Five minutes of hate news

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
We'll have to agree to disagree on that point then, as I see zero issues with someone being gay/bi/lesbian unless they're the batshit insane kind (you know the type).

The root of the issue is 'who gets to set the moral law'?

There's only really two answers; it's either divinely determined, or man gets to decide what it is. There's a fair bit of variance within these two categories of answer, but everything is based on one of those principles.

In the west, there's basically two positions:

If it's the God of Christianity, then anything other than heterosexual monogamy is immoral.

If it's whatever humans decide it is, then it's a matter of either cultural consensus, or whatever the person with the most guns backing him up says. Thus, it is nothing more than a social construct, and ever subject to change.


Other religions have different rules, and various atheists and agnostics disagree on where the lines should fall, but those are the two basic positions that are in conflict. Which is why while Christians can be gracious and loving towards homosexuals, we cannot affirm their lifestyle.

God sets the moral law, not man.
 

BlackDragon98

Freikorps Kommandant
Banned - Politics
Apparently the local hutterites came out with 800 pounds of meat and gave the truckers a big bbq.
The Amish mostly voted for Trump back in 2019/2020 and they almost never come out of their little towns.

If the freaking pacifist Anabaptist sects are coming out in support of the the Truckers, than Castro-Trudeau's days are truly numbered.

It was crazy. i dunno if it will be like that this weekend. The sheer energy of it was tremendous tho. So electric it nearly made my hair stand up on end.
I've heard rumors that the military is coming to put down the protest.

I'm still going regardless.

They may shoot us down with their bullets on the behalf of their Stalinist masters, but we will never bow down to these shitfaces.

A pregnant New Zealand journalist named Charlotte Bellis will be graciously allowed to return to her home country of New Zealand in the final month of pregnancy despite being denied entry into the country multiple times due to their strict Covid measures. Charlotte Bellis, who works for Al Jazeera, was living in Qatar but wanted to return home because it is 'illegal' to be pregnant and unmarried in that country. But New Zealand repeatedly refused her appeals for entry.

So the only other active visa on her passport was that of Afghanistan. The Taliban graciously allowed her refuge into their country when approached by the pregnant journalist despite being unmarried and pregnant.
I dunno if they're doing this for good PR or what, but it seems that the Taliban still have basic human decency, unlike a certain group of people in NZ.

Makes me realize that we were truly the "baddies" in the Middle East and that we (Canada) should have never gotten involved.


Her Op-Ed:


But thankfully she was allowed an emergency return to New Zealand after the Op-Ed was published. But the Government states that this wasn't due to public outcry but because their current system worked out that way for the safety of all New Zealanders.
No, it's because they got one upped by the Taliban of all groups.

This world just gets stranger and stranger.

Those who were our enemies but few months ago are now showing more compassion and generosity towards us (the Western world) than our own government and fellow citizens.

We have truly been fighting the wrong enemy all along.
 

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
The root of the issue is 'who gets to set the moral law'?

There's only really two answers; it's either divinely determined, or man gets to decide what it is. There's a fair bit of variance within these two categories of answer, but everything is based on one of those principles.

In the west, there's basically two positions:

If it's the God of Christianity, then anything other than heterosexual monogamy is immoral.

If it's whatever humans decide it is, then it's a matter of either cultural consensus, or whatever the person with the most guns backing him up says. Thus, it is nothing more than a social construct, and ever subject to change.


Other religions have different rules, and various atheists and agnostics disagree on where the lines should fall, but those are the two basic positions that are in conflict. Which is why while Christians can be gracious and loving towards homosexuals, we cannot affirm their lifestyle.

God sets the moral law, not man.
The former comes from a Christian viewpoint: That's perfectly fine for people if that's their thing/faith, but most people in the West, myself included, aren't Christian. We're atheist.

Religion doesn't play a role in our lives, nor does the belief in an Almighty God. It's a non-entity, and despite what other people say, not believing in Christianity or some other religion doesn't make us amoral nuts who rape, murder, or steal, lol.

