Breaking News Trans Activists Breach Oklahoma Capitol

[King Arts]

Yes, there is. An NPC is still a person, a human. And as much as you think they aren't, they are.

And you are calling for treating those people as sub-human, blatantly. That's illegal to actually do. It's a crime in most Western Countries. You are 100% advocating for what is currently criminal activity. Or worse, legalizing criminal activity in such a manner that will absolutely see it used against you.

I will accuse you of what you are blatantly doing. Edit: You are either a federal agent, lying in an attempt to find support, or a radical who is blind to what they are doing.

You, sir, are a fucking joke.

You are the joke, or are trying to stir shit. I have never advocated any illegal content.

Show me where "thinking people is subhuman" is illegal. It's not in America you can dehumanize and look down on others and it's perfectly legal.

 

[King Arts]

Yes, there is. An NPC is still a person, a human. And as much as you think they aren't, they are.

And you are calling for treating those people as sub-human, blatantly. That's illegal to actually do. It's a crime in most Western Countries. You are 100% advocating for what is currently criminal activity. Or worse, legalizing criminal activity in such a manner that will absolutely see it used against you.

I will accuse you of what you are blatantly doing. Edit: You are either a federal agent, lying in an attempt to find support, or a radical who is blind to what they are doing.

You, sir, are a fucking joke.

Also you are wrong what an NPC is a meme that comes from gaming culture. NPC's are computers/programs that don't think for themselves they just follow their programming.

NPC (meme) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You don't care what happens to npcs in games unless it's a well written character something. They are different from players who are real humans. If you call someone an npc online you are saying they aren't a person and are just a chatbot. We don't have advanced robotics in real life yet, but if we do have robots that walk around those would be npc's in real life they would not be people they are just wandering objects.

 

[Skitzyfrenic]

they don't deserve human rights.

Depriving people of human rights is illegal. Everywhere. It's international law.

Thinking that a group doesn't deserve them isn't, actually depriving them of those rights is. But when combined with:

Yes I will dehumanize liberal atheist communists that want human civilization and possibly even the human species itself to die off.

Depriving people of human rights is illegal. Everywhere. It's international law.

Dehumanizing people and convincing other people to dehumanize them is a clear, and radical, attempt to, at minimum, change the law so that certain groups can be discriminated against.

It paints a very clear picture of you wanting to make people second-class citizens, at best, or are advocating for violence and criminal activity against the NPCs you don't like.

The only people who I would send to hell are those who are the aforementioned liberals, and those who protect them out of their own liberal ideas.

Murder is illegal. Everywhere. How else is someone supposed to interpret 'send to hell?'

===

You are indeed advocating for criminal and radical activity. Just in this thread. I would put money on being able to find more if I went looking.

The kinds of people who spout this kind of stuff are radicals. Or they are glowies trying fish for radicals to nail to the wall Edit: so they can feel like they have big peepees.

No, I suspect he just got angry enough with the regressive left that treating them as they treat him felt more appealing than taking the high road. This is why "treat others as you would want to be treated" is a thing; because if you treat people like they're sub-human for long enough, they're going to feel justified in responding in kind. Not that doing so is ever justified, but the pendulum is a popular metaphor for a reason.

Which is fine and very easily figured out, if King Arts is being genuine, which I have strong doubts about. But as you said, that's never justified. I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on? Honestly, I would've given you a like and not quoted you if it weren't for that 'No' at the start.

Also you are wrong what an NPC is a meme that comes from gaming culture. NPC's are computers/programs that don't think for themselves they just follow their programming.

I know this. I lived and breathed the gaming culture, climbing ranked ladders in a few games, for more than a decade.

But in this context, you are applying the term NPC to a person, to a human being. NPC is being used as a pejorative. An insult. A way to dehumanize them. A way to unperson them so you can more easily 'justify' their mistreatment.

You are clearly doing this, comparing people to robots or computer programs and equating these people to objects in your attempt to school me on an incredibly common political meme.

You are advocating for the mistreatment by depriving them of their human rights of people who you consider NPCs and less than human, 'fake humans,' 'not true humans' to use your words. You are advocating for what is in most countries, let alone the international human rights laws, a crime.

 

[LordsFire]

A healthy society I don't think you know what one is either, since you are just spewing liberalism. You don't have a diffrent world view than liberals you both share the same progressive whig view of history you just think that the ideal society was created 10 years or so ago instead of wanting to keep going like the liberals.

When on the one hand you project onto me beliefs I do not actually hold, and on the other hand you advocate for the exact same things as hardline leftists, it's pretty clear that you are not currently up to the task of making a coherent argument.

The worst part, I think, is you seem to hold some kind of pretension of being a Christian, too.

 

[Terthna]

Which is fine and very easily figured out, if King Arts is being genuine, which I have strong doubts about. But as you said, that's never justified. I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on? Honestly, I would've given you a like and not quoted you if it weren't for that 'No' at the start.

The "no" was in response to your questions about if he was a Fed, or an SJW's ideal of a right wing extremist; both of which I felt were accusations that ignored important context in this situation.

 

[Skitzyfrenic]

The "no" was in response to your questions about if he was a Fed, or an SJW's ideal of a right wing extremist; both of which I felt were accusations that ignored important context in this situation.

