Does every movie and tv series have to have a female warrior lead?
I mean, isn't it cliche at this point?
Not just a female warrior lead....but every show and movie now has women who all are absolute experts in martial arts, throw trained men around like ragdolls, never sustain a punch to the face, and never....ever lose a fight.
It's not just cliche and pandering, or woke.....it's silly.
Really? Every show and movie? You know what's silly? Your post.
shareEvery modern show and movie does not have that.
shareMost do.
shareBy "female warrior lead" do you specifically mean "main character is a woman who is a warrior" or "*one* of the main characters, is a woman, who is a warrior"?
shareThe latter -- even in properties where men are supposed to be the lead there is always a woman who is as equally skilled as him for some reason. Even Extraction 2 kind of suffered from this.
Apparently Disney has to retool the new Blade movie because the females took precedence over Blade as being the main stars.
Lots of places have migrant camps. What's your point?
It's causing massive amounts of unrest and discontent among the populace. It is obviously not sustainable. In Massachusetts, they had to declare a state of emergency due to the crisis:
https://www.mass.gov/news/governor-healey-declares-state-of-emergency-calls-for-support-for-newly-arriving-migrant-families
How is this obscene?
That is one example; the other examples I linked to exemplify my point.
Honestly, I think you're being a dishonest hateful sack of shit here and applying standards to LGBT identification that you would not apply to christian or far-right identification. He only declared non-binary AFTER he was arrested.
Not at all; just sounds like you're being prejudiced against him and denying him his truth. You do know they call that trans-erasure right? Or is trans-erasure okay when you do it?
Without seeing this supposed textbook, I cannot comment. But notably there's no evidence of sex education in a general sense in the UK causing any issues at all.
Yes there is -- in fact, it's spread from Scotland to Ireland to Britain:
https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/parents-protest-sex-education-lessons-21901559
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/craicnet/4779765-parents-in-north-dublin-protest-against-pornography-in-schools-vi
No, we are not. Young people are having LESS SEX. And teen pregnancies are in DECLINE.
Young people (mostly men) are engaging in fewer relationships resulting in the decline of birth rates, but a disproportionate amount of women are engaging in more sex:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-state-of-our-unions/202302/why-are-so-many-young-men-single-and-sexless
https://news.iu.edu/live/news/26924-nearly-1-in-3-young-men-in-the-us-report-having-no share
>
It's causing massive amounts of unrest and discontent among the populace. It is obviously not sustainable. In Massachusetts, they had to declare a state of emergency due to the crisis:
https://www.mass.gov/news/governor-healey-declares-state-of-emergency-calls-for-support-for-newly-arriving-migrant-families
This still is not a failed state. You can name as many problems as you like. The USA, European countries are functioning democratic states.
>That is one example; the other examples I linked to exemplify my point.
Answer the question. How is that picture obscene?
>Not at all; just sounds like you're being prejudiced against him and denying him his truth. You do know they call that trans-erasure right? Or is trans-erasure okay when you do it?
You are continuing to double down on your continual dishonesty. I repeat because you did not address it: He only declared non-binary AFTER he was arrested. There is no such history in his record, and plenty of anti-LGBT attitudes in a general sense in his record. You ignore that because you are determined to build a dishonest narrative.
You would not be so credulous if a transperson shot up a school, and then claimed it was because they were some christian fanatic. Or do you personally just agree that so long as someone claims they are a christian, regardless of any context, that they automatically are and always have been?
>Yes there is -- in fact, it's spread from Scotland to Ireland to Britain:
https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/parents-protest-sex-education-lessons-21901559
Protests are not evidence of any societal problems. Also this source has NOTHING to do with pornography, and is protesting LGBT related education - and it's primarily by muslims.
>Young people (mostly men) are engaging in fewer relationships resulting in the decline of birth rates, but a disproportionate amount of women are engaging in more sex:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-state-of-our-unions/202302/why-are-so-many-young-men-single-and-sexless
And the reasons, as many as there are, contradict your original claim that we're having insane amounts of sex and that teen pregnancies are through the roof. They are not.
This still is not a failed state. You can name as many problems as you like. The USA, European countries are functioning democratic states.
Not for long.
Answer the question. How is that picture obscene?
Being topless in public.
He only declared non-binary AFTER he was arrested.
How do you know he didn't self-affirm before he was arrested? Can you prove that he did not?
Or do you personally just agree that so long as someone claims they are a christian, regardless of any context, that they automatically are and always have been?
It all depends on if they followed Christian doctrine in their behaviour.
Protests are not evidence of any societal problems.
This link definitely indicates pornography is being taught as part of the sex ed:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/craicnet/4779765-parents-in-north-dublin-protest-against-pornography-in-schools-video-link-to-the-parents-speaking-inside
contradict your original claim that we're having insane amounts of sex and that teen pregnancies are through the roof
Relative to the people having sex, it is. Especially since birth rates are below replacement levels. That means that a large portion of people are not sustaining the population, but the people who are engaging in intercourse are simply doing so out of promiscuity. share
>Not for long.
No reason given to believe this.
>Being topless in public.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/07/07/19/4E031DE900000578-5928343-image-a-43_1530988941305.jpg
They aren't topless. How is this obscene?
>How do you know he didn't self-affirm before he was arrested? Can you prove that he did not?
By this logic we should just assume everyone was (is) trans because we can't disprove the possibility that they weren't. His actual history contradicts his claims.
>It all depends on if they followed Christian doctrine in their behaviour.
How do you know, in this circumstance, that your interpretation of christian doctrine isn't wrong? How would it mean they weren't sincere even if they failed to meet the standards you set out here?
>This link definitely indicates pornography is being taught as part of the sex ed:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/craicnet/4779765-parents-in-north-dublin-protest-against-pornography-in-schools-video-link-to-the-parents-speaking-inside
No, this refers to "gender ideology". The OP calls it pornography, but it's not necessarily the same thing.
>Relative to the people having sex, it is. Especially since birth rates are below replacement levels.
I have no idea how you'd even pretend to know this. Got any data that backs this up at all?
No reason given to believe this.
WW3 looms on several fronts due to kakistocracies, while the migrant crisis is proving to cause economic and social collapse, and the birthing crisis is well below replacement levels, which will cause massive infrastructural problems within the next generation.
They aren't topless. How is this obscene?
The one in the middle absolutely is topless. Plus the other photos of the people in the bondage gear absolutely is obscene.
His actual history contradicts his claims.
No, select people claim that their brief experience with him contradicts his claims. So are you saying you believe others instead of the actual person and his proclaimed truth? Does that also mean everyone who says men can't be women are true and the trans who are born men that claim to be women are then lying? Can't have it both ways.
How do you know, in this circumstance, that your interpretation of christian doctrine isn't wrong?
Because it's in the Bible.
The OP calls it pornography, but it's not necessarily the same thing.
It is when everyone who witnessed sex ed films like this one called it explicit and it actually had to be pulled:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173755/Channel-4-sex-education-film-schools-withdrawn-parents-protest.html
I have no idea how you'd even pretend to know this. Got any data that backs this up at all?
Sure:
https://lifehacker.com/here-s-how-much-sex-everybody-is-having-1795561168
https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-releases/lancet-dramatic-declines-global-fertility-rates-set-transform share
>WW3 looms on several fronts due to kakistocracies, while the migrant crisis is proving to cause economic and social collapse, and the birthing crisis is well below replacement levels, which will cause massive infrastructural problems within the next generation.
Whether or not WW3 looms due to dysfunctional foreign policy has nothing to do with domestic issues causing civilisational collapse on their own, which is what you were claiming prior.
>The one in the middle absolutely is topless. Plus the other photos of the people in the bondage gear absolutely is obscene.
That looks like a very tight shirt.
There is nothing against UK law in that picture. I'm also not sure that just dressing up in bondage gear in itself is "obscene" per UK law.
>No, select people claim that their brief experience with him contradicts his claims. So are you saying you believe others instead of the actual person and his proclaimed truth? Does that also mean everyone who says men can't be women are true and the trans who are born men that claim to be women are then lying? Can't have it both ways.
So do we have anyone whatsoever that corroborates his claims for being associated with the LGBT culture and movement prior to his rampage?
"Aldrich had allegedly created a "free speech" website that hosted violent and racist content — including a video that advocated killing civilians to "cleanse society" — as of the night of the shooting. A second site, that was identified as a "brother website" on its homepage, had hosted footage of the 2022 Buffalo shooting and, on the night of the Club Q shooting, came to display four other videos, including one which apparently showed Aldrich's face reflected in a vehicle's rear view mirror. Testimony from a February 2023 hearing implied that Aldrich had operated a neo-Nazi website prior to the shooting."
His own actions contradict his claims.
>Because it's in the Bible.
And your own interpretation is always correct? And secondly: >WW3 looms on several fronts due to kakistocracies, while the migrant crisis is proving to cause economic and social collapse, and the birthing crisis is well below replacement levels, which will cause massive infrastructural problems within the next generation.
Whether or not WW3 looms due to dysfunctional foreign policy has nothing to do with domestic issues causing civilisational collapse on their own, which is what you were claiming prior.
>The one in the middle absolutely is topless. Plus the other photos of the people in the bondage gear absolutely is obscene.
That looks like a very tight shirt.
There is nothing against UK law in that picture. I'm also not sure that just dressing up in bondage gear in itself is "obscene" per UK law.
>No, select people claim that their brief experience with him contradicts his claims. So are you saying you believe others instead of the actual person and his proclaimed truth? Does that also mean everyone who says men can't be women are true and the trans who are born men that claim to be women are then lying? Can't have it both ways.
So do we have anyone whatsoever that corroborates his claims for being associated with the LGBT culture and movement prior to his rampage?
"Aldrich had allegedly created a "free speech" website that hosted violent and racist content — including a video that advocated killing civilians to "cleanse society" — as of the night of the shooting. A second site, that was identified as a "brother website" on its homepage, had hosted footage of the 2022 Buffalo shooting and, on the night of the Club Q shooting, came to display four other videos, including one which apparently showed Aldrich's face reflected in a vehicle's rear view mirror. Testimony from a February 2023 hearing implied that Aldrich had operated a neo-Nazi website prior to the shooting."
His own actions contradict his claims.
>Because it's in the Bible.
And your own interpretation is always correct? And secondly: How would it mean they weren't sincere even if they failed to meet the standards you set out here?
>It is when everyone who witnessed sex ed films like this one called it explicit and it actually had to be pulled:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173755/Channel-4-sex-education-film-schools-withdrawn-parents-protest.html
This is a completely different article from over 10 years ago. It has no relevance to the other articles you've linked.
My final question wasn't about birth rates (everyone knows they are declining), but what data you're drawing from that somehow demonstrates that we're having obscene amounts of sex and obscene amounts of teenage pregnancies.
Whether or not WW3 looms due to dysfunctional foreign policy has nothing to do with domestic issues causing civilisational collapse on their own, which is what you were claiming prior.
It's both:
https://youtu.be/GZ-sA69hPo0
https://youtu.be/MAcHTp4YmBk
That looks like a very tight shirt.
Nope; she's topless.
I'm also not sure that just dressing up in bondage gear in itself is "obscene" per UK law.
Only if it can be proved to be of good use to the broader public, including but not limited to scientific, artistic, or literary merit, of which sexual bondage gear applies to none of those:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/7-8/66/section/4
So do we have anyone whatsoever that corroborates his claims for being associated with the LGBT culture and movement prior to his rampage?
Are you saying his truth is only determined by corroboration of the public?
His own actions contradict his claims.
Framing. None of that says he or his website directly advocated for the harm of LGBT members, nor can you prove that the content on the sites were highlighting the dangers that the community faced. Try again.
And your own interpretation is always correct?
No interpretation needed. The principles are clear as day.
This is a completely different article from over 10 years ago. It has no relevance to the other articles you've linked.
Which is why it's more relevant than ever to the point: that pornographic material has been used in sexual education for over a decade now.
what data you're drawing from that somehow demonstrates that we're having obscene amounts of sex and obscene amounts of teenage pregnancies.
That's what the data shows -- a large portion of people not having any sex, and yet the people who are happen to be doing so at alarming rates.
share
>It's both:
https://youtu.be/GZ-sA69hPo0
https://youtu.be/MAcHTp4YmBk
Crime exists. So what? This is not evidence of civilisational collapse.
>Nope; she's topless.
https://i.imgur.com/v4HyY0t.png Can literally see where the shirt begins.
>Only if it can be proved to be of good use to the broader public, including but not limited to scientific, artistic, or literary merit, of which sexual bondage gear applies to none of those:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/7-8/66/section/4
This is literally about films and music, dude. It doesn't even mention or reference bondage.
And how does one objectively quantify "artistic" or "literary" merit?
>Are you saying his truth is only determined by corroboration of the public?
I'm saying he's full of shit, and this his actual activities prior to his arrest contradict everything he's saying - and it seems the courts agree with me.
>Framing. None of that says he or his website directly advocated for the harm of LGBT members, nor can you prove that the content on the sites were highlighting the dangers that the community faced. Try again.
You've been on his website, have you? Are neo-nazis typically LGBT? Do they typically shoot up gay clubs? I will ask again: Where is the evidence of any involvement from him in any LGBT culture or even just via internet search history?
You are a detestable piece of shit applying standards to someone who you would NEVER apply the same standards to a self-proclaimed christian after a crime.
>No interpretation needed. The principles are clear as day.
And secondly: How would it mean they weren't sincere even if they failed to meet the standards you set out here?
>Which is why it's more relevant than ever to the point: that pornographic material has been used in sexual education for over a decade now.
I mean it was withdrawn at the time, and at the complaint of the schools minister at the time.
>That's what the data shows -- a large portion of people not having any sex, and yet the people who are happen to be doing so at alarming rates.
Your data on sex habits is 7 years old (or contains data between only 2015-19 with comments only from 2017) - apparently was posted or reuploaded in 2022 though. It doesn't outline any historical trends that I can see.
Crime exists. So what? This is not evidence of civilisational collapse.
Mounting geopolitical unrest + infrastructural collapse = civilisation collapse. You cannot have a functioning epicentre consisting of an urban populace if the subways, housing, and streets are riddled with crime, poop, and dysfunctionality.
Can literally see where the shirt begins.
So it's a completely see-through shirt? Same difference as being topless.
This is literally about films and music, dude. It doesn't even mention or reference bondage.
That's because the OPA hasn't been updated properly, but it applies to public displays or acts, as it also references theatre. It's about public conduct, but they use entertainment as an example for exceptions.
Where is the evidence of any involvement from him in any LGBT culture or even just via internet search history?
He could have been on an anonymous LGBT board. How do you know he was not?
How would it mean they weren't sincere even if they failed to meet the standards you set out here?
It's not about my standards, it's whether their actions adhered to the principles set forth by the Bible.
I mean it was withdrawn at the time, and at the complaint of the schools minister at the time.
They haven't stopped:
https://www.ntd.com/parents-protest-against-extreme-sex-ed-content_941793.html
And the results are as I feared:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/parents-protest-school-after-first-graders-allegedly-force-girl-perform-sex-act-record-it-ipad
It doesn't outline any historical trends that I can see.
It's more startling than that: it's showing that things were bad seven years ago, and have only become worse.
share
>Mounting geopolitical unrest + infrastructural collapse = civilisation collapse. You cannot have a functioning epicentre consisting of an urban populace if the subways, housing, and streets are riddled with crime, poop, and dysfunctionality.
Again you're just saying words now. Yes, things aren't great (experience varies nation to nation) but there's zero reason to assume any western nation is on the brink of becoming a failed state.
>So it's a completely see-through shirt? Same difference as being topless.
It's a very tight shirt. Find me an example of someone in the UK arrested for that.
>That's because the OPA hasn't been updated properly, but it applies to public displays or acts, as it also references theatre. It's about public conduct, but they use entertainment as an example for exceptions.
And as I asked: And how does one objectively quantify "artistic" or "literary" merit?
You know British TV has had many raunchy and sexualised and violent TV series and films, right?
>He could have been on an anonymous LGBT board. How do you know he was not?
So you have none then. Zero evidence. You're just taking him at his word when we both know that you would not take someone who claimed Christianity for the reason for a crime after they had done it.
>It's not about my standards, it's whether their actions adhered to the principles set forth by the Bible.
And how would their failure to meet them mean they weren't sincere in their motives?
>They haven't stopped:
https://www.ntd.com/parents-protest-against-extreme-sex-ed-content_941793.html
https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/22150-majority-brits-support-teaching-orgasms-school
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/topic/Sex_education
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/sexual-orientation-and-attitudes-lgbtq-britain
Read and weep when you look at the polling.
Your second link is from the USA.
>It's more startling than that: it's showing that things were bad seven years ago, and have only become worse.
The data stops at 2019. It says nothing about what has happened since then. It seems to measure 5 years.
but there's zero reason to assume any western nation is on the brink of becoming a failed state.
If the migrant and infrastructure crisis hasn't convinced you, then I suppose nothing will.
It's a very tight shirt. Find me an example of someone in the UK arrested for that.
You aren't allowed to go around wearing a shirt that's completely see-through.
You know British TV has had many raunchy and sexualised and violent TV series and films, right?
Yes, and they were deemed by critics and the general public to be "artistic" enough so as not to be seen as obscene. Though, your mileage may vary.
So you have none then. Zero evidence.
And you have nothing to disprove his claims.
And how would their failure to meet them mean they weren't sincere in their motives?
They can be sincere in their motives, doesn't mean that they are righteous in their standards. Two completely different things. Or are you of the mind then that someone claiming to be gay and shooting up a club can represent LGBT communities just by saying their of that community?
Read and weep when you look at the polling.
That corroborates my point -- that the system is further indulging in prurient behaviours that is resulting in the corruption of the youth.
Your second link is from the USA.
Yes, but the point still stands.
It says nothing about what has happened since then.
We already see what's happening since then:
https://archive.is/wip/pkp3H
Trends are not good:
https://archive.is/dS3CG
share
>If the migrant and infrastructure crisis hasn't convinced you, then I suppose nothing will.
Decline isn't the same as collapse of the state.
>You aren't allowed to go around wearing a shirt that's completely see-through.
People can and do wear shirts where their nipples show in the UK. Show me an example of someone arrested for this.
>Yes, and they were deemed by critics and the general public to be "artistic" enough so as not to be seen as obscene. Though, your mileage may vary.
So how does one objectively determine what is "artistic" enough to outweight the obscenity? We also, by the way, do not ban porn.
>And you have nothing to disprove his claims.
His history being contradictory to it. You're just taking him at his word when we both know that you would not take someone who claimed Christianity for the reason for a crime after they had done it.
>They can be sincere in their motives, doesn't mean that they are righteous in their standards. Two completely different things. Or are you of the mind then that someone claiming to be gay and shooting up a club can represent LGBT communities just by saying their of that community?
My point was I suspect you would accuse them of lying. That they weren't really doing anything in the name of christianity.
>That corroborates my point -- that the system is further indulging in prurient behaviours that is resulting in the corruption of the youth.
I await evidence that the "system" has contributed to the changing attitudes of the UK public.
>Yes, but the point still stands.
We're talking about the UK.
>https://archive.is/wip/pkp3H
No actual statistical data on sex trends here. This is an opinion piece that... cites terms from the urban dictionary. Your claim was that a small % of people are having exponentionally more sex.
>https://archive.is/dS3CG
This has been a thing for a while, but your initial claim wasn't about gender imbalance but simply that everyone is having less sex compared to the 00s, 10s etc.
Decline isn't the same as collapse of the state.
Decline leads to collapse, that's exactly what preceded the collapse of Rome; the decline in moral standards, the seizure of property by the elites, the dissolution of societal infrastructure, and the collapse of the army. Sound familiar?
People can and do wear shirts where their nipples show in the UK. Show me an example of someone arrested for this.
Disingenuous comparison. They do not wear blatantly see-through shirts with nothing underneath.
So how does one objectively determine what is "artistic" enough to outweight the obscenity?
In the case of Pride - up until recently (where they began enforcing the rules to abide by the standards of the OPA ) -- they simply labeled the obscenity as political activism.
We also, by the way, do not ban porn.
Yes, but many films have been denied distribution by the BBFC for obscenity.
His history being contradictory to it.
No, his history is simply a tool you're using a weapon to condemn him, all while denying him his truth.
That they weren't really doing anything in the name of christianity.
Glad we agree.
I await evidence that the "system" has contributed to the changing attitudes of the UK public.
It's being taught at earlier and earlier ages, and parents are politically handcuffed from doing much about it:
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/lgbtq-inclusive-education-everything-you-need-know
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/630932
Your claim was that a small % of people are having exponentionally more sex. [...] but your initial claim wasn't about gender imbalance but simply that everyone is having less sex compared to the 00s, 10s etc.
Correlative heuristics. Only a small portion of men are having a disproportionate amount of sex with many women.
share
>Decline leads to collapse, that's exactly what preceded the collapse of Rome; the decline in moral standards, the seizure of property by the elites, the dissolution of societal infrastructure, and the collapse of the army. Sound familiar?
No, plenty of modern countries have gone or are into a natural economic decline for various reasons and there's no reason to assume they will collapse and become failed states. No Western country is anywhere near that point.
>Disingenuous comparison. They do not wear blatantly see-through shirts with nothing underneath.
I repeat: People can and do wear shirts where their nipples show in the UK. Show me an example of someone arrested for this.
>In the case of Pride - up until recently (where they began enforcing the rules to abide by the standards of the OPA ) -- they simply labeled the obscenity as political activism.
And what are you calling "recently", exactly? And you didn't answer my question: So how does one objectively determine what is "artistic" enough to outweight the obscenity?
>Yes, but many films have been denied distribution by the BBFC for obscenity.
The last example was in 2007.
>No, his history is simply a tool you're using a weapon to condemn him, all while denying him his truth.
I'm not someone who takes people at their word just because they say so if I think there's good reason to think they're full of shit, so you can pull the other one there with this "lived experiences" or "their truth" mantra.
>Glad we agree.
Don't quote mine me, fuckface.
"My point was I suspect you would accuse them of lying. That they weren't really doing anything in the name of christianity."
>It's being taught at earlier and earlier ages, and parents are politically handcuffed from doing much about it:
Chicken and egg. How do you know that attitudes towards LGBT people weren't naturally changing due to cultural changes, which then pressured for lawmakers to pass legislation to reflect that?
>https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/630
Do you think that number is anywhere near a majority of UK citizens?
No, plenty of modern countries have gone or are into a natural economic decline for various reasons and there's no reason to assume they will collapse and become failed states.
There is... it's called history, and we've seen it happen many times in the recent past. Typically they suffered the exact same symptoms before collapse.
Show me an example of someone arrested for this.
Pushing the goal posts. No one said anything about pokies through a shirt, but about toplessness and the appearance of obscenity in the public space.
And what are you calling "recently", exactly?
The parades within the last few years -- because they were getting to be sexually uncouth.
So how does one objectively determine what is "artistic" enough to outweight the obscenity?
It's usually down to the cultural standards, but if those standards keep eroding, then nothing will be viewed as obscene.
The last example was in 2007.
Which proves my point about the erosion of cultural standards in the West.
Chicken and egg. How do you know that attitudes towards LGBT people weren't naturally changing due to cultural changes, which then pressured for lawmakers to pass legislation to reflect that? [...] Do you think that number is anywhere near a majority of UK citizens?
It was definitely parliament (chicken) forcing the culture (egg) to adapt. Remember, just over a decade ago less than half of the populace thought same-sex marriage should be allowed; the rulings were forced through regardless of what the majority wanted. Now it's closer to 80% that supports a mandated societal change. It's social contagion:
https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/45868-record-number-britons-support-same-sex-marriage-10 share
>There is... it's called history, and we've seen it happen many times in the recent past. Typically they suffered the exact same symptoms before collapse.
The decline of Rome was over a much, much longer period dude.
>Pushing the goal posts. No one said anything about pokies through a shirt, but about toplessness and the appearance of obscenity in the public space.
Right, so you can't provide a single precedent for this.
>It's usually down to the cultural standards, but if those standards keep eroding, then nothing will be viewed as obscene.
And so society has moved on.
>Which proves my point about the erosion of cultural standards in the West.
Name me some things you think the BBFC should refuse. What is being permitted, right now, that should not be legally?
>It was definitely parliament (chicken) forcing the culture (egg) to adapt.
Evidence please.
>Remember, just over a decade ago less than half of the populace thought same-sex marriage should be allowed; the rulings were forced through regardless of what the majority wanted. Now it's closer to 80% that supports a mandated societal change. It's social contagion:
This is just a lie
https://web.archive.org/web/20160408155742/http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article1943680.ece
https://web.archive.org/web/20100727184447/http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/35815/a_third_of_americans_favour_same_sex_marriage
At best you can argue only a plurality supported it, but most people at minimum supported either same sex marriage or civil partnerships. Only a much smaller minority opposed either.
The decline of Rome was over a much, much longer period dude.
The West is on a speed run.
Right, so you can't provide a single precedent for this.
When did toplessness become legal in the U.k.?
Name me some things you think the BBFC should refuse. What is being permitted, right now, that should not be legally?
Who said what was being permitted should not be legal? I simply pointed out that before the BBFC was rather strict before and used to ban quite regularly, but not anymore, as it's not as if movies have become less gratuitous. In fact, even news media have admitted that there are more genitals on-screen than ever before:
https://news.yahoo.com/more-penises-appearing-tv-film-122823229.html
Evidence please.
https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/03/29/culture-re-view-gay-marriage-is-legalised-in-the-uk
Despite having LESS than half the support from the populace for it.
This is just a lie
Nope, people literally voted in America against it in prop 8, and prop 8 passed. The Supreme Court overruled prop 8 and the voters to legalise same-sex marriage:
https://www.courts.ca.gov/6465.htm
Similar thing happened in the U.K.
Only a much smaller minority opposed either.
Nope. Most people would have been okay with civil partnerships, but were not on board with gay marriage, hence them voting against it rather aggressively for years. share
>The West is on a speed run.
No reason to believe this.
>When did toplessness become legal in the U.k.?
"It's not an offence to be naked in public in England and Wales but it does become an offence if it can be proved the person stripped off with the intention to upset and shock. The complainant has to prove this."
And they were not topless.
>Who said what was being permitted should not be legal? I simply pointed out that before the BBFC was rather strict before and used to ban quite regularly, but not anymore, as it's not as if movies have become less gratuitous. In fact, even news media have admitted that there are more genitals on-screen than ever before:
You spoke of an "erosion of cultural standards" as if you think the BBFC should be denying modern material. Do you have any examples here?
>Nope, people literally voted in America against it in prop 8, and prop 8 passed. The Supreme Court overruled prop 8 and the voters to legalise same-sex marriage:
https://www.courts.ca.gov/6465.htm
I am referring to the UK, not California.
In terms of the USA, by 2015 gay marriage already had popular support: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
>Similar thing happened in the U.K.
And what vote is this?
>Nope. Most people would have been okay with civil partnerships, but were not on board with gay marriage, hence them voting against it rather aggressively for years.
Gay marriage had plurality support, and in some polls it had majority support. Both had much more support combined compared to nothing. And who "voted against it"? What referendums are you even referring to in the UK?
No reason to believe this.
Definitely linked plenty of reasons.
And they were not topless.
The people in BDSM gear definitely wear.
You spoke of an "erosion of cultural standards" as if you think the BBFC should be denying modern material.
It's about the change in pattern -- the BBFC used to have strict standards, and now they do not.
I am referring to the UK, not California.
You linked to an American poll; but voting patterns from the populace proved the poll wrong.
In terms of the USA, by 2015 gay marriage already had popular support:
That was after the Supreme Court had already forced the issue against the popular vote.
And what vote is this?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-18/queen-gives-assent-to-british-gay-marriage-law/4827308
Even though it had support from less than half the constituents of the parliamentary.
Both had much more support combined compared to nothing. And who "voted against it"? What referendums are you even referring to in the UK?
Polls and religious institutions in the U.K; in America, propositions.
share
>Definitely linked plenty of reasons.
Societal strife is not evidence. There has always been crime, protests.
>The people in BDSM gear definitely wear.
Give me a link to the picture of that again, please?
>It's about the change in pattern -- the BBFC used to have strict standards, and now they do not.
They didn't censor very much actually. And the change is a good thing. People should be allowed to make things without being censored.
>You linked to an American poll; but voting patterns from the populace proved the poll wrong.
A national poll. Not a specific Californian one.
>That was after the Supreme Court had already forced the issue against the popular vote.
Gay marriage was polling at over 50% by 2012.
>Even though it had support from less than half the constituents of the parliamentary.
That's a parliamentary vote, not a referendum.
And objecting to gay marriage had *less support* than supporting it.
>Polls and religious institutions in the U.K; in America, propositions.
The polls that gave gay marriage a plurality? And a few that gave it a majority?
US polls that gave gay marriage a majority in 2012, 3 years before the supreme court decision?
Societal strife is not evidence. There has always been crime, protests.
Not at this level.
Give me a link to the picture of that again, please?
You'll have to scroll up for that. Providing evidence of such has put way too much Pride BDSM in my internet history as it is.
And the change is a good thing.
Having no standards is a good thing? It's only led to the dissolution of social cohesion.
A national poll. Not a specific Californian one.
California is the most Liberal location in America, and even THEY didn't want to legalise gay marriage. What does that tell you?
Gay marriage was polling at over 50% by 2012.
The votes never corroborated that sentiment.
That's a parliamentary vote
Yes, and parliament voted against popular sentiment of the time.
US polls that gave gay marriage a majority in 2012, 3 years before the supreme court decision?
Polls weren't reflective of electoral patterns in the least. The courts superseded the will of the people.
Essentially, they forced people to accept a controversial issue, against the will of the people.
share
>Not at this level.
You haven't provided any statistical comparison.
>You'll have to scroll up for that. Providing evidence of such has put way too much Pride BDSM in my internet history as it is.
I found the daily mail source, and can see no picture there where anyone is topless.
>Having no standards is a good thing? It's only led to the dissolution of social cohesion.
