That's exactly how I feel
(media.gab.com)
Comments (34)
sorted by:
As designed by the DS. Division is a deliberate tool of the DS and this kind of post needs to include language that points out how both sides of these issues, are being conditioned to have these feelings and concerns so as to cause conflict.
We have to realize that the DS is not a single side but is conditioning the population to self destruction. They push the obvious wicked agendas mentioned in the post and they push the wicked responses from the opposite side.
We have to figure out how to respond to these things with correction and removal of the wickedness but not by returning evil for evil. I am not suggesting doing nothing and being walked on but there is a spectrum of responses and we do not need to allow the DS to push us in to the extreme end and turn to wickedness as that just plays in to there hand.
We are all on the same side, until you come after my freedom, or others. There is no coming together on that and is immediate declaration as my enemy.
It's those who never cared who got us here.
I would argue that "not caring" is one of the principles that America was founded upon. As an example, religious persecution was one of the primary motivators for the people that joined the colonies in the 17th century.
That desire to live freely regardless of beliefs or origin was strongly held by the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
The idea that people could live their lives as they please under the very important condition that no one else's rights were violated was sacrosanct.
If we decide in the future this principle is not sacrosanct once we have re-established this Republic, we tread a very slippery slope. We need to decide if we wish people to have freedom, or if we simply wish to hold them under a different brand of tyranny.
What if people donated their bodies to a business that allowed necrophiliacs to have sex with their corpses? The person donating their body would get a big payday for their family, the necrophiliacs would get what they want (sex with a corpse), and the business makes money as the go-between.
This does not violate the Libertarian non-aggression principle in any way. No one has been aggressed against and “why do you care, it doesn’t affect you”. Or, “Hey man, don’t push your antiquated values on me, this is a free country!”
So how do you stop it? The only grounds are moral. If enough people say they don’t want a necrophiliac whorehouse in their city, do they have to justify it beyond that?
Yep, but this one makes Libertarians pause so it works. I don’t think they have a counter-argument, and this one works better than “allowing sex with children”, because they will say “age of consent bro”. With bestiality, they say, “The dog can’t consent bro.” But this one they don’t have the consent argument because consent is there.
Every time I think this board is starting to elevate itself on an intellectual basis, someone comes along and proves me wrong. It never fails.
Thank you for making one of the most absurd, extreme arguments in an attempt to demonize the founders of this country and those who tolerate behavior that they themselves don't approve of but recognize that judging and/or legislating the behavior of others is nothing less than tyranny.
Thank you for reminding me that there are no shortage of people on this board who want the Cabal to be defeated simply so that they can assist in implementing their own brand of authoritarianism.
But mostly I want to thank you for reminding me of my nightly musings when talking to God, where I wonder if we deserve to be saved from the slavery we all endure.
But can it handle absurd and poorly researched? There's multiple court cases that have set precedent that desecration of a corpse is never okay because the person that owned that corpse can never give proper consent in their current state.
Using an absurd extreme as an argument is rarely an argument made in good faith. It's simply a rationalization to have one's way. The desire to control the behavior of others is rarely good and just. Persuasion seems to have become forgotten by some.
But I guess we can add another tally to the "new brand of tyranny" side of the board.
Who decides what is moral?
You are cheapening the example by putting an old argument in its place. I said, this is a business where consent is provided before the person dies. And don’t say it’s absurd either, because there are plenty of people who would sign away their corpse if it meant a big cash out while they are alive.
I think your angry reaction is because you know the non-aggression principle would not prevent this in a libertarian world.
How am I being angry? Why the obsession with what happens to corpses?
I am not angry, I am fearful. I will not fight for freedom only to have new monsters take the place of the old monsters.
String of nasty insults aside, you avoided the argument. How do you stop necrophilic consent using the non-aggression principle? You can’t.
The only way to say this is wrong is the objective morality of God. The non-aggression principle gets you about 75% of the way towards a working moral code in the same way that “Treat others as you want to be treated” does, but it is not enough. You still need a moral authority for an objective (shared) right and wrong.
Subjective morality CANNOT be used to stop this example. That is why the first and only principle of Satanism - “Do as thou wilt” - is an appeal to subjective morality. From that, all evil follows, some aggressed, and some non-aggressed.