Valid. And makes much more sense, now.

Thank you for your response.

==

I honestly would have left it if King Arts had breezed past the post, I was clearly trying to make a funny post at King Arts expense with the original accusations. I thought it was easy to ignore since it was clearly memeing a bit. But it really spiraled from there. I kinda feel invested in it now, honestly.

==

Something on topic, is yeah, I hope the the Feb. 6 insurrectionists are treated as they should be! Terrorizing the duly elected government of Oklahoma.

 

[King Arts]

Depriving people of human rights is illegal. Everywhere. It's international law.

Thinking that a group doesn't deserve them isn't, actually depriving them of those rights is. But when combined with:

"International law" Are you a liberal? No the only things that matter are national laws, I am not required to respect international law. Here we only respect the laws of America.

Depriving people of human rights is illegal. Everywhere. It's international law.

Dehumanizing people and convincing other people to dehumanize them is a clear, and radical, attempt to, at minimum, change the law so that certain groups can be discriminated against.

It paints a very clear picture of you wanting to make people second-class citizens, at best, or are advocating for violence and criminal activity against the NPCs you don't like.

Again fuck international law it's not real. I do not advocate for doing anything that is against the laws of the United States of America.

Murder is illegal. Everywhere. How else is someone supposed to interpret 'send to hell?'

===

You are indeed advocating for criminal and radical activity. Just in this thread. I would put money on being able to find more if I went looking.

The kinds of people who spout this kind of stuff are radicals. Or they are glowies trying fish for radicals to nail to the wall and feel like they have big peepees.

Read what we were talking about, I was talking about homosexual pedos who are preying on kids. I'm not advocating murder first off I'm not advocating for unjust killing, second I did not advocate for vigilatism. I was not clear, but I should have said the government should be killing rapist pedos and their supporters. If the legal government of the United States kills someone it is not murder. If you appeal to "international law" and "human rights" I reject those and don't recognize them. I only recognize the laws of actual nations they get to decide what is murder not NGO's. After all if I listen to your "human rights" then it just leads to liberals winning and then well trans rights are human rights.

Which is fine and very easily figured out, if King Arts is being genuine, which I have strong doubts about. But as you said, that's never justified. I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on? Honestly, I would've given you a like and not quoted you if it weren't for that 'No' at the start.

I'm in a bad mood now. I don't know if I'm genuine, I don't like leftests, I don't like pedos. I do support the 1st ammendment and freedom of speech and religion though.

I know this. I lived and breathed the gaming culture, climbing ranked ladders in a few games, for more than a decade.

But in this context, you are applying the term NPC to a person, to a human being. NPC is being used as a pejorative. An insult. A way to dehumanize them. A way to unperson them so you can more easily 'justify' their mistreatment.

You are clearly doing this, comparing people to robots or computer programs and equating these people to objects in your attempt to school me on an incredibly common political meme.

You are advocating for the mistreatment by depriving them of their human rights of people who you consider NPCs and less than human, 'fake humans,' 'not true humans' to use your words. You are advocating for what is in most countries, let alone the international human rights laws, a crime.

Yes, when you call someone an NPC you are dehumanizing them. It can sometimes be used in jest to tease someone like many other insults. But call someone an NPC on many places and you will get infracted.

When on the one hand you project onto me beliefs I do not actually hold, and on the other hand you advocate for the exact same things as hardline leftists, it's pretty clear that you are not currently up to the task of making a coherent argument.

The worst part, I think, is you seem to hold some kind of pretension of being a Christian, too.

I am Christian I do believe in Jesus. The reason I call you out is because many of your comments are Christian. Unless you are a hard core pacifist like the Amish then my objections towards you are false, but you seem to support the mainline conservatives. For example, as a Christian you can oppose Islam that's perfectly ok, they are a false religion and Muhamud was a false prophet. But you only say stuff like that after I call you out on something, your primary objection in one of the Iran threads was that Iran is bad because they have laws that require women to wear hijabs. You may think hijabs are too much or not, but you get offended and act like a law mandating that is a "violation of human rights!" When it's not a Christian nation could have similar laws and it would be perfectly acceptable from a Biblical standpoint but I feel like you would object to it still.

 

[Skitzyfrenic]

International law" Are you a liberal? No the only things that matter are national laws, I am not required to respect international law. Here we only respect the laws of America.

We also have human rights in America or did you not know this? Like the Bill of Rights. A foundational part of our laws.

Like the 1st Amendment which give these protesters the right to assemble and speak out against what they feel is an unjust law.

(I don't agree with them, but they have the right to do that.)

And their gender identity fuckery is, at least somewhat, protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. An American Law.

(Because they're human, and also most likely Citizens. Which means they're people, and you are advocating for the violation their law given rights. You have been advocating for the violation of American law by advocating for discrimination and maltreatment. Not changing that law, for violating it.)

Read what we were talking about, I was talking about homosexual pedos who are preying on kids. I'm not advocating murder first off I'm not advocating for unjust killing, second I did not advocate for vigilatism. I was not clear, but I should have said the government should be killing rapist pedos and their supporters. If the legal government of the United States kills someone it is not murder. If you appeal to "international law" and "human rights" I reject those and don't recognize them. I only recognize the laws of actual nations they get to decide what is murder not NGO's. After all if I listen to your "human rights" then it just leads to liberals winning and then well trans rights are human rights.

