Total posts: 578
Posted in:
You're picking peoples profile pictures?
Created:
Looking for people who'd be interested in helping each other by peer editing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@A-R-O-S-E
UserName:
My sophomore year of high school I had a psychology class and long story short it was one of my favorite classes of all time.
In my psych teachers classroom she had a poster that looked something similar to this and I thought it was pretty funny and would make a great username.
Yeah that's all I got.
Profile Picture:
As of 9/13/19 my profile picture is of Aketchi Goro from Persona 5.
It's pretty personal why I chose a picture of Aketchi so all I will state is he was my favorite character from Persona 5 due to the fact he was the most relatable out of all the characters in that game.
Created:
For anyone waiting on a response from me, I'm very busy with school so I'll respond in a few days.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
I thought that Cowboy Bebop wasn't on crunchy roll?
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
At least we can agree that illegal immigration ought to be stopped.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Where are your sources for this information? My guess is the reason the deportations were higher is due to the fact that Obama's presidency lasted 8 years while Trump has only served 3 so far.
Hardly fair comparison.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'll post it later, my class is ending.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
People don't like Trump because of his policies as demonstrated by the data I've previously mentioned.
It seems you aren't responding to my rebuttals and are instead repeating your initial position so I'll repeat.
But again the fact you seem to be ignoring is that correlation doesn't equal causation.Just because the majority of the media hates Trump doesn't equate to them being bias.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Fixed that for you since you misread the pie charts.
But again the fact you seem to be ignoring is that correlation doesn't equal causation.
Just because the majority of the media hates Trump doesn't equate to them being bias.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
The Foundation for Economic Education thoroughly lays out how higher taxes, fixed prices, etc prolonged the Great Depression.
The problem with the source you've cited after looking it over, it doesn't cite actual numbers for the most part and doesn't reference statistics at all.
Unlike mine which cite clear statistics outlining the amount of Americans employed through FDR's social programs for an example.
Not stating the study you've cited is wrong, however, I'd like clear and precise statistics done rather than generalized statements.
According to various graphs from this source, FDR's the New Deal greatly reduced the impacts of the great depression, here's a quick rundown.
- The unemployment rate through FDR's worker relief programs gradually reduced unemployment.
- The number of bank closings DRASTICALLY dropped
- Business failures gradually dropped
If you want a brief rundown on the relief programs FDR introduced to ease the impacts of the depression here is a clear concise rundown from socratic.org with actual numbers and names of the programs cited.
EBA - Emergency Banking Act - March 1933 - Gave welfare payments to people who had lost money in the Wall Street Crash and restored confidence in the banks. The government also publically urged people to reinvest their money.CCC - Civilian Conservation Corporation - March/April 1933 Employed young men to build things like national parks.AAA - Agricultural Adjustment Act - May 1933 - Set limits on how much farms could produce which helped to reduce expansion and raise prices for food. When there is more produce than there is buyers, it causes that product to become less valuable. By producing less, farmers could sell it for more which helped the farms and food production get back on track.TVA - Tennessee Valley Authority -May 1933 - Built dams to prevent flooding and provide cheap hydroelectric (energy from the movement of water rushing through a gap in a dam to drive a turbine) electricity.NIRA - National Industrial Recovery Act - June 1933 The government and businesses worked together to set standards for price, production and work conditions within industry.PWA -Public Works Administration - June 1933 - Hired people to build public amenities like schools and hospitals.The end of Prohibition - December 1933 - The 18th amendment had prohibited the sale and manufacturing of alcohol, however, this had led to an economic decline when many breweries, distilleries and saloons went out of business. FDR made removing this amendment (which became the 21st amendment) part of his manifesto.NLRA - National Labour Relations Act - July 1935 - Helped workers to form unions and protected the members from other laws. It also forced businesses to listen to the unions and their workers (e.g. by setting up boards to hear union complaints).WPA - Works Progress Administration - May 1935 - Very similar to the PWA, but came later and included cultural and artistic opportunities.SSA - Social Security Act - August 1935 - Set up financial support for pregnant women, the elderly, disabled and young. It meant that people had insurance and security for when they retired or if they couldn't work.FLSA - Fair Labour Standards Act - June 1938 - Cut the maximum hours someone could work for and raised minimum wage - thus protecting over 13 million people!
