Does every movie and tv series have to have a female warrior lead?
I mean, isn't it cliche at this point?
Not just a female warrior lead....but every show and movie now has women who all are absolute experts in martial arts, throw trained men around like ragdolls, never sustain a punch to the face, and never....ever lose a fight.
It's not just cliche and pandering, or woke.....it's silly.
Really? Every show and movie? You know what's silly? Your post.
shareEvery modern show and movie does not have that.
shareMost do.
shareBy "female warrior lead" do you specifically mean "main character is a woman who is a warrior" or "*one* of the main characters, is a woman, who is a warrior"?
shareThe latter -- even in properties where men are supposed to be the lead there is always a woman who is as equally skilled as him for some reason. Even Extraction 2 kind of suffered from this.
Apparently Disney has to retool the new Blade movie because the females took precedence over Blade as being the main stars.
Lots of places have migrant camps. What's your point?
It's causing massive amounts of unrest and discontent among the populace. It is obviously not sustainable. In Massachusetts, they had to declare a state of emergency due to the crisis:
https://www.mass.gov/news/governor-healey-declares-state-of-emergency-calls-for-support-for-newly-arriving-migrant-families
How is this obscene?
That is one example; the other examples I linked to exemplify my point.
Honestly, I think you're being a dishonest hateful sack of shit here and applying standards to LGBT identification that you would not apply to christian or far-right identification. He only declared non-binary AFTER he was arrested.
Not at all; just sounds like you're being prejudiced against him and denying him his truth. You do know they call that trans-erasure right? Or is trans-erasure okay when you do it?
Without seeing this supposed textbook, I cannot comment. But notably there's no evidence of sex education in a general sense in the UK causing any issues at all.
Yes there is -- in fact, it's spread from Scotland to Ireland to Britain:
https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/parents-protest-sex-education-lessons-21901559
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/craicnet/4779765-parents-in-north-dublin-protest-against-pornography-in-schools-vi
No, we are not. Young people are having LESS SEX. And teen pregnancies are in DECLINE.
Young people (mostly men) are engaging in fewer relationships resulting in the decline of birth rates, but a disproportionate amount of women are engaging in more sex:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-state-of-our-unions/202302/why-are-so-many-young-men-single-and-sexless
https://news.iu.edu/live/news/26924-nearly-1-in-3-young-men-in-the-us-report-having-no share
>
It's causing massive amounts of unrest and discontent among the populace. It is obviously not sustainable. In Massachusetts, they had to declare a state of emergency due to the crisis:
https://www.mass.gov/news/governor-healey-declares-state-of-emergency-calls-for-support-for-newly-arriving-migrant-families
This still is not a failed state. You can name as many problems as you like. The USA, European countries are functioning democratic states.
>That is one example; the other examples I linked to exemplify my point.
Answer the question. How is that picture obscene?
>Not at all; just sounds like you're being prejudiced against him and denying him his truth. You do know they call that trans-erasure right? Or is trans-erasure okay when you do it?
You are continuing to double down on your continual dishonesty. I repeat because you did not address it: He only declared non-binary AFTER he was arrested. There is no such history in his record, and plenty of anti-LGBT attitudes in a general sense in his record. You ignore that because you are determined to build a dishonest narrative.
You would not be so credulous if a transperson shot up a school, and then claimed it was because they were some christian fanatic. Or do you personally just agree that so long as someone claims they are a christian, regardless of any context, that they automatically are and always have been?
>Yes there is -- in fact, it's spread from Scotland to Ireland to Britain:
https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/parents-protest-sex-education-lessons-21901559
Protests are not evidence of any societal problems. Also this source has NOTHING to do with pornography, and is protesting LGBT related education - and it's primarily by muslims.
>Young people (mostly men) are engaging in fewer relationships resulting in the decline of birth rates, but a disproportionate amount of women are engaging in more sex:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-state-of-our-unions/202302/why-are-so-many-young-men-single-and-sexless
And the reasons, as many as there are, contradict your original claim that we're having insane amounts of sex and that teen pregnancies are through the roof. They are not.
This still is not a failed state. You can name as many problems as you like. The USA, European countries are functioning democratic states.
Not for long.
Answer the question. How is that picture obscene?
Being topless in public.
He only declared non-binary AFTER he was arrested.
How do you know he didn't self-affirm before he was arrested? Can you prove that he did not?
Or do you personally just agree that so long as someone claims they are a christian, regardless of any context, that they automatically are and always have been?
It all depends on if they followed Christian doctrine in their behaviour.
Protests are not evidence of any societal problems.
This link definitely indicates pornography is being taught as part of the sex ed:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/craicnet/4779765-parents-in-north-dublin-protest-against-pornography-in-schools-video-link-to-the-parents-speaking-inside
contradict your original claim that we're having insane amounts of sex and that teen pregnancies are through the roof
Relative to the people having sex, it is. Especially since birth rates are below replacement levels. That means that a large portion of people are not sustaining the population, but the people who are engaging in intercourse are simply doing so out of promiscuity. share
>Not for long.
No reason given to believe this.
>Being topless in public.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/07/07/19/4E031DE900000578-5928343-image-a-43_1530988941305.jpg
They aren't topless. How is this obscene?
>How do you know he didn't self-affirm before he was arrested? Can you prove that he did not?
By this logic we should just assume everyone was (is) trans because we can't disprove the possibility that they weren't. His actual history contradicts his claims.
>It all depends on if they followed Christian doctrine in their behaviour.
How do you know, in this circumstance, that your interpretation of christian doctrine isn't wrong? How would it mean they weren't sincere even if they failed to meet the standards you set out here?
>This link definitely indicates pornography is being taught as part of the sex ed:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/craicnet/4779765-parents-in-north-dublin-protest-against-pornography-in-schools-video-link-to-the-parents-speaking-inside
No, this refers to "gender ideology". The OP calls it pornography, but it's not necessarily the same thing.
>Relative to the people having sex, it is. Especially since birth rates are below replacement levels.
I have no idea how you'd even pretend to know this. Got any data that backs this up at all?
No reason given to believe this.
WW3 looms on several fronts due to kakistocracies, while the migrant crisis is proving to cause economic and social collapse, and the birthing crisis is well below replacement levels, which will cause massive infrastructural problems within the next generation.
They aren't topless. How is this obscene?
The one in the middle absolutely is topless. Plus the other photos of the people in the bondage gear absolutely is obscene.
His actual history contradicts his claims.
No, select people claim that their brief experience with him contradicts his claims. So are you saying you believe others instead of the actual person and his proclaimed truth? Does that also mean everyone who says men can't be women are true and the trans who are born men that claim to be women are then lying? Can't have it both ways.
How do you know, in this circumstance, that your interpretation of christian doctrine isn't wrong?
Because it's in the Bible.
The OP calls it pornography, but it's not necessarily the same thing.
It is when everyone who witnessed sex ed films like this one called it explicit and it actually had to be pulled:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173755/Channel-4-sex-education-film-schools-withdrawn-parents-protest.html
I have no idea how you'd even pretend to know this. Got any data that backs this up at all?
Sure:
https://lifehacker.com/here-s-how-much-sex-everybody-is-having-1795561168
https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-releases/lancet-dramatic-declines-global-fertility-rates-set-transform share
>WW3 looms on several fronts due to kakistocracies, while the migrant crisis is proving to cause economic and social collapse, and the birthing crisis is well below replacement levels, which will cause massive infrastructural problems within the next generation.
Whether or not WW3 looms due to dysfunctional foreign policy has nothing to do with domestic issues causing civilisational collapse on their own, which is what you were claiming prior.
>The one in the middle absolutely is topless. Plus the other photos of the people in the bondage gear absolutely is obscene.
That looks like a very tight shirt.
There is nothing against UK law in that picture. I'm also not sure that just dressing up in bondage gear in itself is "obscene" per UK law.
>No, select people claim that their brief experience with him contradicts his claims. So are you saying you believe others instead of the actual person and his proclaimed truth? Does that also mean everyone who says men can't be women are true and the trans who are born men that claim to be women are then lying? Can't have it both ways.
So do we have anyone whatsoever that corroborates his claims for being associated with the LGBT culture and movement prior to his rampage?
"Aldrich had allegedly created a "free speech" website that hosted violent and racist content — including a video that advocated killing civilians to "cleanse society" — as of the night of the shooting. A second site, that was identified as a "brother website" on its homepage, had hosted footage of the 2022 Buffalo shooting and, on the night of the Club Q shooting, came to display four other videos, including one which apparently showed Aldrich's face reflected in a vehicle's rear view mirror. Testimony from a February 2023 hearing implied that Aldrich had operated a neo-Nazi website prior to the shooting."
His own actions contradict his claims.
>Because it's in the Bible.
And your own interpretation is always correct? And secondly: >WW3 looms on several fronts due to kakistocracies, while the migrant crisis is proving to cause economic and social collapse, and the birthing crisis is well below replacement levels, which will cause massive infrastructural problems within the next generation.
Whether or not WW3 looms due to dysfunctional foreign policy has nothing to do with domestic issues causing civilisational collapse on their own, which is what you were claiming prior.
>The one in the middle absolutely is topless. Plus the other photos of the people in the bondage gear absolutely is obscene.
That looks like a very tight shirt.
There is nothing against UK law in that picture. I'm also not sure that just dressing up in bondage gear in itself is "obscene" per UK law.
>No, select people claim that their brief experience with him contradicts his claims. So are you saying you believe others instead of the actual person and his proclaimed truth? Does that also mean everyone who says men can't be women are true and the trans who are born men that claim to be women are then lying? Can't have it both ways.
So do we have anyone whatsoever that corroborates his claims for being associated with the LGBT culture and movement prior to his rampage?
"Aldrich had allegedly created a "free speech" website that hosted violent and racist content — including a video that advocated killing civilians to "cleanse society" — as of the night of the shooting. A second site, that was identified as a "brother website" on its homepage, had hosted footage of the 2022 Buffalo shooting and, on the night of the Club Q shooting, came to display four other videos, including one which apparently showed Aldrich's face reflected in a vehicle's rear view mirror. Testimony from a February 2023 hearing implied that Aldrich had operated a neo-Nazi website prior to the shooting."
His own actions contradict his claims.
>Because it's in the Bible.
And your own interpretation is always correct? And secondly: How would it mean they weren't sincere even if they failed to meet the standards you set out here?
>It is when everyone who witnessed sex ed films like this one called it explicit and it actually had to be pulled:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173755/Channel-4-sex-education-film-schools-withdrawn-parents-protest.html
This is a completely different article from over 10 years ago. It has no relevance to the other articles you've linked.
My final question wasn't about birth rates (everyone knows they are declining), but what data you're drawing from that somehow demonstrates that we're having obscene amounts of sex and obscene amounts of teenage pregnancies.
Whether or not WW3 looms due to dysfunctional foreign policy has nothing to do with domestic issues causing civilisational collapse on their own, which is what you were claiming prior.
It's both:
https://youtu.be/GZ-sA69hPo0
https://youtu.be/MAcHTp4YmBk
That looks like a very tight shirt.
Nope; she's topless.
I'm also not sure that just dressing up in bondage gear in itself is "obscene" per UK law.
Only if it can be proved to be of good use to the broader public, including but not limited to scientific, artistic, or literary merit, of which sexual bondage gear applies to none of those:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/7-8/66/section/4
So do we have anyone whatsoever that corroborates his claims for being associated with the LGBT culture and movement prior to his rampage?
Are you saying his truth is only determined by corroboration of the public?
His own actions contradict his claims.
Framing. None of that says he or his website directly advocated for the harm of LGBT members, nor can you prove that the content on the sites were highlighting the dangers that the community faced. Try again.
And your own interpretation is always correct?
No interpretation needed. The principles are clear as day.
This is a completely different article from over 10 years ago. It has no relevance to the other articles you've linked.
Which is why it's more relevant than ever to the point: that pornographic material has been used in sexual education for over a decade now.
what data you're drawing from that somehow demonstrates that we're having obscene amounts of sex and obscene amounts of teenage pregnancies.
That's what the data shows -- a large portion of people not having any sex, and yet the people who are happen to be doing so at alarming rates.
share
>It's both:
https://youtu.be/GZ-sA69hPo0
https://youtu.be/MAcHTp4YmBk
Crime exists. So what? This is not evidence of civilisational collapse.
>Nope; she's topless.
https://i.imgur.com/v4HyY0t.png Can literally see where the shirt begins.
>Only if it can be proved to be of good use to the broader public, including but not limited to scientific, artistic, or literary merit, of which sexual bondage gear applies to none of those:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/7-8/66/section/4
This is literally about films and music, dude. It doesn't even mention or reference bondage.
And how does one objectively quantify "artistic" or "literary" merit?
>Are you saying his truth is only determined by corroboration of the public?
I'm saying he's full of shit, and this his actual activities prior to his arrest contradict everything he's saying - and it seems the courts agree with me.
>Framing. None of that says he or his website directly advocated for the harm of LGBT members, nor can you prove that the content on the sites were highlighting the dangers that the community faced. Try again.
You've been on his website, have you? Are neo-nazis typically LGBT? Do they typically shoot up gay clubs? I will ask again: Where is the evidence of any involvement from him in any LGBT culture or even just via internet search history?
You are a detestable piece of shit applying standards to someone who you would NEVER apply the same standards to a self-proclaimed christian after a crime.
>No interpretation needed. The principles are clear as day.
And secondly: How would it mean they weren't sincere even if they failed to meet the standards you set out here?
>Which is why it's more relevant than ever to the point: that pornographic material has been used in sexual education for over a decade now.
I mean it was withdrawn at the time, and at the complaint of the schools minister at the time.
>That's what the data shows -- a large portion of people not having any sex, and yet the people who are happen to be doing so at alarming rates.
