Who do you think is worse: Putin or Rasputin?

[Guardian45]

Everyone knows who the Greatest Scourge on the World is today: Putin.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin

But did you know there was someone just as bad or maybe worse? RasPutin!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Rasputin

Who is/was WORSE? Putin or RasPutin?

Putin (comment below)

RasPutin (comment below)

I can't decide! (comment below)

BOTH were the same! (comment below)

Poll/Results

[monkeynutts]

I think Putin could have been tried to be reasoned with, but unfortunately the annexation of Crimea was the nail in the coffin for western leaders, but I do think nobody managed him correctly, I know he was friendly with Bush for a little, but when he invaded Georgia Bush severed that connection. I think Putin is a very confused and misguided man, making bad decisions, for the Russian people and the rest of the world. I don't think that he is insane.

[Guardian45]

Is it any wonder Bush dropped Putin when he invaded the state of Georgia?😳🤣🤪

[USLegionary]

Bush was right to call Putin out for an ilegal invasion.

[monkeynutts]

Yeah well the vast majority of Georgians they don't want Russian people in their country, they destroying their standard of living, landlords or kicking them out of their homes because they can rent the property to Russians for ten times more, and they often can't afford to buy food now because it's too expensive.

[AviatorTom]

Rasputin is dead and no threat to anyone... they fished his body out of the Neva decades ago.

Putin is alive and a potential threat to the world.

[Guardian45]

But they have so much in common. Both were rapists and blackmailing political influencers. Why can't both be assassinated similarly too?

[Guardian45]

Oh my bad! I was confusing Putin with his puppet, Dump The Mole!😂

[Rosexøxø]

Omg I thought the same thing! Niceee oneee 🤜🤛

[HippieVeganJewslim]

Was Rasputin a threat to anybody, when he was alive?

[AviatorTom]

@HippieVeganJewslim Rasputin was a threat to all of Russia, for trying to control the tsar and his family. That's why he was assassinated.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

Nikolai II? That reminds me of Jesus, although I don’t know much about the ruler in His times, and Muhammad, who was reported to saying that the greatest jihād (struggle) is to speak the truth to a tyrannical ruler (sultān).

[Rosexøxø]

I’m gonna re-read up on Rasputin. Can’t decide but I’m gonna lean towards they both are bad. I’ll have to look closely and see if I can actually pick one over the other. 👌🤝

[Guardian45]

Ok. Let us know

[Rosexøxø]

Okay I voted putin because with some skimming on Rasputin I found he was mostly mysterious had some say of a religious conversion and remained in Russia while the leader of Russia (during that time period) fought a war. He was possibly a man of influence

And he really just brought division in politics and debates. Division isn’t a “major/ considerable skill” if the people became divide d it was their own fault.

Putin is worse because he attempted to take Ukraine by force and basically told everyone else to “stay out of it.”

He’s not a bad guy considering his political role, but he can be a menace to society at given moment.

Rasputin is dead. Putin is still alive and capable of affecting of global history and the very important future history of specific individuals of Russian descent and Ukrainian Descent.

With that, and I’m that sense alone, he is worse.

I don’t trust him.

My final answer: Putin is worse than Rasputin.

[Rosexøxø]

Voted A 🗳

All my love to the Russian people 🇷🇺, but Putin… eh not so much lol

[WhitneySnow]

They’re both really bad in different ways. But I did once have the idea to write a sitcom about Rasputin and I never thought that about Putin so there is that.

[USLegionary]

Rasputin as far as I know was just a conman who gave bad advice to the Russian Royal family. He wasn't responsible for the collapse of Russian military in ww1, he wasn't the reason Russia became communist after a bloody revolution no the cause of that was generations of bad governance by Russian aristocratic who kept the people in abject poverty so that naturally when WW1 came around they armed and trained Russian peasants to fight a war they didn't want to instead choosing to overthrow the zsarist state and put in place something new.

[LuvLuv89]

The Western perspective on Putin is horribly propagandized. If you care to be objective in your research and reasoning you would find he's very diplomatic and bureaucratic. The Minsk Accords being one of many examples. Many Russians are frustrated by his respect for international laws and norms when their enemy seeks the upper hand by ignoring international laws.

[smølf]

What a joke, Putin respect for international laws, haha
Putin respects no laws, only power, he is a Russian mafioso with all of greater Russia as his turf.