You were not advocating, at any point, for the death penalty for convicted pedophiles (Which I'm onboard with, ngl), which is completely different from 'sending them to hell' which very certainly implies murder and vigilantism, both of which are illegal under American law, without more to give it context.

It would also be a violation of the First Amendment to kill people for supporting pedophilia with just their words or other non-criminal activities. It would be like punishing monogamous-acting Muslims for supporting polygamous Muslims committing illegal polygamy. It's pretty core to American law to not do shit like that. You'd have to declare 'Pedophile Supporters' an organized group of criminals first, I think, and then prove that they were part of that group. Like a gang or a mob. Since that's basically fucking impossible, you know, contributing to why it's so hard to stamp them out, but necessary otherwise it'd be used against people like you or people like me...

Glad to see you clear that up and advocate for criminal, murderous activity.

Because while the government might not be able to be charged with murder, it's members can. And they can absolutely be convicted of murder. It's happened numerous times. And that can force an injunction and a repeal of the law, or a law being struck down. There are clear and fairly well defined rules about the usage of lethal force or lethal methods in the United States of America. Exactly because we, the American People, don't want the government to kill anyone, such as ourselves, freely. Like it's a big part of our foundational law, national identity, and national ideology.

Though why only homosexual pedos and not all pedos? Hetero pedos are just as damaging to children as homo pedos. Do you like little girls, do they make you feel so good?

I mean, you went out of your way to type homosexual there, since pedos is a lot less letters than 'homosexual pedos.' You put in effort to specifically only call for the deaths of homosexual pedophiles. And later rapist pedophiles which are all pedophiles who engage in sexual intercourse children are, which is a crime already though not one with the death penalty, unless you think only homosexual pedophiles can be rapists?

 

[King Arts]

We also have human rights in America or did you not know this? Like the Bill of Rights. A foundational part of our laws.

Like the 1st Amendment which give these protesters the right to assemble and speak out against what they feel is an unjust law.

(I don't agree with them, but they have the right to do that.)

And their gender identity fuckery is, at least somewhat, protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. An American Law.

(Because they're human, and also most likely Citizens. Which means they're people, and you are advocating for the violation their law given rights. You have been advocating for the violation of American law by advocating for discrimination and maltreatment. Not changing that law, for violating it.)

"We also have human rights!" The Bill of rights gives certain rights. And now I see you support these people but not the Jan 6 guys. Well they should have the exact same rights. Also no the constitution does not give them the right to riot. People have the right to PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE and speak about what they feel is unjust they don't have the right to riot and attack others or cause damage to personal property.

You were not advocating, at any point, for the death penalty for convicted pedophiles (Which I'm onboard with, ngl), which is completely different from 'sending them to hell' which very certainly implies murder and vigilantism, both of which are illegal under American law, without more to give it context.

It would also be a violation of the First Amendment to kill people for supporting pedophilia with just their words or other non-criminal activities. It would be like punishing monogamous-acting Muslims for supporting polygamous Muslims committing illegal polygamy. It's pretty core to American law to not do shit like that. You'd have to declare 'Pedophile Supporters' an organized group of criminals first, I think, and then prove that they were part of that group. Like a gang or a mob. Since that's basically fucking impossible, you know, contributing to why it's so hard to stamp them out, but necessary otherwise it'd be used against people like you or people like me...

Glad to see you clear that up and advocate for criminal, murderous activity.

Because while the government might not be able to be charged with murder, it's members can. And they can absolutely be convicted of murder. It's happened numerous times. And that can force an injunction and a repeal of the law, or a law being struck down. There are clear and fairly well defined rules about the usage of lethal force or lethal methods in the United States of America. Exactly because we, the American People, don't want the government to kill anyone, such as ourselves, freely. Like it's a big part of our foundational law, national identity, and national ideology.

People get sent to hell when they die it doesen't matter if it was murder or a legal execution. If they aren't saved they go to hell, I don't know how you are so stupid when I say send them to hell that means murder or vigilatnism. If the government kills someone in a legal manner it's no murder dummy.

Hmm putting words in my mouth. Now I see why you are so mad, you yourself are one of those subhuman npcs!

Though why only homosexual pedos and not all pedos? Hetero pedos are just as damaging to children as homo pedos. Do you like little girls, do they make you feel so good?

I mean, you went out of your way to type homosexual there, since pedos is a lot less letters than 'homosexual pedos.' You put in effort to specifically only call for the deaths of homosexual pedophiles. And later rapist pedophiles which are all pedophiles who engage in sexual intercourse children are, which is a crime already though not one with the death penalty, unless you think only homosexual pedophiles can be rapists?

Calling people pedos without proof is pretty scummy behavior. So I'm going to kindly ask you to fuck off. The world would be a better place without you in it.

 

[Skitzyfrenic]

"We also have human rights!" The Bill of rights gives certain rights. And now I see you support these people but not the Jan 6 guys. Well they should have the exact same rights. Also no the constitution does not give them the right to riot. People have the right to PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE and speak about what they feel is unjust they don't have the right to riot and attack others or cause damage to personal property.