You keep saying this, but then also claim that the BBFC shouldn't have banned anything since 2007.
I'll also await evidence that violent/MA-type content somehow causes a breakdown of social cohesion.
>California is the most Liberal location in America, and even THEY didn't want to legalise gay marriage. What does that tell you?
That other polls did support gay marriage at the time.
>The votes never corroborated that sentiment.
California voted in 2008. I am talking about national polling from 2012 onwards, 3 years before the supreme court decision.
>Yes, and parliament voted against popular sentiment of the time.
Except more people wanted gay marriage than people who opposed it. And a few polls suggested there was a majority.
>Polls weren't reflective of electoral patterns in the least. The courts superseded the will of the people.
How do you know they superseded the will of the people when opinion polls suggested the opposite, repeatedly 3 years prior?
In addition, I reject the concept of tyranny of the majority. Gay people getting married doesn't harm straight people.
>Essentially, they forced people to accept a controversial issue, against the will of the people.
Does something happen to you if gay people marry?
You haven't provided any statistical comparison.
Don't need to, there is massive unrest over the migrant crisis that has resulted in massive protests around the globe in developed countries:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/asylum-claims-driving-migrant-crisis-ebdffcb6
I found the daily mail source, and can see no picture there where anyone is topless.
Wasn't the Daily Mail with the BDSM pride stuff.
You keep saying this, but then also claim that the BBFC shouldn't have banned anything since 2007.
Never said they should not have banned anything.
That other polls did support gay marriage at the time.
Voting patterns did not.
Except more people wanted gay marriage than people who opposed it. And a few polls suggested there was a majority.
No, people were put on the spot to accept it via polling. There was no push from the general populace to get the assembly to legalise gay marriage.
How do you know they superseded the will of the people when opinion polls suggested the opposite, repeatedly 3 years prior?
Opinion polls in very Liberal regions.
In addition, I reject the concept of tyranny of the majority. Gay people getting married doesn't harm straight people.
It destroys social cohesion, which is why countries trying to maintain or build that cohesion ban it.
Does something happen to you if gay people marry?
Tyranny under any other name is evil in the eyes of Liberals, save for when it comes to forcing Liberal agendas.
share
>Don't need to, there is massive unrest over the migrant crisis that has resulted in massive protests around the globe in developed countries:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/asylum-claims-driving-migrant-crisis-ebdffcb6
Yes, you do. Show me crime data from the 1950s and 60s and 70s and 80s etc.
>Wasn't the Daily Mail with the BDSM pride stuff.
Then I have no idea what you're referring to.
>Voting patterns did not.
And less supported blocking it at all.
>No, people were put on the spot to accept it via polling. There was no push from the general populace to get the assembly to legalise gay marriage.
I'll await evidence that people were "put on the spot" to accept it by polling organisations.
And in addition, people in the UK also poll massively in favour, for instance, for the death penalty - but that doesn't mean they're going to mass protest for it. A population being in favour of something doesn't mean they'll mass protest for it.
>Opinion polls in very Liberal regions.
No, these were national polls.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
You clearly do not click any links I send.
>It destroys social cohesion, which is why countries trying to maintain or build that cohesion ban it.
I'll await evidence that it "destroys social cohesion".
>Tyranny under any other name is evil in the eyes of Liberals, save for when it comes to forcing Liberal agendas.
What tyranny is imposed upon you when two gay people have a service that is labeled "marriage"?
Yes, you do. Show me crime data from the 1950s and 60s and 70s and 80s etc.
Oh boy, you shouldn't have asked for that...
https://www.westernjournal.com/as-uk-embraces-knife-control-rapes-knife-crime-shootings-skyrocket/
https://www.varbes.com/crime/england-crime
And in addition, people in the UK also poll massively in favour, for instance, for the death penalty - but that doesn't mean they're going to mass protest for it. A population being in favour of something doesn't mean they'll mass protest for it.
Thanks, this proves my point. Just because the demographic who polled positive/negative on something doesn't mean that's indicative of legislative adherence.
No, these were national polls.
National polls does not preclude political bias. Plus, the shift was unnaturally high, in-line with a very aggressive media campaign to program the populace. Between 2010 and 2014 there was a radical turnover in opinions in Western nations.
I'll await evidence that it "destroys social cohesion".
How does a community of only 100 men and no women maintain generational expanse and cultural genealogy?
What tyranny is imposed upon you when two gay people have a service that is labeled "marriage"?
It is a perversion of marriage, which is to be between a man and a woman for cohesively binding the two so that they maintain familial growth (i.e., offspring), and a family lineage. Forcing the issue to enable couplings under a term where there is no possibility of lineage is simply corrupting the intent of the recognised bond. share
>Oh boy, you shouldn't have asked for that...
https://www.westernjournal.com/as-uk-embraces-knife-control-rapes-knife-crime-shootings-skyrocket/
A specific single crime category within London. This is not evidence of incoming civilisational collapse.
What's the overall crime rate picture?
Meanwhile: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67161967
>Thanks, this proves my point. Just because the demographic who polled positive/negative on something doesn't mean that's indicative of legislative adherence.
What? I am pointing out that the UK public polls in favour of reimplimenting the death penalty. In the years preceding and around the gay marriage bill in parliament, more people as a % supported legalising gay marriage than rejecting it outright.
>National polls does not preclude political bias. Plus, the shift was unnaturally high, in-line with a very aggressive media campaign to program the populace. Between 2010 and 2014 there was a radical turnover in opinions in Western nations.
I'll away evidence that Gallup somehow manipulated the results. And your complaint about the media is completely unfalsifiable. It's inline with PRC propaganda that claims that Taiwanese self-determination doesn't really matter, and is invalid because of "propaganda". Either you support the will of the people or you don't, and you're being very inconsistent about it.
>How does a community of only 100 men and no women maintain generational expanse and cultural genealogy?
Was there something in the UK gay marriage bill that called for communities of only 100 men?
Also: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/6099-voters-back-same-sex-marriage
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/26/voters-back-gay-marriage-poll
The gay marriage vote was on the 16th of July 2013. These polls preceded it.
>It is a perversion of marriage, which is to be between a man and a woman for cohesively binding the two so that they maintain familial growth
That's your definition. Not mine. Some cultures acknowledge polygamy as part of marriage. Does two people of the same sex having their union sanctified as marriage by the state somehow impact you?
Also, plenty of straight people get married with no intent to have children.
A policy failure is not a motive to deliberately try and change continents demographics.
That's exactly what happened. And in that regard, it was not a failure, but went according to plan.
it's not the gay communities fault that straight people are not choosing to have kids.
It is their fault for being genetic dead-ends, though. It's a community with no future.
How do you know none of it has any LGBT characters in it?
The main focus on the top-selling properties are on productive lifestyles.
Does rock music "improve the excellence of man"?
Yes.
Does abstract art "improve the excellence of man"?
Yes.
Does Superhero fiction "improve the excellence of man"?
Yes.
What are feminist positions that should be banned?
All of them.
But you claimed irreligiosity causes crime.
Non-religious, non-homogeneity absolutely results in more crime.
Why are you misrepresenting it?
I'm not cherrypicking, like you.
Yet much of the crime you refer to in Europe is coming from RELIGIOUS groups.
Barbarians operating under the veil of religion.
And what would "have to be done" to stop them?
Public shaming/reproach; then jail.
You think it was acceptable for those rioters to start fires, smash buildings and cars?
Of course not. But in Ireland's case they are protecting their home from invaders.
share
>That's exactly what happened. And in that regard, it was not a failure, but went according to plan.
I will await evidence that there is a plan to specific deliberately alter all of the EUs demographics.
>It is their fault for being genetic dead-ends, though. It's a community with no future.
We're talking about birthrates. I will repeat AGAIN: It is not their fault that straight people refuse to have kids.
>The main focus on the top-selling properties are on productive lifestyles.
https://www.cbr.com/highest-grossing-anime-franchises/
What? What do you mean "productive lifestyles"? Pokemon? Mobile Suit Gundam?
>Yes.
Why does rock music "improve the excellence of man"?
>Yes.
Why does Superhero fiction "improve the excellence of man"?
>Yes.
Why does abstract art "improve the excellence of man"?
Let me get more specific: death metal, dystopian fiction. Do they improve the "excellence of man"?
>All of them.
Meaning, what, in practice? You still haven't described what are feminist positions, as far as you understand.
>Non-religious, non-homogeneity absolutely results in more crime.
But not, apparently just being non-religious. So why even include non-religious at all there?
>I'm not cherrypicking, like you.
Yes you fucking are. You're only focusing on the crime levels in blue states and ignoring that there are also red states there. Why are you misrepresenting the data?
>Barbarians operating under the veil of religion.
But.... still religious.
>Public shaming/reproach; then jail.
What form would the "public shaming take"?
And here is, as I said, your hypocrisy nakedly visible: You complain about western european countries arresting people and charging people for hate speech, claiming it makes us subservient. Don't fucking pretend like you give a flying fuck about free speech. You are on record for wanting to persecute LGBT people, feminists and liberals. In your world the police fascist state would be raiding people for expressing pro-feminist positions online. You are truly a vile hypocrite. You just admitted it. You just admitted that you think people who express pro-feminist positions should be arrested.
You don't give a fuck about freedom of speech. You just want to be the boot.
>Of course not. But in Ireland's case they are protecting their home from invaders.
So when you said "Everything" when I asked what people should be allowed to do to 'protect their culture' you did not really mean "Everything". If the Irish people doing that were in fact antifa, or BLM, you would be condemning them with ease. I thought you were in favour of law and order?
You think it's impossible for a fascist state to arrest people based on false, or trumped up charges? Or that they may have unjustifiable laws that justify resistance? The very state you describe, in itself, justifies resistance. That's what Americans claim they need firearms for.
I will await evidence that there is a plan to specific deliberately alter all of the EUs demographics.
The demographic replacement is evidence.
It is not their fault that straight people refuse to have kids.
They are contributing to it. 25% of Gen Z identifying as alphabet contributes to lower birthrates, since they're joining a community with no genetic future.
What? What do you mean "productive lifestyles"? Pokemon? Mobile Suit Gundam?
Before Pokemon Go went woke, it encouraged kids to go outside and get exercise. That is very productive.
Let me get more specific: death metal, dystopian fiction. Do they improve the "excellence of man"?
It can; dystopian fiction can help open people's eyes to avoid that future rather than embrace it, like Harlan Ellison's I have no Mouth and I must Scream, or The Matrix, or Brave New World. It encourages man to be excellent to avoid such outcomes.
Meaning, what, in practice?
Voting, birth control, and holding office.
What form would the "public shaming take"?
Shunning or public broadcasts.
You just want to be the boot.
Every civilisation has had a boot, it just depends on if it is righteous or not.
If the Irish people doing that were in fact antifa, or BLM, you would be condemning them with ease.
Because the Irish are trying to preserve, Antifa/BLM are trying to tear down. Big difference. share
>The demographic replacement is evidence.
No, it's not. It's just immigration policies, some of which are more lax or less lax than others. Some are being hardenes, such as in Denmark and elsewhere.
>They are contributing to it. 25% of Gen Z identifying as alphabet contributes to lower birthrates, since they're joining a community with no genetic future.
Much of that is nonsense, "non-binary" or bisexual. It's meaningless fluff. Majority of them will go onto having heterosexual relationships.
>Before Pokemon Go went woke, it encouraged kids to go outside and get exercise. That is very productive.
How did Pokemon Go go woke exactly? And Pokemon is much, much more than just Pokemon Go.
>It can; dystopian fiction can help open people's eyes to avoid that future rather than embrace it, like Harlan Ellison's I have no Mouth and I must Scream, or The Matrix, or Brave New World. It encourages man to be excellent to avoid such outcomes.
And what about death metal?
>Voting, birth control, and holding office.
So you think women should be banned from being elected politicians, and further banned from even arguing they should be allowed to hold office, or allowed to vote?
You really are a vile hateful misogynist. Why shouldn't I view you as evil as an Muslim reactionary from Iran?
You speak of problems with foreign integration into western culture. You would not remotely integrate into the UK. You would be as unwelcome as an Islamist. Why should I regard you as more culturally compatible with the UK than someone from India, or someone from Korea or Poland? You fundamentally hate western culture, and want to imose an authoritarian reactionary corporation on us.
>Shunning or public broadcasts.
Anyone can shun now. What do you mean by "public broadcasts"? No-one is required to host anything right now already.
>Every civilisation has had a boot, it just depends on if it is righteous or not.
So you've given up pretending that you give a fuck about free expression, I assume.
>Because the Irish are trying to preserve, Antifa/BLM are trying to tear down. Big difference.
Fuck off. You just argued that the vandalism and violence is acceptable if you agree with their cause. You have just admitted that you don't give a fuck about BLMs tactics, you only don't like their motives. You have admitted that you're in favour of committing violence against people for political reasons. You are a fascist.
You think it's impossible for a fascist state to arrest people based on false, or trumped up charges? Or that they may have unjustifiable laws that justify resistance? The very state you describe, in itself, justifies resistance. That's what Americans claim they need firearms for.
And I'll ask again: Yes you fucking are. You're only focusing on the crime levels in blue states and ignoring that there are also red states there. Why are you misrepresenting the data?
It's just immigration policies, some of which are more lax or less lax than others.
Immigration as a means of domestic demographic compensation is replacement by any other name.
Majority of them will go onto having heterosexual relationships.
Not according to the steady decline of marriage rates, and by proxy birthrates:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/25/proportion-of-married-people-in-england-and-wales-falls-below-50-for-first-time
How did Pokemon Go go woke exactly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okJTAlyR0Ys
And what about death metal?
A lot of it -- especially in Sweden, Norway, Russia and Switzerland -- is tied to national ethic pride, which can be good for encouraging patriotism.
So you think women should be banned from being elected politicians
Sure. Since they have become elected, we have steadily been moving backwards in terms of infrastructural progress.
What do you mean by "public broadcasts"?
Electronic billboards or news alerts -- as a means of public shaming or bullying. A socially responsible corrective measure, like a scarlet letter.
You have just admitted that you don't give a fuck about BLMs tactics, you only don't like their motives
Motives and tactics. The Irish are trying to preserve -- some extreme tactics may be required when their civil servants have betrayed the sovereignty of the nation. BLM is simply trying to tear down Western standards for no good gain of broader society. A better question is -- are you fine with losing the modern amenities you enjoy in your current social standing and are you okay with living in complete anarchy, with no protection, at the whim of racists who hate you?
share
>Immigration as a means of domestic demographic compensation is replacement by any other name.
You again assume motive completely baseless.
>Not according to the steady decline of marriage rates, and by proxy birthrates:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/25/proportion-of-married-people-in-england-and-wales-falls-below-50-for-first-time
Not being married doesn't mean you're not having relationships, genius.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okJTAlyR0Ys
This has to be amongst the whiniest garbage anyone could complain about. Good grief. Get a fucking life.
>A lot of it -- especially in Sweden, Norway, Russia and Switzerland -- is tied to national ethic pride, which can be good for encouraging patriotism.
A lot of it is not. What about them? What about black metal?
Should women be allowed to be performers in black or death metal bands?
>Sure. Since they have become elected, we have steadily been moving backwards in terms of infrastructural progress.
I'll await evidence that we have gone backwards in terms of infrastructur.
And, scumbag, you did not answer any of my other questions: So you also think women should further be banned from even arguing they should be allowed to hold office, or allowed to vote?
You speak of problems with foreign integration into western culture. You would not remotely integrate into the UK. You would be as unwelcome as an Islamist. Why should I regard you as more culturally compatible with the UK than someone from India, or someone from Korea or Poland? The reasons people despise Islamism are for the same reasons people despise your ideology You fundamentally hate western culture, and want to imose an authoritarian reactionary corporation on us.
>Electronic billboards or news alerts -- as a means of public shaming or bullying. A socially responsible corrective measure, like a scarlet letter.
So you want to weaponise the state to harass people for their political and social views. You really are a vile piece of shit.
>Motives and tactics. The Irish are trying to preserve -- some extreme tactics may be required when their civil servants have betrayed the sovereignty of the nation.
So you are outright openly in favour of rioting, vandalism and theft. You continue to be a hypocritical vile piece of shit.
>BLM is simply trying to tear down Western standards for no good gain of broader society. A better question is -- are you fine with losing the modern amenities you enjoy in your current social standing and are you okay with living in complete anarchy, with no protection, at the whim of racists who hate you?
I like to live in a secular democracy where people's civil liberties are protected.
I know freedom means absolutely nothing to you, as a repugnant hateful fascist.
You think it's impossible for a fascist state to arrest people based on false, or trumped up charges? Or that they may have unjustifiable laws that justify resistance? The very state you describe, in itself, justifies resistance. That's what Americans claim they need firearms for.
And I'll ask again: Yes you fucking are. You're only focusing on the crime levels in blue states and ignoring that there are also red states there. Why are you misrepresenting the data?
You again assume motive completely baseless.
Consequences corroborate motive. They have had more than a decade to course correct and have purposely not done so. Why is that?
Not being married doesn't mean you're not having relationships, genius.
That's typically how families are formed, ace.
Good grief. Get a fucking life.
The truth is still a checkmate, ace.
Should women be allowed to be performers in black or death metal bands?
If it's to help raise national ethnic pride and patriotism, sure.
So you also think women should further be banned from even arguing they should be allowed to hold office, or allowed to vote?
They should. They vote based on emotion rather than policy; and never for the collective good of man, only for selfish wants.
So you are outright openly in favour of rioting, vandalism and theft.
I am for exercising civil disobedience in favour of native cultural protectionism.
You think it's impossible for a fascist state to arrest people based on false, or trumped up charges? Or that they may have unjustifiable laws that justify resistance?
That's why there should be thorough investigations. Solves all the problems.
You're only focusing on the crime levels in blue states and ignoring that there are also red states there.
That's because gun violence is no where near as high in red states with open-carry laws. Have you ever stopped and asked why? share
>Consequences corroborate motive. They have had more than a decade to course correct and have purposely not done so. Why is that?
Europe is not a singular entity. Governments are elected by the people. Each European nation will have different responses. And you keep ignoring that some European nations have changed policy on immigration. Why do you keep doing this?
>That's typically how families are formed, ace.
But not always at all. Why do you assume that only married people are in relationships?
>The truth is still a checkmate, ace.
Whining about Pokemon Go having 'woke' character models is fucking pathetic.
>If it's to help raise national ethnic pride and patriotism, sure.
Should all performances in everything only be about raising "ethnic pride and patriotism" - and if it doesn't do that, it should be banned?
>They should. They vote based on emotion rather than policy; and never for the collective good of man, only for selfish wants.
You have zero evidence for such hateful misogynistic bile. All women are inherently selfish, and selfish in a way that men supposedly aren't? You are a vile misogynistic piece of shit who knows fucking nothing about women.
So you outright openly want the US state to arrest all women on this forum who openly talk about politics? Can you confirm that for me?
And why should I not consider you, from my perspective, to be as bad as an unwelcome Islamist entering the UK? Why would you integrate? You literally want the state the smash down the doors of women and arrest them purely for expressing their opinion. You don't think the various women who use this forum should have any right to expression a political or social opinion. You are evil scum.
On a separate note, I'm an atheist. Should the state ban me from expressing myself on issues related to that?
>I am for exercising civil disobedience in favour of native cultural protectionism.
So should Irish people who are angry with immigration levels, have the right to start fires, vandalise people's properties and loot? Yes or no? Say it plainly please.
If so, do they also have the right to physically assault non-white people in Ireland?
>That's why there should be thorough investigations. Solves all the problems.
And how do we guarantee that any fascist-designed state will honour "thorough investigations"?
>That's because gun violence is no where near as high in red states with open-carry laws. Have you ever stopped and asked why?
And gun violence in Europe is almost non-existent compared to anywhere in the USA, and overall violent crime is much less, and despite Europe on average being much less religious. What is your point? You simply gave crime rates. Many states in the USA that were not blue also had high crime rates. Why is this?
Are you going to acknowledge this point: You speak of problems with foreign integration into western culture. You would not remotely integrate into the UK. You would be as unwelcome as an Islamist. Why should I regard you as more culturally compatible with the UK than someone from India, or someone from Korea or Poland? The reasons people despise Islamism are for the same reasons people despise your ideology. You fundamentally hate western culture, you want to destroy it, and want to impose an authoritarian reactionary corporation on us by force. You ultimately don't respect our right to choose our own path. What makes you, from our perspective any different from an Islamist?
I am genuinely left with the conclusion that you just dislike women and don't want to see them being anything other than tame controlled housewives in media.
And you keep ignoring that some European nations have changed policy on immigration. Why do you keep doing this?
Because we're seeing the evil that these leaders have adopted play out in real time:
https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/world/2024-08-06-new-rioting-across-uk-cities-as-arrests-multiply/
Why do you assume that only married people are in relationships?
Because that's the only way to properly raise a healthy family. No functioning society can be raised without a nuclear family.
if it doesn't do that, it should be banned?
It should be surveyed.
You have zero evidence for such hateful misogynistic bile.
https://www.noticer.news/ideology-gap-young-women-more-liberal-men-more-conservative/
Checkmate.
You literally want the state the smash down the doors of women and arrest them purely for expressing their opinion.
Nope.
Should the state ban me from expressing myself on issues related to that?
Nope.
If so, do they also have the right to physically assault non-white people in Ireland?
They have the right to defend themselves, and their homeland, when and where necessary.
Many states in the USA that were not blue also had high crime rates. Why is this?
Only in the poor and minority-filled areas.
You would be as unwelcome as an Islamist.
Hahaha.... no, all of us who are tired of the globalists are finally taking action and many Irish and Britons hold my views quite dearly, as evident by the protests and riots. share
>Because we're seeing the evil that these leaders have adopted play out in real time:
https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/world/2024-08-06-new-rioting-across-uk-cities-as-arrests-multiply/
What does this rioting have to do with anything here? Do you know what caused this rioting?
And again, immigration policies are changing in many European countries. You said this isn't happening. Why did you say that?
>Because that's the only way to properly raise a healthy family. No functioning society can be raised without a nuclear family.
Again: plenty of people who are unmarried are in relationships, and have children.
>It should be surveyed.
What does this even mean? Who "surveys" this? What are they looking for? What if its surveyed and found to be specifically non-patriotic? How can this even be objectively quantified?
>https://www.noticer.news/ideology-gap-young-women-more-liberal-men-more-conservative/
That's not evidence, fuckface. Women being more liberal has nothing to do with your baseless hateful, gilead-esque claims about their emotions.
>Nope.
So what should happen to women who express their political opinions online?
>Nope.
So what should happen to me if I express anti-religious, or anti-theistic positions?
>They have the right to defend themselves, and their homeland, when and where necessary.
Stop fucking evading, you cowardly fuck. There was rioting in Ireland (and now in the UK). They were smashing up shops, and looting and committing arson. Did they have that right?
Should British people, when "resisting" have the right to smash up the houses of non-white people, and assault non-white people?
>Only in the poor and minority-filled areas.
Conjecture. Data please.
>Hahaha.... no, all of us who are tired of the globalists are finally taking action and many Irish and Britons hold my views quite dearly, as evident by the protests and riots.
No, they do not. Have you looked at any opinion polling on this incident?
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1820830621456810020?t=TjMxT8JNHnXhX6s8-jMBww&s=19
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1820830627295293668
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1820830630508110082
And also, when I say that you would be unwelcome - I am referring to your opinions on women, on LGBT people, on religion, on liberalism. You hold opinions on all of these things much more aligned with fanatical Islamists. You are no different in mindset to the Islamists that you say we should resist, and support the rioters for resisting. The very same types of people the rioters in the UK hold umbrage to. Why would you be more welcome than them? Why would you integrate into the UK?
Most British people would think you are an evil piece of shit, no different to a Saudi Arabian cleric.
What's the overall crime rate picture?
Meanwhile:
It's in the second link.
Which disproves the BBC's findings, since crime rates across the board have nearly doubled:
https://www.varbes.com/crime/england-crime
And the BBC is going by false data, since the police have been purposely failing to report crimes in order to make it seem like crime is dropping:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8925329/police-fail-investigate-half-reported-crimes/
What? I am pointing out that the UK public polls in favour of reimplimenting the death penalty. In the years preceding and around the gay marriage bill in parliament, more people as a % supported legalising gay marriage than rejecting it outright.
Yes, and as I pointed out, just because people poll positive for something doesn't mean they want it adhered to legislatively, nor does it mean it will become part of the legislature.
Either you support the will of the people or you don't, and you're being very inconsistent about it.
Media establishments and lobbyists can determine that "will". For instance, half of all people supposedly want tobacco products banned:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/02/health/tobacco-ban-support/index.html
Yet people spend overwhelming on tobacco products if given the opportunity:
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/10/ftc-releases-reports-cigarette-smokeless-tobacco-sales-marketing-expenditures-2022
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/economics/econ_facts/index.htm
People can be cajoled into undermining their own best interests, no matter what it is.
Was there something in the UK gay marriage bill that called for communities of only 100 men?
It's a simple question of survival mechanics.
Some cultures acknowledge polygamy as part of marriage.
There is no first-world (or developed) civilisation built on polygamy.
share
>Which disproves the BBC's findings, since crime rates across the board have nearly doubled:
https://www.varbes.com/crime/england-crime
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingjune2023
Is the ONS website lying?
>Yes, and as I pointed out, just because people poll positive for something doesn't mean they want it adhered to legislatively, nor does it mean it will become part of the legislature.
You originally claimed that most people in the UK objected to gay marriage at the time. Now you're claiming that it doesn't matter, and that people who said they supported it didn't really mean it, and didn't want it legislated for.
I'll also continue to await evidence that Gallup (for the USA) somehow manipulated the results. And your complaint about the media is completely unfalsifiable. It's inline with PRC propaganda that claims that Taiwanese self-determination doesn't really matter, and is invalid because of "propaganda". Either you support the will of the people or you don't, and you're being very inconsistent about it.
>Media establishments and lobbyists can determine that "will". For instance, half of all people supposedly want tobacco products banned:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/02/health/tobacco-ban-support/index.html
How do you know that's a result of lobbying?
>Yet people spend overwhelming on tobacco products if given the opportunity:
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/10/ftc-releases-reports-cigarette-smokeless-tobacco-sales-marketing-expenditures-2022
You do realise that a small % of people make up a massive majority of tobacco sales, right? Are you of the impression that a significant percentage of people who said they support banning cigarettes are also buying it?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/509720/cigarette-smoking-rate-steady-near-historical-low.aspx#:~:text=The%2012%25%20who%20say%20they,%2C%20conducted%20July%203%2D27.
>It's a simple question of survival mechanics.
That's not what I asked you: Was there something in the UK gay marriage bill that called for communities of only 100 men?
>There is no first-world (or developed) civilisation built on polygamy.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-where-polygamy-is-legal
Much of the gulf now could be so-described as 'developed'. But I digress, legalising gay marriage isn't suggesting it should be "built on it" anyway.
I take it you've withdrawn your claim that the UK government legislated against the will of the people regarding gay marriage then?
Is the ONS website lying?
Lots of weasel-wording, such as "criminal damage decreased by 28%", just because less damage is done doesn't mean fewer crimes are being committed. That's just recorded based on insurance reports. They also avoided mentioning battery and assault offences without weapons. Par the course for the media manipulation I talked about.
Now you're claiming that it doesn't matter, and that people who said they supported it didn't really mean it, and didn't want it legislated for.
No; I'm saying people's views have been manipulated, and they really didn't want it until the media told them they wanted it and to support it.
Are you of the impression that a significant percentage of people who said they support banning cigarettes are also buying it?
No, it's to highlight that polls can be used to highlight trends of one group that may be in opposition to how the general public may actually feel about it, or vice versa. If there was no media condemning tobacco, would people still poll so high as to want sales ceased?
That's not what I asked you: Was there something in the UK gay marriage bill that called for communities of only 100 men?
Non-sequitur. The charge against homosexual marriage was due to crippling social cohesion. The legislation does not acknowledge outcome of change, only an enactment of change.
Much of the gulf now could be so-described as 'developed'.
No, most are war torn or are trying to develop.
I take it you've withdrawn your claim that the UK government legislated against the will of the people regarding gay marriage then?
No, the people were lobbied into it by the media, and little recourse to reject. Plus, a referendum would have kicked up a media storm about homophobia and people would have been shamed into withdrawing. share
>Lots of weasel-wording, such as "criminal damage decreased by 28%", just because less damage is done doesn't mean fewer crimes are being committed. That's just recorded based on insurance reports. They also avoided mentioning battery and assault offences without weapons. Par the course for the media manipulation I talked about.
The ONS is a media website now?
Also, they show lots of data there.
>No; I'm saying people's views have been manipulated, and they really didn't want it until the media told them they wanted it and to support it.
And you've provided no evidence for this claim whatsoever. It's unfalsifiable nonsense.
But good to know you've withdrawn your initial claim that people didn't support it at all.
>No, it's to highlight that polls can be used to highlight trends of one group that may be in opposition to how the general public may actually feel about it, or vice versa. If there was no media condemning tobacco, would people still poll so high as to want sales ceased?
By this logic every opinion we hold on everything is manipulated. This is tantamount to asking "If people didn't know the health risks of long-term smoking, would they truly support legislation to restrict access to it?"
>Non-sequitur. The charge against homosexual marriage was due to crippling social cohesion. The legislation does not acknowledge outcome of change, only an enactment of change.
Still await for how this has causes a breakdown in social cohesion in the UK.
>No, most are war torn or are trying to develop.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are war-torn?
>No, the people were lobbied into it by the media, and little recourse to reject. Plus, a referendum would have kicked up a media storm about homophobia and people would have been shamed into withdrawing.
And you've provided no evidence for this claim whatsoever. It's unfalsifiable nonsense.
I'll also continue to await evidence that Gallup (for the USA) somehow manipulated the results. And your complaint about the media is completely unfalsifiable. It's inline with PRC propaganda that claims that Taiwanese self-determination doesn't really matter, and is invalid because of "propaganda". Either you support the will of the people or you don't, and you're being very inconsistent about it.