[Guardian45]

And what would you call the war, occupation and annexation of Ukraine? Diplomacy?

[Lliam]

@LuvLuv89. You're actually informed and have a functioning brain. My respect to you.

[Guardian45]

@Lliam. If that's true, then she needs to be better informed.

[Lliam]

Dude. You obviously know nothing but what you are told. You get a gold star for being an obedient, compliant student.

[LuvLuv89]

There is 5 messages waiting for me, yet none of them produces a single argument in response to the argument that I provided. Romans got fat and dumb when their empire collapsed, and history repeats. No further comment unless you actually produce an argument of your own... if you know what that entails.

[smølf]

@LuvLuv89 No arguments needed, the fatcs speak for itself, Putin has abolished democracy in Russia, violated international law, with invation, human rights violations inside of Russia, and now a crime against humanity. He will also most likely resort to a thermonuclear war and force us to destroy Russia and end the Russian people.

He is literally the worst since Hitler, because of the deaths he brings, just because you believe in his lies, doesn't mean the great of us should. Are the propaganda against Russia, sure, all media and politicians lie, but that's not the issue at all. His actions prove my point, nothing else is needed for those not spooked by com chatter.

[LuvLuv89]

@smølf Yeah, you're right..."no argument needed". Pol Pott was not as bad as Putin. Putin was unprovoked in his attack... a nuclear armed (Zelensky threatening to abandon Budapest agreement), Biologically armed (admitted by Pentagon, Nuland etc.), NATO member (see Bucharest Summit) on Russia's doorstep with a missile defense system (commonly planned by Bush & Obama) is not even the slightest bit provocative... Russia should do whatever the West says. Putin is terribly non diplomatic: Minsk Accords (i. e. not taking the Donbass in 2014), Dec 2021 European Security proposal, and countless rhetoric & requests... what was he thinking? Although Ukrainian authorities have banned 11 opposition parties and threatened Donbass directly with genocidal rhetoric (incl Ze himself), the Russians had no right to intervene. The UN Charter clearly states a "Responsibility to Protect" in identical situations... but the Russians still should have ignored the Charter and conformed to US Foreign Policy. Although 8 of the Ukrainian regions (as of 2014) were historically Russian prior to Communists redrawing the map (and the Ukraine is only 31yrs old as an independent entity) for political reasons, Russia has no historical claim. Although the principles of Self Determination are within international law, it should be ignored in regard to self-determined referendums... Crimea provides a perfect example of this in the past 8yrs. Had they been rejected back into their historical homeland of Russia they would have enjoyed a very peaceful 8yrs like the Donbass had (there weren't that many reports of rape & torture, by Amnesty and Red Cross etc.). So, what's your argument?

[Derekk]

Oh give it up already. 141 votes in favor of condemning Russia's invasion. The vast majority of the world is against this. Do you not value international opinion at all? It was the UN that stood up to America's hypocrisy on Israel, they are perfectly willing to be impartial. I advise you to do the same and pull your head out of your ass.

[Lliam]

@Derekk. Your trust in authority instead of comprehensive facts is cute.

[Derekk]

@Lliam if democratic consensus is considered authoritarian to you, then you've revealed too much about yourself.

At the end of the day, unless you're on the verge of being brain-dead, you know full well that this isn't right. But if you hate America because it's been overrun by the evil lib-tards, then I'm sure this has been a delightful last few months for you, watching how triggered they all are. Because that's really all this is about; how can we trigger the liberals.

[LuvLuv89]

@Derekk I don't place as much value on "international opinion" as I do on international law and interpreting the UN Charter. Opinion is a highly politicized process... meaning countries often vote for political reasons, not humanitarian or objective reasons. Proof of this being the General Assembly resolution late last year: "Do you condemn the promotion of Nazi ideology?"... I recommend you research this inconvenient truth to your narrative, plus you're obviously not educated on this topic so you need to practice your research & critical thinking. Lliam is right, you appear to have an irrational trust in what you're told by "authoritative" sources of propaganda, whether that be corporate media or politically biased UN votes. There are two wars at play: 1. US vs Russia via proxy: Russia has a legal right to preemptively invade Ukraine if it deems it will become a nuclear armed, biologically armed, Nato member with a missile defense system being setup. Despite abundant evidence of this threat (do your own research) and the many diplomatic attempts, they were forced (if not encouraged by Nato) to invade. 2. Donbass: Russia has a legal & humanitarian obligation to protect the residents of the Donbass from proven genocidal threats (do your own research)... It's called the UN Charter "Responsibility to Protect". Why did Ukraine refuse to enact the Minsk Accords, despite signing on to it... preferring violence instead? Why did Putin not take back the Donbass territory in 2014 when they requested him to do so? Good luck with your education.