Your data on sex habits is 7 years old (or contains data between only 2015-19 with comments only from 2017) - apparently was posted or reuploaded in 2022 though. It doesn't outline any historical trends that I can see.
Crime exists. So what? This is not evidence of civilisational collapse.
Mounting geopolitical unrest + infrastructural collapse = civilisation collapse. You cannot have a functioning epicentre consisting of an urban populace if the subways, housing, and streets are riddled with crime, poop, and dysfunctionality.
Can literally see where the shirt begins.
So it's a completely see-through shirt? Same difference as being topless.
This is literally about films and music, dude. It doesn't even mention or reference bondage.
That's because the OPA hasn't been updated properly, but it applies to public displays or acts, as it also references theatre. It's about public conduct, but they use entertainment as an example for exceptions.
Where is the evidence of any involvement from him in any LGBT culture or even just via internet search history?
He could have been on an anonymous LGBT board. How do you know he was not?
How would it mean they weren't sincere even if they failed to meet the standards you set out here?
It's not about my standards, it's whether their actions adhered to the principles set forth by the Bible.
I mean it was withdrawn at the time, and at the complaint of the schools minister at the time.
They haven't stopped:
https://www.ntd.com/parents-protest-against-extreme-sex-ed-content_941793.html
And the results are as I feared:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/parents-protest-school-after-first-graders-allegedly-force-girl-perform-sex-act-record-it-ipad
It doesn't outline any historical trends that I can see.
It's more startling than that: it's showing that things were bad seven years ago, and have only become worse.
share
>Mounting geopolitical unrest + infrastructural collapse = civilisation collapse. You cannot have a functioning epicentre consisting of an urban populace if the subways, housing, and streets are riddled with crime, poop, and dysfunctionality.
Again you're just saying words now. Yes, things aren't great (experience varies nation to nation) but there's zero reason to assume any western nation is on the brink of becoming a failed state.
>So it's a completely see-through shirt? Same difference as being topless.
It's a very tight shirt. Find me an example of someone in the UK arrested for that.
>That's because the OPA hasn't been updated properly, but it applies to public displays or acts, as it also references theatre. It's about public conduct, but they use entertainment as an example for exceptions.
And as I asked: And how does one objectively quantify "artistic" or "literary" merit?
You know British TV has had many raunchy and sexualised and violent TV series and films, right?
>He could have been on an anonymous LGBT board. How do you know he was not?
So you have none then. Zero evidence. You're just taking him at his word when we both know that you would not take someone who claimed Christianity for the reason for a crime after they had done it.
>It's not about my standards, it's whether their actions adhered to the principles set forth by the Bible.
And how would their failure to meet them mean they weren't sincere in their motives?
>They haven't stopped:
https://www.ntd.com/parents-protest-against-extreme-sex-ed-content_941793.html
https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/22150-majority-brits-support-teaching-orgasms-school
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/topic/Sex_education
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/sexual-orientation-and-attitudes-lgbtq-britain
Read and weep when you look at the polling.
Your second link is from the USA.
>It's more startling than that: it's showing that things were bad seven years ago, and have only become worse.
The data stops at 2019. It says nothing about what has happened since then. It seems to measure 5 years.
but there's zero reason to assume any western nation is on the brink of becoming a failed state.
If the migrant and infrastructure crisis hasn't convinced you, then I suppose nothing will.
It's a very tight shirt. Find me an example of someone in the UK arrested for that.
You aren't allowed to go around wearing a shirt that's completely see-through.
You know British TV has had many raunchy and sexualised and violent TV series and films, right?
Yes, and they were deemed by critics and the general public to be "artistic" enough so as not to be seen as obscene. Though, your mileage may vary.
So you have none then. Zero evidence.
And you have nothing to disprove his claims.
And how would their failure to meet them mean they weren't sincere in their motives?
They can be sincere in their motives, doesn't mean that they are righteous in their standards. Two completely different things. Or are you of the mind then that someone claiming to be gay and shooting up a club can represent LGBT communities just by saying their of that community?
Read and weep when you look at the polling.
That corroborates my point -- that the system is further indulging in prurient behaviours that is resulting in the corruption of the youth.
Your second link is from the USA.
Yes, but the point still stands.
It says nothing about what has happened since then.
We already see what's happening since then:
https://archive.is/wip/pkp3H
Trends are not good:
https://archive.is/dS3CG
share
>If the migrant and infrastructure crisis hasn't convinced you, then I suppose nothing will.
Decline isn't the same as collapse of the state.
>You aren't allowed to go around wearing a shirt that's completely see-through.
People can and do wear shirts where their nipples show in the UK. Show me an example of someone arrested for this.
>Yes, and they were deemed by critics and the general public to be "artistic" enough so as not to be seen as obscene. Though, your mileage may vary.
So how does one objectively determine what is "artistic" enough to outweight the obscenity? We also, by the way, do not ban porn.
>And you have nothing to disprove his claims.
His history being contradictory to it. You're just taking him at his word when we both know that you would not take someone who claimed Christianity for the reason for a crime after they had done it.
>They can be sincere in their motives, doesn't mean that they are righteous in their standards. Two completely different things. Or are you of the mind then that someone claiming to be gay and shooting up a club can represent LGBT communities just by saying their of that community?
My point was I suspect you would accuse them of lying. That they weren't really doing anything in the name of christianity.
>That corroborates my point -- that the system is further indulging in prurient behaviours that is resulting in the corruption of the youth.
I await evidence that the "system" has contributed to the changing attitudes of the UK public.
>Yes, but the point still stands.
We're talking about the UK.
>https://archive.is/wip/pkp3H
No actual statistical data on sex trends here. This is an opinion piece that... cites terms from the urban dictionary. Your claim was that a small % of people are having exponentionally more sex.
>https://archive.is/dS3CG
This has been a thing for a while, but your initial claim wasn't about gender imbalance but simply that everyone is having less sex compared to the 00s, 10s etc.
Decline isn't the same as collapse of the state.
Decline leads to collapse, that's exactly what preceded the collapse of Rome; the decline in moral standards, the seizure of property by the elites, the dissolution of societal infrastructure, and the collapse of the army. Sound familiar?
People can and do wear shirts where their nipples show in the UK. Show me an example of someone arrested for this.
Disingenuous comparison. They do not wear blatantly see-through shirts with nothing underneath.
So how does one objectively determine what is "artistic" enough to outweight the obscenity?
In the case of Pride - up until recently (where they began enforcing the rules to abide by the standards of the OPA ) -- they simply labeled the obscenity as political activism.
We also, by the way, do not ban porn.
Yes, but many films have been denied distribution by the BBFC for obscenity.
His history being contradictory to it.
No, his history is simply a tool you're using a weapon to condemn him, all while denying him his truth.
That they weren't really doing anything in the name of christianity.
Glad we agree.
I await evidence that the "system" has contributed to the changing attitudes of the UK public.
It's being taught at earlier and earlier ages, and parents are politically handcuffed from doing much about it:
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/lgbtq-inclusive-education-everything-you-need-know
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/630932
Your claim was that a small % of people are having exponentionally more sex. [...] but your initial claim wasn't about gender imbalance but simply that everyone is having less sex compared to the 00s, 10s etc.
Correlative heuristics. Only a small portion of men are having a disproportionate amount of sex with many women.
share
>Decline leads to collapse, that's exactly what preceded the collapse of Rome; the decline in moral standards, the seizure of property by the elites, the dissolution of societal infrastructure, and the collapse of the army. Sound familiar?
No, plenty of modern countries have gone or are into a natural economic decline for various reasons and there's no reason to assume they will collapse and become failed states. No Western country is anywhere near that point.
>Disingenuous comparison. They do not wear blatantly see-through shirts with nothing underneath.
I repeat: People can and do wear shirts where their nipples show in the UK. Show me an example of someone arrested for this.
>In the case of Pride - up until recently (where they began enforcing the rules to abide by the standards of the OPA ) -- they simply labeled the obscenity as political activism.
And what are you calling "recently", exactly? And you didn't answer my question: So how does one objectively determine what is "artistic" enough to outweight the obscenity?
>Yes, but many films have been denied distribution by the BBFC for obscenity.
The last example was in 2007.
>No, his history is simply a tool you're using a weapon to condemn him, all while denying him his truth.
I'm not someone who takes people at their word just because they say so if I think there's good reason to think they're full of shit, so you can pull the other one there with this "lived experiences" or "their truth" mantra.
>Glad we agree.
Don't quote mine me, fuckface.
"My point was I suspect you would accuse them of lying. That they weren't really doing anything in the name of christianity."
>It's being taught at earlier and earlier ages, and parents are politically handcuffed from doing much about it:
Chicken and egg. How do you know that attitudes towards LGBT people weren't naturally changing due to cultural changes, which then pressured for lawmakers to pass legislation to reflect that?
>https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/630
Do you think that number is anywhere near a majority of UK citizens?
No, plenty of modern countries have gone or are into a natural economic decline for various reasons and there's no reason to assume they will collapse and become failed states.
There is... it's called history, and we've seen it happen many times in the recent past. Typically they suffered the exact same symptoms before collapse.
Show me an example of someone arrested for this.
Pushing the goal posts. No one said anything about pokies through a shirt, but about toplessness and the appearance of obscenity in the public space.
And what are you calling "recently", exactly?
The parades within the last few years -- because they were getting to be sexually uncouth.
So how does one objectively determine what is "artistic" enough to outweight the obscenity?
It's usually down to the cultural standards, but if those standards keep eroding, then nothing will be viewed as obscene.
The last example was in 2007.
Which proves my point about the erosion of cultural standards in the West.
Chicken and egg. How do you know that attitudes towards LGBT people weren't naturally changing due to cultural changes, which then pressured for lawmakers to pass legislation to reflect that? [...] Do you think that number is anywhere near a majority of UK citizens?
It was definitely parliament (chicken) forcing the culture (egg) to adapt. Remember, just over a decade ago less than half of the populace thought same-sex marriage should be allowed; the rulings were forced through regardless of what the majority wanted. Now it's closer to 80% that supports a mandated societal change. It's social contagion:
https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/45868-record-number-britons-support-same-sex-marriage-10 share
>There is... it's called history, and we've seen it happen many times in the recent past. Typically they suffered the exact same symptoms before collapse.
The decline of Rome was over a much, much longer period dude.
>Pushing the goal posts. No one said anything about pokies through a shirt, but about toplessness and the appearance of obscenity in the public space.
Right, so you can't provide a single precedent for this.
>It's usually down to the cultural standards, but if those standards keep eroding, then nothing will be viewed as obscene.
And so society has moved on.
>Which proves my point about the erosion of cultural standards in the West.
Name me some things you think the BBFC should refuse. What is being permitted, right now, that should not be legally?
>It was definitely parliament (chicken) forcing the culture (egg) to adapt.
Evidence please.
>Remember, just over a decade ago less than half of the populace thought same-sex marriage should be allowed; the rulings were forced through regardless of what the majority wanted. Now it's closer to 80% that supports a mandated societal change. It's social contagion:
This is just a lie
https://web.archive.org/web/20160408155742/http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article1943680.ece
https://web.archive.org/web/20100727184447/http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/35815/a_third_of_americans_favour_same_sex_marriage
At best you can argue only a plurality supported it, but most people at minimum supported either same sex marriage or civil partnerships. Only a much smaller minority opposed either.
The decline of Rome was over a much, much longer period dude.
The West is on a speed run.
Right, so you can't provide a single precedent for this.
When did toplessness become legal in the U.k.?
Name me some things you think the BBFC should refuse. What is being permitted, right now, that should not be legally?
Who said what was being permitted should not be legal? I simply pointed out that before the BBFC was rather strict before and used to ban quite regularly, but not anymore, as it's not as if movies have become less gratuitous. In fact, even news media have admitted that there are more genitals on-screen than ever before:
https://news.yahoo.com/more-penises-appearing-tv-film-122823229.html
Evidence please.
https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/03/29/culture-re-view-gay-marriage-is-legalised-in-the-uk
Despite having LESS than half the support from the populace for it.
This is just a lie
Nope, people literally voted in America against it in prop 8, and prop 8 passed. The Supreme Court overruled prop 8 and the voters to legalise same-sex marriage:
https://www.courts.ca.gov/6465.htm
Similar thing happened in the U.K.
Only a much smaller minority opposed either.
Nope. Most people would have been okay with civil partnerships, but were not on board with gay marriage, hence them voting against it rather aggressively for years. share
>The West is on a speed run.
No reason to believe this.
>When did toplessness become legal in the U.k.?
"It's not an offence to be naked in public in England and Wales but it does become an offence if it can be proved the person stripped off with the intention to upset and shock. The complainant has to prove this."
And they were not topless.
>Who said what was being permitted should not be legal? I simply pointed out that before the BBFC was rather strict before and used to ban quite regularly, but not anymore, as it's not as if movies have become less gratuitous. In fact, even news media have admitted that there are more genitals on-screen than ever before:
You spoke of an "erosion of cultural standards" as if you think the BBFC should be denying modern material. Do you have any examples here?
>Nope, people literally voted in America against it in prop 8, and prop 8 passed. The Supreme Court overruled prop 8 and the voters to legalise same-sex marriage:
https://www.courts.ca.gov/6465.htm
I am referring to the UK, not California.
In terms of the USA, by 2015 gay marriage already had popular support: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
>Similar thing happened in the U.K.
And what vote is this?
>Nope. Most people would have been okay with civil partnerships, but were not on board with gay marriage, hence them voting against it rather aggressively for years.
Gay marriage had plurality support, and in some polls it had majority support. Both had much more support combined compared to nothing. And who "voted against it"? What referendums are you even referring to in the UK?
No reason to believe this.
Definitely linked plenty of reasons.
And they were not topless.
The people in BDSM gear definitely wear.
You spoke of an "erosion of cultural standards" as if you think the BBFC should be denying modern material.