The ONS is a media website now?
Given that they leave out key facts and manipulate the wording, they may as well be.
But good to know you've withdrawn your initial claim that people didn't support it at all.
Never said they didn't support it at all, I explicitly mentioned they were cajoled into supporting it.
By this logic every opinion we hold on everything is manipulated.
Nope, only opinions influenced to disrupt social cohesion.
Still await for how this has causes a breakdown in social cohesion in the UK.
Patterns of disruptive behaviour have led to the outcome you're witnessing right now, especially in combination with no-fault divorce, aggressive abortion agendas, and cultural incongruity with mass migration.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are war-torn?
Saudi Arabia is not a polygamist state; they are however a polygnyist state.
'll also continue to await evidence that Gallup (for the USA) somehow manipulated the results.
Majority of the polling is not done in middle-America. That alone biases the results. share
>Given that they leave out key facts and manipulate the wording, they may as well be.
They are literally not a media website dude.
>Never said they didn't support it at all, I explicitly mentioned they were cajoled into supporting it.
No, you claimed the legislation was passed against public opinion. Don't try to rewrite history. Now you've just claimed "oh well people were tricked" which is unfalsifiable gibberish.
>Nope, only opinions influenced to disrupt social cohesion.
How convenient. This again, is completely unfalsifiable.
>Patterns of disruptive behaviour have led to the outcome you're witnessing right now, especially in combination with no-fault divorce, aggressive abortion agendas, and cultural incongruity with mass migration.
No. I want evidence for how gay marriage, SPECIFICALLY has caused societal breakdown.
Mass migration policies have nothing whatsoever to do with any of this.
Should married couples not have the right to amicably divorce?
>Majority of the polling is not done in middle-America. That alone biases the results.
The majority of the USA does not live in middle-America. So that makes complete sense.
And your complaint about the media is completely unfalsifiable. It's inline with PRC propaganda that claims that Taiwanese self-determination doesn't really matter, and is invalid because of "propaganda". Either you support the will of the people or you don't, and you're being very inconsistent about it.
They are literally not a media website dude.
Not the point, lad. The point is that they are manipulating the presentation of data, which is even worse given that it's supposed to be a national website for delivering objective information. Reminds me of how the FBI now hides crime table data because people were using it to notice things.
No, you claimed the legislation was passed against public opinion.No. I want evidence for how gay marriage, SPECIFICALLY has caused societal breakdown.
It diminished the value and role of marriage in society.
Should married couples not have the right to amicably divorce?
Nope. Should never have gotten married then. Marriage is a holy contract, and it should only be dissolved when the contract is breached by one or both parties.
The majority of the USA does not live in middle-America. So that makes complete sense.
Yet they're precluded from polls that completely affect them.
Either you support the will of the people or you don't, and you're being very inconsistent about it.
Not at all. The "will" of the people can be manipulated by bad actors. share
>Not the point, lad. The point is that they are manipulating the presentation of data, which is even worse given that it's supposed to be a national website for delivering objective information. Reminds me of how the FBI now hides crime table data because people were using it to notice things.
You know it says far more, and goes into much more detail than you alleged.
>It diminished the value and role of marriage in society.
No reason to believe this at all.
Nor does this translate into anything in practice. Supposing its true, how is that harming society?
>Nope. Should never have gotten married then. Marriage is a holy contract, and it should only be dissolved when the contract is breached by one or both parties.
Christianity does not have a monopoly on marriage. The UK does not take its orders from Christianity. What are a married couple supposed to do then? Just remain married on paper but have other partners as they've emotionally split? They may as well just get divorced at that point.
>Yet they're precluded from polls that completely affect them.
How do you know they were "precluded"? You said that the majority of the polling was not done in middle-america, not that none was.
>Not at all. The "will" of the people can be manipulated by bad actors.
By your reasoning, it's impossible not to be manipulated. Every single opinion poll on anything could just be spun to "oh the media/government/whoever tricked the people into thinking X". It's completely unfalsifiable.
You know it says far more, and goes into much more detail than you alleged.
Yes, and no. It says more without saying much at all about the issues I brought up, or the other statistics highlighting many other rising rates of crime, or the fact that it's based on incomplete reporting data because British police refuse to data-track certain crimes. Hence, it's misleading.
Supposing its true, how is that harming society?
The devaluation of marriage in society is evident in the epidemic of divorce rates; people do not respect nor believe in the institution of marriage. 80% of lesbians divorce within a few years of getting hitched, meaning only two-tenths actually believe in the institution of long-term monogamy. By proxy, people see marriage as a simple thing to do, rather than as an honourary condition upon which to uphold vows. As a result, it destroys the presence and importance of maintaining the nuclear family, and the nuclear family is the backbone of every industrialised civilisation.
Just remain married on paper but have other partners as they've emotionally split?
If you cannot be monogamous, then do not get married.
You said that the majority of the polling was not done in middle-america, not that none was.
That's because it's how the polls are framed in places like America, and how it manipulates people into supporting something they do not, or extricating that demographic altogether:
https://archive.is/giBOj
Most polls are done on coastal regions where majority are Liberal, so obviously it biases the results.
Every single opinion poll on anything could just be spun to "oh the media/government/whoever tricked the people into thinking X".
Hogwash. It's completely possible to have a definitive opinion on something that isn't: forced into a binary choice, or two, manipulated to fetch a result based on a pre-purposed outcome. share
>Yes, and no. It says more without saying much at all about the issues I brought up, or the other statistics highlighting many other rising rates of crime, or the fact that it's based on incomplete reporting data because British police refuse to data-track certain crimes. Hence, it's misleading.
It does not say all crime is uniformly dropping at all. And noting the ethnicity of those committing crimes is a different thing altogether.
>The devaluation of marriage in society is evident in the epidemic of divorce rates; people do not respect nor believe in the institution of marriage.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2022#:~:text=3.-,Divorce%20rates,(opposite%2Dsex%20only).
"Figure 2: Divorce rates have fallen to their lowest level since 1971"
>80% of lesbians divorce within a few years of getting hitched, meaning only two-tenths actually believe in the institution of long-term monogamy.
Can I see your data source here, please?
>By proxy, people see marriage as a simple thing to do, rather than as an honourary condition upon which to uphold vows. As a result, it destroys the presence and importance of maintaining the nuclear family, and the nuclear family is the backbone of every industrialised civilisation.
Not sure how allowing same-sex marriage into the fold somehow makes it more likely heterosexual couples might divorce.
>If you cannot be monogamous, then do not get married.
Not what I asked you. In this scenario, they are already married but no longer love each other. What are they to do then? Just remain married on paper but have other partners as they've emotionally split? They may as well just get divorced at that point.
>That's because it's how the polls are framed in places like America, and how it manipulates people into supporting something they do not, or extricating that demographic altogether:
https://archive.is/giBOj
This has nothing to do with WHERE they are polling, but how they are framing the questions. Basically if you add civil partnerships as an option (semantics, really) then the support officially drops to a plurality.
>Most polls are done on coastal regions where majority are Liberal, so obviously it biases the results.
You haven't provided any evidence this is true. More people from those areas will be polled because MOST AMERICANS happen to live in coastal states, and border-coastal states - depending on how far you expand "coastal regions". What you seem to be calling for is to over-represent middle-america relative to their actual population, which is disingenuous.
>Hogwash. It's completely possible to have a definitive opinion on something that isn't: forced into a binary choice, or two, manipulated to fetch a result based on a pre-purposed outcome.
Yet anyone can claim that any polling trend for an opinion they don't like just constitutes people being propagandised too. It's completely unfalsifiable. There is zero positive reason, however, to believe that LGBT acceptance didn't just happen naturally over time, and you have provided fuck all evidence for your claim that it was somehow artificial.
It does not say all crime is uniformly dropping at all.
In your previous comment you try to infer that the ONS depicted that crime was dropping across the board, and not that only certain crimes were down, and that only those that were down were due to reduced reporting of said crimes. That's highly misleading, wouldn't you say?
"Figure 2: Divorce rates have fallen to their lowest level since 1971"
Because marriage rates have fallen drastically:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/marriage-is-disappearing-from-britain
Can't get divorced if you aren't married.
Can I see your data source here, please?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2020
That was from 2020, at 72% -- the numbers have gone up since then.
they are already married but no longer love each other. What are they to do then?
Marriage isn't a car. You don't replace a partner with a newer model when you get bored. "For richer or for poorer", "for better or for worse". It is a vow. As stated, if you cannot uphold the vows, do not get married.
This has nothing to do with WHERE they are polling, but how they are framing the questions.
Both actually; because Gallup mostly uses phone calls:
https://www.gallup.com/178667/gallup-world-poll-work.aspx
Most older Americans -- which makes up a good portion of middle-America -- do not answer the phone from random callers (67% actually):
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/12/14/most-americans-dont-answer-cellphone-calls-from-unknown-numbers/
Meaning, majority of the polling is weighted for people who do answer the call; typically Liberal, non-White and usually under 65.
There is zero positive reason, however, to believe that LGBT acceptance didn't just happen naturally over time
It did not, because it had no reason to
share
>Because marriage rates have fallen drastically:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/marriage-is-disappearing-from-britain
>Can't get divorced if you aren't married.
Right, but you initially claimed that there was an "epidemic of divorce rates".
>https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2020
"In 2020, there were 1,154 divorces among same-sex couples, increasing by 40.4% from 2019; of these, the majority continued to be accounted for by female same-sex divorces (71.3%)."
This says that 71% of divorces from same-sex couples come from female same-sex couples. Not that 71% of married female same-sex couples divorce. There is a difference.
>That was from 2020, at 72% -- the numbers have gone up since then.
Source.
>Marriage isn't a car. You don't replace a partner with a newer model when you get bored. "For richer or for poorer", "for better or for worse". It is a vow. As stated, if you cannot uphold the vows, do not get married.
NOT WHAT I ASKED YOU. It doesn't matter what you "think" marriage should be. The reality is that sometimes married couples fall out of love. WHAT SHOULD THEY DO WHEN THAT HAPPENS?
>Both actually; because Gallup mostly uses phone calls:
https://www.gallup.com/178667/gallup-world-poll-work.aspx
Which would actually preference older generations, making it if anything more likely to prejudice older people with more conservative views.
>Meaning, majority of the polling is weighted for people who do answer the call; typically Liberal, non-White and usually under 65.
Baseless unevidenced garbage. You think younger, non-white people are more likely to answer landlines?
>It did not, because it had no reason to
Yes it did. The USA had a general strong individualist culture and focus on civil rights. Gay people already existed and were present in public life.
Right, but you initially claimed that there was an "epidemic of divorce rates".
Relative to the drastically declining marriage rates, there is an epidemic of divorce -- it's only lower because marriage is about to become non-existent if it keeps at the current rate.
There is a difference.
Not according to divorce attorneys... as linked below....
Source.
Law firm:
https://www.friendswoodfamilylaw.com/blog/2021/05/divorce-rate-higher-for-lesbians-than-gay-men/
It was actually at 78% in 2016 -- but divorce lawyers have stated lesbian divorce rates are at their highest yet.
The reality is that sometimes married couples fall out of love. WHAT SHOULD THEY DO WHEN THAT HAPPENS?
Not get married. Period. Marriage was ordained by God as a vow between a man and a woman, anything other than that is sacrilege. Anyone not marrying to maintain those vows should not get married. Period.
You think younger, non-white people are more likely to answer landlines?
That's precisely what the data said... from the Pew link:
Hispanic and Black adults are more likely than White adults to say they generally pick up for a number they don’t recognize
The USA had a general strong individualist culture and focus on civil rights.
No, they were duped into the Civil Rights act in the 60s, majority did not support it, same as they did not support gay marriage. It was media influence that pushed it into the mainstream:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/12/17/fact-check-more-republicans-voted-for-the-civil-rights-act-as-a-percentage-than-democrats-did/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/01/16/50-years-ago-mixed-views-about-civil-rights-but-support-for-selma-demonstrators/ share
>Relative to the drastically declining marriage rates, there is an epidemic of divorce -- it's only lower because marriage is about to become non-existent if it keeps at the current rate.
No, there's an "epidemic" of non-marriage. That might be a different, more relevant argument.
>Not according to divorce attorneys... as linked below....
You don't understand the data. It's saying that most divorces in SAME-SEX MARRIAGES come from lesbians. It's comparing them with divorce rates of gay men. It is not saying that 71% (UK) or 78% (USA) of lesbian couples overall divorce.
>Not get married. Period. Marriage was ordained by God as a vow between a man and a woman, anything other than that is sacrilege. Anyone not marrying to maintain those vows should not get married. Period.
Could have, should have, would have. They are already married and have fallen out of love. WHAT SHOULD THEY DO AT THIS POINT?
I, and they don't give a flying fuck about your shitty little god. The USA is not a theocracy. The UK is not a theocracy. I am not, and no-one else is bound to regard marriage as "ordained by god". You can shove your scripture up your ass.
>That's precisely what the data said... from the Pew link:
Hispanic and Black adults are more likely than White adults to say they generally pick up for a number they don’t recognize
And aren't black people not... notably less LGBT friendly?
Also older people are more likely to a) be at home, b) HAVE A LANDLINE. You appear to have missed that little data point.
>No, they were duped into the Civil Rights act in the 60s, majority did not support it, same as they did not support gay marriage. It was media influence that pushed it into the mainstream:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/12/17/fact-check-more-republicans-voted-for-the-civil-rights-act-as-a-percentage-than-democrats-did/
Not sure what this article has to do with your claim that people were "duped" into the civil rights act. And are you now unironically arguing that racial segregation in schools should be legal, that employers should be able to fire people for their race, and that states should be free to discriminate on race regarding voting rights?
Also by "civil rights" I mean civil liberties in a general sense. The USA has an individualist culture and doesn't tend to support using the state to control people's lives. Other than the minority of dominionist Christian Iran fucks like yourself, apparently.
Also your second link does show that most Americans at the time did support the civil rights act.
No, there's an "epidemic" of non-marriage. That might be a different, more relevant argument.
If majority of people aren't getting married, and the few who do are getting divorced. then there is a massive issue.
It's comparing them with divorce rates of gay men. It is not saying that 71% (UK) or 78% (USA) of lesbian couples overall divorce.
Did you click the link? Just over half of all same-sex marriages are lesbian couples, and 71% of same-sex divorces are lesbian couples. That means majority of lesbian marriages do not last.
They are already married and have fallen out of love. WHAT SHOULD THEY DO AT THIS POINT?
Marriage counselling.
You can shove your scripture up your ass.
People are already doing that, and it's why first-world nation relationships are crumbling. Your current pathway is unsustainable for the short and long term.
And aren't black people not... notably less LGBT friendly?
Not the Liberal kind.
You appear to have missed that little data point.
And they do not pick up the phone, which is the crux of that report.
Not sure what this article has to do with your claim that people were "duped" into the civil rights act.
Read it all -- support in general for the Civil Rights Act was overall far less enthusiastic than what the media led on. It was essentially forced through just like gay marriage, despite opposition from most of the general public.
The USA has an individualist culture and doesn't tend to support using the state to control people's lives
Yes and no. America had a bit of a war over State's rights.
Also your second link does show that most Americans at the time did support the civil rights act.
No, they supported reduced discrimination, but most supported moderate enforcement, not full-on liberalism.
share
>If majority of people aren't getting married, and the few who do are getting divorced. then there is a massive issue.
Where is your evidence that amongst those that do, that divorce rates have skyrocketed?
>Did you click the link? Just over half of all same-sex marriages are lesbian couples, and 71% of same-sex divorces are lesbian couples. That means majority of lesbian marriages do not last.
Yes, lesbians divorce at higher rates than gay men. That's not the same as saying that 71% of all lesbian couples divorces. It's saying that AMONGST THE DIVORCES of same-sex couples, 71% of them were lesbians. That doesn't mean that 71% of all married lesbians end up divorcing. It actually on its own makes no comment on the divorce rate of gay people. The divorce rate could be 2%, but just that of those that do divorce 7 out of 10 of them are lesbian couples.
You are unable to understand the data.
>Marriage counselling.
And if that doesn't work? Or they've done that? What then?
>People are already doing that, and it's why first-world nation relationships are crumbling. Your current pathway is unsustainable for the short and long term.
No reason to believe this at all.
>And they do not pick up the phone, which is the crux of that report.
And yet younger people are less likely to own the landline in the first place, or be at home. Also, how do you know Pew doesn't account for this? They've acknowledged the disparity.
>Read it all -- support in general for the Civil Rights Act was overall far less enthusiastic than what the media led on. It was essentially forced through just like gay marriage, despite opposition from most of the general public.
It still had popular support. All of it? No. Fear of mission creep? Sure. But almost NO BILL DOES.
>Yes and no. America had a bit of a war over State's rights.
Some 160 years ago. The point is that the USA prides itself on government getting out people's lives. But apparently you think they should meddle and control what people do in their bedrooms.
>No, they supported reduced discrimination, but most supported moderate enforcement, not full-on liberalism.
What were the "full-on liberalism" aspects you're alluding to?
Where is your evidence that amongst those that do, that divorce rates have skyrocketed?
Divorce rates have settled at 42%, yet marriage rates have dropped precipitously:
https://cybercrew.uk/blog/divorce-statistics-uk/
So still high divorce and low marriage is catastrophic. And more divorces would take place if it were financially viable, hence why people are simply not getting married:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lowest-divorce-rate-in-50-years-blamed-on-cost-of-leaving-crisis-58vj775qx
You are unable to understand the data.
No, it's quite clear. 5/10 of all same-sex marriages are lesbians, and 7/10 of all same-sex divorces are lesbians. Hence, majority of lesbian marriages end in divorce.
And if that doesn't work? Or they've done that? What then?
More counselling... or prayer.
No reason to believe this at all.
Divorce rates, relationship implosion, low marriage rates all prove this to be true.
Also, how do you know Pew doesn't account for this?
Leap of presupposition.
What were the "full-on liberalism" aspects you're alluding to?
What modern day Western nations have turned into. share
>Divorce rates have settled at 42%, yet marriage rates have dropped precipitously:
https://cybercrew.uk/blog/divorce-statistics-uk/
That's unchanged then.
Less people are getting divorced, because less people are getting married - the rates are the same though.
>So still high divorce and low marriage is catastrophic. And more divorces would take place if it were financially viable, hence why people are simply not getting married:
It's not "high divorce" in the sense that it's not different to what it was in the 1960s or 70s.
>No, it's quite clear. 5/10 of all same-sex marriages are lesbians, and 7/10 of all same-sex divorces are lesbians. Hence, majority of lesbian marriages end in divorce.
First of all, how do you know 50% of all same-sex marriages are lesbians. There may be slight disparites. And, no you don't. This is such basic statistical failure.
It does not say that 70-80% of lesbian marriages end in divorce. It says that amongst the divorce statistics of same-sex couples, 7/10 of them are lesbians. I really don't know how I can point this out clearer. Do I need to come up with an analogy to walk you through it?
It isn't tracking same-sex divorce rates - it's tracking what % of divorced same-sex couples are lesbian couples.
https://wendyhopkins.co.uk/divorce-rates-in-england-and-wales-in-2021/
Apparently it's: "Among opposite-sex couples in 2021, females were more likely to petition for divorce (63.1%) compared with males (36.9%); these are similar proportions to those in 2020, with 62.6% of petitions where females petitioned and 37.4% with males petitioning."
I can't actually find concrete data on the rates of gay marriages that end in divorce, but it is suggesting that gay men are more resilient than straight couples.
>More counselling... or prayer.
And what if they don't want to? Why should two unhappy people be forced to remain together forever?
And in this analogy, they're non-religious and think prayer is a load of fucking garbage.
>Divorce rates, relationship implosion, low marriage rates all prove this to be true.
You haven't really demonstrated all of these to be true coherently, nor have you demonstrated that the changes in any of them derive from a lack of religiosity.
>Leap of presupposition.
So "I made it up" basically. All polling agencies account for this stuff dude.
>What modern day Western nations have turned into.
And how did the civil rights act have anything to do with how modern day western nations have developed?
Less people are getting divorced, because less people are getting married - the rates are the same though.
Divorce rates have only gone down by some percentile and marriage rates have dropped significantly, where there are almost twice as many unwed women today than 30 years ago within the same demographic age bracket. Meaning, marriages are twice down while divorces are still mostly steady.
First of all, how do you know 50% of all same-sex marriages are lesbians.
56%. It literally says it in the link.
It says that amongst the divorce statistics of same-sex couples, 7/10 of them are lesbians.
Yes, and we already know that half of same-sex marriages are lesbians, and 7/10 of same-sex divorces are lesbians. That means only a third of all gay men who get married get a divorce.
it is suggesting that gay men are more resilient than straight couples.
Because many of them are in open marriages:
https://www.thegayuk.com/over-half-of-gay-and-bi-men-cheat-on-their-partners-research-finds/
https://www.starobserver.com.au/news/national-news/victoria-news/open-relationships-most-common-partnership-for-gay-and-bisexual-men/149928
Why should two unhappy people be forced to remain together forever?
Culpability.
You haven't really demonstrated all of these to be true coherently
Yes we have. Majority of Westerners are Godless hedonists, and it's created a vapid and destructive relationship landscape with no positive outcome.
how did the civil rights act have anything to do with how modern day western nations have developed?
It paved the way for the current outpouring of discriminatory DEI/ESG manifestos being employed as part of a globalised corporatocracy backed by central banking. share
>Divorce rates have only gone down by some percentile and marriage rates have dropped significantly, where there are almost twice as many unwed women today than 30 years ago within the same demographic age bracket. Meaning, marriages are twice down while divorces are still mostly steady.
I... don't think you understand statistics. Divorce numbers in real terms have declined at roughly the same rate as marriage numbers.
>Yes, and we already know that half of same-sex marriages are lesbians, and 7/10 of same-sex divorces are lesbians. That means only a third of all gay men who get married get a divorce.
So presumably gay male marriages are the most stable, by your logic.
>Because many of them are in open marriages:
https://www.thegayuk.com/over-half-of-gay-and-bi-men-cheat-on-their-partners-research-finds/
Okay. So? If they're happy in open relationships - so what?
>Culpability.
What's to stop them from just seeing other people?
>Yes we have. Majority of Westerners are Godless hedonists, and it's created a vapid and destructive relationship landscape with no positive outcome.
"You haven't really demonstrated all of these to be true coherently"
>It paved the way for the current outpouring of discriminatory DEI/ESG manifestos being employed as part of a globalised corporatocracy backed by central banking.
This is just gibberish nonsense. Genuinely no reason to believe it.
Divorce numbers in real terms have declined at roughly the same rate as marriage numbers.
That's not how the numbers work. Try again... using the sources I provided.
So presumably gay male marriages are the most stable, by your logic.
Which goes back to my question about how can a community consisting only of 100 men produce another generation?
Okay. So? If they're happy in open relationships - so what?
No reason to be married.
What's to stop them from just seeing other people?
They can, but then it voids the marriage contract.
"You haven't really demonstrated all of these to be true coherently"
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/women-and-prescription-drug-use_n_1098023
https://ifstudies.org/blog/shrinking-american-motherhood-1-in-6-women-in-their-40s-have-never-given-birth-
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2022refreshedpopulations
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2024/20240525.htm
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4877296/Britons-depressed-Western-world.html
https://secretldn.com/unhappiest-countries-uk/
Large portions of the West are depressed, lonely, on anti-depressants, divorced/never married, with falling birthrates, and entirely unhappy. That's not even including the economic bubble about to burst and impending WW3. You'll have to reason how all of those things -- cumulatively -- are good for a prolonged and healthy civilised society?
share
>That's not how the numbers work. Try again... using the sources I provided.
Less people are getting married, but roughly the same % of people who get married are getting divorced.
So if 20 people get married, 10 divorce. Now it's 10 people getting married, 5 divorce. There's no massive increase of divorces.
>Which goes back to my question about how can a community of 100 men produce another generation?
And it goes back to my original point that I don't recall anyone saying anywhere that everyone should be gay.
>No reason to be married.
Why do you give a fuck? Does it somehow harm a heterosexual persons marriage?
>They can, but then it voids the marriage contract.
Okay. So what's the difference in practice between an unhappily married couple just getting a divorce, and then seeing new people and an unhappily married couple just mutually agreeing to have 'affairs' so they can have their marriage contract voided?
>Large portions of the West are depressed, lonely, on anti-depressants, divorced/never married, with falling birthrates, and entirely unhappy. That's not even including the economic bubble about to burst and impending WW3. You'll have to reason how all of those things -- cumulatively are good for a prolonged and healthy society?
Birthrates are actually falling everywhere, not just in the western world - it's just countries with much larger birth rates have many more levels to drop. And two of the most religious countries in Europe (Greece and Poland) have amongst the worst birthrates. How do you explain that?
The "unhappiest country" metric only took data from 71 countries. And the actual unhappiest one was *Tajikistan*. The only other European country in the top 10 there was Ireland. This isn't really demonstrating what you think it is.
>That's not even including the economic bubble about to burst and impending WW3.
Neither of these things, if they happen, have anything to do with 'godlessness'.
So if 20 people get married, 10 divorce. Now it's 10 people getting married, 5 divorce. There's no massive increase of divorces.
If the same amount of people are getting divorced while fewer people are getting married, how does that help improve social cohesion or improving the family unit dynamic?
And it goes back to my original point that I don't recall anyone saying anywhere that everyone should be gay.
No one said everyone should be gay, the point is that fewer normal families and more gay marriages equates to disruption in cultural standards. You cannot build or maintain a civilisation that way.
Why do you give a fuck?
Societal collapse.
So what's the difference in practice
There isn't one. Both are bad for the people involved and for society at large.
How do you explain that?
Greece is going through migrant upheaval:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3427417/Migrant-crisis-35-times-worse-year-ago-2-000-day-arrive-Greek-islands-despite-perilous-winter-seas.html
And Poland is going through a cultural crisis:
https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/03/31/poland-is-facing-a-housing-crisis-but-politicians-are-offering-the-same-failed-solutions/
Neither of these things, if they happen, have anything to do with 'godlessness'.
They absolutely do, since it's kakistocrats looking to disrupt the natural order for their own gain. Nothing Godly about those actions.
share
>If the same amount of people are getting divorced while fewer people are getting married, how does that help improve social cohesion or improving the family unit dynamic?
I didn't say it improved. Just that the divorce rate hasn't gone up.
>No one said everyone should be gay, the point is that fewer normal families and more gay marriages equates to disruption in cultural standards. You cannot build or maintain a civilisation that way.
The same gay people would still be gay whether or not they could get married or not. Legalising gay marriage doesn't reduce the overall amount of families that exist.
>Societal collapse.
No reason to think open relationships cause it.
So the Greece and Poland birth rates have... nothing to do with a lack of religion then. That was my point. (At least if we assume the Greece migrant crisis is related, which I have no idea why it would be). Polands housing crisis/issues might, to some degree, but not related to religion. Poland does however have strong forecasts economically.
>They absolutely do, since it's kakistocrats looking to disrupt the natural order for their own gain. Nothing Godly about those actions.
What "natural order" of geopolitics are you referring to that is being disrupted, exactly? The period before WW2, which was on average much more religious, was rife with much more conflict across states in Europe than we have now. What foreign policy has been made by the west that would not have been made if they were more "godly"?
Also, I'll ask the other question in here. I would very much like an answer from you: Cyguration, can you tell me if you think it's morally acceptable for someone to accuse someone else of being a pedophile on the back of no evidence?
I didn't say it improved.
Right, so you concede my point that it is a major detriment to society. Thank you for agreeing with me.
The same gay people would still be gay whether or not they could get married or not.
Precisely. You agree with me again, that there is no reason for them to be married since it changes nothing, but only diminishes the definition of marriage between a man and a woman for the sake of starting a family. Glad we're finally coming to the same terms here.
No reason to think open relationships cause it.
They only lead to chaos:
https://www.e-counseling.com/articles/open-relationships-do-not-work/
https://medium.com/the-knowledge-of-freedom/the-five-main-reasons-open-relationships-so-often-fail-11d31432c386
So the Greece and Poland birth rates have... nothing to do with a lack of religion then.
Lack of maintaining principles, upholding the border, and balancing the economy due to leadership corruption spawns from a lack of maintaining religious principles from the top down.
What "natural order" of geopolitics are you referring to that is being disrupted, exactly?
The global attacks on the nuclear family unit.
can you tell me if you think it's morally acceptable for someone to accuse someone else of being a pedophile on the back of no evidence?
That is neither here nor there, given accusations are generally a reaction, and reactions are based on a platform of contention. The contention determines why the accusation takes place. share
>Right, so you concede my point that it is a major detriment to society. Thank you for agreeing with me.
No, I said no such thing. I simply said that marriage rates declining is a separate issue to divorce rates. I also made no observation about whether that's good or not good for society.
>Precisely. You agree with me again, that there is no reason for them to be married since it changes nothing, but only diminishes the definition of marriage between a man and a woman for the sake of starting a family. Glad we're finally coming to the same terms here.
There's also no reason for them not to be married, or in a civil partnership (a distinction purely rooted in semantics).
There is not a singular definition of marriage. Many other countries, as I've said, had polygamous concepts of marriage and plenty of straight people get married with no intent to have kids.
>Lack of maintaining principles, upholding the border, and balancing the economy due to leadership corruption spawns from a lack of maintaining religious principles from the top down.
Poland doesn't accept many migrants (outside of Ukraine, who are culturally similar). Doesn't apply to them. Also, I fail to see how 'religious principles' would be inherently anti-migration. They might not be.
>The global attacks on the nuclear family unit.
Which, if true (and to be clear I think this is somewhat baseless), has nothing to do with the prospect of WW3 via interfering/antagonising/resisting Russia or China. You specifically spoke about the move into WW3.
>That is neither here nor there, given accusations are generally a reaction, and reactions are based on a platform of contention. The contention determines why the accusation takes place.