[Derekk]

You cannot on the one hand appeal to the UN to justify a responsibility to protect, while denigrating the process used to formulate the charters that you uphold when it's convenient. Either you believe the UN properly represents an objective democratic consensus, or you believe that it (and the laws and charters that spawn from it), does not. If "opinion is a highly politicized process", why then do you accept this opinion in limited circumstances when it suits your narrative, but not when it doesn't? International law and custom itself is a result of international opinion. If you don't care about it, them just say so. Say "I do not care what the result of the world believes to right or moral, and I will continue to support something that the rest of the planet considers illegal". It's not hard.

Further, explain to me why America deciding to not vote for a near unanimous resolution has anything whatsoever to do with Russia and Ukraine? Most countries voted to condemn Nazi ideology. America did not. America was wrong. Most countries voted to condemn Russia's invasion. Venezuela did not. Venezuela was wrong. This isn't difficult.

I don't know if you're an American with 2 brain cells or you're actually a Russian citizen. I'd have a lot more respect for you if you were at least Russian.

[Lliam]

@Derekk. Your ad hominem reveal your lack of intellect.

[LuvLuv89]

@Derekk you're sticking to one side 'no matter what'. This is a primitive and tribal level of intellectualism... I bet you only consume news sources that suit your emotional preferences. Let objectivity take over... you're getting cheated by your own ego. Formulating the laws & principles of the UN Charter is very different to taking a vote on the application of those laws to specific situations; they are 2 different processes, composed of 2 different sets of variables, producing 2 different outcomes (good laws being objective, and voting being subjective). Regardless of how the laws are created (democratic, dictatorship, fair and objective, biased and politicized), and whether you like them or not, they are written in stone for all to conform to... this creates much needed order (we can all agree this is a positive thing... and I, or any country, support this process I would assume). In other words you don't get to flip-flop when they suit your agenda one day, but not the next. In contrast, voting on the interpretation of law (i. e. making a judgement) is a flip-flop process, and arguably not even democratic (whereas the laws don't even need to come from a democratic process)...

[Derekk]

@Lliam Your one-liners reveal the same thing. Isn't it embarassing that this young woman is keeping up a bit better? I thought you folks preferred your women dumb and stupid.

[LuvLuv89]

"Either you believe the UN properly represents an objective democratic consensus, or you believe that it does not"... rubbish, this is a trivially framed statement which misrepresents the purpose of international law, and ignores all practicalities. Only a corrupt entity lacking integrity would subject application of objective laws to judgement via a "popularity contest". Although the US and Russia are 'expected' to abide by the UN Charter (laws) and protocols (respecting UN voting judgements), they often don't respect one or the other. The US breaks the laws but gets the votes... Russia abides by the law but doesn't get the votes. If you look at the whopping Kosovo double standard in which Putin has actually exceeded this standard by accepting only if a referendum takes place (and rejecting it back in 2014), it's clear as day the interpretation of laws is highly subjective (due largely to political bias). Why would a democratically elected leader sacrifice the security of his (and other) people by conforming to a UN judgement process, which is proven by truth to be hit and miss. He has to trade-off, thereby making the UN somewhat useless (but still worth supporting to some degree in my opinion). Geez, basic practicalities that you fail to see. Therefore, from a pragmatic perspective, it is proven by history you don't have to support either Law or the Judgement process (because it is sometimes a sham, and domestic support is of higher priority... and there's no enforcement of the Judgement). From a POV of principle (where you're arguing from), it's sometimes impossible to support both processes. In this instance, it appears as evident as 2 + 2 = 4 that Russia abides by law (well, he thinks so... and he has the power), and if he was to accept the judgement then he would be going against the principle of "Responsibility to Protect" and "Self Determination". But, well, if you just want to stay rigid to the paradigm of "absolute principle", then be my guest.

