who don't deserve it, to not give any to YOU, who DOES. You were tricked into supporting your own abuse.

Suppose a hospital has a problem with people faking symptoms
to get treatment they don't need. Would you conclude that the hospital
should stop treating sick people?

Obviously not. You'd say: distinguish the sick patients from the people abusing the system. However, they are telling you that ALL those people
are faking it, just so they can close the hospital and save a lot of money.

I am saying; it's a lie, there are surely people faking it, but that doesn't justify closing the hospital. Fix the damn problem! It's not that difficult.
And I rather have a few fakers, than turning away actual patients.

Trump controls the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court.
When is he actually going to FIX some problems, to help YOU?
Did Elon Musk not eliminate all the waste, fraud and abuse?
How long can they lie to you, before you start noticing?

I'm not talking about a socialism-communism takeover.
You are in the complete OPPOSITE situation.
It's like you are eating nothing but meat and then you are saying:
"You cannot survive on just vegetables, so don't bother me doctor!".

China isn't socialist or communist, it is state-capitalist.

You keep misusing the term 'socialism' the same way lying governments do.
The word "socialist" contains the root word "social" (from the Latin socialis,
meaning "companion" or "ally") for a very specific reason: it was invented to be
the direct polar opposite of individualism. It means an economic system based on cooperation, mutual aid, and direct worker self-management. There is no cooperation, mutual aid, and direct worker self-management in China, they have state-control.

By doing that, you are lying to yourself. You are using the lie that they use to sell you rugged individualism for the working class and state sponsorship of the wealthy,
turning you into the slaves that you say you don't want the people to be.

He keeps misusing the propaganda definition of 'socialism' to accuse me of supporting authoritarianism and exploitation. That's dishonest. We might disagree completely,
but you know that I don't support that. I support expanding democracy, personal freedom, equality (up to the point of equity), and all sort of public programs for healthcare, education, housing, and a social safety net for people who are UNABLE
to work. Isn't it 'altruistic' to take care of people who are unable to work?
So, why do you keep agreeing with him straw-manning my position?

"exceed the minimum"? People are DYING from not being able to afford healthcare.
Isn't the minimum, that you need to SURVIVE? If not, define the minimum, please.
And then explain why that is 'altruism', which is his whole thing, pretty please.

Try asking ChatGPT: "Can you asses this text on cognition?" and copy/paste his text.

Dimension ........................ Impression
Abstract/conceptual thinking: High
Idea generation: High
Associative connections: High
Logical structure: Moderate–low
Evidence/justification: Low
Nuance: Low–moderate
Ability to generalize: High, but overgeneralizes
Metacognitive awareness: Unclear
Emotional regulation in writing: Low–moderate
Precision of language: Low–moderate

"This passage demonstrates considerable complexity of thought, but the quality
of the reasoning is uneven."

Then try the following: "Can you make a list of all the points he is actually making, without filling in for him with your knowledge, and then assess all those points for logic. Maybe you can score those points."
He gets an average score of 3/10.

Try it with any of my texts too. It does require a text of significant length.

It doesn't happen on a children's program, people have common sense.
You won't get damaged from some naughty words or some nudity.
Just because it's allowed, doesn't mean that it happens all the time.
The average American show contains more bad language than most of ours.
We just don't have a list to sanction people for.

Dutch people are direct, without the need for profanities.
There are some reality shows with vulgar people on it.
These programs are announced with a warning for bad language,
so people will know to change the channel. The system is called 'Kijkwijzer' (literally meaning "Viewing Indicator").
only registered users can see external links

Unlike violence or fear, coarse language does not automatically result in a program receiving a higher age rating (such as 12 or 16) under the Kijkwijzer system.
You seem to be worried about some naughty words and nudity, but violence or fear are generally much more traumatizing. I grew up in a time that the average TV-commercial contained nudity. The result is that I didn't grow up to be a prude.

However, I had bad dreams from seeing Gremlins and Ghostbusters too young.
Both movies were on TV at rating 9+ or 12+, but they were shown at a children's birthday party of a friend, when I was 11. My parents didn't let me watch movies
or series with violence or scary scenes, so some scenes bothered me. I saw those movies again later, and wasn't shaken at all, but for a child that can be frightening.

In the Netherlands, TV free speech is free from puritanical censorship.

A legendary example occurred in 2006 on the Dutch late-night talk show Jensen!. Host Robert Jensen bragged to his guests, Steve-O and Chris Pontius from Jackass, that the Netherlands has no bleeps or filters, telling them: "You can say whatever you want, you can even show your cock".

Taking it as a challenge, Steve-O immediately exposed himself on camera. True to Dutch broadcasting practices, the network aired the episode completely uncensored, resulting in no fines or regulatory penalties. This event highlighted the contrast with American broadcast standards, demonstrating the Dutch system's reliance on viewer discretion rather than government censorship.

In the Netherlands, the government does not police "moral decency" (swearing, nudity, or shock value) on television. If viewers don't want to see a naked body
or hear profanity, they are expected to change the channel.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, deliberate lying, propaganda, and state-sponsored disinformation are viewed as a direct threat to democratic stability. Free speech covers expressing opinions, but it does not protect intentional, malicious fraud designed to manipulate the public or undermine democracy.

How the System Works

Instead of a government agency (like the U.S. FCC) fining channels for saying bad words, the Dutch system uses a combination of media law and independent oversight:

- The Press Council (Raad voor de Journalistiek): This is an independent self-regulatory body. It maintains a strict Code of Journalism Ethics focused on truthfulness, verification, and fairness. While it primarily handles complaints via public accountability rather than legal fines, violating these standards ruins a network’s credibility.

- The Dutch Media Authority (Commissariaat voor de Media): This official regulator enforces the Dutch Media Act. While they strictly respect editorial independence from the government, they enforce rules regarding transparency and unlawful content.

- The Ultimate Red Line (Sanctions & Bans): A channel will not get banned for a shock stunt. However, if a broadcasting entity systematically acts as a funnel for covert foreign propaganda or coordinated malicious disinformation, such as violating national security laws or international sanctions (like the ban on Russian state-funded media outlets following the invasion of Ukraine), the government and the European Union have the authority to pull their broadcasting license and ban the channel entirely.

For you personally, I understand that you could use it.
But you would accuse any Democrat who said this of incredible
fiscal irresponsibility.

How about a socialist who decides that you are owed disability benefits?
That's not all the other millions of people who don't need it, but just you
and people like you. Or are you too scared that some brown people get it too?

Covid stimulus was needed, because people lost their jobs.
It was a loan on the future, because people were hurting bad.
It created inflation, but that was worth it, at that time.

Why do you need it now? Everything is going fantastic, right?
Increasing the debt, and creating inflation, just for giggles?

Anyway, he is never going to do it, and will make up some stupid excuse.
And you will believe it, like you always do.

In the very unlikely event that he is going to do it, then he'll just cut healthcare spending even more, or increase the tariffs for everything, so the consumer pays for it. If not, your country pays more interest on that debt, until the next Democratic president is forced to clean up the shit that Trump left.

Trump is trying to bribe people into voting for his party, with a promise of $5000,
while Mike Johnson is spending his time discussing how to steal democracy.

They could accept that they fucked up too much and that the American people are fed-up with them, but they know that they are all traitors and fear that accountability is coming,
so they will try to commit some more treason, to stay in power.

How much do you need to gaslight yourself, to believe that you're the good guys?

For decades, the only thing they have done is murder people, give your money to
the wealthy and distract you with culture war bullshit. When do realize you are conned?