We, as in we Americans. I'm from America, and so apparently are you, given your 'strong' adherence to and leaning on the validity of only American law. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, buddy. So WE have natural human rights, you and me and them. It's foundational to our legal system.

The Bill of Rights enshrines certain rights. Not gives them. That fact that you think that we are given rights is very telling of your apparently very poor understanding of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and American Founding Principles.

I do support the very peaceful assembly that happened on Jan. 6. I was rather obviously joking when I said the Feb 6 and Jan 6 insurrectionist joke. Apparently, it went over your head.

Where did I say riot? Even from the article, these protestors haven't 'rioted' any worse than Jan 6 or that... Wisconsin? breach/protest that happened a couple of years back? I've not touched on any riot. I've not condoned them, but here, to be clear: I do not condone rioting or political violence except in very clear cases where the government has overstepped it's remit.

Like when the government commits extra-legal killings.

People get sent to hell when they die it doesen't matter if it was murder or a legal execution. If they aren't saved they go to hell, I don't know how you are so stupid when I say send them to hell that means murder or vigilatnism. If the government kills someone in a legal manner it's no murder dummy.

Hmm putting words in my mouth. Now I see why you are so mad, you yourself are one of those subhuman npcs!

Allow me to quote you a bit more fully:

The only people who I would send to hell are those who are the aforementioned liberals, and those who protect them out of their own liberal ideas.

The people you would send to Hell. Given that I'm choosing to believe that you have not put yourself above God, and I refuse to believe that you are God, the only way you could send people to Hell is if you sent them to Judgement so that they could be judged and then sent to Hell. As you have claimed you are not a member of the government, any killing that you do, any sending of people to judgement or Hell would have to be done by illegal killings. Aka Murder.

And as the law has not changed in the past five minutes, and you were not advocating for legal changes, you have been advocating for the government to send it's agents to commit blatantly extra-legal or illegal killings. And those government agents would still be guilty of murder as it would not fit the clearly defined cases of when a government agent can use lethal force without. If the government disavows these de facto murders, then it must be vigilantism, at best, and a legitimate hate crime otherwise. If the government openly approves of these killings it would cause massive unrest and riots from basically everyone with a brain or a modicum of the American Spirit, along with many, many, many lawsuits being filed. It would probably kick off the Boogaloo with Righties and Lefties coming together or the Boogaloo: True to the Previous Civil Race War Roots and Civilian Rebellion this Time.

The fact that despite multiple explanations and even naming, though not linking, sources of the Laws that you are advocating for disregarding, you keep deflecting, claiming that you would only adhere to specific laws that I showed that you were advocating for breaking, and suddenly pulling up new words in the phrase to add to justify your suddenly newer and more specific position, it sounds like you're the NPC. Following your programming to not engage with even a modicum of integrity.

Calling people pedos without proof is pretty scummy behavior. So I'm going to kindly ask you to fuck off. The world would be a better place without you in it.

I wasn't calling you a pedophile. I was asking if you were. And rather clearly implying that I already thought you were because of the circumstantial evidence of your, what I believe to be, a slip that revealed, what I am coming to even more strongly believe is, more of your true nature. But I didn't actually call you a pedophile. You're the one that left yourself open for both the blatant accusation, and the questioning, by your strange specification.

I also got to make a song reference. 'Little Girls' is a very catchy, very fucked up song from the 80s that should probably be the pedobear anthem. I think the artist is Oingo Boingo? It's the same dude who did the Weird Science song. And he's been catching flak for a very long time for it. Rightfully so.

Even if what I did is calling you a pedophile, you didn't actually deny being a pedophile or even imply that you weren't. Just that doing so without proof is scummy, and that you wouldn't answer the question. If you had literally just been like 'No, I'm not, that was a slip because I extra hate homosexual pedophiles,' I would have legitimately not bothered to comment further, totally given it a pass at that point. Because okay, a stance I can't actually argue with. I think all pedos who actually act on their pedophillia should die, even as inhumanely as we can get away with, but otherwise legally, pretty equally, I don't make that special exception for extra hate, but it's a fine exception to make as far as I'm concerned.

Given that you would clearly ignore the Rule of Law to dehumanize and punish people for what you think is wrongthink, I'm not the one the world would be better off without. Demonstrably and Historically keeping to the Rule of Law and not making up new laws, or bypassing the law entirely, willy nilly to punish certain groups of people has improved the lives of everyone. Doing so is institutionally scummy and the acts of tyrants and despots and easily turned back on you and me.

Also props for actually calling me sub-human. Very stunning, much brave. Peak 'being open about being a scumbag who can't actually justify themselves.'

You aren't even saying 'defend ourselves with violence from violence' in your (giving you the benefit of the doubt here and not calling you a glowie or the ideal right winger for SJWs to hold up) 'tired of the lefty bullshit and violence.' You are full on 'lets kill a whole bunch of people with government sanction!' And you had to be pushed to take that stance.

And if you don't see how 'killing people with government sanction' isn't an incredibly bad thing, I can't help you. And you clearly need help.

 

[King Arts]

We, as in we Americans. I'm from America, and so apparently are you, given your 'strong' adherence to and leaning on the validity of only American law. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, buddy. So WE have natural human rights, you and me and them. It's foundational to our legal system.