Yes, our civilization in its current form uses Christian morals as a base/core on which it was built, and they formed the current (well, before batshit wokeness took over) non-religious social norms people typically adhere to.

Truth be told, every time I see someone quote a Bible verse or say "something is wrong because of X", I roll my eyes and pretty much write them off in that conversation.

Another example? When I see a YouTube video on men's mental-health or a woman's infidelity, I always see some nut in the comments quoting God, the Bible, or something like those as the reason why it happened; that not adhering to religion was the reason why they strayed. Uh, no, it's just common fucking decency and social norms to not step-out on your partner. Those social norms came from Christianity and their core, but they're not Christian anymore.

While Christian morals mean you can understand and tolerate homosexuality, affirming it isn't possible due to your religious beliefs. Again, that's fine, but most people don't have those barriers: We just see regular people with a different orientation. Being homosexual isn't something that needs to be "locked behind" a proverbial gate to stop degeneracy (e.g. kid-fuckers), but it should be the gate itself: Anything further than that leads down a dark road, as history has shown us many times before.

So, I'd say it's the former: People decide what is normal and acceptable, with the current non-religious social norms coming from/evolved from an effectively depreciated religion (depreciated in comparison to the massive scale it had been before the pre-20th).

It's why wokeness needs to be stamped out. That includes batshit feminism, Leftism, Critical Race Theory/racism against Whites, et cetera: These fringe elements are trying to mutate social norms into what is effectively an abomination. We don't need religion to do that and "get back on the straight narrow", though I can see some merit in what people say regarding the West "straying from Christian values": All we need is common-sense and to stamp out this social-rot/poison.

That's why I'm firmly anti-Woke.
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
but most people in the West, myself included, aren't Christian. We're atheist.
This is not true. MAYBE 5% of the US is atheist. As for Europe and the rest...I think the Czech are the country with the highest atheist pop at something like 25%. The majority of the West is very much religious. And most of those are Christian of one flavor or another.
Truth be told, every time I see someone quote a Bible verse or say "something is wrong because of X", I roll my eyes and pretty much write them off in that conversation.
Why? Why is that person's judgement automatically flawed?

Also, be warned, this is EXACTLY the sort of judgement the Left reserves for those that oppose them. "Oh, you're one of those people. I can ignore you now b/c you don't matter."
People decide what is normal and acceptable, with the current non-religious social norms coming from/evolved from an effectively depreciated religion (depreciated in comparison to the massive scale it had been before the pre-20th).
These fringe elements are trying to mutate social norms into what is effectively an abomination. We don't need religion to do that and "get back on the straight narrow", though I can see some merit in what people say regarding the West "straying from Christian values": All we need is common-sense and to stamp out this social-rot/poison.
You do realize that these last two points are the same line of though don't you?

If you have nothing to anchor your moral principles in then time and 'social change' can mutate them into ANYTHING. It's why the fundamentals of Natural (God-given) laws are a must for our society.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Yes, our civilization in its current form uses Christian morals as a base/core on which it was built, and they formed the current (well, before batshit wokeness took over) non-religious social norms people typically adhere to.
I'd argue Christianity doesn't own those morals though; a lot of them can be traced to Ancient Greek philosophers, who's ideas were later built upon by people who just happened to be Christian. Because, you know, for a long time not being Christian (or the right kind of Christian, depending on where you were) was basically an open invitation to be treated like garbage at best.



This is not true. MAYBE 5% of the US is atheist. As for Europe and the rest...I think the Czech are the country with the highest atheist pop at something like 25%. The majority of the West is very much religious. And most of those are Christian of one flavor or another.
Statistics aren't worth much these days, but the Pew Research Center says that only 65% of Americans self-identify as Christians, down 12% from a decade prior. Meanwhile, 26% described themselves as non-religious in one form or another; though only 4% said they were specifically atheist.

If you have nothing to anchor your moral principles in then time and 'social change' can mutate them into ANYTHING. It's why the fundamentals of Natural (God-given) laws are a must for our society.
An anchor may be necessary, but Christianity is far from the only available option, and it doesn't work for everyone.
 

