Gr666mer Updates

[jamil]

Where did you learn this sillyness?
Do you believe that Our Founding Fathers were clean as white linen? lol
Most were drunks, slave owners, perverts and so on.

Can you list them? Which was Jefferson? Of course he was a slave owner at a time when morality had not matured past that. Was he a drunk? Was he a pervert?

A tabular format would be useful. Founder name with a comma separated list of top 3 evils.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

My personal opinion on pornography has not been stated. Again, Im a believer in The 1st Amendment.

I don't know how to take this other than an admission that you actually are in this thread only to troll. You started this whole debate by responding to a comment about a petition regarding pornography in schools, so if you never planned on actually stating your position, why the heck did you jump into the thread in the first place?

Your modus operandi, which you've repeated a few times in this thread alone already, seems to be to take a statement someone makes condemning X ("X" might be drag queens grooming kids in school, pornography being readily available or even distributed to kids, pornography being displayed in publicly visible locations, etc) and then you reply to that statement with some vague, provocative, and somewhat insulting question ("Why do you hate the First Amendment?", "Are you sure your book of morals says that?", "Why do you want to control your neighbor's life?") People will then naturally assume that you are defending "X", and try to engage in a logical debate over the morality of "X". You will then continue to reply with smug, snarky comments, which completely ignore the questions posed by whoever is debating with you, and to accuse them of being uneducated, hypocritical, and of not thinking on their own but only following what their "book of morals" tells them. Finally, if they manage to bring the debate back to the issue being addressed in the original comment you replied to, you'll throw a big pity party for yourself saying, "Oh, but I never stated my opinion on X. Look how much people are assuming about my beliefs when they've never even met me."

I've defended you in the past, but at this point I'm honestly left with no conclusion other than that you have no intention of engaging in meaningful debate, but are just trying to be provocative. I don't know what you call that behavior, but I call it trolling.

No, I'm not calling for anyone to be banned. As I've already said, I'm not a snowflake, I can handle this nonsense just fine. I'm just calling a spade a spade, and I don't plan to stop doing so, thank you very much.

 

[jamil]

Which part? The part that condones slavery? The part that does not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, and admonishes her to remain silent? The part where it's totally reasonable for two daughters to get their father drunk and screw him? The part where children get mauled by bears for mocking bald old men? The part where the best course of action when strangers want to rape your male houseguest is to offer them your daughters? The part where you stone your daughter to death for being promiscuous?

Yeah...I don't think the founding fathers were that ****ed up.

Now c’mon. It’s easy to apply todays morals to yesterday’s societal norms. If you’re trying to claim that the founders were immoral people, then what did they do that was immoral at the time? Did they fap in the outhouse? Did they **** their female slaves? Well. Some of them did. And that would be a better example of immoral behavior.

What will they say about you in 100 years? Depends who wins the culture war I think.

 

[jamil]

You have the right to your own beliefs even if they are unfounded and out of context.

Is that what they teach in secular humanism 101?

Edit:
I'm still waiting on that proof that the founders were all evil and just like what the 1619 project propaganda said they were.

All the things he listed were from stories in the bible. They were only out of context in that they are criticized from the morality of today. Those stories were written from a time when thise were the norms. Morality has evolved since then, at least in the West. If conservative personalities had always won, those would still be the norms. Sometimes, progression benefits society.

 

[jamil]

We have a difference of opinion.

If you do not understand that pornography is immoral you, and I well never see eye to eye on this subject.

You are for pornography even if it is the main cause of human trafficking, and sexualization of children along with a multitude of other crimes. You, and I stand apart on this issue.

I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion other than interpreting his statements from the rules within your worldview. I don't recall him openly advocating FOR pornography. What I heard was him defending 1st amendment rights, which courts have upheld. The sexualization of children is sketchy though. He did say that he thinks it's okay for juniors/seniors to have access to it in high school libraries. To me that's not a progression of morals that is beneficial to society.

 

[DadSmith]

Okay. List them.

Reliance on the Providence of God found in the Declaration of Independence. Also found in the book of Isaiah.

Religion and Morality form basis of Liberty is found in multiple letters and statements from our founders. Also in the book of Leviticus, Jeremiah, 2 Chronicles, and John.

Equality is also a biblical principle that is found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution found also in the books of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Acts, and Galatians.

God given rights found in the Declaration and the Constitution found also in the books Genesis and Exodus.

Government authority is given by the consent of the people found found in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution also found in the book of Deuteronomy.

Inviolability of contracts found in the Constitution also in the book of Numbers.

Two witnesses needed.
Found in the Constitution also found in the book of Deuteronomy.

No corruption of blood.
Found in the Constitution also found in the book of Deuteronomy.

Sabbath honored.
Found in the Constitution and the book of Exodus.