It's about the change in pattern -- the BBFC used to have strict standards, and now they do not.
I am referring to the UK, not California.
You linked to an American poll; but voting patterns from the populace proved the poll wrong.
In terms of the USA, by 2015 gay marriage already had popular support:
That was after the Supreme Court had already forced the issue against the popular vote.
And what vote is this?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-18/queen-gives-assent-to-british-gay-marriage-law/4827308
Even though it had support from less than half the constituents of the parliamentary.
Both had much more support combined compared to nothing. And who "voted against it"? What referendums are you even referring to in the UK?
Polls and religious institutions in the U.K; in America, propositions.
share
>Definitely linked plenty of reasons.
Societal strife is not evidence. There has always been crime, protests.
>The people in BDSM gear definitely wear.
Give me a link to the picture of that again, please?
>It's about the change in pattern -- the BBFC used to have strict standards, and now they do not.
They didn't censor very much actually. And the change is a good thing. People should be allowed to make things without being censored.
>You linked to an American poll; but voting patterns from the populace proved the poll wrong.
A national poll. Not a specific Californian one.
>That was after the Supreme Court had already forced the issue against the popular vote.
Gay marriage was polling at over 50% by 2012.
>Even though it had support from less than half the constituents of the parliamentary.
That's a parliamentary vote, not a referendum.
And objecting to gay marriage had *less support* than supporting it.
>Polls and religious institutions in the U.K; in America, propositions.
The polls that gave gay marriage a plurality? And a few that gave it a majority?
US polls that gave gay marriage a majority in 2012, 3 years before the supreme court decision?
Societal strife is not evidence. There has always been crime, protests.
Not at this level.
Give me a link to the picture of that again, please?
You'll have to scroll up for that. Providing evidence of such has put way too much Pride BDSM in my internet history as it is.
And the change is a good thing.
Having no standards is a good thing? It's only led to the dissolution of social cohesion.
A national poll. Not a specific Californian one.
California is the most Liberal location in America, and even THEY didn't want to legalise gay marriage. What does that tell you?
Gay marriage was polling at over 50% by 2012.
The votes never corroborated that sentiment.
That's a parliamentary vote
Yes, and parliament voted against popular sentiment of the time.
US polls that gave gay marriage a majority in 2012, 3 years before the supreme court decision?
Polls weren't reflective of electoral patterns in the least. The courts superseded the will of the people.
Essentially, they forced people to accept a controversial issue, against the will of the people.
share
>Not at this level.
You haven't provided any statistical comparison.
>You'll have to scroll up for that. Providing evidence of such has put way too much Pride BDSM in my internet history as it is.
I found the daily mail source, and can see no picture there where anyone is topless.
>Having no standards is a good thing? It's only led to the dissolution of social cohesion.
You keep saying this, but then also claim that the BBFC shouldn't have banned anything since 2007.
I'll also await evidence that violent/MA-type content somehow causes a breakdown of social cohesion.
>California is the most Liberal location in America, and even THEY didn't want to legalise gay marriage. What does that tell you?
That other polls did support gay marriage at the time.
>The votes never corroborated that sentiment.
California voted in 2008. I am talking about national polling from 2012 onwards, 3 years before the supreme court decision.
>Yes, and parliament voted against popular sentiment of the time.
Except more people wanted gay marriage than people who opposed it. And a few polls suggested there was a majority.
>Polls weren't reflective of electoral patterns in the least. The courts superseded the will of the people.
How do you know they superseded the will of the people when opinion polls suggested the opposite, repeatedly 3 years prior?
In addition, I reject the concept of tyranny of the majority. Gay people getting married doesn't harm straight people.
>Essentially, they forced people to accept a controversial issue, against the will of the people.
Does something happen to you if gay people marry?
You haven't provided any statistical comparison.
Don't need to, there is massive unrest over the migrant crisis that has resulted in massive protests around the globe in developed countries:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/asylum-claims-driving-migrant-crisis-ebdffcb6
I found the daily mail source, and can see no picture there where anyone is topless.
Wasn't the Daily Mail with the BDSM pride stuff.
You keep saying this, but then also claim that the BBFC shouldn't have banned anything since 2007.
Never said they should not have banned anything.
That other polls did support gay marriage at the time.
Voting patterns did not.
Except more people wanted gay marriage than people who opposed it. And a few polls suggested there was a majority.
No, people were put on the spot to accept it via polling. There was no push from the general populace to get the assembly to legalise gay marriage.
How do you know they superseded the will of the people when opinion polls suggested the opposite, repeatedly 3 years prior?
Opinion polls in very Liberal regions.
In addition, I reject the concept of tyranny of the majority. Gay people getting married doesn't harm straight people.
It destroys social cohesion, which is why countries trying to maintain or build that cohesion ban it.
Does something happen to you if gay people marry?
Tyranny under any other name is evil in the eyes of Liberals, save for when it comes to forcing Liberal agendas.
share
>Don't need to, there is massive unrest over the migrant crisis that has resulted in massive protests around the globe in developed countries:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/asylum-claims-driving-migrant-crisis-ebdffcb6
Yes, you do. Show me crime data from the 1950s and 60s and 70s and 80s etc.
>Wasn't the Daily Mail with the BDSM pride stuff.
Then I have no idea what you're referring to.
>Voting patterns did not.
And less supported blocking it at all.
>No, people were put on the spot to accept it via polling. There was no push from the general populace to get the assembly to legalise gay marriage.
I'll await evidence that people were "put on the spot" to accept it by polling organisations.
And in addition, people in the UK also poll massively in favour, for instance, for the death penalty - but that doesn't mean they're going to mass protest for it. A population being in favour of something doesn't mean they'll mass protest for it.
>Opinion polls in very Liberal regions.
No, these were national polls.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
You clearly do not click any links I send.
>It destroys social cohesion, which is why countries trying to maintain or build that cohesion ban it.
I'll await evidence that it "destroys social cohesion".
>Tyranny under any other name is evil in the eyes of Liberals, save for when it comes to forcing Liberal agendas.
What tyranny is imposed upon you when two gay people have a service that is labeled "marriage"?
Yes, you do. Show me crime data from the 1950s and 60s and 70s and 80s etc.
Oh boy, you shouldn't have asked for that...
https://www.westernjournal.com/as-uk-embraces-knife-control-rapes-knife-crime-shootings-skyrocket/
https://www.varbes.com/crime/england-crime
And in addition, people in the UK also poll massively in favour, for instance, for the death penalty - but that doesn't mean they're going to mass protest for it. A population being in favour of something doesn't mean they'll mass protest for it.
Thanks, this proves my point. Just because the demographic who polled positive/negative on something doesn't mean that's indicative of legislative adherence.
No, these were national polls.
National polls does not preclude political bias. Plus, the shift was unnaturally high, in-line with a very aggressive media campaign to program the populace. Between 2010 and 2014 there was a radical turnover in opinions in Western nations.
I'll await evidence that it "destroys social cohesion".
How does a community of only 100 men and no women maintain generational expanse and cultural genealogy?
What tyranny is imposed upon you when two gay people have a service that is labeled "marriage"?
It is a perversion of marriage, which is to be between a man and a woman for cohesively binding the two so that they maintain familial growth (i.e., offspring), and a family lineage. Forcing the issue to enable couplings under a term where there is no possibility of lineage is simply corrupting the intent of the recognised bond. share
>Oh boy, you shouldn't have asked for that...
https://www.westernjournal.com/as-uk-embraces-knife-control-rapes-knife-crime-shootings-skyrocket/
A specific single crime category within London. This is not evidence of incoming civilisational collapse.
What's the overall crime rate picture?
Meanwhile: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67161967
>Thanks, this proves my point. Just because the demographic who polled positive/negative on something doesn't mean that's indicative of legislative adherence.
What? I am pointing out that the UK public polls in favour of reimplimenting the death penalty. In the years preceding and around the gay marriage bill in parliament, more people as a % supported legalising gay marriage than rejecting it outright.
>National polls does not preclude political bias. Plus, the shift was unnaturally high, in-line with a very aggressive media campaign to program the populace. Between 2010 and 2014 there was a radical turnover in opinions in Western nations.
I'll away evidence that Gallup somehow manipulated the results. And your complaint about the media is completely unfalsifiable. It's inline with PRC propaganda that claims that Taiwanese self-determination doesn't really matter, and is invalid because of "propaganda". Either you support the will of the people or you don't, and you're being very inconsistent about it.
>How does a community of only 100 men and no women maintain generational expanse and cultural genealogy?
Was there something in the UK gay marriage bill that called for communities of only 100 men?
Also: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/6099-voters-back-same-sex-marriage
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/26/voters-back-gay-marriage-poll
The gay marriage vote was on the 16th of July 2013. These polls preceded it.
>It is a perversion of marriage, which is to be between a man and a woman for cohesively binding the two so that they maintain familial growth
That's your definition. Not mine. Some cultures acknowledge polygamy as part of marriage. Does two people of the same sex having their union sanctified as marriage by the state somehow impact you?
Also, plenty of straight people get married with no intent to have children.
What's the overall crime rate picture?
Meanwhile:
It's in the second link.
Which disproves the BBC's findings, since crime rates across the board have nearly doubled:
https://www.varbes.com/crime/england-crime
And the BBC is going by false data, since the police have been purposely failing to report crimes in order to make it seem like crime is dropping:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8925329/police-fail-investigate-half-reported-crimes/
What? I am pointing out that the UK public polls in favour of reimplimenting the death penalty. In the years preceding and around the gay marriage bill in parliament, more people as a % supported legalising gay marriage than rejecting it outright.
Yes, and as I pointed out, just because people poll positive for something doesn't mean they want it adhered to legislatively, nor does it mean it will become part of the legislature.
Either you support the will of the people or you don't, and you're being very inconsistent about it.
Media establishments and lobbyists can determine that "will". For instance, half of all people supposedly want tobacco products banned:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/02/health/tobacco-ban-support/index.html
Yet people spend overwhelming on tobacco products if given the opportunity:
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/10/ftc-releases-reports-cigarette-smokeless-tobacco-sales-marketing-expenditures-2022
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/economics/econ_facts/index.htm
People can be cajoled into undermining their own best interests, no matter what it is.
Was there something in the UK gay marriage bill that called for communities of only 100 men?
It's a simple question of survival mechanics.
Some cultures acknowledge polygamy as part of marriage.
There is no first-world (or developed) civilisation built on polygamy.
share
>Which disproves the BBC's findings, since crime rates across the board have nearly doubled:
https://www.varbes.com/crime/england-crime
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingjune2023
Is the ONS website lying?
>Yes, and as I pointed out, just because people poll positive for something doesn't mean they want it adhered to legislatively, nor does it mean it will become part of the legislature.
You originally claimed that most people in the UK objected to gay marriage at the time. Now you're claiming that it doesn't matter, and that people who said they supported it didn't really mean it, and didn't want it legislated for.
I'll also continue to await evidence that Gallup (for the USA) somehow manipulated the results. And your complaint about the media is completely unfalsifiable. It's inline with PRC propaganda that claims that Taiwanese self-determination doesn't really matter, and is invalid because of "propaganda". Either you support the will of the people or you don't, and you're being very inconsistent about it.
>Media establishments and lobbyists can determine that "will". For instance, half of all people supposedly want tobacco products banned:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/02/health/tobacco-ban-support/index.html
How do you know that's a result of lobbying?
>Yet people spend overwhelming on tobacco products if given the opportunity:
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/10/ftc-releases-reports-cigarette-smokeless-tobacco-sales-marketing-expenditures-2022
You do realise that a small % of people make up a massive majority of tobacco sales, right? Are you of the impression that a significant percentage of people who said they support banning cigarettes are also buying it?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/509720/cigarette-smoking-rate-steady-near-historical-low.aspx#:~:text=The%2012%25%20who%20say%20they,%2C%20conducted%20July%203%2D27.
>It's a simple question of survival mechanics.
That's not what I asked you: Was there something in the UK gay marriage bill that called for communities of only 100 men?
>There is no first-world (or developed) civilisation built on polygamy.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-where-polygamy-is-legal
Much of the gulf now could be so-described as 'developed'. But I digress, legalising gay marriage isn't suggesting it should be "built on it" anyway.
I take it you've withdrawn your claim that the UK government legislated against the will of the people regarding gay marriage then?
Is the ONS website lying?
Lots of weasel-wording, such as "criminal damage decreased by 28%", just because less damage is done doesn't mean fewer crimes are being committed. That's just recorded based on insurance reports. They also avoided mentioning battery and assault offences without weapons. Par the course for the media manipulation I talked about.
Now you're claiming that it doesn't matter, and that people who said they supported it didn't really mean it, and didn't want it legislated for.
No; I'm saying people's views have been manipulated, and they really didn't want it until the media told them they wanted it and to support it.
Are you of the impression that a significant percentage of people who said they support banning cigarettes are also buying it?
No, it's to highlight that polls can be used to highlight trends of one group that may be in opposition to how the general public may actually feel about it, or vice versa. If there was no media condemning tobacco, would people still poll so high as to want sales ceased?
That's not what I asked you: Was there something in the UK gay marriage bill that called for communities of only 100 men?
Non-sequitur. The charge against homosexual marriage was due to crippling social cohesion. The legislation does not acknowledge outcome of change, only an enactment of change.
Much of the gulf now could be so-described as 'developed'.
No, most are war torn or are trying to develop.
I take it you've withdrawn your claim that the UK government legislated against the will of the people regarding gay marriage then?
No, the people were lobbied into it by the media, and little recourse to reject. Plus, a referendum would have kicked up a media storm about homophobia and people would have been shamed into withdrawing. share
>Lots of weasel-wording, such as "criminal damage decreased by 28%", just because less damage is done doesn't mean fewer crimes are being committed. That's just recorded based on insurance reports. They also avoided mentioning battery and assault offences without weapons. Par the course for the media manipulation I talked about.