SchrodingersWehraboo

Well-known member
Anime Expo 2022 is going along with the "Covid Safety" LARP:

All guidelines and measures being put into place are driven by data provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (LMAO)

...

In our effort to adhere to COVID-19 guidelines and recommendations, SPJA will be requiring all attendees of AX 2022 to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination or proof of a negative COVID-19 test taken 24 hours prior to attending the event.
Additionally, all attendees of AX 2022 will be required to wear approved face coverings, regardless of vaccination status, at all times unless in outdoor areas or actively drinking or eating. Approved face coverings must fit snugly and properly, fully covering your nose and mouth, and secure under your chin. Face coverings cannot be bandanas or scarves, neck gaiters, mesh face coverings, face coverings with exhalation valves, and/or damaged/torn face coverings.
Approved face coverings must be visible at all times and cannot be hidden under costume headwear and/or cosplay pieces.
Ah well, it's LA, so I should've known it'd come to this. Still doing the "Vaccine good but you need to wear a mask too" gotcha, I see.
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
So is ACEN, incidentally. They even have an absurd "two layers" requirement for masks, so I'm going to actually double up on the hospital masks I have to get by. And I'm utterly fucked if they decide they're going to require boosters. So far they are saying just the first two shots count as "fully vaccinated," but we'll see how they stick by that, I guess. I'm going to guess most cons are going to have similar requirements for a while. This may cure me of my continued desire to actually go to cons.
 

Sir 1000

Shitlord
There's nothing wrong with being gay, bi, or a lesbian in itself. There are many people out there that are just regular people with a different orientation. Society, which includes them not as some disparate exception, is pretty chill with someone not being straight.

However, there is a massive difference between the above and the utter degeneracy, and I use that word in its actual context, seen in the overall LGBTQfuckingKitchenSink community/movement. And it is degeneracy when these fruitcakes become the public "face" for people who aren't straight, and normal people who aren't hetero suffer for these nuts' actions.

History is pretty rife with this shit -- from the Spartans basically raping their boy proteges to the Afghanis raping boys in this very century. Let's not even bring up Rome.

And, yes, that includes the descent into actual kid-fucking/actual minors, like that cunt is trying to argue in his "paper" (by minors, I mean actual kids and not teenagers who are like sixteen and up -- Americans grow hysterical over age-gap relationships for some reason, even when that "minor" at seventeen is just a few months shy of eighteen, and if she were eighteen in the first place they'd probably just cheering her on at the nearest strip club or trying to chat her up on Tinder, or something. smh. Weird hypocrisy).
She was only 17.9999999999 years and 34 pico seconds old you sick fuck!!
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Another example? When I see a YouTube video on men's mental-health or a woman's infidelity, I always see some nut in the comments quoting God, the Bible, or something like those as the reason why it happened; that not adhering to religion was the reason why they strayed. Uh, no, it's just common fucking decency and social norms to not step-out on your partner. Those social norms came from Christianity and their core, but they're not Christian anymore.
And then there is another interesting angle to take on traditional norms normally associated with Christianity - namely, many of them go beyond Christianity. Or even Abrahamic religions in general. Say if we are talking infidelity, were pagan Romans or Chinese or Slavs that different? Sure, they differed in some details, but the general idea that infidelity was bad still applied. Sure, some will dig out some weird stone age tribe from the jungle that is an exception, but as far as most of the more successful civilizations go, there is a surprising amoung of areas in which they share a lot of the same ideas, and that in turn should attract our attention as such independent rising of similar ideas suggests that perhaps the idea in question just simply works, and perhaps it is the people who think otherwise that are the weirdos and let their own beliefs blind them to reality.
While Christian morals mean you can understand and tolerate homosexuality, affirming it isn't possible due to your religious beliefs. Again, that's fine, but most people don't have those barriers: We just see regular people with a different orientation. Being homosexual isn't something that needs to be "locked behind" a proverbial gate to stop degeneracy (e.g. kid-fuckers), but it should be the gate itself: Anything further than that leads down a dark road, as history has shown us many times before.
I think a lot of the controversy around homosexuality is that all the interested parties love to conflate, switch around and maneuver with 3 different aspects of the issue:
1. Homosexual tendencies. Some people have those for some reasons, like it or not, even many conservative Christians go as far as to accept that. But even for them mere existence of that doesn't mean that they should engage in...
2. Homosexual practices. Which are related yet not necessarily strictly connected. There are non-practicing homosexuals (aka exactly what conservative Christians recommend to them), there are also people who engage in homosexual practices even though these aren't necessarily a preference driven by their biological quirks or lack of them (see: prisons, prostitution, certain more exotic cultural practices). Those legitimately raise more controversy than the former, as they may have certain consequences affecting the functioning of the society in various ways, starting with infamous STD spread rates, and continuing with quirks present in the non-preferred examples.
3. Subculture(s) built around homosexuality. The elephant in the room of course being the modern "LGBT movement", with its many symbols, beliefs, sub-subcultures, statistical tendencies in all sorts of areas, and its very demanding, proselytizing attitude towards spreading its beliefs to the rest of society. There are other historical and current subcultures related to homosexuality (like Afghanistan's infamous Bacha Bazi), but i don't think there ever was one with ambitions as widely reaching in influence over host society as the LGBT movement. Even more so than with 2, one does not need to be a homosexual to support those, and neither is anyone under category 1 or 2 forced to support them.