Separation of state from church and vice versa.
Found in the Constitution also found in the book of Luke

 

[drillsgt]

I don't know how to take this other than an admission that you actually are in this thread only to troll. You started this whole debate by responding to a comment about a petition regarding pornography in schools, so if you never planned on actually stating your position, why the heck did you jump into the thread in the first place?

Your modus operandi, which you've repeated a few times in this thread alone already, seems to be to take a statement someone makes condemning X ("X" might be drag queens grooming kids in school, pornography being readily available or even distributed to kids, pornography being displayed in publicly visible locations, etc) and then you reply to that statement with some vague, provocative, and somewhat insulting question ("Why do you hate the First Amendment?", "Are you sure your book of morals says that?", "Why do you want to control your neighbor's life?") People will then naturally assume that you are defending "X", and try to engage in a logical debate over the morality of "X". You will then continue to reply with smug, snarky comments, which completely ignore the questions posed by whoever is debating with you, and to accuse them of being uneducated, hypocritical, and of not thinking on their own but only following what their "book of morals" tells them. Finally, if they manage to bring the debate back to the issue being addressed in the original comment you replied to, you'll throw a big pity party for yourself saying, "Oh, but I never stated my opinion on X. Look how much people are assuming about my beliefs when they've never even met me."

I've defended you in the past, but at this point I'm honestly left with no conclusion other than that you have no intention of engaging in meaningful debate, but are just trying to be provocative. I don't know what you call that behavior, but I call it trolling.

No, I'm not calling for anyone to be banned. As I've already said, I'm not a snowflake, I can handle this nonsense just fine. I'm just calling a spade a spade, and I don't plan to stop doing so, thank you very much.

Maybe we can call that behavior 'Kutting' or something like that?

 

[jamil]

It's kinda vague. I was hoping more for historical statements from founders along with their confirming verses. But some of these don't support founding principles.

Reliance on the Providence of God found in the Declaration of Independence. Also found in the book of Isaiah.

Religion and Morality form basis of Liberty is found in multiple letters and statements from our founders. Also in the book of Leviticus, Jeremiah, 2 Chronicles, and John.

Needs citation.

Equality is also a biblical principle that is found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution found also in the books of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Acts, and Galatians.

Needs citation

God given rights found in the Declaration and the Constitution found also in the books Genesis and Exodus.

Agreed, but at least go through the effort of citing.

Government authority is given by the consent of the people found found in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution also found in the book of Deuteronomy.

Needs citation

Inviolability of contracts found in the Constitution also in the book of Numbers.

I mean. this is a stretch.

Two witnesses needed.
Found in the Constitution also found in the book of Deuteronomy.

I mean. I suppose that the bible supports the idea of breathing. And I suppose that the founders support the idea of breathing. Did the founders get their support of breathing from the bible?

No corruption of blood.
Found in the Constitution also found in the book of Deuteronomy.

What? I mean at this point you're just looking for concepts found in both, not principles.

Sabbath honored.
Found in the Constitution and the book of Exodus.

The Sabbath is a founding principle? Really?

Separation of state from church and vice versa.
Found in the Constitution also found in the book of Luke

This one is like many of the rest. I'm asking you to establish that the founding of the US was uniquely inspired by the Bible, which is what it seems you're asserting. And so this list is simply concepts that appear in both, without establishing that one was derived from the other. And some are. The founding principles were derived from many sources. The bible was a source, but not the only source. It looks to me like they borrowed thinking from many philosophers, even non-Christians, all the way back to Ancient Greece. The US was not formed to be a uniquely Christian nation, albeit most Americans at the time of the founding were Christians.

I'll repeat what I said before. It's the moral part that a system of liberty relies on. It's a set of behavioral standards that everyone agrees to, more or less, that tends not to destroy a society. Religion isn't required for that, but religions tend to provide that.

It's not the fact that pornography is against the book that causes societal decay. It's the effects on humans that pornography has on individuals. Boys aren't ****ing girls as much anymore. They can't get girlfriends because they're socially emasculated. So they fap to porn. And that's a positive feedback loop that makes them even less capable of a relationship with girls. It's not like girls don't get off on porn too. Not everyone can **** like pornstars. It sets up all kinds of failed expectations in personal relationships. It's destroying young people. It's destroying marriages. It's destroying society. I don't think evolution has prepared humans for online porn on demand.

 

[jamil]

Maybe we can call that behavior 'Kutting' or something like that?

I mean. I get that it's applicable in a lot of cases. But every time someone posts something in disagreement with club-INGO? C'mon man.

You have to admit that some of you have attributed beliefs that you've inferred rather than what he's actually claimed to believe. And like I've said, it looks to me like his objection to what you guys are saying is primarily on 1st amendment grounds. And obviously that's arguable, but that's not generally what you guys are arguing. Some of you guys are making up arguments that you attribute to him, and then attacking that.