For your last source you've cited I was unable to find specifically where it was located at in the PDF and would like to ask for either a specific section or a direct quote. Although a specific section would be preferable.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
There are almost no economists that will say that FDR's trash economic policies got us out of the Great Depression. Most say that he prolonged it. The only thing that helped us out was the war, which put everyone to work.
No source cited to back itself up.
Statistics and studies that I've found paint a clear picture that while economists agree that the New Deal wasn't solely responsible for lifting us out of the great depression, they ultimately aided in lifting us out of the great depression.
Here is a rundown of various scholars citing their opinion on the matter.
According to Linda Gordon, professor of history at New York University, the Works Progress Administration, created in 1935, also had a positive impact by employing more than 8 million Americans in building projects ranging from bridges and airports to parks and schools.
She goes on to state that such programs eased the impacts of the great depression and while these programs helped, they didn't completely lead us out of the depression and the war did a lot of the work.
Not to mention FDR's policies aided workers rights as evidenced by this quote,
The subsequent National Labor Relations Act of 1935 allowed for collective bargaining and essentially led to the development of the labor movement in the United States, which protected workers’ rights and wages.
Essentially according to this source while FDR wasn't solely responsible for lifting us out of the Great Depression, to call his economic policies as hindering us from climbing out of it and " trash," is a gross exaggeration and isn't backed up by statistics nor studies at all.
Through Roosevelt's social programs such as social security and the New Deal, he established a social safety net and sub sequentially eased the tensions of the great depression.
I'll respond to the rest sometime later, my lunch break is ending.
Created:
I'll have to continue this conversation sometime tomorrow as I should be going to sleep tomorrow and have a few tests and AP work this week.
I will attempt to respond to future arguments ASAP as I am greatly enjoying this conversation.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
While you've certainly proved the majority of America hates Trump, this doesn't lead to the assumption it's based on prejudice.
biasbi·as | \ ˈbī-əs \Definition of bias
(Entry 1 of 4)1a: an inclination of temperament or outlookespecially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE
Especially considering the polling I've cited shows that the approval rating dropped once Trump took the presidency.
Besides this is also disproven as even Fox News polling demonstrates that Trump's approval rating is low.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Furthermore with the popular vote, you are bringing the tyranny of the majority onto the minority. 50% and one shouldn’t determine the winner.
And with the electoral college, a small fraction of the united states is dictating the majority of the United State's fate.
If you're concerned about minority representation than why are you essentially supporting votes being silenced in stronghold states such as California or new york?
A combined set of demographics should which is only possible with an electoral college.
No source cited to back this up.
Republicans have never called for the EC to be abolished even when it doesn’t benefit them.
No source cited. The statistics I've mentioned earlier contradicts this as in 2012 half of republicans supported the abolition of the electoral college however once Trump won because of it, that shifted. If you ask I can provide a specific statistic however I'll have to dig through my search history.
The fact is we are a constitutional republic. Direct vote was never intended as a method to achieve the Presidency by the founding fathers.
Not backed up by the government what so ever.
According to this source, it reads,
The United States is a federal republic and a constitutional representative democracy.
The article goes in-depth on what it means by a federal republic and representative democracy so I suggest you read it fully.
Essentially, voting according to the constitution comes in the form of representative democracy.
Nextly another source by the United States Government in the form of a PDF reads that the United States is a representative democracy.
I would link it however it's a PDF however just look this up on google and it should be the 1st result.
"Is the united states a representative democracy?"
That’s why we’re a part of the silent majority.
*minority
Your argument lies upon the basis that the country should act upon the will of the majority which is not how the Founding Fathers approached it.
Clearly they did as the constitution dictates that we're a representative democracy which is essentially acted by the rule of the majority voting on lawmakers.
However, if there is genuine concern about the tyranny of the majority, the minority will organize in response and have a shot at victory as well.