[LuvLuv89]

""If opinion is a highly politicized process", why then do you accept this opinion in limited circumstances when it suits your narrative, but not when it doesn't?"... nice easy one for you... because reality doesn't revolve around opinion. Just because the UN says 2 + 2 = 5 in a popularity contest doesn't make it so. Just because opinion states healthy people should all get jabbed, doesn't make it so. "Further, explain to me why America deciding to not vote for a near unanimous resolution has anything whatsoever to do with Russia and Ukraine? Most countries voted to condemn Nazi ideology. America did not."? because it exemplifies the sham the voting process is, and I've already made that point. Otherwise, are you asking what Nazism has to do with the conflict? If so, then you're a little boy with a lot to learn.

[Derekk]

Formulating the laws and voting to apply them require the same expertise and the same individuals. Why do you think politicians frequently possess law degrees? Why do you think the American supreme court is so heavily politicized if they're tasked with merely "interpreting" the law? Because interpretation itself is creation. You're setting precedent.

Imagine the absurdity of a legal body claiming that a law means X, and somebody claims that it must apply to Y, only for the original drafters to say "no actually we didn't intend for the law to cover such a case"... And you go HA! Politics! Bias!

The nations making the exception are the SAME NATIONS who have drafted a right to protect, and are the same nations saying NO it does NOT apply in this case. So again, if the process is separate, one must expect that the interpretation of a law has nothing to do whatsoever with precedent, original intent, or various other ways that legal scholars imagine relationships between law and the practice of law. It seems impossible to seriously believe this. You're effectively claiming that the "objective" rule makers don't actually understand what they've written as soon as it comes to application.

[Derekk]

"Only a corrupt entity lacking integrity would subject application of objective laws to judgement via a "popularity contest"."

This is interesting because I think exactly the opposite; a corrupt entity lacking integrity would likely violate the results of a "popularity conflict" because he believes that he has the right to dictate his fate in the face of a democratic consensus. Remember that that's what democracy is almost by definition; it's a popularity contest. And to the extent that laws are drafted and flow from democracy, they will inevitably prioritize popular interests. You can disagree with this process, you can reject it, ignore it, castigate it... Whatever. But then be honest. Don't appeal to the UN for any reason. Ignore them entirely and just make your argument about national security. Say "yes I know it's illegal, but we gotta do it". It sounds like you almost sort of did in your last reply, so maybe you're closer to that position than I give you credit for. I just feel like you're trying to hold onto the prestige and merits of the UN while throwing it aside when it's convenient. It's no different than what America does with Israel or the Nazi vote or the various other times they've abused veto power to unilaterally push an anti-democratic agenda.

[Derekk]

"because it exemplifies the sham the voting process is, and I've already made that point."

But it did exactly the opposite; it made America look terrible in the face of the rest of the world. The vote worked. The bad actor was punished and didn't get their way.

[LuvLuv89]

@Derekk Interpretation of the law does not set a precedent if the process of interpretation is corrupted by politics. The Kosovo example clearly shows the disconnect between creation / past interpretations vs future interpretations. One could add Derek Chauvin's 2nd and 3rd degree Murder convictions to this. I'm no expert on the matter, but it seemed overwhelmingly obvious there were mitigating factors there destroying the narrative of "murder beyond reasonable doubt"; I'm not bothered by the outcome, but at least I can admit he (a thug cop killing a thug loser) got done by a show trial where precedent and basic objectivity meant nothing.

"You're effectively claiming that the "objective" rule makers don't actually understand what they've written as soon as it comes to application."... this is proof that you don't understand what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that the process of interpretation & voting is biased; "understanding" has nothing to do with it. I gave you the example of the US vote on the Nazi (ideological) resolution... they obviously voted that way (while their buddies abstained) based on political motivation instead of simply answering the question in an honest & ideological manner. I think this is the core of our difference... we can't agree with each other on the extent of political motivation and interference.

[LuvLuv89]

A corrupt entity can easily use a flawed democratic system to achieve corrupt concensus. Democracy is very corruptible. I remember at school, trophies & leadership positions weren't handed out by peer-judgement and peer-democracy as that process would lack integrity; instead, teachers, principals, or metrics (e. g. exam results) were used to decide.
Compare CNN, BBC, MSNBC (privately owned) vs Tass, RT, Sputnik (Kremlin funded)... the Russian sources are far superior (no lies, less spin, more informative, less bias) to the Western sources (not independent in the slightest, political activists, shallow). The """free market""" & democracy failed in this case.
It's no different to sport: I'm supportive of having rules. I'm supportive of the actual rules that were written and their fundamental principles. I'm supportive of the players behaving consistent with the rule book. I'm supportive of having 'a process' to judge behaviour vs the rules (i. e. match officials). I'm even supportive of the issuance of sanctions when rules are broken. In contrast, I'm not supportive of dodgy officiating influenced by boosting ratings or other commercial or political factors... but this is no reason to throw out the entire system. Therefore I see no logic in your argument to dismiss (or accept) the UN in it's entirety.