The Bill of Rights enshrines certain rights. Not gives them. That fact that you think that we are given rights is very telling of your apparently very poor understanding of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and American Founding Principles.

I do support the very peaceful assembly that happened on Jan. 6. I was rather obviously joking when I said the Feb 6 and Jan 6 insurrectionist joke. Apparently, it went over your head.

Where did I say riot? Even from the article, these protestors haven't 'rioted' any worse than Jan 6 or that... Wisconsin? breach/protest that happened a couple of years back? I've not touched on any riot. I've not condoned them, but here, to be clear: I do not condone rioting or political violence except in very clear cases where the government has overstepped it's remit.

Like when the government commits extra-legal killings.

Show me where rights exist? They don't exist in actuality. No they are made by the laws. In our case the constitution the highest law of the land gives us those rights. Go jack off about "It enshrines rights that already exist somewhere else."

The people you would send to Hell. Given that I'm choosing to believe that you have not put yourself above God, and I refuse to believe that you are God, the only way you could send people to Hell is if you sent them to Judgement so that they could be judged and then sent to Hell. As you have claimed you are not a member of the government, any killing that you do, any sending of people to judgement or Hell would have to be done by illegal killings. Aka Murder.

And as the law has not changed in the past five minutes, and you were not advocating for legal changes, you have been advocating for the government to send it's agents to commit blatantly extra-legal or illegal killings. And those government agents would still be guilty of murder as it would not fit the clearly defined cases of when a government agent can use lethal force without. If the government disavows these de facto murders, then it must be vigilantism, at best, and a legitimate hate crime otherwise. If the government openly approves of these killings it would cause massive unrest and riots from basically everyone with a brain or a modicum of the American Spirit, along with many, many, many lawsuits being filed. It would probably kick off the Boogaloo with Righties and Lefties coming together or the Boogaloo: True to the Previous Civil Race War Roots and Civilian Rebellion this Time.

The fact that despite multiple explanations and even naming, though not linking, sources of the Laws that you are advocating for disregarding, you keep deflecting, claiming that you would only adhere to specific laws that I showed that you were advocating for breaking, and suddenly pulling up new words in the phrase to add to justify your suddenly newer and more specific position, it sounds like you're the NPC. Following your programming to not engage with even a modicum of integrity.

I was advocating changing the laws, you braindead illiterate animal fucker.

I wasn't calling you a pedophile. I was asking if you were. And rather clearly implying that I already thought you were because of the circumstantial evidence of your, what I believe to be, a slip that revealed, what I am coming to even more strongly believe is, more of your true nature. But I didn't actually call you a pedophile. You're the one that left yourself open for both the blatant accusation, and the questioning, by your strange specification.

I also got to make a song reference. 'Little Girls' is a very catchy, very fucked up song from the 80s that should probably be the pedobear anthem. I think the artist is Oingo Boingo? It's the same dude who did the Weird Science song. And he's been catching flak for a very long time for it. Rightfully so.

Even if what I did is calling you a pedophile, you didn't actually deny being a pedophile or even imply that you weren't. Just that doing so without proof is scummy, and that you wouldn't answer the question. If you had literally just been like 'No, I'm not, that was a slip because I extra hate homosexual pedophiles,' I would have legitimately not bothered to comment further, totally given it a pass at that point. Because okay, a stance I can't actually argue with. I think all pedos who actually act on their pedophillia should die, even as inhumanely as we can get away with, but otherwise legally, pretty equally, I don't make that special exception for extra hate, but it's a fine exception to make as far as I'm concerned.

Given that you would clearly ignore the Rule of Law to dehumanize and punish people for what you think is wrongthink, I'm not the one the world would be better off without. Demonstrably and Historically keeping to the Rule of Law and not making up new laws, or bypassing the law entirely, willy nilly to punish certain groups of people has improved the lives of everyone. Doing so is institutionally scummy and the acts of tyrants and despots and easily turned back on you and me.

Also props for actually calling me sub-human. Very stunning, much brave. Peak 'being open about being a scumbag who can't actually justify themselves.'

You aren't even saying 'defend ourselves with violence from violence' in your (giving you the benefit of the doubt here and not calling you a glowie or the ideal right winger for SJWs to hold up) 'tired of the lefty bullshit and violence.' You are full on 'lets kill a whole bunch of people with government sanction!' And you had to be pushed to take that stance.

And if you don't see how 'killing people with government sanction' isn't an incredibly bad thing, I can't help you. And you clearly need help.

I am not one of those disgusting people, honestly that you are accusing me of such filth as being a pedo you are lucky that your are so much of a pussy that you are doing it online over the computer or I would have gotten violent and smashed your inbred skull in. Also yes you are a subhuman, and I do advocate removing your specefic rights and those like you. We don't punish people for wrongthink we punish them to stop them from gaining power and hurting us. But you are a shit eating dumbass who just obeys the mainstream CNN because your IQ points are too low to do anything else because your parents are brother and sister.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

James 3:
5 Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!
6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.
7 For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind:
8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.
13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

I am reminded here daily why it's often better to stay silent unless one has something useful to say. My big mistake is not heeding the reminders.

 

[King Arts]

James 3:
5 Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!
6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.
7 For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind:
8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.
13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

I am reminded here daily why it's often better to stay silent unless one has something useful to say. My big mistake is not heeding the reminders.

Yeah you are right. I should not lower myself and say such foul things. I am sorry.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Yeah you are right. I should not lower myself and say such foul things. I am sorry.

My heart is with you. This is a snare of Satan I fall into plenty on this site as well as others. We're all in this together.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Yeah you are right. I should not lower myself and say such foul things. I am sorry.

🫂

figured you need one.

 

[Skitzyfrenic]

In the name of good order and morale:

Spoiler

Wow. Much Salt.

Show me where rights exist? They don't exist in actuality. No they are made by the laws. In our case the constitution the highest law of the land gives us those rights. Go jack off about "It enshrines rights that already exist somewhere else."

You said you were a Christian:

I am Christian I do believe in Jesus. The reason I call you out is because many of your comments are Christian. Unless you are a hard core pacifist like the Amish then my objections towards you are false, but you seem to support the mainline conservatives. For example, as a Christian you can oppose Islam that's perfectly ok, they are a false religion and Muhamud was a false prophet. But you only say stuff like that after I call you out on something, your primary objection in one of the Iran threads was that Iran is bad because they have laws that require women to wear hijabs. You may think hijabs are too much or not, but you get offended and act like a law mandating that is a "violation of human rights!" When it's not a Christian nation could have similar laws and it would be perfectly acceptable from a Biblical standpoint but I feel like you would object to it still.

Rights come from God, if you believe, or our natural state. You must not really believe or even pay lip service. Restricting rights is how governments form from the natural primal anarchy or even in rights from God, nominally in exchange for safety and security. It's pretty basic modern political theory.

'I won't kill you, you won't kill me. We both give up our natural right to kill each other in exchange for safety from each other.' The Absolute Basics of Government 101. Rights are restricted, not given.

I was advocating changing the laws, you braindead illiterate animal fucker.

You weren't. Not here, at least. I even double checked.

Also, scummy of you, per your own previous logic, to believe I have a beastality feitsh that I act on with no proof. But props for the multi-syllable, multi-word insult. Your mother must be very proud of your academic achievement.

You trashed international laws, said only American laws mattered.

The closest you got in this thread was:

I was not clear, but I should have said the government should be killing rapist pedos and their supporters.

And not even that is advocating for changing laws.

But at no point did you say things like 'law should be changed' or 'legislate' or 'should be made legal.'

I am not one of those disgusting people, honestly that you are accusing me of such filth as being a pedo you are lucky that your are so much of a pussy that you are doing it online over the computer or I would have gotten violent and smashed your inbred skull in. Also yes you are a subhuman, and I do advocate removing your specefic rights and those like you. We don't punish people for wrongthink we punish them to stop them from gaining power and hurting us. But you are a shit eating dumbass who just obeys the mainstream CNN because your IQ points are too low to do anything else because your parents are brother and sister.

I would do it to your face, but that would imply that you actually matter to me as a person. Big talk for someone on the other side of this screen too. Too much of a pussy to do it IRL? By your own logic, you sure as fuck are.

I like to think that I'm super-human and you just so happen to be a slime in human shape who has gained sentience but not enough intelligence to realize how dumb you really are.

You are punishing people for wrongthink. 'They think wrongly so they must be denied power and the chance to hurt us.' That's exactly what you are advocating for.

I haven't watched CNN since I was in Iraq in... 2010? 2011. It was an announcement on the TV in one of the little hajji shops, I think. I really remember being in uniform but in a McDonalds. Might have been during mobilization in *hurp* New Jersey. Obama announced the end of OIF, that all the American troops were pulling out, and the start of OND. And then it was a bit on how Afghani women were lighting themselves on fire in suicide attempts to get away from abusive husbands. But I was definitely in country for the Operation switch since it happened in summer, IIRC, I was too busy getting shitfaced on my leave in the fall for it to have been then. But yeah, long time ago.

Very difficult to obey CNN if I've got no clue what they're saying.

And no, my parents weren't related. Though my mother and late grandmother did share a birthday. It made birthday calls nice and easy.

==

Ah, well.

You got in your last words, so Imma get in mine (But spoiler them so they can just be glossed over in the name of good order and letting this die) because I was most of the way done writing them. Fair's fair.

I'm over this anyways. We obviously don't agree, no point in dragging it out further.

I forgive you for your slurs and rudeness though, King Arts. For the insults directed at me. Like calling me a dummy, implying my birth was incestuous, etc. I will also forgive for calling for my death, the attempts at pretending you didn't do what you did and calling me a liar, and the incredibly Unamerican seizing of my rights.

Further, I would like to apologize for going further that pointing out that you singled out homosexual pedophiles and then asking and implying strongly that you were a heterosexual pedophile/pedophile in general. It was really rude and ill considered of me.

This thread is about Trans activists and the MSM being massive hypocrites after all, and we should stick to that.

 

[King Arts]

In the name of good order and morale:

Spoiler

Wow. Much Salt.



You said you were a Christian:



Rights come from God, if you believe, or our natural state. You must not really believe or even pay lip service. Restricting rights is how governments form from the natural primal anarchy or even in rights from God, nominally in exchange for safety and security. It's pretty basic modern political theory.

'I won't kill you, you won't kill me. We both give up our natural right to kill each other in exchange for safety from each other.' The Absolute Basics of Government 101. Rights are restricted, not given.



You weren't. Not here, at least. I even double checked.

Also, scummy of you, per your own previous logic, to believe I have a beastality feitsh that I act on with no proof. But props for the multi-syllable, multi-word insult. Your mother must be very proud of your academic achievement.

You trashed international laws, said only American laws mattered.

The closest you got in this thread was:


And not even that is advocating for changing laws.

But at no point did you say things like 'law should be changed' or 'legislate' or 'should be made legal.'



I would do it to your face, but that would imply that you actually matter to me as a person. Big talk for someone on the other side of this screen too. Too much of a pussy to do it IRL? By your own logic, you sure as fuck are.

I like to think that I'm super-human and you just so happen to be a slime in human shape who has gained sentience but not enough intelligence to realize how dumb you really are.

You are punishing people for wrongthink. 'They think wrongly so they must be denied power and the chance to hurt us.' That's exactly what you are advocating for.

I haven't watched CNN since I was in Iraq in... 2010? 2011. It was an announcement on the TV in one of the little hajji shops, I think. I really remember being in uniform but in a McDonalds. Might have been during mobilization in *hurp* New Jersey. Obama announced the end of OIF, that all the American troops were pulling out, and the start of OND. And then it was a bit on how Afghani women were lighting themselves on fire in suicide attempts to get away from abusive husbands. But I was definitely in country for the Operation switch since it happened in summer, IIRC, I was too busy getting shitfaced on my leave in the fall for it to have been then. But yeah, long time ago.

Very difficult to obey CNN if I've got no clue what they're saying.

And no, my parents weren't related. Though my mother and late grandmother did share a birthday. It made birthday calls nice and easy.

==

Ah, well.

You got in your last words, so Imma get in mine (But spoiler them so they can just be glossed over in the name of good order and letting this die) because I was most of the way done writing them. Fair's fair.

I'm over this anyways. We obviously don't agree, no point in dragging it out further.

I forgive you for your slurs and rudeness though, King Arts. For the insults directed at me. Like calling me a dummy, implying my birth was incestuous, etc. I will also forgive for calling for my death, the attempts at pretending you didn't do what you did and calling me a liar, and the incredibly Unamerican seizing of my rights.

Further, I would like to apologize for going further that pointing out that you singled out homosexual pedophiles and then asking and implying strongly that you were a heterosexual pedophile/pedophile in general. It was really rude and ill considered of me.

This thread is about Trans activists and the MSM being massive hypocrites after all, and we should stick to that.

Umm you say you want to put this behind us and then you bring all that up? Anyway I'll be mature and only respond to things I think can bring a productive discussion.

You said you were a Christian:

Yes, but nowhere in the Bible will you find the it talking about human rights, or things of a similar nature. The 1st amendment for example is not respected in the Bible, you can maybe argue for the 2nd because Jesus said that those who don't have a sword should sell their cloak and buy one. Then make an analogy that guns are modern day swords. 3rd ammendment again Bible does not say Caesar is not allowed to put soldiers in your house. The law of God also never said that the ruler is not allowed to search you without due cause. I don't want to go thorugh every single right. But please if you have proof of Christianity positively saying rights are a thing I'd be happy to see it.

Rights come from God, if you believe, or our natural state. You must not really believe or even pay lip service. Restricting rights is how governments form from the natural primal anarchy or even in rights from God, nominally in exchange for safety and security. It's pretty basic modern political theory.

'I won't kill you, you won't kill me. We both give up our natural right to kill each other in exchange for safety from each other.' The Absolute Basics of Government 101. Rights are restricted, not given.

There are two things I believe in the physical material world and the unseen/spiritual/philosophical. There are no atoms or particles of rights they are not a physical thing. The only non physical truth I acknowledge is God's word, if you can show where in either the Bible or Christian tradition God actually gives people rights. The closest thing I can see is free will but it's not that because you can do stuff but there are consequences it's not a protection from certain things.

That does not mean that I hate rights or the constitution I like it. I think they are a good idea and make a more stable safe wealthy society for the most part. But that's it a good idea they are not divine or special in anyway. I am open to being convinced otherwise though.

 

[Skitzyfrenic]

Umm you say you want to put this behind us and then you bring all that up? Anyway I'll be mature and only respond to things I think can bring a productive discussion.

Ah no. I rather explicitly did the opposite. I brought all that up and then said let's put it all behind us. Which is what I wrote.

/me shrug

Yes, but nowhere in the Bible will you find the it talking about human rights, or things of a similar nature. The 1st amendment for example is not respected in the Bible, you can maybe argue for the 2nd because Jesus said that those who don't have a sword should sell their cloak and buy one. Then make an analogy that guns are modern day swords. 3rd ammendment again Bible does not say Caesar is not allowed to put soldiers in your house. The law of God also never said that the ruler is not allowed to search you without due cause. I don't want to go thorugh every single right. But please if you have proof of Christianity positively saying rights are a thing I'd be happy to see it.