The ONS is a media website now?
Also, they show lots of data there.
>No; I'm saying people's views have been manipulated, and they really didn't want it until the media told them they wanted it and to support it.
And you've provided no evidence for this claim whatsoever. It's unfalsifiable nonsense.
But good to know you've withdrawn your initial claim that people didn't support it at all.
>No, it's to highlight that polls can be used to highlight trends of one group that may be in opposition to how the general public may actually feel about it, or vice versa. If there was no media condemning tobacco, would people still poll so high as to want sales ceased?
By this logic every opinion we hold on everything is manipulated. This is tantamount to asking "If people didn't know the health risks of long-term smoking, would they truly support legislation to restrict access to it?"
>Non-sequitur. The charge against homosexual marriage was due to crippling social cohesion. The legislation does not acknowledge outcome of change, only an enactment of change.
Still await for how this has causes a breakdown in social cohesion in the UK.
>No, most are war torn or are trying to develop.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are war-torn?
>No, the people were lobbied into it by the media, and little recourse to reject. Plus, a referendum would have kicked up a media storm about homophobia and people would have been shamed into withdrawing.
And you've provided no evidence for this claim whatsoever. It's unfalsifiable nonsense.
I'll also continue to await evidence that Gallup (for the USA) somehow manipulated the results. And your complaint about the media is completely unfalsifiable. It's inline with PRC propaganda that claims that Taiwanese self-determination doesn't really matter, and is invalid because of "propaganda". Either you support the will of the people or you don't, and you're being very inconsistent about it.
The ONS is a media website now?
Given that they leave out key facts and manipulate the wording, they may as well be.
But good to know you've withdrawn your initial claim that people didn't support it at all.
Never said they didn't support it at all, I explicitly mentioned they were cajoled into supporting it.
By this logic every opinion we hold on everything is manipulated.
Nope, only opinions influenced to disrupt social cohesion.
Still await for how this has causes a breakdown in social cohesion in the UK.
Patterns of disruptive behaviour have led to the outcome you're witnessing right now, especially in combination with no-fault divorce, aggressive abortion agendas, and cultural incongruity with mass migration.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are war-torn?
Saudi Arabia is not a polygamist state; they are however a polygnyist state.
'll also continue to await evidence that Gallup (for the USA) somehow manipulated the results.
Majority of the polling is not done in middle-America. That alone biases the results. share
>Given that they leave out key facts and manipulate the wording, they may as well be.
They are literally not a media website dude.
>Never said they didn't support it at all, I explicitly mentioned they were cajoled into supporting it.
No, you claimed the legislation was passed against public opinion. Don't try to rewrite history. Now you've just claimed "oh well people were tricked" which is unfalsifiable gibberish.
>Nope, only opinions influenced to disrupt social cohesion.
How convenient. This again, is completely unfalsifiable.
>Patterns of disruptive behaviour have led to the outcome you're witnessing right now, especially in combination with no-fault divorce, aggressive abortion agendas, and cultural incongruity with mass migration.
No. I want evidence for how gay marriage, SPECIFICALLY has caused societal breakdown.
Mass migration policies have nothing whatsoever to do with any of this.
Should married couples not have the right to amicably divorce?
>Majority of the polling is not done in middle-America. That alone biases the results.
The majority of the USA does not live in middle-America. So that makes complete sense.
And your complaint about the media is completely unfalsifiable. It's inline with PRC propaganda that claims that Taiwanese self-determination doesn't really matter, and is invalid because of "propaganda". Either you support the will of the people or you don't, and you're being very inconsistent about it.
They are literally not a media website dude.
Not the point, lad. The point is that they are manipulating the presentation of data, which is even worse given that it's supposed to be a national website for delivering objective information. Reminds me of how the FBI now hides crime table data because people were using it to notice things.
No, you claimed the legislation was passed against public opinion.No. I want evidence for how gay marriage, SPECIFICALLY has caused societal breakdown.
It diminished the value and role of marriage in society.
Should married couples not have the right to amicably divorce?
Nope. Should never have gotten married then. Marriage is a holy contract, and it should only be dissolved when the contract is breached by one or both parties.
The majority of the USA does not live in middle-America. So that makes complete sense.
Yet they're precluded from polls that completely affect them.
Either you support the will of the people or you don't, and you're being very inconsistent about it.
Not at all. The "will" of the people can be manipulated by bad actors. share
>Not the point, lad. The point is that they are manipulating the presentation of data, which is even worse given that it's supposed to be a national website for delivering objective information. Reminds me of how the FBI now hides crime table data because people were using it to notice things.
You know it says far more, and goes into much more detail than you alleged.
>It diminished the value and role of marriage in society.
No reason to believe this at all.
Nor does this translate into anything in practice. Supposing its true, how is that harming society?
>Nope. Should never have gotten married then. Marriage is a holy contract, and it should only be dissolved when the contract is breached by one or both parties.
Christianity does not have a monopoly on marriage. The UK does not take its orders from Christianity. What are a married couple supposed to do then? Just remain married on paper but have other partners as they've emotionally split? They may as well just get divorced at that point.
>Yet they're precluded from polls that completely affect them.
How do you know they were "precluded"? You said that the majority of the polling was not done in middle-america, not that none was.
>Not at all. The "will" of the people can be manipulated by bad actors.
By your reasoning, it's impossible not to be manipulated. Every single opinion poll on anything could just be spun to "oh the media/government/whoever tricked the people into thinking X". It's completely unfalsifiable.
You know it says far more, and goes into much more detail than you alleged.
Yes, and no. It says more without saying much at all about the issues I brought up, or the other statistics highlighting many other rising rates of crime, or the fact that it's based on incomplete reporting data because British police refuse to data-track certain crimes. Hence, it's misleading.
Supposing its true, how is that harming society?
The devaluation of marriage in society is evident in the epidemic of divorce rates; people do not respect nor believe in the institution of marriage. 80% of lesbians divorce within a few years of getting hitched, meaning only two-tenths actually believe in the institution of long-term monogamy. By proxy, people see marriage as a simple thing to do, rather than as an honourary condition upon which to uphold vows. As a result, it destroys the presence and importance of maintaining the nuclear family, and the nuclear family is the backbone of every industrialised civilisation.
Just remain married on paper but have other partners as they've emotionally split?
If you cannot be monogamous, then do not get married.
You said that the majority of the polling was not done in middle-america, not that none was.
That's because it's how the polls are framed in places like America, and how it manipulates people into supporting something they do not, or extricating that demographic altogether:
https://archive.is/giBOj
Most polls are done on coastal regions where majority are Liberal, so obviously it biases the results.
Every single opinion poll on anything could just be spun to "oh the media/government/whoever tricked the people into thinking X".
Hogwash. It's completely possible to have a definitive opinion on something that isn't: forced into a binary choice, or two, manipulated to fetch a result based on a pre-purposed outcome. share
>Yes, and no. It says more without saying much at all about the issues I brought up, or the other statistics highlighting many other rising rates of crime, or the fact that it's based on incomplete reporting data because British police refuse to data-track certain crimes. Hence, it's misleading.
It does not say all crime is uniformly dropping at all. And noting the ethnicity of those committing crimes is a different thing altogether.
>The devaluation of marriage in society is evident in the epidemic of divorce rates; people do not respect nor believe in the institution of marriage.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2022#:~:text=3.-,Divorce%20rates,(opposite%2Dsex%20only).
"Figure 2: Divorce rates have fallen to their lowest level since 1971"
>80% of lesbians divorce within a few years of getting hitched, meaning only two-tenths actually believe in the institution of long-term monogamy.
Can I see your data source here, please?
>By proxy, people see marriage as a simple thing to do, rather than as an honourary condition upon which to uphold vows. As a result, it destroys the presence and importance of maintaining the nuclear family, and the nuclear family is the backbone of every industrialised civilisation.
Not sure how allowing same-sex marriage into the fold somehow makes it more likely heterosexual couples might divorce.
>If you cannot be monogamous, then do not get married.
Not what I asked you. In this scenario, they are already married but no longer love each other. What are they to do then? Just remain married on paper but have other partners as they've emotionally split? They may as well just get divorced at that point.
>That's because it's how the polls are framed in places like America, and how it manipulates people into supporting something they do not, or extricating that demographic altogether:
https://archive.is/giBOj
This has nothing to do with WHERE they are polling, but how they are framing the questions. Basically if you add civil partnerships as an option (semantics, really) then the support officially drops to a plurality.
>Most polls are done on coastal regions where majority are Liberal, so obviously it biases the results.
You haven't provided any evidence this is true. More people from those areas will be polled because MOST AMERICANS happen to live in coastal states, and border-coastal states - depending on how far you expand "coastal regions". What you seem to be calling for is to over-represent middle-america relative to their actual population, which is disingenuous.
>Hogwash. It's completely possible to have a definitive opinion on something that isn't: forced into a binary choice, or two, manipulated to fetch a result based on a pre-purposed outcome.
Yet anyone can claim that any polling trend for an opinion they don't like just constitutes people being propagandised too. It's completely unfalsifiable. There is zero positive reason, however, to believe that LGBT acceptance didn't just happen naturally over time, and you have provided fuck all evidence for your claim that it was somehow artificial.
It does not say all crime is uniformly dropping at all.
In your previous comment you try to infer that the ONS depicted that crime was dropping across the board, and not that only certain crimes were down, and that only those that were down were due to reduced reporting of said crimes. That's highly misleading, wouldn't you say?
"Figure 2: Divorce rates have fallen to their lowest level since 1971"
Because marriage rates have fallen drastically:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/marriage-is-disappearing-from-britain
Can't get divorced if you aren't married.
Can I see your data source here, please?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2020
That was from 2020, at 72% -- the numbers have gone up since then.
they are already married but no longer love each other. What are they to do then?
Marriage isn't a car. You don't replace a partner with a newer model when you get bored. "For richer or for poorer", "for better or for worse". It is a vow. As stated, if you cannot uphold the vows, do not get married.
This has nothing to do with WHERE they are polling, but how they are framing the questions.
Both actually; because Gallup mostly uses phone calls:
https://www.gallup.com/178667/gallup-world-poll-work.aspx
Most older Americans -- which makes up a good portion of middle-America -- do not answer the phone from random callers (67% actually):
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/12/14/most-americans-dont-answer-cellphone-calls-from-unknown-numbers/
Meaning, majority of the polling is weighted for people who do answer the call; typically Liberal, non-White and usually under 65.
There is zero positive reason, however, to believe that LGBT acceptance didn't just happen naturally over time
It did not, because it had no reason to
share
>Because marriage rates have fallen drastically:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/marriage-is-disappearing-from-britain
>Can't get divorced if you aren't married.
Right, but you initially claimed that there was an "epidemic of divorce rates".
>https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2020
"In 2020, there were 1,154 divorces among same-sex couples, increasing by 40.4% from 2019; of these, the majority continued to be accounted for by female same-sex divorces (71.3%)."
This says that 71% of divorces from same-sex couples come from female same-sex couples. Not that 71% of married female same-sex couples divorce. There is a difference.
>That was from 2020, at 72% -- the numbers have gone up since then.
Source.
>Marriage isn't a car. You don't replace a partner with a newer model when you get bored. "For richer or for poorer", "for better or for worse". It is a vow. As stated, if you cannot uphold the vows, do not get married.
NOT WHAT I ASKED YOU. It doesn't matter what you "think" marriage should be. The reality is that sometimes married couples fall out of love. WHAT SHOULD THEY DO WHEN THAT HAPPENS?
>Both actually; because Gallup mostly uses phone calls:
https://www.gallup.com/178667/gallup-world-poll-work.aspx
Which would actually preference older generations, making it if anything more likely to prejudice older people with more conservative views.
>Meaning, majority of the polling is weighted for people who do answer the call; typically Liberal, non-White and usually under 65.
Baseless unevidenced garbage. You think younger, non-white people are more likely to answer landlines?
>It did not, because it had no reason to
Yes it did. The USA had a general strong individualist culture and focus on civil rights. Gay people already existed and were present in public life.
Right, but you initially claimed that there was an "epidemic of divorce rates".
Relative to the drastically declining marriage rates, there is an epidemic of divorce -- it's only lower because marriage is about to become non-existent if it keeps at the current rate.
There is a difference.
Not according to divorce attorneys... as linked below....
Source.
Law firm:
https://www.friendswoodfamilylaw.com/blog/2021/05/divorce-rate-higher-for-lesbians-than-gay-men/
It was actually at 78% in 2016 -- but divorce lawyers have stated lesbian divorce rates are at their highest yet.
The reality is that sometimes married couples fall out of love. WHAT SHOULD THEY DO WHEN THAT HAPPENS?
Not get married. Period. Marriage was ordained by God as a vow between a man and a woman, anything other than that is sacrilege. Anyone not marrying to maintain those vows should not get married. Period.
You think younger, non-white people are more likely to answer landlines?
That's precisely what the data said... from the Pew link:
Hispanic and Black adults are more likely than White adults to say they generally pick up for a number they don’t recognize
The USA had a general strong individualist culture and focus on civil rights.
No, they were duped into the Civil Rights act in the 60s, majority did not support it, same as they did not support gay marriage. It was media influence that pushed it into the mainstream:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/12/17/fact-check-more-republicans-voted-for-the-civil-rights-act-as-a-percentage-than-democrats-did/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/01/16/50-years-ago-mixed-views-about-civil-rights-but-support-for-selma-demonstrators/ share
>Relative to the drastically declining marriage rates, there is an epidemic of divorce -- it's only lower because marriage is about to become non-existent if it keeps at the current rate.
No, there's an "epidemic" of non-marriage. That might be a different, more relevant argument.
>Not according to divorce attorneys... as linked below....