[Derekk]

"I'm claiming that the process of interpretation & voting is biased"

Right, and I'm claiming that IF the process is biased and IF the same agents in charge of drafting the laws are the same agents in charge of enforcing them, then the agents themselves are biased and cannot be entrusted to make laws in the first place. This renders the UN experiment moot altogether right? I just fail to understand how you can have any respect or faith in an institution in which you see anti-russian bias everywhere, while believing that somehow the same community condemning your country is capable of drafting fair and binding legislation. The only way you could do this is if you believe that some legislation is amenable to a pre-existing agenda and is worth defending.

[Derekk]

The Chauvin case is trickier. My argument only works to the extent that the original legislators are the original enforcers, and it's very murky here. The founding fathers of the US constitution aren't around anymore, and it's unclear to what extent the jurors or judge of Mr. Chauvin are responsible for pre-existing legislation, as it is also unclear to what extent these entities can be said to comprise the state. I believe in the case of the UN, (particularly when the R2P doctrine you keep citing was first elaborated upon in 2001), the link is pretty immediate. The people and nations who helped to ratify this are still clearly around and capable of giving insight into what and to whom it applies. If they are too biased to do this, then there can be no binding R2P and you should stop citing it, otherwise you will simply be shouting into the void about an interpretation of a doctrine of rules that you didn't make. You cannot sing the praises of "thou shalt not kill" and then go around killing people while complaining that Christians are too biased to understand or properly implement this golden law that you care so deeply about. This is why I said that you imply that they don't understand their own rule. Either they don't... or they do, and you simply have your own reading of it that contravenes the original intent. Or there IS an original intent, but we can't trust anybody to enforce it, so there should be no rule. No matter what, your argument defeats itself.

[Derekk]

There is a very good reason why I'm taking this route in my argument. I don't agree at all about the integrity of RT or Russian networks, but arguing about that isn't going to get us anywhere. You and I likely both know why this is. If you reject the notion of international rules, (as I believe your own argument compels you to), then there's really no need to get bogged down into specific demonstrations of RT vs CNN bias. Two networks by the way, which I do not watch and have no plans to watch. I'm a Canadian citizen. Will you reveal your own nationality in turn?

[LuvLuv89]

@Derekk Righto, so we're on battered ground here, but this is my last attempt at explaining the obvious: "Right, and I'm claiming that IF the process is biased and IF the same agents in charge of drafting the laws are the same agents in charge of enforcing them, then the agents themselves are biased and cannot be entrusted to make laws in the first place. This renders the UN experiment moot altogether right?"... no, that's an over-generalisation. The variables (e. g. individuals, geo-political context, UN factors, domestic political ruling parties etc.) that produced the laws in the first place are not the same as those interpreting & judging. It doesn't make the UN moot. A law can be made with the best intentions, and 1yr later interpreted in a corrupt nature due to a changed geopolitical context; it's clear you can't (or won't?) understand this basic reality we live in, because you're removing politics from the system, and are overemphasizing how connected certain processes are. Further evidence for my argument is that the process of interpretation & judgement can be revised without even touching the laws being applied to... which they're currently proposing (which is highly politicized in itself). I see nothing wrong with the laws/principles; in that their writing is fair & universal.

"If they are too biased to do this, then there can be no binding R2P and you should stop citing it"... but the law/principle/standard is still written with the intent of being conformed to. You can have an organization with well written SOPs (rules), but little conformance to procedure (no enforcement). This does not mean you physically remove the entire system or argue against the entire system. You evolve the system instead.