The data I've previously cited paints an entirely different picture considering the majority of votes are being silenced.
. In 2012 during his re-election his approval was 37-55.
Anecdotal claim.
Voters don’t care about liking the candidate, they vote based on policy.
You're once again ignoring the fact that voters don't care for Trump's conservative policies as demonstrated by not only the approval rating but by the popular vote. Not to mention considering the fact that as demonstrated by the popular vote and different polls, the majority of the United States are democrats.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
The point is that states with higher populations will be targeted while smaller states with smaller populations will be left unattended.
Again, never stated it was perfect.
However it's important the majority of the country is represented and personally I'd rather see candidates cater to a few states but be more representative than to see a few states but to see it less representative.
Besides again states such as California, New York, and Texas aren't 100 % red so you can't act as if the entire states would vote for a candidate when these states still have large percentages of the minority party.
It’s merely a coincidence that a majority of smaller states vote GOP right?
And what's your point? That I am somehow biased and am unsatisfied with the system ONLY because of the fact that Democrats are at a disadvantage?
This couldn't be further from the truth, if the roles were reversed I'd STILL support the abolition of the electoral college.
You can't read my mind and just assume that I am against the electoral college out of some bias, so please refrain from making baseless assumptions on my character.
You and I both know that the media will blame Trump no matter when it happens, so you can cut the bs
Provide me statistics or studies on the media bias and I'll believe it.
Besides are you suggesting the votes were rigged popular vote wise?
However, just for fun, I'll assume there is a media bias against Trump.
Well according to Fox News, Trump's approval rating on their polling is still at 43 % approval and 56 % disapproval. Even worse numbers than the other site I cited.
Attributing the economy to Obama is ridiculous. Stocks surged massively after Trump was elected, not before.
No source cited and isn't backed up by statistical data.
According to CBS, the GDP rising from Obama started at -2.5 at the beginning and surged to 4.2 % towards the last two years.
Why tf would I travel 20 miles to vote in North Dakota if some coastal elite is going to decide my fate anyways.
Because your vote is exactly the same as the coastal elite.
If your concern is about smaller states, why are you supporting the electoral college when the graph I cited proves that smaller states such as North Dakota aren't visited at all under the electoral college. At least under a popular vote, their votes are equal to those in bigger states and aren't silenced.
Besides, you really believe the majority of Californians are simply coastal elites? Are you going to completely ignore the working class in California which makes up the majority of the population? Not just in California but in the entirety of the United States?
This is a pretty bold claim, where is the statistical data that proves this?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Considering the majority of Americans want it to be abolished, it's only a matter of time before the electoral college is ratified. Eventually, the Republican states will be pressured to it.
The republicans have fluctuated between supporting the abolition and wanting to keep it.
As of right now, Republicans want to keep it however just a few years ago the majority didn't want to keep it.
It isn't that impossible as you say it's, although it won't be happening soon eventually it's very likely it will occur.
Even if it isn't likely to be ratified, that doesn't invalidate my overall argument concerning the electoral college.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Electoral abolishment via constitutional change will never make it through the Senate for obvious reasons.
Not backed up by statistical data at all, according to this source 55 % of Americans wish to abolish the electoral college.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Considering that the great recession was looked at as even greater a threat than the great depression, it's actually a miracle we recovered so quickly.
Economies don't just fix themselves in 2-3 years, it took a full 10 years before we climbed ourselves out of the great depression. 6 years going from a -2.5 GDP growth too 4.2 is very impressive and is largely due to Obama's economy, not Trumps.
. Trump is rather pro business, with low taxes and low regulation. I think that strategy beats Obama's high taxes, high regulation, and subsidies.
Considering that Obama got us out of arguably the greatest recession the nations saw in just 6 years, this argument makes no sense.
Especially considering FDR with his liberal policies climbed us out of the great depression.
Although this is overall almost irrelevant and we won't know how well Trumps economy will fair in a good 2-3 more years.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
I mean quite honestly the electoral college's days seem to be almost over considering the vast amount of 2020 democrats who want to reform it or are open to reforming it.