You don't understand the data. It's saying that most divorces in SAME-SEX MARRIAGES come from lesbians. It's comparing them with divorce rates of gay men. It is not saying that 71% (UK) or 78% (USA) of lesbian couples overall divorce.
>Not get married. Period. Marriage was ordained by God as a vow between a man and a woman, anything other than that is sacrilege. Anyone not marrying to maintain those vows should not get married. Period.
Could have, should have, would have. They are already married and have fallen out of love. WHAT SHOULD THEY DO AT THIS POINT?
I, and they don't give a flying fuck about your shitty little god. The USA is not a theocracy. The UK is not a theocracy. I am not, and no-one else is bound to regard marriage as "ordained by god". You can shove your scripture up your ass.
>That's precisely what the data said... from the Pew link:
Hispanic and Black adults are more likely than White adults to say they generally pick up for a number they don’t recognize
And aren't black people not... notably less LGBT friendly?
Also older people are more likely to a) be at home, b) HAVE A LANDLINE. You appear to have missed that little data point.
>No, they were duped into the Civil Rights act in the 60s, majority did not support it, same as they did not support gay marriage. It was media influence that pushed it into the mainstream:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/12/17/fact-check-more-republicans-voted-for-the-civil-rights-act-as-a-percentage-than-democrats-did/
Not sure what this article has to do with your claim that people were "duped" into the civil rights act. And are you now unironically arguing that racial segregation in schools should be legal, that employers should be able to fire people for their race, and that states should be free to discriminate on race regarding voting rights?
Also by "civil rights" I mean civil liberties in a general sense. The USA has an individualist culture and doesn't tend to support using the state to control people's lives. Other than the minority of dominionist Christian Iran fucks like yourself, apparently.
Also your second link does show that most Americans at the time did support the civil rights act.
No, there's an "epidemic" of non-marriage. That might be a different, more relevant argument.
If majority of people aren't getting married, and the few who do are getting divorced. then there is a massive issue.
It's comparing them with divorce rates of gay men. It is not saying that 71% (UK) or 78% (USA) of lesbian couples overall divorce.
Did you click the link? Just over half of all same-sex marriages are lesbian couples, and 71% of same-sex divorces are lesbian couples. That means majority of lesbian marriages do not last.
They are already married and have fallen out of love. WHAT SHOULD THEY DO AT THIS POINT?
Marriage counselling.
You can shove your scripture up your ass.
People are already doing that, and it's why first-world nation relationships are crumbling. Your current pathway is unsustainable for the short and long term.
And aren't black people not... notably less LGBT friendly?
Not the Liberal kind.
You appear to have missed that little data point.
And they do not pick up the phone, which is the crux of that report.
Not sure what this article has to do with your claim that people were "duped" into the civil rights act.
Read it all -- support in general for the Civil Rights Act was overall far less enthusiastic than what the media led on. It was essentially forced through just like gay marriage, despite opposition from most of the general public.
The USA has an individualist culture and doesn't tend to support using the state to control people's lives
Yes and no. America had a bit of a war over State's rights.
Also your second link does show that most Americans at the time did support the civil rights act.
No, they supported reduced discrimination, but most supported moderate enforcement, not full-on liberalism.
share
>If majority of people aren't getting married, and the few who do are getting divorced. then there is a massive issue.
Where is your evidence that amongst those that do, that divorce rates have skyrocketed?
>Did you click the link? Just over half of all same-sex marriages are lesbian couples, and 71% of same-sex divorces are lesbian couples. That means majority of lesbian marriages do not last.
Yes, lesbians divorce at higher rates than gay men. That's not the same as saying that 71% of all lesbian couples divorces. It's saying that AMONGST THE DIVORCES of same-sex couples, 71% of them were lesbians. That doesn't mean that 71% of all married lesbians end up divorcing. It actually on its own makes no comment on the divorce rate of gay people. The divorce rate could be 2%, but just that of those that do divorce 7 out of 10 of them are lesbian couples.
You are unable to understand the data.
>Marriage counselling.
And if that doesn't work? Or they've done that? What then?
>People are already doing that, and it's why first-world nation relationships are crumbling. Your current pathway is unsustainable for the short and long term.
No reason to believe this at all.
>And they do not pick up the phone, which is the crux of that report.
And yet younger people are less likely to own the landline in the first place, or be at home. Also, how do you know Pew doesn't account for this? They've acknowledged the disparity.
>Read it all -- support in general for the Civil Rights Act was overall far less enthusiastic than what the media led on. It was essentially forced through just like gay marriage, despite opposition from most of the general public.
It still had popular support. All of it? No. Fear of mission creep? Sure. But almost NO BILL DOES.
>Yes and no. America had a bit of a war over State's rights.
Some 160 years ago. The point is that the USA prides itself on government getting out people's lives. But apparently you think they should meddle and control what people do in their bedrooms.
>No, they supported reduced discrimination, but most supported moderate enforcement, not full-on liberalism.
What were the "full-on liberalism" aspects you're alluding to?
Where is your evidence that amongst those that do, that divorce rates have skyrocketed?
Divorce rates have settled at 42%, yet marriage rates have dropped precipitously:
https://cybercrew.uk/blog/divorce-statistics-uk/
So still high divorce and low marriage is catastrophic. And more divorces would take place if it were financially viable, hence why people are simply not getting married:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lowest-divorce-rate-in-50-years-blamed-on-cost-of-leaving-crisis-58vj775qx
You are unable to understand the data.
No, it's quite clear. 5/10 of all same-sex marriages are lesbians, and 7/10 of all same-sex divorces are lesbians. Hence, majority of lesbian marriages end in divorce.
And if that doesn't work? Or they've done that? What then?
More counselling... or prayer.
No reason to believe this at all.
Divorce rates, relationship implosion, low marriage rates all prove this to be true.
Also, how do you know Pew doesn't account for this?
Leap of presupposition.
What were the "full-on liberalism" aspects you're alluding to?
What modern day Western nations have turned into. share
>Divorce rates have settled at 42%, yet marriage rates have dropped precipitously:
https://cybercrew.uk/blog/divorce-statistics-uk/
That's unchanged then.
Less people are getting divorced, because less people are getting married - the rates are the same though.
>So still high divorce and low marriage is catastrophic. And more divorces would take place if it were financially viable, hence why people are simply not getting married:
It's not "high divorce" in the sense that it's not different to what it was in the 1960s or 70s.
>No, it's quite clear. 5/10 of all same-sex marriages are lesbians, and 7/10 of all same-sex divorces are lesbians. Hence, majority of lesbian marriages end in divorce.
First of all, how do you know 50% of all same-sex marriages are lesbians. There may be slight disparites. And, no you don't. This is such basic statistical failure.
It does not say that 70-80% of lesbian marriages end in divorce. It says that amongst the divorce statistics of same-sex couples, 7/10 of them are lesbians. I really don't know how I can point this out clearer. Do I need to come up with an analogy to walk you through it?
It isn't tracking same-sex divorce rates - it's tracking what % of divorced same-sex couples are lesbian couples.
https://wendyhopkins.co.uk/divorce-rates-in-england-and-wales-in-2021/
Apparently it's: "Among opposite-sex couples in 2021, females were more likely to petition for divorce (63.1%) compared with males (36.9%); these are similar proportions to those in 2020, with 62.6% of petitions where females petitioned and 37.4% with males petitioning."
I can't actually find concrete data on the rates of gay marriages that end in divorce, but it is suggesting that gay men are more resilient than straight couples.
>More counselling... or prayer.
And what if they don't want to? Why should two unhappy people be forced to remain together forever?
And in this analogy, they're non-religious and think prayer is a load of fucking garbage.
>Divorce rates, relationship implosion, low marriage rates all prove this to be true.
You haven't really demonstrated all of these to be true coherently, nor have you demonstrated that the changes in any of them derive from a lack of religiosity.
>Leap of presupposition.
So "I made it up" basically. All polling agencies account for this stuff dude.
>What modern day Western nations have turned into.
And how did the civil rights act have anything to do with how modern day western nations have developed?
Less people are getting divorced, because less people are getting married - the rates are the same though.
Divorce rates have only gone down by some percentile and marriage rates have dropped significantly, where there are almost twice as many unwed women today than 30 years ago within the same demographic age bracket. Meaning, marriages are twice down while divorces are still mostly steady.
First of all, how do you know 50% of all same-sex marriages are lesbians.
56%. It literally says it in the link.
It says that amongst the divorce statistics of same-sex couples, 7/10 of them are lesbians.
Yes, and we already know that half of same-sex marriages are lesbians, and 7/10 of same-sex divorces are lesbians. That means only a third of all gay men who get married get a divorce.
it is suggesting that gay men are more resilient than straight couples.
Because many of them are in open marriages:
https://www.thegayuk.com/over-half-of-gay-and-bi-men-cheat-on-their-partners-research-finds/
https://www.starobserver.com.au/news/national-news/victoria-news/open-relationships-most-common-partnership-for-gay-and-bisexual-men/149928
Why should two unhappy people be forced to remain together forever?
Culpability.
You haven't really demonstrated all of these to be true coherently
Yes we have. Majority of Westerners are Godless hedonists, and it's created a vapid and destructive relationship landscape with no positive outcome.
how did the civil rights act have anything to do with how modern day western nations have developed?
It paved the way for the current outpouring of discriminatory DEI/ESG manifestos being employed as part of a globalised corporatocracy backed by central banking. share
>Divorce rates have only gone down by some percentile and marriage rates have dropped significantly, where there are almost twice as many unwed women today than 30 years ago within the same demographic age bracket. Meaning, marriages are twice down while divorces are still mostly steady.
I... don't think you understand statistics. Divorce numbers in real terms have declined at roughly the same rate as marriage numbers.
>Yes, and we already know that half of same-sex marriages are lesbians, and 7/10 of same-sex divorces are lesbians. That means only a third of all gay men who get married get a divorce.
So presumably gay male marriages are the most stable, by your logic.
>Because many of them are in open marriages:
https://www.thegayuk.com/over-half-of-gay-and-bi-men-cheat-on-their-partners-research-finds/
Okay. So? If they're happy in open relationships - so what?
>Culpability.
What's to stop them from just seeing other people?
>Yes we have. Majority of Westerners are Godless hedonists, and it's created a vapid and destructive relationship landscape with no positive outcome.
"You haven't really demonstrated all of these to be true coherently"
>It paved the way for the current outpouring of discriminatory DEI/ESG manifestos being employed as part of a globalised corporatocracy backed by central banking.
This is just gibberish nonsense. Genuinely no reason to believe it.
Divorce numbers in real terms have declined at roughly the same rate as marriage numbers.
That's not how the numbers work. Try again... using the sources I provided.
So presumably gay male marriages are the most stable, by your logic.
Which goes back to my question about how can a community consisting only of 100 men produce another generation?
Okay. So? If they're happy in open relationships - so what?
No reason to be married.
What's to stop them from just seeing other people?
They can, but then it voids the marriage contract.
"You haven't really demonstrated all of these to be true coherently"
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/women-and-prescription-drug-use_n_1098023
https://ifstudies.org/blog/shrinking-american-motherhood-1-in-6-women-in-their-40s-have-never-given-birth-
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2022refreshedpopulations
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2024/20240525.htm
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4877296/Britons-depressed-Western-world.html
https://secretldn.com/unhappiest-countries-uk/
Large portions of the West are depressed, lonely, on anti-depressants, divorced/never married, with falling birthrates, and entirely unhappy. That's not even including the economic bubble about to burst and impending WW3. You'll have to reason how all of those things -- cumulatively -- are good for a prolonged and healthy civilised society?
share
>That's not how the numbers work. Try again... using the sources I provided.
Less people are getting married, but roughly the same % of people who get married are getting divorced.
So if 20 people get married, 10 divorce. Now it's 10 people getting married, 5 divorce. There's no massive increase of divorces.
>Which goes back to my question about how can a community of 100 men produce another generation?
And it goes back to my original point that I don't recall anyone saying anywhere that everyone should be gay.
>No reason to be married.
Why do you give a fuck? Does it somehow harm a heterosexual persons marriage?
>They can, but then it voids the marriage contract.
Okay. So what's the difference in practice between an unhappily married couple just getting a divorce, and then seeing new people and an unhappily married couple just mutually agreeing to have 'affairs' so they can have their marriage contract voided?
>Large portions of the West are depressed, lonely, on anti-depressants, divorced/never married, with falling birthrates, and entirely unhappy. That's not even including the economic bubble about to burst and impending WW3. You'll have to reason how all of those things -- cumulatively are good for a prolonged and healthy society?
Birthrates are actually falling everywhere, not just in the western world - it's just countries with much larger birth rates have many more levels to drop. And two of the most religious countries in Europe (Greece and Poland) have amongst the worst birthrates. How do you explain that?
The "unhappiest country" metric only took data from 71 countries. And the actual unhappiest one was *Tajikistan*. The only other European country in the top 10 there was Ireland. This isn't really demonstrating what you think it is.
>That's not even including the economic bubble about to burst and impending WW3.
Neither of these things, if they happen, have anything to do with 'godlessness'.
So if 20 people get married, 10 divorce. Now it's 10 people getting married, 5 divorce. There's no massive increase of divorces.
If the same amount of people are getting divorced while fewer people are getting married, how does that help improve social cohesion or improving the family unit dynamic?
And it goes back to my original point that I don't recall anyone saying anywhere that everyone should be gay.
No one said everyone should be gay, the point is that fewer normal families and more gay marriages equates to disruption in cultural standards. You cannot build or maintain a civilisation that way.
Why do you give a fuck?
Societal collapse.
So what's the difference in practice
There isn't one. Both are bad for the people involved and for society at large.
How do you explain that?