If you're going to argue against what he's saying, argue that it's not a first amendment issue.

 

[DadSmith]

It's kinda vague. I was hoping more for historical statements from founders along with their confirming verses. But some of these don't support founding principles.


Needs citation.


Needs citation

Agreed, but at least go through the effort of citing.


Needs citation

I mean. this is a stretch.


I mean. I suppose that the bible supports the idea of breathing. And I suppose that the founders support the idea of breathing. Did the founders get their support of breathing from the bible?


What? I mean at this point you're just looking for concepts found in both, not principles.


The Sabbath is a founding principle? Really?



This one is like many of the rest. I'm asking you to establish that the founding of the US was uniquely inspired by the Bible, which is what it seems you're asserting. And so this list is simply concepts that appear in both, without establishing that one was derived from the other. And some are. The founding principles were derived from many sources. The bible was a source, but not the only source. It looks to me like they borrowed thinking from many philosophers, even non-Christians, all the way back to Ancient Greece. The US was not formed to be a uniquely Christian nation, albeit most Americans at the time of the founding were Christians.

I'll repeat what I said before. It's the moral part that a system of liberty relies on. It's a set of behavioral standards that everyone agrees to, more or less, that tends not to destroy a society. Religion isn't required for that, but religions tend to provide that.

It's not the fact that pornography is against the book that causes societal decay. It's the effects on humans that pornography has on individuals. Boys aren't ****ing girls as much anymore. They can't get girlfriends because they're socially emasculated. So they fap to porn. And that's a positive feedback loop that makes them even less capable of a relationship with girls. It's not like girls don't get off on porn too. Not everyone can **** like pornstars. It sets up all kinds of failed expectations in personal relationships. It's destroying young people. It's destroying marriages. It's destroying society. I don't think evolution has prepared humans for online porn on demand.

So you don't know what the Constitution or Declaration of Independence says or are you needing Bible verses? I'm not sure what it is you need. All this is well known at least I thought it was.
I never said it formed to be a Christian only nation. I said it used Christian/Biblical principles.

 

[drillsgt]

I mean. I get that it's applicable in a lot of cases. But every time someone posts something in disagreement with club-INGO? C'mon man.

You have to admit that some of you have attributed beliefs that you've inferred rather than what he's actually claimed to believe. And like I've said, it looks to me like his objection to what you guys are saying is primarily on 1st amendment grounds. And obviously that's arguable, but that's not generally what you guys are arguing. Some of you guys are making up arguments that you attribute to him, and then attacking that.

If you're going to argue against what he's saying, argue that it's not a first amendment issue.

What would INGO be without the occasional dose of leftist outrage, keeps things interesting.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I'm not jumping into this debate, but I do have maybe a naive but serious question:
Does pornhub block VPNs? If not, there's no telling where their customers or whatever you call them are coming from. Or do you have to give them a credit card number, and they use billing addresses for their analytics? Which sounds creepy x 10^^100.

I cant imagine they would block known VPN IPs. Unless they are colluding with oppressive foreign govts.

So are you saying that possibly the physical exit points of the vpn services are in those states, skewing results? Meh. I dont buy it. I doubt highly that there are enough paranoid porn consumers that pay for VPNs to hide behind. Unless there are MILLIONS of overseas users trying to get around local porn bans.

I cant imagine there are that many overseas porn consumers that would skew results enough to matter.

 

[jamil]

What would INGO be without the occasional dose of leftist outrage, keeps things interesting.

Is the 1st amendment a leftist cause to get outraged over when violated? I thought that as conservatives we support the 1st amendment.

The argument, when we sift out the personal perceptions of what's being argued, is whether restrictions on porn violate the 1st amendment. You guys can argue about morality all day long, and that won't get anywhere. Morality isn't an issue that the 1st amendment tries to satisfy. It tries to specify what government does not have the power to regulate or establish. If the 1st is absolute, then it can't regulate porn at all. But if we admit that the 1st can't be absolute then what can the government regulate in terms of religion, speech, press, the right to petition?

I think the answer to that is how the protected act might trample the rights of others. I think porn fits into that category. Left to the choice of free adults, what they do in their own privacy is their own business. When it becomes public, that's where the government may establish some rules around it. I don't think government has the power granted to it to ban porn altogether, but it has the power to regulate it such that it's restricted to what free adults do in their own privacy.

 

[jamil]

I cant imagine they would block known VPN IPs. Unless they are colluding with oppressive foreign govts.

So are you saying that possibly the physical exit points of the vpn services are in those states, skewing results? Meh. I dont buy it. I doubt highly that there are enough paranoid porn consumers that pay for VPNs to hide behind. Unless there are MILLIONS of overseas users trying to get around local porn bans.

I cant imagine there are that many overseas porn consumers that would skew results enough to matter.

