Breaking News Trans Activists Breach Oklahoma Capitol

Megadeath

Well-known member
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.
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.
 
Chill Out

bullethead

Part-time fanfic writer
Super Moderator
Staff Member
We're getting reports of civility violations in this thread.

The staff is requesting participants to take a deep breath and calm down.

If civility violations continue, there WILL be consequences.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Anyway, back on the actual topic of the thread...

I'm honestly against the 26 year old requirement. It's further infantilizing adults. We let 18 year olds decide to risk their lives in combat in war, where most of the deaths will come from suicide. That seems a fair age for allowing transition as well.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Anyway, back on the actual topic of the thread...

I'm honestly against the 26 year old requirement. It's further infantilizing adults. We let 18 year olds decide to risk their lives in combat in war, where most of the deaths will come from suicide. That seems a fair age for allowing transition as well.
I can agree with that. I'll note that they actually based 26 years old on an actual set of scientific studies indicating that the brain isn't fully developed until the mid-late 20s. So it's not totally arbitrary, they're running on actual fact.

However going with that should logically set a heck of a lot more precedent about other things people do to their bodies, tattoos, piercings, drinking, driving, allowing people to purchase guns, and absolutely military enlistment. That would turn a lot of current society on its head. It doesn't seem like the kind of thing that should be rolled out just to nail the trans community. and isn't in the same ballpark as keeping 12-year-olds away from surgery. That said I am actually in favor of rolling out rights gradually, there's no reason every single cutoff has to be distributed at the exact same moment and in fact I think it's healthier if people get used to one set of new privileges before the next one is unrolled.

On another note, I've reviewed the security camera footage of the activists and concluded that "Mostly Peaceful" wasn't accurate, the activists were genuinely peaceful and behaved themselves aside from a lot of aggressive yelling, which isn't violence in my book. They were, in fact, better behaved than the 1/6 crowd (who were mostly peaceful but we still had broken windows, broken doors, and some idiot stealing a lectern among other things) and shouldn't be compared to them.
 

DarthOne

☦️
I’d make all transgender surgery illegal. As it’s based upon bullshit-tier science and reasoning.

Not that I think it will ultimately prove necessary, hopefully in the near future. Mark my words, the phrase ‘gender-reassignment surgery’ and ‘transgender’ will one day be viewed the same way as ‘lobotomy’ is when it comes to medical cures.
 

Skitzyfrenic

Well-known member
I honestly think that removing gender dysphoria as a medical condition is the problem. For every person who likes to look pretty/handsome, there are a dozen people who need to actually figure out how far they need to transition to be happy, not bullrush into functionally irreversible surgery and hormone therapy. Suicide rates among trans are like 5 times the national average, and like 1 in 2 in transitioners.

It's fucking awful.

These people are ruining themselves and any question of 'are you sure? would you like to talk about it?' are met with a convert's vitriol. Cause that's what most of them are, converts and zealots.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
Friendly Reminder - Rule 2: General Civility Violation
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.
Yes, I'm just saying that makes it a thing that emanates from culture or government instead of things that every human wants and taking it away is a sin. The point I'm trying to make is that they are not "self evident" while you are talking you have made me think of some things that might be considered rights.
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.
Keeping state and church seperate is not a thing that God has commanded though. That's what I mean when you say oh these are God given rights, umm no God never advocated seperation of church and state in Ancient Israel he would have repudiated it since the laws there come from him and the laws ban worshipping other gods, with the new covenant it seems that God does not say one way or another he merely said to obey the legal authorities(unless they are making laws that are anti Christian requiring you to worship other gods or stop being Christian, etc.). If the legal government itself is made up of those who claim to be Christian neither the Bible nor Christian tradition says that banning certain speech like blasphamy or heresy for example is a sin. You can say it's not a good idea as that would lead to constant wars and yes, but that just makes it a practical matter as opposed to a sacred thing that can't be touched.
For example when I say many idolize the constitution or "human rights" I mean they consider those things sacred and inviolable and it is a moral wrong to get rid of them no matter the benefit. For example someone who truly supports the 2nd amendment will see it like that, it does not matter if guns kill lots of people and cause crime it would be morally wrong to ban them like the UK or Japan. It does not matter if it works or not, even if the liberals are right and it works perfectly and it cuts down school shooters it does not matter the people have a right to bear arms. Christians would also be the same with abortion for example it does not matter if killing the baby is actually the best thing for society and that if we don't allow abortions crime rates will go up and all sorts of other bad things. It is categorically bad. Same with human sacrifice even for bad people even if doing that human sacrifice will cause the "gods" or demons more like to give our nation benefits like no more disease, or natural disasters etc. A right is something that getting rid of is always wrong it's not a policy like the tax rate or whether or not to use government funds to pay for universal healthcare or medicare or whatever.