Greece is going through migrant upheaval:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3427417/Migrant-crisis-35-times-worse-year-ago-2-000-day-arrive-Greek-islands-despite-perilous-winter-seas.html
And Poland is going through a cultural crisis:
https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/03/31/poland-is-facing-a-housing-crisis-but-politicians-are-offering-the-same-failed-solutions/
Neither of these things, if they happen, have anything to do with 'godlessness'.
They absolutely do, since it's kakistocrats looking to disrupt the natural order for their own gain. Nothing Godly about those actions.
share
>If the same amount of people are getting divorced while fewer people are getting married, how does that help improve social cohesion or improving the family unit dynamic?
I didn't say it improved. Just that the divorce rate hasn't gone up.
>No one said everyone should be gay, the point is that fewer normal families and more gay marriages equates to disruption in cultural standards. You cannot build or maintain a civilisation that way.
The same gay people would still be gay whether or not they could get married or not. Legalising gay marriage doesn't reduce the overall amount of families that exist.
>Societal collapse.
No reason to think open relationships cause it.
So the Greece and Poland birth rates have... nothing to do with a lack of religion then. That was my point. (At least if we assume the Greece migrant crisis is related, which I have no idea why it would be). Polands housing crisis/issues might, to some degree, but not related to religion. Poland does however have strong forecasts economically.
>They absolutely do, since it's kakistocrats looking to disrupt the natural order for their own gain. Nothing Godly about those actions.
What "natural order" of geopolitics are you referring to that is being disrupted, exactly? The period before WW2, which was on average much more religious, was rife with much more conflict across states in Europe than we have now. What foreign policy has been made by the west that would not have been made if they were more "godly"?
Also, I'll ask the other question in here. I would very much like an answer from you: Cyguration, can you tell me if you think it's morally acceptable for someone to accuse someone else of being a pedophile on the back of no evidence?
I didn't say it improved.
Right, so you concede my point that it is a major detriment to society. Thank you for agreeing with me.
The same gay people would still be gay whether or not they could get married or not.
Precisely. You agree with me again, that there is no reason for them to be married since it changes nothing, but only diminishes the definition of marriage between a man and a woman for the sake of starting a family. Glad we're finally coming to the same terms here.
No reason to think open relationships cause it.
They only lead to chaos:
https://www.e-counseling.com/articles/open-relationships-do-not-work/
https://medium.com/the-knowledge-of-freedom/the-five-main-reasons-open-relationships-so-often-fail-11d31432c386
So the Greece and Poland birth rates have... nothing to do with a lack of religion then.
Lack of maintaining principles, upholding the border, and balancing the economy due to leadership corruption spawns from a lack of maintaining religious principles from the top down.
What "natural order" of geopolitics are you referring to that is being disrupted, exactly?
The global attacks on the nuclear family unit.
can you tell me if you think it's morally acceptable for someone to accuse someone else of being a pedophile on the back of no evidence?
That is neither here nor there, given accusations are generally a reaction, and reactions are based on a platform of contention. The contention determines why the accusation takes place. share
>Right, so you concede my point that it is a major detriment to society. Thank you for agreeing with me.
No, I said no such thing. I simply said that marriage rates declining is a separate issue to divorce rates. I also made no observation about whether that's good or not good for society.
>Precisely. You agree with me again, that there is no reason for them to be married since it changes nothing, but only diminishes the definition of marriage between a man and a woman for the sake of starting a family. Glad we're finally coming to the same terms here.
There's also no reason for them not to be married, or in a civil partnership (a distinction purely rooted in semantics).
There is not a singular definition of marriage. Many other countries, as I've said, had polygamous concepts of marriage and plenty of straight people get married with no intent to have kids.
>Lack of maintaining principles, upholding the border, and balancing the economy due to leadership corruption spawns from a lack of maintaining religious principles from the top down.
Poland doesn't accept many migrants (outside of Ukraine, who are culturally similar). Doesn't apply to them. Also, I fail to see how 'religious principles' would be inherently anti-migration. They might not be.
>The global attacks on the nuclear family unit.
Which, if true (and to be clear I think this is somewhat baseless), has nothing to do with the prospect of WW3 via interfering/antagonising/resisting Russia or China. You specifically spoke about the move into WW3.
>That is neither here nor there, given accusations are generally a reaction, and reactions are based on a platform of contention. The contention determines why the accusation takes place.
A now-deleted user, baselessly, accused me of being a pedophile and a would-be school shooter on zero evidence. They were a pretty hostile troll. Melton decided to pick that up and repeatedly ask me across many different threads if there is any truth to the "rumours". He continued to ask this despite me, every time, rejecting it outright. He also edits his posts after I reply to him to suggest that my reply constitutes an admission of guilt of being a pedophile.
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65efaf45992e9150801672ca/Similarities-of-Gaza-to-the-Holocaust?reply=65fafe57d2adc075bee2cdce
Here's an example. The moderators deleted a few of his posts (as you can see in the thread) after I reported them for this. You claim in our dealings, or act, as someone who wishes to give off the impression that behaviour and conduct matters. Do you think this constitutes fair-minded, moral conduct?
Your misleading moral questions falsely pre-suppose that you’re some harmless innocent suddenly hounded on by sadistic bullies… when the reality is that you’re hated across the site because you’re an evil, lying sack of shit with a sinister agenda, and now you’re enjoying the karmic consequences of your behaviour.
Like most Leftists, you’re too dumb to pull off the sophistry you’re attempting, and you’re getting exactly what you deserve.
Now, mindlessly fart out another load of Straw and Hatchling questions, in total self-denial of the fact that you’ve been called out on this dirty tactic time and time again…
What's "misleading" about the questions? I accurately depicted your behaviour, not just in that thread, but elsewhere on the forum when you continue to obsess about me.
And I didn't say I was hounded on by "sadistic bullies" plural. It's just you. Corbell is a scumbag, but he doesn't spend his entire life following me around, like you do. TVfan is a fascist piece of shit, but he also doesn't spend his time harassing me (although he did briefly some time ago). No-one else does anything to me, or tried to antagonise me on here except for you. You have the energy of the Scientologist Dan Mernon harassing Mark Bunker, if you're familiar with that analogy.
The comparison is more of a troll who has absolutely nothing else going on spending his whole life harassing me.
>when the reality is that you’re hated across the site because you’re an evil, lying sack of shit with a sinister agenda, and now you’re enjoying the karmic consequences of your behaviour.
What have I lied about? What makes me evil? What is my "sinister agenda"?
How does any of those things, if they are true, justify hurling false allegations at me?
>Now, mindlessly fart out another load of Straw and Hatchling questions, in total self-denial of the fact that you’ve been called out on this dirty tactic time and time again…
And here comes the childish edit. You're doing *exactly* the same behaviour in here that you claim I'm misleading cyguration about. I will bring this to his attention.
Also, there were zero straw or hatchling questions in my response to you.
Now I've compared you to a Scientologist a few times now. I'll expand.
Scientologists harass critics as a matter of doctrine. Their purpose is to try and ruin their life. They will do so in obviously immoral ways. They also do so as a bloc. What makes all of this even more Scientology coded is that the in-group, out-group attitude on here is so overwhelming. You have behaved, publicly, and repeatedly in an awful way. Not just to me but to others (although at least in this case, mostly me since I seem to be your life obsession now). And although I'm not talking about cyguration here (yet?) - so many of your ideological allies: tvfan, Craig, Corbell, BVB, Blacksun and JoWilli (although I did managed to get a muted "it's wrong" response from them once) just can't admit it. They can't say that accusing people of being a pedophile is wrong. Or even, as you put it "asking to confirm (baseless) rumours about someone being a pedophile" happens to be wrong. They just can't say that editing your post to suggest that they're saying something they're clearly not after the other person has replied is pretty immoral. And why can't they say it? Because you're on their team. I am the enemy, not you. This is literally the fair game policy of Scientology in action. You are the ideological ally, and you can't be criticised. I'm the suppressive person, marked as the enemy. If I threw unfounded accusations at other people, they would have no problem piling on me and calling me horrible for doing that. But if I am the recipient of them, they just can't bring themselves to say anything.
The behaviour from you specifically, in all of this, is very obviously internet bullbaiting too. Just like the typical Scientology tactic. Talking to you or watching you is unironically like watching Mark Bunker being targeted by these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUmrnoqEkRI&t=164s
I also made no observation about whether that's good or not good for society.
So you think people getting divorced at relatively the same rates, whilst marriages are in a double-decline for marriage-age demographics over a near 30-year period, is healthy for society?
or in a civil partnership
They can have the civil partnership without marriage, especially since you don't think marriage is important... right?
There is not a singular definition of marriage.
It was intended originally, according to the Bible, to be a holy matrimony between man and woman. Anything else is just a variation of a civil union.
I fail to see how 'religious principles' would be inherently anti-migration. They might not be.
They are, since Poland is majority Roman Catholic, and they do not favour inter-faith mingling; most migrants are Muslim.
You specifically spoke about the move into WW3
When drafts are enacted, who do you think will be called to war and how will it impact the family unit?
Do you think this constitutes fair-minded, moral conduct?
Asking questions, in good faith, is never immoral.
share
>So you think people getting divorced at relatively the same rates, whilst marriages are in a double-decline for marriage-age demographics over a near 30-year period, is healthy for society?
Less divorces on the whole means less problems for the court system as people can just separate. I don't see it as inherently harmful.
>They can have the civil partnership without marriage, especially since you don't think marriage is important... right?
What's the relevant distinction in your mind? Other than them having different names?
>It was intended originally, according to the Bible, to be a holy matrimony between man and woman. Anything else is just a variation of a civil union.
I don't give a fuck what the bible says.
>They are, since Poland is majority Roman Catholic, and they do not favour inter-faith mingling; most migrants are Muslim.
Poland is one country. They are not the only example of potential Christian-influenced policy. In Latin America, it could be liberation theology.
>When drafts are enacted, who do you think will be called to war and how will it impact the family unit?
That's not the same thing as saying that irreligiosity somehow caused WW3, or will cause it - as you implied
>Asking questions, in good faith, is never immoral.
He never asked it in any good faith. Do you habitually just assume people you talk to in life are pedophiles and ask them if they are? That's good faith, is it? Sorry, he keeps doing it. I have repeatedly denied his allegations and he continues to imply I am a pedophile either by asking me again and again, or implying I am a danger to kids, or by editing his posts after I reply to suggest my reply constitutes an admission.
https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/662e66e066a72d7514b0e4f4/Anyone-else-encountered-the-user-Skavau?reply=663bf888ffc983529755c028
He literally did it just a few hours ago.
And you did not answer my other question regarding the editing of posts, which he does repeatedly AND HAS DONE IN THIS VERY THREAD whilst simultaneously accused me of lying to you that he does it.
Do you think it is moral to edit your post after the other user has replied to make it appear as if they are admitting to something they are not?
Again, your misleading moral questions falsely pre-suppose that you’re some harmless innocent suddenly hounded on by sadistic bullies… when the reality is that you’re hated across the site because you’re an evil, lying sack of shit with a sinister agenda, and now you’re enjoying the karmic consequences of your behaviour.
Like most Leftists, you’re too dumb to pull off the sophistry you’re attempting, and you’re getting exactly what you deserve.
Now make a load of pathetic unconvincing excuses mixed with tedious victim-whining while you continue to be a bell-end across the site. Go…
What's misleading about them? You have behaved EXACTLY like you did in the other threads and what I've charged you for doing.
> pre-suppose that you’re some harmless innocent suddenly hounded on by sadistic bullies… when the reality is that you’re hated across the site because you’re an evil, lying sack of shit with a sinister agenda, and now you’re enjoying the karmic consequences of your behaviour.
This is literally a cut and paste from you. As I said then, and will say now:
And I didn't say I was hounded on by "sadistic bullies" plural. It's just you. Corbell is a scumbag, but he doesn't spend his entire life following me around, like you do. TVfan is a fascist piece of shit, but he also doesn't spend his time harassing me (although he did briefly some time ago). No-one else does anything to me, or tried to antagonise me on here except for you. You have the energy of the Scientologist Dan Mernon harassing Mark Bunker, if you're familiar with that analogy.
The comparison is more of a troll who has absolutely nothing else going on spending his whole life harassing me.
>Now make a load of pathetic unconvincing excuses mixed with tedious victim-whining while you continue to be a bell-end across the site. Go…
Another childish post-edit response that I will direct cygurations attention to.
https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/662e66e066a72d7514b0e4f4/Anyone-else-encountered-the-user-Skavau?reply=663c895bffc983529755c463
He just said this to me. Do you specifically think this is moral behaviour?
This really should be easy. Do you think Melton is behaving honourably? All he does now is follow me around and try to antagonise me. That's literally his sole purpose in life, from what I can ascertain.
Cyguration, you’re still doing an admirable job of trying to reason with the most blinkered moron on this site.
Skavau is allergic to reality and facts, is completely ideologically captured by the ruling regime, and has only an unimpressive bag of rhetorical tricks in his ‘intellectual arsenal’.
Before he drains much more of your time, check out this thread dedicated to exposing his agenda and his dishonest debating strategy: https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/662e66e066a72d7514b0e4f4/Anyone-else-encountered-the-user-Skavau
>Cyguration, you’re still doing an admirable job of trying to reason with the most blinkered moron on this site.
What precisely are the specific claims he's made that you find so compelling? He's misunderstood statistics and repeatedly made wild claims and arguments that he's abandoned.
>Before he drains much more of your time, check out this thread dedicated to exposing his agenda and his dishonest debating strategy: https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/662e66e066a72d7514b0e4f4/Anyone-else-encountered-the-user-Skavau
I will take note to ask him, should he reply to you here, since whatever else he might be, cyguration does at least appear to be an honest poster, if he feels that accusing people of being a pedophile on no evidence is a moral thing to do.
I also continue to note your obsession with me. Do you actually think about nothing else in life other than what I do on here?
Thanks.