Even if just limited to Americans, why would VPN users pick Kansas, for crying out loud?

 

[Cameramonkey]

Reliance on the Providence of God found in the Declaration of Independence. Also found in the book of Isaiah.

Religion and Morality form basis of Liberty is found in multiple letters and statements from our founders. Also in the book of Leviticus, Jeremiah, 2 Chronicles, and John.

Equality is also a biblical principle that is found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution found also in the books of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Acts, and Galatians.

God given rights found in the Declaration and the Constitution found also in the books Genesis and Exodus.

Government authority is given by the consent of the people found found in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution also found in the book of Deuteronomy.

Inviolability of contracts found in the Constitution also in the book of Numbers.

Two witnesses needed.
Found in the Constitution also found in the book of Deuteronomy.

No corruption of blood.
Found in the Constitution also found in the book of Deuteronomy.

Sabbath honored.
Found in the Constitution and the book of Exodus.

Separation of state from church and vice versa.
Found in the Constitution also found in the book of Luke

Correlation =/= causation. the bible reinforces many natural rights. I'd argue that if they were REALLY all about forming a Christian nation, there would be more references to overtly Christian principles. And remember what got us here in the first place... the need to escape a state governed by the church.

Time to once again recommend this book.
It looks at ALL the founders' writings, as well as things like the federalist papers to cover the topic of how our nation was formed and under what context.
The 5000 Year Leap Book

 

[Cameramonkey]

Even if just limited to Americans, why would VPN users pick Kansas, for crying out loud?

I was thinking more like Nord chose Kansas as a place to put their servers and when some horny saudi chose "USA" thats just happenstance where his traffic would hit the open interwebz.

 

[jamil]

So you don't know what the Constitution or Declaration of Independence says or are you needing Bible verses? I'm not sure what it is you need. All this is well known at least I thought it was.
I never said it formed to be a Christian only nation. I said it used Christian/Biblical principles.

I'm familiar with the constitution. I'm familiar with the Bible. What I want you to do is establish the claims you're making with specifics. Like this statement in the constitution was derived from this verse in the Bible. And it would be helpful if you could show the evidence that the concept in the constitution came exclusively from the Bible.

But, if you're only saying that the constitution contains concepts you might also find in the Bible, okay then. But it's hardly a point worth making. One could pick out anything in the constitution and find something similar in the bible. You could do the same with many literary works. Rather, it seemed to me that you were drawing a significance with the Bible, that but for the Bible, we could not have the founding principles we have. I think to some extent that's true in that all the life experiences of all those involved, combined into an overall worldview that led to the constitution being what it was. But then the Bible's impact on it is of no more importance than the philosophies of Ancient Greeks.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Your modus operandi, which you've repeated a few times in this thread alone already, seems to be to take a statement someone makes condemning X ("X" might be drag queens grooming kids in school, pornography being readily available or even distributed to kids, pornography being displayed in publicly visible locations, etc) and then you reply to that statement with some vague, provocative, and somewhat insulting question ("Why do you hate the First Amendment?", "Are you sure your book of morals says that?", "Why do you want to control your neighbor's life?") People will then naturally assume that you are defending "X", and try to engage in a logical debate over the morality of "X". You will then continue to reply with smug, snarky comments, which completely ignore the questions posed by whoever is debating with you, and to accuse them of being uneducated, hypocritical, and of not thinking on their own but only following what their "book of morals" tells them. Finally, if they manage to bring the debate back to the issue being addressed in the original comment you replied to, you'll throw a big pity party for yourself saying, "Oh, but I never stated my opinion on X. Look how much people are assuming about my beliefs when they've never even met me."

I've defended you in the past, but at this point I'm honestly left with no conclusion other than that you have no intention of engaging in meaningful debate, but are just trying to be provocative. I don't know what you call that behavior, but I call it trolling.

No, I'm not calling for anyone to be banned. As I've already said, I'm not a snowflake, I can handle this nonsense just fine. I'm just calling a spade a spade, and I don't plan to stop doing so, thank you very much.

This is his standard MO, period. Which is why I refuse to engage with him. AT ALL. EVERY LAST controversial thread that goes sideways like this is the same with him. Attack, deflect, and refuse to directly answer questions.
Not worth the time. Y'all apparently have much more patience for that crap than I do.

 

[jamil]

I was thinking more like Nord chose Kansas as a place to put their servers and when some horny saudi chose "USA" thats just happenstance where his traffic would hit the open interwebz.

But Kansas? I think it's probably more like a lot of board farmers with less access to sheep than they used to have.

 

[oze]

Even if just limited to Americans, why would VPN users pick Kansas, for crying out loud?

PIA VPN, for example, let's you choose from servers around the country and around the world. I'll change mine periodically, and choose the one that currently shows the lowest latency.