TheLorax

Dude, musk literally said "this retard thinks the government uses SQL". That implies that the government does not use SQL, which is false. The user you replied to said "This retard thinks that the government doesn't use SQL". This is not a claim that every government system uses SQL, or even a claim that a specific system uses SQL. The claim is simply that the government uses SQL, which is true.

Where did they say "every single system"? I think you might not have the strongest reading comprehension...

All land animals came from fish like creatures, monkeys included. We just came from monkeys more recently.

Lineage from fish (roughly) goes Fish>Amphibian>Reptile>Synapsid>Mammal>Primate>Ape>Human This is missing like a thousand steps for the sake of brevity.

The most common issue we run into is that these are all colloquial terms. There are scientific terms we should use when talking about evolution but we don't. In place of fish should be "vertibrates". All vertibrates came from the first creature with a spine, which was a fish like creature. You can likewise do this with everything before Synapsid.

I'm curious why fish was allowed and why tomatoes weren't, do you know what their reasoning was?

You could have at least Google searched it before attempting a gotcha, there are three methods. One doesn't actually change the color, but the other two do.

Says the one who thinks that Judaism is a nationality and not a ethnicity/religion

You should really think about getting better at trolling, your posts just read like someone without basic reading comprehension skills. I suggest studying the wise ways of KenM and his beautiful bullshit

I always thought it was on purpose. Like portraying him as a "sigma" or "alpha" was a way of making fun of people who believe in all that nonsense

Since it's an archipelago underneath then most, if not all, of those islands would have a southern coast. The only way to not have a southern coast is to have the landmass directly on top of the pole, which could only happen for one island (if no ice is present)

Once again you have prescribed a position to me that I do not have. I haven't defended the actions of either the US or Israel, merely pointed out that YOU are using bad arguments.

What is your support of the Palestinians worth?

I have donated a small amount (I still need to pay rent) to the Palestinian relief fund. Is my contribution not valid because the value is only $200? Is that really what we are dogging on people for now?

I have not defended the US bombings in Yemen, and have personally participated in two protests of these attacks (One at my state capital and one at my local university.)

I need you to understand that people will look at statements like "the ends justify the means" as justification to keep killing Palestinians. You are actively making my job as a progressive harder by saying things like this.

I'm honestly not sure if you aren't looking at names or if you are just arguing in bad faith here. The original comment I responded to was a response to an even worse take that was not made by me. Stop prescribing people positions that they don't have, have not stated, and have actively been against.

I'm not against the Palestinians or Yemeni population, I am against rhetoric that can be used to justify genocides. You can support these groups just as well by saying things other than "any action against Israel is justified"

An ethnic cleansing of the Israeli population would reduce their capability of genocide, but is still an evil that I could not support.

Nowhere in my statement did I defend giving Israel weapons, this is a position I am strongly against.

My point in writing that comment was to point out that using fascist rhetoric is bad, no matter who is saying it. I support the Palestinians, but I would not support dropping nukes on Israel. Stating that any means would be justified gives the other side ammunition to attack you (and others with similar views as you) with.

"Any means" is the same reasoning the USA used when nuking Japan. And it's the same reasoning that is currently being used to kill innocent civilians in the Gaza strip.

Is your point that the outcome justifies the means? I feel the need to point out that this statement is dangerous, and statements like it have been used to justify evil acts.