But for your last paragraph I again have to disagree see with God given. Well maybe not the way I saw it is that rights are things that even the legal authority Caesar does not have a right to take if he does God will punish him. Most of what you said is not given by God. The only ones are the right to life, and Maybe the pursuit of happiness. But liberty is not. For example the king even in an absolute monarchy if he kills an innocent man he has violated his "rights" and went beyond what God has allowed God does will call out people if the government kills unjustly, the king also can't just say oh it's illegal to be you specifically. Or to make some kind of law that bans something like having black skin and then punishing it with death. God orders Christians to follow the law but if the law is impossible like that the innocent man won't be called out by God, but the King will be. But there is not right to liberty for example, you don't have a right to go vote or select who rules over you. A king also won't be called before God and chastised because he did not create elections. If a King kills an innocent man who has not broken the law then the King has sinned, but if people are rebelling against the lawful king and they want a democracy or Republic then those people who want liberty are sinning because God did not recognize such a thing. Those who are rebelling for that are hellbound this is different from those who are rebelling against the king that actually IS going after god given rights like life for example. And the king killing rebels is not sinning. A Christian black man is not obligated to follow the law and go walk into a concentration camp for example, because he does have the right to life. The way I look at it is the government when it goes and comits injustice against people then it is violating god given rights. But those are few and most of the constitution and human rights and other enlightenment ideas don't have that much that comes from God.

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.
Then that makes your assertation about rights meaningless? After all everyone has the "right" to speak and can say what they want. Neither North Korea, China, Nazi Germany, Iran, nor Stalinist, or Imperial, or modern Russia ever removed people's free will their ability to say things critical of the government it's just after they did they were sent to gulags. Human nature gives us free will if transhumanism becomes a thing and China makes genetic engineering, or cyborg parts to force people to be unable to even go against the government then yes they have violated free will. But most people don't think of this when they say rights. When people say you have a right to do something they think you can do it and face no consequences for example in America you can say unpopular things then not go to a gulag.

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.'
Yes, I agree with what you are saying here. But again most people don't consider this to be respecting your rights, because no tyranny has ever been able to violate 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.
Again having rights isn't the ability to do whatever we want. But having a right to own guns for example means that you can go and buy a gun and not be legally punished. I mean if you are a felon for example you lose this right, you still have free will so you can go TRY to get one but if you are caught then you will be punished. See even the language that is colloquially used "lost" as in the person does not have it anymore.

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.
Again though I understand that the constitution is the top law. What I'm contesting is that they exist "naturally" or super naturally I am arguing that they are a man made construct/social construct they were made by society/government. Again with the 4th American society decided they did not want government enforces always looking over their shoulder. But in nature there is no privacy in the natural animal world, looking at the laws of God can you show me where in Christian history or the Bible there was something that says that a king or government agent if they were spying on people, or just entering their homes is a sin? Again when I think of something as god given that implies that by taking something from someone else that is justly theirs God will call you to account for it. For example if I take your car away from you I have stolen from you theft is a sin. But where does God say that you have a right to privacy(except for decency so showering or other things dealing with modesty) So can a Christian nation just say police are allowed to search anyone at anytime anywhere because if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear? Again I wouldn't want this, but that is just a personal preference I am not claiming that privacy is given by God.