If for nothing else, I have not engaged much with people who hold his views in a while that require me to dig out and dig through a collection of sources. So, it has at least enabled me to dust off some of the old Gorgian method and rekindle some talking points I had forgotten about. It also helps me to better understand today's rootless youth, and to find better counters for their stance(s).
Cyguration, can you tell me if you think it's morally acceptable for someone to accuse someone else of being a pedophile on the back of no evidence?
And if it is moral to edit your posts after replying to a user to make it look like they admit something they didn't?
That’s cool, as long as you’re using him as your intellectual plaything and not allowing him to the control the discussion with his trademark Hatchling and Straw questions.
Never forget that he’s a completely insincere regime lackey on a gaslighting mission, with zero interest in reality. Every time you go fetching evidence he counts that as a ‘win’ because he believes he has successfully wasted your time.
But if you’re aware of his shtick (notice how he’s trying to bait you in his reply to this post) and want to amuse yourself with him then don’t let me put you off. You’ve certainly made a fool of him so far in your discussion here 🍻
Let us see if he'll give me a straight answer when I ask him, and show him, your general conduct on this forum.
share>But if you’re aware of his shtick (notice how he’s trying to bait you in his reply to this post) and want to amuse yourself with him then don’t let me put you off. You’ve certainly made a fool of him so far in your discussion here 🍻
And how has he made a fool of me? Going to refer to any specifics?
How is asking him about your conduct on here trying to "bait" him? You claim to be such a paragon, you claim such a moral highground, but then operate by deception: editing posts to misrepresent the reply, baseless accusations about other people, juvenile edgy 12 year old gamer insults towards others.
>Every time you go fetching evidence he counts that as a ‘win’ because he believes he has successfully wasted your time.
I missed this. The implications of this are absurd. It suggests that you don't believe that claims should be backed up. As if you think people should just accept what you claim without any actual sourcing.
Yes, I've read your posts and notice the patterns quite well, so I thank you for that.
And absolutely.... it has allowed me to resharpen some debate tools that I left dormant for many years. And has also allowed me to brush up a bit on my tactics.
But I'm glad you recognise the tactics and already know how to spot them with ease. I'm sure it makes it very easy for you to spot them and counter them when you encounter them in other parts of life.
>Yes, I've read your posts and notice the patterns quite well, so I thank you for that.
Can you name some "hatchling" questions I've asked? Can you name some straw questions I've asked? Should people just take your word for claims you make, and not ask for your sources when you make claims about things? Is there something wrong with being asked for data?
Cyguration, can you tell me if you think it's morally acceptable for someone to accuse someone else of being a pedophile on the back of no evidence?
He’s pissed now 👆🏻🤣
Fires back at accusations of using Hatchling and Straw questions… with a barrage of Hatchling and Straw questions… and doesn’t get the irony 🤦🏻♂️
So, wait, whenever someone throws an accusation at you, and you ask them on what basis they're claiming it... it automatically becomes a "hatchling" question?
So people shouldn't defend themselves, ever? Or it's "hatchling"?
Also, I'm not convinced you know what the word strawman means.
I don't see it as inherently harmful.
You forgot about the marriage rates dropping by nearly double.
Other than them having different names?
Words have meanings, and the meaning of marriage is the holy matrimony of man and woman to come together under God for the purpose of creating or maintaining a blessed lineage. Civil unions are not.
I don't give a fuck what the bible says.
Right, so you don't really care about marriage then, since its purpose is defined by the Bible.
In Latin America, it could be liberation theology.
Latin America actually further proves my point about corruption and misappropriation of the intended use of theological doctrine as civil foundations leading to absolute anarchy and dissolution of social structure; Brazil, in particular.
That's not the same thing as saying that irreligiosity somehow caused WW3
It's predicated on it; proper religious leadership would have strayed from even instigating things toward WW3 based on corrupt backroom dealings (i.e., Ukraine). As a result, the family unit will be further destroyed when young men are forced away from their families to fight in a corrupt war.
he continues to imply I am a pedophile either by asking me again and again, or implying I am a danger to kids
What -- from your actions or inferences -- led him to ask those questions?
share
>You forgot about the marriage rates dropping by nearly double.
Which I don't regard as inherently harmful in itself.
>Words have meanings, and the meaning of marriage is the holy matrimony of man and woman to come together under God for the purpose of creating or maintaining a blessed lineage. Civil unions are not.
That's your definition. Not mine. And again, what difference does it make is an identical union just under a different name exists that gay people use?
>Right, so you don't really care about marriage then, since its purpose is defined by the Bible.
Personally, no. And the bible does not have a monopoly on the definition of marriage.
>Latin America actually further proves my point about corruption and misappropriation of the intended use of theological doctrine as civil foundations leading to absolute anarchy and dissolution of social structure; Brazil, in particular.
I am making the point that intense christianity does not inherently, necessarily mean an anti-migration policy. Should I suggest that the endgame of intense Christianity are the many religious derived authoritarian dictatorships of Europe in the 20th century? (Portugal, Spain)?
>It's predicated on it; proper religious leadership would have strayed from even instigating things toward WW3 based on corrupt backroom dealings (i.e., Ukraine). As a result, the family unit will be further destroyed when young men are forced away from their families to fight in a corrupt war.
What a load of fucking bullshit. WW1 and WW2, both wars that emerged in a much more highly religiously prominent environment with major states involved often having overt authoritarian religious governments.
>What -- from your actions or inferences -- led him to ask those questions?
He doesn't like me. That's it.
Absolutely NOTHING I have ever done or said leads anyone to ask it reasonably. I have repeatedly denied it, and he continues.
And you did not answer my other question regarding the editing of posts, which he does repeatedly AND HAS DONE IN THIS VERY THREAD whilst simultaneously accused me of lying to you that he does it.
Do you think it is moral to edit your post after the other user has replied to make it appear as if they are admitting to something they are not?
Which I don't regard as inherently harmful in itself.
Without marriage, there is no family unit, and without a family unit, you no longer have a cultural backbone for civilisation. Why do you not think that is harmful?
what difference does it make is an identical union just under a different name exists that gay people use?
Words have meanings. Without meanings the words mean nothing. Marriage is not interchangeable with civil unions, and are a holy matrimony -- civil unions are not holy. The better question is, why do you need or care about people adopting a religious matrimony if you don't think religiosity is important?
And the bible does not have a monopoly on the definition of marriage.
It does, actually. Other cultures have simply tried to adopt it.
I am making the point that intense christianity does not inherently, necessarily mean an anti-migration policy.
It's not just anti-imigration, it's also sociopolitical norms and basing state legality around religious standards. The erosion of that is what has seen so many forms of debauchery rise up in the aforementioned nations (albeit at different rates).
both wars that emerged in a much more highly religiously prominent environment with major states involved often having overt authoritarian religious governments.
There was nothing religiously motivated by the Bolsheviks nor the Czars that led to the impetus of those wars getting underway in certain regions.
Absolutely NOTHING I have ever done or said leads anyone to ask it reasonably.
That's your perspective, though.
Do you think it is moral to edit your post after the other user has replied to make it appear as if they are admitting to something they are not?
Depends on if the edit is for clarity.
share
>Without marriage, there is no family unit, and without a family unit, you no longer have a cultural backbone for civilisation. Why do you not think that is harmful?
There's no reason to believe this is true. We could just rename marriage to "civil partnership". There's no requirement on people being married to have children.
>Words have meanings. Without meanings the words mean nothing. Marriage is not interchangeable with civil unions, and are a holy matrimony -- civil unions are not holy.
No, that is your claim that it is "holy". Not mine. What is the difference in practice?
>The better question is, why do you need or care about people adopting a religious matrimony if you don't think religiosity is important?
I think the state should get out of marriage entirely.
>It does, actually. Other cultures have simply tried to adopt it.
No reason to believe this whatsoever. Literal baseless unevidenced horseshit.
>It's not just anti-imigration, it's also sociopolitical norms and basing state legality around religious standards. The erosion of that is what has seen so many forms of debauchery rise up in the aforementioned nations (albeit at different rates).
Can you tell me what "debauchery" should be criminalised? And as always, ignored by you: Should I suggest that the endgame of intense Christianity are the many religious derived authoritarian dictatorships of Europe in the 20th century? (Portugal, Spain)?
>There was nothing religiously motivated by the Bolsheviks nor the Czars that led to the impetus of those wars getting underway in certain regions.
The people, the population in Europe were on average more religious than they are now. And the Communists were not the only players in the prelude to those conflicts.
>That's your perspective, though.
Go on then. Tell me what I've done anywhere that makes it reasonable to throw baseless accusations and suggestions at me about being a pedophile. You speak with such piety, such sanctimony yet you can't make possibly the easiest condemnation going. It's pathetic. This seriously speaks bad on you.
Did you actually click on the original thread I linked?
>Depends on if the edit is for clarity.
No, it is not. I am replying to Melton and what he does in some of his posts after I have replied, some time afterwards, he will edit his post that I have already replied to to say "If the rumours about you being a pedophile are true, please confirm this by replying."
Do you think that is remotely honest, or moral conduct?
There's no reason to believe this is true
Which modern industralised nation has been built on a family structure that is not majority monogamous?
What is the difference in practice?
The upholding of vows.
I think the state should get out of marriage entirely.
We can both agree on this.
No reason to believe this whatsoever. Literal baseless unevidenced horseshit.
The Bible is the first book ever published, and represents the cultural cornerstone which chronicles man's guided ascent to establish the structural foundations for modern civilisation.
?Should I suggest that the endgame of intense Christianity are the many religious derived authoritarian dictatorships of Europe in the 20th century?
As you noted yourself, those were not built on the religious principles of Christianity, but the perversion of those principles specifically for authoritarian dictatorships, which actually goes against the very principles of what Jesus taught in the book they used to enact near-theocratic rule.
Can you tell me what "debauchery" should be criminalised?
Never said criminalised, but outlawed or shamed were the proper way about it in the past.
the population in Europe were on average more religious than they are now.
Yes, but the rulership(s) were still corrupt... or do you really think those autocrats ruled with religiously sound fervor (despite the attempted genocides/land grabs via war)?
Tell me what I've done anywhere that makes it reasonable to throw baseless accusations and suggestions at me about being a pedophile.
You need to find recourse in reasoning with him to understand what you did to cause such friction.
Did you actually click on the original thread I linked?
Yep, can't make heads or tails of that conversation.
share
>Which modern industralised nation has been built on a family structure that is not majority monogamous?
They also all have expansive LGBT rights.
>The upholding of vows.
Why can't people doing a partnership make vows?
>The Bible is the first book ever published, and represents the cultural cornerstone which chronicles man's guided ascent to establish the structural foundations for modern civilisation.
No, the Bible is not the "first book ever published". Evidence please.
>Never said criminalised, but outlawed or shamed were the proper way about it in the past.
What's the practical difference between "outlawed" and criminalised? What things should be outlawed and shamed now?
>Yes, but the rulership(s) were still corrupt... or do you really think those autocrats ruled with religiously sound fervor (despite the attempted genocides/land grabs via war)?
Many of the countries in interwar europe were run as religious dictatorships. But I digress. The point is that nothing has changed. You're speaking, it seems about an ideal that has never really truly existed and thus is fundamentally unfalsifiable.
>You need to find recourse in reasoning with him to understand what you did to cause such friction.
He doesn't like my beliefs. He accuses anyone who publicly disagrees with him on an issue of being 'woke' and immediately makes them his own enemy. I've seen it many times, although he's fixated on me as an object of obsession. He then has a fair game policy of behaviour where any accusation towards me becomes justified. Do you think that's acceptable? Do you think someone who edits their posts to make it look like I'm admitting something I'm not is arguing fairly?
As I said: I am replying to Melton and what he does in some of his posts after I have replied, some time afterwards, he will edit his post that I have already replied to to say "If the rumours about you being a pedophile are true, please confirm this by replying."
Do you think that is remotely honest, or moral conduct?
Here's where he accused me of loving Islam. I said I don't. He continues to claim otherwise:
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65efaf45992e9150801672ca/Similarities-of-Gaza-to-the-Holocaust?reply=65fc44f0bfee4a3a54d511ad
That fair conduct?
Here's another instance:
https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/662e66e066a72d7514b0e4f4/Anyone-else-encountered-the-user-Skavau?reply=664213f4469c6e1a18b84300
He knows full well where he got the "rumours" from. He's trying to bait me. Do you consider this moral conduct?
https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/662e66e066a72d7514b0e4f4/Anyone-else-encountered-the-user-Skavau?reply=66421e3c469c6e1a18b84369
And again. Do you think that is remotely a reasonable-minded, good-faith, moral response to what I said?
They also all have expansive LGBT rights.
Non-sequitur. That doesn't answer the question.
Why can't people doing a partnership make vows?
Anyone can make vows, but they don't mean anything if no one intends to maintain or uphold them.
No, the Bible is not the "first book ever published". Evidence please.
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/historical-timeline?locale=en_US
What's the practical difference between "outlawed" and criminalised?
Outlawed can mean something that is prohibited from being done but may not carry criminal charges. Fornication, non-monogamy, and hook-up culture should definitely be shamed/outlawed.
You're speaking, it seems about an ideal that has never really truly existed
I would say 18th century Britain came close, as well as 18th - early 20th century America also came close.
Do you think that is remotely honest, or moral conduct?
If you believe he is baiting you, then why not just make peace and disengage? share
>Non-sequitur. That doesn't answer the question.
None, because of the prominence of Christianity across most of the western world.
>Anyone can make vows, but they don't mean anything if no one intends to maintain or uphold them.
Sure. But this could be true for any marriage, civil partnership, anything.
>https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/historical-timeline?locale=en_US
https://wiganlanebooks.co.uk/blog/interesting/10-of-the-oldest-known-surviving-books-in-the-world/
>Outlawed can mean something that is prohibited from being done but may not carry criminal charges. Fornication, non-monogamy, and hook-up culture should definitely be shamed/outlawed.