Obviously the most controversy is caused by 3, especially the more radical kind, and more open and widespread cases of 2. Meanwhile some level of 1 and out of sight 2 has existed in pretty much any society historical or current. 3 loves to use that fact to justify everything they want, no matter how damaging, unprecedented or ridiculous. If anyone says they are out of their minds, their go-to move is to accuse the dissenter of being motivated by irrational hatred for people with 1 for something they have no control over.
Dissenters reply that a subculture of merely few percent of society with perhaps a couple dozen percent more loose allies shouldn't get to dictate the whole society how to live and manage its affairs no matter how loud they are and how self-righteous they feel.
Usually chaotic sociopolitical barfight ensues.
So, I'd say it's the former: People decide what is normal and acceptable, with the current non-religious social norms coming from/evolved from an effectively depreciated religion (depreciated in comparison to the massive scale it had been before the pre-20th).
Continuing from the above, unfortunately not just any people, this isn't decided democratically. All sorts of organizations, like religions (western countries being now mixed in that regard means there is no singular religious opinion on many things), social movements, political parties, or really anyone with control over some sort of mass media and a dog in the fight have disproportionate impact on this decision.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
You do realize that these last two points are the same line of though don't you?

If you have nothing to anchor your moral principles in then time and 'social change' can mutate them into ANYTHING. It's why the fundamentals of Natural (God-given) laws are a must for our society.
There are other options than god though, found through other philosophies, that give similar fixed rules. Like the NAP.

Obviously the most controversy is caused by 3, especially the more radical kind, and more open and widespread cases of 2. Meanwhile some level of 1 and out of sight 2 has existed in pretty much any society historical or current. 3 loves to use that fact to justify everything they want, no matter how damaging, unprecedented or ridiculous. If anyone says they are out of their minds, their go-to move is to accuse the dissenter of being motivated by irrational hatred for people with 1 for something they have no control over.
Dissenters reply that a subculture of merely few percent of society with perhaps a couple dozen percent more loose allies shouldn't get to dictate the whole society how to live and manage its affairs no matter how loud they are and how self-righteous they feel.
Usually chaotic sociopolitical barfight ensues.
I should note that the normalization of 1 & 2 had a great deal to do with the slow death of 3, up to a point. Note that 3 is nowhere near as much of a subculture as it was in the 60s or so. Most gays aren't sleeping around, constantly expecting every relationship to end in cheating, and having constant sex in bathhouses.