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).
Didden't you say that people should be killed in an inhumane manner? Also much of what you are saying is false, you are just stating no one should have this happen to them, you aren't showing WHY or HOW IT COMES FROM God. Above I addressed the people should have the ability to say how they are governed which is not true historically most tribes were not democracies, their forms of government were diverse some were democratic and egalitarian others were more proto monarchies.

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.
I am aware of the difference between positive and negative rights. But again you are wrong, or at least partly wrong. Only some negative rights are god given for example the right to life and not just taking it on a whim it has to have I don't want to say due process because modern states have it set up like that. But it has to be just not just killing someone because you disliked them. They have to have did a crime. Otherwise if the president or king or whoever kills the innocent man will be called to task by God.
However the king can order things that violate the negative rights you've brought up like privacy. If the king or government decides to search your house(again assuming they aren't doing things like violating your modesty) then God will not call him to task for "ignoring your rights" by searching your house. Assuming it's not against the law for the ruler to do that.

As for universal healthcare well the story of the richman disproves that.
If the ruler is able to take care of his people and care for the poor yet fails to do that God will call him to task for that, if he was unable to then he wouldn't be held to task this can be complicated. But God knows best, but this does show that some positive rights are more important to God than negative rights like not violating your privacy and things like that. This shows that the US founders were wrong and many of the things they stated were god given rights are not, they are really just privileges that the government or society has said are important, but they are not from some higher divine source. Except a few select ones.

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.
Umm again you are bringing up the past that you said you wanted to move on from yet you are bringing it back. While I was wrong to say I hope you die. You did the equivalent earlier before I did when you accused me of being a pedo, something I have said those that do that are worthy of death, and you also said that they should also be killed inhumanely. So I mean calling someone one of the worst things you can be is pretty bad.

As for your argument, again I see the constitution as a pretty good idea but not sacred. So no I don't support death camps and mass purges, because again I don't want to end up in those mass purges if I lose. But here is the thing, if the other side IS planning to do that then I would have no problem returning the favor to them because again unless it comes directly from God then I don't see it as sacred and it can be changed if something better comes along. While you it seems like would not be ok with the purges even if the other side wants to purge you because you see the ideals of the constitution as higher morality, even if you lose or if it would be better to abandon you would still stick with it?

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...
Americanism and Christian ethos? Please LordsFire please tell me what your denomination is?

Also no America is not and has probably never been a Christian nation. The founding fathers were inspired by enlightenment philosophy much of that was anti clerical and very secular. Many of the founding fathers were deists like Thomas Jefferson which means they were not Christian, some were atheists like Thomas Paine.
Also treaty of tripoli said that the US is not founded on the Christian faith.

Matthew 7:1-5
Umm there are a few things there first off I don't think I was judging anyone here I just fell into wrath when another poster insulted me. Also that passage is referring to hypocritical judgment you judging others for the same acts you are engaging in. The only people I was traditionally judging by saying they were bad was the trans protestors(and I'm not trans, a protestor/rioter, or a sexual molester) so I feel I can judge those actions since I don't do them and am innocent of them. Though there is also judgment on the media for double standards because they aren't holding their side accountable. Though there is also my tone towards LordsFire I probably should not take quite as much pleasure to call him out when I think he is wrong. I have to think and reflect on my actions.
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.
LOL.
Ok, you are right flying off the handle like that was silly because this is a website. I was angry and posted without thought.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
I’d make all transgender surgery illegal. As it’s based upon bullshit-tier science and reasoning.