It's quite frankly only a matter of time it's reformed. Although currently, the electoral college isn't the central issue for the democrat's campaigns as they're focusing on climate change and healthcare. Which to be fair are probably greater issues to me than the electoral college is. Don't get me wrong the electoral college is defiatly a huge issue for me however I feel as though climate change, healthcare, and the education system must be fixed first.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
If your point is that Nixons failed economy is in part due to the previous presidency, ok I agree with you. However as I already stated, while Nixon did inherit a bad economy he worsened the economy.
Both of you are acting as if I am on Carter's side when I have already stated I am not.
The entire point I am making is that it's a false analogy to blame Carter's presidency for the sole reason for an economic collapse when there is obviously a huger cause for this economic collapse.
Which in turn makes his analogy false and only proves my point even further.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
If you’re popular in NY, TX, CA, and FL you can ignore the rest of the country.
Lumping two liberal states, a swing state, and a Republican stronghold together and acting as if any voter would appeal to all 4 states completely is a false analogy.
So if a recession comes it’ll be Obama’s fault right?
Depends when it happens, 3 years isn't enough however if Trump does get re-elected it'll likely happen sometime during his second term if it does happen.
This is too vague of a scenario however and Obama's policies have been policies that pulled the United States out of the great recession in the first place as Obama made our GDP go from -2.5 % at the start of his presidency to 4.2 % by the end of his second term. Therefore it's unlikely this is going to be happening.
If a recession happened let's say tomorrow for instance than most likely it would be Obama's fault as it hasn't been long enough to determine the merit of the Trump economy. Although it does depend on the specifics of the recession.
You mean liberals in California and New York?
You do understand that California and New York don't equate to the majority of the country right? Especially considering that while these states are by far liberal strongholds, they do have a chunk of republicans in these states.
While the popular vote system isn't perfect, it's better than the electoral college as at least votes aren't silenced based on location and certain states which don't represent the majority of the country aren't given absurd power.
Broken when it doesn’t benefit you huh
Ok, and it isn't broken when it benefits you.
What's your point?
Approval rating is from polling which has proven time and time again that when it comes to Trump it’s unreliable.
Care to elaborate? And even if you want to completely ignore approval ratings, you can't ignore that Trump didn't win the popular vote and thus didn't appeal to the majority of voters.
Furthermore me disapproving him doesn’t mean I won’t vote for him. I can hate him as a person but his ideology still aligns with mine and therefore I’ll vote for him.
Considering that the data I provided previously also cited disapproval ratings being significantly higher than approval ratings, this doesn't make sense what so ever.
You also haven't proved that people hate him as a person but agree with his politics.
Especially considering the majority of the country are democrats when taking into account the approval rating and the popular vote.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
your reality today is different from the voter's reality in 1980.
Alright so you're completely going to ignore historical context completely and ignore the previous two presidencys which contributed to the economic collapse and you'd rather put faith in outdated opinions of the voters. When the same logic can be applied to Trump. I mean aright.
Being popular in one state doesn't make you the president of the other 49 states.
In a way it kind of does, if you're popular in all of the swing states you can ignore the rest of the country as demonstrated by the data I've provided.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Firstly notice how I NEVER stated that Carter had no part in the economic collapse.
What Parrot was stating was that Carter was solely responsible for an economic collapse in just 3 years when in reality the economy was essentially already in an economic collapse.
Secondly, it actually is Nixon's fault the economy was bad as after his presidency the economy was in the economic ruin which Ford and then Carter consequentially inherited. Therefore this analogy fails and doesn't disprove my point.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'd agree if he lost the electoral college since we live in a republic, not a democracy.
The United States has and always will be a representative democracy in which we elect officials who create laws rather than voting on laws correctly.
The popular vote is more of a measure of a nation's opinion than the electoral college which actively silences a good majority of votes.
If you want an example of this, voting in Texas and California is almost pointless as both states are strongholds for republicans and democrats. If you're a republican in California there's no point to vote as the state will be blue no matter what happens 99 % of the time and vice versa for texas.