A now-deleted user, baselessly, accused me of being a pedophile and a would-be school shooter on zero evidence. They were a pretty hostile troll. Melton decided to pick that up and repeatedly ask me across many different threads if there is any truth to the "rumours". He continued to ask this despite me, every time, rejecting it outright. He also edits his posts after I reply to him to suggest that my reply constitutes an admission of guilt of being a pedophile.
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65efaf45992e9150801672ca/Similarities-of-Gaza-to-the-Holocaust?reply=65fafe57d2adc075bee2cdce
Here's an example. The moderators deleted a few of his posts (as you can see in the thread) after I reported them for this. You claim in our dealings, or act, as someone who wishes to give off the impression that behaviour and conduct matters. Do you think this constitutes fair-minded, moral conduct?
Your misleading moral questions falsely pre-suppose that you’re some harmless innocent suddenly hounded on by sadistic bullies… when the reality is that you’re hated across the site because you’re an evil, lying sack of shit with a sinister agenda, and now you’re enjoying the karmic consequences of your behaviour.
Like most Leftists, you’re too dumb to pull off the sophistry you’re attempting, and you’re getting exactly what you deserve.
Now, mindlessly fart out another load of Straw and Hatchling questions, in total self-denial of the fact that you’ve been called out on this dirty tactic time and time again…
What's "misleading" about the questions? I accurately depicted your behaviour, not just in that thread, but elsewhere on the forum when you continue to obsess about me.
And I didn't say I was hounded on by "sadistic bullies" plural. It's just you. Corbell is a scumbag, but he doesn't spend his entire life following me around, like you do. TVfan is a fascist piece of shit, but he also doesn't spend his time harassing me (although he did briefly some time ago). No-one else does anything to me, or tried to antagonise me on here except for you. You have the energy of the Scientologist Dan Mernon harassing Mark Bunker, if you're familiar with that analogy.
The comparison is more of a troll who has absolutely nothing else going on spending his whole life harassing me.
>when the reality is that you’re hated across the site because you’re an evil, lying sack of shit with a sinister agenda, and now you’re enjoying the karmic consequences of your behaviour.
What have I lied about? What makes me evil? What is my "sinister agenda"?
How does any of those things, if they are true, justify hurling false allegations at me?
>Now, mindlessly fart out another load of Straw and Hatchling questions, in total self-denial of the fact that you’ve been called out on this dirty tactic time and time again…
And here comes the childish edit. You're doing *exactly* the same behaviour in here that you claim I'm misleading cyguration about. I will bring this to his attention.
Also, there were zero straw or hatchling questions in my response to you.
Now I've compared you to a Scientologist a few times now. I'll expand.
Scientologists harass critics as a matter of doctrine. Their purpose is to try and ruin their life. They will do so in obviously immoral ways. They also do so as a bloc. What makes all of this even more Scientology coded is that the in-group, out-group attitude on here is so overwhelming. You have behaved, publicly, and repeatedly in an awful way. Not just to me but to others (although at least in this case, mostly me since I seem to be your life obsession now). And although I'm not talking about cyguration here (yet?) - so many of your ideological allies: tvfan, Craig, Corbell, BVB, Blacksun and JoWilli (although I did managed to get a muted "it's wrong" response from them once) just can't admit it. They can't say that accusing people of being a pedophile is wrong. Or even, as you put it "asking to confirm (baseless) rumours about someone being a pedophile" happens to be wrong. They just can't say that editing your post to suggest that they're saying something they're clearly not after the other person has replied is pretty immoral. And why can't they say it? Because you're on their team. I am the enemy, not you. This is literally the fair game policy of Scientology in action. You are the ideological ally, and you can't be criticised. I'm the suppressive person, marked as the enemy. If I threw unfounded accusations at other people, they would have no problem piling on me and calling me horrible for doing that. But if I am the recipient of them, they just can't bring themselves to say anything.
The behaviour from you specifically, in all of this, is very obviously internet bullbaiting too. Just like the typical Scientology tactic. Talking to you or watching you is unironically like watching Mark Bunker being targeted by these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUmrnoqEkRI&t=164s
I also made no observation about whether that's good or not good for society.
So you think people getting divorced at relatively the same rates, whilst marriages are in a double-decline for marriage-age demographics over a near 30-year period, is healthy for society?
or in a civil partnership
They can have the civil partnership without marriage, especially since you don't think marriage is important... right?
There is not a singular definition of marriage.
It was intended originally, according to the Bible, to be a holy matrimony between man and woman. Anything else is just a variation of a civil union.
I fail to see how 'religious principles' would be inherently anti-migration. They might not be.
They are, since Poland is majority Roman Catholic, and they do not favour inter-faith mingling; most migrants are Muslim.
You specifically spoke about the move into WW3
When drafts are enacted, who do you think will be called to war and how will it impact the family unit?
Do you think this constitutes fair-minded, moral conduct?
Asking questions, in good faith, is never immoral.
share
>So you think people getting divorced at relatively the same rates, whilst marriages are in a double-decline for marriage-age demographics over a near 30-year period, is healthy for society?
Less divorces on the whole means less problems for the court system as people can just separate. I don't see it as inherently harmful.
>They can have the civil partnership without marriage, especially since you don't think marriage is important... right?
What's the relevant distinction in your mind? Other than them having different names?
>It was intended originally, according to the Bible, to be a holy matrimony between man and woman. Anything else is just a variation of a civil union.
I don't give a fuck what the bible says.
>They are, since Poland is majority Roman Catholic, and they do not favour inter-faith mingling; most migrants are Muslim.
Poland is one country. They are not the only example of potential Christian-influenced policy. In Latin America, it could be liberation theology.
>When drafts are enacted, who do you think will be called to war and how will it impact the family unit?
That's not the same thing as saying that irreligiosity somehow caused WW3, or will cause it - as you implied
>Asking questions, in good faith, is never immoral.
He never asked it in any good faith. Do you habitually just assume people you talk to in life are pedophiles and ask them if they are? That's good faith, is it? Sorry, he keeps doing it. I have repeatedly denied his allegations and he continues to imply I am a pedophile either by asking me again and again, or implying I am a danger to kids, or by editing his posts after I reply to suggest my reply constitutes an admission.
https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/662e66e066a72d7514b0e4f4/Anyone-else-encountered-the-user-Skavau?reply=663bf888ffc983529755c028
He literally did it just a few hours ago.
And you did not answer my other question regarding the editing of posts, which he does repeatedly AND HAS DONE IN THIS VERY THREAD whilst simultaneously accused me of lying to you that he does it.
Do you think it is moral to edit your post after the other user has replied to make it appear as if they are admitting to something they are not?
Again, your misleading moral questions falsely pre-suppose that you’re some harmless innocent suddenly hounded on by sadistic bullies… when the reality is that you’re hated across the site because you’re an evil, lying sack of shit with a sinister agenda, and now you’re enjoying the karmic consequences of your behaviour.
Like most Leftists, you’re too dumb to pull off the sophistry you’re attempting, and you’re getting exactly what you deserve.
Now make a load of pathetic unconvincing excuses mixed with tedious victim-whining while you continue to be a bell-end across the site. Go…
What's misleading about them? You have behaved EXACTLY like you did in the other threads and what I've charged you for doing.
> pre-suppose that you’re some harmless innocent suddenly hounded on by sadistic bullies… when the reality is that you’re hated across the site because you’re an evil, lying sack of shit with a sinister agenda, and now you’re enjoying the karmic consequences of your behaviour.
This is literally a cut and paste from you. As I said then, and will say now:
And I didn't say I was hounded on by "sadistic bullies" plural. It's just you. Corbell is a scumbag, but he doesn't spend his entire life following me around, like you do. TVfan is a fascist piece of shit, but he also doesn't spend his time harassing me (although he did briefly some time ago). No-one else does anything to me, or tried to antagonise me on here except for you. You have the energy of the Scientologist Dan Mernon harassing Mark Bunker, if you're familiar with that analogy.
The comparison is more of a troll who has absolutely nothing else going on spending his whole life harassing me.
>Now make a load of pathetic unconvincing excuses mixed with tedious victim-whining while you continue to be a bell-end across the site. Go…
Another childish post-edit response that I will direct cygurations attention to.
https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/662e66e066a72d7514b0e4f4/Anyone-else-encountered-the-user-Skavau?reply=663c895bffc983529755c463
He just said this to me. Do you specifically think this is moral behaviour?
This really should be easy. Do you think Melton is behaving honourably? All he does now is follow me around and try to antagonise me. That's literally his sole purpose in life, from what I can ascertain.
Cyguration, you’re still doing an admirable job of trying to reason with the most blinkered moron on this site.
Skavau is allergic to reality and facts, is completely ideologically captured by the ruling regime, and has only an unimpressive bag of rhetorical tricks in his ‘intellectual arsenal’.
Before he drains much more of your time, check out this thread dedicated to exposing his agenda and his dishonest debating strategy: https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/662e66e066a72d7514b0e4f4/Anyone-else-encountered-the-user-Skavau
>Cyguration, you’re still doing an admirable job of trying to reason with the most blinkered moron on this site.
What precisely are the specific claims he's made that you find so compelling? He's misunderstood statistics and repeatedly made wild claims and arguments that he's abandoned.
>Before he drains much more of your time, check out this thread dedicated to exposing his agenda and his dishonest debating strategy: https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/662e66e066a72d7514b0e4f4/Anyone-else-encountered-the-user-Skavau
I will take note to ask him, should he reply to you here, since whatever else he might be, cyguration does at least appear to be an honest poster, if he feels that accusing people of being a pedophile on no evidence is a moral thing to do.
I also continue to note your obsession with me. Do you actually think about nothing else in life other than what I do on here?
Thanks.
If for nothing else, I have not engaged much with people who hold his views in a while that require me to dig out and dig through a collection of sources. So, it has at least enabled me to dust off some of the old Gorgian method and rekindle some talking points I had forgotten about. It also helps me to better understand today's rootless youth, and to find better counters for their stance(s).
Cyguration, can you tell me if you think it's morally acceptable for someone to accuse someone else of being a pedophile on the back of no evidence?
And if it is moral to edit your posts after replying to a user to make it look like they admit something they didn't?
That’s cool, as long as you’re using him as your intellectual plaything and not allowing him to the control the discussion with his trademark Hatchling and Straw questions.
Never forget that he’s a completely insincere regime lackey on a gaslighting mission, with zero interest in reality. Every time you go fetching evidence he counts that as a ‘win’ because he believes he has successfully wasted your time.
But if you’re aware of his shtick (notice how he’s trying to bait you in his reply to this post) and want to amuse yourself with him then don’t let me put you off. You’ve certainly made a fool of him so far in your discussion here 🍻
Let us see if he'll give me a straight answer when I ask him, and show him, your general conduct on this forum.
share>But if you’re aware of his shtick (notice how he’s trying to bait you in his reply to this post) and want to amuse yourself with him then don’t let me put you off. You’ve certainly made a fool of him so far in your discussion here 🍻
And how has he made a fool of me? Going to refer to any specifics?
How is asking him about your conduct on here trying to "bait" him? You claim to be such a paragon, you claim such a moral highground, but then operate by deception: editing posts to misrepresent the reply, baseless accusations about other people, juvenile edgy 12 year old gamer insults towards others.
>Every time you go fetching evidence he counts that as a ‘win’ because he believes he has successfully wasted your time.
I missed this. The implications of this are absurd. It suggests that you don't believe that claims should be backed up. As if you think people should just accept what you claim without any actual sourcing.
Yes, I've read your posts and notice the patterns quite well, so I thank you for that.
And absolutely.... it has allowed me to resharpen some debate tools that I left dormant for many years. And has also allowed me to brush up a bit on my tactics.
But I'm glad you recognise the tactics and already know how to spot them with ease. I'm sure it makes it very easy for you to spot them and counter them when you encounter them in other parts of life.
>Yes, I've read your posts and notice the patterns quite well, so I thank you for that.
Can you name some "hatchling" questions I've asked? Can you name some straw questions I've asked? Should people just take your word for claims you make, and not ask for your sources when you make claims about things? Is there something wrong with being asked for data?
Cyguration, can you tell me if you think it's morally acceptable for someone to accuse someone else of being a pedophile on the back of no evidence?
He’s pissed now 👆🏻🤣
Fires back at accusations of using Hatchling and Straw questions… with a barrage of Hatchling and Straw questions… and doesn’t get the irony 🤦🏻♂️
So, wait, whenever someone throws an accusation at you, and you ask them on what basis they're claiming it... it automatically becomes a "hatchling" question?
So people shouldn't defend themselves, ever? Or it's "hatchling"?
Also, I'm not convinced you know what the word strawman means.
I don't see it as inherently harmful.
You forgot about the marriage rates dropping by nearly double.
Other than them having different names?
Words have meanings, and the meaning of marriage is the holy matrimony of man and woman to come together under God for the purpose of creating or maintaining a blessed lineage. Civil unions are not.
I don't give a fuck what the bible says.
Right, so you don't really care about marriage then, since its purpose is defined by the Bible.
In Latin America, it could be liberation theology.
Latin America actually further proves my point about corruption and misappropriation of the intended use of theological doctrine as civil foundations leading to absolute anarchy and dissolution of social structure; Brazil, in particular.
That's not the same thing as saying that irreligiosity somehow caused WW3
It's predicated on it; proper religious leadership would have strayed from even instigating things toward WW3 based on corrupt backroom dealings (i.e., Ukraine). As a result, the family unit will be further destroyed when young men are forced away from their families to fight in a corrupt war.
he continues to imply I am a pedophile either by asking me again and again, or implying I am a danger to kids
What -- from your actions or inferences -- led him to ask those questions?
share
>You forgot about the marriage rates dropping by nearly double.
Which I don't regard as inherently harmful in itself.
>Words have meanings, and the meaning of marriage is the holy matrimony of man and woman to come together under God for the purpose of creating or maintaining a blessed lineage. Civil unions are not.
That's your definition. Not mine. And again, what difference does it make is an identical union just under a different name exists that gay people use?
>Right, so you don't really care about marriage then, since its purpose is defined by the Bible.
Personally, no. And the bible does not have a monopoly on the definition of marriage.
>Latin America actually further proves my point about corruption and misappropriation of the intended use of theological doctrine as civil foundations leading to absolute anarchy and dissolution of social structure; Brazil, in particular.
I am making the point that intense christianity does not inherently, necessarily mean an anti-migration policy. Should I suggest that the endgame of intense Christianity are the many religious derived authoritarian dictatorships of Europe in the 20th century? (Portugal, Spain)?
>It's predicated on it; proper religious leadership would have strayed from even instigating things toward WW3 based on corrupt backroom dealings (i.e., Ukraine). As a result, the family unit will be further destroyed when young men are forced away from their families to fight in a corrupt war.
What a load of fucking bullshit. WW1 and WW2, both wars that emerged in a much more highly religiously prominent environment with major states involved often having overt authoritarian religious governments.
>What -- from your actions or inferences -- led him to ask those questions?
He doesn't like me. That's it.
Absolutely NOTHING I have ever done or said leads anyone to ask it reasonably. I have repeatedly denied it, and he continues.
And you did not answer my other question regarding the editing of posts, which he does repeatedly AND HAS DONE IN THIS VERY THREAD whilst simultaneously accused me of lying to you that he does it.
Do you think it is moral to edit your post after the other user has replied to make it appear as if they are admitting to something they are not?
Which I don't regard as inherently harmful in itself.
Without marriage, there is no family unit, and without a family unit, you no longer have a cultural backbone for civilisation. Why do you not think that is harmful?
what difference does it make is an identical union just under a different name exists that gay people use?
Words have meanings. Without meanings the words mean nothing. Marriage is not interchangeable with civil unions, and are a holy matrimony -- civil unions are not holy. The better question is, why do you need or care about people adopting a religious matrimony if you don't think religiosity is important?
And the bible does not have a monopoly on the definition of marriage.
It does, actually. Other cultures have simply tried to adopt it.
I am making the point that intense christianity does not inherently, necessarily mean an anti-migration policy.
It's not just anti-imigration, it's also sociopolitical norms and basing state legality around religious standards. The erosion of that is what has seen so many forms of debauchery rise up in the aforementioned nations (albeit at different rates).
both wars that emerged in a much more highly religiously prominent environment with major states involved often having overt authoritarian religious governments.
There was nothing religiously motivated by the Bolsheviks nor the Czars that led to the impetus of those wars getting underway in certain regions.
Absolutely NOTHING I have ever done or said leads anyone to ask it reasonably.
That's your perspective, though.
Do you think it is moral to edit your post after the other user has replied to make it appear as if they are admitting to something they are not?
Depends on if the edit is for clarity.
share
>Without marriage, there is no family unit, and without a family unit, you no longer have a cultural backbone for civilisation. Why do you not think that is harmful?
There's no reason to believe this is true. We could just rename marriage to "civil partnership". There's no requirement on people being married to have children.
>Words have meanings. Without meanings the words mean nothing. Marriage is not interchangeable with civil unions, and are a holy matrimony -- civil unions are not holy.
No, that is your claim that it is "holy". Not mine. What is the difference in practice?
>The better question is, why do you need or care about people adopting a religious matrimony if you don't think religiosity is important?
I think the state should get out of marriage entirely.
>It does, actually. Other cultures have simply tried to adopt it.
No reason to believe this whatsoever. Literal baseless unevidenced horseshit.
>It's not just anti-imigration, it's also sociopolitical norms and basing state legality around religious standards. The erosion of that is what has seen so many forms of debauchery rise up in the aforementioned nations (albeit at different rates).
Can you tell me what "debauchery" should be criminalised? And as always, ignored by you: Should I suggest that the endgame of intense Christianity are the many religious derived authoritarian dictatorships of Europe in the 20th century? (Portugal, Spain)?
>There was nothing religiously motivated by the Bolsheviks nor the Czars that led to the impetus of those wars getting underway in certain regions.
The people, the population in Europe were on average more religious than they are now. And the Communists were not the only players in the prelude to those conflicts.
>That's your perspective, though.
Go on then. Tell me what I've done anywhere that makes it reasonable to throw baseless accusations and suggestions at me about being a pedophile. You speak with such piety, such sanctimony yet you can't make possibly the easiest condemnation going. It's pathetic. This seriously speaks bad on you.
Did you actually click on the original thread I linked?
>Depends on if the edit is for clarity.
No, it is not. I am replying to Melton and what he does in some of his posts after I have replied, some time afterwards, he will edit his post that I have already replied to to say "If the rumours about you being a pedophile are true, please confirm this by replying."
Do you think that is remotely honest, or moral conduct?
There's no reason to believe this is true
Which modern industralised nation has been built on a family structure that is not majority monogamous?
What is the difference in practice?
The upholding of vows.
I think the state should get out of marriage entirely.
We can both agree on this.
No reason to believe this whatsoever. Literal baseless unevidenced horseshit.
The Bible is the first book ever published, and represents the cultural cornerstone which chronicles man's guided ascent to establish the structural foundations for modern civilisation.
?Should I suggest that the endgame of intense Christianity are the many religious derived authoritarian dictatorships of Europe in the 20th century?
As you noted yourself, those were not built on the religious principles of Christianity, but the perversion of those principles specifically for authoritarian dictatorships, which actually goes against the very principles of what Jesus taught in the book they used to enact near-theocratic rule.
Can you tell me what "debauchery" should be criminalised?
Never said criminalised, but outlawed or shamed were the proper way about it in the past.
the population in Europe were on average more religious than they are now.
Yes, but the rulership(s) were still corrupt... or do you really think those autocrats ruled with religiously sound fervor (despite the attempted genocides/land grabs via war)?
Tell me what I've done anywhere that makes it reasonable to throw baseless accusations and suggestions at me about being a pedophile.
You need to find recourse in reasoning with him to understand what you did to cause such friction.
Did you actually click on the original thread I linked?
Yep, can't make heads or tails of that conversation.
share
>Which modern industralised nation has been built on a family structure that is not majority monogamous?
They also all have expansive LGBT rights.
>The upholding of vows.
Why can't people doing a partnership make vows?
>The Bible is the first book ever published, and represents the cultural cornerstone which chronicles man's guided ascent to establish the structural foundations for modern civilisation.
No, the Bible is not the "first book ever published". Evidence please.
>Never said criminalised, but outlawed or shamed were the proper way about it in the past.
What's the practical difference between "outlawed" and criminalised? What things should be outlawed and shamed now?
>Yes, but the rulership(s) were still corrupt... or do you really think those autocrats ruled with religiously sound fervor (despite the attempted genocides/land grabs via war)?
Many of the countries in interwar europe were run as religious dictatorships. But I digress. The point is that nothing has changed. You're speaking, it seems about an ideal that has never really truly existed and thus is fundamentally unfalsifiable.
>You need to find recourse in reasoning with him to understand what you did to cause such friction.
He doesn't like my beliefs. He accuses anyone who publicly disagrees with him on an issue of being 'woke' and immediately makes them his own enemy. I've seen it many times, although he's fixated on me as an object of obsession. He then has a fair game policy of behaviour where any accusation towards me becomes justified. Do you think that's acceptable? Do you think someone who edits their posts to make it look like I'm admitting something I'm not is arguing fairly?
As I said: I am replying to Melton and what he does in some of his posts after I have replied, some time afterwards, he will edit his post that I have already replied to to say "If the rumours about you being a pedophile are true, please confirm this by replying."
Do you think that is remotely honest, or moral conduct?
Here's where he accused me of loving Islam. I said I don't. He continues to claim otherwise:
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65efaf45992e9150801672ca/Similarities-of-Gaza-to-the-Holocaust?reply=65fc44f0bfee4a3a54d511ad
That fair conduct?
Here's another instance:
https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/662e66e066a72d7514b0e4f4/Anyone-else-encountered-the-user-Skavau?reply=664213f4469c6e1a18b84300
He knows full well where he got the "rumours" from. He's trying to bait me. Do you consider this moral conduct?
https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/662e66e066a72d7514b0e4f4/Anyone-else-encountered-the-user-Skavau?reply=66421e3c469c6e1a18b84369
And again. Do you think that is remotely a reasonable-minded, good-faith, moral response to what I said?
They also all have expansive LGBT rights.
Non-sequitur. That doesn't answer the question.
Why can't people doing a partnership make vows?
Anyone can make vows, but they don't mean anything if no one intends to maintain or uphold them.
No, the Bible is not the "first book ever published". Evidence please.
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/historical-timeline?locale=en_US
What's the practical difference between "outlawed" and criminalised?
Outlawed can mean something that is prohibited from being done but may not carry criminal charges. Fornication, non-monogamy, and hook-up culture should definitely be shamed/outlawed.
You're speaking, it seems about an ideal that has never really truly existed
I would say 18th century Britain came close, as well as 18th - early 20th century America also came close.
Do you think that is remotely honest, or moral conduct?
If you believe he is baiting you, then why not just make peace and disengage? share
>Non-sequitur. That doesn't answer the question.
None, because of the prominence of Christianity across most of the western world.
>Anyone can make vows, but they don't mean anything if no one intends to maintain or uphold them.
Sure. But this could be true for any marriage, civil partnership, anything.
>https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/historical-timeline?locale=en_US
https://wiganlanebooks.co.uk/blog/interesting/10-of-the-oldest-known-surviving-books-in-the-world/
>Outlawed can mean something that is prohibited from being done but may not carry criminal charges. Fornication, non-monogamy, and hook-up culture should definitely be shamed/outlawed.
If it doesn't carry criminal charges, then in what sense is it prohibited?
>I would say 18th century Britain came close, as well as 18th - early 20th century America also came close.
And 18th century Britain did all kinds of horrible things that we'd reject now. So did early 20th century USA.
>If you believe he is baiting you, then why not just make peace and disengage?
He continually harasses me across the forum. How can I "make peace"? I don't have to say anything to him. He continues unabated. I am asking you a really simple question dude. It really is trivial. I am asking you if you think his conduct is moral.
None, because of the prominence of Christianity across most of the western world.
There are countless cultures and tribes not associated with Christianity -- where are the modern industrialised societies built out of non-monogamous, pagan cultural trends?
https://wiganlanebooks.co.uk/blog/interesting/10-of-the-oldest-known-surviving-books-in-the-world/
And hilariously, none of them are as old as the dead sea scrolls (the closest being the Estrucan tablets, which have nothing in them related to cultural standards or trends). Hence, the Bible is not only the oldest book out there but the only one that contains instructions for standards on life, including marriage.
If it doesn't carry criminal charges, then in what sense is it prohibited?
It can result in public shaming, community outlawing, or prohibitive access to civil municipalities.
And 18th century Britain did all kinds of horrible things that we'd reject now. So did early 20th century USA.
And that's precisely why modern society is imploding. Those "horrible things" were in place to protect the integrity of an expanding and progressive cultural society built on evolutionary productivity.
How can I "make peace"? I don't have to say anything to him.
So, what you're trying to say is that moral relativism without hard-line principles renders you susceptible to people utilising it to badger or mock or undermine your character? It's almost like if there were standards in place to enforce moral behaviours you wouldn't have that issue, no?
share
>There are countless cultures and tribes not associated with Christianity -- where are the modern industrialised societies built out of non-monogamous, pagan cultural trends?
Most of them were railroaded and absorbed and then eventually spat out (liberated with new cultures and religions) by the British, Spanish, French etc many hundreds of years ago and Christianised. Although one could argue China as an example of a nation that surged in spite of it. It's never been majority Christian. Nor has most of the Middle-East, India etc.
>And hilariously, none of them are as old as the dead sea scrolls (the closest being the Estrucan tablets, which have nothing in them related to cultural standards or trends). Hence, the Bible is not only the oldest book out there but the only one that contains instructions for standards on life, including marriage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Sutra#:~:text=Front%20line%20of%20the%20Chinese,printed%20book%20in%20the%20world.
Nowhere considers the dead sea scrolls as the definitive oldest, it seems. And you talking about it referring to cultural standards or trends as a prerequisite is moving the goalposts.
>It can result in public shaming, community outlawing, or prohibitive access to civil municipalities.
What form would the "public shaming" take? What do you mean by "community outlawing"? A state ban? That's still a ban enforced by law, just within the borders of a state. What access should be revoked? This sounds awfully close to the Chinese social credit system.
>So, what you're trying to say is that moral relativism without hard-line principles renders you susceptible to people utilising it to badger or mock or undermine your character?
An individual choosing to be abusive doesn't have much to do with anything. He could do that whether or not the USA was a christian state or not. Many of the highly abusive characters on this forum also parade around their religiosity as a badge of honour.
>It's almost like if there were standards in place to enforce moral behaviours you wouldn't have that issue, no?
I'm asking you from your perspective. The thread has finally been glassed now. Do you consider his conduct, from you saw, and what I'm saying acceptable? And what are you getting at here? Are you proposing I support legislation that bans being rude online? Do you support that kind of thing?
And divine command theory, which you seem to be referring to here is nothing more than following the dear leader. I reject the premise that your worldview actually adequately provides objective moral standards. I also assume, perhaps charitably, that you reject killing people and raping people for reasons other than an order that tells you not to do so. That you do have some level of solidarity with others that leads you to regard them as distasteful and anti-social actions that harm society.
Although one could argue China as an example of a nation that surged in spite of it. It's never been majority Christian. Nor has most of the Middle-East, India etc.
Despite China not being majorly Christian, they are still extremely conservative and highly value monogamous, family-oriented cultural productivity. Even the Middle-East still focus on monogamy and polygyny, but obviously aren't nearly as industrialised as the Judeo-Christian nations. Even India frowns on anything that isn't based around non-monogamy, despite lacking a lot of basic infrastructural implementations.
Nowhere considers the dead sea scrolls as the definitive oldest, it seems.
Because they are not dated. Even your link only refers to the Sutra as the oldest "dated" book, not that it is the oldest book. There is a huge difference between the two.
What form would the "public shaming" take? What do you mean by "community outlawing"? A state ban?
Public whipping/flogging/humiliation chastisement. Outlawing in the form of banishment from the community. Municipality restrictions could be in the form of restricted access to State services or certain civil rights.
An individual choosing to be abusive doesn't have much to do with anything.
But according to moral relativism, you are choosing to see his conduct as abuse; perhaps he sees it as being inquisitive?
Are you proposing I support legislation that bans being rude online?
Absolutely not. Instead, if people supported objective moral standards, people would be taught to behave in ways that was conducive toward productivity -- or would you rather prefer people treat you in ways that you perceive to be abusive? share
>Despite China not being majorly Christian, they are still extremely conservative and highly value monogamous, family-oriented cultural productivity. Even the Middle-East still focus on monogamy and polygyny, but obviously aren't nearly as industrialised as the Judeo-Christian nations. Even India frowns on anything that isn't based around non-monogamy, despite lacking a lot of basic infrastructural implementations.
But still not Christian. You asked specifically about countries that are not Christian.
>Because they are not dated. Even your link only refers to the Sutra as the oldest "dated" book, not that it is the oldest book. There is a huge difference between the two.
So you just assume that the Dead Sea Scrolls are the definitive oldest?
>Public whipping/flogging/humiliation chastisement.
Sorry, is this something you're in favour of? People being whipped or flogged for premarital sex? Is this not a punishment imposed by law?
Should LGBT people, or people who are known to have been in a relationship with someone of the same sex, be flogged?
>Outlawing in the form of banishment from the community.
Removed from a community by law?
>Municipality restrictions could be in the form of restricted access to State services or certain civil rights.
This is pretty totalitarian dude. I thought you weren't in favour of imposing the state on people?
>But according to moral relativism, you are choosing to see his conduct as abuse; perhaps he sees it as being inquisitive?
Don't be disingenuous. He's repeatedly making the same allegations and suggestions over and over. And again: this is irrelevant if HE IS NOT A MORAL RELATIVIST. And I assume you do not define yourself as a moral relativist. Is it, from your perspective, morally wrong or not? This is not hard. Why are you being evasive about this?