But note I used normalization. What's happening now isn't normalization, but glorification, and that, just like demonization, leads to 3.
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
An anchor may be necessary, but Christianity is far from the only available option, and it doesn't work for everyone.
There are other options than god though, found through other philosophies, that give similar fixed rules. Like the NAP.
At no point did I say that Christianity was the only option. (Though I'll freely admit that I believe that to be the case...you know...Christian) ;)

I am perfectly willing to accept that we can get along as long as our foundation is similar enough that we agree on the biggies. For me that's obviously the Ten Commandmants and the instructions of Jesus Christ. Many other beliefs embrace very similar principles, and, thanks to Jesus, I'm OK with letting others believe differently (embracing Christ is a personal choice, as is embracing any other religion or system).

I'm betting we can all agree on the fact that the current efforts to destroy the family and the fabric of our society is not a good thing. What was it I heard the other day? Oh yeah, "Currently, something like 40% of the black population lives in poverty. Now, if you just analyze black families with a Mom and Dad, that percentage drops to 7%." That's one of those fundamental things the Left is working to continue. A dysfunctional population is a dependant population. -- Topic for a different thread I think.
 

ATP

Well-known member
All of this summarizes to position 2, that you believe people get to decide what is and is not moral.

At which point the question becomes, which people get to decide that?

And the answer always becomes 'whoever can bring the most power to bear.'


Whereas what we should all want, is an answer along the lines of 'what is actually true?'

Indeed.If there is no rules made by Might of God,then we have rules made by might of kings,presidents,etc.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
All of this summarizes to position 2, that you believe people get to decide what is and is not moral.

At which point the question becomes, which people get to decide that?

And the answer always becomes 'whoever can bring the most power to bear.'


Whereas what we should all want, is an answer along the lines of 'what is actually true?'
I mean, to some extent this is true even for people who profess a religious morality. They decided to follow that religion, and thus decided what the morality is. Just as other people decide on a morality through other means. I chose the NAP for example. But what is enforced by society is literally the morality of 'whoever can bring the most power to bear'.

Either way, at some point there is a human decision about what morality is, i.e. people deciding what morality is.

Or maybe your objection is that he based his personal morality on what society says? In which case I read this wrong.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
I mean, to some extent this is true even for people who profess a religious morality. They decided to follow that religion, and thus decided what the morality is. Just as other people decide on a morality through other means. I chose the NAP for example. But what is enforced by society is literally the morality of 'whoever can bring the most power to bear'.

Either way, at some point there is a human decision about what morality is, i.e. people deciding what morality is.

Or maybe your objection is that he based his personal morality on what society says? In which case I read this wrong.

I'm not sure if my post could be appropriately described as an 'objection.' It was a reply.
 

mrttao

Well-known member
All of this summarizes to position 2, that you believe people get to decide what is and is not moral.

At which point the question becomes, which people get to decide that?

And the answer always becomes 'whoever can bring the most power to bear.'
Also known as reality.
Where is your god? we live in sodom and gemorah and yet there is no pillar of fire. Where is the angel gabriel with his flaming sword to turn all the degenerates into pillars of salt?

The USA has been using its guns to force LGBTQP into every corner of the world for many years now, and quite effectively so.
People must stand against degeneracy, because god will not save us
 
Last edited:

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Also known as reality.
Where is your god? we live in sodom and gemorah and yet there is no pillar of fire. Where is the angel gabriel with his flaming sword to turn all the gays into pillars of salt?

The USA has been using its guns to force LGBTQP into every corner of the world for many years now, and quite effectively so.
People must stand against degeneracy, because god will not save us

God is in heaven, storing up wrath. He has given us the time to make our own decisions, and face the consequences for them. He intervenes with nudges here and there, but when it comes to destruction, He generally allows us to destroy ourselves.

And you're right about passivity. Simply sitting by and letting people drag the nation into degeneracy, is us bringing this fate upon ourselves. People who refuse to accept just how destructive what the post-modernists and intersectionalists are doing is, are paving the way for them to destroy us all.

Evil must be resisted. At no point does Christ call His disciples to be passive doormats, that's nonsense, and exactly what our enemies want us to think.

God's salvation does not come in the form that men often expect, though sometimes it does; do not presume to say He will not act, when you do not understand Him.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top