Not that I think it will ultimately prove necessary, hopefully in the near future. Mark my words, the phrase ‘gender-reassignment surgery’ and ‘transgender’ will one day be viewed the same way as ‘lobotomy’ is when it comes to medical cures.
Why should you have a say over what adults do to their body? It's not yours to say. It's not government's either.

I honestly think that removing gender dysphoria as a medical condition is the problem. For every person who likes to look pretty/handsome, there are a dozen people who need to actually figure out how far they need to transition to be happy, not bullrush into functionally irreversible surgery and hormone therapy. Suicide rates among trans are like 5 times the national average, and like 1 in 2 in transitioners.

It's fucking awful.

These people are ruining themselves and any question of 'are you sure? would you like to talk about it?' are met with a convert's vitriol. Cause that's what most of them are, converts and zealots.
I'm pretty sure it still is a medical condition, but yes, people aren't treating it as one.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Umm because it’s against the law to commit suicide or to cut off a limb or other self destructive things?
First, the law != morality. Let's get that basic idea through peoples heads.

Second, the stated reason for those laws isn't that it's immoral to knowingly want to do such a thing and then do it. It's that those laws enable police to legally respond to a situation where someone who completely crazy wants to do something crazy that they normally wouldn't.

Also, suicide isn't against the law, though assisting someone frequently is.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Why should you have a say over what adults do to their body? It's not yours to say. It's not government's either.

The question here isn't 'are you allowed to do something stupid to yourself?'

It's 'is it lawful for a doctor to knowingly conduct a surgery that in no way benefits you, and in fact permanently harms you, because it conforms to your personal madness?'
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
The question here isn't 'are you allowed to do something stupid to yourself?'

It's 'is it lawful for a doctor to knowingly conduct a surgery that in no way benefits you, and in fact permanently harms you, because it conforms to your personal madness?'
It ought to be. It's your body, you consented to it, it's the Doctor's labor, and they are consenting to do the operation. Why should government get involved? It's absolutely none of their business.

As for it never helping, I know trans people for which it was helpful. I know 'trans' people who shouldn't do it. I don't see the problem: adults make stupid fucking choices.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
First, the law != morality. Let's get that basic idea through peoples heads.

Second, the stated reason for those laws isn't that it's immoral to knowingly want to do such a thing and then do it. It's that those laws enable police to legally respond to a situation where someone who completely crazy wants to do something crazy that they normally wouldn't.

Also, suicide isn't against the law, though assisting someone frequently is.
Oh yes I know laws and morals are separate I thought you were talking about is instead of ought. If you are saying under libertarianism people should e free to own their bodies and do whatever they want as long as they don’t hurt others against their will then I can respect that.
 
Oh yes I know laws and morals are separate I thought you were talking about is instead of ought. If you are saying under libertarianism people should e free to own their bodies and do whatever they want as long as they don’t hurt others against their will then I can respect that.

I'm personally for that as I've seen where the alternative leads. be bound by little save Christ and Household if possible
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
It ought to be. It's your body, you consented to it, it's the Doctor's labor, and they are consenting to do the operation. Why should government get involved? It's absolutely none of their business.

As for it never helping, I know trans people for which it was helpful. I know 'trans' people who shouldn't do it. I don't see the problem: adults make stupid fucking choices.

Do you not see an inherent moral problem with this kind of self-destruction?
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Do you not see an inherent moral problem with this kind of self-destruction?
I see a huge moral problem with the idea that someone would use violence to stop an adult doing what they want to their own body.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
I see a huge moral problem with the idea that someone would use violence to stop an adult doing what they want to their own body.

We are not talking about someone doing something to their own body.

We are talking about someone doing something destructive to someone else's body.

I believe it is immoral to mutilate yourself because you're pursuing an insane dream. It is your body however, and even if it is immoral, you have ownership over your own body, so you generally get to do what you like with it.

It's quite a different thing for someone else to do that to your body.

Now please answer the question; do you not see an inherent moral problem with this kind of self-destruction?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top