Perhaps you have misunderstood the example and think I am the one who is pro-necrophilia? I am not. I’m arguing against it, but using the objective morality of God to do so.
Not sure why you feel the need to attack everyone else here either.
Nasty insults? You're the one obsessed with necrophilia.
Again, there's a segment of this board that only wants freedom so that they can implement their own version of tyranny. Just own it.
I don’t think you really have an argument here. You must be a Libertarian who has been shown the limitations in your philosophy and you’re lashing out at me because of it. And yeah, I would absolutely violate the non-aggression principle to ban consensual sex with corpses, for sure. I would also ban Drag Queen Story Hour and educators pushing transgenderism and gender confusion on children. I also think people should be legally required to cover their genitals in public, which also violates the non-aggression principle.
Well said...🐸🐰
The Wisest thing Humanity can do is channel the anger towards a solution that will stop the ugliness permanently. The core value of our Country is our core values.
"I never really cared about your religion until you forced it on me"
If you wanna understand how we got here, take a look in the mirror. I did. Christians are the founders of modern day cancel culture as well as responsible for some heinous crimes against humanity in the name of Jesus... But we should never hide from Christianity's failures, rather embrace and accept that they happened and each of us individually can try to be better...
What are the three worst examples of Christian cancel culture in the ‘80s?
People always make this argument but what are they even referring to? I was around in the ‘80s and this whole thing seems like one of those “facts” that are true only because they’ve been repeated so much.
Who did the Christians “cancel”?
The only thing Christians could be said to have achieved was getting the Parental Ratings stamp on albums and videogames. And looking back, was that really so bad? Sure young people freaked out about it at the time, and said what an outrage it was, and how stupid, but was it really? We already had ratings on movies, why not music and videogames? I think it’s okay for parents to have a quick reference of what they are purchasing. Or what is the alternative? They have to listen to every shitty rap album first? They have to play through an entire videogame? That’s not practical.
What else was there from Christian “cancel culture”? I know there was one small video rental shop that edited out the sex and nudity from Titanic so parents had a “clean” version they could show to their kids. But that was one shop. There was no push to censor every copy of Titanic, or pull it from the shelves, or blacklist James Cameron, or revoke his Oscars, or censor anyone on the Internet who mentioned Titanic, or freeze the bank accounts of anyone who rented it.
The comment didn't reference the 80s. You injected that time frame. I'm pretty sure they are referring to the crusades, lordship, serfdom, heresy, heretic framework and the inquisition of countless cultures and people's heritage and genealogy. Some of which that make the accepted and taught version of the holocaust look mild.
The Crusades as taught by the cabal is a lie though. Dr. Bill Warner has exposed that. The Crusades were a highly controlled, defensive war (series of small battles) to prevent an Islamic takeover of Europe, who had already overrun Spain and were at the Gates of Vienna. Christians avoided war with Islam for decades before their hand was forced, and then they were beaten back to the desert and Europe once again flourished, free from Sharia Law.
I’m not sure about the others (the Inquisition, etc.) but they are likely all cooked by the cabal as well. With every historical subject I’ve done a deep dive on, the “official” narrative has turned out to be a complete lie, in the same way we see with modern day FAKE NEWS. The two are connected. The Crusades were defensive, Anne Frank wrote her diary with a pen that hadn’t been invented yet, Rosa Parks was a plant, Helen Keller had a British accent, Pearl Harbor was an inside job, Titanic was an assassination, Oswald was a patsy for the CIA, and on and on it goes. All fake.
Also, who would call the Crusades (the fake evil version of them) a form of “cancel culture”? And then who would make the argument that the ‘90s - present day cancel culture is a direct reaction to the overbearing “Christian cancel culture” that came before if they aren’t referring to the post-WW2 - ‘80s era? It doesn’t make sense to me that ‘90s cancel culture would have been sparked by “The Crusades” and “The Inquisition”. If so, why the ‘90s? Why would the pushback only start then?
Religious people rarely know God, they just like the rituals and pious get-togethers.
... and we now occupy the high ground, come to poppa.
It happened once the left realized they couldn't win election based on their policies. They started politicizing everyone and everything and playing identity politics, turning people against each other. The rise of social media made it so much easier to do.
Yup. I think they’ve hurt themselves the most with all this BS.
#MeToo
Too bad the punctuation is all over the place. Good messages are hindered by sloppy writing.