The electoral college also puts way too much emphasis and power in the swing states and not in the rest of the states as demonstrated by this graph which illustrates that the majority of presidential candidates concentrate all of their focus on swing states while ignoring the rest of the country.
Due to this, the electoral college isn't telling of the majority of the countries opinion of a president. Also taking into account Trumps approval rating as of 2019 only being 41 %, this paints a clear picture that Trump isn't looked favorably by the majority of voters.
I used the 1980 article because it most accurately reflected the voters leaving the booths.
But once again you're still ignoring the underlying fact that the reason why Carter's presidency for the most part failed was due to him inheriting a terrible economy left to him by Ford and especially Nixon. Therefore you can't use this analogy as it doesn't fit in line with your overall point of economies literally collapsing in 3 years when the economy was already collapsing in the first place.
if anything, Trump's victory was a clear signal that the Obama recovery wasn't good or fast enough to propel Hillary to a victory.
Considering that Clinton won the popular vote and support from the majority of the country, voters agreed that Obama did a fine job as president.
Considering that Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great depression and managed to turn it around in the last 2 years of his presidency, I'd say Obama was successful considering the GDP growth at the start of his presidency was at -2.5 and ended at + 4.2, and the only reason Trump won was because of the broken system known as the electoral college.
Trump very plainly doesn't appeal to the majority of voters as demonstrated by his approval rating and him losing the popular vote. So to call the majority of voters " not buying Obamas liberal propaganda " is a gross understatement as demonstrated by the data which proves the opposite.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Voters opinions are irrelevant to the overall fact that Carter inherited a terrible economy that spanned a decade on the verge of inflation.
I mean if you want to go off of voters opinions I mean ok Trump lost the popular vote by your logic that means Trump would make a bad president. Or
I have already admitted that Carter still was a bad president however in your original comment you acted as if Carter was SOLELY responsible for the economic collapse during his presidency when in reality it was mostly due to the fault of his predecessor's failures.
This still doesn't debunk anything I've stated so far and the opposite rings true since you're essentially acting as if Trump is responsible for the economic boom when he's inheriting Obamas economy. In your own analogy, you'll notice that the main reason Carter's economy was terrible was due to the previous president's failures and for the most part wasn't his fault. Carter wasn't solely responsible for his failed economy which debunks your analogy.
Also, this is an unfair comparison since you're comparing Carter who's completely finished his entire presidency to Trump which has only been in office for a few years. Technically not even 3 at this point.
Also, the source you're using was originally published in 1980 and is largely outdated and doesn't take into account the broader historical context that occurred after Carters presidency.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well sorry, but facts don't agree.
From the source,
Jimmy Carter inherited a deeply troubled economy. The "great inflation" that is associated with his presidency in fact began in the latter part of the Johnson years, and the oil crisis Carter faced was the second oil price shock of the decade. In addition, a decline in worker productivity and a rise in competition from Germany and Japan compounded the nation's economic problems.
From this source,
Jimmy Carter was surely one of the unluckiest presidents in US history. He took office in 1977 with an economy racked by stagflation and dependent on imported oil
To summarize, Jimmy Carter while his economics failed and he was lackluster of a president, you can't attribute this failure to entirely being his fault.
He inherited Nixons horrible and atrocious economy and much of Carter's failures are attributed to Nixon's failures as a president.
Therefore it's rather unfair to blame Carter entirely for the economic collapse when most of it was Nixon's fault, not Carters.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This analogy fails since he inherited the Nixons economy which was on the verge of inflation in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
aw man your so badass RM. Master of strategy doing his job
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Lots of analysts believe it was as bad if not worse than the great depression.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
President Trump inherited a good economy unless Trump is actively trying you can't exactly screw up an entire economy within 3 years. The problem is that you're acting as if Trump is to be thanked for this economy when in reality the only reason the economy is good at the moment is because of Obama's work during his presidency.
Do you seriously believe that presidents can radically change the economy in just 3 years of office?