>Absolutely not. Instead, if people supported objective moral standards, people would be taught to behave in ways that was conducive toward productivity
I'm not aware of any form of schooling of any kind, of societal teaching that teaches people that in some instances it's perfectly acceptable to be abusive and hateful to people because you do not like them. And by "objective moral standards" you basically mean "if society just taught the values I personally adhere to". Turns out that there's no consensus amongst the supposed 'objective morality' audience over what constitutes good or bad regarding 'objective morality'. It's just claims made by other people.
And to be frank, since you've suggested you think that public flogging might be a good thing - I'm not sure you're a good source on this. You yourself can't even condemn the simple act of lying about other people. Why should I take you remotely seriously on this?
But still not Christian. You asked specifically about countries that are not Christian.
Nope, I specifically asked for countries practicing majority non-monogamy that were as industrialised or as advanced as Judeo-Christian-based countries.
So you just assume that the Dead Sea Scrolls are the definitive oldest?
That's mostly what the carbon dating says.
Is this not a punishment imposed by law?
It's imposed to uphold productive cultural standards, no different than some punishments in various military bootcamps.
Should LGBT people, or people who are known to have been in a relationship with someone of the same sex, be flogged?
Only if they are engaging known activities or public displays that diminish the integrity of positive cultural standards.
Removed from a community by law?
Or prefects.
I thought you weren't in favour of imposing the state on people?
I said "could" and "certain". Not "all". Some rules need harsher penalties.
this is irrelevant if HE IS NOT A MORAL RELATIVIST.
Are you certain about this? Isn't this as bad as assuming his gender?
Turns out that there's no consensus amongst the supposed 'objective morality' audience over what constitutes good or bad regarding 'objective morality'.
There absolutely is.... the Ten Commandments.
You yourself can't even condemn the simple act of lying about other people.
I can only condemn what has been ascertained with irrefutable proof. share
>That's mostly what the carbon dating says.
https://www.glam.ox.ac.uk/article/carbon-dating-finds-bakhshali-manuscript-contains-oldest-recorded-origins-symbol-zero#:~:text=The%20surpri
>It's imposed to uphold productive cultural standards, no different than some punishments in various military bootcamps.
And how is it enforced? Who enforces the flogging? What if someone says they don't want to be flogged?
I'll ask again: Are you calling for people who commit premarital sex to be flogged against their will?
>Only if they are engaging known activities or public displays that diminish the integrity of positive cultural standards.
What does that mean? What constitutes a "known activity" or "public display" that "diminishes the integrity of positive cultural standards" in respect to LGBT people? What is the authority that doles out this punishment?
>I said "could" and "certain". Not "all". Some rules need harsher penalties.
You initially denied wanting the state to restrict the rights of LGBT people. If not the state, then who should and by what authority and how is this in practice remotely different than if the state was enforcing behavioural standards?
What specific rules should be enforced that aren't, and by whom?
>Are you certain about this? Isn't this as bad as assuming his gender?
You mistake me for some trans-activist. I'm not.
And forget him. What do you think? Do you think lying about someone knowingly is a moral thing to do?
>There absolutely is.... the Ten Commandments.
This does not have uniform agreement at all. Most people on earth aren't Christian and thus many of the edicts aren't built on common ground. Certain things in it have general social agreement: do not kill, do not steal. You don't need the ten commandments to ascertain those things as harmful to society. The first 4 however, are all about appeasing the dear leader and have zero relevance to anything. I'd actually argue that they're harmful in that they encourage cult-like behaviours. Honouring your parents is generally good, but depends on the parents. Adultery is considered bad, but not criminal. Lying isn't necessarily against the law, and in some instances can be good. I don't see anything wrong inherently with coveting.
So no, they don't.
>I can only condemn what has been ascertained with irrefutable proof.
I gave you multiple examples of his behaviour.
https://www.glam.ox.ac.uk/article/carbon-dating-finds-bakhshali-manuscript-contains-oldest-recorded-origins-symbol-zero#:~:text=The%20surpri
The oldest date of that manuscript is the forth century (I'm assuming they mean BC), which is nowhere near as old as the dead sea scrolls.
And how is it enforced? Who enforces the flogging? What if someone says they don't want to be flogged?
Prefects. Otherwise, the person(s) are more than welcome to leave the community.
Are you calling for people who commit premarital sex to be flogged against their will?
Absolutely.
What is the authority that doles out this punishment?
In a sane and healthy society, a government that upholds cultural standards based on moral objectivity... sort of like how it used to be just after the age of enlightenment but before the industrial revolution.
You initially denied wanting the state to restrict the rights of LGBT people.
Rights? Who said anything about rights... we're talking about conduct. Rights do not guarantee acceptance of conduct.
Do you think lying about someone knowingly is a moral thing to do?
What does it matter what I think? I'm not the one choosing to take offence -- if you believe what he's doing is wrong, then do you hold fast that all matters of morality must be objective? Or only the ones that directly impact you?
The first 4 however, are all about appeasing the dear leader and have zero relevance to anything.
They have relevance to social cohesion, and we're seeing that when they are not upheld, society begins to breakdown, hence -- once again -- the implosion of relationships, the family unit, and by proxy, infrastructure.
share
>The oldest date of that manuscript is the forth century (I'm assuming they mean BC), which is nowhere near as old as the dead sea scrolls.
Can I see some sources here please?
>Prefects. Otherwise, the person(s) are more than welcome to leave the community.
What exactly is the legal status of a "prefect" here exactly?
>Absolutely.
By what authority?
>In a sane and healthy society, a government that upholds cultural standards based on moral objectivity... sort of like how it used to be just after the age of enlightenment but before the industrial revolution.
So you are in fact in favour of persecuting LGBT people. You claimed initially in this thread that you were not. I asked you if TV shows and films that depict LGBT people should be banned by force and you denied that you claimed they should.
>Rights? Who said anything about rights... we're talking about conduct. Rights do not guarantee acceptance of conduct.
Dude, if an action that someone does specifically prompts a punishment from the local authorities - it is not a protected right. If you are in favour of punishing people for having premarital sex or being publicly LGBT then you are rejecting those actions as rights. Whether or not you personally accept it is neither here nor there, but if you use the police to chase people down to punish them for said action, it means you are rejecting their right to do it in the first place.
And again: What constitutes a "known activity" or "public display" that "diminishes the integrity of positive cultural standards" in respect to LGBT people?
>What does it matter what I think? I'm not the one choosing to take offence -- if you believe what he's doing is wrong, then do you hold fast that all matters of morality must be objective? Or only the ones that directly impact you?
You're claiming to be an accurate conveyer of moral standards. Can you just answer the fucking question from your perspective?
>They have relevance to social cohesion, and we're seeing that when they are not upheld, society begins to breakdown, hence -- once again -- the implosion of relationships, the family unit, and by proxy, infrastructure.
There's no reason whatsoever to think specifically noting out the sabbath as a day of rest has any impact good or bad on society, or "taking idols" (whatever that is supposed to mean in an objective sense). They don't have any relevance to behaviour. There isn't consensus from wider society that the ten commandments are true, or in whole, represent good morals, or are the only source for good moral advice. Screaming that they are objective is missing the point that they aren't agreed to be so and you can't just change that and make it happen.
Being, however, a totalitarian despot, and using the state to flog people for premarital sex or homosexuality absolutely would come under destabilising society though. This would be considered more like the nasty hateful shit Iran does and be met with severe opposition. You would essentially destroy all of modern culture and media by force. Social liberalism has been integrated into most tv shows, films, video games, literature since the 1960s to varying degrees.
Should all known LGBT people right now in society be rounded up and attacked, or "flogged"? Should all producers of TV shows, films, video games that depict LGBT people (in a positive way that you despise) or premarital sex be flogged?
On that note, I'm also wondering if you support blasphemy laws?
Can I see some sources here please?
I already linked it above.
What exactly is the legal status of a "prefect" here exactly?
Someone who upholds the cultural standards of the community.
By what authority?
The reinstating of theocratic principles at the parliamentary level.
So you are in fact in favour of persecuting LGBT people.
Nope. I'm in favour of persecuting uncouth behaviour. What the public doesn't know about, the public doesn't care about.
then you are rejecting those actions as rights.
Pre-marital sex isn't a right. You have the right to pursue happiness within the bounds of the law. You have civil rights for safeguarding and civic participation of upholding or maintaining cultural norms.
"diminishes the integrity of positive cultural standards" in respect to LGBT people?
Anything that goes against the biologically deterministic cultural norms.
Can you just answer the fucking question from your perspective?
My perspective is dependent on how you answer the question about whether all matters are contained within moral objectivity or if morals only matter when they affect you?
They don't have any relevance to behaviour.
They do; people idolise greed and covetedness all the time, much to their detriment, relationships, and even family. Or do you believe people like Sam Bankman-Fried are good for society?
There isn't consensus from wider society that the ten commandments are true, or in whole, represent good morals
The country you reside in was built on the principles of the Ten Commandments.
You would essentially destroy all of modern culture and media by force.
We have a modern society thanks to people employing strict moral principles by force in the past. So quite the opposite. share
>I already linked it above.
I found sources that date things as older, or concurrently old.
>Someone who upholds the cultural standards of the community.
And who appoints them? Who do they answer to?
>Nope. I'm in favour of persecuting uncouth behaviour. What the public doesn't know about, the public doesn't care about.
Which is persecuting them. You are imposing yourself on the lives others. It is innately totalitarian and that attitude is more familiar in the world of Iran and Afghanistan, not the western world. What does it mean to "know about it"? If you know that your neighbour is LGBT and in a relationship and you see them holding hands in public with their partner, what should happen?
>Pre-marital sex isn't a right. You have the right to pursue happiness within the bounds of the law. You have civil rights for safeguarding and civic participation of upholding or maintaining cultural norms.
This is where I said you are rejecting them as rights. And since you reject the rights for gay people to get married, this means all gay sex inherently becomes "pre-marital sex". Meaning you are de-facto in favour of sodomy laws. Can you confirm that you are in favour of the state punishing people for having gay sex?
In addition, any attempts to persecute people for having premarital sex was struck down in 2003: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
>Anything that goes against the biologically deterministic cultural norms.
As I asked above: What does it mean to "know about it"? If you know that your neighbour is LGBT and in a relationship and you see them holding hands in public with their partner, what should happen?
>My perspective is dependent on how you answer the question about whether all matters are contained within moral objectivity or if morals only matter when they affect you?
You are a coward. You can't even tell me if you think someone blatantly lying about someone else, an edict contained in the ten commandments you so proudly chest thump about is wrong, but you can tell me that you think people should be flogged.
>They do; people idolise greed and covetedness all the time, much to their detriment, relationships, and even family. Or do you believe people like Sam Bankman-Fried are good for society?
I see no reason that idolising in itself can be bad. Idolising can be a spark, a source of inspiration, of innovation as much as it can lead to bad things. Moderation, as with all things, is key.
>The country you reside in was built on the principles of the Ten Commandments.
And we're now not even 50% Christian.
And we long discarded rule by religious tyranny a long time ago. We're now not a majority Christian. Ignoring that I could contest your claim, I don't give a flying fuck what it was "built on". I am not tethered to the actions of my ancestors.
>We have a modern society thanks to people employing strict moral principles by force in the past. So quite the opposite.
Almost all modern TV shows, films, video games in their writing will depict, in some sense, premarital sex, LGBT people, and general liberal attitudes and principles. I could go through all of my favourite TV series, and outline how they likely would run afoul of your potential censors. If you do wish to go further and ban 'blasphemic' content, as I suspect you might, even more things would be banned.
But you didn't answer here: Are you in favour of implementing blasphemy laws?
Should all known LGBT people right now in society be rounded up and attacked, or "flogged"? Should all producers of TV shows, films, video games that depict LGBT people (in a positive way that you despise) or premarital sex be flogged?
I found sources that date things as older, or concurrently old.
Those weren't actual books.
And who appoints them? Who do they answer to?
Municipal overseers.
what should happen?
You can ignore it or report them -- depends on how disruptive they are.
Can you confirm that you are in favour of the state punishing people for having gay sex?
If it becomes disruptive to the community or social standards, sure. The peace must be kept, and progress and productivity must be the focus.
You can't even tell me if you think someone blatantly lying about someone else, an edict contained in the ten commandments you so proudly chest thump about is wrong
You're working under the supposition that your opponent is lying, even though that has yet to be proved. You also seem to want the safeguards of moral objectivity, but you do not want to adhere to their principles. Ironic.
Idolising can be a spark, a source of inspiration, of innovation as much as it can lead to bad things.
Yes, which is why it's advised not to idolise. You can garner innovation and inspiration without engaging in deprecation.
I am not tethered to the actions of my ancestors.
Yet you enjoy the modern amenities built on the foundations of their hard work and religious principles. Ironic.
But you didn't answer here: Are you in favour of implementing blasphemy laws?
I still believe people should have some forms of freedoms... with enforcements, of course.
Should all known LGBT people right now in society be rounded up and attacked, or "flogged"?
Are they all being disruptive? If not, then no. share
>Those weren't actual books.
They were forms of literature. Why does this matter?
>Municipal overseers.
And who appoints them? You appear to be inventing positions that simply do not exist in the USA, or any western country. They sound dystopian enough to be parallels to Saudi Arabian morality police. You have more in common with an anti-western Islamist, than any westerner by the way.
>You can ignore it or report them -- depends on how disruptive they are.
Who should they be reported to? On what grounds? What should a police officer do if they discover that someone is having premarital sex?
>If it becomes disruptive to the community or social standards, sure. The peace must be kept, and progress and productivity must be the focus.
And how would it "become disruptive"?
>You're working under the supposition that your opponent is lying, even though that has yet to be proved. You also seem to want the safeguards of moral objectivity, but you do not want to adhere to their principles. Ironic.
Oh, right, so on what grounds did he have to accuse me of being a pedophile? Another user on here has told me, directly, that it is acceptable to lie about me. Is that acceptable?
>Yes, which is why it's advised not to idolise. You can garner innovation and inspiration without engaging in deprecation.
No reason to think idolising someone would be deprecation, and thus no reason to think it is inherently bad.
>Yet you enjoy the modern amenities built on the foundations of their hard work and religious principles. Ironic.
And I also enjoy the repeal of their oppressive legislation.
>I still believe people should have some forms of freedoms... with enforcements, of course.
Not. An. Answer. Are you in favour of implementing blasphemy laws?
>Are they all being disruptive? If not, then no.
What would constitute being "disruptive"?
Almost all modern TV shows, films, video games in their writing will depict, in some sense, premarital sex, LGBT people, and general liberal attitudes and principles. I could go through all of my favourite TV series, and outline how they likely would run afoul of your potential censors. If you do wish to go further and ban 'blasphemic' content, as I suspect you might, even more things would be banned.
They were forms of literature. Why does this matter?
No, most were not. Most were just images or signage. And it matters because the point was about the message of the literature, to which the ones you pointed to did not carry any moral foundations like the dead sea scrolls did.
And who appoints them?
They could be appointed both by committee and constituency, no different than how parliament is chosen.
What should a police officer do if they discover that someone is having premarital sex?
Write them up, of course.
And how would it "become disruptive"?
We're seeing it in modern society now, just like this:
https://archive.is/o6bsi
Another user on here has told me, directly, that it is acceptable to lie about me. Is that acceptable?
If you believe in moral relativism, why not?
No reason to think idolising someone would be deprecation, and thus no reason to think it is inherently bad.
Women idolising Taylor Swift for being an "independent" "boss babe" are now having second thoughts after hitting middle-age complaining about being alone, depressed and without child. How is that not deprecation?
And I also enjoy the repeal of their oppressive legislation.
And with it... you will also soon lose the modern luxuries you so enjoy indulging in.
Are you in favour of implementing blasphemy laws?
Depends on the laws.
What would constitute being "disruptive"?
Subverting, undermining, or purposely trying to dismantle social norms. share
>No, most were not. Most were just images or signage. And it matters because the point was about the message of the literature, to which the ones you pointed to did not carry any moral foundations like the dead sea scrolls did.
That's moving the goalposts. Also there's plenty of records of literature just on the Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_books
>They could be appointed both by committee and constituency, no different than how parliament is chosen.
And what would their roles be? What are you even proposing here? Parliament is elected representatives. They aren't morality police.
You appear to be inventing positions that simply do not exist in the USA, or any western country. They sound dystopian enough to be parallels to Saudi Arabian morality police. You have more in common with an anti-western Islamist, than any westerner by the way. Going to comment on this observation?
>We're seeing it in modern society now, just like this:
This has nothing to do with gay sex. How would a couple having gay sex, and being known to have gay sex be disruptive to society?
>If you believe in moral relativism, why not?
Ignoring my position on this (which I dispute your conclusion here): **you do not believe in moral relativism**. So are you capable of condemning other people deliberately lying about me?
Also, it's interesting how you're implying that you have nothing against lying. And that the only reason you might do so is because god tells you its bad. That there's nothing in the action that renders it wrong.
>Women idolising Taylor Swift for being an "independent" "boss babe" are now having second thoughts after hitting middle-age complaining about being alone, depressed and without child. How is that not deprecation?
I'll await a citation for this happening in meaningful numbers. And nothing Taylor Swift does says "don't have kids or a partner".
>And with it... you will also soon lose the modern luxuries you so enjoy indulging in.
No reason to believe this. And even if it was true, it wouldn't be as grim as living in a theocratic fascist state like you seem to want to live in. And what old legislation should be returned to force?
>Depends on the laws.
For fuck sake. Why can't you answer questions? Why do I have to squeeze it out of you? are you in favour of blasphemy laws?
>Subverting, undermining, or purposely trying to dismantle social norms.
And what specific behaviours constitute doing that?
Almost all modern TV shows, films, video games in their writing will depict, in some sense, premarital sex, LGBT people, and general liberal attitudes and principles. I could go through all of my favourite TV series, and outline how they likely would run afoul of your potential censors. If you do wish to go further and ban 'blasphemic' content, as I suspect you might, even more things would be banned.
That's moving the goalposts
Not at all, since it's the only book from that era that mentions anything about marriage. None of the other tablets, scrolls, or artifacts from around that time mention anything of the sort. It sets the precedent for the foundations and principles of marriage we talked about before.
They aren't morality police.
Well, the prefects would be.
How would a couple having gay sex, and being known to have gay sex be disruptive to society?
Social contagion.
So are you capable of condemning other people deliberately lying about me?
I could be capable... under certain conditions.
I'll await a citation for this happening in meaningful numbers.
Majority female/Democrat/Liberal and feminist:
https://www.businessinsider.com/taylor-swift-swifties-white-millennial-suburban-democrat-50k-eras-tour-2023-11
https://english.elpais.com/usa/elections/2024-03-03/who-do-taylor-swift-fans-vote-for-a-breakdown-of-swifties-by-gender-age-and-ideology.html
No reason to believe this.
When the infrastructure fails, how will argue on message boards?
are you in favour of blasphemy laws?
Define what that entails.
And what specific behaviours constitute doing that?
Pretty much everything you listed in the next paragraph with TV, streaming, games, movies, print, and even tabletop promoting and encouraging the dismantling of social norms. share
>Not at all, since it's the only book from that era that mentions anything about marriage. None of the other tablets, scrolls, or artifacts from around that time mention anything of the sort. It sets the precedent for the foundations and principles of marriage we talked about before.
Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt had marriage ceremonies.
>Well, the prefects would be.
So why shouldn't I view as this point as the Christian equivalent of an Islamist? As I said:
You appear to be inventing positions that simply do not exist in the USA, or any western country. They sound dystopian enough to be parallels to Saudi Arabian morality police. You have more in common with an anti-western Islamist, than any westerner by the way. Going to comment on this observation?
>Social contagion.
People just by knowing a couple are gay would become gay? Would two gay people holding hands in public constitute some form of "disruption"? What if they went out to eat? Or appeared as characters in a TV show?
"Straight" culture is genuinely pathetic if it can somehow be eroded just by gay people existing in public.
>I could be capable... under certain conditions.
And what conditions are these? I thought you were a moral absolutist. So apparently lying is acceptable to you now? Why are you suddenly wiping your ass with the ten commandments?
>Majority female/Democrat/Liberal and feminist:
https://www.businessinsider.com/taylor-swift-swifties-white-millennial-suburban-democrat-50k-eras-tour-2023-11
None of this talks about regret. Nor your other article.
>When the infrastructure fails, how will argue on message boards?
Why would infrastructure fail because gay people exist, or people have unmarried sex?
>Define what that entails.
Should it be legally permissible for people to make fun of christianity, or use occult/satanic themes in media?
>Pretty much everything you listed in the next paragraph with TV, streaming, games, movies, print, and even tabletop promoting and encouraging the dismantling of social norms.
So you are basically an anti-western theocrat who hates almost all popular culture and media post-1960 and wants to severely restrict or ban all of it.
Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt had marriage ceremonies.
Yes, many centuries after it was already ordained by God between men and women for the Hebrews -- and ironically, even the Greeks' version of marriage still tied in line with the Abrahamic/Christian values of marriage, between only man and woman, as they did not acknowledge marriage between homosexuals, so your example buffers my point and I thank you for that.
So why shouldn't I view as this point as the Christian equivalent of an Islamist?
What's wrong with Islam? Are you Islamaphobic?
People just by knowing a couple are gay would become gay?
Slippery slope. Sort of like gay marriage a decade ago, child trans today.
"Straight" culture is genuinely pathetic if it can somehow be eroded just by gay people existing in public.
That goes both ways, which is why the LGBT orthodoxy is so militant with their propaganda, which buffs my point from much earlier.
I thought you were a moral absolutist.
Everyone is capable of many things.
So apparently lying is acceptable to you now?
Where did I say that?
None of this talks about regret
https://pure.manchester.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/135977571/EJP_Gender_Postprint_AAM.pdf
Why would infrastructure because gay people exist, or people have unmarried sex?
It's a cumulative effect.
Should it be legally permissible for people to make fun of christianity, or use occult/satanic themes in media?
They can.
So you are basically an anti-western theocrat
Theocrat? Possibly. Anti-Western? Just the opposite, since everything I've talked about is based on the spirit of the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence and the the moral principles for which modern society was established. share
>Yes, many centuries after it was already ordained by God between men and women for the Hebrews -- and ironically, even the Greeks' version of marriage still tied in line with the Abrahamic/Christian values of marriage, between only man and woman, as they did not acknowledge marriage between homosexuals, so your example buffers my point and I thank you for that.
The point is that the concept of marriage does not derive from christianity. It's a human institution and a society can add or remove things to it as they please.
>What's wrong with Islam? Are you Islamaphobic?
You continue to misread me. I dislike religion in general. Muslims tend to be even more reactionary and authoritarian than many contemporary christians. Christianity has been largely muted in the west. Islam is incredibly reactionary in most of the Middle-East, and exported to Europe and elsewhere.
So why shouldn't I view as this point as the Christian equivalent of an Islamist? As I said:
You appear to be inventing positions that simply do not exist in the USA, or any western country. They sound dystopian enough to be parallels to Saudi Arabian morality police. You have more in common with an anti-western Islamist, than any westerner by the way. Going to comment on this observation?
>Slippery slope. Sort of like gay marriage a decade ago, child trans today.
I see no reason to believe gay marriage has any similarity whatsoever with transgender issues.
>That goes both ways, which is why the LGBT orthodoxy is so militant with their propaganda, which buffs my point from much earlier.
What "propaganda" are you referring to? Just LGBT people existing, and openly so, in public?
And you didn't answer this: People just by knowing a couple are gay would become gay? Would two gay people holding hands in public constitute some form of "disruption"? What if they went out to eat? Or appeared as characters in a TV show?
>Everyone is capable of many things.
So you're not really a moral absolutist?
>Where did I say that?
You are unable to condemn Melton for spreading lies about me.
>https://pure.manchester.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/135977571/EJP_Gender_Postprint_AAM.pdf
There's no evidence this has anything to do with being a fan of Taylor Swift.
>It's a cumulative effect.
Assertion without evidence. I'll await how you work this out.
>They can.
Not what I asked you. Should it be, ought it be legally permissible to do this? Are you in favour of bringing in legislation that criminalises making fun of christianity, and depicting occult/satanic aesthetics in media?
>Theocrat? Possibly. Anti-Western? Just the opposite, since everything I've talked about is based on the spirit of the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence and the the moral principles for which modern society was established.
The ethos of western culture shifted in the 20th century, and rightly so, to civil liberties and individualism. You hate both and want a pod people society where the state dictates and directs peoples behaviour like Iran, or Saudi Arabia. You are a theofascist.
Nice work, cyguration.
He’s turning quite nasty now because you’re not allowing him to control the discussion with his usual bag of rhetorical tricks (Hatchling and Straw questions etc)
Very noticeable that he won’t provide evidence of this supposed ‘lying about me’ offence. It never happened, of course.
Also, note how his moral hypothetical assumes that he’s some innocent victim of unprovoked abuse. The reality is that Skavau is loathed across the site because he’s a lying sack of shit who uses devious rhetorical tricks to peddle an evil ideology, and he’s pissed that he can’t escape the natural karma that results from being a mendacious twat.
Finally, beware of his tactic of trying to bait you into uttering controversial opinions which he’ll then use to make a case to the Mods that you should be censored/banned. When Mod 5 laughed at him, he tried his luck with Mod 4 who fell for his BS and nuked that thread exposing his dirty tactics…
Anyway, keep up the good work, it’s a very entertaining thread 🍻
>Nice work, cyguration.
Nice work? You do realise that he is openly supporting a theocratic state where LGBT people and pre-marital sex is criminalised. Is that something you endorse?
Dude literally wants Christian Sharia Law. You have zero to say on that?
>Very noticeable that he won’t provide evidence of this supposed ‘lying about me’ offence. It never happened, of course.
I've already sourced examples of when you openly spread lies about me. It happened repeatedly. You got multiple posts removed for it.
>He’s turning quite nasty now because you’re not allowing him to control the discussion with his usual bag of rhetorical tricks (Hatchling and Straw questions etc)
And what am I doing that is nasty?
What are the straw questions?
>Also, note how his moral hypothetical assumes that he’s some innocent victim of unprovoked abuse. The reality is that Skavau is loathed across the site because he’s a lying sack of shit who uses devious rhetorical tricks to peddle an evil ideology, and he’s pissed that he can’t escape the natural karma that results from being a mendacious twat.
And what have I lied about? I can pinpoint the things that you have lied about. I have done so repeatedly. You haven't sourced a single thing I have lied about.
>Finally, beware of his tactic of trying to bait you into uttering controversial opinions which he’ll then use to make a case to the Mods that you should be censored/banned.
Aren't you against people concealing what they think? Isn't that part of what I am criticised for?
Also no, his positions on here do not meet the criterion for any kind of censorship. Not on this forum. Certainly cyguration would be banned from almost every other social media site though if he expressed those positions.
>When Mod 5 laughed at him, he tried his luck with Mod 4 who fell for his BS and nuked that thread exposing his dirty tactics…
This is another lie. Mod 5 didn't "laugh" at me. I didn't make that thread. I never contacted him. Kowalski made that thread.
I approached Mod 4 because you were constantly spam-bumping the thread for attention, which is against the site rules.
>Anyway, keep up the good work, it’s a very entertaining thread 🍻
It's quite possible that cyguration is in favour of prohibition. Just an amusing point to end on given your choice of emoji there.
I approached Mod 4 because you were constantly spam-bumping the thread for attention, which is against the site rules.
You don’t give a shit about the ‘site rules’, you’re just another censorious Leftist authoritarian cunt who crawled out of the anus of Reddit to suffocate the freedom of speech we had here.
God knows you’ve got nothing to say about films.
Well, at least everyone’s on to your routine now. You seem to be getting the shit kicked out of you on every thread you crawl into, including this one 🍻 share
>You don’t give a shit about the ‘site rules’
I do think they should change, if that's what you mean. But I am aware of what they are, and how they are enforced (mostly not at all).
>you’re just another censorious Leftist authoritarian cunt who crawled out of the anus of Reddit to suffocate the freedom of speech we had here.
I have only reported you for libelling me and for breaking established rules by precedent regarding thread bumping.
>God knows you’ve got nothing to say about films.
I'm a TV watcher, primarily.
>Well, at least everyone’s on to your routine now. You seem to be getting the shit kicked out of you on every thread you crawl into, including this one 🍻
Every single person I bump heads with here, almost all of them are far-right. The guy you're talking about in this thread is an admitted theocrat. You going to defend his views as well?
He hates free expression. He wants to implement morality police to arrest people for premarital sex. He wants to use the state to heavily restrict the actions of LGBT people. Due has more in common with an Iranian mullah than anyone in the west.
lol thanks. Your input is very helpful and I have learned a lot about the way some people are addressing certain complicated topics and how to address them.
shareAre you going to comment on his input of accusing people of being pedophiles? Or are you going to say that false accusations, ie lying is acceptable?
share👍🏻
shareThe point is that the concept of marriage does not derive from christianity.
For as far as recorded history goes, it did. In fact, why do you care so much about an institution attached to a religion you don't like?
Islam is incredibly reactionary in most of the Middle-East, and exported to Europe and elsewhere.
On this we can both agree. But Islam is right about women and homosexuality.
I see no reason to believe gay marriage has any similarity whatsoever with transgender issues.
One led to the other. When you open the door for accepting degeneracy, there is literally no limits to it, and everything becomes justified.
What "propaganda" are you referring to?
Everything in the media, as discussed earlier.
People just by knowing a couple are gay would become gay?
It's not just knowing or seeing them, it's the influence. Identical to other societal disruptions, such as swinging, polyarmory, or open relationships. People can be swayed into a destructive lifestyle via social contagion. Hence the saying: homosexual cannot procreate only indoctrinate.
So you're not really a moral absolutist?
Did I ever say I was?
You are unable to condemn Melton for spreading lies about me.
Where was it made clear that they were irrefutably lies and simply not your misinterpretation of his colloquial disposition?
There's no evidence this has anything to do with being a fan of Taylor Swift.
The high loneliness rates falls into the demographic for Taylor Swift's audience:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666560321000438
Assertion without evidence.
https://archive.is/efy4j
Do you think it is moral to edit your post...
Why do you care about the morality of Milton's actions? share
>For as far as recorded history goes, it did. In fact, why do you care so much about an institution attached to a religion you don't like?
I wasn't aware that Ancient Greece and Egypt were Christian.
>On this we can both agree. But Islam is right about women and homosexuality.
Is it? In what way?
You think women should be forced to cover up and subjugated into second-class citizens? You think LGBT people should be persecuted?
You appear to be inventing positions that simply do not exist in the USA, or any western country. They sound dystopian enough to be parallels to Saudi Arabian morality police. You have more in common with an anti-western Islamist, than any westerner by the way. Going to comment on this observation?
>One led to the other. When you open the door for accepting degeneracy, there is literally no limits to it, and everything becomes justified.
No reason to believe gay marriage is "degeneracy" in the first place (and I doubt you can define "degeneracy")
By this logic, allowing people to do anything leads to everything else. Listening to "degenerate" music leads to "everything else" becoming justified. Drinking leads to everything else. Doing anything fun leads to it. Pod people society. Drone society.
>Everything in the media, as discussed earlier.
Oh you mean any positive depiction of an LGBT person is "propaganda"?
>It's not just knowing or seeing them, it's the influence. Identical to other societal disruptions, such as swinging, polyarmory, or open relationships. People can be swayed into a destructive lifestyle via social contagion. Hence the saying: homosexual cannot procreate only indoctrinate.
What is the "influence" of seeing two gay people holding hands?
And you didn't answer this: People just by knowing a couple are gay would become gay? Would two gay people holding hands in public constitute some form of "disruption"? What if they went out to eat? Or appeared as characters in a TV show? Should all of those things be criminalised?
>Did I ever say I was?
So what are you then?
>Where was it made clear that they were irrefutably lies and simply not your misinterpretation of his colloquial disposition?
And on what basis is Melton accusing me of being a pedophile? What is it he knows about me? I've given you the links where he suggested it. Why is that acceptable?
>The high loneliness rates falls into the demographic for Taylor Swift's audience:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666560321000438
You have provided zero evidence that this phenomenon has anything to do with being a fan of Taylor Swift.
>https://archive.is/efy4j
This has nothing inherently to do with gay sex. 'Woke' is a relatively recent phenomenon and there's a number of reasons why self-declared progressive (woke is a pejorative) might identify their happiness negatively.
>Why do you care about the morality of Milton's actions?
I happen to think that life is worth living and that a prosperous society relies on co-operation with each other. We are a social species. That's not specific to Melton's actions. I'm more calling his (and by proxy yours) hypocrisy as you both posture your moral superiority over others whilst engaging (in your cause supporting) bad tempered and bad faith actions.
Also: Should it be, ought it be legally permissible to do this? Are you in favour of bringing in legislation that criminalises making fun of christianity, and depicting occult/satanic aesthetics in media?
I wasn't aware that Ancient Greece and Egypt were Christian.
The principles of marriage even in Greece and Egypt were still based on the conditions set within Christianity, or the Abrahamiac laws. So then why care about institutions spawned from social cohesiveness when you care for neither religion nor social cohesion?
Is it? In what way?
It keeps women in line (they don't have to worry about hook-up culture or relationship disparities like in the West) and it keeps society cohesive (no worries about homosexuality disrupting sexual behaviours of the populace).
You appear to be inventing positions that simply do not exist in the USA
If the U.K., keeps importing Muslims, it absolutely will end up that way.
People just by knowing a couple are gay would become gay?
It's not just the singular act, it's about pervasive influence. People become tempted by influence. Did you know that a third of all females on some dating apps, who identify as hetero, experiment with homosexuality? Why? Social contagion.
https://galoremag.com/percentage-americans-experienced-sex-partners/
And on what basis is Melton accusing me of being a pedophile?
If it was implied from another user then that is the basis. Even still, an accusation is not a lie.
You have provided zero evidence that this phenomenon has anything to do with being a fan of Taylor Swift.
Demographic crossover.
This has nothing inherently to do with gay sex.
It encompasses that group and corroborates adjacent data:
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/22/Depression-rates-remain-high-for-lesbian-and-gay-teens/1111571755869/
engaging (in your cause supporting) bad tempered and bad faith actions.
So you want people to engage in the same moral objectivity that you deny being important to keeping society healthy?
share
>The principles of marriage even in Greece and Egypt were still based on the conditions set within Christianity, or the Abrahamiac laws.
But they did not DERIVE from christianity. It's not a Christian concept. Christianity just adopted and continued and edited already existing concepts.
>So then why care about institutions spawned from social cohesiveness when you care for neither religion nor social cohesion?
Already told you I am in favour of government getting out of marriage.
>It keeps women in line (they don't have to worry about hook-up culture or relationship disparities like in the West)
You appear to hold to the repulsive Islamic concept of "freedom from". So are you also a misogynist who wants to use the state to force women back in the kitchen, and prevent them legally from gaining employment?
Should this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQNtGoM3FVU be illegal?
Should this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMq8ofCstMQ be illegal?
>and it keeps society cohesive (no worries about homosexuality disrupting sexual behaviours of the populace).
So, and you keep avoiding this question: Are you in favour of sodomy laws?
>If the U.K., keeps importing Muslims, it absolutely will end up that way.
Assuming an unchanging demographic trendline and zero changes to the Muslim population within the Uk. And over 100 years.
>It's not just the singular act, it's about pervasive influence. People become tempted by influence. Did you know that a third of all females on some dating apps, who identify as hetero, experiment with homosexuality? Why? Social contagion.
Lesbianism (or experimenting therein) has always been more accepted within women (and encouraged, tolerated more by men).
By your logic almost everything should be banned. All secular music. Drinking, smoking. Most TV shows and video games. Anything could 'influence' us to do things and pull us away from living boring fanatical lives. I happen to think shitting on civil liberties to the extent that you want to do (that you originally denied, by the way) would be far more damaging than civil liberties existing. The US, UK, Europe are now culturally pluralistic societies. In many of them, most people are not Christian (or practicing at least). You don't get to tell people how to live their lives and use the state to act as muscle to enforce your will. That is the language of fascism and dictatorship. You have more in common with a Saudi Arabian and the Taliban that you do any westerner.
Why do you watch any movies at all by the way? It's all rooted in the post-war democratic secular world you despise so much.
>If it was implied from another user then that is the basis. Even still, an accusation is not a lie.
Another user, who's account is now deleted lobbed a baseless accusation against me. I told that user that it was untrue. I told Melton it was untrue. Melton continued to accuse me. You think that's moral behaviour?
>Demographic crossover.
That's not evidence of it being a *cause*. There are lots of things liberal women have in common. It doesn't mean that all of those things contribute to the general state of mind those women have.
>It encompasses that group and corroborates adjacent data:
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/22/Depression-rates-remain-high-for-lesbian-and-gay-teens/1111571755869/
Depression rates, as I've provided data on this are high in general compared to many other years. And there are many reasons LGBT teens could be more depressed: struggling with acceptance, anxiety over acceptance.
>So you want people to engage in the same moral objectivity that you deny being important to keeping society healthy?
I reject the premise of "objectivity" and "subjectivity" as coherent concepts to morality here. It's white noise. I do not believe that your world view provides any moral objectivity. Following the dear leaders edicts is not moral objectivity. It's just following orders. As I said: I happen to think that life is worth living and that a prosperous society relies on co-operation with each other. We are a social species.
Melton (and you by proxy) are just demonstrating your blatant hypocrisy.
Why do you keep ignoring this? Should it be, ought it be legally permissible to do this? Are you in favour of bringing in legislation that criminalises making fun of christianity, and depicting occult/satanic aesthetics in media?
And you didn't answer this: People just by knowing a couple are gay would become gay? Would two gay people holding hands in public constitute some form of "disruption"? What if they went out to eat? Or appeared as characters in a TV show? Should all of those things be criminalised?
You appear to be inventing positions that simply do not exist in the USA, or any western country. They sound dystopian enough to be parallels to Saudi Arabian morality police. You have more in common with an anti-western Islamist, than any westerner by the way. Going to comment on this observation?
It's not a Christian concept.
It absolutely is, since it was there at the dawn of time.
I am in favour of government getting out of marriage.
And if you're in favour of government and religion getting out of marriage, you're completely fine with civil unions.
prevent them legally from gaining employment?
Women have been employed before feminism became a thing; women are still employed in Islamic States: https://www.etf.europa.eu/sites/default/files/m/C12578310056925BC1257610005A2381_NOTE7UUM9B.pdf
Lesbianism (or experimenting therein) has always been more accepted within women (and encouraged, tolerated more by men).
Which is social contagion.
By your logic almost everything should be banned. All secular music. Drinking, smoking. Most TV shows and video games.
Not at all.
Why do you watch any movies at all by the way? It's all rooted in the post-war democratic secular world you despise so much.
Not all of it.
You think that's moral behaviour?
You seem to think it's immoral behaviour given how perturbed you are -- why is that, if you believe in moral relativism?
There are lots of things liberal women have in common.
Yes, and one of those things is being a Taylor Swift fan. It intertwines with what has led them to their depressive state.
struggling with acceptance, anxiety over acceptance.
The Guardian debunked that when it was discovered gay only communities have the highest suicide/depression rates: https://archive.is/jCqVP
a prosperous society relies on co-operation with each other.
...which is only possible in a culturally homogeneous society.
Are you in favour of bringing in legislation
No.
And you didn't answer this...
I did, actually.
share
>It absolutely is, since it was there at the dawn of time.
I am not bound by your presuppositionalism. No reason to believe the dawn of time is christian.
>And if you're in favour of government and religion getting out of marriage, you're completely fine with civil unions.
Sure. But I don't care either way. It's a non-issue to me.
>Women have been employed before feminism became a thing; women are still employed in Islamic States: https://www.etf.europa.eu/sites/default/files/m/C12578310056925BC1257610005A2381_NOTE7UUM9B.pdf
And should they be allowed full employment? Full access to all jobs? Full choice in life just like men?
So, and you keep avoiding this question: Are you in favour of sodomy laws?
>Which is social contagion.
I have seen plenty of LGBT people in tv/film/video games and in life. I have never had any inclination towards men. Your premise is just fundamentally laughable.
>Not at all.
Why not? The liberalisation of them could all be said to lead to the slippery slope of the liberalisation os something else.
>Not all of it.
And what isn't? Any movie that depicts a gay person, premarital sex, adultery should be off-limits to you entirely.
>You seem to think it's immoral behaviour given how perturbed you are -- why is that, if you believe in moral relativism?
Why should I answer any questions on how I view the world morally when you refuse to answer any of mine similarly? I do think it's immoral behaviour. I don't use the terms 'objective' or 'subjective' to describe morality. It's a human construct by us, for us. I could characterise your own sense of morality as mere obedience to orders and nothing else. Would that be accurate?
>Yes, and one of those things is being a Taylor Swift fan. It intertwines with what has led them to their depressive state.
You think literally every single liberal woman is a fan of Taylor Swift, and you think that them being fans of Taylor Swift somehow is notable enough in itself to significantly impact their mental state?
>The Guardian debunked that when it was discovered gay only communities have the highest suicide/depression rates: https://archive.is/jCqVP
A quick scan indicates this (or concludes that), as much as other factors, is a specific cultural problem with aspects of contemporary LGBT culture not specifically related to just someone being gay in and of itself.
>>...which is only possible in a culturally homogeneous society
No reason to believe a secular society grounds in and based on the principles of civil liberties could not be so described as culturally homogeneous.
>No.
Would the local morality police that you so endorse sanction people, or could they sanction people for blasphemy-related offences? Since you originally denied wanting to use force to repress LGBT people, I feel I have to be real clear about your intentions here.
>I did, actually.
No, you did not. That paragraph has specific examples. People just by knowing a couple are gay would become gay? Would two gay people holding hands in public constitute some form of "disruption"? What if they went out to eat? Or appeared as characters in a TV show? Should all of those things be criminalised?
These are ordinary things that straight people do without thinking about it. Would it be acceptable for gay people to also do those things, legally?
You appear to be inventing positions that simply do not exist in the USA, or any western country. They sound dystopian enough to be parallels to Saudi Arabian morality police. You have more in common with an anti-western Islamist, than any westerner by the way. Going to comment on this observation?
No reason to believe the dawn of time is christian.
It is, since it's the oldest manuscript explaining the designation of marriage.
And should they be allowed full employment?
Sure, but gender equity should be avoided.
So, and you keep avoiding this question: Are you in favour of sodomy laws?
Obscenity laws are good enough.
I have never had any inclination towards men.
Your anecdote isn't representative of real life situations, just like the study I linked about lots of college students being led astray due to social contagion.
I do think it's immoral behaviour.
Yet you don't think other sins are immoral behaviour?
you think that them being fans of Taylor Swift somehow is notable enough in itself to significantly impact their mental state?
Their rising unhappiness ratings and mirroring Taylor Swift's approach to dating seem to indicate that, yes.
not specifically related to just someone being gay in and of itself.
It is, since they are literally fighting against their own biological determinism and the purpose of their biological design. Fighting against the grain does that to people, which is why Liberal women are so unhappy in the West.
No reason to believe a secular society grounds in and based on the principles of civil liberties could not be so described as culturally homogeneous.
There has not been nor will there ever be a successful society like that, and ones that try always fail.
Would the local morality police that you so endorse sanction people, or could they sanction people for blasphemy-related offences?
Now that you mention it... sure.
Should all of those things be criminalised?
As I said, it's not just one thing -- the cumulative effect is what leads to social contagion. share
>It is, since it's the oldest manuscript explaining the designation of marriage.
The existence of Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt is older than the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>Sure, but gender equity should be avoided.
Meaning what, exactly in terms of laws?
>Obscenity laws are good enough.
Define "obscenity".
And since you're in favour of criminalising pre-marital sex, and in favour of refusing gay people's access to marriage, this de facto criminalises all gay sex. You do realise this, right?
>Your anecdote isn't representative of real life situations, just like the study I linked about lots of college students being led astray due to social contagion.
No-one I know has had any such inclination. Do you have any examples of this happening from men? Almost all studies and observation I've seen on this refers to women.
>Yet you don't think other sins are immoral behaviour?
What 'sins' are you referring to?
>Their rising unhappiness ratings and mirroring Taylor Swift's approach to dating seem to indicate that, yes.
How do you know they are mirroring her approaches to dating?
>It is, since they are literally fighting against their own biological determinism and the purpose of their biological design. Fighting against the grain does that to people, which is why Liberal women are so unhappy in the West.
This is just baseless speculation.
>There has not been nor will there ever be a successful society like that, and ones that try always fail.
The vast bulk of the democratic western world post-WW2.
Best places to live ever. Nowhere else in history comes close.
>Now that you mention it... sure.
So you do in fact want to criminalise "blasphemy".
>As I said, it's not just one thing -- the cumulative effect is what leads to social contagion.
That paragraph has specific examples. People just by knowing a couple are gay would become gay? Would two gay people holding hands in public constitute some form of "disruption"? What if they went out to eat? Or appeared as characters in a TV show? Should all of those things be criminalised?
These are ordinary things that straight people do without thinking about it. Would it be acceptable for gay people to also do those things, legally?
You also still didn't ask why you watch basically any modern movies. Most movies that depict a gay person, premarital sex, adultery or even have some form of 'blasphemy' should be off-limits to you entirely.
The existence of Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt is older than the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Doesn't change the fact that marriage -- even in Ancient Greece and Egypt -- are still based on the principles of the Abrahamic concept of marriage under God.
Meaning what, exactly in terms of laws?
Dissolution of policies influenced by feminism.
You do realise this, right?
Don't ask, don't tell. Shame is a powerful tool.
Do you have any examples of this happening from men?
Yep, the study I linked showed 1 in 8.5 men experiment with other men in college due to social influence.
What 'sins' are you referring to?
Homosexuality; idoltry; covetousness.
How do you know they are mirroring her approaches to dating?
https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-pedia/is-hookup-culture-common-in-uk/
This is just baseless speculation.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/03/21/world-happiness-report-young-people-u-s/73051010007/
The vast bulk of the democratic western world post-WW2.
...is currently on the verge of societal collapse.
So you do in fact want to criminalise "blasphemy".
Depends on the offence and the extent of the criminality.
Should all of those things be criminalised?
As mentioned, if the people are private and keep to themselves, there shouldn't be problems, but imposition is what leads to contagion. It's especially prevalent in the lesbian communities.
why you watch basically any modern movies.
I actually don't watch many; mostly sticking with older films, East Asian films, and Eastern European films. I rarely watch modern U.S./U.K., media. share
>Doesn't change the fact that marriage -- even in Ancient Greece and Egypt -- are still based on the principles of the Abrahamic concept of marriage under God.
No reason to believe this is true, or that the concept of a union between two people of the opposing sex (or more) with varying adjacent customs of it derives from christianity.
>Dissolution of policies influenced by feminism.
Name these policies please.
>Don't ask, don't tell. Shame is a powerful tool.
Social shame is one thing. I'm on about law. Should gay people be requires, by law, to "don't ask, don't tell"?
Would a gay couple holding hands in couple in effect be an admittance of possible sexual intercourse in the past?
>Yep, the study I linked showed 1 in 8.5 men experiment with other men in college due to social influence.
I just searched for text related to that in the last few links you posted. Can't find any
reference to 1 in 8 men.
>Homosexuality; idoltry; covetousness.
Ignoring for the fact that "sin" is simply not in my vocabulary. I'm not a christian. I'm not bound by the moral demands of a religion I don't believe in. What two consenting adults do with each other is none of my business regarding potential homosexual intercourse.
Not sure what "idoltry" means here specifically. It's rooted, so far as I can see, in the presupposition that god exists and is the only thing that must be praised. If you've forgotten, I'm an atheist. The premise is white noise to me. Obviously any obsession over anything, fictional or not - including a deity can be harmful.
I don't think coveting is inherently bad. It can be unhealthy, or it can be used as motivation to innovate and improve.
>https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-pedia/is-hookup-culture-common-in-uk/
And you think the prominence of hookup culture in the UK, specifically, derives from Taylor Swift?
>...is currently on the verge of societal collapse.
No, it's not - and I'd argue many of its struggles are due to immigration and capitalism reaching its limits (it needs to reform and change, not necessarily go - a detail).
>Depends on the offence and the extent of the criminality.
What would constitute a form of blasphemy that requires state intervention?
>As mentioned, if the people are private and keep to themselves, there shouldn't be problems, but imposition is what leads to contagion. It's especially prevalent in the lesbian communities.
Not. An. Answer. Can you answer the SPECIFIC examples given: Would two gay people holding hands in public constitute some form of "disruption"? What if they went out to eat? Or appeared as characters in a TV show? Should all of those things be criminalised?
These are ordinary things that straight people do without thinking about it. Would it be acceptable for gay people to also do those things, legally?
>I actually don't watch many; mostly sticking with older films, East Asian films, and Eastern European films. I rarely watch modern U.S./U.K., media.
Many contemporary movies from East Asia and Eastern Europe will also depict people who are clearly having unmarried sexual intercourse (they may not show it) and won't give a fuck about your prudish social mores.
No reason to believe this is true, or that the concept of a union between two people of the opposing sex (or more) with varying adjacent customs of it derives from christianity.
It does, because it is literally the first written declaration of marriage.
Name these policies please.
No-fault divorce, abortions, alimony laws, custody laws.
Should gay people be requires, by law, to "don't ask, don't tell"?
Yep. It worked in the military, it should work in public.
I just searched for text related to that in the last few links you posted. Can't find any reference to 1 in 8 men.
https://archive.is/gUrHk#selection-917.261-917.393
I'm not a christian. I'm not bound by the moral demands of a religion I don't believe in
Great, then you should have no problem with what you perceive to be someone lying about you, since lies aren't immoral to you.
And you think the prominence of hookup culture in the UK, specifically, derives from Taylor Swift?
It's a cumulative effect.
I'd argue many of its struggles are due to immigration and capitalism reaching its limits
Nope. Most companies don't even cater to consumers anymore, and the biggest issues are due to central banking and a lack of fiscal debt curbing.
What would constitute a form of blasphemy that requires state intervention?
Probably promotion of witchcraft or satanism.
Would two gay people holding hands in public constitute some form of "disruption"? What if they went out to eat?
These? No. Because friends can sometimes do that.
Or appeared as characters in a TV show?
Depends on context.
won't give a fuck about your prudish social mores.
They typically don't promote hookup culture, homosexuality, or child-rearing out of wedlock.
share
>It does, because it is literally the first written declaration of marriage.
Societies were holding their own marriage customs long before Christianity entered the scene.
https://www.vallejo-photography.com/mayan-wedding/#:~:text=In%20front%20of%20the%20couple,represents%20the%20marriage%20and%20pledges.
Mayans had marriage.
>No-fault divorce, abortions, alimony laws, custody laws.
Okay. Althought you're against divorce outright, not specifically "no-fault divorce".
What about custody laws would you change?
>Yep. It worked in the military, it should work in public.
Do you think the country is akin to a military bootcamp?
And no, it didn't work. It eventually got removed. And what does it mean to "don't ask, don't tell"? Can you not let anyone know that you are gay at all? Even inadvertently?
>https://archive.is/gUrHk#selection-917.261-917.393
None of this says that this happens because they see gay people on TV. Yes, it happens because of a more liberal environment. Most will experiment and then.... go on to be straight in practice.
People grow out of this.
>Great, then you should have no problem with what you perceive to be someone lying about you, since lies aren't immoral to you.
Did you really think this would work? Just because I reject the concept of 'sin' doesn't mean I reject all of the things as wrong that Christianity considers sins. I consider lying wrong independently of Christianity, for reasons other than "the dear leader says so".
>Probably promotion of witchcraft or satanism.
Should Lucifer, the TV show be banned? Should black metal music be banned?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMq8ofCstMQ - Should this be banned?
What is even the basis of such a ban?
>These? No. Because friends can sometimes do that.
And what if they said they were a couple, and booked a single hotel room.
>Depends on context.
In a context that doesn't depict them as evil.
>They typically don't promote hookup culture, homosexuality, or child-rearing out of wedlock.
You do realise that "Boys Love" is quite a big genre in Japan, Phillipines, and Thailand, right?
You do realise that almost every k-drama that is focused on romantic comedies involves two unmarried people entering a relationship? There are absolutely shows from those countries that show adults with kids who are not married.
Mayans had marriage.
You do know Mayans came thousands of years after Abrahamic marriage traditions, right?
you're against divorce outright, not specifically "no-fault divorce".
I'm specifically against no-fault divorce.
What about custody laws would you change?
Enforced 50/50 custody unless litigated otherwise.
Do you think the country is akin to a military bootcamp?
Actually, service should grant citizenship.
And no, it didn't work.
It did, until activists wanted it removed so they could flaunt their fetishes publicly while in military service.
Yes, it happens because of a more liberal environment.
Yes, which is the cumulative effect of social contagion: tele, movies, music, games, literature, etc.
I consider lying wrong independently of Christianity, for reasons other than "the dear leader says so".
Which goes back to moral relativity, which is precisely why it doesn't work. You only pick and choose what is wrong based on what affects you.
Should Lucifer, the TV show be banned? Should black metal music be banned?
It would have to be on a per item basis, and based on the encouragement and/or influence of satanism/witchcraft and if it could lead people down that path.
And what if they said they were a couple, and booked a single hotel room.
That's asking and telling, at which point there would be reproach or a reprimand.
In a context that doesn't depict them as evil.
Only if there were equal amounts of media that were honest about their evil acts.
You do realise that "Boys Love" is quite a big genre in Japan, Phillipines, and Thailand, right?
It's a niche genre, and nowhere near mainstream.
share
>You do know Mayans came thousands of years after Abrahamic marriage traditions, right?
Right, and what exposure to Christianity did they have? First contact was in 1502.
>I'm specifically against no-fault divorce.
I thought you said divorce in its entirety should be illegal?
>Actually, service should grant citizenship.
Oh, okay, so now you're also in favour of military service for everyone? What if someone doesn't want to sign up to the military? Is there any trope of fascism you're not admiring of?
>It did, until activists wanted it removed so they could flaunt their fetishes publicly while in military service.
No, until society had moved on, pass the point where the law made sense. Do you think a man telling someone that he is married to a woman constitutes the flaunting of a fetish?
>Yes, which is the cumulative effect of social contagion: tele, movies, music, games, literature, etc.
Okay. So fucking what? Culture is culture. People change over the years due to what they're exposed to (and I'm not just talking about sexuality here). It's possible many people historically have been more inclined to homosexuality than we think (or bisexuality being much more prominent). I'm not in favour of the government dictating culture. That is the pathway to oppression. That is the pathway to having the soft power of a boiled egg like all of the shithole fascist states you seem to admire. There's a reason the USA has immense cultural and soft power and China and Russia have very little compared to their sizes.
>Which goes back to moral relativity, which is precisely why it doesn't work. You only pick and choose what is wrong based on what affects you.
No, I consider many things wrong that don't impact me at all. I consider things wrong based on a developed set of values I've come to independently based on my upbringing, education and experiences. I can provide arguments and reasons for my values. That is where the concept of secular morality has begun. As we all do. As you have done.
And I don't believe your worldview is morally objective anyway. I don't believe the concept makes any sense. Following the orders of a celestial dictator is not objective. And it's irrelevant anyway, because there are many different competing interpretations of Christianity, and many different religions beyond Christianity that claim the same basis for morality. If there isn't consensus from the people that your religion is even true in the first, bleating about its 'objectivity' and demanding laws based on it is irrelevant.
You still haven't answered it from your perspective anyway. Forget me. Forget what I think. If morality is so objective, as you understand it, does that make lying *ACCORDING TO YOU* automatically wrong? If it does, then it should be easy for you to condemn the obviously libelous and baseless allegations of Melton. Can you do that?
>It would have to be on a per item basis, and based on the encouragement and/or influence of satanism/witchcraft and if it could lead people down that path.
Right. I'll ask again. Should Lucifer be banned? Look the show up. Should all forms of pagan-themed historical religious traditions be banned?
And both satanism and witchcraft are tiny 'religions' that almost no-one adheres to.
>That's asking and telling, at which point there would be reproach or a reprimand.
So basically your worldview forces LGBT people into hiding on threat of state punishment.
It's difficult to restrain one's contempt when encountering a truly repellent, evil, christofascist like yourself. And I genuinely truly believe that you are evil. You would weaponise the state to control and dictate how people may live their lives with morality police. You are no different to an Iranian Mullah to me, or a member of the Taliban to me. Truly.
Why don't you actually move to Russia? That's an honest question.
>Only if there were equal amounts of media that were honest about their evil acts.
So back to you demanding the state control media. Something you initially denied wanting.
>It's a niche genre, and nowhere near mainstream.
https://www.goodnewspilipinas.com/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-international-emmy-kids-awards/
https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/09/08/news/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-inl-emmys-kids-awards/1813992
You also do realise that almost every k-drama that is focused on romantic comedies involves two unmarried people entering a relationship? There are absolutely shows from those countries that show adults with kids who are not married.
Right, and what exposure to Christianity did they have? First contact was in 1502.
The point was that the gold standard for marriage was and has always been based around the Abrahamic principles of holy matrimony between only a man and a woman. It's the only way to have a stable and prosperous society.
I thought you said divorce in its entirety should be illegal?
Where did I say that?
What if someone doesn't want to sign up to the military?
If you indulge in the benefits of a sovereign nation, serving it should be mandatory.
Is there any trope of fascism you're not admiring of?
How is ethical fascism bad?
Do you think a man telling someone that he is married to a woman constitutes the flaunting of a fetish?
It means he wants to build a future lineage and maintain the population rate of his nation.
China and Russia have very little compared to their sizes.
They also have institutions in place to at least recover their birth rates, places like U.K., and U.S., do not.
If morality is so objective, as you understand it, does that make lying *ACCORDING TO YOU* automatically wrong?
Me? I'm not the one taking umbrage with what someone says based on the principles of moral relativity. This wouldn't be an issue if you had a morally objective value system... like Christianity.
Should all forms of pagan-themed historical religious traditions be banned?
Depends on if they are properly juxtaposed with prominent shows featuring wholesome and productive traditions.
I genuinely truly believe that you are evil.
You claim to be more Libertine in your views... yet you are least tolerant of people who do not hold your worldviews. Ironic.
Something you initially denied wanting.
I simply advocated for balance. share
>The point was that the gold standard for marriage was and has always been based around the Abrahamic principles of holy matrimony between only a man and a woman. It's the only way to have a stable and prosperous society.
They aren't inherently principles of Christianity. Marriage predates it, and emerged in cultures never exposed to christianity - and included polygamy, arranged marriage and many other traditions.
>Where did I say that?
https://moviechat.org/tt2788316/Shogun/65b979875df6727babaac736/Does-every-movie-and-tv-series-have-to-have-a-female-warrior-lead?reply=6635be1819558c3dcb21b6c8
You implied it here when I asked what should couples do if they're married, but are no longer in love.
>If you indulge in the benefits of a sovereign nation, serving it should be mandatory.
This is just a claim. People pay taxes to help support their nation. To many, that's enough. This is just another way you're showing how you hate freedom.
>How is ethical fascism bad?
So are you outright admitting that you're a fascist?
>It means he wants to build a future lineage and maintain the population rate of his nation.
Not necessarily. Some straight couples don't have kids. I'll ask again: Do you think a man telling someone that he is married to a woman constitutes the flaunting of a fetish?
>They also have institutions in place to at least recover their birth rates, places like U.K., and U.S., do not.
Based on fucking what do they have said institutions?
>Me? I'm not the one taking umbrage with what someone says based on the principles of moral relativity. This wouldn't be an issue if you had a morally objective value system... like Christianity.
Answer my question. Is lying wrong according to your values?
And I reject the premise that obeying the orders of supernatural dictator is objective.
>Depends on if they are properly juxtaposed with prominent shows featuring wholesome and productive traditions.
You want the state to impose itself and control art. Am I right?
>You claim to be more Libertine in your views... yet you are least tolerant of people who do not hold your worldviews. Ironic.
I don't want you arrested. I may find your views repellant, but have no desire to control your life. You do want this for others. You do potentially want the state to censor me.
We are not the same.
>I simply advocated for balance.
Apparently imposed by force - by the state. Religious thuggish bureaucrats dictating art. This is state control of media. This is why Russia has fucking low soft power and the US is globally dominant. Censorship destroys art. Censorship destroys culture. Why don't you actually move to Russia?
Also:
https://www.goodnewspilipinas.com/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-international-emmy-kids-awards/
https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/09/08/news/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-inl-emmys-kids-awards/1813992
You also do realise that almost every k-drama that is focused on romantic comedies involves two unmarried people entering a relationship? There are absolutely shows from those countries that show adults with kids who are not married.
And you didn't comment on this: So basically your worldview forces LGBT people into hiding on threat of state punishment. Do you agree or disagree?
They aren't inherently principles of Christianity.
Holy matrimony between men and women under God absolutely is, which is how almost all marriages were established for industrialised nations.
You implied it here when I asked what should couples do if they're married, but are no longer in love.
No, I support people to be responsible and uphold their vows. That falls under the extrication of no-fault divorce.
People pay taxes to help support their nation. To many, that's enough.
Taxation is legalised theft.
So are you outright admitting that you're a fascist?
You have to explain how fascism is bad for maintaining a clean, law-abiding, and healthy nation?
Do you think a man telling someone that he is married to a woman constitutes the flaunting of a fetish?
Of course not -- because he can potentially contribute to a healthy society.
Based on fucking what do they have said institutions?
https://thetimeson.ru/2023/08/30/chinese-officials-offer-young-brides-108-reward-for-marriage/?ysclid=lx1vsa43y690727023
https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/332608-russia-is-on-quest-to-save-traditional-marriage?ysclid=lx1vx411y258273657
Is lying wrong according to your values?
Sure... but only if it can be unequivocally proven.
You want the state to impose itself and control art.
No. But there would need to be balance to prevent what's happening now.
You do potentially want the state to censor me.
Not at all. I advocate for the protection of responsible liberties, instead of advocating for anarchy.
Censorship destroys art. Censorship destroys culture.
Russia is making better movies than the West at the moment, like Sputnik.
two unmarried people entering a relationship?
It's a start toward marriage. share
>Holy matrimony between men and women under God absolutely is, which is how almost all marriages were established for industrialised nations.
That's your worldview, not mine. I don't give a fuck what presuppositions you believe in. Most industrialised nations happened to be christian (although not all), but the concept of marriage predates its religious prominence and emerged in areas not touched by christianity.
>No, I support people to be responsible and uphold their vows. That falls under the extrication of no-fault divorce.
So you only support divorce under what circumstances?
All that happens if a married couple can't get divorced is that both partners just remain married, but separate and each do their own thing. The practical difference to them just getting divorced is zero.
>Taxation is legalised theft.
So you oppose taxation, but you want to give the state the powers to persecute LGBT people? How in the fuck do you think your dystopian police state is supposed to function? Who funds the morality police? Who funds the widespread censorship apparatus?
And why is it people should be obliged to join the military? The state apparently in your world does nothing for the people - it can't collect taxes, and can't do anything. Why should people be grateful for it, and why should the only way people can show gratitude be that of joining the military?
>You have to explain how fascism is bad for maintaining a clean, law-abiding, and healthy nation?
It's not necessarily if your end goal is merely shiny roads and the survival of those who remain. I can only assume by healthy you purely mean birth rates. But it maintains it on rivers of blood, torture, persecution and censorship. It produces a hollowed out shell of a society with no culture left other than praising the dear leader. Civil liberties are of far more important to me than clean streets. You have no recourse to protect yourself from the state, no ability to protest the government, or propose any chance under any form of fascism. You think that's acceptable?
Are you actually engaging in apologetics for fascism?
>Of course not -- because he can potentially contribute to a healthy society.
As can gay people if by "contribute" you mean have kids: they can donate sperm, function as surrogates or adopt. Or if you just mean generally, plenty of gay peopel have productive jobs and roles in society.
>https://thetimeson.ru/2023/08/30/chinese-officials-offer-young-brides-108-reward-for-marriage/?ysclid=lx1vsa43y690727023
>https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/332608-russia-is-on-quest-to-save-traditional-marriage?ysclid=lx1vx411y258273657
Both fruitless so far. And there's no reason western nations can't do this. Or make it financially more viable to have children. Many have done so. Also, your China article is about a part of China doing it - not China as a whole.
>Sure... but only if it can be unequivocally proven.
Is making baseless allegations someone wrong?
>No. But there would need to be balance to prevent what's happening now.
That is state censorship dude. If the state steps in and censors art, it is fucking censorship. How would this even work anyway? People write books, release TV shows and films all the time. The state has NOTHING to do with it and doesn't observe what private citizens and companies do.
I'd also add the absurdity of your position. You're claiming that it would be somehow acceptable, legally, for a production studio to produce a TV show that depicts LGBT positively (just so long as there's forced "balance"), but then on the other side of your mouth suggest society should punish anyone who publicly expresses their homosexuality in any public capacity. These two ideas are in total contradiction.
>Not at all. I advocate for the protection of responsible liberties, instead of advocating for anarchy.
Yes, you just dismiss specific actions as being unworthy of protection and thus justify persecuting people for doing them. This is totalitarianism. You hate civil liberties and want to use physical force to impose your will on others. This is repulsive.
>Russia is making better movies than the West at the moment, like Sputnik.
What a load of fucking garbage. What movies are these? You referenced one: Sputnik. It has a 6.4 on IMDB. That is not that great.
In addition, there's the entirety of TV, video games, music, literature. Russia is pathetic for its size.
And why don't you move to Russia?
How much international cultural and media power does Russia have?
>It's a start toward marriage.
But it still depicts unmarried people having sex. Why do you accept this?
Also:
https://www.goodnewspilipinas.com/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-international-emmy-kids-awards/
https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/09/08/news/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-inl-emmys-kids-awards/1813992
And you didn't comment on this: So basically your worldview forces LGBT people into hiding on threat of state punishment. Do you agree or disagree?
I don't give a fuck what presuppositions you believe in.
You certainly do when it comes to the morality of lying, as it pertains to your situation with Melton.
So you only support divorce under what circumstances?
Abuse, harm or infidelity.
How in the fuck do you think your dystopian police state is supposed to function?
State sponsored commerce.
And why is it people should be obliged to join the military?
To protect the amenities and privileges they indulge in.
Civil liberties are of far more important to me than clean streets.
So you don't mind having cities like San Francisco with shite all over the streets?
You have no recourse to protect yourself from the state, no ability to protest the government
Gun laws would still be mandatory to avoid situations like in Australia or New Zealand.
they can donate sperm, function as surrogates or adopt.
Tainted sperm due to health issues is useless sperm, and them being surrogates or adopting is not healthy for kids when many gay men molest children. In fact, the only kids who contracted monkey pox were those living with gay men:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/09/why_are_children_coming_down_with_monkeypox.html
And there's no reason western nations can't do this. Or make it financially more viable to have children.
Except they're not... and they won't.
Is making baseless allegations someone wrong?
Only if they can be proven to be baseless.
These two ideas are in total contradiction.
Not at all. There are plenty of stories about serial killers; and we absolutely should prosecute serial killers.
That is not that great.
Better than anything Disney is producing.
share
>You certainly do when it comes to the morality of lying, as it pertains to your situation with Melton.
I'm testing your internal consistency. You speak a big game about morality but can't condemn basic things more-or-less uniformly considered anti-social like lying.
>Abuse, harm or infidelity.
All that happens if a married couple can't get divorced is that both partners just remain married, but separate and each do their own thing. The practical difference to them just getting divorced is zero.
>State sponsored commerce.
Sorry, who funds the morality police? Why should anyone listen to them?
>To protect the amenities and privileges they indulge in.
Why should a gay person want to sign up to a state that is trying to drive them out of society? Or a social liberal? What "privileges" do they have? The state apparently doesn't tax anyone, so it doesn't provide, it can't provide anything.
>So you don't mind having cities like San Francisco with shite all over the streets?
I'd rather less clean streets than no civil liberties if forced to choose.
And what exactly is "ethical fascism", exactly?
>Gun laws would still be mandatory to avoid situations like in Australia or New Zealand.
Should LGBT people have the right to arm themselves to protect themselves from the religious thugs and bullyboys that come around to harass them?
What's to stop a fascist state from taking away citizens arms? Why would they even allow it in the first place? What fascist state has ever allowed gun rights?
And what "situations" in NZ and Australia are you referring to?
>Tainted sperm due to health issues is useless sperm, and them being surrogates or adopting is not healthy for kids when many gay men molest children. In fact, the only kids who contracted monkey pox were those living with gay men:
No reason whatsoever to believe the sperm is inherently tainted.
Straight people molest children.
>Except they're not... and they won't.
How in the fuck do you know this? This is not true in many cases. Many western countries often tons of benefits for would-be parents in order to try and drive up pregnancy rates.
>Only if they can be proven to be baseless.
This is unfalsifiable. Is it moral right now if I accuse you of being a pedophile and insist that unless you can somehow disprove that, that it's not baseless?
>Not at all. There are plenty of stories about serial killers; and we absolutely should prosecute serial killers.
Except that in order to even film a TV show about LGBT people they'd have to actually do LGBT-related actions in filming. And then it'd be aired publicly, and you've been clearly that LGBT expression should not be expressed publicly. So your worldview is contradictory here.
You want the state to control and dictate art.
>Better than anything Disney is producing.
Are you of the opinion Disney is the only company in the west making movies? In addition, there's the entirety of TV, video games, music, literature. Russia is pathetic for its size.
And I'll ask again: Why don't you move to Russia?
Also:
https://www.goodnewspilipinas.com/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-international-emmy-kids-awards/
https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/09/08/news/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-inl-emmys-kids-awards/1813992
And you didn't comment on this: So basically your worldview forces LGBT people into hiding on threat of state punishment. Do you agree or disagree?
I'm testing your internal consistency.
For what exactly? What does it matter to someone who believes in moral relativity?
The practical difference to them just getting divorced is zero.
Then they should not have gotten married. Never commit to vows you can't uphold.
And what exactly is "ethical fascism", exactly?
Japan almost comes very close.
Should LGBT people have the right to arm themselves
Sure.
Why would they even allow it in the first place?
To safeguard from outsiders and maintain high-trust.
And what "situations" in NZ and Australia are you referring to?
https://www.voanews.com/a/east-asia-pacific_new-zealand-announces-new-round-gun-restrictions/6172394.html
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-16/wa-proposed-new-gun-laws-details-revealed/102979810
No reason whatsoever to believe the sperm is inherently tainted.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hiv-in-sperm/
How in the fuck do you know this?
Because they aren't doing it now.
insist that unless you can somehow disprove that, that it's not baseless?
Of course it's immoral.
So your worldview is contradictory here.
They don't have to show it.
Do you agree or disagree?
They should definitely keep their fetishes in the closet. share
>For what exactly? What does it matter to someone who believes in moral relativity?
Believing that morals are a product of human negotiation as we seek to formulate codes of conducts that best assist our co-existence doesn't mean I would not be curious about the consistency of someone who claims that the rightness or wrongness of an action is somehow tied up into the universe.
Are you going to answer this point or continue deflecting? Is lying wrong?
>Then they should not have gotten married. Never commit to vows you can't uphold.
Doesn't matter what you think they should or should not have done. The practical diference is zero. They'll just be de facto divorced and do their own things.
>Japan almost comes very close.
Contemporary Japan? How are they fascist?
>Sure.
And fire upon the morality police sent there to seize them?
>To safeguard from outsiders and maintain high-trust.
And what fascist society has ever done this? Do you have a single example?
You also didn't answer this: Who funds the morality police? Why should anyone listen to them?
Why should a gay person want to sign up to a state that is trying to drive them out of society? Or a social liberal? What "privileges" do they have? The state apparently doesn't tax anyone, so it doesn't provide, it can't provide anything.
I thought you were referring to other laws in New Zealand or Australia.
>Because they aren't doing it now.
https://www.thelocal.it/20200612/what-you-need-to-know-about-italys-new-family-act
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/06/05/japan/society/child-care-law-enacted/
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2024/05/113_366067.html
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/new-canada-parental-benefit-will-be-arriving-in-the-coming-months-1.6310351
>Of course it's immoral.
Right then. So by the same token Melton was being immoral, wasn't he?
>They don't have to show it.
They aren't legally ALLOWED to show it in your world. When you say you're not in favour of censorship of LGBT media, you're being disingenuine because you've already de facto criminalised the acts that would have to be simulated in the first place to produce it.
>They should definitely keep their fetishes in the closet.
According to you this means live a life of secrecy. So this is tantamount to forcing them into hiding, to pretend to be straight.
Are you of the opinion Disney is the only company in the west making movies? In addition, there's the entirety of TV, video games, music, literature. Russia is pathetic for its size.
And I'll ask again: Why don't you move to Russia?
Also:
https://www.goodnewspilipinas.com/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-international-emmy-kids-awards/
https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/09/08/news/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-inl-emmys-kids-awards/1813992
Believing that morals are a product of human negotiation as we seek to formulate codes of conducts that best assist our co-existence
That is literally impossible, which is why without hard-coded morals built out of religious foundation sees the society eventually crumble due to the never-ending expansion of relative justifications people can use for any moral standards they deem okay.
Are you going to answer this point or continue deflecting? Is lying wrong?
I did.
Contemporary Japan? How are they fascist?
Before the current regime, they were focused on high-trust homogeneity. Even if you are born there to non-natives you are not deemed a citizen.
And what fascist society has ever done this? Do you have a single example?
Italy.
And fire upon the morality police sent there to seize them?
Sure, but then they'll be jailed.
You also didn't answer this: Who funds the morality police?
I did: State commerce.
What "privileges" do they have?
Safety, cleanliness, and security.
> [links]
Sorry, but Japan and South Korea are too late. They are 25 years too late to recover the replacement rates, and at the current rate will be at extinction-levels in 60 years. Canada's incentive is only for gays and such, which is not enough to compensate for rapid birth rate declines.
Right then. So by the same token Melton was being immoral, wasn't he?
Only if you can prove it.
They aren't legally ALLOWED to show it in your world.
They can, they just aren't allowed to use it as propaganda.
Are you of the opinion Disney is the only company in the west making movies?
Paramount, Hulu, AppleTV and Netflix are also all woke and producing a lot of terrible media, too.
share
.>That is literally impossible, which is why without hard-coded morals built out of religious foundation sees the society eventually crumble due to the never-ending expansion of relative justifications people can use for any moral standards they deem okay.
This is a claim. Not an argument. There's no reason to think this trajectory is inevitable. And people have and continue to use religious justification for tragedy. There is no exclusivity on tragedy from the non-religious.
>I did.
Then can you say "Melton is wrong"?
>Before the current regime, they were focused on high-trust homogeneity. Even if you are born there to non-natives you are not deemed a citizen.
That's not the standard definition of fascism.
>Italy.
Any evidence for this? A quick google suggests that Italy did have gun control.
>Sure, but then they'll be jailed.
By what authority? Who are these people jailing them? They aren't state-funded. There's no taxation. Who pays them?
>I did: State commerce.
How does this work? What is the state selling?
>Safety, cleanliness, and security.
Safety? Security? Your state persecutes them.
>Sorry, but Japan and South Korea are too late. They are 25 years too late to recover the replacement rates, and at the current rate will be at extinction-levels in 60 years. Canada's incentive is only for gays and such, which is not enough to compensate for rapid birth rate declines.
Doesn't matter. You claimed that no countries are capable of trying to pass legislation to mitigate declining birth rates. Yes they are. Any government can pass a law.
>Only if you can prove it.
Prove what? That I'm not a pedophile? Can I accuse you being a pedophile and insist that unless you somehow disprove it that makes it fair game?
>They can, they just aren't allowed to use it as propaganda.
What constitutes "using it as propaganda"? Are two gay people in the street kissing doing "propaganda"?
>Paramount, Hulu, AppleTV and Netflix are also all woke and producing a lot of terrible media, too.
As opposed to when exactly? Are you going to claim that Dark, Succession, Better Call Saul, Severance, Silo, The Bear, The Expanse, Black Sails, House of the Dragon, Shogun, Warrior, Dopesick, Black Bird, Andor, One Piece, Chernobyl, Mr. Robot, Counterpart, The Terror are all bad shows?
And what epic media is Russia putting out that beats them exactly?
And I'll ask again: Why don't you move to Russia?
Also:
https://www.goodnewspilipinas.com/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-international-emmy-kids-awards/
https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/09/08/news/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-inl-emmys-kids-awards/1813992
There's no reason to think this trajectory is inevitable.
The CHAZ and CHOP zones showed it to be inevitable. The current dissolution of order in New York, London, Paris, Cape Town, Johannesburg, and San Francisco show it to inevitable.
Then can you say "Melton is wrong"?
As soon as you can prove he unequivocally lied.
That's not the standard definition of fascism.
It varies per application. Not all of them have to be autocratic to the point of despotism.
Any evidence for this?
https://intellectualtakeout.org/2019/03/after-100-years-mussolinis-fascist-party-is-a-reminder-of-the-fragility-of-freedom/
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/mussolini-and-gun-control.712291/#post-8862916
How does this work? What is the state selling?
Food, clothes, weapons, paraphernalia, air time on terrestrial broadcasts, etc; it would pay the wages of the prefects.
Your state persecutes them.
Not at all. One of the safest places to live were in fascists states... so long as you behaved.
Yes they are. Any government can pass a law.
Any government can, but they are not. Also, incentives aren't laws.
Prove what?
Melton is a liar.
Are two gay people in the street kissing doing "propaganda"?
If it's used as a way to promote the lifestyle, yes.
are all bad shows?
I'm sure a fair bit of them are bad; but they have plenty of slop in there doing nothing but pushing agitprop.
And what epic media is Russia putting out that beats them exactly?
• Rhez
• T-34
• Panfilov's 28 Men
• Spacewalk
• Blackout
• August 8
• Furious share
>The CHAZ and CHOP zones showed it to be inevitable. The current dissolution of order in New York, London, Paris, Cape Town, Johannesburg, and San Francisco show it to inevitable.
What dissolution in those cities? What is going in Cape Town doesn't have anything to do with the UK or USA.
Are you of the opinion that CHAZ and CHOP zones, two briefly chaotically led an-con communes is somehow the trajectory of western politics?
>As soon as you can prove he unequivocally lied.
And how would I do that?
>It varies per application. Not all of them have to be autocratic to the point of despotism.
Provide me a single person who agrees with you that contemporary Japan is fascist.
They literally have freedom of press and a multiparty democracy.
>https://intellectualtakeout.org/2019/03/after-100-years-mussolinis-fascist-party-is-a-reminder-of-the-fragility-of-freedom/
Where on here does it talk about gun control?
>https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/mussolini-and-gun-control.712291/#post-8862916
This says the opposite of what you claimed. You suggested that Fascist Italy had gun liberties.
And how did firearm access, to the extent that it was, protect liberals and socialists from being arrested by the state?
>Food, clothes, weapons, paraphernalia, air time on terrestrial broadcasts, etc; it would pay the wages of the prefects.
So private industry no longer sells food, clothes, weapons or paraphernalia? The state does and then hands out the profits to its rent-a-thugs? Is that what you're saying?
>Not at all. One of the safest places to live were in fascists states... so long as you behaved.
So persecuted. "Behaving" meant not being a political or social dissident in any sense or you'd be arrested, tortured and executed. You support that? Should all liberals, social democrats and communists be arrested? At this point what civil liberties are firearms een there to protect?
Are you outright admitting, by the way that you are a fascist?
>Any government can, but they are not. Also, incentives aren't laws.
Russia and China are only passing incentives too. What's the difference?
>Melton is a liar.
How am I supposed to prove this?
You also did not answer this: Can I accuse you being a pedophile and insist that unless you somehow disprove it that makes it fair game?
>If it's used as a way to promote the lifestyle, yes.
How would you distinguish between a gay kiss that is used to "promote" the lifestyle, and one that is not?
>I'm sure a fair bit of them are bad; but they have plenty of slop in there doing nothing but pushing agitprop.
Name the slop in the shows I listed there please. And what shows there that I listed are bad?
Dark, Succession, Better Call Saul, Severance, Silo, The Bear, The Expanse, Black Sails, House of the Dragon, Shogun, Warrior, Dopesick, Black Bird, Andor, One Piece, Chernobyl, Mr. Robot, Counterpart, The Terror
What makes them bad?
Almost all of your Russian movies that supposedly "beat" the US/west industry are poorly rated on IMDB. Do you also literally only like war movies? All of them, bar one, seem to be war movies. Why should I assume they are better than all western film and TV content combined?
And I'll ask again: Why don't you move to Russia?
Also:
https://www.goodnewspilipinas.com/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-international-emmy-kids-awards/
https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/09/08/news/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-inl-emmys-kids-awards/1813992
What is going in Cape Town doesn't have anything to do with the UK or USA.
They're using identity politics to push anarchy and the breakdown of social cohesion.
two briefly chaotically led an-con communes is somehow the trajectory of western politics?
That's literally what the West will look like once infrastructure collapses.
And how would I do that?
You're the one who is making the claim.
They literally have freedom of press and a multiparty democracy.
Fascism doesn't necessitate the lack of press.
This says the opposite of what you claimed.
No, it says it's complicated.
You suggested that Fascist Italy had gun liberties.
They had options to safeguard the State.
protect liberals and socialists from being arrested by the state?
People undermining the State are enemies of the State.
The state does and then hands out the profits to its rent-a-thugs?
You can have both state commerce and corporate commerce.
You support that?
Shaming and pillory is good enough.
At this point what civil liberties are firearms een there to protect?
To live a happy, healthy life for those willing to be productive and maintain their lineage.
What's the difference?
China is being much more aggressive toward heterosexual relationships, and it is paying off:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68552103
Can I accuse you being a pedophile...
Based on what?
and one that is not?
Intent.
Why should I assume they are better than all western film and TV content combined?
They promote good values, social cohesion, and a structured societal future. share
>They're using identity politics to push anarchy and the breakdown of social cohesion.
And how is that happening in London? How is that even happening in Cape Town, exactly?
>That's literally what the West will look like once infrastructure collapses.
And there's no reason to believe this will happen anytime soon, nor any reason to believe it will happen due to 'woke' or progressivism or gay people, or whatever terminology you care to use.
>You're the one who is making the claim.
No, I'm responding to the claim. Another user in this context accuses me of being a pedophile. You apparently declare from that that it is my responsibility to somehow disprove him. How would I do that? If I accuse you of being a pedophile, does it come incumbent upon you to disprove my allegation?
>Fascism doesn't necessitate the lack of press.
It does necessitate the capture and control of press by the single party. This does not happen in Japan. And multiparty elections do not happen in fascist states. Find me a single source or historican or political scientist of any kind that backs up your suggestion that contemporary Japan is fascist. I'm not even sure why you'd idolise them given their general irreligiosity and piss-poor birth rates in any case.
>No, it says it's complicated.
At no point does it propose that Mussolini's Italy had gun rights remotely akin to what the USA does now.
>They had options to safeguard the State.
Who is "they"? What options?
>People undermining the State are enemies of the State.
So liberals and socialists, just by existing should be arrested? Is that what you're saying? Should I be arrested?
Are you outright admitting, by the way that you are a fascist?
>You can have both state commerce and corporate commerce.
And what if people choose corporate commerce? Why would the state functioning as a company feel remotely obliged to impose anti-LGBT moral police on others? What even gives it authority?
>Shaming and pillory is good enough.
So liberals and socialists should, just by consequence of them being liberals and socialists be stocked? Who enforces this punishment? What if the liberal and the socialist remain liberals and socialists?
>To live a happy, healthy life for those willing to be productive and maintain their lineage.
And why can't other people use firearms to protect themselves? The point of firearms in the USA, as goes the legend, is to protect the people from a potential oppressive state. A nationstate (or private company, in your case) that is unelected, and answers to no-one and seeks to impose its mores on everyone within its boundaries is very much comparable to a bunch of gangsters. How would laws even work in your weird system?
>China is being much more aggressive toward heterosexual relationships, and it is paying off:
In what way are they being aggressive about it, beyond public promotion campaigns?
>Based on what?
Apparently I don't need a reason. You need to disprove my allegation. That's what you're arguing when Melton accuses me of being a pedophile. Why should it be different if I accuse you of being a pedophile?
>They promote good values, social cohesion, and a structured societal future.
They look like incredibly boring damsel-in-distress military movies. What "good values" to the promote that's unique and never-present in the west? And do you only watch military movies?
Entertainment is there to be interesting, insightful, thoughtful, engaging, thrilling, humorous - in no specific order (and depending on the show or film). And I'll continue to ask, since you ignored my question:
Name the slop in the shows I listed there please. And what shows there that I listed are bad?
Dark, Succession, Better Call Saul, Severance, Silo, The Bear, The Expanse, Black Sails, House of the Dragon, Shogun, Warrior, Dopesick, Black Bird, Andor, One Piece, Chernobyl, Mr. Robot, Counterpart, The Terror
And I'll ask again: Why don't you move to Russia?
Also:
https://www.goodnewspilipinas.com/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-international-emmy-kids-awards/
https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/09/08/news/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-inl-emmys-kids-awards/1813992
And how is that happening in London? How is that even happening in Cape Town, exactly?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8847011/South-African-town-braces-racial-violence-farm-killing.html
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/07/06/retailer-kitchen-knife-ban-crime-wave/
And there's no reason to believe this will happen anytime soon
Ha, funny how you switched to "soon"... which is relative to the speed at which the economy collapses.
If I accuse you of being a pedophile, does it come incumbent upon you to disprove my allegation?
Nope, because it's a baseless accusation.
backs up your suggestion that contemporary Japan is fascist.
Didn't say they were fascist, but that they had some principles and culture standards that lends toward it, which is good for protecting their way of life.
Italy had gun rights remotely akin to what the USA does now.
Never said it did.
Who is "they"? What options?
State-entrusted enforcers.
Is that what you're saying? Should I be arrested?
Nope. You can exist. Just don't undermine the constitutionality of the State.
Why would the state functioning as a company feel remotely obliged to impose anti-LGBT moral police on others?
To avoid societal decay.
How would laws even work in your weird system?
Same as they do in gun-advocating nations.
In what way are they being aggressive about it, beyond public promotion campaigns?
They will keep rolling out incentives until they equalise birth rate.
What "good values" to the promote that's unique and never-present in the west?
Honourable behaviour.
Name the slop in the shows I listed there please.
Too many to list, but any that have pro-LGBT propaganda would count.
share
>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8847011/South-African-town-braces-racial-violence-farm-killing.html
>https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/07/06/retailer-kitchen-knife-ban-crime-wave/
Well done. Crimes exist. How are the authorities specifically trying to cause this violence? You suggested that "they're using identity politics to push anarchy and the breakdown of social cohesion".
>Ha, funny how you switched to "soon"... which is relative to the speed at which the economy collapses.
Or at all, if you like. No-one can predict the future but the potential collapse of society has nothing to do with the existence of gay people, or progressivism.
>Nope, because it's a baseless accusation.
So Melton's is also a baseless accusation too, right?
>Didn't say they were fascist, but that they had some principles and culture standards that lends toward it, which is good for protecting their way of life.
What are those principles? You haven't even given a working definition of fascist.
>Never said it did.
You you realise a hypothetical fascist state (apparently run by a company more than a government) that provides its citizens will total access to guns. It's a complete fiction. Nothing like it has ever existed.
>State-entrusted enforcers.
You mean the police? Since we're talking about Italy.
>Nope. You can exist. Just don't undermine the constitutionality of the State.
Which means what, in practice? What could I do that might do that?
>To avoid societal decay.
A claim you've still failed to coherently back up at any point, nor is even the premise of your weird ideal society remotely plausible. It's comparable to when an anarcho-communist waxes poetic about the brilliance of their commune. It's just nonsense.
>Same as they do in gun-advocating nations.
In "gun-advocating" nations elected representatives are funded by the citizens paying tax, they pass legislation and have it enforced via local authorities. Are there even elections in your dystopia?
You also ignored these questions:
And why can't other people use firearms to protect themselves? The point of firearms in the USA, as goes the legend, is to protect the people from a potential oppressive state. A nationstate (or private company, in your case) that is unelected, and answers to no-one and seeks to impose its mores on everyone within its boundaries is very much comparable to a bunch of gangsters. How would laws even work in your weird system?
So liberals and socialists should, just by consequence of them being liberals and socialists be stocked? Who enforces this punishment? What if the liberal and the socialist remain liberals and socialists?
>They will keep rolling out incentives until they equalise birth rate.
I wouldn't call that aggressive at all.
>Honourable behaviour.
So people are never honourable in the west, ever?
>Too many to list, but any that have pro-LGBT propaganda would count.
By "pro-LGBT propaganda" you simply mean... depicting LGBT people and not depicting them as drug-addled, sexual deviants and depressed, I assume. I put it to you know that you're simply ignorant and are prejudging TV shows and films that you've never ever watched. And do you only watch military movies?
Why does Russia have almost no soft power? Why does the USA and the west have so much more cultural soft power?
And I'll ask again: Why don't you move to Russia?
Also:
https://www.goodnewspilipinas.com/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-international-emmy-kids-awards/
https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/09/08/news/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-inl-emmys-kids-awards/1813992
How are the authorities specifically trying to cause this violence?
Allowing and pushing idpol at the centre of the White farmer massacres is using it to push anarchy and breakdown social cohesion:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11062235/White-people-target-South-Africas-Julius-Malema-warns-impending-violence.html
No-one can predict the future but the potential collapse of society has nothing to do with the existence of gay people, or progressivism.
The prominence of homosexuality is indicative of late stage societal decay.
What are those principles? You haven't even given a working definition of fascist.
I did. I said Japan was fascist-lite, and had the right concepts in place.
It's a complete fiction. Nothing like it has ever existed.
Never said it did; but it also needs to exist.
What could I do that might do that?
Promoting the dissolution of societal hierarchies.
A claim you've still failed to coherently back up at any point
Western society is in societal decay now: failing birth-rates, high crime, high inflation, low job growth. There is no future sustainability if things maintain at their current trajectory.
Are there even elections in your dystopia?
A constitutional democratic republic would mean voting, yes.
How would laws even work in your weird system?
Same as laws anywhere; guns would be used mostly to maintain a high-trust society and keep out interlopers.
What if the liberal and the socialist remain liberals and socialists?
Then they remain as such; so long as they do not try to dissolve the social infrastructure, they would be fine.
So people are never honourable in the west, ever?
Without God? Mostly, no.
And do you only watch military movies?
Nope. share
>Allowing and pushing idpol at the centre of the White farmer massacres is using it to push anarchy and breakdown social cohesion:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11062235/White-people-target-South-Africas-Julius-Malema-warns-impending-violence.html
I would not call that woke at all. That's just race-based sectarianism shit. Julis Malema is closer to being a tankie than woke.
>The prominence of homosexuality is indicative of late stage societal decay.
No reason to believe this.
>Nope, because it's a baseless accusation.
So Melton's is also a baseless accusation too, right? If me accusing you of being a pedophile is a baseless accusations, then so is Melton when he accuses me of it, right?
>I did. I said Japan was fascist-lite, and had the right concepts in place.
Claiming that Japan is "fascist-lite" is not a definition, nor an argument for how they are. Also I'd argue you should hate them given their shitty fertility rate.
>Never said it did; but it also needs to exist.
It's also an inherently absurd concept, and no reason to believe that it could exist.
>Promoting the dissolution of societal hierarchies.
What does this even mean? What is the social hierarchy as you see it?
>Western society is in societal decay now: failing birth-rates, high crime, high inflation, low job growth. There is no future sustainability if things maintain at their current trajectory.
No reason to believe that any of these things have anything whatsoever to do with LGBT culture.
>A constitutional democratic republic would mean voting, yes.
And could a social democrat or liberal party run for office?
>Same as laws anywhere; guns would be used mostly to maintain a high-trust society and keep out interlopers.
But it isn't the "same as laws anywhere" since there's no kind of taxation at all to fund state institutions and no requirement for people to pay for it by funding the corporate state.
>Then they remain as such; so long as they do not try to dissolve the social infrastructure, they would be fine.
What would constitute trying to "dissolve the social infrastructure"?
>Without God? Mostly, no.
No reason to believe this. Also, if you need the dear leader making threats for you to be honourable in the first place - I'd argue you never were.
You also ignored these questions:
And why can't other people use firearms to protect themselves? The point of firearms in the USA, as goes the legend, is to protect the people from a potential oppressive state. A nationstate (or private company, in your case) that is unelected, and answers to no-one and seeks to impose its mores on everyone within its boundaries is very much comparable to a bunch of gangsters. How would laws even work in your weird system?
By "pro-LGBT propaganda" you simply mean... depicting LGBT people and not depicting them as drug-addled, sexual deviants and depressed, I assume. I put it to you know that you're simply ignorant and are prejudging TV shows and films that you've never ever watched.
Why does Russia have almost no soft power? Why does the USA and the west have so much more cultural soft power?
And I'll ask again: Why don't you move to Russia?
Also:
https://www.goodnewspilipinas.com/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-international-emmy-kids-awards/
https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/09/08/news/philippines-gameboys-nominated-for-inl-emmys-kids-awards/1813992
I would not call that woke at all. That's just race-based sectarianism shit.
Racial hierarchies in sectarian politics is literally one of the basis woke propaganda.
No reason to believe this.
History repeats itself.
so is Melton when he accuses me of it, right?
If it actually has no basis.
you should hate them given their shitty fertility rate.
Why would I hate them? They need to course correct by refocusing on patriarchal standards and enforcing home-life incentives for married couples like China.
What is the social hierarchy as you see it?
God, man, woman, child. Husband, wife, family.
No reason to believe that any of these things have anything whatsoever to do with LGBT culture.
It does, since LGBT culture is a dead-end culture with zero societal benefits. It encourages relational decay, degeneracy, and lifestyles that lead to unfulfilling and unhappy states of being.
And could a social democrat or liberal party run for office?
Sure, so long as their tickets don't include anything that undermines the constitutionality of the nation.
But it isn't the "same as laws anywhere"
You'd have many of the same base laws, but with a state commerce to offset government funding. Can't spend what they don't earn.
What would constitute trying to "dissolve the social infrastructure"?
Aforementioned social hierarchies.
No reason to believe this.
Western decay; crime; hookup culture; homelessness and abortions all show otherwise.
And why can't other people use firearms to protect themselves?
They can.
I assume.
Partly, yes.
prejudging TV shows and films that you've never ever watched.
Because my assessments are likely correct. share
>Racial hierarchies in sectarian politics is literally one of the basis woke propaganda.
You are clumping together different things based on a single common denominator (that you assume is tied). Racial sectarianism exists all over the world and most of it has nothing to do with contemporary wokism.
>History repeats itself.
No evidence that any society has declined due to homosexuality.
>If it actually has no basis.
It doesn't. He's provided no justification for it. So can you finally admit that his accusation to me was wrong?
>Why would I hate them? They need to course correct by refocusing on patriarchal standards and enforcing home-life incentives for married couples like China.
Hate was the wrong word. You should advise against their society and culture because of their shitty ferility rate. I fail to see what you find admirable in Japan besides that anyway, from your perspective.
>God, man, woman, child. Husband, wife, family.
So how would one somehow "promote the dissolution" of them? If I say I'm an atheist, does that somehow "promote" the dissolution of it?
>It does, since LGBT culture is a dead-end culture with zero societal benefits. It encourages relational decay, degeneracy, and lifestyles that lead to unfulfilling and unhappy states of being.
LGBT people are not responding for straight people not having kids. LGBT people are not responsible for crime in the west. LGBT people are not responsible for inflation issues. LGBT people are not responsible for low job growth.
>Sure, so long as their tickets don't include anything that undermines the constitutionality of the nation.
What would be examples of "undermines the constitutionality of the nation"?
>You'd have many of the same base laws, but with a state commerce to offset government funding. Can't spend what they don't earn.
What if people just don't use the state commerce? What happens then? How does it self-fund if it simply doesn't make profit?
>Aforementioned social hierarchies.
See above when I asked you: So how would one somehow "promote the dissolution" of them? If I say I'm an atheist, does that somehow "promote" the dissolution of it?
>Western decay; crime; hookup culture; homelessness and abortions all show otherwise.
No reason to believe crime directly correlates with a decline of religiosity. No reason that homelessness directly correlates with a decline of religiosity. Abortion does, but your dislike of that is religious derived.
>They can.
Would it be just for LGBT people to use firearms to protect themselves from the state trying to arrest them?
Also: The point of firearms in the USA, as goes the legend, is to protect the people from a potential oppressive state. A nationstate (or private company, in your case) that is unelected, and answers to no-one and seeks to impose its mores on everyone within its boundaries is very much comparable to a bunch of gangsters. How would laws even work in your weird system?
>Partly, yes.
So why the fuck should I take your observation on western media remotely seen?
>Because my assessments are likely correct.
Based on what? I've actually seen many of the shows I listed to you. You have not.
Why does Russia have almost no soft power? Why does the USA and the west have so much more cultural soft power?
Why don't you move to Russia?
Racial sectarianism exists all over the world and most of it has nothing to do with contemporary wokism.
In modern Western nations, it absolutely does. Even the Smithsonian disproves your point: https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness
No evidence that any society has declined due to homosexuality.
Prominence of it has always been tied to late stage societal decay.
So can you finally admit that his accusation to me was wrong?
It was based on another person's claim.
I fail to see what you find admirable in Japan besides that anyway, from your perspective.
Limited/anti-immigration, high-honour society, high-productivity, low crime, low/zero tolerance for disrupting social hierarchies.
If I say I'm an atheist, does that somehow "promote" the dissolution of it?
If you're trying to capture institutes and prevailing social norms, absolutely.
LGBT people are..
Prevarication. Everything I listed is true of their culture.
What would be examples of "undermines the constitutionality of the nation"?
What we're seeing happening now in Western nations.
What if people just don't use the state commerce?
The State fails, which is why it's imperative (and incentivised) for the State to serve the people.
No reason to believe crime directly correlates with a decline of religiosity.
It means people aren't being punished accordingly -- homelessness also means fortunate people are not being charitable as outlined in Judeo-Christian principles.
Would it be just for LGBT people to use firearms...
If they're being arrested, then it means they committed a crime.
So why the fuck should I take your observation on western media remotely seen?
Because it's actually correct. share
>In modern Western nations, it absolutely does. Even the Smithsonian disproves your point: https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness
The UK doesn't push racial sectarianism. Most of Europe doesn't. Issues of sectarianism come from Muslims and Hindus and other cultural and religious groups, not natives.
But again, the race discussion is USA is completely unlike that in South Africa.
>Prominence of it has always been tied to late stage societal decay.
No evidence that any society has declined due to homosexuality.
>It was based on another person's claim.
He lied. The "other person" was a troll. He knew it was a troll. He continued to repeat the baseless allegations and edited his posts when I replied to him to suggest my response to him somehow constituted an admission when it did no such thing, and when I said the opposite. Can you finally admit that behaviour was wrong?
>Limited/anti-immigration, high-honour society, high-productivity, low crime, low/zero tolerance for disrupting social hierarchies.
What do you mean "high honour" society? High-productivity = working oneself to death. What social hierarchies in Japan do you find admirable?
>If you're trying to capture institutes and prevailing social norms, absolutely.
How would one be trying to capture institutes and "prevailing social norms" when saying that?
>Prevarication. Everything I listed is true of their culture.
I will repeat: LGBT people are not responding for straight people not having kids. LGBT people are not responsible for crime in the west. LGBT people are not responsible for inflation issues. LGBT people are not responsible for low job growth.
>What we're seeing happening now in Western nations.
Not good enough. Specific examples please.
>The State fails, which is why it's imperative (and incentivised) for the State to serve the people.
Except it seems more interested in persecuting the people in your case. It's essentially a mob.
>It means people aren't being punished accordingly -- homelessness also means fortunate people are not being charitable as outlined in Judeo-Christian principles.
Again: No reason to believe crime directly correlates with a decline of religiosity.
>If they're being arrested, then it means they committed a crime.
You think it's impossible for a fascist state to arrest people based on false, or trumped up charges? Or that they may have unjustifiable laws that justify resistance? The very state you describe, in itself, justifies resistance. That's what Americans claim they need firearms for.
>Because it's actually correct.
You insisting this is not evidence that it is.
I've actually seen many of the shows I listed to you. You have not.
Why does Russia have almost no soft power? Why does the USA and the west have so much more cultural soft power?
Why don't you move to Russia?
Most of Europe doesn't. Issues of sectarianism come from Muslims and Hindus and other cultural and religious groups, not natives.
Wrong: https://www.thepublica.com/germany-woman-convicted-of-offending-migrant-gang-rapists-receives-longer-prison-sentence-than-the-rapists/
No evidence that any society has declined due to homosexuality.
Every advanced society in late stage decay began embracing homosexuality.
The "other person" was a troll.
How do I know you're not lying?
What do you mean "high honour" society?
They maintain strong productivity, respect the laws, encourage strong behaviour toward maintaining cultural heritage.
...when saying that?
Look at Western academia, media, education. Completely captured by Leftists.
I will repeat...
None of that has to do with their degenerate lifestyle influences and the degradation effect it has on broader society.
It's essentially a mob.
Only people who hate structure would think this.
No reason to believe crime directly correlates with a decline of religiosity.
It absolutely does, look at places like London, San Francisco, Portland, or New York. Highly secular; lots of crime.
The very state you describe, in itself, justifies resistance.
Only if you advocate for anarchy.
I've actually seen many of the shows I listed to you. You have not.
And yet I'm still right about them. share
>Wrong: https://www.thepublica.com/germany-woman-convicted-of-offending-migrant-gang-rapists-receives-longer-prison-sentence-than-the-rapists/
That's shitty law. The point is that without these groups, or these groups existing in such large numbers and with such zeal - it would not be an issue.
Also this article is misleading about the sentences. It's purely measuring the sentencing by one metric.
>Every advanced society in late stage decay began embracing homosexuality.
No evidence whatsoever for this claim at all. I'll await evidence that Austro-Hungary "embraced homosexuality". Or the Ottoman Empire. Or the Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth, or even Sweden.
>How do I know you're not lying?
And again: He continued to repeat the baseless allegations and edited his posts when I replied to him to suggest my response to him somehow constituted an admission when it did no such thing, and when I said the opposite. Can you finally admit that behaviour was wrong?
Do you have reason to suspect I am? The person who initially accused me has deleted their account.
>They maintain strong productivity, respect the laws, encourage strong behaviour toward maintaining cultural heritage.
Strong productivity that is leading to a loneliness crisis, high suicide rates and overworking.
Also, what's your thought on anime and other modern Japanese media exports?
>Look at Western academia, media, education. Completely captured by Leftists.
That's not quite what I asked you. What would the actions of a liberal, or socialist, or left-wing be in your system that would be so-described as trying to "capture institutes and prevailing social norms"?
>None of that has to do with their degenerate lifestyle influences and the degradation effect it has on broader society.
No reason that it really does. You talk about the excesses and limitations and overreach of capitalism and modern culture in general, and just suggest somehow homosexuality caused them. It's absurd.
>Only people who hate structure would think this.
What "structure"? What gives this theocratic corporation legitimacy exactly?
>It absolutely does, look at places like London, San Francisco, Portland, or New York. Highly secular; lots of crime.
London has less crime rate than almost every single US city, most of which are **MORE RELIGIOUS** than the US cities. Most of Europe has less crime per capita than the USA - Europe being mostly **LESS RELIGIOUS** than the USA. You give off the impression that you've literally never looked at crime data ever.
>Only if you advocate for anarchy.
Does not follow. Since when does rejecting your totalitarian state constitute advocating for anarchy?
>And yet I'm still right about them.
You insisting this doesn't make it true. All you're doing is demonstrating your hubris and ignorance of modern culture.
I will repeat: I've actually seen many of the shows I listed to you. You have not.
And you continue to ignore:
You think it's impossible for a fascist state to arrest people based on false, or trumped up charges? Or that they may have unjustifiable laws that justify resistance? The very state you describe, in itself, justifies resistance. That's what Americans claim they need firearms for.
Why does Russia have almost no soft power? Why does the USA and the west have so much more cultural soft power?
Why don't you move to Russia?
That's shitty law.
And it proves my point about it being weaponised based on identity politics.
I'll await evidence that Austro-Hungary "embraced homosexuality"
War and famine are completely different from societal decay. Many nations fell to war.
The person who initially accused me has deleted their account.
Which means anyone could have said anything.
Also, what's your thought on anime and other modern Japanese media exports?
So long as it promotes sound cultural values, I see no problem with it.
What would the actions of a liberal, or socialist, or left-wing be
Trying to infiltrate to subvert, or utilising grassroots subversion like the sexual revolution or feminism.
No reason that it really does.
It does in the same way that promoting tobacco/gambling has a negative effect on society. It's a vice with zero cultural benefits.
What gives this theocratic corporation legitimacy exactly?
Protecting social cohesion.
Most of Europe has less crime per capita than the USA
Not the places with high immigration, secularism, and identity politics run amok. Cologne, ring a bell?
advocating for anarchy?
If you dislike strict structures to maintain peace.
Why does Russia have almost no soft power?
Because it's not full of subversive Leftists. share
>And it proves my point about it being weaponised based on identity politics.
No, it sounds like German law which has been a thing for decades. Also this article is misleading about the sentences. It's purely measuring the sentencing by one metric.
>War and famine are completely different from societal decay. Many nations fell to war.
And I'll await evidence that countries fell due to homosexuality.
>Which means anyone could have said anything.
I absolutely, can AND HAVE linked you to threads where the [deleted] account made such accusations.
>So long as it promotes sound cultural values, I see no problem with it.
And it simply, by your metrics, does not. And yet its huge in Japan (and globally).
>Trying to infiltrate to subvert, or utilising grassroots subversion like the sexual revolution or feminism.
What does that even *mean*? Would it be illegal to campaign on 'sexual revolution' policies (whatever they would be)? Are you claiming feminism should be banned?
>It does in the same way that promoting tobacco/gambling has a negative effect on society. It's a vice with zero cultural benefits.
No reason to believe this. Liberalisation in a general sense has been great for media. Why does US and Uk and western europe have such soft power in comparison to more traditional and oppressive states like Russia and China?
>Protecting social cohesion.
This is getting into circular reasoning. You regard "protecting social cohesion" as simply making a country based entirely on your standards. Try and impose those values now and you'll cause massive social and political rebellion.
>Not the places with high immigration, secularism, and identity politics run amok. Cologne, ring a bell?
London has less crime per capita than most US cities. You specifically named London as an example. You also originally claimed that secularism leads to more crime despite ZERO EVIDENCE for this claim.
London has less crime rate than almost every single US city, most of which are **MORE RELIGIOUS** than the US cities. Most of Europe has less crime per capita than the USA - Europe being mostly **LESS RELIGIOUS** than the USA. You give off the impression that you've literally never looked at crime data ever. Going to explain why this is?
>If you dislike strict structures to maintain peace.
That's not advocating for anarchy. You have proposed a false dichotomy.
>Because it's not full of subversive Leftists.
Are you saying leftism provides good soft power, and traditionalism/reactionary politics does not?
Because they've been persecuted. They also have a lot of poverty, class issues, drug problems and all kinds of social ills.
And you ignored:
You think it's impossible for a fascist state to arrest people based on false, or trumped up charges? Or that they may have unjustifiable laws that justify resistance? The very state you describe, in itself, justifies resistance. That's what Americans claim they need firearms for.
Why don't you move to Russia?
No, it sounds like German law which has been a thing for decades
They haven't been dysgenically replacing their natives with Muslims for decades.
And I'll await evidence that countries fell due to homosexuality.
No one said that was the only cause, but this video does a good job of explaining how it contributes to rapid decline:
https://youtu.be/VwbE7DHjkHY
And it simply, by your metrics, does not.
How?
Are you claiming feminism should be banned?
It has produced nothing good for society.
No reason to believe this.
The facts related to their health issues, short lifespan, domestic violence, and mental unwellness are reasons.
Try and impose those values now and you'll cause massive social and political rebellion.
Because most Western nations have been culturally subverted.
London has less crime per capita than most US cities.
It has more crime than most Red states and less crime than most Blue states. Do you know why that is?
Are you saying leftism provides good soft power, and traditionalism/reactionary politics does not?
Leftism is about indoctrination and burying truth under hedonistic subservience to the State. share
>They haven't been dysgenically replacing their natives with Muslims for decades.
That has nothing to do with that specific law. And I'll await evidence that it is German policy, specifically, to replace their natives with Muslims.
>No one said that was the only cause, but this video does a good job of explaining how it contributes to rapid decline:
Gay people existing has nothing to do with straight couples having less, or no children. I've said this multiple times. Provide me a single empire or civilisation that has crumbled specifically due to gay people.
>How?
Anime includes LGBT themed subgenres (yaoi), a lot of violent content, a lot of anti-heroes, villains, a lot of general sexual content.
>It has produced nothing good for society.
Not what I asked. Are you suggesting feminism should be banned?
>The facts related to their health issues, short lifespan, domestic violence, and mental unwellness are reasons.
Who are you talking about specifically here? LGBT people? Liberalisation in a general sense has been great for media. Why does US and Uk and western europe have such soft power in comparison to more traditional and oppressive states like Russia and China?
>It has more crime than most Red states and less crime than most Blue states. Do you know why that is?
Can I see data for this please? You'll also find that UK counties, by the way, have less crime than red states. Why is this? Rural counties in the UK are also irreligious. I thought a lack of religion leads to crime.
Can you explain why this doesn't seem to be the case?
>Leftism is about indoctrination and burying truth under hedonistic subservience to the State.
And you don't think right-wing authoritarian states about indoctrination? What "subservience to the state" are you even on about?
And you ignored:
You think it's impossible for a fascist state to arrest people based on false, or trumped up charges? Or that they may have unjustifiable laws that justify resistance? The very state you describe, in itself, justifies resistance. That's what Americans claim they need firearms for.
Why don't you move to Russia?
Why do I have to ask questions about 20 times before you answer them?
That has nothing to do with that specific law.
You're right, it's culture-wide identity politics, like I said before.
Gay people existing has nothing to do with straight couples having less, or no children.
Promoting that lifestyle absolutely does, since gays can't procreate.
Anime includes LGBT themed subgenres (yaoi),
And they're rightfully not mainstream -- they are niche subgenres where they belong.
Are you suggesting feminism should be banned?
It should be.
LGBT people?
Of course. But those who identify as Liberals seem to suffer similar issues as well.
Can I see data for this please?
https://vividmaps.com/most-and-least-dangerous-cities-in-america/
What "subservience to the state" are you even on about?
Do you not know about the Labour party? The Tories? The FDP? The ILP? This is what happens when you are not subservient:
https://archive.is/apfGj
https://archive.is/R4MMK
https://archive.is/TVJ8V
share
>You're right, it's culture-wide identity politics, like I said before.
That law has been a thing for decades. And again: Also this article is misleading about the sentences. It's purely measuring the sentencing by one metric.
And I'll await evidence that it is German policy, specifically, to replace their natives with Muslims.
>Promoting that lifestyle absolutely does, since gays can't procreate.
And yet the vast majority of people are still straight. Gay people existing has nothing to do with straight couples having less, or no children.
And yes, gay people CAN procreate via sperm donation, surrogacy or they can adopt. I don't care about that you think they shouldn't do that. Because the reality is that they literally can procreate if they so choose.
>And they're rightfully not mainstream -- they are niche subgenres where they belong.
With all due respect, how in the fuck would you even pretend to know this? You were already wrong about the popularity of boys love genre in Thailand and the Philippines, which you have not acknowledged. In addition, a ton of popular anime is just outright sexual and violent in a general sense.
>It should be.
Meaning what, exactly? How does this work? What are feminist positions that should be banned?
>Of course. But those who identify as Liberals seem to suffer similar issues as well.
Based on zero evidence whatsoever, as usual. I'm sure you'll find some self-reporting shmuck that claims otherwise.
>https://vividmaps.com/most-and-least-dangerous-cities-in-america/
Many of these cities as the most dangerous cities are in red states. Many of the safer cities are in blue states.
And I repeat:
You'll also find that UK counties, by the way, have less crime than red states. Why is this? Rural counties in the UK are also irreligious. I thought a lack of religion leads to crime.
>Do you not know about the Labour party? The Tories? The FDP? The ILP? This is what happens when you are not subservient:
First of all, do you not think your beloved fascist state would raid people? Don't fucking pretend like you give a flying fuck about free speech. You are on record for wanting to persecute LGBT people, feminists and liberals. In your world the police fascist state would be raiding people for expressing pro-feminist positions online. You are truly a vile hypocrite.
You don't give a fuck about state oppression. You like state oppression.
>https://archive.is/TVJ8V
This is from Ireland where far-right anti-immigrant people rioted. Should the state have let the far-right riot, loot and burn people's properties?
And you ignored:
You think it's impossible for a fascist state to arrest people based on false, or trumped up charges? Or that they may have unjustifiable laws that justify resistance? The very state you describe, in itself, justifies resistance. That's what Americans claim they need firearms for.
Why don't you move to Russia?
Why do I have to ask questions about 20 times before you answer them?
And I'll await evidence that it is German policy, specifically, to replace their natives with Muslims.
Doesn't have to policy, just action/inaction that lead to events like this:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cologne-new-year-s-eve-mass-sex-attacks-leaked-document-a7130476.html
And yes, gay people CAN procreate via sperm donation, surrogacy or they can adopt.
Adoption rates do not compensate for birth rate declines. As stated, that community brings nothing positive to society.
With all due respect, how in the fuck would you even pretend to know this?
https://comicbook.com/anime/news/best-manga-sales-2023/
Meaning what, exactly?
How has it improved the burgeoning progress of man's excellence?
Based on zero evidence whatsoever, as usual.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/why-are-liberals-less-happy-than-conservatives
Many of the safer cities are in blue states.
Most of these are in blue states:
https://www.populationu.com/gen/most-dangerous-cities-in-the-us
In your world the police fascist state would be raiding people for expressing pro-feminist positions online.
Never of the sort. Though, it's funny you have to acknowledge the Liberal utopia(s) you defend are engaging in the oppression you accuse me of.
Ironic.
Should the state have let the far-right riot, loot and burn people's properties?
They were not going that far. They simply wanted to protect their culture, as they should. It's their home.
Why don't you move to Russia?
I might. share
>Doesn't have to policy, just action/inaction that lead to events like this:
So you have no evidence then. It's just a claim of motive.
>Adoption rates do not compensate for birth rate declines. As stated, that community brings nothing positive to society.
No, they don't compensate for birth rate declines - but it's not the gay communities fault that straight people are not choosing to have kids. The vast majority of people are still straight. Gay people existing has nothing to do with straight couples having less, or no children.
>https://comicbook.com/anime/news/best-manga-sales-2023/
Manga is one facet. There are many sexual animes around. And many of those titles are violent.
>How has it improved the burgeoning progress of man's excellence?
Not what I asked you. Meaning what, exactly? How does this work? What are feminist positions that should be banned?
>https://ifstudies.org/blog/why-are-liberals-less-happy-than-conservatives
As I said, "self-reporting shmuck". Nevermind that some of the best places to live globally are consistently occupied by socially liberal countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark). Why is this?
>Most of these are in blue states:
https://www.populationu.com/gen/most-dangerous-cities-in-the-us
Is Tennessee now a blue state? Or Arkansas? Or Ohio? The top 10 is full of red states. What the fuck are you on about?
And I repeat:
You'll also find that UK counties, by the way, have less crime than red states. Why is this? Rural counties in the UK are also irreligious. I thought a lack of religion leads to crime.
>Never of the sort. Though, it's funny you have to acknowledge the Liberal utopia(s) you defend are engaging in the oppression you accuse me of.
So what would happen then if someone in your ideal dystopia expressed a pro-feminist position on the internet? You've said that should be illegal. How would they be stopped?
>They were not going that far. They simply wanted to protect their culture, as they should. It's their home.
They literally did vandalism. What is this dude?
https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/https%3A%2F%2Fd1e00ek4ebabms.cloudfront.net%2Fproduction%2Fa405ab90-3d57-4e5f-948b-7d122189a37d.jpg?source=next-article&fit=scale-down&quality=highest&width=700&dpr=1
What is it they should have been allowed to do to "protect their culture"?
And you ignored:
You think it's impossible for a fascist state to arrest people based on false, or trumped up charges? Or that they may have unjustifiable laws that justify resistance? The very state you describe, in itself, justifies resistance. That's what Americans claim they need firearms for.
So you have no evidence then. It's just a claim of motive.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3666511/Merkel-s-open-door-policy-caused-Britain-leave-EU-German-leader-blamed-Brexit-failure-deal-migrant-crisis-open-arms-immigration-policy.html
No, they don't compensate for birth rate declines
Checkmate.
There are many sexual animes around. And many of those titles are violent.
The top-selling content is not LGBT content, which is good.
Not what I asked you.
Doesn't matter. If it doesn't improve the excellence of man, it shouldn't exist.
Why is this?
You just named high-trust, racially homogeneous societies. That's why.
The top 10 is full of red states.
Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, and Missouri show otherwise.
I thought a lack of religion leads to crime.
In racially diverse regions, absolutely.
You've said that should be illegal. How would they be stopped?
They can hold the position, but if they're sharing it with the intent of subversion, then something would have to be done.
What is it they should have been allowed to do to "protect their culture"?
Everything.
share
>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3666511/Merkel-s-open-door-policy-caused-Britain-leave-EU-German-leader-blamed-Brexit-failure-deal-migrant-crisis-open-arms-immigration-policy.html
A policy failure is not a motive to deliberately try and change continents demographics.
>Checkmate.
I was pointing out that gay people can still adopt, and help in such a way if they so choose. I reiterate: it's not the gay communities fault that straight people are not choosing to have kids. The vast majority of people are still straight. Gay people existing has nothing to do with straight couples having less, or no children.
>The top-selling content is not LGBT content, which is good.
How do you know none of it has any LGBT characters in it?
>Doesn't matter. If it doesn't improve the excellence of man, it shouldn't exist.
How does one objectively verify if something "improves" the "excellence of man". Does rock music "improve the excellence of man"? Does abstract art "improve the excellence of man"? Does Superhero fiction "improve the excellence of man"? Are you genuinely suggesting anything that could be so-described as flippant should be banned?
I will ask AGAIN: How does this work? What are feminist positions that should be banned?
>You just named high-trust, racially homogeneous societies. That's why.
And also highly irreligious societies. But you claimed irreligiosity causes crime.
>Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, and Missouri show otherwise.
Missouri is not a red state. That list also includes Tennessee, Arkansas, Ohio, and Texas. Why are you misrepresenting it?
>In racially diverse regions, absolutely.
Yet much of the crime you refer to in Europe is coming from RELIGIOUS groups. Not irreligious groups. So it seems that lack of religion has nothing to do with it.
>They can hold the position, but if they're sharing it with the intent of subversion, then something would have to be done.
How would someone share pro-feminist media/content/ideas *without* the intent of subversion, in your mind?
And what would "have to be done" to stop them?
>Everything.
So you now are outright openly in favour of vandalism and random violence, are you? Just so long as it's done for a cause you approve of? You think it was acceptable for those rioters to start fires, smash buildings and cars?
And you ignored:
You think it's impossible for a fascist state to arrest people based on false, or trumped up charges? Or that they may have unjustifiable laws that justify resistance? The very state you describe, in itself, justifies resistance. That's what Americans claim they need firearms for.