[LuvLuv89]

"If you reject the notion of international rules, (as I believe your own argument compels you to), then there's really no need to get bogged down into specific demonstrations of RT vs CNN bias."... this is just stated as advice: Your sentence here is very rigid and closed off, and assumptive. The fact is you don't know what the outcome of that debate would be, despite neither of us wanting to have it... even if you were correct that I "reject the notion of international rules" (which I've debunked). You've also made statements earlier that suggest you think you're 'pretty shit hot' and smarter than the rest, despite not understanding how a system works. It's your ego that drives your assumptions... who is driving your ego? Every source of news has a political agenda, and the key is not to view them on a case by case basis (unless they're REALLY biased like Don Lemon... and you chuck activists like this out), but instead, as belonging to your own system of informative research... i. e. do they compliment each other. To remove the entire Russian perspective from your sources is insane, and I don't consider it to be up for debate, like 2 + 2 = 4.

Haha, my "nationality in turn" is NZer. I think it says I'm US... not sure why? Feel free to produce new points of logic, otherwise I'm over and out.

[Derekk]

I'm afraid you may have to explain the obvious once more:

"no, that's an over-generalisation. The variables (e. g. individuals, geo-political context, UN factors, domestic political ruling parties etc.) that produced the laws in the first place are not the same as those interpreting & judging."

So then why have laws at all? If it takes ONE year before a law is bastardized in interpretation by nefarious forces, why do you have any faith at all in the letter of the law when you can't possibly mind-read the intent of those drafting it?

What I find a bit ironic in all of this, is that your argument now boils down to "my interpretation of what the law means leads me to think the law is good. If anyone disagrees with my interpretation of this law, or how it would be enforced, then they're biased and one-sided". You think that you've either predicted every possible "reasonable" application of the law in advance, or you believe that you would be capable of doing so. Who's the one with the massive ego here? One of the key assumptions of legal interpretation is that the letter of the law cannot give us guidance in every circumstance as to how it is applied. The R2P was not drafted to say "in 2022 if NATO develops x amount of nuclear weapons Y KM from the border of Moscow, they may launch a pre-emptive invasion." Your interpretation of the law is such that you believe the original intent and letter of the law allows for this. Others don't agree. Why you believe their perspective to loaded with bias and yours to be a clear-sighted appreciation of a fair law is beyond me. Perhaps you're a legal scholar working with the UN.

You simply do not get to say that you have faith in the letter of the law, therefore you respect international order, if you discount everyone else's interpretation (particularly people that read legislation for a living) as being biased. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

[Derekk]

There is no way to have a system of laws without relying upon contextual application. It might be nice if we could, but we don't.

If the contextual application is only correct when it aligns with how you read the law, then you don't live in a system of laws, you live in an anti-democratic society in which you cleverly pay tribute to that which you wipe your backside with.

[Derekk]

"Every source of news has a political agenda, and the key is not to view them on a case by case basis (unless they're REALLY biased like Don Lemon... and you chuck activists like this out), but instead, as belonging to your own system of informative research... i. e. do they compliment each other. To remove the entire Russian perspective from your sources is insane, and I don't consider it to be up for debate, like 2 + 2 = 4."

I think this gets to the heart of the psychology behind why we're arguing here. Your motive is admirable; you correctly observe that propaganda is a powerful force that attempts to control what we consume, and you're trying to control for that so that you get a balanced perspective. But I think you're taking this too far. Balancing your perspective by reading about how 2 and 2 make 4 and then wanting to hear what "opposing sides say" because you don't want to be a sheeple, is just an impetus to waste your time. Sometimes counter narratives are not the heroic Nietzschean crusade to challenge consensus and stand up the elites... Sometimes it's just a crazy narrative not worth paying attention to. You can appreciate the underdog, but sometimes underdogs are mad dogs.

[LuvLuv89]

@Derekk "So then why have laws at all? If it takes ONE year before a law is bastardized in interpretation by nefarious forces, why do you have any faith at all in the letter of the law when you can't possibly mind-read the intent of those drafting it?"
... ummm Dodo, because there's nothing wrong with the law, haha.

"You think that you've either predicted every possible "reasonable" application of the law in advance, or you believe that you would be capable of doing so."
... no, I haven't. It'll take you a very long time to back yourself up on that claim... go for it!

"Who's the one with the massive ego here?"... you are for making the previous bold & highly assumptive claim without evidence, therefore, backing up my previous message (thanks for that).