It would be a different story if Trump inherited a dismal economy like Obama did and turned it around in 3 years. However the economy was already booming under Obama, and considering Obama inherited one of the worst economies, most of the Trump economys " success " is thanks to Obama, not Trump.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's seriously all you take from this? I'm not stating that I am stating that's far too early to tell whether or not Trump's economy is successful or not. This goes for pretty much any president, you can't judge an entire presidencies economy in only 3 years.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You do realize the only reason why the economy is booming is because of Obama right? Obama inherited the worst economy since the great depression and in his last 2 years of the presidency, the economy was booming through all of the hard work Obama put in.
If you want to read an article that goes more in-depth than read this. However, it's very unfair to judge Trumps economy right now considering he's inheriting Obamas economy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
First 2 and I hated everything after the first season.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Dr.Franklin admitted he wanted to harass Rational Madman off of the site on one of the forums. Here's a link, the specific comment where he stated this was # 150
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Homosexual feelings of being attracted to the same sex.
Created:
I'll cut to the chase, basically, I need help improving my writing skills as generally it appears I am very vague on connecting my evidence and reasoning together.
So my question would be whether or not anyone would be interested in seeing forums like this? Maybe not necessarily for my papers but for anyone else who needs constructive feedback?
Created:
Posted in:
rm i posted a new forum to help stop the internet bullys from bulying u, i hope u like it!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
omg stop bullying rm meanie! Hes a GENIUS and ur just jelly
Created:
Posted in:
omg omg people u need to stop bullying rm.
Hes an intellectual genius in the art of strategy and his skills in the realm of debate are a gift from the FUCKING GODS!
and u all are just jealous
rm i love you and your a genius and i hope everyone else recognizes that
rational madman i love you and want you to overcome the internet bullys so im going to link you this site to help you cope
best of wishes to you, and no homo but I LOVE u!
Created:
Posted in:
Alright so it seems you're making baseless assumptions on what the LGBT community supports without actually conducting any research yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Source? It seems you're unable to provide me with a source.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
But again where is your statistics done on the matter to prove that the majority of the community supports this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
But again, how is it harmful?
It seems you're ignoring my overall counters and are instead repeating the initial claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I don't have to prove why it's useful, you're the one making the claim it's harmful.
My opinion on pride parades even as a member of the LGBT community is that personally I don't really like it however if the community wants it I wouldn't try to stop it.
Essentially I consider myself neutral on the issue.
Now answer the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Ok, where is your statistics done on the majority of LGBT supporting the pride parade? And even if the majority did you still haven't proved that pride parades are harmful to society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
According to webster discrimination is defined as,
Definition of discriminationb: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
It can be assumed that hate crimes committed against LGBT people have been done due to prejudiced treatment and outlook.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
A lot of the statistics done on STD's have been vastly outdated. And once the issues became so widespread that vaccines and treatments began being put out the issues alleviated.
Aids is a prime example, during the '80s and 90's there was a massive aids epidemic in the LGBT community however once vaccines, treatments, and education began being available, the epidemic ceased.
I mean issues like these aren't exclusive to the LGBT community and exist with heterosexuals as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Gay people has never been discriminated agaisnt
Assuming you aren't trolling, this is probably the most asinine statement I've ever heard between debate.org and DART. That isn't backed up by basic statistics whatsoever.
According to vox, sexual orientation between 2011 and 2015 makes up 22 percent of hate crimes in the United States. Even greater than the number of hate crimes on disabled people and on religion.
Reject this statistic because vox is " bias"?
Ok well according to the Seattle Times, the hate crime rate for LGBT people has doubled in Seattle in the past year.
So you reject statistics done on vox and the Seattle times, aright well let's use the FBI statistics done on hate crime.
Statistically, the LGBT community made up 15 percent of hate crimes in 2017. Which is an extremely huge number considering the LGBT community is a small fraction of the population compared to women which received significantly fewer hate crimes directed towards them.
LGBT have historically and very recently been victims of oppression and to write it off is to erase history.
Are you going to ignore tons of statistical data done on the matter? Ignore the amount of countries where being gay is punishable by death? And ignore the fact that gay marriage was outlawed until very recently?
Next time before you make incredibly ignorant statements, you should probably do research on the subject before speaking.
Created: