# Let's talk about suppression



## Nothereed (Sep 5, 2022)

There's a semi interesting aspect that I want to go ahead and talk about. Just a notice of two similar things.


Hitler became Hilter because he believed that the Jews were suppressing him and the German race. It happened to be that he got his information from a small "newspaper" business that primarily focused on anti Semite rehetroic.

We're going to be making a lot of pins here. So just remember that this point exists as we're going to come back to it later.

There's also another aspect
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-propaganda-and-censorship

Primarily that he was a free speech advocate...



> When the Nazis came to power in 1933, the German constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Through decrees and laws, the Nazis abolished these civil rights and destroyed German democracy. Starting in 1934, it was illegal to criticize the Nazi government. Even telling a joke about Hitler was considered treachery. People in Nazi Germany could not say or write whatever they wanted.


And then the moment he took power he no longer was. Or more accurately. Lied about supporting free speech.



> The Nazis used both propaganda and censorship to control what students read in school. Nazi censors removed some textbooks from classrooms. New textbooks taught students to obey the Nazi Party, love Hitler, and hate Jews.


And that text books were banned.
Pin this one as well.

Then you had all the means of propaganda


> Glorifying Adolf Hitler by using his image on postcards, posters, and in the press;
> Spreading negative images and ideas about Jews in magazines, films, cartoons, and other media;
> Making radios more affordable so that more Germans could listen to Nazi ideas and news;
> Broadcasting Nazi speeches on the radio and public loudspeakers;
> ...



Let's also put a pin into this.

At this point, if your not brain fucked. All of these should be bringing very loud bells in your head.

Let's unpin from the same order.

Hitler believed that Jews where suppressing Germans, and used that hate back belief to suppress and kill Jews.

While it doesn't match one to one. That sounds awfully similar to republican/maga rehetroic. History doesn't repeat but it often rhymes. That it's leftists, those liberals ruining the world. (Using liberals in the way they would use it as leftist and liberal do not belong in the same sentence.)
But let's briefly identify "liberal"
Because liberal has become sonyonmus with a particular party in the United States. Democrats.

Take this a step further. They intentionally conflate leftist and liberal in the same sentence.

Why would this all matter?
Well, it wasn't the Jews Hitler went after first. It was the socialist party. Aka the left leaning party.
See fascists will do what is opportune to gain power. So their affiliation when getting to power doesn't matter. Their actions vs their words speak. Hitler killed socialist first. And the reason why is he did/facism looks to kill it's opposition first is because they are the most likely to counter it.  then thre angry hatefilled cycle continues. Spiraling to with in grouping and out grouping once the first opposition is killed.

Again history won't repeat the same way. But it rhymes.
So I find it interesting that Republicans/maga are expecting a civil war, but also gearing up for it. But also sounding happy that it's going to happen.
Not a single inch or ounce of remorse. Not a single moment of thinking about how much that would suck or hurt.

Let's unpin the second one finally. Being a free speech " supporter" while simultaneously trying to censor and control.

For starters. Maga/Republicans trying to apply the first admendemnt to business. Claiming that their opposition supports and likes to suppress free speech. While simultaneously, banning people from saying certain words in schools, and banning books, specifically trans books.

Where have we heard this before?
Now someone is likely going to say "but it doesn't ban democrats though!!!"
No it doesn't explicitly ban them. But if your a party that already actively harms trans and gay people. They are going to go to the opposition and more likely be a Democrat. (If we ONLY had a choice between the two parties for this argument to be clear. As I know many would vote with their conscious)
Point being however, it's rhyming. Strongly with what Hitler has done.

Lets get to propaganda.

This part is multifaceted. I could look into malt Walsh libs of ticktock causing bomb threats on a specifIc hospital because of a trans pediatrician (or malt Walsh's argument that they do sex change surgies. Which they don't.) I could look into the fact that Trump is the only one with bumper stickers, hats, flags, and much more. Echoing

Glorifying Adolf Hitler by using his image on postcards, posters, and in the press;
Spreading negative images and ideas about Jews in magazines, films, cartoons, and other media;
Cartoons about how "how rediclous the 'left' is" painting trump in a good light. Or Trump being the face of maga and the Republican party still. Despite him no longer being president.
Or how about the rehetroic regarding maralgo? Every single maga person I have seen, doesn't even give a second to question the possibility that Trump did something wrong.
Because to them, trump is never wrong.


So I once again challenge maga/republicans. Are you sure your the one being prosecuted? Or are you looking to make an excuse to prosecute a group you don't like.


----------



## leejaclane (Sep 6, 2022)

Worth pointing out also, when the nazis burned books, they were burning books about sexuality and gender. Wikipedia is of course not a source, but there are sources on the page to verify what's being said in this link, and you can search online for more info about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_für_Sexualwissenschaft

They were targeted for being pro-LGBT, for having LGBT staff, for having LGBT erotic literature -- which is exactly what the right-wing are doing now in the US and in the UK and in plenty of other countries as well. People will argue it's not the same because books aren't being burned, but if you think that you're focusing on the wrong aspect. Burning the books was an act of suppressing them, suppressing their contents. They don't have to burn the books, they just remove them. It is in fact the same.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 17, 2022)

leejaclane said:


> Worth pointing out also, when the nazis burned books, they were burning books about sexuality and gender. Wikipedia is of course not a source, but there are sources on the page to verify what's being said in this link, and you can search online for more info about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_für_Sexualwissenschaft
> 
> They were targeted for being pro-LGBT, for having LGBT staff, for having LGBT erotic literature -- which is exactly what the right-wing are doing now in the US and in the UK and in plenty of other countries as well. People will argue it's not the same because books aren't being burned, but if you think that you're focusing on the wrong aspect. Burning the books was an act of suppressing them, suppressing their contents. They don't have to burn the books, they just remove them. It is in fact the same.


Point out where the "right-wing" is targeting pro-LGBT books. You make it sound like they are wanting them banned from all of society when in reality, they are wanting them removed from school libraries where they do not belong as they show pornographic images in them including oral sex. I for one, would be very upset if other adults were talking to my daughters about sexual acts and revealing their sexuality to them in the classroom. That is sick behavior to want to talk about sex to prepubescent kids. Parents are the ultimate authority over their own kids, not the government and definitely not the teachers unions. It's no wonder that hundreds of teachers and school staff have been indicted for having sexual relations with students this year alone.

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/135-teachers-charged-child-sex-crimes-this-year-alone

https://www.abc4.com/news/top-stori...rida-human-trafficking-investigation-sheriff/

https://www.kwch.com/2022/05/20/teacher-accused-making-child-pornography-police-say/


----------



## omgcat (Sep 17, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Point out where the "right-wing" is targeting pro-LGBT books. You make it sound like they are wanting them banned from all of society when in reality, they are wanting them removed from school libraries where they do not belong as they show pornographic images in them including oral sex. I for one, would be very upset if other adults were talking to my daughters about sexual acts and revealing their sexuality to them in the classroom. That is sick behavior to want to talk about sex to prepubescent kids. Parents are the ultimate authority over their own kids, not the government and definitely not the teachers unions. It's no wonder that hundreds of teachers and school staff have been indicted for having sexual relations with students this year alone.
> 
> https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/135-teachers-charged-child-sex-crimes-this-year-alone
> 
> ...


except they ARE going after public libraries

Republican lawmakers moving forward on Indiana bill to ban 'harmful' library materials

Conservative activists want to ban 400 books from a library — but they aren't even on shelves​
The Right-Wing Plot To Destroy Public Libraries

GOP Legislators Target Librarians for Prosecution, Fines Under new Bill​


> A collection of 14 Iowa Republican representatives introduced a bill Tuesday that makes it illegal for a person affiliated with *a public school or public library* to knowingly spread “material the person knows or reasonably should know, is obscene or harmful to minors.”



Censorship battles’ new frontier: Your public library

you have to be actually blind to not see what is coming next.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 17, 2022)

As TraitorPat just demonstrated, republicans want to frame even basic sex ed as pedophilia/sexual assault.  Because being pro-forced birth and refusing to educate teens about the consequences of sex surely makes for a great combination.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 17, 2022)

Xzi said:


> As TraitorPat just demonstrated, republicans want to frame even basic sex ed as pedophilia/sexual assault.  Because being pro-forced birth and refusing to educate teens about the consequences of sex surely makes for a great combination.


For fucking real. It's an open and shut argument, the right is persecuting the LGBTQ+, and are trying to make it legal to do so. The only reason anyone would be even remotely fine with these candidates doing this level of open oppression is if they themselves are bigoted, but I'd love to hear TraitorPat here explain why he's pro LGBTQ+, despite constantly railing against them harder than I rail his mom every night.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 18, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Point out where the "right-wing" is targeting pro-LGBT books. You make it sound like they are wanting them banned from all of society when in reality, they are wanting them removed from school libraries where they do not belong as they show pornographic images in them including oral sex. I for one, would be very upset if other adults were talking to my daughters about sexual acts and revealing their sexuality to them in the classroom. That is sick behavior to want to talk about sex to prepubescent kids. Parents are the ultimate authority over their own kids, not the government and definitely not the teachers unions. It's no wonder that hundreds of teachers and school staff have been indicted for having sexual relations with students this year alone.
> 
> https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/135-teachers-charged-child-sex-crimes-this-year-alone
> 
> ...


You really shoestringed this post together. 
They want to ban LGBT+ books not because there's anything sexual in them, but because they hate the LGBT+. Then spread bullshit about the material being "sexual" as that plays into the narrative that the LGBT+ is perverse and they know people aren't even going to read the books in the first place. Equally, even if there was sexual material, people tend to ignore sexual material when it's not LGBT+ related. We see this happening in all forms of media, when LGBT+ content suddenly bumps the rating up a notch, regardless of the content shown. Even if this has lessened over the years, it still played in the same fear-mongering of the LGBT+ supposed perverse nature. 
Of course, you then decided to shoestring a connection to teachers having sex with kids. That's stupid and you know it's stupid. Sex ed is not why teachers are having sex with students and it's silly to think it is. LGBT+ content is not the reason why teachers have had sex with students and there's literally no connection to that being the reason. The more obvious likely problem is teachers taking advantage of their position of power to be predatory. This seems like a far more likely explanation than blaming sex ed or LGBT+ material in schools. If you have anything to argue against that, please provide some resources.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 18, 2022)

omgcat said:


> except they ARE going after public libraries
> 
> Republican lawmakers moving forward on Indiana bill to ban 'harmful' library materials
> 
> ...


Do kids still go to public libraries? Why do you want porn to available to kids for?

I'm not blind. I see videos all the time of adults twerking for kids, adults dancing so kids can stuff dollar bills in their outfits, kids being exposed to naked men at pride rallies. Teachers and Disney employees getting arrested for child trafficking. So yes, I do see what is coming next if parents don't start putting their collective foot down.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 18, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> You really shoestringed this post together.
> They want to ban LGBT+ books not because there's anything sexual in them, but because they hate the LGBT+. Then spread bullshit about the material being "sexual" as that plays into the narrative that the LGBT+ is perverse and they know people aren't even going to read the books in the first place. Equally, even if there was sexual material, people tend to ignore sexual material when it's not LGBT+ related. We see this happening in all forms of media, when LGBT+ content suddenly bumps the rating up a notch, regardless of the content shown. Even if this has lessened over the years, it still played in the same fear-mongering of the LGBT+ supposed perverse nature.
> Of course, you then decided to shoestring a connection to teachers having sex with kids. That's stupid and you know it's stupid. Sex ed is not why teachers are having sex with students and it's silly to think it is. LGBT+ content is not the reason why teachers have had sex with students and there's literally no connection to that being the reason. The more obvious likely problem is teachers taking advantage of their position of power to be predatory. This seems like a far more likely explanation than blaming sex ed or LGBT+ material in schools. If you have anything to argue against that, please provide some resources.


So oral sex is not sexual? Bill Clinton, is that you?

Take a look at these pictures and tell me you are ok with a kindergartner looking at these.

https://www.ibtimes.sg/texas-school...book-sexually-explicit-cartoons-library-60974


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 18, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> So oral sex is not sexual? Bill Clinton, is that you?
> 
> Take a look at these pictures and tell me you are ok with a kindergartner looking at these.
> 
> https://www.ibtimes.sg/texas-school...book-sexually-explicit-cartoons-library-60974


Are you trying to argue or just trolling?

Your rhetorical question has nothing to do with what @The Catboy said, and i think you know this very well.

Second... If you want to plea your case, you shouldn't use hyperboles. Your linked source wasn't from a kindergarten library but from a high school. Kind of a difference, y'know? 
Second... It's pretty easy to screenshot one page of something and label it whatever you want. That soccer mom probably just flipped through the rest just to find what took her offense. Either way: just because she labels it porn doesn't mean that it is. 

Oh, and in straight answer: yes, I'm fine with teenagers reading coming of age books/graphic novels like 'gender queer'. I'm wondering why you aren't. If they want to find porn, you bet they've got much easier ways to obtain it, so i don't know if you're dishonest or just incredibly naive.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 18, 2022)

Taleweaver said:


> Are you trying to argue or just trolling?
> 
> Your rhetorical question has nothing to do with what @The Catboy said, and i think you know this very well.
> 
> ...


Idk if this is your first post of Trader's that you've read but he's an idiot lmao.


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 18, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Idk if this is your first post of Trader's that you've read but he's an idiot lmao.


I've read more posts that i don't agree with (like his first one in this thread), but... Don't take it personally, but I'd rather make up my own  mind of people. If they're idiots, they're perfectly able to prove it themselves.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 18, 2022)

Taleweaver said:


> I've read more posts that i don't agree with (like his first one in this thread), but... Don't take it personally, but I'd rather make up my own  mind of people. If they're idiots, they're perfectly able to prove it themselves.


Nah I get you. You'll see very quickly what I mean.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 18, 2022)

Taleweaver said:


> Are you trying to argue or just trolling?
> 
> Your rhetorical question has nothing to do with what @The Catboy said, and i think you know this very well.
> 
> Second... If you want to plea your case, you shouldn't use hyperboles. Your linked source wasn't from a kindergarten library but from a high school. Kind of a difference, y'know?


That one story happened to be in a high school, which is also filled with kids. Last I checked, it is illegal to show kids porn, but the left likes to get their rocks of talking to minors about sex. There's a word to describe people like that.


Taleweaver said:


> Second... It's pretty easy to screenshot one page of something and label it whatever you want. That soccer mom probably just flipped through the rest just to find what took her offense. Either way: just because she labels it porn doesn't mean that it is.


So one page of oral sex is ok, but three pages is too much? Is this your argument?

Well, this particular, and it seems many, parents are not ok with people talking to their kids about sex acts and last I checked, parents pay for these teachers' salaries.


Taleweaver said:


> Oh, and in straight answer: yes, I'm fine with teenagers reading coming of age books/graphic novels like 'gender queer'. I'm wondering why you aren't. If they want to find porn, you bet they've got much easier ways to obtain it, so i don't know if you're dishonest or just incredibly naive.


By that logic, kids can just buy guns illegally on the street, lets just make it legal to sell them guns without parental consent. Let's do the same with drugs. Hey, kids are gonna have sex anyway, let's build private rooms in schools so kids can have sex in them instead of getting raped in the bathrooms. Make sure and don't tell the parents about that too.

You people are truly sick in the head wanting to sexualize children. That's if they actually make it through the abortion mills.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 18, 2022)

If you really want to talk about suppression, let's talk about Hunter Biden's laptop. There's plenty of material there to talk about that has been suppressed for 2 years. It has it all. Pay to play schemes with Ukraine and China with 10% for Big Guy. Compromised family members ripe for foreign nations to take advantage of.

Maybe Ashley Biden's diary would be more your speed. Inappropriate showers when she was 6. A lifetime of abuse.

Both of these were suppressed and instead of going after the illegality of what these items contain, the FBI decided to go after the people who exposed them. And the compliant, corporate media made sure to obey the government's orders. Totally not fascist at all.


----------



## MariArch (Sep 18, 2022)

Can't go wrong with suppression. but the problem is that it takes so damn long to get the tax stamp to buy a suppressor. And it's fucking 400 dollars and the ATF can't even bother to send it to you till 9 months later. Fuck the feddys


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 19, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> So oral sex is not sexual? Bill Clinton, is that you?
> 
> Take a look at these pictures and tell me you are ok with a kindergartner looking at these.
> 
> https://www.ibtimes.sg/texas-school...book-sexually-explicit-cartoons-library-60974


You avoided everything in my post and changed the subject. Address my fucking comment properly, changing the subject and creating a strawman only makes your points look far more stupid


TraderPatTX said:


> If you really want to talk about suppression, let's talk about Hunter Biden's laptop. There's plenty of material there to talk about that has been suppressed for 2 years. It has it all. Pay to play schemes with Ukraine and China with 10% for Big Guy. Compromised family members ripe for foreign nations to take advantage of.
> 
> Maybe Ashley Biden's diary would be more your speed. Inappropriate showers when she was 6. A lifetime of abuse.
> 
> Both of these were suppressed and instead of going after the illegality of what these items contain, the FBI decided to go after the people who exposed them. And the compliant, corporate media made sure to obey the government's orders. Totally not fascist at all.


Those are a lot of buzzwords for literally nothing of substance said.


----------



## Nightwish (Sep 19, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Last I checked, it is illegal to show kids porn, but the left likes to get their rocks of talking to minors about sex.


Not only is that nonsense, but, last I checked, kids have found a way to see, and often enough do, "worse" well before the internet, with only adults being able to explain consent, the difference between love and lust, that pregnancy could be a result, and all the rest of it.
Speaking of consent, not only are closer connections more often the problem, they need to know it's not ok and that they have plenty of people to complain or report to. Don't forget it's an age of rebelling against, or at least ignoring, your parents even if they're the best in the world.
You can't protect "kids" by hiding the world from them and expect them to be adults overnight at 18. When you can, there's plenty who fail harder after because they are not prepared to be adults. Thakfully, they're more capable than you think when you respect their capabilities.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 19, 2022)

Nightwish said:


> Not only is that nonsense, but, last I checked, kids have found a way to see, and often enough do, "worse" well before the internet, with only adults being able to explain consent, the difference between love and lust, that pregnancy could be a result, and all the rest of it.
> Speaking of consent, not only are closer connections more often the problem, they need to know it's not ok and that they have plenty of people to complain or report to. Don't forget it's an age of rebelling against, or at least ignoring, your parents even if they're the best in the world.
> You can't protect "kids" by hiding the world from them and expect them to be adults overnight at 18. When you can, there's plenty who fail harder after because they are not prepared to be adults. Thakfully, they're more capable than you think when you respect their capabilities.


Actually, 18 U.S. Code § 1470 - Transfer of obscene material to minors


> Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers obscene matter to another individual who has not attained the age of 16 years, knowing that such other individual has not attained the age of 16 years, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
> 
> (Added Pub. L. 105–314, title IV, § 401(a), Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2979.)


So the law more or less states that knowingly sending inappropriate material to a minor under 16, is a crime. Of course, this does not cover education material nor education on sexual acts, sexuality, safe sex, and so on. It only covers material that is legitimately pornographic in nature and without educational value.

Sauce: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1470
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity

It is worth noting, that this does require "knowingly," thus leaving room for deniability. This is why 18+ sites aren't taken down when minors are found viewing them. If the site makes it clear that it's of an adult nature, then it falls onto the parents to be monitoring for that material. Equally, someone posting their own images is also not liable if they did not deliberately send them to a minor. This again is why adult performers can use sites like Twitter and not be in violation of the law.


----------



## Viri (Sep 19, 2022)

Damn it, they found us out! I guess I'll have to wait a few more decades before I can start gassing people I don't like, while demanding parts of Canada become part of Greater America!


----------



## Delerious (Sep 19, 2022)

Whether it's Tea Party whack-jobs or "Stop the Steal", the Republican party is just one big shit-show right now. Funny how it goes with political parties in the U.S. - both sides like to play the censorship game and claim to be for "freedom," but they are only for "freedom" so long as it fits in their own little box. I really hope that the younger generation has the brains and the genitals to not just blindly vote for the popular choice. Party Democrats think they can do no wrong, and are all too ready to make one excuse after another while claiming moral superiority, and Party Republicans are too busy reading the Old Testament and sniffing their own farts to want to try anything new.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 19, 2022)

Delerious said:


> Whether it's Tea Party whack-jobs or "Stop the Steal", the Republican party is just one big shit-show right now. Funny how it goes with political parties in the U.S. - both sides like to play the censorship game and claim to be for "freedom," but they are only for "freedom" so long as it fits in their own little box. I really hope that the younger generation has the brains and the genitals to not just blindly vote for the popular choice. Party Democrats think they can do no wrong, and are all too ready to make one excuse after another while claiming moral superiority, and Party Republicans are too busy reading the Old Testament and sniffing their own farts to want to try anything new.


While this is true, I think it's the fault of the cultural polarization of American politics. It feels intentional for sure, because the only fucking alternative parties that come out are psychotic like the Libertarian party, whose beliefs are incoherent at best, and doomed to collapse at worst. At least there's the Green party, but they're so small they've been largely ignored. Give em any traction and in time they'll be having to explain every week how they aren't communist baby eating pedophiles just because they don't think mistranslated faith texts should run the government.

American politics are genuinely fucked, because all of the parties are fucking insane. Because the only thing you have to run against is gridlocked insanity, either you yourself have to play by the asylum's rules, or you get forgotten.


----------



## jordash25 (Sep 19, 2022)

Luke 11:17
But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 19, 2022)

Hitler just wanted a scape goat. People that loose always blames someone else. 

Meta out!!


----------



## tabzer (Sep 19, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Hitler just wanted a scape goat. People that loose always blames someone else.
> 
> Meta out!!



Politics is the only place where losers can win.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 19, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Politics is the only place where losers can win.


Damm that's so Meta. Never thought of it like that.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 19, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> You avoided everything in my post and changed the subject. Address my fucking comment properly, changing the subject and creating a strawman only makes your points look far more stupid


Your comment, which was a response to my comment, that you didn't really address anything in it, is not worth replying too. Curse and cry more. Maybe stomp your feet too.


The Catboy said:


> Those are a lot of buzzwords for literally nothing of substance said.


Address my fucking comment, reeeeeeee!!!

Cry more, Catboy


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 19, 2022)

Nightwish said:


> Not only is that nonsense, but, last I checked, kids have found a way to see, and often enough do, "worse" well before the internet, with only adults being able to explain consent, the difference between love and lust, that pregnancy could be a result, and all the rest of it.


What part is nonsense?


Nightwish said:


> Speaking of consent, not only are closer connections more often the problem, they need to know it's not ok and that they have plenty of people to complain or report to. Don't forget it's an age of rebelling against, or at least ignoring, your parents even if they're the best in the world.


Are we in an age where teachers rebel against, or at least ignore, their students' parents? The people who pay their salaries?


Nightwish said:


> You can't protect "kids" by hiding the world from them and expect them to be adults overnight at 18. When you can, there's plenty who fail harder after because they are not prepared to be adults. Thakfully, they're more capable than you think when you respect their capabilities.


Kindergartners do not need to know their teacher's sexuality to succeed at life as an adult. Why does the left insist on sexualizing kids? I refuse to believe that ever single leftist supports this. If they do, we have a bigger problem than we do with the Catholic Church.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 19, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Actually, 18 U.S. Code § 1470 - Transfer of obscene material to minors
> 
> So the law more or less states that knowingly sending inappropriate material to a minor under 16, is a crime. Of course, this does not cover education material nor education on sexual acts, sexuality, safe sex, and so on. It only covers material that is legitimately pornographic in nature and without educational value.
> 
> ...


This is the best comment I've read on this site. Thank you.

Oddly enough, Twitter is getting into trouble for hosting child porn and doing nothing about it, even when told that it is there by the people being abused. Facebook will be in the same boat. We'll see how that plays out.


----------



## City (Sep 19, 2022)

> Glorifying Adolf Hitler by using his image on postcards, posters, and in the press;
> Spreading negative images and ideas about Jews in magazines, films, cartoons, and other media;
> Making radios more affordable so that more Germans could listen to Nazi ideas and news;
> Broadcasting Nazi speeches on the radio and public loudspeakers;
> ...


 - You mean like Obama was paraded on websites like Reddit when Trump won? Or how there are subreddits about certain political figures like "/r/murderedbyaoc"?
- You mean like the constant smear campaign for anyone thinking about voting Trump by claiming dubious "research" about their intelligence/alleged crimes?
- You mean like the obama phone?
- You mean like /r/politics?
- You mean like literally any party rallies?
- You mean like antiwork?


Damn, everyone in the US is literally Hitler. Who would've thought.

I usually don't comment shit like this, but it's always funny and somewhat concerning that the current loudest side of the american political party talks a lot of shit as if they aren't the same thing. I say somewhat concerning because, unfortunately, american shit is starting to flood in European politics.

Also I don't give a shit about "B-BUT THEY ARE DOING X". You're constantly demonizing millions of people because they don't align perfectly with your own views. It's disgusting. I've seen gay people supporting palestine "to own the right". You both suck. Spend less time talking out of your ass and actually weed out people believing awful shit rather than letting them in because "they make bigger numbers". A pro-choice person that doesn't condemn those who want to legalize abortions for healthy fetuses past the 6th months is a monster just like those who believe so.


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 19, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> 1) That one story happened to be in a high school, which is also filled with kids. Last I checked, it is illegal to show kids porn, but the left likes to get their rocks of talking to minors about sex. There's a word to describe people like that.
> 
> 2) So one page of oral sex is ok, but three pages is too much? Is this your argument?
> 
> ...


1) You pretty much say you don't see a difference between a teenager and a toddler. If that's your stance, you're beyond help

2) I'm saying i don't follow why one page automatically makes it porn. 

3) so there are prudish parents... And so? They should educate themselves rather than stifle their kids' education. Let alone brand it as porn. 
Beside... Weren't you just arguing against sex education by schools one paragraph earlier? What's your point here? "teachers should teach children all they need to kno... NO, not by books!" 

4) please learn about logic before trying to put words in my mouth. 

5) please read what i wrote, not what you think i wrote. I'm not responsible for your logical fallacies.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 19, 2022)

Taleweaver said:


> 1) You pretty much say you don't see a difference between a teenager and a toddler. If that's your stance, you're beyond help


From the perspective of the law, they are both minors, so...


Taleweaver said:


> 2) I'm saying i don't follow why one page automatically makes it porn.


How many pages of oral sex does it take to make it porn?


Taleweaver said:


> 3) so there are prudish parents... And so? They should educate themselves rather than stifle their kids' education. Let alone brand it as porn.


So the parents should change how they raise their own kids. The kids they support and nurture. The kids that you don't support or nurture, but want a say in how they are raised. Wow, dude. That's some power trip you're on.


Taleweaver said:


> Beside... Weren't you just arguing against sex education by schools one paragraph earlier? What's your point here? "teachers should teach children all they need to kno... NO, not by books!"


Teachers have become incapable of being trusted to teach sex education now. Many are being arrested for child sexual abuse.


Taleweaver said:


> 4) please learn about logic before trying to put words in my mouth.


Amazing how often it's done to me and I'm just supposed to take it, but when I turn it around on others, you all get offended.


Taleweaver said:


> 5) please read what i wrote, not what you think i wrote. I'm not responsible for your logical fallacies.


You are arguing in defense of talking to minors about sex. I say it's kinda sick how the left is fighting really hard to do this. I see videos of teachers talking about how they get around the rules and makes sure the kids don't tell their parents while at the same time, teachers are getting arrested for child sexual abuse. I can put 2 and 2 together.

Question: Would you leave your child alone with a Catholic priest who you observed talking to the alter boys about sex?


----------



## erikas (Sep 19, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> There's a semi interesting aspect that I want to go ahead and talk about. Just a notice of two similar things.
> 
> 
> Hitler became Hilter because he believed that the Jews were suppressing him and the German race. It happened to be that he got his information from a small "newspaper" business that primarily focused on anti Semite rehetroic.
> ...


Leftists have broken every possible principle, that was supposed to protect civilized discussion and then act surprised when right wingers no longer want to apply those principles either. Also here's a medal for invoking Godwin's law before you even say who your opposition is, that is sure to lead to a civilized and productive conversation.


----------



## Nightwish (Sep 19, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> What part is nonsense?


Both. Sure, some things are technically illegal is some vague ways in some places, but that is some enticement fantasy land. And there are certainly kicks from education, but really not sexual; certainly not compared to controlling what people do and know.


TraderPatTX said:


> Are we in an age where teachers rebel against, or at least ignore, their students' parents?


Seriously? Teenagers, man. You know, sneaking out, drinking, smoking, getting home not wanting to talk, teenagers. Teachers helping them deal with it, you know, like they were trained to do, sounds good. Unless fantasy land.



TraderPatTX said:


> Kindergartners do not need to know their teacher's sexuality to succeed at life as an adult.


They wouldn't understand it if you tried. WTF does that have to do with high school level books?

Libs like their fantasy lands too, and f Biden, but you take it to a whole new level where there's no way advanced society could possibly have been created. Everything's always an existential threat.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 19, 2022)

Nightwish said:


> Both. Sure, some things are technically illegal is some vague ways in some places, but that is some enticement fantasy land. And there are certainly kicks from education, but really not sexual; certainly not compared to controlling what people do and know.
> 
> Seriously? Teenagers, man. You know, sneaking out, drinking, smoking, getting home not wanting to talk, teenagers. Teachers helping them deal with it, you know, like they were trained to do, sounds good. Unless fantasy land.


Teachers are not counselors or psychologists. That's actually why they have counselors in every school, you know, because teachers are not trained to do that particular job.


Nightwish said:


> They wouldn't understand it if you tried. WTF does that have to do with high school level books?


Except this material is pushed on younger and younger kids.


Nightwish said:


> Libs like their fantasy lands too, and f Biden, but you take it to a whole new level where there's no way advanced society could possibly have been created. Everything's always an existential threat.


Not sure if you saw, but "President" Sponge-Brains Shits-Pants just called me and 75 million people an existential threat. I'm just a guy on the internet pointing out things I see and talking about it.


----------



## CoolMe (Sep 19, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Hitler just wanted a scape goat. People that loose always blames someone else.
> 
> Meta out!!


There's no suppression in the Metaverse..


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 19, 2022)

erikas said:


> Leftists have broken every possible principle, that was supposed to protect civilized discussion and then act surprised when right wingers no longer want to apply those principles either. Also here's a medal for invoking Godwin's law before you even say who your opposition is, that is sure to lead to a civilized and productive conversation.


No they didn't, you're just using them as a scapegoat for the fact you think society can be improved by disenfranchising people arbitrarily.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 19, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Your comment, which was a response to my comment, that you didn't really address anything in it, is not worth replying too. Curse and cry more. Maybe stomp your feet too.
> 
> Address my fucking comment, reeeeeeee!!!
> 
> Cry more, Catboy


So let’s break this down.
-you posted nonsense that randomly connected the LGBT+ existing to reason for teacher’s sexually abusing students
-you connected sex education to also be a reason
-when your post was called out for being shit, you addressed a grand total of zero parts of that post
-you then proceeded to act like a child
You don’t deserved respect and I eagerly wait for the day the staff finally gets tired of you.


TraderPatTX said:


> This is the best comment I've read on this site. Thank you.
> 
> Oddly enough, Twitter is getting into trouble for hosting child porn and doing nothing about it, even when told that it is there by the people being abused. Facebook will be in the same boat. We'll see how that plays out.


That has nothing to do with my post nor the law cited. The law cited was about knowingly showing minors adult material. It was not about CP nor the issues around websites failing to protect minors. Once again, you’ve changed the topic. Why aren’t you able to keep on topic with any of the replies to your posts?


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 19, 2022)

Free reminder that Godwin, the dude that invented Godwin's law, is in favor of calling the far right in the US Nazis. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and throws Sieg Heils like a duck it's probably a MAGA Nazi.


----------



## Randqalan (Sep 19, 2022)

Delerious said:


> Whether it's Tea Party whack-jobs or "Stop the Steal", the Republican party is just one big shit-show right now. Funny how it goes with political parties in the U.S. - both sides like to play the censorship game and claim to be for "freedom," but they are only for "freedom" so long as it fits in their own little box. I really hope that the younger generation has the brains and the genitals to not just blindly vote for the popular choice. Party Democrats think they can do no wrong, and are all too ready to make one excuse after another while claiming moral superiority, and Party Republicans are too busy reading the Old Testament and sniffing their own farts to want to try anything new.


Hell yeah my thoughts exactly but I am an old fart myself.


----------



## Randqalan (Sep 20, 2022)

jordash25 said:


> Luke 11:17
> But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.


Ok I don't believe bib stuff but common sense is correct so drop the older than crap stuff. We are devided because we chose to be and our government has devided. Only cure really is both dem rep reel people to stop hate and tell theses billionaires that don't give a damn to stop. Just like the slave rebellion but all raceses this time not just what ever you want to be called Mexican African English decent Asian decent African America ect. We all are supposed to be Human (being, relating to, or belonging to a person or to people as opposed to animals) I say for me enough of the mental games by politicians. Really anyone really think they want what the people really want. Greed fame drives them. I will digress maybe a few that are really not recognized my want what we the majority want but congress senet president and mist states rep only want $ and power over there slaves and that is not just Black and Hispanic.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 20, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> Free reminder that Godwin, the dude that invented Godwin's law, is in favor of calling the far right in the US Nazis. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and throws Sieg Heils like a duck it's probably a MAGA Nazi.



Does someone think Godwin wouldn't be subject to his own law?

The German Nazis vs the MAGA Nazis.

Let the healing begin.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Sep 20, 2022)

the GQP is an advocate for free (hate) speech


----------



## jordash25 (Sep 20, 2022)

Randqalan said:


> Ok I don't believe bib stuff but common sense is correct so drop the older than crap stuff. We are devided because we chose to be and our government has devided. Only cure really is both dem rep reel people to stop hate and tell theses billionaires that don't give a damn to stop. Just like the slave rebellion but all raceses this time not just what ever you want to be called Mexican African English decent Asian decent African America ect. We all are supposed to be Human (being, relating to, or belonging to a person or to people as opposed to animals) I say for me enough of the mental games by politicians. Really anyone really think they want what the people really want. Greed fame drives them. I will digress maybe a few that are really not recognized my want what we the majority want but congress senet president and mist states rep only want $ and power over there slaves and that is not just Black and Hispanic.


2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 20, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> So let’s break this down.
> -you posted nonsense that randomly connected the LGBT+ existing to reason for teacher’s sexually abusing students
> -you connected sex education to also be a reason
> -when your post was called out for being shit, you addressed a grand total of zero parts of that post
> ...


When literally every video posted by a teacher admits they are LGBT and they are bragging about keeping things away from parents, what other conclusion could be reached?

I'm not looking for your respect. Keep eagerly waiting. I'm not breaking any rules.


The Catboy said:


> That has nothing to do with my post nor the law cited. The law cited was about knowingly showing minors adult material. It was not about CP nor the issues around websites failing to protect minors. Once again, you’ve changed the topic. Why aren’t you able to keep on topic with any of the replies to your posts?


I was just impressed that you were able to share the actual law. You can't even take a compliment. How sad it must be to be you.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 20, 2022)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> the GQP is an advocate for free (hate) speech


The left thinks everything they disagree with is "hate" speech. That's why it should be protected because sooner or later, something you say will be considered "hate" speech. I would really hate it if your freedom of speech was impeded in any way just like you should hate it if my freedom of speech was impeded in any way.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 20, 2022)

erikas said:


> Leftists have broken every possible principle, that was supposed to protect civilized discussion


You can't have civilized discussion with people who think that another group of people are inferior.(removing women's rights. Treating all trans people like garbage by default, rather than by individual case by case.) Makes it fundamentally impossible to have "civilized discission" (because you would need to on a human level at least respect the other side. But you do not) and it's not like we didn't try to have a civilized discussion. But again, that goes out the window once your side starts trying to a specific group of people hunt people down and actively harm them because your politics told you to do so, and saying that they are lesser. That they shouldn't exist. That they are sin or evil or whatever excuse you want to make up


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 20, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Does someone think Godwin wouldn't be subject to his own law?
> 
> The German Nazis vs the MAGA Nazis.
> 
> Let the healing begin.


I fully agree, and I would highly suggest the US approved style of healing they applied to post-war Germany: Complete denazification of every government institution.

Any person that supported nazi groups, nazi propaganda, or similar will be removed from their offices and blacklisted for life, doesn't matter what branch of the government they're in, similar for subcontractors. Extensive jail time for supporters of those groups would also be a possibility.

Imagine the healing that could be done if suddenly no more proud boy members were in the police forces, or politicians that support such domestic terrorist groups weren't allowed to be politicians again, or judges that were placed by such politicians weren't allowed to practice anymore.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 20, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Point out where the "right-wing" is targeting pro-LGBT books. You make it sound like they are wanting them banned from all of society when in reality, they are wanting them removed from school libraries where they do not belong as they show pornographic images in them including oral sex. I for one, would be very upset if other adults were talking to my daughters about sexual acts and revealing their sexuality to them in the classroom. That is sick behavior to want to talk about sex to prepubescent kids. Parents are the ultimate authority over their own kids, not the government and definitely not the teachers unions. It's no wonder that hundreds of teachers and school staff have been indicted for having sexual relations with students this year alone.
> 
> https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/135-teachers-charged-child-sex-crimes-this-year-alone
> 
> ...


You are conflating the sources here.
As if all of these criminals are somehow pro-LGBT and if somehow that were true it would mean LGBT people are grooming on mass. 
The question is how to vet books so they’re in the rights hands at the right time and with parental consent.
In my opinion sex education is incredibly important. 
I just don't have the education and wisdom to know what's best. I know where I stop and others begin.
But I am sure that you and every idiot parent in America will know exactly whats better without any additional knowledge or experience.  
There is no cult of pedos in the basement of a kids pizza parlor.
Stop looking for one.
Oh and Fuck Off.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 20, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> I fully agree, and I would highly suggest the US approved style of healing they applied to post-war Germany: Complete denazification of every government institution.
> 
> Any person that supported nazi groups, nazi propaganda, or similar will be removed from their offices and blacklisted for life, doesn't matter what branch of the government they're in, similar for subcontractors. Extensive jail time for supporters of those groups would also be a possibility.
> 
> Imagine the healing that could be done if suddenly no more proud boy members were in the police forces, or politicians that support such domestic terrorist groups weren't allowed to be politicians again, or judges that were placed by such politicians weren't allowed to practice anymore.



You are absolutely insane, lol.  You'd sooner be a tyrant than a hero with your aimless pretention of justice.  The amount of contradiction in your idealogy demonstrates why you are unfit to determine policy.  Authoritarianism, despite the political party, leads to the same end.  You derive meaning in having and defeating enemies, real or imagined.

Can't even take what I originally said at face value.  I didn't actually think you and trader were both Nazis, but you took it as an opportunity to ham-fist your manifesto into display.  Sociopathy confirmed.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 20, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You are absolutely insane, lol.  You'd sooner be a tyrant than a hero with your aimless pretention of justice.  The amount of contradiction in your idealogy demonstrates why you are unfit to determine policy.  Authoritarianism, despite the political party, leads to the same end.  You derive meaning in having and defeating enemies, real or imagined.
> 
> Can't even take what I originally said at face value.  I didn't actually think you and trader were both Nazis, but you took it as an opportunity to ham-fist your manifesto into display.  Sociopathy confirmed.


It's not at all a surprise that you don't see the irony in your own words, or how you think I came up with that plan instead of just literally writing down a carbon copy of what the allies have done with Germany's government following the defeat of Nazi Germany. I'm confident you're able to explain how this was a good idea to use on Germany, but is not a good idea to apply to the US government that has been going through a massive shift towards right wing extremism, complete with attempted coup by the same.

Buy hey, if you think I'm a sociopath for trying to keep far right extremism exactly where it belongs than I'll gladly wear that badge. Not that it makes any sense because that has nothing to do with sociopathy, but sure.


----------



## kevin corms (Sep 20, 2022)

In the states they push propaganda by saying the other half of the population is the problem, purposely dividing people.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 20, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> It's not at all a surprise that you don't see the irony in your own words, or how you think I came up with that plan instead of just literally writing down a carbon copy of what the allies have done with Germany's government following the defeat of Nazi Germany. I'm confident you're able to explain how this was a good idea to use on Germany, but is not a good idea to apply to the US government that has been going through a massive shift towards right wing extremism, complete with attempted coup by the same.
> 
> Buy hey, if you think I'm a sociopath for trying to keep far right extremism exactly where it belongs than I'll gladly wear that badge. Not that it makes any sense because that has nothing to do with sociopathy, but sure.



"literally writing down a carbon copy of what the allies have done with Germany's government following the defeat of Nazi Germany".

Before I address the other assumptions in your post, you are going to have to come clean that your "carbon copy" is washing over any semblance of protocol with grey language which allows you to disenfranchise and jail whoever you please.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 20, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> You are conflating the sources here.
> As if all of these criminals are somehow pro-LGBT and if somehow that were true it would mean LGBT people are grooming on mass.
> The question is how to vet books so they’re in the rights hands at the right time and with parental consent.


That used to be easy until the teachers unions decided to keep secrets from parents.


MicroNut99 said:


> In my opinion sex education is incredibly important.
> I just don't have the education and wisdom to know what's best. I know where I stop and others begin.
> But I am sure that you and every idiot parent in America will know exactly whats better without any additional knowledge or experience.


Parents generally know what's best for their kids better than other people. 


MicroNut99 said:


> There is no cult of pedos in the basement of a kids pizza parlor.


We were also told there were no international child sex trafficking rings either. But then we found out about NXIVM, John of God and Jeffrey Epstein.


MicroNut99 said:


> Stop looking for one.
> Oh and Fuck Off.


If you are still mad after 4 hours, please consult your doctor, as you may have a cactus stuck up your rear.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 20, 2022)

tabzer said:


> "literally writing down a carbon copy of what the allies have done with Germany's government following the defeat of Nazi Germany".
> 
> Before I address the other assumptions in your post, you are going to have to come clean that this is washing over any semblance of protocol with grey language which allows you to disenfranchise and jail whoever you please.


Expecting a single paragraph to accurately represent nuances of a decade long process with the involvement of thousands of people is a bit dishonest, isn't it?

I hope I don't have to paste you the definition of literally, too, I know freestyling with linguistic tools doesn't really mesh with you but that's just silly.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 20, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> That used to be easy until the teachers unions decided to keep secrets from parents.


No dude. You are paranoid and making shit up.



TraderPatTX said:


> Parents generally know what's best for their kids better than other people.


Yea ok. Lets just generalize and misrepresent what I said.  Tabzer should be proud.



TraderPatTX said:


> We were also told there were no international child sex trafficking rings either. But then we found out about NXIVM, John of God and Jeffrey Epstein.


Here you go again with the fucking insane pedofile rings as your defense to rescue.



TraderPatTX said:


> If you are still mad after 4 hours, please consult your doctor, as you may have a cactus stuck up your rear.


Nah man, I just like telling you where to go.
Now piss off.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 20, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> Expecting a single paragraph to accurately represent nuances of a decade long process with the involvement of thousands of people is a bit dishonest, isn't it?



I wasn't the one who said it was a literal carbon copy.  Take some responsibility.



RAHelllord said:


> I hope I don't have to paste you the definition of literally, too, I know freestyling with linguistic tools doesn't really mesh with you but that's just silly.



If you want to live life as a hyperbole, that is your call.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 20, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> No dude. You are paranoid and making shit up.


It's in their literature.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...o-keep-gender-transitions-secret-from-parents


MicroNut99 said:


> Yea ok. Lets just generalize and misrepresent what I said.  Tabzer should be proud.


"But I am sure that you and every idiot parent in America will know exactly whats better without any additional knowledge or experience."

This you?


MicroNut99 said:


> Here you go again with the fucking insane pedofile rings as your defense to rescue.


I just proved you wrong and you call me insane. 


MicroNut99 said:


> Nah man, I just like telling you where to go.
> Now piss off.


Stay mad, my friend.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 20, 2022)

kevin corms said:


> In the states they push propaganda by saying the other half of the population is the problem


Alright. I'll bite.
Leftists and moderate right (democrats) to varying levels of sentiments:
Trump is and continues to be bad. He did a coup attempt, has misogynist view on women based on his previous comments about them. Strange comments on his daughter Ivanka that could imply CP or some interoperate degree of liking his daughter, especially considering that he was indeed with epstine, and that his wife left him because of that connection.
These are the reason the two groups don't like Republican/Maga. Let's look at the sub sections a bit more.

Moderate right: We believe that we can fix the problem through voting. We just need to pick democrats. The free market with some adjustments will make it right. This is just a one time problem. Biden is fine.

Essentially moderates still believe in the free market. And that what Trump was, was "crony capitalism"

Center to left barely left leaning(people who like bernie): we need to limit corporations power over people. Create UBI, and tax the rich, and make healthcare free/tax paid. Along with making collage more accessible to the people.

these group of people realize that it's a systematic issue to leveling degrees.

Now let's see what Trump did that perhaps, would of made them upset. and I mean policy.

Trump: _puts people on his staff that are pro corporation in multiple degrees._
You had his previous education staff, which the main head wanted to remove public education outright.
A lot of leftism modern ideals heavily take the mantal of equality. Everyone deserves the right to public education, and higher education. Not out of expectation of a job, but because people genuine interests in those things/subjects.
In a for profit education system, people are going to gamify the system, and look for the most effective strategy, resulting in taking career paths they hate, in subjects they hate, because it pays the most.

You had Obviously the FCC situation, which he had influence over that appointment. An appointment of a Verizon lawyer. So it wasn't surprising that net neutrality was gutted.


You had the fact that he made it even harder to get healthcare, and specifically targeted trans people and barred them from certain kinds of care.
You had the fact he barred trans people from the military. So not only are those that may be trans and poor, have less economic mobility, but even denied an opportunity to make getting to collage more bearable with service.

Oh, and ontop of that, Trump gave tax cuts to the rich, and increased taxes for the rest of us scaling into 2028.

And lots lots more.
https://www.epi.org/publication/50-reasons/

Screwing over migrant workers, to screwing over unions, to reducing OSHA protects, refusing to increase the minimum wage, and lots more.

And that's the tip of the ice berg. Because it's not just Trump. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...gaetz-20-republicans-trafficking/10167082002/
Matt Gaetz voting against stopping human trafficking along with Marjorie Talyor green.

Speaking of Green and her behavior.

her harassing a fucking survivor
Or how about the Equality Act, in which she went on a long a rant saying "Equality Act Will Destroy 'God’s Creation'"
Which the Equality Act is designed to prevent LGBTQ+ people from getting harassed nation wide.
Her denying that Trans people exist at all.

 I'm not going to have another 3 page worth of trans-phobic bullshit again. Scientists have said there is more than two genders. There's two sexes, but not two genders, it's more than that.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/annaka...sts-pride-month-needs-to-end/?sh=685c82e5fcbe
her suggesting that pride month needs to end. Along with making bullshit claims such as
“Probably in about four or five generations, no one will be straight anymore,” Greene said. “Everyone will be either gay or trans or nonconforming or whatever the list of 50 or 60 different options there are.”

which is her trying to scare people into thinking that straight people will not exist. Because it's not the first time that kind of rhetoric has been used. It's been used against left handed people.

"“The right-hand path always signifies the way to righteousness, the left-hand path the path to crime. Thus the left may signify homosexuality, incest, and perversion..." quote is found here

Left handed people rapidly grew in number at first, because the actual static of who was left handed was suppressed. We're living through the exact situation except for gender and gay people. Both of those things have been heavily suppressed in society.

I'm still not done yet. Because if you think "well it's just a now problem"
We can trace the Republican party back to Nixon in it's current form. Because we had a point in time where we did have a proper working education system.
But you want to know what Regan was afraid of
"_“We are in danger of producing an educated proletariat. That’s dynamite! We have to be selective on who we allow to go through higher education.”"_

proletariat means working class. Funny isn't it? Isn't it strange how in the 1960's ish. That collages were "hippies" who were against the veitnam war. But by the time Nixon, and Regan. Collages got rebraned to the idea that not all can enter, but only the ones that are "the most deserving" and becoming a middle class ideal. Shunting out all lower class workers out. And now the Republican party is trying to demonize collages further. It's as if they don't want a educated populous. That they want a select class of people to be able to get there... such as idk.... the top 10%.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 20, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> Yea ok. Lets just generalize and misrepresent what I said. Tabzer should be proud.



You told him "But I am sure that you and every idiot parent in America will know exactly whats better without any additional knowledge or experience."

His disagreement with you isn't worth clutching pearls.  You just look embarrassing.

Also, trying to discourage the investigation of crimes against children isn't a good look.  There is a historical pattern of social elite abusing children and covering up.  You can't even address the fact that it's real in America, and you are still trying to cover it up.  What the fuck is wrong with you?  Best you could do is not say anything.  What you are doing is pro-pedophilia, no doubt.


----------



## sombrerosonic (Sep 20, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> There is no cult of pedos in the basement of a kids pizza parlor.


Reminds of Five nights at Freddy's ngl.


----------



## Ephemeral9 (Sep 20, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Can't go wrong with suppression. but the problem is that it takes so damn long to get the tax stamp to buy a suppressor. And it's fucking 400 dollars and the ATF can't even bother to send it to you till 9 months later. Fuck the feddys


Amazon Fuel Filters. That's all I've got to say about that.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 20, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It's in their literature.
> 
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...o-keep-gender-transitions-secret-from-parents
> 
> ...



JFC. I have to quote myself because neither you or tabzer can read past a few sentences without going into apeshit land.

*"In my opinion sex education is incredibly important.
I just don't have the education and wisdom to know what's best. I know where I stop and others begin.
But I am sure that you and every idiot parent in America will know exactly whats better without any additional knowledge or experience."*

Taking ideas into context is part of critical thinking.
Taking them out is a no faith path to the deep freeze.

The strawman bed has been set.
I think you two asshats are here as influencers.
People who want to conform consensus for some personal gain.
Here to pick apart the smallest of inconsistencies and tear people apart.
That's not truth or justice for anybody.

"Seeking a greater truth for all individual circumstances and how you fit into the puzzle?" 
Doubtful.
These no faith arguments are here for one reason, to start these subjects the same way they end.
Divisive af and stupid as dog shite.

and GFY TraderPatTX
Have a great day!


----------



## tabzer (Sep 20, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> Here to pick apart the smallest of inconsistencies and tear people apart.



Acknowledging they are inconsistencies is at least a step.  Defending them is something I don't understand.  I'm not tearing people apart.  If an ideology is to be sustainable it should have any evidence of an Achilles Heal addressed.  If your sense of identity collapses because of that, it's only a little pain now compared to greater pain later.  You'll be grateful when you grow up.



MicroNut99 said:


> "In my opinion sex education is incredibly important.
> I just don't have the education and wisdom to know what's best. I know where I stop and others begin.
> But I am sure that you and every idiot parent in America will know exactly whats better without any additional knowledge or experience."



The only context this adds is that you think you know better about who should teach kids about sex than their own parents.

Which, btw, gives more meaning to trader's objection.  

Pearl clutching, cope, and denial of elite abuse against children.

Pretty soon you are going to say the quiet part out loud, that "it's the price you are willing to pay to save democracy".


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 20, 2022)

tabzer said:


> "literally writing down a carbon copy of what the allies have done with Germany's government following the defeat of Nazi Germany".
> 
> Before I address the other assumptions in your post, you are going to have to come clean that your "carbon copy" is washing over any semblance of protocol with grey language which allows you to disenfranchise and jail whoever you please.


Careful Tabzer, your mask is slipping off. Try not to let the next words out of your mouth be "But it wasn't 6 million!"


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 20, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I wasn't the one who said it was a literal carbon copy.  Take some responsibility.






I have added some emphasis for you. If you need help with understanding what informal means, or if you have any questions about how this might relate to a politics forum post on a piracy focused website, let me know and I'll try to find a fitting online English course for you.


tabzer said:


> If you want to live life as a hyperbole, that is your call.


I am now a sociopathic hyperbole that is 10x as bad as Hitler.

You people have critical thinking skills that even the best scientists on the planet are unable to measure.


----------



## smf (Sep 20, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> That one story happened to be in a high school, which is also filled with kids. Last I checked, it is illegal to show kids porn, but the left likes to get their rocks of talking to minors about sex. There's a word to describe people like that.


Yep, it's called Right wing.


----------



## erikas (Sep 20, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> You can't have civilized discussion with people who think that another group of people are inferior.(removing women's rights. Treating all trans people like garbage by default, rather than by individual case by case.) Makes it fundamentally impossible to have "civilized discission" (because you would need to on a human level at least respect the other side. But you do not) and it's not like we didn't try to have a civilized discussion. But again, that goes out the window once your side starts trying to a specific group of people hunt people down and actively harm them because your politics told you to do so, and saying that they are lesser. That they shouldn't exist. That they are sin or evil or whatever excuse you want to make up


Have you so much as talk to a right winger? You have a straw man on fire. I consider myself a right winger, and none of what you said describe me. At best its more nuanced, at worst its an outright fabrication. For once, I'm an atheist, I don't operate on concepts like sin.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 20, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Acknowledging they are inconsistencies is at least a step.  Defending them is something I don't understand.  I'm not tearing people apart.  If an ideology is to be sustainable it should have any evidence of an Achilles Heal addressed.  If your sense of identity collapses because of that, it's only a little pain now compared to greater pain later.  You'll be grateful when you grow up.


No you fucking idiot that is not what it means. 
Tearing into me wont help you grow as a person.
Meat freezer.



tabzer said:


> The only context this adds is that you think you know better about who should teach kids about sex than their own parents.


No it does not.* Its my assertion* and if anything we agree with each other here. 
You Stupid fucking Assholes.



tabzer said:


> Which, btw, gives more meaning to trader's objection.
> Pearl clutching, cope, and denial of elite abuse against children.
> Pretty soon you are going to say the quiet part out loud, that "it's the price you are willing to pay to save democracy".


Projection.
Are you so alone in life that you'll continue down paths that only highlight how depraved you are?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 20, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> JFC. I have to quote myself because neither you or tabzer can read past a few sentences without going into apeshit land.
> 
> *"In my opinion sex education is incredibly important.
> I just don't have the education and wisdom to know what's best. I know where I stop and others begin.
> ...


I completely understand that you would not want to participate in debate or read debates on a forum. How dare a couple of guys just waltz in here and spread wrongthink. People might read it and actually, *gasp*, agree with it!!


MicroNut99 said:


> "Seeking a greater truth for all individual circumstances and how you fit into the puzzle?"
> Doubtful.
> These no faith arguments are here for one reason, to start these subjects the same way they end.
> Divisive af and stupid as dog shite.
> ...


You seem really angry. Would you like to talk about it?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 20, 2022)

smf said:


> Yep, it's called Right wing.



Apparently, leftwing school boards are homophobes.

https://news.yahoo.com/speaker-kicked-florida-school-board-013558337.html


----------



## Ericzander (Sep 20, 2022)

As a law-man, suppression is one of my favorite things. 

Officer's squad cam was malfunctioning? Suppress that evidence!
Defendant testified without being read and waiving his rights? Suppress that evidence!
Defendant was pulled over without reasonable suspicion? Suppress that evidence!


----------



## SG854 (Sep 20, 2022)

Ericzander said:


> As a law-man, suppression is one of my favorite things.
> 
> Officer's squad cam was malfunctioning? Suppress that evidence!
> Defendant testified without being read and waiving his rights? Suppress that evidence!
> Defendant was pulled over without reasonable suspicion? Suppress that evidence!


So basically law men are corrupt?


----------



## Ericzander (Sep 20, 2022)

SG854 said:


> So basically law men are corrupt?


Well, yes. And many law-women too. But that's a completely separate issue to loving suppression. The rules of evidence are there to try to ensure a fair trial for all parties in a case or suit.


----------



## smf (Sep 20, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Apparently, leftwing school boards are homophobes.


Do you believe that? You'll need to explain why you think so.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 20, 2022)

Ericzander said:


> Well, yes. And many law-women too. But that's a completely separate issue to loving suppression. The rules of evidence are there to try to ensure a fair trial for all parties in a case or suit.


Lawful and Unlawful suppression

I was looking at the Amber Heard case and had to see what her lawyer had to defend. Defending someone even though you know they are in the wrong. A bit of a moral dilemma with lawyers.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 20, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I completely understand that you would not want to participate in debate or read debates on a forum. How dare a couple of guys just waltz in here and spread wrongthink. People might read it and actually, *gasp*, agree with it!!
> 
> You seem really angry. Would you like to talk about it?


People agree with ignorant bullshit all the time. 
You and others like you reek like authoritarian shit.
After years of war and shit economy its easy to see how.

And you don't debate anything.
This entire thread starts as a troll.

Nothing I've said about my experience in life means shit to you.
Any why should it. 
I am just a stranger on the internet that you can mentally masterbate your diatribe into.
It means nothing because you cannot look  into the faces of those you try to control.

In short, Keep your hands off my wife's pussy. 
It makes her angry and that makes me angry.
Whether it be through your laws or yourself, I support anyone who thinks you have no idea what is really happening.
You want to suppress a human beings rights?
My Family.
Well then come at me bitch.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 20, 2022)

smf said:


> Do you believe that? You'll need to explain why you think so.


I thought the story was self explanatory, but I guess I'll explain it anyway. The parent was reading excerpts from a book that is found in the school library and was kicked out of the school board meeting for being vulgar. If it's too vulgar to be read in front of adults, why isn't it too vulgar for minors to read it?

Either they are Puritans, which I doubt because they allow the book to be in the library in the first place, or they don't like being exposed for who they really are. The G word comes to mind here.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 20, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> People agree with ignorant bullshit all the time.
> You and others like you reek like authoritarian shit.


Explain how it is authoritarian to let the states/voters decide what to do instead of a centralized government by diktat.


MicroNut99 said:


> After years of war and shit economy its easy to see how.


I see you are still upset about the Obama years. I don't blame you. At least we had a few years reprieve from war and a shit economy.


MicroNut99 said:


> And you don't debate anything.
> This entire thread starts as a troll.


It's kinda hard to debate when you call names.


MicroNut99 said:


> Nothing I've said about my experience in life means shit to you.
> Any why should it.
> I am just a stranger on the internet that you can mentally masterbate your diatribe into.
> It means nothing because you cannot look  into the faces of those you try to control.


You're right on a personal level. On a general level, I'm happy that you have the freedom of speech to call me names and to "GFY".


MicroNut99 said:


> In short, Keep your hands off my wife's pussy.
> It makes her angry and that makes me angry.
> Whether it be through your laws or yourself, I support anyone who thinks you have no idea what is really happening.
> You want to suppress a human beings rights?


Name a human right I am advocating suppressing.


MicroNut99 said:


> My Family.
> Well then come at me bitch.
> View attachment 328113


Tough keyboard warrior thinks he has what it takes. Life is not a video game, sport, but you do amuse me somewhat.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 21, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Careful Tabzer, your mask is slipping off. Try not to let the next words out of your mouth be "But it wasn't 6 million!"



My mask is slipping off, huh?  What part of the conversation shouts "holocaust denier" to you?  The suggestion that America was not the world savior and didn't save the world from Nazis?  Keep swallowing your nationalistic propaganda.



RAHelllord said:


> I have added some emphasis for you. If you need help with understanding what informal means, or if you have any questions about how this might relate to a politics forum post on a piracy focused website, let me know and I'll try to find a fitting online English course for you.



You are using words ironically in order to disguise the fact that you agree with me and that what you say shouldn't be taken seriously.  Okay "friend".



RAHelllord said:


> I am now a sociopathic hyperbole that is 10x as bad as Hitler.



You said it.



MicroNut99 said:


> No you fucking idiot that is not what it means.
> Tearing into me wont help you grow as a person.
> Meat freezer.



I'm not here to seek enlightenment by accepting dead-brain logic.  If I see an inconsistency from someone shouting from a soapbox, I'd like to shout back at them.  You wanna-be leaders get mad when someone disagrees with you.  What a trope.



MicroNut99 said:


> No it does not.* Its my assertion* and if anything we agree with each other here.
> You Stupid fucking Assholes.



That can only be true *if *you said the the following statement *unironically*:

*"But I am sure that you and every idiot parent in America will know exactly whats better without any additional knowledge or experience"*

I appreciate you admitting that you aren't more aware than an idiot, if that's the case.



MicroNut99 said:


> Projection.
> Are you so alone in life that you'll continue down paths that only highlight how depraved you are?



The only part that is projection is the prediction.  The sentiment is already there.  Your anger is more important to you than the facts of what you are saying and you have already tried shelving crimes against children just to "own the right".  Can you at least try to be that much self-aware.  

Also, I'm not alone.  I have you.  If you see depravity, it is because I have learned to speak your language.


----------



## smf (Sep 21, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I thought the story was self explanatory, but I guess I'll explain it anyway. The parent was reading excerpts from a book that is found in the school library and was kicked out of the school board meeting for being vulgar. If it's too vulgar to be read in front of adults, why isn't it too vulgar for minors to read it?
> 
> Either they are Puritans, which I doubt because they allow the book to be in the library in the first place, or they don't like being exposed for who they really are. The G word comes to mind here.


You need to explain how that make them homophobes.

For the point you actually made, books in a library can't offend people who aren't reading them, reading from them aloud can offend those listening. You shouldn't take a sealed adult magazine from a store shelf and open it and show it to passers by either.


----------



## smf (Sep 21, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Parents generally know what's best for their kids better than other people.


No, you cannot say that. They assume what they think is best, which is different.

You may or may not agree with them, but they provide no empirical proof that their assumptions are what is best for their kids.

Pro-lifers should believe that society knows better than individual parents how to bring up their children, or there appears to be an inconsistency.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 21, 2022)

smf said:


> No, you cannot say that. They impose what they think is best, which is different.
> 
> You may or may not agree with them, but they provide no empirical proof that their assumptions are what is best for their kids.


It's weird how we're hearing the right say parents generally know what's best, when not even a month ago they were telling us that parents are pushing LGBTQ+ stuff on the kids. Which is it? They need to pick a story and stick with it.


----------



## smf (Sep 21, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> It's weird how we're hearing the right say parents generally know what's best,


Obviously that is only true when they agree with what the parents "know what's best".

I'm surprised tabzer hasn't jumped on this inconsistency.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 21, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> It's weird how we're hearing the right say parents generally know what's best, when not even a month ago they were telling us that parents are pushing LGBTQ+ stuff on the kids. Which is it? They need to pick a story and stick with it.


It is possible for parents to *generally *know what's best, though I'm not sure of that.  It's also possible for the _*minority*_ of LGBTQ+ parents to be grooming kids at the same time.  I'm pretty sure that the majority of kid trauma doesn't come from parents who oust themselves to some sort of branding though.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 21, 2022)

smf said:


> I'm surprised tabzer hasn't jumped on this inconsistency.



You were too quick to reach for the edge.


----------



## smf (Sep 21, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It is possible for parents to *generally *know what's best, though I'm not sure of that.


You're not sure about the vague assertion you are making?

How are you going to objectively evaluate it? I thought that was your thing?



tabzer said:


> I'm pretty sure that the majority of kid trauma doesn't come from parents who oust themselves to some sort of branding though.


That sounds like a non committal cop out, I'm looking forward to seeing the evidence to back it up

Or maybe you meant to say "I want it to be true that the majority..."



tabzer said:


> You were too quick to reach for the edge.


I haven't reached for any edge. What are you talking about?

If you mean that I didn't give you enough time to comment, then the post I replied to was from yesterday and you replied to the thread within an hour but missed this glaring inconsistency. I'd be interested in why, maybe I shamed you into making a comment now?


----------



## tabzer (Sep 21, 2022)

smf said:


> You're not sure about the vague assertion you are making?



I didn't make an assertion that parents know best (generally or otherwise).  Trader did that.  Microsplooge roped me in for commentary.



smf said:


> That sounds like a non committal cop out, I'm looking forward to seeing the evidence to back it up
> 
> Or maybe you meant to say "I want it to be true that the majority..."



You want evidence that LBGTQ+ people don't cause the majority of kid trauma?


----------



## tabzer (Sep 21, 2022)

smf said:


> I haven't reached for any edge. What are you talking about?
> 
> If you mean that I didn't give you enough time to comment, then the post I replied to was from yesterday and you replied to the thread within an hour but missed this glaring inconsistency. I'd be interested in why, maybe I shamed you into making a comment now?



Your response to Laina and my reponse to Laina were about 1 minute apart, whose comment came about 5 minutes prior.

The contradiction was in Laina's juxtaposition without solving for the common denominator.


----------



## smf (Sep 21, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You want evidence that LBGTQ+ people don't cause the majority of kid trauma?


I'm saying you need evidence if you are going to say what the majority is or isn't, or you're just guessing/wishing.



tabzer said:


> I didn't make an assertion that parents know best (generally or otherwise).  Trader did that.  Microsplooge roped me in for commentary.


You asserted that it was possible.



tabzer said:


> It is possible for parents to *generally *know what's best, though I'm not sure of that.


----------



## smf (Sep 21, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Your response to Laina and my reponse to Laina were about 1 minute apart, whose comment came about 5 minutes prior.
> 
> The contradiction was in Laina's juxtaposition without solving for the common denominator.


We both commented on an inconsistency in the post from yesterday, which you missed. I am surprised with your obvious talent for sniffing out inconsistencies in all arguments, that you missed it.

Are you expecting us to point out inconsistencies for you to comment on now?

Or do you just give TraderPatTX a free ride on inconsistencies?


----------



## tabzer (Sep 21, 2022)

smf said:


> I'm saying you need evidence if you are going to say what the majority is or isn't, or you're just guessing/wishing.



I don't need evidence to just to say something.  I'm not interested in trying to convince you that LGBTQ+ people *do not* cause the majority of kid trauma.  I'm perfectly fine with saying "I'm pretty sure that LTBGQ+ people aren't responsible for the majority of kid trauma", be %100 right, withhold evidence, and let you remain upset.



smf said:


> You asserted that it was possible.



I asserted that he disagreed with him, and it was contextually obvious that they both disagreed with each other.

The point I am making now, with Laina and you, is that it possible for two things to be true and not be a contradiction.  If you want to have a philosophical discussion on what "possibility" means, find someone else.



smf said:


> We both commented on an inconsistency in the post from yesterday, which you missed.
> 
> I am surprised with your obvious talent for sniffing out inconsistencies in all arguments, that you missed it.



I can't be expected to, and I don't, call out every inconsistency.

While I do appreciate your confidence in me, it is misguided.



smf said:


> You are expecting us to point out inconsistencies for you now?



If you want me to talk about something in particular, then yes.



smf said:


> Or do you just give TraderPatTX a free ride on inconsistencies?



What did he say that bothered you?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 21, 2022)

smf said:


> You need to explain how that make them homophobes.
> 
> For the point you actually made, books in a library can't offend people who aren't reading them, reading from them aloud can offend those listening. You shouldn't take a sealed adult magazine from a store shelf and open it and show it to passers by either.


So a book that is offensive to be read aloud to adults is in a library in a school with minors. Make it make sense.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 21, 2022)

smf said:


> No, you cannot say that. They assume what they think is best, which is different.
> 
> You may or may not agree with them, but they provide no empirical proof that their assumptions are what is best for their kids.
> 
> Pro-lifers should believe that society knows better than individual parents how to bring up their children, or there appears to be an inconsistency.


I guarantee that I know what's best for my kids more than you do. The left is so controlling, you want to parent other people's kids. Sounds pretty authoritarian to me.


----------



## smf (Sep 21, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I guarantee that I know what's best for my kids more than you do. The left is so controlling, you want to parent other people's kids. Sounds pretty authoritarian to me.


No, you believe you know what's best for them. You are being controlling.

I'm not telling you what to do with your kids, I'm just saying you can't claim you know what's best for them.

It seems it's only authoritarian when you disagree, you love it when state & federal government tell people what to do when you agree with it.



TraderPatTX said:


> So a book that is offensive to be read aloud to adults is in a library in a school with minors. Make it make sense.


It seems there are some very easily triggered adults, yes.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 21, 2022)

smf said:


> No, you believe you know what's best for them. You are being controlling.


Raising kids is all about controlling their behavior. As a parent, it is your job to teach them good behavior and to avoid bad behavior. You obviously are not a parent.


smf said:


> I'm not telling you what to do with your kids, I'm just saying you can't claim you know what's best for them.


Except I can claim that, and I do.


smf said:


> It seems it's only authoritarian when you disagree, you love it when state & federal government tell people what to do when you agree with it.


Provide an example of me "loving when state & federal government tell people what to do".


----------



## smf (Sep 21, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Provide an example of me "loving when state & federal government tell people what to do".


Banning books in schools you don't agree with would be a start.
Then any law that you support.

Where do you stand on abortion?



TraderPatTX said:


> Except I can claim that, and I do.


You can make up whatever delusion you want, sure. That doesn't mean that it "is best for them".

It's impossible for you to know just how much your attitude (which seems really shitty on this thread) is messing them up and what effect that will have over the next few decades. Of course, you will blame them if it all goes wrong anyway, like usual.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 21, 2022)

smf said:


> Banning books in schools you don't agree with would be a start.


So you are ok with minors viewing pornographic material at taxpayer supported libraries. Weird flex.


smf said:


> Then any law that you support.
> 
> Where do you stand on abortion?


Read my comments on the numerous abortion threads in this forum. It's literally all the left loves to talk about.


smf said:


> You can make up whatever delusion you want, sure. That doesn't mean that it "is best for them".


Regardless, it is the parents job to raise kids, not society. We don't live in a commune.


smf said:


> It's impossible for you to know just how much your attitude (which seems really shitty on this thread) is messing them up and what effect that will have over the next few decades. Of course, you will blame them if it all goes wrong anyway, like usual.


Maybe I have "shitty" attitude because the left is advocating exposing minors to pornographic images and literature that gets parents thrown out of school board meetings because it is deemed too vulgar to be shown to adults, but not too vulgar for minors and then hide it from parents because they know the parents will object to it, which they are. You are not mad at me for having a different viewpoint, you are mad at me for exposing the left for who they really are. It's no wonder Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Les Wexner, Peter Nygard, Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby are/were fellow travelers.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 21, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> So you are ok with minors viewing pornographic material at taxpayer supported libraries. Weird flex.


You know, I really enjoy reading how you have to consistently straw man because you have no other good argument. So let me spell it out nice and clear.

Us:"Stop banning lgbtq+ books. The ones you are banning are not pornographic. And the ones you've cited, not only aren't in kidergarden as you so claim or anywhere in the 5-15 age rating, but likely heavily moderated for it's content in libaries if in high schools. It's also not pornagraphic or designed to get the viewer off. excplicit material? sure, the very very tiny few. But it's not like plenty of other non porn books don't have explict material and also allowed in (high) schools that have nothing to do with LGBTQ+'"
You:
"BUUUUUT BUUuT, POOOORN, you wAnT To MakE thEm SeE pORn"
Being LGBTQ+ is not porn. Kissing a romantic partner is not porn. If it was, you'd be screaming about how all the "media (movies, tv, and news)" Depics straight couples kissing each other as porn.

Two gay dudes, hugging because they love each other, is not porn. Two Lesbians kissing is not porn.

Allowing mediums to have such relationships, is not porn. I didn't hear you screaming about old practically every fucking Disney movie brainwashing my kids with straight propaganda, because all the relationships are straight, because the reality is, it's not propaganda, It's part of society, and should be accepted. So we're kindly asking that you do the same, but for relationships that are not explicitly or not explicitly, straight.

If this is the hill you want to die on, be my guest.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 21, 2022)

For fuck sakes, greek statues would be considered porn by your logic because of them being naked af. But discussion of those statues are permitted anyways (I mean for fucksake, we're told that Zeus was a fucking player who took advantage of victims. And that's taught in (high) schools, and all the fuck up shit things he did in Greek mythology. Are we going to count that as porn?)


----------



## JaapDaniels (Sep 21, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> For fuck sakes, greek statues would be considered porn by your logic because of them being naked af. But discussion of those statues are permitted anyways (I mean for fucksake, we're told that Zeus was a fucking player who took advantage of victims. And that's taught in (high) schools, and all the fuck up shit things he did in Greek mythology. Are we going to count that as porn?)


We allready tried censored those those statues once, with leaves... It didn't help the discussion... If you get horny because of such a statue, it's f*cking not the statue you need to change. You'll need a good shrink.
The same goes for all the censoring.
Don't change the world if only you're the problem!


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 21, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> You know, I really enjoy reading how you have to consistently straw man because you have no other good argument. So let me spell it out nice and clear.
> 
> Us:"Stop banning lgbtq+ books. The ones you are banning are not pornographic. And the ones you've cited, not only aren't in kidergarden as you so claim or anywhere in the 5-15 age rating, *but likely heavily moderated* for it's content in libaries if in high schools. It's also not pornagraphic or designed to get the viewer off. excplicit material? sure, the very very tiny few. But it's not like plenty of other non porn books don't have explict material and also allowed in (high) schools that have nothing to do with LGBTQ+'"


I bolded the part where you are assuming something is happening when in reality, it is not.


Nothereed said:


> You:
> "BUUUUUT BUUuT, POOOORN, you wAnT To MakE thEm SeE pORn"
> Being LGBTQ+ is not porn. Kissing a romantic partner is not porn. If it was, you'd be screaming about how all the "media (movies, tv, and news)" Depics straight couples kissing each other as porn.


The example I used showed oral sex. Whether it is same sex or not is not the issue. I have never said anything about kissing. That's your strawman, not mine.


Nothereed said:


> Two gay dudes, hugging because they love each other, is not porn. Two Lesbians kissing is not porn.


But a dude on his knees pleasuring another dude is porn. Once again, I never said anything about hugging. That's your strawman, not mine.


Nothereed said:


> Allowing mediums to have such relationships, is not porn. I didn't hear you screaming about old practically every fucking Disney movie brainwashing my kids with straight propaganda, because all the relationships are straight, because the reality is, it's not propaganda, It's part of society, and should be accepted. So we're kindly asking that you do the same, but for relationships that are not explicitly or not explicitly, straight.
> 
> If this is the hill you want to die on, be my guest.


Show me a Disney movie where a the Little Mermaid is going down on the prince. I'll wait.

I keep being very specific about pointing out the oral sex in the book. I even showed pictures from said book and the best you can come back with is kissing and hugging, which I never mentioned. Don't ever talk to me about strawman again, because you have no idea what the term even means.

If showing pornographic images to minors and not informing parents is your hill to die on, then so be it. According the NYTimes/Sienna poll from a couple of days ago, you are in the vast minority. America doesn't agree with you.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/16/upshot/september-2022-times-siena-poll-crosstabs.html


----------



## smf (Sep 22, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> So you are ok with minors viewing pornographic material at taxpayer supported libraries. Weird flex.


We're not discussing whether I'm ok with it. But the fact you aren't means you support an authoritarian government.

But it's ok, because you agree with it. It's only bad when you disagree with it.



TraderPatTX said:


> Maybe I have "shitty" attitude because the left is advocating exposing minors to pornographic images


No, you believe "the left" is doing it because of your shitty attitude.



TraderPatTX said:


> Read my comments on the numerous abortion threads in this forum. It's literally all the left loves to talk about.


As you aren't prepared to disagree, I'll assume you support the authoritarian stance on preventing abortion.



TraderPatTX said:


> Regardless, it is the parents job to raise kids, not society. We don't live in a commune.


That is a different argument & entirely irrelevant.


----------



## mituzora (Sep 22, 2022)

Good lord, the cringe in this thread...

I've seen several examples of sources quoting right leaning mixed reporting, which shouldn't be considered a great source.

Yes, depicting a blowjob in a school library isn't good, and if you read through your biased reporting, the school wasn't aware of the book and pulled it, but it definitely wasn't geared towards Kindergartners.

as far as the parent knows better than society rule.  that's completely asinine.  ever heard of the phrase that it takes a village to raise a kid?  I've known many MANY parents who have fucked up their kids just because "they knew best."  Hell people who are really close to me are just now learning how to adult because their parents wanted to shelter them as children. Parents definitely don't have the right answers all the time and end up fucking up their kids because they think it's right, but society is wrong.  This is just stupid.

I know plenty of adults who are still dealing with what's a healthy sexual life vs what's not healthy because their parents oppressed speaking about sexuality.  if the parents aren't golng to do it, and you don't want teachers to do their job and teach healthy sex ed, then who is going to?  them?  I don't think so.  I've seen many posts that dudes don't even know how a fucking period works.  that's kinda stupid, don't you think?

banning LGBTQ+ books isn't a good thing by any means.  and if you want to use the sexually explicit arguement, then why do we still have books talking about adultery and everything else?  by your logic,  stuff like the scarlet letter should be banned because it talks about an adulterous relationship.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 22, 2022)

smf said:


> We're not discussing whether I'm ok with it. But the fact you aren't means you support an authoritarian government.


That is your argument? I don't want kids to be exposed to pornographic content, therefore I support an authoritarian government? Now I have to ask. Why do you want kids to be exposed to pornographic content? And why do you think that is freedom?


smf said:


> But it's ok, because you agree with it. It's only bad when you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> No, you believe "the left" is doing it because of your shitty attitude.


I've supplied evidence that school boards provide these books, which are too vulgar to read at a school board meeting to minors. And now because of that, at least in Florida, school boards are flipping. You act like I'm in the minority, when in fact, I am not. Just check out the NYTimes/Sienna poll for more verification.


smf said:


> As you aren't prepared to disagree, I'll assume you support the authoritarian stance on preventing abortion.


I support the right to life for everybody, especially for those who have no voice.


smf said:


> That is a different argument & entirely irrelevant.


It's irrelevant to you because you know it's true. I know you support government cradle to grave control over us, but your utopia will never see the light of day. Americans will not allow the republic to be destroyed by authoritarian leftist control freaks.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 22, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> There's a semi interesting aspect that I want to go ahead and talk about. Just a notice of two similar things.
> 
> 
> Hitler became Hilter because he believed that the Jews were suppressing him and the German race. It happened to be that he got his information from a small "newspaper" business that primarily focused on anti Semite rehetroic.
> ...



yes we are the ones being persecuted thanks.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 22, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> yes we are the ones being persecuted thanks.


By who and what's actually happened?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 22, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> By who and what's actually happened?



well a republican was struck down by a liberal in  a car today after the geriatric who isnt in handcuffs called republicans extremists, not to mentioned be banned from social media 24-7, i mean the list really goes on.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 22, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> well a republican was struck down by a liberal in  a car today after the geriatric who isnt in handcuffs called republicans extremists, not to mentioned be banned from social media 24-7, i mean the list really goes on.


First of all, source to the first claim. I didn't hear about that happening, so I am interested in knowing more.
Second, it could be possible that Republicans are constantly breaking the rules. Considering the vast majority tend to post unhinged shit that's almost always borderline (or even outright) racist, anti-LGBT+, and other shitty mentalities that people are trying to move away from. That being said, that's not really persecution. Violating a TOS and being banned isn't persecution, equally no one is required to provide a platform. A few instances here or there isn't persecution either. This isn't like there are mobs of people dragging Republicans out into the streets and beating them or killing them. No one is making laws that limit or remove the rights of Republicans. Republicans don't have to keep their identities secret from their family for fear of being rejected, assaulted, or thrown out. Having your day mildly inconvenienced or getting banned from social media isn't persecution


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 22, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> First of all, source to the first claim. I didn't hear about that happening, so I am interested in knowing more.
> Second, it could be possible that Republicans are constantly breaking the rules. Considering the vast majority tend to post unhinged shit that's almost always borderline (or even outright) racist, anti-LGBT+, and other shitty mentalities that people are trying to move away from. That being said, that's not really persecution. Violating a TOS and being banned isn't persecution, equally no one is required to provide a platform. A few instances here or there isn't persecution either. This isn't like there are mobs of people dragging Republicans out into the streets and beating them or killing them. No one is making laws that limit or remove the rights of Republicans. Republicans don't have to keep their identities secret from their family for fear of being rejected, assaulted, or thrown out. Having your day mildly inconvenienced or getting banned from social media isn't persecution



well first off, you immediately invalidated yourself when you claimed rascism, next time dont give it away so quickly, secondly, yes being anti lgbt is generally a good idea

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...teenager-after-political-argument/ar-AA125D15 

source from liberal website.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 22, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> well first off, you immediately invalidated yourself when you claimed rascism, next time dont give it away so quickly, secondly, yes being anti lgbt is generally a good idea
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...teenager-after-political-argument/ar-AA125D15
> 
> source from liberal website.


Thanks for the source, I am not a Liberal and don't care who's reporting on the news. I don't just settle with one news site or even the first reporting. 

I am not sure how citing racism invalidates my points considering how often Replicaisn either dog whistles to racists or are part of racist groups. Equally, racists tend to vote Republican in far greater numbers than they do anyone else. Kind of strange that white nationalist groups tend openly support Republicans and how rarely you see Replucians denounce or distance themselves from those groups. 
And why is being anti-LGBT+ a good idea?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 22, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Thanks for the source, I am not a Liberal and don't care who's reporting on the news. I don't just settle with one news site or even the first reporting.
> 
> I am not sure how citing racism invalidates my points considering how often Replicaisn either dog whistles to racists or are part of racist groups. Equally, racists tend to vote Republican in far greater numbers than they do anyone else. Kind of strange that white nationalist groups tend openly support Republicans and how rarely you see Replucians denounce or distance themselves from those groups.
> And why is being anti-LGBT+ a good idea?



ok lets say you were right, you arent, but lets say you were,  isnt that discrimination? assuming an entire party is bad because a few bad apples are in it? after all there are a ton of hispanic and black republicans, are they racist against themselves? similarly, it wasnt all that long ago dems were saying some pretty not cool things to thomas so... yikes.  As far as those groups go, im sure there are some bad people in them, but we know that the media isnt always the most... honest source.

 The reason to be anti LGBT is that the organization is a cult, theres no way around it objectively, its a cult.  I'm a republican or as biden would say, an extremist, and i absolutely 100% think gay people should be allowed to marry, as well as bi and even trans, but the group should be denounced entirely, when they allow children into a drag show, and antifa is there to protect them, i have a source on that if you need it.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 22, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> ok lets say you were right, you arent, but lets say you were,  isnt that discrimination? assuming an entire party is bad because a few bad apples are in it? after all there are a ton of hispanic and black republicans, are they racist against themselves? similarly, it wasnt all that long ago dems were saying some pretty not cool things to thomas so... yikes.  As far as those groups go, im sure there are some bad people in them, but we know that the media isnt always the most... honest source.
> 
> The reason to be anti LGBT is that the organization is a cult, theres no way around it objectively, its a cult.  I'm a republican or as biden would say, an extremist, and i absolutely 100% think gay people should be allowed to marry, as well as bi and even trans, but the group should be denounced entirely, when they allow children into a drag show, and antifa is there to protect them, i have a source on that if you need it.


It's not discrimination to point out that the Republican party has a White Nationist problem. If anything, it should be seen as a problem within the party to weed out the worst to clear their image. It's a problem that Q supporters and White Nationalists have been openly supporting Republicans and Republicans haven't done anything to distance themselves from that. It's also worth noting that dog whistling and gathering support was even a known strategy of the Republican party called the "Southern strategy."

That's just flat-out wrong. There might be some cultish people here and there but you find that with any group of people. Drag queens do not represent the LGBT+ as a whole nor does anything going on with them have support from everyone. People who support anti-fascist political views tend to protect LGBT+ people, as LGBT+ tend to be targeted by Fascists. Antifa isn't some monolith or even an organized group. It's a political stance against Fascist and technically anything who opposes Fascism is holding at least some Antifa viewpoints.
You are talking a lot of buzzwords and a lot of talking points one would get off social media.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 22, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> It's not discrimination to point out that the Republican party has a White Nationist problem. If anything, it should be seen as a problem within the party to weed out the worst to clear their image. It's a problem that Q supporters and White Nationalists have been openly supporting Republicans and Republicans haven't done anything to distance themselves from that. It's also worth noting that dog whistling and gathering support was even a known strategy of the Republican party called the "Southern strategy."
> 
> That's just flat-out wrong. There might be some cultish people here and there but you find that with any group of people. Drag queens do not represent the LGBT+ as a whole nor does anything going on with them have support from everyone. People who support anti-fascist political views tend to protect LGBT+ people, as LGBT+ tend to be targeted by Fascists. Antifa isn't some monolith or even an organized group. It's a political stance against Fascist and technically anything who opposes Fascism is holding at least some Antifa viewpoints.
> You are talking a lot of buzzwords and a lot of talking points one would get off social media.



i dont go on social media, not a democrat, so i cant relate there, how can they be anti fasicm when they are the fascist? that doesnt make any sense.  You may say thats wrong, but when bad apples ruin it for the republicans, cultists ruin it for the LBGTers, sorry


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 22, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Thanks for the source, I am not a Liberal and don't care who's reporting on the news. I don't just settle with one news site or even the first reporting.
> 
> I am not sure how citing racism invalidates my points considering how often Replicaisn either dog whistles to racists or are part of racist groups. Equally, racists tend to vote Republican in far greater numbers than they do anyone else. Kind of strange that white nationalist groups tend openly support Republicans and how rarely you see Replucians denounce or distance themselves from those groups.
> And why is being anti-LGBT+ a good idea?


Trump denounced racist groups many times after Charlottesville. Those denouncements were ignored like they never happened. In fact, Sponge-Brain Shits-Pants just continued the Charlottesville lie recently at his "Unity Summit". There are numerous videos and the transcripts of the speech and the left still lies about "fine people on both sides" hoax.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 22, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> i dont go on social media, not a democrat, so i cant relate there, how can they be anti fasicm when they are the fascist? that doesnt make any sense.  You may say thats wrong, but when bad apples ruin it for the republicans, cultists ruin it for the LBGTers, sorry


I am sorry but do you know what Fascism is? Because it seems like you don't.
And it's not about a few bad apples, your denial doesn't change the reality that Republicans are still dog-whistling to racists, and still don't do shit to distance themselves from White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis who show their support. I hate to break this to you, but the LGBT+ isn't the same as the political parties. People who fall under the umbrella ended up there by happenstance. Someone's existence as an LGBT+ does not mean they have tethered the collective going on of everything else. Political parties are a collective organization and thus should care about the public image of their political ideas, philosophy, beliefs, and appearance. There are too many terrible people claiming to be Republicans and not enough public figures distancing from them. That's bad optics and it's something that should be criticized.  You should be demanding better from the Republican party instead of trying to convince an outsider why they are wrong. Trying to convince me I am wrong is just going to result in a constant back and forth with nothing of value gained.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 22, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I am sorry but do you know what Fascism is? Because it seems like you don't.
> And it's not about a few bad apples, your denial doesn't change the reality that Republicans are still dog-whistling to racists, and still don't do shit to distance themselves from White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis who show their support. I hate to break this to you, but the LGBT+ isn't the same as the political parties. People who fall under the umbrella ended up there by happenstance. Someone's existence as an LGBT+ does not mean they have tethered the collective going on of everything else. Political parties are a collective organization and thus should care about the public image of their political ideas, philosophy, beliefs, and appearance. There are too many terrible people claiming to be Republicans and not enough public figures distancing from them. That's bad optics and it's something that should be criticized.  You should be demanding better from the Republican party instead of trying to convince an outsider why they are wrong. Trying to convince me I am wrong is just going to result in a constant back and forth with nothing of value gained.



wel lyou are right on your last point, but mostly because you dont want your opinion changed, so you wont admit when you are wrong even when you are.  I do know what a fascist is, i dont recognize the post supreme court definition of the term, and i hate to break it to you, the lbgt is worse.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 22, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> wel lyou are right on your last point, but mostly because you dont want your opinion changed, so you wont admit when you are wrong even when you are.  I do know what a fascist is, i dont recognize the post supreme court definition of the term, and i hate to break it to you, the lbgt is worse.


I actually very much want to be proven wrong and want my opinion changed. I openly change my opinion when presented with new or better information on a topic. I don't care what the Supreme defines as Fascism but I do feel like you don't actually know what most of these words mean. Going over to here


lolcatzuru said:


> why shocked, socialism has infected america like a plague for a long time.


You used Socialism but I can tell you don't know what Socialism is. If you did, you would realize that there is no active Socialist movement in American politics. The closest we've seen has been a handful of Centists with some swings into the Left-Wing, which has resulted in very little and often completely gutted policies. That being said, both parties are still deep into the upwards-right end of the spectrum, with Biden not very far behind Trump, only holding moderately socially Liberal views compared to Trump. 


lolcatzuru said:


> how can they be anti fasicm when they are the fascist?


Of course, there's this too, which makes no sense. Antifa would have to hold views like wanting an ultra-nationalist state, social hierarchy, pushing for a stronger military, wanting a single-party system with a dictator at the top, and so many other verities of political beliefs that are overall missing from any sensible person who supports Antifa-views. If that person supports Facistist values, then are not Antifa as they are not anti-fascist. Saying Antifa are fascists is like saying someone is a God-Fearing Atheist. 
This is going to sound rude and I don't mean to but I really think you might actually want to consider spending some time researching these topics. You don't seem to be very well versed in these topics and it's kind of embarrassing.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 22, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I actually very much want to be proven wrong and want my opinion changed. I openly change my opinion when presented with new or better information on a topic. I don't care what the Supreme defines as Fascism but I do feel like you don't actually know what most of these words mean. Going over to here
> 
> You used Socialism but I can tell you don't know what Socialism is. If you did, you would realize that there is no active Socialist movement in American politics. The closest we've seen has been a handful of Centists with some swings into the Left-Wing, which has resulted in very little and often completely gutted policies. That being said, both parties are still deep into the upwards-right end of the spectrum, with Biden not very far behind Trump, only holding moderately socially Liberal views compared to Trump.


Imagine being so far left, that everybody is to the right of you.


The Catboy said:


> Of course, there's this too, which makes no sense. Antifa would have to hold views like wanting an ultra-nationalist state, social hierarchy, pushing for a stronger military, wanting a single-party system with a dictator at the top, and so many other verities of political beliefs that are overall missing from any sensible person who supports Antifa-views. If that person supports Facistist values, then are not Antifa as they are not anti-fascist. Saying Antifa are fascists is like saying someone is a God-Fearing Atheist.
> This is going to sound rude and I don't mean to but I really think you might actually want to consider spending some time researching these topics. You don't seem to be very well versed in these topics and it's kind of embarrassing.


Weird that Antifa utilizes fascist techniques. They are ultra violent, attack peaceful people with differing views, uses terrorism to silence people and rejected the legitimacy of an election. Sometimes a group's name can be a misnomer.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 22, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I actually very much want to be proven wrong and want my opinion changed. I openly change my opinion when presented with new or better information on a topic. I don't care what the Supreme defines as Fascism but I do feel like you don't actually know what most of these words mean. Going over to here
> 
> You used Socialism but I can tell you don't know what Socialism is. If you did, you would realize that there is no active Socialist movement in American politics. The closest we've seen has been a handful of Centists with some swings into the Left-Wing, which has resulted in very little and often completely gutted policies. That being said, both parties are still deep into the upwards-right end of the spectrum, with Biden not very far behind Trump, only holding moderately socially Liberal views compared to Trump.
> 
> ...



well this proves you dont know what fascism means, you are using the wikipedia definition that was made up to support bidennarratives,  an ACTUAL fascist  is "

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." which directly ties to the left.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
"Oppressive, dictatorial control".
All of these things tie in to left wing politics, banning guns, censorship, claiming dissonance is extremism, and support violent groups like blm or antifa to get what you want.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 22, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> well this proves you dont know what fascism means, you are using the wikipedia definition that was made up to support bidennarratives,  an ACTUAL fascist  is "
> 
> A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." which directly ties to the left.
> A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
> ...


You took that from Wikipedia, word for word, and then clumped just flat false statements to it.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 22, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> You took that from Wikipedia, word for word, and then clumped just flat false statements to it.



do you want to know how i know you are lying? because wikipedia defines it as " *ascism* is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2" which is a lie, as hitler was a known leftist/socialist.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 22, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> do you want to know how i know you are lying? because wikipedia defines it as " *ascism* is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2" which is a lie, as hitler was a known leftist/socialist.


My bad, you slightly modified the wording a little, kind of weird that you did that you omitted those parts.
Hitler wasn't a Leftist. He used Leftist talking points and even use Socialism to gain support. He then had every Socialist in the Nazi party killed and proceeded to have Leftists thrown into camps. This is a known Fascist strategy, being false-ally or using popular talking points to gain wider appeal. It's kind of clear that you actually don't know what you are talking about and are literally repeating the same talking points you see floating around on social media and other brain-numbing sites like 4Chan.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 22, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> My bad, you slightly modified the wording a little, kind of weird that you did that you omitted those parts.
> Hitler wasn't a Leftist. He used Leftist talking points and even use Socialism to gain support. He then had every Socialist in the Nazi party killed and proceeded to have Leftists thrown into camps. This is a known Fascist strategy, being false-ally or using popular talking points to gain wider appeal. It's kind of clear that you actually don't know what you are talking about and are literally repeating the same talking points you see floating around on social media and other brain-numbing sites like 4Chan.



well how could i repeating them if i dont go there, i already said that, dont lie, also i didnt omit anything, i posted the real definition first, then the fake definition. Also i dont understand you said he threw leftists into camps.... but he and his team were the leftists.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 22, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, *a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism*." which directly ties to the left.


Hold on. So those socialist, communist leftists, support captalism?
I must of not got the memo. So they support *all* the systems. Capitalism, Communism, Authoritarianism, and Anarchism.
Man it's like clicking all the notes in Dorico

I must of also never got the memo that Leftists like nationalism. Now what party was it that said "make America great again"


----------



## Kotomine Kirei (Sep 22, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> All of these should be bringing very loud bells in your head.



Really, I am getting that from the left, the right, Democrats, Republicans, etc.



Nothereed said:


> Being a free speech " supporter" while simultaneously trying to censor and control.





Nothereed said:


> Then you had all the means of propaganda





Nothereed said:


> That it's leftists, those liberals ruining the world.





Nothereed said:


> Claiming that their opposition supports and likes to suppress free speech. While simultaneously, banning people from saying certain words in schools, and banning books, specifically trans books.





Nothereed said:


> Cartoons about how "how rediclous the 'left' is" painting trump in a good light.



This is basically what a lot of the people supporting Democrats and Republicans have been doing.
Saying we should be able to say what we want, but then saying people should not be able to say certain things, or raising uproars until people who have said those things have had their lives ruined.
Blaming the other side for ruining the world.
Drawing cartoons with ad hominems, gotchas and broad statements criticizing those on the other side, while praising their own side's figures.
Creating other propaganda, acting like they are on the side of the average person even though they are not.

All in all, all of the sides seem to be bad, and I think that this planet is quickly going to hell in a handbasket.
There is a lot of undermining going on, in what I believe is an effort to divide and conquer.
It really feels like a lot of people (but not a majority) are pushing for the world to be controlled by only a single group, and I doubt that group will actually help anyone but the people leading it.

If we all survive until 2050 without ending up under the thumb of an oppressive, worldwide government that does not support freedom or welfare for its citizens, or without that nor being utterly destroyed, I would be amazed.



The Catboy said:


> This is a known Fascist strategy, being false-ally or using popular talking points to gain wider appeal.



That strategy seems to be getting used a lot right now.


----------



## smf (Sep 22, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> All of these things tie in to left wing politics, banning guns, censorship, claiming dissonance is extremism, and support violent groups like blm or antifa to get what you want.


All of these things tie in to right wing politics, banning abortions, censorship, claiming socialism is extremism, support violent groups like proud boys to get what you want.

What you fail to realize is that fascism is unrelated to whether you are left or right, but actually america doesn't have any left wing anyway. It's either far right wing (republicans) or right wing (democrats).

If you look at Biden and think he is left wing, then you're so far right wing that you're standing close to Hitler & Putin


----------



## Lumstar (Sep 22, 2022)

Kotomine Kirei said:


> Really, I am getting that from the left, the right, Democrats, Republicans, etc.
> 
> This is basically what a lot of the people supporting Democrats and Republicans have been doing.
> Saying we should be able to say what we want, but then saying people should not be able to say certain things, or raising uproars until people who have said those things have had their lives ruined.
> ...



Pushing too hard to eradicate things backfires. Mass purges or worse genocides, don't work.

Even though I fervently disagree with most of the Republican platform, banning the label isn't helpful. There's always going to be people who believe in theocracy, oppose lgbt, want to overturn elections...


----------



## smf (Sep 22, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> That is your argument? I don't want kids to be exposed to pornographic content, therefore I support an authoritarian government? Now I have to ask. Why do you want kids to be exposed to pornographic content? And why do you think that is freedom?


You are so blinded by tribalism, that you have not considered my argument. I don't think children should be exposed to pornographic content. Though we may disagree on what constitutes pornographic content, as there are a lot of age appropriate books that the right is triggered over as they normalize same sex relationships despite having no sexual content whatsoever.

My point, that I've made multiple times & you've been unable to comprehend is that when you want to ban something then it's good when someone wants to ban something you disagree with then it's leftist & authoritarian.

This is why your arguments always fail, because you see it as some kind of culture war.



TraderPatTX said:


> Weird that Antifa utilizes fascist techniques.


Is it weird? When you're going up against violent right wing hate groups with guns, you aren't going to be polite.

Trump has lied so much about antifa though, that it's impossible to condemn them for anything as it's probably not true.

Everything you've learned about antifa is corrupted by Trumps right wing fascist lie machine.
It's difficult to tell whether the acts supposedly perpetrated by antifa, are instead just right wing anarchists.

Certainly the majority of rioters on January 6th were not leftist/antifa, despite Trumps lies. He is obviously just trying to throw enough dirt around that nobody can pin anything on him. He belongs in jail.



Kotomine Kirei said:


> All in all, all of the sides seem to be bad, and I think that this planet is quickly going to hell in a handbasket.


It seems like all sides are bad because moderates are drowned out by the extremists.

You only have to look at the right wing nuts on here. They apply their extremist view to you, but expect you to accept their more moderate views. TraderPatTX view that it's authoritarian to take away any rights that he wants, but perfectly ok to take away other peoples rights that they want for example. 

If you try to hold a nuanced conversation about moderate views, they will pick it apart because moderate views are often contradictory. Of course they don't see that their own moderate views are contradictory.

Not everyone is as bad, but these idiots shout the loudest.


----------



## Kotomine Kirei (Sep 22, 2022)

Lumstar said:


> Pushing too hard to eradicate things backfires. Mass purges or worse genocides, don't work.
> 
> Even though I fervently disagree with most of the Republican platform, banning the label isn't helpful. There's always going to be people who believe in theocracy, oppose lgbt, want to overturn elections...



Are you talking about where I said that we might not survive until 2050 without being destroyed?

As for the Republicans, I think that something is wrong with them or at least the part of them often seen in the news, and the same for the Democrats.
Their actions seem very divisive and odd.

It does not seem like it is an issue of there always being people who believe in the things that you mentioned.
Of course, I could be wrong though.


----------



## Kotomine Kirei (Sep 22, 2022)

smf said:


> It seems like all sides are bad because moderates are drowned out by the extremists.
> 
> You only have to look at the right wing nuts on here. They apply their extremist view to you, but expect you to accept their more moderate views. TraderPatTX view that it's authoritarian to take away any rights that he wants, but perfectly ok to take away other peoples rights that they want for example.
> 
> ...



Not too long ago, it seemed like there were far less extreme views on at least the most known sides, or at least, it seemed like they had less clout.

Nowadays, it seems like those with views like that on those sides are trying to greatly change things in very negative, divisive and encroaching ways that are unnecessary, especially when there are more pressing issues that seem to be getting ignored.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 22, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> My bad, you slightly modified the wording a little, kind of weird that you did that you omitted those parts.
> Hitler wasn't a Leftist. He used Leftist talking points and even use Socialism to gain support. He then had every Socialist in the Nazi party killed and proceeded to have Leftists thrown into camps. This is a known Fascist strategy, being false-ally or using popular talking points to gain wider appeal. It's kind of clear that you actually don't know what you are talking about and are literally repeating the same talking points you see floating around on social media and other brain-numbing sites like 4Chan.


Communists and fascists are like Sunni and Shia Muslims. Same core beliefs with minor differences. Communists and fascists are both socialist just like Sunni and Shia are both Muslims.

The current definition for fascism was made up and propagated by the media, just like republicans being stuck with the color red, the terms assault rifle and QAnon, which have zero meaning at all.

For a group who supposedly despises corporations, the left sure does enjoy doing what corporations tell them to do. They also celebrate when the FBI tells corporations to censor people's speech, which is fascism. They may not be nationalists, but nationalism is not the defining characteristic of fascism.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 22, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Hold on. So those socialist, communist leftists, support captalism?
> I must of not got the memo. So they support *all* the systems. Capitalism, Communism, Authoritarianism, and Anarchism.
> Man it's like clicking all the notes in Dorico
> 
> I must of also never got the memo that Leftists like nationalism. Now what party was it that said "make America great again"





the one trying to save america, something the left has no interest in.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 22, 2022)

smf said:


> All of these things tie in to right wing politics, banning abortions, censorship, claiming socialism is extremism, support violent groups like proud boys to get what you want.
> 
> What you fail to realize is that fascism is unrelated to whether you are left or right, but actually america doesn't have any left wing anyway. It's either far right wing (republicans) or right wing (democrats).
> 
> If you look at Biden and think he is left wing, then you're so far right wing that you're standing close to Hitler & Putin



yes, banning all the things that are actually pretty bad. wait a second, is it like a giant circle? hitler was your guy not ours? you can say he was to help your argument, but theres a reason you cant mention him anymore.


----------



## Kotomine Kirei (Sep 23, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> yes, banning all the things that are actually pretty bad.


Abortion is not _that_ bad.
For those who believe that it goes against God, while that is true, if He wants someone to be born, they will be born, and no one can stop His will (Isaiah 14:27, Proverbs 19:21).
It should not be encouraged by believers, but that does not mean that others should not be allowed to do it (1 Peter 2:12, Matthew 5:16, 1 Peter 5:3, Titus 2:7-8).

Censorship is bad, depending on the type.
It can make problems with ignorance worse.

Socialism is often bad.
Despite seeming utopian in purpose, that and communism do not work with the world as it is.
For the former, it removes a driving force and decision-making systems from things.
For the latter, there is a limit to what can be done with the way things work in life (resources are not without limit), and there are always people who will use it as a tool to make their own lives better while almost everyone else suffers in equality.

Violent groups are often bad and supported by both sides.
There is almost always a reliance on violence when words fail (either because they are not convincing, they fall on deaf ears, or they are not logically sound).



smf said:


> america doesn't have any left wing anyway. It's either far right wing (republicans) or right wing (democrats).



The Democrats as they are right now seem to be the closest to being left-wing considering the amount of prominent socialist and communist-supporting politicians in their group.
Not too long ago, they were both somewhat close to being more moderate, but now they are both too far to one side.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 23, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> the one trying to save america, something the left has no interest in.


r/woooosh

Mate. You can't be communist and capitalist at the sametime. Nor can you simultaneously achive a society that is based in authoritarism and anarchism at the exact same time. 

It's like clicking all the note durations in Dorico. I can get my whole note, half note, quarter, eighth twelveth and so on, and apply them all at once to the same note. It's jank. And you sir, are the janky clown with a janky brain.


----------



## SScorpio (Sep 23, 2022)

Kotomine Kirei said:


> Abortion is not _that_ bad.
> For those who believe that it goes against God, while that is true, if He wants someone to be born, they will be born, and no one can stop His will (Isaiah 14:27, Proverbs 19:21).
> It should not be encouraged by believers, but that does not mean that others should not be allowed to do it (1 Peter 2:12, Matthew 5:16, 1 Peter 5:3, Titus 2:7-8).


So God views murder as OK because if someone was supposed to live God would have caused an event that would have saved them? I seem to recall a little rule numero uno, "Thou shall not kill".

I don't recall any stories where people were allowed to murder, rape, or steal but it was OK because they believed an alternative religion.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 23, 2022)

Kotomine Kirei said:


> Abortion is not _that_ bad.
> For those who believe that it goes against God, while that is true, if He wants someone to be born, they will be born, and no one can stop His will (Isaiah 14:27, Proverbs 19:21).
> It should not be encouraged by believers, but that does not mean that others should not be allowed to do it (1 Peter 2:12, Matthew 5:16, 1 Peter 5:3, Titus 2:7-8).
> 
> ...



they were also big into owning people, and yes abortion is bad just to make that clear.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 23, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> r/woooosh
> 
> Mate. You can't be communist and capitalist at the sametime. Nor can you simultaneously achive a society that is based in authoritarism and anarchism at the exact same time.
> 
> It's like clicking all the note durations in Dorico. I can get my whole note, half note, quarter, eighth twelveth and so on, and apply them all at once to the same note. It's jank. And you sir, are the janky clown with a janky brain.



at least im trying to help save the country, you should be grateful.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 23, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Communists and fascists are like Sunni and Shia Muslims. Same core beliefs with minor differences. Communists and fascists are both socialist just like Sunni and Shia are both Muslims.
> 
> The current definition for fascism was made up and propagated by the media, just like republicans being stuck with the color red, the terms assault rifle and QAnon, which have zero meaning at all.
> 
> For a group who supposedly despises corporations, the left sure does enjoy doing what corporations tell them to do. They also celebrate when the FBI tells corporations to censor people's speech, which is fascism. They may not be nationalists, but nationalism is not the defining characteristic of fascism.


The all defining logic of the TraderPatTX.
Let him tell you how you "the media" is lying to you.
Most news last about 2 minutes and the rest is commentary from what ever source your drinking from.

And Stitched this for you:

Communists and fascists are like Catholic and Protestant Christians. Same core beliefs with minor differences. Communists and fascists are both socialist just like Catholic and Protestant are both Christians.

The current definition for fascism was made up and propagated by the media, just like republicans being stuck with the color red, the terms assault rifle and QAnon, which have zero meaning at all.

For a group who supposedly despises corporations, the right sure does enjoy doing what corporations tell them to do. They also celebrate when the FBI tells corporations to censor people's speech, which is fascism. They may not be nationalists, but nationalism is one of the defining characteristics of fascism.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 23, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> So God views murder as OK because if someone was supposed to live God would have caused an event that would have saved them? I seem to recall a little rule numero uno, "Thou shall not kill".
> 
> I don't recall any stories where people were allowed to murder, rape, or steal but it was OK because they believed an alternative religion.



Oh the ignorance. 
There should be more Jewish representation on this thread.


----------



## SScorpio (Sep 23, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> Oh the ignorance.
> There should be more Jewish representation on this thread.


Please enlighten us to how killing other people is fine.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 23, 2022)

Kotomine Kirei said:


> Abortion is not _that_ bad.
> For those who believe that it goes against God, while that is true, if He wants someone to be born, they will be born, and no one can stop His will (Isaiah 14:27, Proverbs 19:21).
> It should not be encouraged by believers, but that does not mean that others should not be allowed to do it (1 Peter 2:12, Matthew 5:16, 1 Peter 5:3, Titus 2:7-8).
> 
> ...



Could be all the unnecessary labeling.
Religious Rights that only consider one religion.
Jewish people clearly have zero representation on this board.
Abortion to save the life of the mother demanded by God. 
And for the love of god I am not here to educate.


----------



## SScorpio (Sep 23, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> Could be all the unnecessary labeling.
> Religious Rights that only consider one religion.
> Jewish people clearly have zero representation on this board.
> Abortion to save the life of the mother demanded by God.
> And for the love of god I am not here to educate.


You do realize the ten commandments are in the Torah and that Moses was a Jewish prophet. And Yahweh gave the commandments to Moses as he was leading the Jewish people out of Egypt escaping Pharoe.

From what I can gather the Jewish view on abortion is:

Under normal circumstances it is forbidden to take the life of an unborn child, and it may be akin to murder (depending on the stage of pregnancy and birth)
As long as the unborn remains a fetus, it does not have a status of personhood equal to its mother, and therefore may be sacrificed to save the life of the mother.
In any case where abortion may be necessary, it is of paramount importance to consult halachic and medical experts as soon as possible.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 23, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> Please enlighten us to how killing other people is fine.



So there are Jewish people who have their own long standing laws.
And I am glad we agree on the narrow margin of this one point.

Now here is mine and I have expressed it several times to this harsh audience.

A long time ago me and my wife had an abortion.
Instead of killing two people, we both went on to create a lot more life.
I don't need to justify this to anyone.
The end has justified the means.

In all the billions of people on the planet and millions here in the US,
there is no way for me to judge what is right for all people in all circumstances.
When it comes to something this important.... that's just imho irrational.


----------



## SScorpio (Sep 23, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> So there are Jewish people who have their own long standing laws.
> And I am glad we agree on the narrow margin of this one point.
> 
> Now here is mine and I have expressed it several times to this harsh audience.
> ...


While your community may be different, very few people are arguing against abortion when there is a danger to the life of the mother. That comes down to a difficult and personal choice.

The debate is on abortion as a matter of convenience.


----------



## Lumstar (Sep 23, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> While your community may be different, very few people are arguing against abortion when there is a danger to the life of the mother. That comes down to a difficult and personal choice.
> 
> The debate is on abortion as a matter of convenience.



I doubt more than a fraction of abortions are truly *elective* (without circumstances such as medical issues or poverty), making it rather irrelevant in practice.

However a mother who is willing to terminate their child for convenience in all likelihood is mentally ill, NOT a criminal.


----------



## SScorpio (Sep 23, 2022)

Lumstar said:


> I doubt more than a fraction of abortions are truly *elective* (without circumstances such as medical issues or poverty), making it rather irrelevant in practice.
> 
> However a mother who is willing to terminate their child for convenience in all likelihood is mentally ill, NOT a criminal.


Did you not see all the celebrities discussing their abortions so they could further their careers? If that's not the definition of convenience, I don't know what is.


----------



## Lumstar (Sep 23, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> Did you not see all the celebrities discussing their abortions so they could further their careers? If that's not the definition of convenience, I don't know what is.



Even if there are instances I'd be disappointed in the decision, it does not mean I endorse or condone any legal restrictions.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 23, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> While your community may be different, very few people are arguing against abortion when there is a danger to the life of the mother. That comes down to a difficult and personal choice.
> 
> The debate is on abortion as a matter of convenience.



"The debate is on abortion as a matter of convenience"
Even though it exists there is plenty of evidence against this notion.
Also to be clear I am not Jewish. 
I am a Buddhist and my religion has just as much relevance as yours or anybody else.
It is also steeped in as much American ignorance as Christianity today.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 23, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> Did you not see all the celebrities discussing their abortions so they could further their careers? If that's not the definition of convenience, I don't know what is.


Its really up to you to provide facts for your argument.

But is this what you meant?
18 Celebrities Who’ve Spoken Out About Having an Abortion​https://www.everydayhealth.com/abortion/celebrities-share-their-abortion-stories/


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 23, 2022)

Lumstar said:


> I doubt more than a fraction of abortions are truly *elective* (without circumstances such as medical issues or poverty), making it rather irrelevant in practice.
> 
> However a mother who is willing to terminate their child for convenience in all likelihood is mentally ill, NOT a criminal.


Probably both.
But there isn't anyway to tell this from afar.
Every circumstance should be evaluated on the ground by the people involved.
Laws should provide greater guidance, 
but if they end up killing innocent people then government overreach has gone too far.


----------



## SScorpio (Sep 23, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> "The debate is on abortion as a matter of convenience"
> Even though it exists there is plenty of evidence against this notion.
> Also to be clear I am not Jewish.
> I am a Buddhist and my religion has just as much relevance as yours or anybody else.
> It is also steeped in as much American ignorance as Christianity today.


So why bring up Jewish representation then?

Also, Buddhism views life as beginning at conception, and the very first precept is to abstain from taking life. And that abortion for any reason generates negative karma as a result. While I can mostly agree with it, I have to say allowing for the safety of the mother should override any negativity.



MicroNut99 said:


> Its really up to you to provide facts for your argument.
> 
> But is this what you meant?
> 18 Celebrities Who’ve Spoken Out About Having an Abortion​https://www.everydayhealth.com/abortion/celebrities-share-their-abortion-stories/


And yes that was some of what I was referencing. And reading through those comments. "I'm one of the 1 out of 4 women in this country". If that number is true I find it really, really had to believe those were all medical issues or the results of rape and the like.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 23, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> So why bring up Jewish representation then?


There isn't enough religious representation in this debate at all.
I am not important enough to speak for millions of people and their specific circumstances.



SScorpio said:


> Also, Buddhism views life as beginning at conception, and the very first precept is to abstain from taking life. And that abortion for any reason generates negative karma as a result. While I can mostly agree with it, I have to say allowing for the safety of the mother should override any negativity.


This is a gracious interpretation. Thank you.



SScorpio said:


> And yes that was some of what I was referencing. And reading through those comments. "I'm one of the 1 out of 4 women in this country". If that number is true I find it really, really had to believe those were all medical issues or the results of rape and the like.


Its just one source from what would be called a "periodical" published in magazines from the past from before the inter-webs.
There are so many more serious sources of information to be found.
Just not broad strokes of guessing about real peoples lives, living in far away places and in circumstances not like our own.
Many of whom we will never know... yet they remain judged unevenly by human laws.


----------



## kevin corms (Sep 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Alright. I'll bite.
> Leftists and moderate right (democrats) to varying levels of sentiments:
> Trump is and continues to be bad. He did a coup attempt, has misogynist view on women based on his previous comments about them. Strange comments on his daughter Ivanka that could imply CP or some interoperate degree of liking his daughter, especially considering that he was indeed with epstine, and that his wife left him because of that connection.
> These are the reason the two groups don't like Republican/Maga. Let's look at the sub sections a bit more.
> ...



This reads like a rant full of gibberish and fallacy arguments to me. I’ll respond with a simple quote “
All things are subject to interpretation; whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power…”​


----------



## Kotomine Kirei (Sep 26, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> So God views murder as OK because if someone was supposed to live God would have caused an event that would have saved them? I seem to recall a little rule numero uno, "Thou shall not kill".
> 
> I don't recall any stories where people were allowed to murder, rape, or steal but it was OK because they believed an alternative religion.



God is obviously against murder (Genesis 9:5-6, Exodus 20:13, Proverbs 6:16-17), and His Son will judge those who do that (John 5:22-23), but even so, if someone dies, it means that it was their time to go (Job 14:5, Ecclesiastes 3:1-2).

Also, while those who do not believe are not exempt from God's law (rather, they are under it even more so), it is not really the place of believers to judge or act on their actions, only to tell them what's right and wrong according to God's Word (2 Timothy 2:25-26), to do what is right and lead by example (Titus 2:7-8), and to not be influenced by those who do not believe (2 Corinthians 6:14-17).

As I cited earlier...
Titus 2:7-8:
"Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us."

In addition...
Titus 3:1-2
"Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people."

Romans 12:16-18:
"Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight.
Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.
If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all."

2 Corinthians 8:21:
"for we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of man."



lolcatzuru said:


> they were also big into owning people, and yes abortion is bad just to make that clear.



Can you rephrase that?
It is difficult to know what part the first part of your sentence is referring to.

As for the second half, I can see that it is bad according to God (humans are made in His image, God plans out someone's life before they are born, etc.), but like I said, if God wants someone to be born, they are going to be born regardless of what humans do.
Moses, Jesus, etc. were going to die without God's intervention, but they did not die because of it.



MicroNut99 said:


> Could be all the unnecessary labeling.
> Religious Rights that only consider one religion.
> Jewish people clearly have zero representation on this board.
> Abortion to save the life of the mother demanded by God.
> And for the love of god I am not here to educate.



The way that I see it is that Judaism has strayed from what is right in regards to Biblical instruction as much as Catholicism has.
Adopting the star of a false god (Amos 5:26), relying on extra-Biblical methods rather than God (Isaiah 8:19, Deuteronomy 18:10-12), etc.



MicroNut99 said:


> Buddhist



Buddhism is in ways similar to what Christianity is to Judaism, but at the same time, it is similar to what Satanism is to Christianity.

Buddhism is basically a new way of looking at Hinduism while also being an extension of it, but it is also looking at it in the opposite way.

In some ways, like Satanism, it has more elements of philosophy than religion, yet keeps the religious parts for a reason that is not very discernible, and for some, it is more religion than philosophy.

Either way, Buddhism does not hold as much water as a religion as Christianity does in my view, though I guess that I am going off on a tangent.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 26, 2022)

Interesting arrangement.  Makes me think.  Thanks.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 26, 2022)

Kotomine Kirei said:


> God is obviously against murder (Genesis 9:5-6, Exodus 20:13, Proverbs 6:16-17), and His Son will judge those who do that (John 5:22-23), but even so, if someone dies, it means that it was their time to go (Job 14:5, Ecclesiastes 3:1-2).
> 
> Also, while those who do not believe are not exempt from God's law (rather, they are under it even more so), it is not really the place of believers to judge or act on their actions, only to tell them what's right and wrong according to God's Word (2 Timothy 2:25-26), to do what is right and lead by example (Titus 2:7-8), and to not be influenced by those who do not believe (2 Corinthians 6:14-17).
> 
> ...



i dont relate it to god at all, yea its nice the big man and his people dont like it, bravo for them, but its also a lack of discipline/ and responsibility that makes me not want it, we already have guns being responsible, not people, the last thing i want is a fetus to be responsible, as it really should've known better.  As far as the first setence, your guys were big into people ownership, around the 1800s, didnt go so well for them fortunately.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 26, 2022)

Kotomine Kirei said:


> Buddhism is in ways similar to what Christianity is to Judaism, but at the same time, it is similar to what Satanism is to Christianity.
> Buddhism is basically a new way of looking at Hinduism while also being an extension of it, but it is also looking at it in the opposite way.
> In some ways, like Satanism, it has more elements of philosophy than religion, yet keeps the religious parts for a reason that is not very discernible, and for some, it is more religion than philosophy.
> Either way, Buddhism does not hold as much water as a religion as Christianity does in my view, though I guess that I am going off on a tangent.





tabzer said:


> Interesting arrangement.  Makes me think.  Thanks.



So you are saying Buddhist are more like Satanist and Christianity is better.
You go Tabzer.... think deep.... grock that one.

Hinduism is arguably the first religion.
Buddhism surfaced about six centuries before Christianity, making it one of the oldest religions still being practiced.
Satanism was born from Christianity.  
Christianity was born from Judaism.

Philosophy is the love of wisdom "and the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language."

I do not see as much Philosophy on this board, as I do ego stamping in the name of whatever your prescription is.
A lot of value signaling and little straight talk.

Back on topic.
*Buddhism strongly discourages abortion except in the situation of an immediate threat to the mother's life*.
Though Buddhism has clearly a "pro-life" position on abortion, the final decision should be left to the pregnant woman.

In our case it was a family decision.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 27, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> So you are saying Buddhist are more like Satanist and Christianity is better.



I am not saying that at all.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I am not saying that at all.


Based on previous conversations 
I don't believe you.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 27, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> well a republican was struck down by a liberal in  a car today after the geriatric who isnt in handcuffs called republicans extremists, not to mentioned be banned from social media 24-7, i mean the list really goes on.


Have you guys tried not saying the n word for fourty seconds on the internet?
Like, I don't lie about shit that could kill people, nor do I say anything racist, and I haven't been banned on twitter ever, except for one time in like 2008 because I was trying to make a shitty PSP app. I don't use Facebook because I'm not fucking 70, so I don't really know (or care) what their policies are like, but I do know that the only reason the right is getting banned off social media is because they keep trying to force companies to let them use their platform to endanger people, and the companies are (rightfully) telling them to fuck off.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 27, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> Based on previous conversations
> I don't believe you.



That's irrelevant to your claim that I said a thing. 

It's false speech on your part, not mine.


----------



## smf (Sep 27, 2022)

Kotomine Kirei said:


> The Democrats as they are right now seem to be the closest to being left-wing considering the amount of prominent socialist and communist-supporting politicians in their group.
> Not too long ago, they were both somewhat close to being more moderate, but now they are both too far to one side.


If you are socialist or communist, then democrats are your only choice because America is very much a 2 party system. But that doesn't make the democrats socialist or communist.

It's like when your friends want to go somewhere that you don't really like, but they are your friends & you compromise.

The idea that socialism is too far to the left, is the problem. Not that socialists exist.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 27, 2022)

smf said:


> If you are socialist or communist, then democrats are your only choice because America is very much a 2 party system. But that doesn't make the democrats socialist or communist.
> 
> It's like when your friends want to go somewhere that you don't really like, but they are your friends & you compromise.
> 
> The idea that socialism is too far to the left, is the problem. Not that socialists exist.


That's the type of thinking that keeps America a 2 party system.  If you think it's a big issue, then you should change it.

If you aren't interested in going only to places that your friends like, find new friends.


----------



## Jayro (Sep 27, 2022)

This will be my profile pic for November, across all platforms.


----------



## MFDC12 (Sep 27, 2022)

smf said:


> If you are socialist or communist, then democrats are your only choice because America is very much a 2 party system. But that doesn't make the democrats socialist or communist.
> 
> It's like when your friends want to go somewhere that you don't really like, but they are your friends & you compromise.
> 
> The idea that socialism is too far to the left, is the problem. Not that socialists exist.


Not really. Most anarcho-[communist/socialists] I know don't vote or they waste their vote - including myself, and to a lesser extent Marxist-Leninists either vote for one of the few communist party candidates, or the accelerationists vote people like trump.


----------



## sombrerosonic (Sep 27, 2022)

Jayro said:


> This will be my profile pic for November, across all platforms.
> 
> View attachment 328955


and this will be mine


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> That's irrelevant to your claim that I said a thing.
> 
> It's false speech on your part, not mine.



If you cannot argue without using religious slurs then you should leave the conversation.


You are a liar... and a bigot.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> That's irrelevant to your claim that I said a thing.


Gaslighting.
You said many things.
All of those religious slurs that you used to mock me were not based on religion?
Something that I threw out there as part of a question about how a person thinks.
Go ahead and swap out any ethnic or race based slurs and its plainly obvious.
Go for it. Use some logic.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 27, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> If you cannot argue without using religious slurs then you should leave the conversation.
> 
> 
> You are a liar... and a bigot.



I'm not lying or being a bigot.  Saying something is interesting is not saying I agree with it, and it is the opposite of being a bigot.

I don't use "religious slurs".



MicroNut99 said:


> More crying.



I simply don't believe you are Buddhist. I have no obligation to. I have high respect for Buddhism. I have high disrespect for your accessorising of it.


----------



## Kotomine Kirei (Sep 28, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> i dont relate it to god at all, yea its nice the big man and his people dont like it, bravo for them, but its also a lack of discipline/ and responsibility that makes me not want it, we already have guns being responsible, not people, the last thing i want is a fetus to be responsible, as it really should've known better.  As far as the first setence, your guys were big into people ownership, around the 1800s, didnt go so well for them fortunately.



If not from a religious point, then I do not see anything wrong with abortion.
It is likely irresponsible in many cases (though there are many where it is not caused by irresponsibility), but why should people suffer from that irresponsibility?
By making it so that people have to bring more people into this world, you are just making things more difficult for everyone.
Mental issues for those who will likely end up being unloved or abandoned (the odds of being adopted by a loving family do not seem to be very high).
Baggage to the person who did not want to be a parent (even if they have someone adopt them, they have to go through a lot more than they otherwise would have).
An increased burden on people (who have to try to heal more mental wounds) and on the resources available on this planet.
etc.

As for your second point, that has been an issue in the world for a very long time, before even Judaism.
Believers, or those so-called, might have justified their actions through their supposed beliefs, but more often than not, their actions did not jibe with what they claimed to believe in.



MicroNut99 said:


> So you are saying Buddhist are more like Satanist and Christianity is better.
> You go Tabzer.... think deep.... grock that one.
> 
> Hinduism is arguably the first religion.
> ...



For what I was saying, part of my point was that Buddhism seems like its roots in relation to Hinduism are not nearly as strong as Christianity's are in relation to Judaism.
While Christianity mostly affirms Judaism, Buddhism goes against Hinduism.
Hence my comment that it is closer to Satanism, which is opposed to Christianity, than it is to Christianity, which is not opposed to Judaism.

Regarding Hinduism being the first religion, I cannot say whether it is or not as there were likely even earlier religions than it, but I do not doubt that it is one of the more popular religions that arose early on.



smf said:


> If you are socialist or communist, then democrats are your only choice because America is very much a 2 party system. But that doesn't make the democrats socialist or communist.
> 
> It's like when your friends want to go somewhere that you don't really like, but they are your friends & you compromise.
> 
> The idea that socialism is too far to the left, is the problem. Not that socialists exist.



At this point, the Democrats are quite close to being socialist or communist for the reason that you mentioned.
If a large or influential part of a group is one thing, then that is what that group is.


----------



## smf (Sep 28, 2022)

Kotomine Kirei said:


> At this point, the Democrats are quite close to being socialist or communist for the reason that you mentioned.
> If a large or influential part of a group is one thing, then that is what that group is.


I'm not sure which of the influential parts of the Democrats you think is close to being socialist or communist.

Could you give some examples?


----------



## smf (Sep 28, 2022)

MFDC12 said:


> Not really. Most anarcho-[communist/socialists] I know don't vote or they waste their vote - including myself, and to a lesser extent Marxist-Leninists either vote for one of the few communist party candidates, or the accelerationists vote people like trump.


I was talking about people who understand voting and cause and effect.

Anarchists are just having tantrums


----------



## Kotomine Kirei (Sep 28, 2022)

smf said:


> I'm not sure which of the influential parts of the Democrats you think is close to being socialist or communist.
> 
> Could you give some examples?



My memory is not great, but for popular politicians, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I have also seen quite a few Democrats on the news and in forums supporting socialist and communist ideas if not outright socialism and communism, often because they think that those would be better than capitalism.
To add to that, a lot of news writers who are Democrat seem to write more socialist and communist-supporting articles with a favorable view, while quite a few Democrat celebrities have been or still are supporting such things.


----------



## sombrerosonic (Sep 28, 2022)

Kotomine Kirei said:


> My memory is not great, but for popular politicians, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
> I have also seen quite a few Democrats on the news and in forums supporting socialist and communist ideas if not outright socialism and communism, often because they think that those would be better than capitalism.
> To add to that, a lot of news writers who are Democrat seem to write more socialist and communist-supporting articles with a favorable view, while quite a few Democrat celebrities have been or still are supporting such things.


Hasn't Communism failed several times without capitalistic parts put back into it


----------



## Kotomine Kirei (Sep 28, 2022)

sombrerosonic said:


> Hasn't Communism failed several times without capitalistic parts put back into it



I think so.
It has also been used as a way to incorporate a tyrannical government quite a few times.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 28, 2022)

Kotomine Kirei said:


> If not from a religious point, then I do not see anything wrong with abortion.
> It is likely irresponsible in many cases (though there are many where it is not caused by irresponsibility), but why should people suffer from that irresponsibility?
> By making it so that people have to bring more people into this world, you are just making things more difficult for everyone.
> Mental issues for those who will likely end up being unloved or abandoned (the odds of being adopted by a loving family do not seem to be very high).
> ...


This is a lot of guessing when there is much information about real people. 
And yea the planet and its wildlife are really taking hard. 
If we manage to to wipe ourselves out then.... the planet goes on... just like its been for a very long time.



Kotomine Kirei said:


> As for your second point, that has been an issue in the world for a very long time, before even Judaism.
> Believers, or those so-called, might have justified their actions through their supposed beliefs, but more often than not, their actions did not jibe with what they claimed to believe in.


I am sure people do things against their better selves all the time.
But this statement seems judgmental and much imagination. 



Kotomine Kirei said:


> For what I was saying, part of my point was that Buddhism seems like its roots in relation to Hinduism are not nearly as strong as Christianity's are in relation to Judaism.
> While Christianity mostly affirms Judaism, Buddhism goes against Hinduism.
> Hence my comment that it is closer to Satanism, which is opposed to Christianity, than it is to Christianity, which is not opposed to Judaism.


Christians might say there is nuance between Satanism and Buddhism.
I really don't know and I am not going to guess. Better to talk to these people. 
Open a dialog, and see how they really feel.



Kotomine Kirei said:


> Regarding Hinduism being the first religion, I cannot say whether it is or not as there were likely even earlier religions than it, but I do not doubt that it is one of the more popular religions that arose early on.


Well you don't have to guess. Go to school and take some classes on religion.



Kotomine Kirei said:


> At this point, the Democrats are quite close to being socialist or communist for the reason that you mentioned.
> If a large or influential part of a group is one thing, then that is what that group is.


Yes. Maybe socialist but definitely not communist.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 28, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I have high respect for Buddhism.


Then why did you say the things you did when you could have mocked me in any other way.
You've had your Mel Gibson moment.
Time to reflect and move on.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 28, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Have you guys tried not saying the n word for fourty seconds on the internet?
> Like, I don't lie about shit that could kill people, nor do I say anything racist, and I haven't been banned on twitter ever, except for one time in like 2008 because I was trying to make a shitty PSP app. I don't use Facebook because I'm not fucking 70, so I don't really know (or care) what their policies are like, but I do know that the only reason the right is getting banned off social media is because they keep trying to force companies to let them use their platform to endanger people, and the companies are (rightfully) telling them to fuck off.



you guys first, did your people just do that for certain supreme court justice?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 28, 2022)

Kotomine Kirei said:


> If not from a religious point, then I do not see anything wrong with abortion.
> It is likely irresponsible in many cases (though there are many where it is not caused by irresponsibility), but why should people suffer from that irresponsibility?
> By making it so that people have to bring more people into this world, you are just making things more difficult for everyone.
> Mental issues for those who will likely end up being unloved or abandoned (the odds of being adopted by a loving family do not seem to be very high).
> ...



well if you dont think people should suffer from irresponsibility, would you support getting rid of all laws? he if someone shoots someone, sure thats irresponsible, i guess that doesnt mean they should be help responsible for that


----------



## tabzer (Sep 29, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> This whole thing about my religious heritage was blown out of proportion by * YOU.
> I did not pull the religion card. YOU DID.*
> You are reacting exactly like a bigot would.
> 
> ...



Being raised by Buddhists doesn't make you a Buddhist. Growing up in a monastery and being a descendent of Buddha doesn't make you a Buddhist. Buddhism is a willful practice.  You may align yourself with some teachings, but to be Buddhist would be self-representing.  To say "I am a Buddhist", in any context, is shallow posturing.  Just by saying so, *you are *playing the religion card.  Considering how you have already behaved towards me, It does not appear very different from how Republicans generally call themselves Christian.  I like Buddhism, but I don't like your representation.  Not liking your hypocritical representation is not bigoted (or racist).



MicroNut99 said:


> I have never mocked anything but your spineless opinions.
> And when you crossed the line by stating that my families choice on abortion was a community decision....
> Yes... I told you to Fuck Off.
> And by definition I stand by that statement.



Again, without context, "stating that my families choice on abortion was a community decision" means nothing to me.  You are going to have to address it specifically.  Feel free to take that to DM.  Maybe you misunderstood something.  If I don't stand for anything, as you said, then I fail to see how you could be offended by something I said.



MicroNut99 said:


> I don't have to like or respect you.
> I am not accessorizing anything you fucking piece of shit.
> For strait up racism the mods should lock your shit down.
> My language is far less damning than yours.
> *!FUCK YOU!*



I'm not asking you to like or respect me.  I don't even anticipate it.  Your religion card is now a race card.  How did that happen?



MicroNut99 said:


> Then why did you say the things you did when you could have mocked me in any other way.



Because I respect Buddhism, and I see your actions as falsely representing of it. Calling yourself a Buddhist and acting like **you** is another form of false speech.


----------



## smf (Sep 29, 2022)

Kotomine Kirei said:


> My memory is not great, but for popular politicians, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
> I have also seen quite a few Democrats on the news and in forums supporting socialist and communist ideas if not outright socialism and communism, often because they think that those would be better than capitalism.
> To add to that, a lot of news writers who are Democrat seem to write more socialist and communist-supporting articles with a favorable view, while quite a few Democrat celebrities have been or still are supporting such things.



I'm still not convinced this justifies "If a large or influential part of a group is one thing, then that is what that group is."

Are either of those politicians you named influential? They don't seem a large part of the group.

What socialist/communist ideas are you referring to?


----------



## smf (Sep 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> To say "I am a Buddhist", in any context, is shallow posturing.


I think that just shows a lack of your imagination on your part for a context where it is not shallow posturing.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 29, 2022)

smf said:


> I think that just shows a lack of your imagination on your part for a context where it is not shallow posturing.



Give me an example where someone who knows Buddhism is not an identity, but a way of life, would say such a thing.  The point is that using Buddhism as an identity is already shallow per its philosophies.


----------



## smf (Sep 29, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> well if you dont think people should suffer from irresponsibility, would you support getting rid of all laws? he if someone shoots someone, sure thats irresponsible, i guess that doesnt mean they should be help responsible for that


What about prolifers irresponsibility in overturning roe v wade, what punishment can we inflict on them?


----------



## smf (Sep 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Give me an example where someone who knows Buddhism is not an identity, but a way of life, would say such a thing.


Q: Hello, are you a Christian?

A: I am a Buddhist.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 29, 2022)

smf said:


> Q: Hello, are you a Christian?
> 
> A: I am a Buddhist.



Steve Buscemi walks into a bar and meets Steve Buscemi.  Your example hastily ignored the premise of "not an identity".


----------



## Xzi (Sep 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Steve Buscemi walks into a bar and meets Steve Buscemi.


So all religion is equally shallow then?  At least you're being consistent for once.  In my experience though, people are a lot more likely to make "being a Christian" their entire identity, even if they don't adhere to any of its teachings or haven't read the bible at all.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 29, 2022)

Xzi said:


> So all religion is equally shallow then?  At least you're being consistent for once.  In my experience though, people are a lot more likely to make "being a Christian" their entire identity, even if they don't adhere to any of its teachings or haven't read the bible at all.



Religion has roots.  People who use religion as a form of identity often betray the intention of those roots.  In general, people who use religion as an identity are shallow by choice.  To say that "all religion is equally shallow" assumes too many variables where a consensus does not agree on quantity (or quality).  For instance, @micronuts99 thinks religion is a racial quality.

Christ was not a Christian, and his followers didn't call themselves Christian,  It wasn't until after Rome reformed its tyrannical state religion, officiating the label, that people (at large) decided to try to wear the religion like they wear symbols.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Religion has roots.  People who use religion as a form of identity often betray the intention of those roots.  In general, people who use religion as an identity are shallow by choice.  To say that "all religion is equally shallow" assumes too many variables where a consensus does not agree on quantity (or quality).  For instance, micronuts thinks religion is a racial quality.
> 
> Christ was not a Christian, and his followers didn't call themselves Christian,  It wasn't until after Rome reformed its tyrannical state religion, popularizing the token, that people (at large) decided to try to wear religion like they wear symbols.


Religion can be part of your identity without becoming your _entire_ identity, though.  Besides, the goals of Buddhism are aspirational ones.  If a person achieved a permanent state of zen the moment they converted, they wouldn't really need to keep following its teachings, now would they?  Nowhere is it written that you can never again become frustrated or angry with people as a Buddhist, but rather that you should aspire to _eventually_ be able to rise above such petty emotions.  

In that sense I suppose you'd make a good final test, obtuse and annoying as you are.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 29, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Religion can be part of your identity without becoming your _entire_ identity, though.  Besides, the goals of Buddhism are aspirational ones.  If a person achieved a permanent state of zen the moment they converted, they wouldn't really need to keep following its teachings, now would they?  Nowhere is it written that you can never again become frustrated or angry with people as a Buddhist, but rather that you should aspire to _eventually_ be able to rise above such petty emotions.
> 
> In that sense I suppose you'd make a good final test, obtuse and annoying as you are.



For the example of Buddhism, identity is delusional.  Teachings of Jesus often relate to discarding of the ego, which also carry similar sentiments.

You need to accept me if you are going to follow the teachings of Buddha, Christ, Krishna, etc...

I'm not a test for everyone, obviously.  Just for a type (niche) of person.

My statement was about calling yourself something, and then being a bad example, being a disservice to that which you suggest is good.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> My statement was about calling yourself something, and then being a bad example, being a disservice to that which you suggest is good.


In the moment, perhaps, but ultimately that's not for you to judge.  There's also a certain onus on you to become a better person over time, regardless of which religion you follow or even if you follow none at all.  It takes two to tango, after all.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 29, 2022)

Xzi said:


> In the moment, perhaps, but ultimately that's not for you to judge.  There's also a certain onus on you to become a better person over time, regardless of which religion you follow or even if you follow none at all.  It takes two to tango, after all.



Ultimately, a great folly can become a great lesson, changing the trajectory.  My statement is restricted to being contextually confined, and a perspective "in the moment".  If being a bad example is a premeditated charade of being a lesson by demonstration, then time will tell.  What is this "certain onus" you are referring to?  What if the tango is all I am interested in?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 29, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> you guys first, did your people just do that for certain supreme court justice?


Do you have a real objection or are you just mad


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 30, 2022)

smf said:


> What about prolifers irresponsibility in overturning roe v wade, what punishment can we inflict on them?



why would you want to do that?  they took power AWAY from the government.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 30, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Do you have a real objection or are you just mad



 what would i be mad about, specifically?


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 30, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> why would you want to do that? they took power AWAY from the government.


The state is a goverment correct?
And the federal government is also a goverment correct?
If the federal goverment previously said "we can't even rule on that, it's a privacy thing, including the states"
Then HOW THE HELL IS REVERSING THAT STANCE AND SAYING "_actually we CAN rule on it, but it's up to state governments"_
GIVING LESS POWER????
What kind of backwards logic is that.
Quit trying to justify taking women's rights, and wanting an authortian goverment.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 30, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> The state is a goverment correct?
> And the federal government is also a goverment correct?
> If the federal goverment previously said "we can't even rule on that, it's a privacy thing, including the states"
> Then HOW THE HELL IS REVERSING THAT STANCE AND SAYING "_actually we CAN rule on it, but it's up to state governments"_
> ...



Repealing RvW put the ball into into the states' courts.  It decentralized authority on the issue.  The outcome will be for states to rise up for or against the issue.  It gives people the choice to live in a place that allows it or a place that does not, within the country.  You may think that everyone should live in a place where abortion should be free to access, but not everyone wants to live in communities like that.  It allows states to become more diverse in their culture, whether you agree with it or not.

Reversing RvW was not the SCOTUS saying "we CAN rule on it, but it's up to state governments", but "we DID rule on it and that shouldn't have happened".

If it was wrong for SCOTUS to rule in favor on RvW, and uphold it for 50 years, there should be accountability.  If it was right for SCOTUS to rule in favor of RvW, then you are saying that a centralized government with broad reach is justified as long as it does the "right thing".   Seeing as there isn't a consensus, that would be an authoritarian function.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You may think that everyone should live in a place where abortion should be free to access, but not everyone wants to live in communities like that.


Here let me go use an example from another time  period, using the same argument

"You may think that everyone should live in a place where slavery shouldn't be happening, but not everyone wants to live in communities like that"
Your allowing the goverment to control people's bodies. I don't care if it's state or federal. It's a can of worms that shouldn't be ever opened at all. As your empowering the state (European version for goverment) to take away rights. That's authortian.
The state didn't say " we believe abortions should be allowed"
They said "we believe abortions is a right due to privacy, something we FUNDMENTALLY cannot rule on"

So again, no.




tabzer said:


> but not everyone wants to live in communities like that. It allows states to become more diverse in their culture, whether you agree with it or not.


Slavery and racism would like to say hello.
Racists would be happy to be racist. Slave owners would be happy to have their states back. Segregationists would love to have that.

Different issues, same to similar principals.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 30, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Your allowing the goverment to control people's bodies. I don't care if it's state or federal. It's a can of worms that shouldn't be ever opened at all. As your empowering the state (European version for goverment) to take away rights.



Government rules bodies of people (and their bodies).  The can of worms was opened with monarchs (or kings).

If you understand decentralization of rule to be a good thing (which I am mind to), then further decentralization would be even better.  The outcome would eventually be individuals to have more control of themselves.

The reversal on RvW empowers the state to take _*and *_give rights on the subject.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 30, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> "You may think that everyone should live in a place where slavery shouldn't be happening, but not everyone wants to live in communities like that"



We are slaves.  This "Democracy" didn't end slavery.  It regulated it.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Government rules bodies of people (and their bodies).  The can of worms was opened with monarchs (or kings).
> 
> If you understand decentralization of rule to be a good thing (which I am mind to), then further decentralization would be even better.  The outcome would eventually be individuals to have more control of themselves.
> 
> The reversal on RvW empowers the state to take _*and *_give rights on the subject.


Except that's not how that works.
Decentralization requires that the transition of power is NOT ANOTHER STATE

It's not decentralizing if your fucking funneling into another overarching government. Because that's what states (american version) are. They're just a big government that swollowed city government, swallowed within another larger government.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 30, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Decentralization requires that the transition of power is NOT ANOTHER STATE



No.  Decentralization is the transition from a bigger part to smaller parts.  California doesn't get to dictate Texas.

If your issue is with government having overarching reach, I'd agree that it doesn't matter if it is state or federal (national).  But if you believe that you have freedom because the federal government gave it to you, then that's not really freedom.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 30, 2022)

That's like saying
"We at crypto inc love decentraling so much, that instead of having 1 center. We moved to another center. Truly revolutionary work has enabled this to happen. We are the most decentralized system into eh world"
If it was TRULY decentralized, it would be handled by many many MANY different entities of incredibly small scale, talking nehbiourhoods. Which the state (USA version) government, does not meet that bar at all. 

Also a secondary requirement for something to remain decentralized is a form of decentralized power structure. Aka a power structure that does not defer power to the top, and inheritly attempts to maintain or at least doesn't push for top to bottom. Which surprise. The United States governments (federal,and state) fail that requirement. Rich people still have a say in elections, the people elected have almost zero accountability for their actions. And the poor have practically zero chance to represent themselves.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> No.  Decentralization is the transition from a bigger part to smaller parts.  California doesn't get to dictate Texas.
> 
> If your issue is with government having overarching reach, I'd agree that it doesn't matter if it is state or federal (national).  But if you believe that you have freedom because the federal government gave it to you, then that's not really freedom.


You seem to not understand the core of leftism.
So let'a get through that.
A leftists is going to look at PRACTICAL effects. What is or has happened. Not what is on theory.

If biden decided to reduce student loan debt by 2,000 for each person. We would say "that's not meaningful change" and that's because it
A. Does not address the core issue aka the for profit education system
B. Does not account for the persons living standards. It would cut debt down now, but if they're in a dead end job because the market is shit, they're going to get right back there as interest over time occurs.
So therefore it's not meaningful change.

So let's look at roe v wade, specifically the removal.

What does removing roe v wade effectively allow?
It allow's states (European version) to regulate a person's body.
Sure they didn't say outright abortions are banned.
BUT THAT'S THE ONLY GAINNED RESULT
That's the ONLY change, practical result that occurs with it's ability to be removed or applied. That the state government can now regulate people's bodies.

This is not a decentralizing. This is centralizing power and trying to hide it with a paint job.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 30, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> That's like saying
> "We at crypto inc love decentraling so much, that instead of having 1 center. We moved to another center. Truly revolutionary work has enabled this to happen. We are the most decentralized system into eh world"
> If it was TRULY decentralized, it would be handled by many many MANY different entities of incredibly small scale, talking nehbiourhoods. Which the state (USA version) government, does not meet that bar at all.



It appears to be a very small step, but it is a step in that direction.  If you want to talk about crypto, I'd be happy to entertain your misconceptions and the existential implication of different cryptos continuously being entertained.




Nothereed said:


> Also a secondary requirement for something to remain decentralized is a form of decentralized power structure. Aka a power structure that does not defer power to the top, and inheritly attempts to maintain or at least doesn't push for top to bottom. Which surprise. The United States governments (federal,and state) fail that requirement. Rich people still have a say in elections, the people elected have almost zero accountability for their actions. And the poor have practically zero chance to represent themselves.



It never was decentralized, so there is nothing to "remain" decentralized.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 30, 2022)

@tabzer your seriously clowning again. I'm out. If you don't think empowering states to choose if it's a right or not is somehow decentralizing, when it blantly leads to centralized power.then I honestly don't want to hear your other bs.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 30, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> That's the ONLY change that occurs with it's removal. That the state government can now regulate people's bodies.
> 
> This is not a decentralizing. This is centralizing power and trying to hide it with a paint job.



That is decentralizing.  Again, you agree that abortions should have freedom of access.  There are many people who do not.  You are choosing your way over theirs, preferring a centralized authority just because the outcome is in your preference.  It's a case where you prefer a centralized power because "the choice is right".  That's not even about decentralization.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> There are many people who do not. You are choosing your way over theirs, preferring a centralized authority just because the outcome is in your preference.


Yes because 40% of people wanted slaves still. And then that cursed 60% said.
"No we don't want that"
Oh I'm sorry. Right. That's abortion. Over 60% of the country has said " we want a right to choose"
The only effective result is silencing those people. Which the Republican party has demonstrated with trying to prevent people voting on fucking ANYTHING to stop their bs.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 30, 2022)

Here I can make anything sound good with the sound of decentralizing. (According to the logic of tabzer)
If right now the supreme court ruled that ruling on people's political beliefs is a bad idea, and it's a right. And then that precedent set for almost 50 years. And then it gets overturned and said that it can be by states. According to tabzer's logic this would be perfectly fine for states to ban Jews (because the state called it a political stance)
Because it's "decentralized" it would be considered a good thing. It's decentralizing the federal governments power. (While ignoring that it dispportinatly gave substantial power to the states, and therefore effectively centralizing power for a group of people who would favor such a stance. Since the only possible outcome is loosing that right. And ignoring the already existing problematic power structure)
If it sounds fucking stupid, that's because it absolutely should.

The right to choose on a per indvidual basis  is better than saying yes or no entirely.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Sep 30, 2022)

Its not that simple. Hitler didn't simply read a newspaper and form his opinion. At the time in germany, loans were rampant, people were suffering in economic crises created by banks and lenders very many of whom were "a certain kind of" individual if you know  what I mean.

Society was riddled with corruption in every sense of the word, moral and otherwise. The nazi movement as actually a very left-wing movement.

Look into history. When americans read history they do so through the bias of their political aflication, and I think this is an inherent quality which they cannot escape from. As such they glean the most convenient message out of it. This is because americans are innately and inherently incapable of stepping out of their incredibly limited bubble. Mostly.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 30, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Yes because 40% of people wanted slaves still. And then that cursed 60% said.
> "No we don't want that"
> Oh I'm sorry. Right. That's abortion. Over 60% of the country has said " we want a right to choose"
> The only effective result is silencing those people. Which the Republican party has demonstrated with trying to prevent people voting on fucking ANYTHING to stop their bs.



Of the eligible voters in America, roughly over half of them make it to the vote.  When every election cycle is somehow, predictably half and half, that means you have about %25 of eligible voters (ignore the disenfranchised--aka not even of the whole population) dictating the rule of all 50 states.  With RvW appealed, 100% of the people who want abortion to be accessibly free can live somewhere in the country where it is supported.  100% of the people who want it locked down can also have the freedom to live somewhere in the country where that is supported.  That is what that decentralizing allows. 



Nothereed said:


> Here I can make anything sound good with the sound of decentralizing. (According to the logic of tabzer)
> If right now the supreme court ruled that ruling on people's political beliefs is a bad idea, and it's a right. And then that precedent set for almost 50 years. And then it gets overturned and said that it can be by states. According to tabzer's logic this would be perfectly fine for states to ban Jews (because the state called it a political stance)



That would be more decentralized, yes.  Whether or not that states would do that is another story.  In my opinion, it would be better for the choice to be allowed to the states (as opposed to being governed by a nationally encompassing entity) *and *all states deciding not to do so.  That would be more of a "consensus", which I think is already there--but there isn't enough freedom to express that.  



Nothereed said:


> Because it's "decentralized" it would be considered a good thing. It's decentralizing the federal governments power. (While ignoring that it gave substantial power to the states)
> If it sounds fucking stupid, that's because it absolutely should.



Decentralizing power is good because it moves power closer to the individual.  If you think individuals, at their core, want slavery (and that's bad), then you think authoritarian measures are necessary.

You still haven't convinced me that we have transcended slavery.  I believe the definition has been obscured, and more people are more like slaves, more than ever.


----------



## smf (Sep 30, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> why would you want to do that?  they took power AWAY from the government.


No, they ONLY took power away from the people and gave it to the government.


----------



## smf (Sep 30, 2022)

MadonnaProject said:


> Society was riddled with corruption in every sense of the word, moral and otherwise. The nazi movement as actually a very left-wing movement.


No, Germany was crippled due to reparations from the first world war. The nazi movement was very right wing.


----------



## smf (Sep 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Repealing RvW put the ball into into the states' courts.  It decentralized authority on the issue.  The outcome will be for states to rise up for or against the issue.  It gives people the choice to live in a place that allows it or a place that does not, within the country


Hopefully, there will be an exodus from those backward states but not everyone has the resources to do it. I think federal government should provide grants for women to move from states that hate them.

It turns out that these people aren't against government setting rules for people, as long as it's the rules they agree with.

Which makes that whole argument disingenuous.

So let's go back to what punishment should we dish out to those traitors responsible for overturning RvW?


----------



## smf (Sep 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> but not everyone wants to live in communities like that.


Imagine someone so messed up they don't want to live in a community where other people do things with their bodies that they don't approve of.

Maybe we should vote on whether you're allowed to live? Some people won't want to live in a community with you.

As you say, the can of worms was opened with monarchs (or kings). Off with your head.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Sep 30, 2022)

smf said:


> No, Germany was crippled due to reparations from the first world war. The nazi movement was very right wing.


It is the hallmark of the left to automatically denounce and eradicate anything they disagree with. Right wing usually stands for a certain level of shared values whilst saying if you wish to live a certain way, you can but don't impose it on me.


smf said:


> Imagine someone so messed up they don't want to live in a community where other people do things with their bodies that they don't approve of.
> 
> Maybe we should vote on whether you're allowed to live? Some people won't want to live in a community with you.
> 
> As you say, the can of worms was opened with monarchs (or kings). Off with your head.


Bit extreme. Which shows my point. No one has an issue with people living their lives and doing with their bodies as they please. What people take issue with is being roped into ascribing to the said ideology. An example is the trans movement. Most people will accept it and even use the "they" terminology even if they don't believe men can be women etc etc. However, the simple acknowledgement of this fact will invite extreme prejudice from the trans and supporting communities.

Also, the very notion of society is that of heirarchy. You can't have society without it. y very nature this means you'll have people at the top of the rung or "kings". I understand what you mean, but its pure fantasy. No society in history has or ever will have complete and utter equality. This is the very definition of society, it wouldn't be one otherwise.


----------



## smf (Sep 30, 2022)

MadonnaProject said:


> It is the hallmark of the left to automatically denounce and eradicate anything they disagree with. Right wing usually stands for a certain level of shared values whilst saying if you wish to live a certain way, you can but don't impose it on me.


You have that completely the opposite way round.

Another hall mark of the right wing is gaslighting.



MadonnaProject said:


> Bit extreme. Which shows my point.


You understand I'm using his arguments against him, which shows my point? Right?


----------



## MadonnaProject (Sep 30, 2022)

smf said:


> You have that completely the opposite way round.
> 
> Another hall mark of the right wing is gaslighting.
> 
> ...


You know, every few years your kind finds buzzwords. Then you use them so completely out of context they lose meaning. This is one of those instances.

Using his arguments against him in an extreme blithering way only serves to make you come out a bit silly.

It makes people think "gosh, why am I wasting my time with this person?". This is one of those instances.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 30, 2022)

MadonnaProject said:


> The nazi movement as actually a very left-wing movement.


The Nazi was a far right wing movement.

Fascism/Nazi's are opportunist. They take whatever stance that will provide them support. Essentially they use their words to mask their actions or true intent.
 As their actual polices are inherently unlikable to the masses.

From a historical point a view, Hitler killed socialist first. He also didn't follow up on any socialist polices that party was wanting to do at that time.

Now let's look at Trump. Who has called Liz Chaney a Rino. Even though she is as Republican as being an R goes for over 50 years.

Trump however, constantly changed his vote to the one that he thought would have the most sway.

The point I'm demonstrating here is that he is being hypocritical and opportunistic, and anyone that pushes against him to a single inch or degree, moderate to extreme, he will throw his followers at to attack. With him openly attacking (democrats, and to a different extent, leftist. And now old Republicans, pre 2016ish to earlier)

To keep such anger going, something new always has to fan the flames, some new group of people to get angry at. A new wedge every time.
Edit:
For example. calling "illegals" saying trans people are a problem, moving on to homophobia with a newly released movie, or to being racist against a particular character in a medium, to back to saying "xyz group wants to brainwash your kids"
And then eventually, some group of people wakes up to it, realizes what that rehetroic means, and then a new wedge is thrown against them. "Your not a Republican, your a Rhino" and then the fire get's even hotter, and burns stronger. Under hitler the same thing did happen, over and over until if you didn't have blue eyes, you were shot and killed.



Because the far right burns red hot and cools fast, so the only answer is to put more flames in to keep it going. It's a inherently unstable, unmaintainable system that self destructs in it's own manufactured rage that leads to a ton of casualties.

Hitler and Trump also heavily practice what 1984 called double think.
Trump says he supports free speech, but then also supports banning books.

Hitler was also similar, infact, THE EXACT SAME. Claimed to be a supporter of free speech, and then when got in power, suppressed it, via banning books for starters.

Their words betray their actions.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 30, 2022)

MadonnaProject said:


> Also, the very notion of society is that of heirarchy. You can't have society without it.


yes you can. You absolutely can have a society without a hierarchy. It's called direct democracy. Aka, no person is elected, money is out of politics entirely, and it's a populous system, aka majority vote. No electoral collage. 
It would be a policy based system, decided by people entirely.
No one person is *the* government, because the all is the government effectively. Creating a distinction without a difference.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 30, 2022)

MadonnaProject said:


> s your kind finds buzzwords.


Your othering right here in this statement. "your kind"
Othering is the term left leaning (or left leaning adjacent people, or even mid right) will and continue to use to demonstrate when a person tries to dehumanize a group of people.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 30, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> The state is a goverment correct?
> And the federal government is also a goverment correct?
> If the federal goverment previously said "we can't even rule on that, it's a privacy thing, including the states"
> Then HOW THE HELL IS REVERSING THAT STANCE AND SAYING "_actually we CAN rule on it, but it's up to state governments"_
> ...



well... that doesnt make any sense, how can it be authoritarian if its up to the state? authoritarian would be your side of the sense saying " this is how it is or else, jail", Unless, you would be fine with the orange man having final say? and having it not be up to to the states? ok you maga extremist.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 30, 2022)

smf said:


> No, they ONLY took power away from the people and gave it to the government.



thats not true at all, you still have full power of the situation, i recommend condoms btw i hear that helps.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Oct 1, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> The Nazi was a far right wing movement.
> 
> Fascism/Nazi's are opportunist. They take whatever stance that will provide them support. Essentially they use their words to mask their actions or true intent.
> As their actual polices are inherently unlikable to the masses.
> ...


That's "You're". The rest? Just couldn't.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 1, 2022)

smf said:


> It turns out that these people aren't against government setting rules for people, as long as it's the rules they agree with.



It's kind of a predictable attitude of people who vote.


smf said:


> Maybe we should vote on whether you're allowed to live? Some people won't want to live in a community with you.



If you believe that voting to end lives is ridiculous, I'd agree.  If you believe that doesn't happen, then you haven't been paying attention to what your "democracy" does.


smf said:


> You understand I'm using his arguments against him, which shows my point? Right?



Are you disagreeing with something I said?  It seems like you are trying to make it appear as so.


----------



## Nothereed (Oct 1, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> well... that doesnt make any sense, how can it be authoritarian if its up to the state?


Last response to you as well since I really don't want to be spending days trying to explain basic concepts, and then get spat back on them.


Let's use the definition of authortianism:
favoring or *enforcing strict obedience* to authority, especially that of the government, *at the expense of personal freedom.*


Before roe v Wade's overturnal. There was no punishment to anyone's freedoms. People who wanted an abortion could get
it. People who didn't want it, didn't get it.

Then when it got overturned and became a states rights issue. You know what happened?
Doctors who do not comply get 10 years of jail. Are AFRAID of providing any medication or anything that be used for an abortion even if if it's different means. And mother's freedoms have been restricted.

A big government is not authortian in itself.a state government will not inhehritly mean it will not be authortian. To be considered as a authortian, (or authortian policy) both freedoms and strict laws have to come into play.

So when you got Texas and other states trying to pass laws for idk.
Preventing people from getting an abortion outside of state lines. And then also already blocking any protections in the Senate for those people to at least idk, do that.

That's authortian. It's reminiscent of fucking slavery.

Essentially roe v wades removal has enabled authortian moves. It removes both freedoms. And enabled strict laws with massive punishments.


----------



## smf (Oct 1, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It's kind of a predictable attitude of people who vote.


These are people who justify their voting specifically because they say they don't want government to control their lives.

So liars.



tabzer said:


> If you believe that voting to end lives is ridiculous, I'd agree.  If you believe that doesn't happen, then you haven't been paying attention to what your "democracy" does.


It does happen, it's exactly what the death penalty is. The Jury votes on it.



tabzer said:


> Are you disagreeing with something I said?  It seems like you are trying to make it appear as so.


Everything you say is ridiculous, so you could assume I will disagree with you on many things.

Specifically just because bigots don't want something happening in their community, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to prevent it. Right wingers tend to have ideas that are anti women (even the women....).


----------



## lolcatzuru (Oct 1, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Last response to you as well since I really don't want to be spending days trying to explain basic concepts, and then get spat back on them.
> 
> 
> Let's use the definition of authortianism:
> ...



strict obedience like a mask mandate for example?

however your this being your last message proves that you know you are grasping at straws and are petrified.


----------



## Nothereed (Oct 1, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> strict obedience like a mask mandate for example?
> 
> however your this being your last message proves that you know you are grasping at straws and are petrified.





Getting fined for not wearing a mask (in the middle of a pandemic)
 (which also is not a criminal charge. It's civil) is not the same as getting a fucking felony for removing a fetus because the state said not to, and getting a prison sentence.

Only people who would want to intentionally confuse the two so they could get away with their bullshit would say something as dumb as this.

I rest my case and now I really will be leaving. As you're proving yourself to still fail to grasp basic concepts.


----------



## Nothereed (Oct 1, 2022)

You give one abortion as a doctor, get 10 years in jail up to a 10,000 dollar fine. For a mask violation, it's roughly 500 bucks for the first violation. And just increases for each additional violation.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 1, 2022)

smf said:


> Everything you say is ridiculous, so you could assume I will disagree with you on many things.
> 
> Specifically just because bigots don't want something happening in their community, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to prevent it.



So far, you haven't been able to articulate what you disagree with.  If everything I say is ridiculous, then why are you supporting my statements?  Are you a liar?

It's kind of cool that people you don't like are bigots and shouldn't be allowed to live life the way they want.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Oct 1, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Getting fined for not wearing a mask (in the middle of a pandemic)
> (which also is not a criminal charge. It's civil) is not the same as getting a fucking felony for removing a fetus because the state said not to, and getting a prison sentence.
> 
> Only people who would want to intentionally confuse the two so they could get away with their bullshit would say something as dumb as this.
> ...



its nice to see you hid the fact people lost their jobs, gee i wonder why that is, but similarly, yea it is the same, i dont HAVE to wear a mask you dont HAVE to have an abortion. You and the rest of the 81 million told the government  " please, decide everything for us" and they said " ok, no abortion" and now you are angry about it, maybe you need to reevaluate what you support.


----------



## Nothereed (Oct 2, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> its nice to see you hid the fact people lost their jobs


if you work for government, yeah your going to have to follow their rules. If you work a company, and they fired you, well guess what? the company is a private entity, it can do whatever the fuck it wants regarding your employment (right to work laws) regardless if the government decided to do a mask mandate or not. The government didn't fire you. Your company fired you. The government didn't go look at you specifically working at Walmart and said "your fired"
 They  (your company) could tell you  to wear a certain shirt, and if you didn't comply, well shit out of luck, you don't have a job.

Again, demonstrating that you don't know what the hell your talking about and still failing basic concepts.


lolcatzuru said:


> yea it is the same, i dont HAVE to wear a mask you dont HAVE to have an abortion.


One is a prison sentence, the other is a fine.. One is a criminal offense, the other is a civil offense. One goes on a criminal track record, and bars you from voting for a period of time, the other doesn't.

They are very much NOT the same. Failing basic concept for how many damn times now?


lolcatzuru said:


> You and the rest of the 81 million told the government " please, decide everything for us"


I'm feeling _extra _charitable. today.

_you positive you want to make that argument?_
Let's take a look at you,



> lolcatzuru
> Honestly, abortion isn't something im overly invested in ( as a man/incel) but i support the bans out of spite


I have no empathy for someone who* out of spite*, MAKES PEOPLE'S LIVES WORSE. In a subject, YOU have no investment in. YOU choose authoritarianism.

*YOU*
In your own backwards ass *hatred *of people different from *YOU*


> lolcatzuru
> because this wasn't a concern with the magic needle, and it wasnt a concern with gun control,* its only a concern when liberals dont get what they want.*


*YOU*
Wanted these bans. YOU *CHOOSE* that your stance was to "own the libs"
As someone who has no fucking partner (golly-gee I can't imagine why a women would possibly hate you for trying to make it so the state can own her fucking womb)

So

 don't go lying your shitty ass decisions, on my doorstep.


lolcatzuru said:


> You and the rest of the 81 million told the government


Because the majority of people didn't tell the government to do it.
*YOU did.*​
You did it out of political manufactured spite, because some person up high in your information bubble told you to support it.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Oct 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> if you work for government, yeah your going to have to follow their rules. If you work a company, and they fired you, well guess what? the company is a private entity, it can do whatever the fuck it wants regarding your employment (right to work laws) regardless if the government decided to do a mask mandate or not. The government didn't fire you. Your company fired you. The government didn't go look at you specifically working at Walmart and said "your fired"
> They  (your company) could tell you  to wear a certain shirt, and if you didn't comply, well shit out of luck, you don't have a job.
> 
> Again, demonstrating that you don't know what the hell your talking about and still failing basic concepts.
> ...



oh no i didnt choose authoritarianism at all, you did, you and the 81 million for a gun ban, you voted for a gas car ban, and you voted for a vaccine mandate that didnt work, if you guy said " no amendment is absolute" how on EARTH can abortion ever stand a chance, that was your guy that did that.

im also feeling extra charitable as well. Theres a certain irony that keeps me cheery these days, that when the orange man put the 2 supreme courts justices in power, they sat on their asses, then after project free and fair,  and the biologist was appointed, all of the sudden its on the agenda, isn't it strange that as soon as you guys elect a radical politician, the supreme court got radical,  i wonder why that is.

this is the problem with the libbies btw, you all say  say we did it out of spite, gee, i can't imagine why we would be spiteful, its almost like our way of life is illegally being taken from us, and when we say anything about it, we are labeled extremists, well,  the next time you want something done, try practicing something libbies dont know much about, its called empathy.


----------



## Nothereed (Oct 2, 2022)

snipped for send too early.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Oct 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> snipped for send too early.



huh?


----------



## Nothereed (Oct 2, 2022)

this would derail, we're going into dms.


----------



## smf (Oct 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> So far, you haven't been able to articulate what you disagree with.  If everything I say is ridiculous, then why are you supporting my statements?  Are you a liar?
> 
> It's kind of cool that people you don't like are bigots and shouldn't be allowed to live life the way they want.


It's kind of cool that you use disingenuously use left wing arguments of tolerance against people who are trying to end your right wing intolerance. What you fail to understand is that I'm not telling you how to live the life you want, I'm telling you that you are a bigot for preventing others from living their life the way you want. I have no problem if you don't want to have an abortion.

I've articulated what I disagree with perfectly well, it's you that is the problem as you are unable to comprehend the simplest concepts. Everything you say is ridiculous, I'm not supporting your statements at all.



lolcatzuru said:


> i can't imagine why we would be spiteful, its almost like our way of life is illegally being taken from us


Sorry your police can't murder black people for fun anymore.
Or the orange criminal is being investigated for all his fraud.

What else have we illegally taken away from you?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 2, 2022)

... nvm


----------



## tabzer (Oct 2, 2022)

smf said:


> What you fail to understand is that I'm not telling you how to live the life you want, I'm telling you that you are a bigot for preventing others from living their life the way you want.



You are failing to articulate how I am doing so.

The argument that I've made is that centralized federal government has taken a step to delegate the issue of abortion to 50 different states, which is a decentralizing action.  Your claim is that the federal government is the will of "the people" because ~25% of *eligible voters* elect leaders who delegate SCOTUS, who consequently make nation-sweeping rules-- determining a singular culture.

No action of mine has mandated or told you what you can and cannot do.  I'm in favor of multiple cultures being allowed to exist.

You can try to gatekeep all you want, but tolerance isn't tied to a side of a linear spectrum.

Propping a centralized rule is only going to benefit authoritarianism.



smf said:


> I'm not supporting your statements at all.



You might be emotionally repelled by the things I am saying, because of your own bigotry, but the things you have been saying are pretty supportive of what I am saying.  You just seem to think that what you say applies to only one side.


----------



## smf (Oct 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You are failing to articulate how I am doing so.


You're saying that people should have the ability to live in a community where others are prevented from living their lives how they want to.

I'm saying you shouldn't be able to prevent others from living how they want to.

You're gaslighting me by saying I'm the one being unreasonable.

I don't know how to make it clearer than that. I thought you were trolling up until now, but it seems you just lack capacity.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 2, 2022)

smf said:


> You're saying that people should have the ability to live in a community where others are prevented from living their lives how they want to.



I'm literally not.  Between me and you, you are the one saying people should or shouldn't do something.

You seem to strive to be gaslit.


----------



## smf (Oct 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm literally not.  Between me and you, you are the one saying people should or shouldn't do something.


WTF? you really are a piece of work.

You think it's ok for people to decide they don't want others to have abortions, so now you are just lying to save face.

How does it feel to be so bad at debating, that you have to resort to lying? I've never had to, so I don't know.



tabzer said:


> You might be emotionally repelled by the things I am saying,


Normal people are repelled by the abhorrent things you say, sure. That isn't bigotry, that is just a normal empathetic reaction to your victims. You seem to not be able to understand the difference & with such low self awareness then you are unlikely to be able to grow emotionally any further.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 3, 2022)

smf said:


> You think it's ok for people to decide they don't want others to have abortions, so now you are just lying to save face.



That's your strawman.  You are going to have to quote me.  The federal government, up until the reversal of RvW, exercised the authority to decide if people can or cannot get abortions.  Now that authority has been delegated to the 50 states, which is decentralizing.  Whether I think abortions are good or evil has no operational function in my claim.  If all 50 states decided to sanctify abortions in the way you think is good, it would be better than a national government dictating to all 50 states.  If states make limitations on abortions in a way that you think is bad, it doesn't make me a bigot, lol.



smf said:


> Normal people are repelled by the abhorrent things you say, sure. That isn't bigotry, that is just a normal empathetic reaction to your victims.



You aren't "normal".  Your bigotry comes in the form of full-on fallacy and libelous attitude toward anyone who doesn't laud your platitudes.  Imaginary people inside your head aren't "victims".  It's only you.



smf said:


> you are pathetic and can't victimize anyone.


----------



## smf (Oct 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> *It gives people the choice to live in a place that allows it or a place that does not,*





tabzer said:


> You are going to have to quote me.


Ok, here you go.

If you already live in an area that is now telling you what to do, you are being told what to do (either stop doing what you want or move, which you may also not be economically able to do).

It's so easy to pwn you, now go fail somewhere else instead you bigot.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 3, 2022)

smf said:


> It's so easy to pwn you, now go fail somewhere else instead you bigot.



That's a polarized example of the decentralizing nature, not a claim on what states should decide.  You are using the word bigot so ironically.  Self-righteousness is a poor substitute for literacy.



smf said:


> If you already live in an area that is now telling you what to do, you are being told what to do (either stop doing what you want or move, which you may also not be economically able to do)



So democracy doesn't work?  What do you propose to change?  @smf to decide everything for everyone?


----------



## smf (Oct 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Self-righteousness is a poor substitute for literacy.


And yet, here you still are. The no 1 self righteous person on here.



tabzer said:


> That's a polarized example of the decentralizing nature, not a claim on what states should decide.


You support the states deciding though, which means you support people controlling what others do.

And no, democracy does not work, because on these states there is no support for banning abortions. It's a minority that are doing it, but because of loons like you driving the culture wars, then there is no way that people will stop supporting their backward republican candidate.

Trump et al broke democracy irrevocably, it's going to take a long time & wiping him and his supporters off the face of the earth, before democracy works again.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 4, 2022)

smf said:


> And yet, here you still are. The no 1 self righteous person on here.



Again, I said it's not a good substitute for literacy.  Try again.



smf said:


> You support the states deciding though, which means you support people controlling what others do.



Maybe no more than you support a national platform deciding.  My point is that it is more democratic and capable of reflecting 50 varieties of "consensus" on the issue.  If people have no control over the state, they surely have no control over the fed--which is a bigger problem.



smf said:


> And no, democracy does not work, because on these states there is no support for banning abortions. It's a minority that are doing it, but because of loons like you driving the culture wars, then there is no way that people will stop supporting their backward republican candidate.
> 
> Trump et al broke democracy irrevocably, it's going to take a long time & wiping him and his supporters off the face of the earth, before democracy works again.



Ah.  Democracy will work again if you silence the opposition.  If you think Trump "broke democracy", you might have missed him getting elected in the first place.  Cat is out of the bag and you are exposing yourself as a wannabe dictator.


----------



## smf (Oct 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Again, I said it's not a good substitute for literacy.  Try again.


Right, So Mr self-righteous, why are you still here?



tabzer said:


> Maybe no more than you support a national platform deciding. My point is that it is more democratic and capable of reflecting 50 varieties of "consensus" on the issue. If people have no control over the state, they surely have no control over the fed--which is a bigger problem.



Nobody should have control over reproductive rights of others.

You don't have control over the constitution rights either, if it's so important to you that people should be able to live in a way that they choose then constitution should be ripped up and given to the state too.



tabzer said:


> Ah.  Democracy will work again if you silence the opposition.  If you think Trump "broke democracy", you might have missed him getting elected in the first place.  Cat is out of the bag and you are exposing yourself as a wannabe dictator.


No I have no problem with opposition, silencing the opposition is one of Trumps ploys.

I have a problem with criminals who confuse weak minded people like you. Democracy isn't about conning the most people.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 5, 2022)

smf said:


> Right, So Mr self-righteous, why are you still here?



I'm showing you the ways of your illiteracy...



smf said:


> Nobody should have control over reproductive rights of others.



That maybe true, but your country does so by defining what those rights are and are not.



smf said:


> You don't have control over the constitution rights either, if it's so important to you that people should be able to live in a way that they choose then constitution should be ripped up and given to the state too.



People like me?  I have no control over your constitution or its interpreters.  Up until now, we were talking about democracy.  I don't care what you do with your constitution.  Nice strawman.



smf said:


> No I have no problem with opposition, silencing the opposition is one of Trumps ploys.



That's a weak follow up from you saying, " it's going to take a long time & wiping him and his supporters off the face of the earth, before democracy works again".  Looks like you are bit of sociopath, unaware of how feeble that deflection was.  You want to silence Trump because he's evil and you are good.  I get it.



smf said:


> Democracy isn't about conning the most people.



Here's the issue.  That has been the absolute state of America long before Trump.  America has been a cult before you were born, but you seem to think that "democracy worked" before Trump was elected; that "he" and people who would vote for him are the problem that caused it to fail.


----------



## Lumstar (Oct 5, 2022)

Very little of the corrosive ideology touted by Trump is new or interesting. Similar rhetoric created the Confederacy, the KKK, McCarthyism, Fox News, same wolves rebranded in another sheep's clothing.


----------



## smf (Oct 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm showing you the ways of your illiteracy...


Illiterate posts are showing me what?



tabzer said:


> That has been the absolute state of America long before Trump.  America has been a cult before you were born, but you seem to think that "democracy worked" before Trump was elected; that "he" and people who would vote for him are the problem that caused it to fail.


So you're saying Trump is nothing new & all the people who voted for him are idiots, as they said he was something new.

If you were literate, you'd have read about the rise of populism....


----------



## tabzer (Oct 5, 2022)

smf said:


> Illiterate posts are showing me what?



Better try.  



smf said:


> So you're saying Trump is nothing new & all the people who voted for him are idiots, as they said he was something new.
> 
> If you were literate, you'd have read about the rise of populism....



Oh well.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## smf (Oct 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Oh well.  Thanks for playing.


I'm not playing, I was trying to drag you out of illiteracy.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 5, 2022)

smf said:


> I'm not playing, I was trying to drag you out of illiteracy.


You've completely departed from the argument and are trying to sell the typical Trump is the big bad strawman.  You do you.


----------



## smf (Oct 6, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You've completely departed from the argument and are trying to sell the typical Trump is the big bad strawman.


I'm not selling anything, it's proven that Trump broke democracy and the minds of his supporters. They are basically good for nothing now, essentially on par with meth addicts.

You demonstrate this with all your posts.

Don't blame me because I won't enable you in your addiction.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 7, 2022)

smf said:


> I'm not selling anything, it's proven that Trump broke democracy and the minds of his supporters. They are basically good for nothing now, essentially on par with meth addicts.
> 
> You demonstrate this with all your posts.
> 
> Don't blame me because I won't enable you in your addiction.



You are selling a strawman.  The argument had nothing to do with Trump.  You are acting as a pervert that seems to think everything that ever happens is linked to him.  All you are capable of producing is what you've got going on inside you.  You are obsessed with Trump because you don't seem to realize that you elected him.  So don't call me a Trump supporter just because you are losing an argument.

Meanwhile, decentralizing of government is good imo.  It's closer to being democratic.


----------



## smf (Oct 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You are acting as a pervert that seems to think everything that ever happens is linked to him.


No, I have attributed one thing to him. You are just trying to strawman your way out of it, because reality makes you cry.



tabzer said:


> Meanwhile, decentralizing of government is good imo.  It's closer to being democratic.


It's closer to tribalism. Which you approve of, as you are a tribalist.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Oct 7, 2022)

smf said:


> It's kind of cool that you use disingenuously use left wing arguments of tolerance against people who are trying to end your right wing intolerance. What you fail to understand is that I'm not telling you how to live the life you want, I'm telling you that you are a bigot for preventing others from living their life the way you want. I have no problem if you don't want to have an abortion.
> 
> I've articulated what I disagree with perfectly well, it's you that is the problem as you are unable to comprehend the simplest concepts. Everything you say is ridiculous, I'm not supporting your statements at all.
> 
> ...



right to a fair election, similarly, i dont remember them being my police but neat! also gonna need a source on the first part. And yup im sure the fraud will get him this time! just like russian collusion! btw whatever happened with your guys son, and china? and the illegal shit with his niece? that still russian disinformation? i can never remember.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 7, 2022)

smf said:


> No, I have attributed one thing to him. You are just trying to strawman your way out of it, because reality makes you cry.



Strawman my way out of _what_?  You shoe-horned Trump into the discussion as the reason why "democracy doesn't work" and why totalitarianism is necessary--which has no bearing on my claim.



smf said:


> It's closer to tribalism. Which you approve of, as you are a tribalist.



I said it's *more *democratic, and it is.  I wouldn't call states "tribes" and it is beside the point.  When the alternative is a few people on the bench deciding the rule of 330 million people, people having *more* direct influence over their law is a step towards *more *direct representation.  Anybody with any imagination can think of things that are more democratic than this, but the comparison is between SCOTUS ruling vs state's legislative practice.  It's not democracy vs tribalism.

You simply don't like that the decision may allow a change in a law that you want everyone to follow, despite the process that enforces it.  It's fine if you want to admit that, but that's outside of the scope of my claim, so you can be on your way.


----------



## smf (Oct 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Strawman my way out of _what_?  You shoe-horned Trump into the discussion as the reason why "democracy doesn't work" and why totalitarianism is necessary--which has no bearing on my claim.


No, I'm saying that Trump broke democracy and democracy is necessary, what you're arguing for is NOT democracy.

It's more akin to a dictatorship. The difference being, that you agree with the dictator.

I'm not sure how you think Roe V Wade is totalitarianism, but it shows just how perverted your thought process is.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 7, 2022)

smf said:


> No, I'm saying that Trump broke democracy and democracy is necessary, what you're arguing for is NOT democracy.



You said,"Trump et al broke democracy irrevocably, it's going to take a long time & wiping him and his supporters off the face of the earth, before democracy works again."

This says that democracy cannot be recovered because of Trump...  ...but it can be recovered.  That's a contradiction.  When can it be recovered?  Only after totalitarian measures of "wiping him and his supporters off the face of the earth".

In short, you are nuts.  



smf said:


> It's more akin to a dictatorship. The difference being, that you agree with the dictator.



I said the method of letting states decide their laws to be more democratic.  It is.  You haven't proven it wrong or even given a feasible argument as to how it is wrong.  You've only thrown strawman after strawman and misrepresent what is said.  I don't know which dictator you think I am agreeing with by acknowledging a SCOTUS decision.  You want to acknowledge a SCOTUS decision from 1973, but not a SCOTUS decision from 2022.  I acknowledge both.  Because I can recognize both, I can also acknowledge the sweeping effect a small court can have over a large country.  When will you figure it out?



smf said:


> I'm not sure how you think Roe V Wade is totalitarianism, but it shows just how perverted your thought process is.



SCOTUS deciding the rule of 50 states is more totalitarian than 50 states deciding their own rule.  If the subject of the law was about killing puppies or planting trees, it is irrelevant to the claim.


----------



## smf (Oct 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You said,"Trump et al broke democracy irrevocably, it's going to take a long time & wiping him and his supporters off the face of the earth, before democracy works again."


Sure, you're proving to be resistant to reason. So my guess is that it will take until you and people like you are gone before we can have democracy back.

You could prove me wrong, but you don't seem capable. You seem intent on proving me right.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 7, 2022)

smf said:


> Sure, you're proving to be resistant to reason. So my guess is that it will take until you and people like you are gone before we can have democracy back.
> 
> You could prove me wrong, but you don't seem capable. You seem intent on proving me right.


That user never provides evidance and never moves on whatever position they've taken, even when proven wrong. I've long given up on that song and dance because it's obvious that they aren't going to change or be reasoned with.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 7, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> That user never provides evidance and never moves on whatever position they've taken, even when proven wrong. I've long given up on that song and dance because it's obvious that they aren't going to change or be reasoned with.



Where have I been proven wrong?  You are going to have to be specific if you are going to make claims.  You are just as nuts if you think half of your voting population needs to "wiped from the face of Earth" before democracy has a chance.



smf said:


> Sure, you're proving to be resistant to reason. So my guess is that it will take until you and people like you are gone before we can have democracy back.
> 
> You could prove me wrong, but you don't seem capable. You seem intent on proving me right.



This isn't an argument.  It doesn't address anything I say.  It's akin to say that all your posts are stupid and you never make any sense.  

Pointing out that decentralizing of government is a good thing is not supporting Trump, lol.

I'm not a threat to your democracy.  You do a fine job of that by yourselves.


----------



## Nothereed (Oct 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Where have I been proven wrong?


All the time, like 99% of your positions have been proven wrong. And then you cry "well nobody disproved me"

Reality is, you just don't give up, you provide" facts" we prove you wrong, you throw the papers.
You bang the table with logical fallacies, you chuck it when we prove you wrong. And all your left is saying "nobody proved me wrong"
and then when we prove you wrong. you go nuh uh, and go another 500 hoops of bs logic.
So no we're not doing this song and dance. The 500th time we've done it is enough. 499 times over what we should of done.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Where have I been proven wrong?  You are going to have to be specific if you are going to make claims.


The sentence immediately after this


tabzer said:


> You are just as nuts if you think half of your voting population needs to "wiped from the face of Earth" before democracy has a chance.


I don’t know who said this but it definitely wasn’t me, so you are wrong.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 8, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> You bang the table with logical fallacies



I appreciate an entire post dedicated to an ad hominem in lieu of an actual argument.

I admit that there is a trend of the same people disagreeing with my opinions.  If we want to focus on the argument at hand, can you point out how SCOTUS making a decision for an entire nation is less of a centralized authority (authoritarian) than a state's legislate?



The Catboy said:


> I don’t know who said this but it definitely wasn’t me, so you are wrong.



It's the argument @smf posed which you quoted an iteration of in your previous response. That _seems _to support his position.  What is the value of what you have to say about the conversation* if* you don't pay attention to the conversation?

I didn't say that is what you think. I said you are "as nuts"_* if*_ you think that. You do know the reason why someone would use the word "*if*", right? The way I'd be wrong about what I said to you is _*if*_ you had some sort of convincing argument as to why it isn't nuts to think such a thing.  Instead, you are distancing yourself from it.   Ironically, that action passively supports my position.

Maybe I am always right and you always read what I say the same way you are doing now.


----------



## smf (Oct 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I appreciate an entire post dedicated to an ad hominem in lieu of an actual argument.
> 
> 
> Maybe I am always right and you always read what I say the same way you are doing now.


Everything I learned about ad hominem attacks, I learned from your posts. Rather disingenuous to start using that as a defence.

No, you aren't always right. It's about the only thing that everyone else can agree on.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 8, 2022)

smf said:


> Everything I learned about ad hominem attacks, I learned from your posts. Rather disingenuous to start using that as a defence.



I doubt you've learned anything.  You are making earnest strides to ignore the arguments I make above, and to focus on the conversation you want to have.  (this)



smf said:


> No, you aren't always right. It's about the only thing that everyone else can agree on.



My opinion is not a democratic co-op.  Trying to vote it out isn't the same as providing a sensible argument.

The deconstruction of centralized rule of authority leads to more democratic participation, whether it be about growing potatoes, eating potatoes, or aborting them--regardless if Trump team agrees with me or not.  If you have an argument, or an example, that directly contradicts this, I'd be very interested.

Otherwise, it seems that the intelligence here is running dry.


----------



## Nothereed (Oct 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I said it's *more *democratic, and it is.






tabzer said:


> The reversal on RvW empowers the state to take _*and *_give rights on the subject.





tabzer said:


> If you understand decentralization of rule to be a good thing (which I am mind to), then further decentralization would be even better.



It's not democratic, it's not decentralized. If it was democratic, this wouldn't be happening when 60% of people said fuck no. And wouldn't be passed by a obviously biased and stacked supreme court, who is again, looking to gut contraceptives.
Hell it's not democratic because these states are making it a fucking *felony*
you know, can't own a gun, can't vote. You know. Very Democratic.
It's a clearly targeted move to harm women, and harm anyone who would dare to help them.
It's not decentralized since it's providing power to states. Giving power to another government, within the same system, is not decentralizing. It's just deffering power into the hands of a already absurdly strong minority party, through abusing of the broken parts of the system they have control over.
And it ONLY helps that minority party. A very strongly hated, and disliked minority party, who wouldn't win at all if it wasn't for the busted electoral collage combined with a lack of rank choice overall combined with oil companies being in their pockets.

If you cannot get this through your head, I'm ending this on a one note reply.
If I had to tie it back to the thread name, this is supressing women, and doctors. Doctors who have to watch women suffer. Or worry about going to prison and have to worry about going to jail for giving an abortion. Even if right now the patient is dying on the table and the solution is an abortion, they at this moment as the doctor have to do effectively the legal math in their head. And that's fucked.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 8, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> It's not democratic, it's not decentralized.


I agree with you, in the absolute sense, but my argument is that it's *more *democratic and it is *more *decentralized to the alternative before. The alternative before was a small court deciding nation-sweeping matters based on the interpretation of a document which is, relatively, democratically inaccessible.

Regardless of the rules that these states pass, they are _*more *_direct of a consequence to how the voters participate in electing their representatives.

My arguments are not:  democracy of the state is satisfactory, politicians are trustworthy, masses are not stupid.

If you'd like to have a conversation of how a country can be even more democratic than what we have now, I'd be game.  Even then, I doubt we'd be able to come to an agreement to what "true democracy" would look like.  Someone can always come in and say "that's not democratic", which is the same low effort posts I'm responding to now.


----------



## smf (Oct 10, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I doubt you've learned anything.  You are making earnest strides to ignore the arguments I make above, and to focus on the conversation you want to have.  (this)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't make an argument against this, because it looks like the result of a bad google translate.

I agree with the last bit though, intelligence there is running dry.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 10, 2022)

smf said:


> I can't make an argument against this, because it looks like the result of a bad google translate.
> 
> I agree with the last bit though, intelligence there is running dry.



"I don't understand, therefore, you must be stupid."

I'm not saying that you should understand, but it seems that if you're not spoon-fed from a political platform, you just wouldn't know how to operate.


----------



## smf (Oct 10, 2022)

tabzer said:


> "I don't understand, therefore, you must be stupid."
> 
> I'm not saying that you should understand, but it seems that if you're not spoon-fed from a political platform, you just wouldn't know how to operate.


1. You assume people are stupid because you can't understand them, so it's hilarious that you're going with that.

2. You threw some word soup at a post. That isn't my fault.

You have consistently argued for less democracy, where you agree with the policies and more democracy where you disagree. I don't believe you actually want democracy. Trump loading the supreme court is not democracy, allowing the state government to control women's reproductive rights is not democracy.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 10, 2022)

smf said:


> You assume people are stupid because you can't understand them, so it's hilarious that you're going with that.



I understand you perfectly fine.  It's ideal if one knows what they are arguing with.



smf said:


> You threw some word soup at a post. That isn't my fault.



The "word soup" is technical, but has supplemental context above and below it that you are choosing to ignore.



smf said:


> You have consistently argued for less democracy, where you agree with the policies and more democracy where you disagree. I don't believe you actually want democracy.



No I haven't.



smf said:


> Trump loading the supreme court is not democracy, allowing the state government to control women's reproductive rights is not democracy.



It's not a Trump exclusivity.  It's literally a way how both political parties strive to control the nation.  If we agree that neither SCOTUS or state government is democracy (in the absolute sense), which is more democratic in terms of relativity?  SCOTUS rulings or voted representatives passing laws in their state.


----------



## smf (Oct 10, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It's not a Trump exclusivity.  It's literally a way how both political parties strive to control the nation.  If we agree that neither SCOTUS or state government is democracy (in the absolute sense), which is more democratic in terms of relativity?  SCOTUS rulings or voted representatives passing laws in their state.


SCOTUS is more dangerous now that Trump loaded it with right wingnuts.

For example SCOTUS just voted to allow goverment to control reproductive rights against the will of the people living in those states.

You'll need to give some examples of what democrats are doing to control the nation.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 10, 2022)

smf said:


> SCOTUS is more dangerous now that Trump loaded it with right wingnuts.
> 
> For example SCOTUS just voted to allow goverment to control reproductive rights against the will of the people living in those states.
> 
> You'll need to give some examples of what democrats are doing to control the nation.



If we agree that neither SCOTUS or state government is democracy (in the absolute sense), which is more democratic in terms of relativity? SCOTUS rulings or voted representatives passing laws in their state.


----------



## smf (Oct 10, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If we agree that neither SCOTUS or state government is democracy (in the absolute sense), which is more democratic in terms of relativity? SCOTUS rulings or voted representatives passing laws in their state.


SCOTUS was stuffed full of right wingnuts just as the sun set on Trumps decaying rule.

The state legislature is imposing rules against their population with no mandate.

Do I need to explain what democracy is?

You might agree with what they are doing, but it's disingenuous to argue it's being done correctly.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 11, 2022)

smf said:


> SCOTUS was stuffed full of right wingnuts just as the sun set on Trumps decaying rule.
> 
> The state legislature is imposing rules against their population with no mandate.
> 
> ...


If you paid attention to what I've been saying, you'd notice that I never made the claim that it was democracy "done correctly".  I even went as far to say that it isn't.

"More" is a term denoting relativity. I claimed that state representation was _*more *_democratic than SCOTUS decree. _You said that this is false._

*Answer the question:

If we agree that neither SCOTUS or state government is democracy (in the absolute sense), which is more democratic in terms of relativity? SCOTUS rulings or voted representatives passing laws in their state.*

If you think SCOTUS rulings are more democratic than individually voted representatives passing laws (because it's about a law you think everybody wants), then I am inclined to believe that you think a monarchy is a democracy as long as the Queen or King makes rules that are popular.

If you want to admit that you didn't understand what you were arguing against from the beginning, I'll accept the concession.


----------



## DCarnage (Oct 11, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> There's a semi interesting aspect that I want to go ahead and talk about. Just a notice of two similar things.
> 
> 
> Hitler became Hilter because he believed that the Jews were suppressing him and the German race. It happened to be that he got his information from a small "newspaper" business that primarily focused on anti Semite rehetroic.
> ...


And no matter how many times people told them they were wrong and showed them the truth, the Germans blindly followed Hitler and his regime. They mainly teach history so we don't repeat the mistakes from the past but here we are.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 11, 2022)

DCarnage said:


> And no matter how many times people told them they were wrong and showed them the truth, the Germans blindly followed Hitler and his regime. They mainly teach history so we don't repeat the mistakes from the past but here we are.



"Democracy" elected and enabled Hitler to cancel it.  Germans didn't "blindly" follow Hitler.  They were incentivized.  In the end America fought Germany for control over the Nazis.

"They" mainly teach history in a way so that children learn to idolize their government.  In my lifetime, America has always been a global tyrant enabled by its "democracy".


----------



## Lumstar (Oct 11, 2022)

Why are we asking trick questions? Neither answer gives real power to the voting electorate. There's no democracy in appointed SCOTUS judges (the people didn't elect them) passing laws the people didn't vote for.

Elected state representatives passing laws people don't necessarily want, is still politicians imposing their ideas on the populace.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 11, 2022)

Lumstar said:


> Why are we asking trick questions? Neither answer gives real power to the voting electorate. There's no democracy in appointed SCOTUS judges (the people didn't elect them) passing laws the people didn't vote for.
> 
> Elected state representatives passing laws people don't necessarily want, is still politicians imposing their ideas on the populace.


It's not a trick question.  I have the belief that "true democracy" is as elusive as "true socialism".  There can only be moves towards or moves from.  SCOTUS still has a democratic quality, though imo, it is smaller than the centralizing authoritarian quality it contains (because it is more layered and gameable for parties; not people).  People elect politicians despite them being liars, and they suffer the consequence of that.  In comparison, one is more accessible to a voter than the other.  It's almost an objective measurement.  However, any system where everyone, who is affected, doesn't get a direct say about the government influence in their lives is not democratic enough.

That all being said, I think the shift is more democratic and less centralized.  Now there should be more focus on how states align with democratic principles as the change in power structure incentivizes it.  If one state could demonstrate a superior model, then other states would likely adopt such measures, more quickly than a national system that is more bogged down by bureaucratic inefficiency.

If one doesn't see the point of my initial claim, then it is even more pointless to argue on a single side of the claim.  At least you ask the question.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Oct 12, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> The all defining logic of the TraderPatTX.
> Let him tell you how you "the media" is lying to you.
> Most news last about 2 minutes and the rest is commentary from what ever source your drinking from.
> 
> ...


So you can't refute a single word I have said, resorting to only attacks. Yet another smooth brained leftist trying to be clever and epically failing at it.

You have a micro brain to go with your micro nut.


----------



## sombrerosonic (Nov 2, 2022)

Jayro said:


> This will be my profile pic for November, across all platforms.
> 
> View attachment 328955


Well..... im waiting (Shitpost )


----------



## MicroNut99 (Nov 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If you paid attention to what I've been saying, you'd notice that I never made the claim that it was democracy "done correctly".  I even went as far to say that it isn't.
> 
> "More" is a term denoting relativity. I claimed that state representation was _*more *_democratic than SCOTUS decree. _You said that this is false._
> 
> ...


Mocking other members is against the rules.


----------



## sombrerosonic (Nov 2, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> Mocking other members is against the rules.


That happens on there alot mostly Ad homers from all sides that hurt there arguments


----------



## tabzer (Nov 2, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> Mocking other members is against the rules.



I'm sorry if you think presenting a stronger argument is a form of mockery.



sombrerosonic said:


> That happens on there alot mostly Ad homers from all sides that hurt there arguments



If you read what he was responding to, there was no "ad homer".  I think he just doesn't know who or what he is responding to.


----------



## Jayro (Nov 2, 2022)

sombrerosonic said:


> Well..... im waiting (Shitpost )



Done, as promised.


----------



## Nothereed (Nov 2, 2022)

You know, I don't think any of us said this outloud. So I'm going to go say it.


Cancel Culture is just a shitty excuse for shitty people to avoid blame.



Say something garbage and untrue about a certain group of people (LGBTQ if you really want to know the specific)
And everyone who knows the subject, and or LGBTQ, go ahead and calls that person out on their bullshit.


And instead of that person maybe looking in, or thinking their wrong. It's "We'll it's the woke leftists doing cancel culture, so I can't be wrong" even though not all of them are leftists with a decent chunk being more moderate than that.
To tie this back into the subject, it's the conservatives party method  of suppressing people, without dealing or thinking of the consequences of their actions, instead any critique goes to "it must be cancel culture from the woke left"

	Post automatically merged: Nov 2, 2022

And woke isn't even defined as it's own thing. "woke" to them is somehow left leaning. But I've seen woke used as a replacement for left.
Then the sentence (presuming "woke" means left")
 goes "It's must be cancel culture from the left left" which doesn't make any sense. Woke in the way the right has been using it, has no define start and end point. It just means whatever they (Conservatives) don't like.
LGBTQ (and) trans rights? woke.

Saying that Nazi's are like idk. Bad? I've kid you not, the quartering, defended fucking Hitler during the twitter blow up, and someone clearly from his base, in his comments was like "It's just the *woke *leftists trying to cancel you again..."
Like is there a woke right winger? is that a thing? is there a non woke leftist? what the hell does woke even mean to these people?

To me it's just a dog-whistle to accentuate whatever "X" thing they want to hate today.

	Post automatically merged: Nov 2, 2022

Continuing my tangent here. Apparently woke is supposed to mean aware of social injustices. (such as racism) According to
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke
 So umm. If that's what it means. Aka "It must be cancel culture from the left who is aware of social injustices"
Shouldn't that be like... Not be used in a derogatory way????
Like isn't the point of politics to you know. Resolve injustices?Create policies to you know... heelp people?????????
 Wouldn't that mean that Republicans don't want to fix that? by using woke in a way that makes it sound like a problem????


Also another thing that's continued to not make sense, and now that I'm extra hyper aware of it. So I don't get Republican logic with:
"democrats are racists, we are the party of Lincoln, see,  it's in the name, so we're not racist, you're the racist"
Like it's. Hold up I found a meme online about the subject, and this perfectly encapsulates how absurd it is


Okay this is EXACTLY why it's confusing to me. Let's forget that the party switch happened (since apparently acknowledging history is too out there for Republicans)
Can you PLEASE explain to me why you go out, showing the confederate flag. you know. The confederacy. *the one that wanted slavery*
If we know Lincoln fought the confederacy, which we know the confederacy was pro slavery. Why are you all using, confederate imagery.
You can't claim that your the party of Lincoln, while effectively showing support for the very thing he fought against.

Additionally, the argument double doesn't make sense, since when the whole tearing down statues event happened. The same people, Republicans, who like to show their confederate flags, got angry that the confederate statues were being taken down.


----------



## Jayro (Nov 2, 2022)

To me, being woke means not sleeping on important social issues. I don't see it as anything bad, but I'm also left-leaning in terms of ideals and practice.


----------



## sombrerosonic (Nov 14, 2022)

Jayro said:


> To me, being woke means not sleeping on important social issues. I don't see it as anything bad, but I'm also left-leaning in terms of ideals and practice.


To me, woke its waking up in the past tense /j . but i digress, What is exactly suppression? If we treat everyone equal, would there be no suppression? Should we treat people who done horrid things worse and people who did good better, Should it effect things like  everyone is payed the exact same or is it a "You work for how much your job is worth" kinda thing? Just asking.


----------