[LuvLuv89]

"Your interpretation of the law is such that you believe the original intent and letter of the law allows for this. Others don't agree. Why you believe their perspective to loaded with bias and yours to be a clear-sighted appreciation of a fair law is beyond me. Perhaps you're a legal scholar working with the UN."
... now you're reaching. You've ignored fundamental Principle on this. If a law against pedophilia is signed into effect in 1954 (the Principle being obvious), but it is now interpreted differently to permit pedophilia (whether that be by a jury of pedophiles, or objectively minded people), going against the Principle... then the interpretation would simply be wrong for whatever reason, from the POV of truth & reason.

"If the contextual application is only correct when it aligns with how you read the law,"
... where did you pull this from? Your rabbit hole institution, or your arsehole? The interpretation of laws is not all about context and nuance. That's just simple!

[Derekk]

I'll take that last response as a concession then. Thanks for playing dude.

[LuvLuv89]

"But I think you're taking this too far. Balancing your perspective by reading about how 2 and 2 make 4 and then wanting to hear what "opposing sides say" because you don't want to be a sheeple, is just an impetus to waste your time."
... so now you're making bold highly assumptive arrogant claims about what's actually going on inside by brain as it relates to information retrieval & processing; screwing your intellectual honour & integrity in the process. 'Staying informed in the pursuit of truth and peace is the correct answer'... not a motive that you seem too familiar with.

You seem to think from a highly institutionalized structure which bears little resemblance to the true nature of reality. You sound synthetic and inorganic. A common problem with this mentality (and professions that influence it) is you end up in a box being a nuisance to healthy society, instead of actually helping... but everyone ends up thinking they're helping anyway.

[Derekk]

"now you're reaching. You've ignored fundamental Principle on this. If a law against pedophilia is signed into effect in 1954 (the Principle being obvious), but it is now interpreted differently to permit pedophilia (whether that be by a jury of pedophiles, or objectively minded people), going against the Principle... then the interpretation would simply be wrong for whatever reason, from the POV of truth & reason."

Nope. You're the one reaching here. If a law is signed into effect that condemns pedophilia, that does not define what pedophilia is. You need a court or lawyers to define it. You cannot just say "it's clear! Pedophilia is pedophilia!" Without privileging your own interpretation.

I'm wasting my time with you. Enjoy being wrong I don't care anymore.

[Derekk]

Also, your pink account is fooling nobody. Go on talking about how "women these days" do X or Y and hide your misogyny as best you can. Maybe some day Putin will invade the west and put women and Liberals back in their places. Wouldn't that be swell? Maybe your micro-prick would find some action when the women around you aren't free to vomit and run away from you.

[LuvLuv89]

@Derekk yet many laws are objectively defined, and again you ignore the fundamental Principle that governs a law. You missed the point of the example... only to then add your own; it's not very constructive logic to continuously re-frame a debate/point to suit your own ego.
Wow, you sound butt-hurt! I must have got you all upset if you're now resorting to narrow-minded prejudice to define how a women behaves and speaks of her own gender (I often speak in general terms you fool... another mindless arrogant assumption on your behalf)... this, immediately after arguing what was going on inside my own brain. Are you from the 40s? You seem backwards and unenlightened. Meanwhile, like a smokescreen, you throw the term "misogynistic" around in someone else's direction. You are clearly misogynistic, angry, and bitter... are you compensating for anything? Admit it, you just got beat up by a woman and you can't handle it, haha.

[Derekk]

You're a man. And you're on here to propagandize to other impressionable men and women about feminism and dress codes. Your post history is visible.

[LuvLuv89]

@Derekk I see you're doubling down on prejudicing against me..."a woman is supposed to behave a certain way", aye? Now, you're also starting to sound like a crazy conspiracy theorists. OMG, I've done a number on you. Keep up the entertainment please.

[Derekk]

Actually since you're here, I have a question. I placed an order for a mail order bride from Moscow last month and she hasn't been delivered yet. When you ordered yours, how long did she take to arrive?

[LuvLuv89]

@Derekk I haven't ordered any. Goodluck with getting yours; she may be more forgiving of your misogyny than Western women.

[Derekk]

I guess you'd know how much misogyny western women can handle before they break wouldn't you?

[LuvLuv89]

@Derekk yep, it varies from woman to woman... because we're composed of INDIVIDUALS, like any other group. I. e. we're not all the same... prejudiced much? haha, keep trying little man.

[Derekk]

I can't hear you over your massive horse cock.

[Jamie05rhs]

All I can remember about Rasputin is he was a bad dude and he was Anastasia's enemy.

by the way, I used to have a crush on Anastasia. (I was 10 when that movie came out.)