Yes, because the third through eighth amendments are rather specific to things the British and Europeans were doing that pretty much everyone writing the Constitution agreed sucked major donkey dick. The ninth and tenth are specific to the Constitution as they needed to make room for more laws and such.

The first is so you can freely complain about the government, and then spread out so you can at least have a chance to be heard and not be prosecuted. If there's separation of church and state, for example, why wouldn't you have freedom of religion? To exclude some religions would have to be based on a primary religion to decide on which to exclude. And other than going full atheist, freedom of religion is the way to go in a separated government in that context. Other parts of the first facilitate the rest. Like assembly facilitates freedom of speech, particularly against the government.

The second protects all the rest, including your inherent, God given, natural rights of life(to not be killed randomly on a whim, by the government or someone else), liberty, and the pursuit of happiness(and only the pursuit). And is there, rather explicitly, so we can kill government officials like cops when they overstep. An armed populace is hard to oppress or subjugate.

The closest thing I can see is free will but it's not that because you can do stuff but there are consequences it's not a protection from certain things.

I am going to scream. You found the nail but never hit it with the hammer.

And I'm not sure how, but whoever explained 'Free Will means the ability to do whatever you want. Without consequence.' should be beaten bloody. Consequences are always a thing.

God gave us free will. Having the Free Will to do whatever we want is our natural state. That means that our most basic, innate, natural rights (our ability to do whatever we want) are God given. Then we restrict our rights to better please God (ie. Not worshipping idols, not fucking the neighbor's wife) and/or to better co-exist with one another.

True Free Will = 'Rights in our natural state. Our right to do whatever we want, except not suffer the consequences, because, you know, other people have the same natural rights and they can do onto me what I do onto them. And the world doesn't give a shit, so like getting eaten by an animal after I've covered myself in blood is totally because I'm stupid, but it's totally within my natural right granted to me by my God Given Free Will.'

Restricted Free Will = 'Laws or Rules we nominally agree to, including specific outcomes if we break those laws, and a lessening of our natural God given rights. If everyone follows these, we won't be murdering or raping each other for fun anymore, but we also won't be murdered or raped for fun anymore. And those who do break this pact/covenant will be punished in accordance to the Law.'

Again, I'm not sure where you got 'having rights' the same as 'the ability to do whatever we wanted without consequence from.' Blows my mind.

Rights come from our Natural State. Our Natural State is one of Free Will. The Bill of Rights enshrines a few rights to 'Not Be Fucked With Lightly If At All' or outlines how certain rights and the state will interact, like the 4th with reasonable suspicion or warrant being needed to violate your right to privacy, not just because you pissed off the British Trooper at the check point for not giving the king a fluff. Laws in general do that, but the Amendments to the Constitution are like Super Laws. Top Laws.

'Human Rights' are really in the same vein as the Bill of Rights.

No one should be a slave. No one should be tortured. No one should be genocided. No one should be killed out of hand by anyone, but especially no one should be killed out of hand by the government. People should have the ability to say how they are governed (which is really really old actually, since Tribes tended to have councils and a sort of lesser democracy with a chieftain or equal as the head of state) then got missed for a long time when tribes started getting unwieldy and people start centralizing).

You're probably conditioned by the leftist fuckwits to hear 'human rights' and understand 'give me shit.' No, healthcare is not a human right, if your government chooses some form of universal healthcare that's on them. Neither is WiFi. The only time food, clothing, water, shelter, or healthcare are required of you as a human right for another person is if you are truly responsible for them somehow. Ie. Hospitality, they're your Prisoner, they're your child, they're your parent that's old and has to be taken care of.

That's not what human rights are. Human rights are affording you the dignity of being treated like a person with a minimal level of moral and ethical importance, not an animal or an object. Because you are a person. So am I, despite your unapologetic and vehement disagreement.

So are those tranny activists. They are people. Humans. And they should be afforded the dignity of being a human. That doesn't mean you can't mock them or call them stupid cunts, destroyers of the health of children, pedophilic sacks of filth, groomers, and worse. But it does mean that they shouldn't be rounded up, shot, and buried in a mass grave for the sin of existing. You need a little more than existing as a crime before you can start with the mass graves. (And really, all you can confirm that they're doing is existing within the same rights bubble as you and being gigantic hypocritical assholes. Otherwise start making accusations, bud. Get those investigations going so the police and courts can do their jobs.)

And you'll want to keep it that way, because as the lefties find out over and over, when you make a rule to advantage you but don't stay in power, that rule can be used against you. I don't want to be rounded up and be killed because I've got the wrong skin color or whatever, and I bet you don't either, when four years from now the lefties that got missed in the purge come back to power. Or some people will be on your side until the bloody purges turn their stomach, and they might get you, using the same way you've been using to get others.

 

[LordsFire]

Thank you, Skitzyfrenic, for both drawing out King Arts tyrannical nature for others to see, and saving me the trouble of being the one to try to explain to him how he understands basically nothing about Americanism, or the Christian ethos it grew from.

Dealing with those levels of ignorance can just be so bloody exhausting. I shouldn't feel this old; I'm not even forty yet...

 

[Megadeath]

I am Christian I do believe in Jesus.

Matthew 7:1-5