[Guardian45]

Ah, Disney!

[Jamie05rhs]

@guardian45 Funny you should bring that up...

[Jamie05rhs]

Oops- that link didn't copy correctly. Hold on.

[Jamie05rhs]

www.google.com/.../amp

[Guardian45]

One can ALWAYS count on Disney to find a way make money off of children.

[Jamie05rhs]

@Gardian45 Yeah. But it wasn't Disney. That's the funny part.

[ODC2112]

Rasputin was a guy who took advantage of the Tsars' mental weakness to fuck and live the good life.
Putin is a terrorist and a criminal.
Rasputin and Putin are very different things.

[Guardian45]

Rasputin was assassinated. Do you think Putin will be? If so, how?

[A_Bell]

There's no disputin' that no 'putin's worse than Rasputin.

[Midgetmcwidget]

Rasputin and Putin in it so it’s liked I’ve said both are equally nasty and I haven’t made a decision.

[Anonymous]

Only the naive and simple would think Putin is the greatest scourge in the world today.

[Guardian45]

Then who?

[Lliam]

@agagagagaga. Thank you for having a functioning brain and being informed. Respect.

[Opinion Owner]

@Lliam Thanks. You too man. 👍

[Guardian45]

@Agagagagaga. What is your explanation?

@Lliam. He may have a functioning brain, but he is ILL-informed.

[Opinion Owner]

@guardian45 If you think someone who disagrees with you is ill informed then the internet may not be the place for you.

[Guardian45]

I think you're ill-informed; therefore, I disagree with me. I am perfectly capable of navigating the internet. The question is: are you?

[Opinion Owner]

Indeed I am. I’m also able to think critically and not be hoodwinked by obvious propaganda. You clearly are not.

So which one of us is the rube? Because if you believe a goddamn war in Eastern Europe is a scourge on the globe, you’re a simpleton.

[Guardian45]

Instead of obfuscating by throwing around personal insults, why don't you try backing your claim with evidence? And if you believe a "goddamn war in Eastern Europe" has NO impact on the rest of the world, then you ARE the simpleton.

[LimitedBenefits101]

Putin doesn't allow lgbtq in his country, I have huge respect for him

Top man.

[Guardian45]

Why?

[TroyDT2]

Putin. While Rasputin was fairly evil, he wasn't potential Extinction Level Event evil.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

Both were bad, but I reckon my president was worse. How many civilians did each order to be murdered?

[legalboxers]

both are dicks!

[Guardian45]

Well, they both have them! LOL!

[legalboxers]

@guardian45 but with the other option. he likes it orange! Happy Thanksgiving by the way!

[Guardian45]

Well, they both liked grabbing pussy. Maybe soon they'll both be dead. Thanks, Happy Turkey Day!

[legalboxers]

@guardian45 ours is next month. Its "Columbus Day / Indigenous People Day"

[Guardian45]

Happy Columbus Day / Indigenous People Day!

[legalboxers]

@guardian45 lol ty!

[Twalli]

Rasputin was almost immortal. Poisoned, stabbed, shot, dumped in a river, in that order all in an evening. He died by drowning.

[Andres77]

Rasputin didn’t have access to nukes

[smølf]

Exactly, and Putin is the Tsar, REpusin could only confluence the Tsar.

[Guardian45]

All true. And they both were rapists and hated for their influence in controlling affairs of state. Maybe too they will both be assassination victims.

[Andres77]

Arsenic and lead and icy river water

[Guardian45]

Cyanide didn't do it. It took 3 bullets, including one to Rasputin's head. Sounds like a plausible attempt for Putin, no?

[Pudsmucker]

Putin is worse, Rasputin was a womanizer

[Guardian45]

Rasputin was a rapist!

[Guardian45]

And had mind control over the Tsar and The Royal Family.

[Cedman]

Putin. He has access to modern technology and thus can do more damage.

[jimmy2]

I think a KGB about to find a sniper

[Guardian45]

I think you mean the now FSB, which Putin was Director of. I think an attempted assassination would have to come from the military branch, which Putin was NOT a part of, perhaps with backing from political oligarchs.

[18Uma21]

Rasputin

[Guardian45]

Why?

[18Uma21]

Putin is a silly show off. People can get rid of him so easily, he is still there because most people don't mind him.
Though Rasputin is real