If it doesn't carry criminal charges, then in what sense is it prohibited?
>I would say 18th century Britain came close, as well as 18th - early 20th century America also came close.
And 18th century Britain did all kinds of horrible things that we'd reject now. So did early 20th century USA.
>If you believe he is baiting you, then why not just make peace and disengage?
He continually harasses me across the forum. How can I "make peace"? I don't have to say anything to him. He continues unabated. I am asking you a really simple question dude. It really is trivial. I am asking you if you think his conduct is moral.
None, because of the prominence of Christianity across most of the western world.
There are countless cultures and tribes not associated with Christianity -- where are the modern industrialised societies built out of non-monogamous, pagan cultural trends?
https://wiganlanebooks.co.uk/blog/interesting/10-of-the-oldest-known-surviving-books-in-the-world/
And hilariously, none of them are as old as the dead sea scrolls (the closest being the Estrucan tablets, which have nothing in them related to cultural standards or trends). Hence, the Bible is not only the oldest book out there but the only one that contains instructions for standards on life, including marriage.
If it doesn't carry criminal charges, then in what sense is it prohibited?
It can result in public shaming, community outlawing, or prohibitive access to civil municipalities.
And 18th century Britain did all kinds of horrible things that we'd reject now. So did early 20th century USA.
And that's precisely why modern society is imploding. Those "horrible things" were in place to protect the integrity of an expanding and progressive cultural society built on evolutionary productivity.
How can I "make peace"? I don't have to say anything to him.
So, what you're trying to say is that moral relativism without hard-line principles renders you susceptible to people utilising it to badger or mock or undermine your character? It's almost like if there were standards in place to enforce moral behaviours you wouldn't have that issue, no?
share
>There are countless cultures and tribes not associated with Christianity -- where are the modern industrialised societies built out of non-monogamous, pagan cultural trends?
Most of them were railroaded and absorbed and then eventually spat out (liberated with new cultures and religions) by the British, Spanish, French etc many hundreds of years ago and Christianised. Although one could argue China as an example of a nation that surged in spite of it. It's never been majority Christian. Nor has most of the Middle-East, India etc.
>And hilariously, none of them are as old as the dead sea scrolls (the closest being the Estrucan tablets, which have nothing in them related to cultural standards or trends). Hence, the Bible is not only the oldest book out there but the only one that contains instructions for standards on life, including marriage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Sutra#:~:text=Front%20line%20of%20the%20Chinese,printed%20book%20in%20the%20world.
Nowhere considers the dead sea scrolls as the definitive oldest, it seems. And you talking about it referring to cultural standards or trends as a prerequisite is moving the goalposts.
>It can result in public shaming, community outlawing, or prohibitive access to civil municipalities.
What form would the "public shaming" take? What do you mean by "community outlawing"? A state ban? That's still a ban enforced by law, just within the borders of a state. What access should be revoked? This sounds awfully close to the Chinese social credit system.
>So, what you're trying to say is that moral relativism without hard-line principles renders you susceptible to people utilising it to badger or mock or undermine your character?
An individual choosing to be abusive doesn't have much to do with anything. He could do that whether or not the USA was a christian state or not. Many of the highly abusive characters on this forum also parade around their religiosity as a badge of honour.
>It's almost like if there were standards in place to enforce moral behaviours you wouldn't have that issue, no?
I'm asking you from your perspective. The thread has finally been glassed now. Do you consider his conduct, from you saw, and what I'm saying acceptable? And what are you getting at here? Are you proposing I support legislation that bans being rude online? Do you support that kind of thing?
And divine command theory, which you seem to be referring to here is nothing more than following the dear leader. I reject the premise that your worldview actually adequately provides objective moral standards. I also assume, perhaps charitably, that you reject killing people and raping people for reasons other than an order that tells you not to do so. That you do have some level of solidarity with others that leads you to regard them as distasteful and anti-social actions that harm society.
Although one could argue China as an example of a nation that surged in spite of it. It's never been majority Christian. Nor has most of the Middle-East, India etc.
Despite China not being majorly Christian, they are still extremely conservative and highly value monogamous, family-oriented cultural productivity. Even the Middle-East still focus on monogamy and polygyny, but obviously aren't nearly as industrialised as the Judeo-Christian nations. Even India frowns on anything that isn't based around non-monogamy, despite lacking a lot of basic infrastructural implementations.
Nowhere considers the dead sea scrolls as the definitive oldest, it seems.
Because they are not dated. Even your link only refers to the Sutra as the oldest "dated" book, not that it is the oldest book. There is a huge difference between the two.
What form would the "public shaming" take? What do you mean by "community outlawing"? A state ban?
Public whipping/flogging/humiliation chastisement. Outlawing in the form of banishment from the community. Municipality restrictions could be in the form of restricted access to State services or certain civil rights.
An individual choosing to be abusive doesn't have much to do with anything.
But according to moral relativism, you are choosing to see his conduct as abuse; perhaps he sees it as being inquisitive?
Are you proposing I support legislation that bans being rude online?
Absolutely not. Instead, if people supported objective moral standards, people would be taught to behave in ways that was conducive toward productivity -- or would you rather prefer people treat you in ways that you perceive to be abusive? share
>Despite China not being majorly Christian, they are still extremely conservative and highly value monogamous, family-oriented cultural productivity. Even the Middle-East still focus on monogamy and polygyny, but obviously aren't nearly as industrialised as the Judeo-Christian nations. Even India frowns on anything that isn't based around non-monogamy, despite lacking a lot of basic infrastructural implementations.
But still not Christian. You asked specifically about countries that are not Christian.
>Because they are not dated. Even your link only refers to the Sutra as the oldest "dated" book, not that it is the oldest book. There is a huge difference between the two.
So you just assume that the Dead Sea Scrolls are the definitive oldest?
>Public whipping/flogging/humiliation chastisement.
Sorry, is this something you're in favour of? People being whipped or flogged for premarital sex? Is this not a punishment imposed by law?
Should LGBT people, or people who are known to have been in a relationship with someone of the same sex, be flogged?
>Outlawing in the form of banishment from the community.
Removed from a community by law?
>Municipality restrictions could be in the form of restricted access to State services or certain civil rights.
This is pretty totalitarian dude. I thought you weren't in favour of imposing the state on people?
>But according to moral relativism, you are choosing to see his conduct as abuse; perhaps he sees it as being inquisitive?
Don't be disingenuous. He's repeatedly making the same allegations and suggestions over and over. And again: this is irrelevant if HE IS NOT A MORAL RELATIVIST. And I assume you do not define yourself as a moral relativist. Is it, from your perspective, morally wrong or not? This is not hard. Why are you being evasive about this?
>Absolutely not. Instead, if people supported objective moral standards, people would be taught to behave in ways that was conducive toward productivity
I'm not aware of any form of schooling of any kind, of societal teaching that teaches people that in some instances it's perfectly acceptable to be abusive and hateful to people because you do not like them. And by "objective moral standards" you basically mean "if society just taught the values I personally adhere to". Turns out that there's no consensus amongst the supposed 'objective morality' audience over what constitutes good or bad regarding 'objective morality'. It's just claims made by other people.
And to be frank, since you've suggested you think that public flogging might be a good thing - I'm not sure you're a good source on this. You yourself can't even condemn the simple act of lying about other people. Why should I take you remotely seriously on this?
But still not Christian. You asked specifically about countries that are not Christian.
Nope, I specifically asked for countries practicing majority non-monogamy that were as industrialised or as advanced as Judeo-Christian-based countries.
So you just assume that the Dead Sea Scrolls are the definitive oldest?
That's mostly what the carbon dating says.
Is this not a punishment imposed by law?
It's imposed to uphold productive cultural standards, no different than some punishments in various military bootcamps.
Should LGBT people, or people who are known to have been in a relationship with someone of the same sex, be flogged?
Only if they are engaging known activities or public displays that diminish the integrity of positive cultural standards.
Removed from a community by law?
Or prefects.
I thought you weren't in favour of imposing the state on people?
I said "could" and "certain". Not "all". Some rules need harsher penalties.
this is irrelevant if HE IS NOT A MORAL RELATIVIST.
Are you certain about this? Isn't this as bad as assuming his gender?
Turns out that there's no consensus amongst the supposed 'objective morality' audience over what constitutes good or bad regarding 'objective morality'.
There absolutely is.... the Ten Commandments.
You yourself can't even condemn the simple act of lying about other people.
I can only condemn what has been ascertained with irrefutable proof. share
>That's mostly what the carbon dating says.
https://www.glam.ox.ac.uk/article/carbon-dating-finds-bakhshali-manuscript-contains-oldest-recorded-origins-symbol-zero#:~:text=The%20surpri
>It's imposed to uphold productive cultural standards, no different than some punishments in various military bootcamps.
And how is it enforced? Who enforces the flogging? What if someone says they don't want to be flogged?
I'll ask again: Are you calling for people who commit premarital sex to be flogged against their will?
>Only if they are engaging known activities or public displays that diminish the integrity of positive cultural standards.
What does that mean? What constitutes a "known activity" or "public display" that "diminishes the integrity of positive cultural standards" in respect to LGBT people? What is the authority that doles out this punishment?
>I said "could" and "certain". Not "all". Some rules need harsher penalties.
You initially denied wanting the state to restrict the rights of LGBT people. If not the state, then who should and by what authority and how is this in practice remotely different than if the state was enforcing behavioural standards?
What specific rules should be enforced that aren't, and by whom?
>Are you certain about this? Isn't this as bad as assuming his gender?
You mistake me for some trans-activist. I'm not.
And forget him. What do you think? Do you think lying about someone knowingly is a moral thing to do?
>There absolutely is.... the Ten Commandments.
This does not have uniform agreement at all. Most people on earth aren't Christian and thus many of the edicts aren't built on common ground. Certain things in it have general social agreement: do not kill, do not steal. You don't need the ten commandments to ascertain those things as harmful to society. The first 4 however, are all about appeasing the dear leader and have zero relevance to anything. I'd actually argue that they're harmful in that they encourage cult-like behaviours. Honouring your parents is generally good, but depends on the parents. Adultery is considered bad, but not criminal. Lying isn't necessarily against the law, and in some instances can be good. I don't see anything wrong inherently with coveting.
So no, they don't.
>I can only condemn what has been ascertained with irrefutable proof.
I gave you multiple examples of his behaviour.
https://www.glam.ox.ac.uk/article/carbon-dating-finds-bakhshali-manuscript-contains-oldest-recorded-origins-symbol-zero#:~:text=The%20surpri
The oldest date of that manuscript is the forth century (I'm assuming they mean BC), which is nowhere near as old as the dead sea scrolls.
And how is it enforced? Who enforces the flogging? What if someone says they don't want to be flogged?
Prefects. Otherwise, the person(s) are more than welcome to leave the community.
Are you calling for people who commit premarital sex to be flogged against their will?
Absolutely.
What is the authority that doles out this punishment?
In a sane and healthy society, a government that upholds cultural standards based on moral objectivity... sort of like how it used to be just after the age of enlightenment but before the industrial revolution.
You initially denied wanting the state to restrict the rights of LGBT people.
Rights? Who said anything about rights... we're talking about conduct. Rights do not guarantee acceptance of conduct.
Do you think lying about someone knowingly is a moral thing to do?
What does it matter what I think? I'm not the one choosing to take offence -- if you believe what he's doing is wrong, then do you hold fast that all matters of morality must be objective? Or only the ones that directly impact you?
The first 4 however, are all about appeasing the dear leader and have zero relevance to anything.
They have relevance to social cohesion, and we're seeing that when they are not upheld, society begins to breakdown, hence -- once again -- the implosion of relationships, the family unit, and by proxy, infrastructure.
share
>The oldest date of that manuscript is the forth century (I'm assuming they mean BC), which is nowhere near as old as the dead sea scrolls.
Can I see some sources here please?
>Prefects. Otherwise, the person(s) are more than welcome to leave the community.
What exactly is the legal status of a "prefect" here exactly?
>Absolutely.
By what authority?
>In a sane and healthy society, a government that upholds cultural standards based on moral objectivity... sort of like how it used to be just after the age of enlightenment but before the industrial revolution.
So you are in fact in favour of persecuting LGBT people. You claimed initially in this thread that you were not. I asked you if TV shows and films that depict LGBT people should be banned by force and you denied that you claimed they should.
>Rights? Who said anything about rights... we're talking about conduct. Rights do not guarantee acceptance of conduct.
Dude, if an action that someone does specifically prompts a punishment from the local authorities - it is not a protected right. If you are in favour of punishing people for having premarital sex or being publicly LGBT then you are rejecting those actions as rights. Whether or not you personally accept it is neither here nor there, but if you use the police to chase people down to punish them for said action, it means you are rejecting their right to do it in the first place.
And again: What constitutes a "known activity" or "public display" that "diminishes the integrity of positive cultural standards" in respect to LGBT people?
>What does it matter what I think? I'm not the one choosing to take offence -- if you believe what he's doing is wrong, then do you hold fast that all matters of morality must be objective? Or only the ones that directly impact you?
You're claiming to be an accurate conveyer of moral standards. Can you just answer the fucking question from your perspective?
>They have relevance to social cohesion, and we're seeing that when they are not upheld, society begins to breakdown, hence -- once again -- the implosion of relationships, the family unit, and by proxy, infrastructure.
There's no reason whatsoever to think specifically noting out the sabbath as a day of rest has any impact good or bad on society, or "taking idols" (whatever that is supposed to mean in an objective sense). They don't have any relevance to behaviour. There isn't consensus from wider society that the ten commandments are true, or in whole, represent good morals, or are the only source for good moral advice. Screaming that they are objective is missing the point that they aren't agreed to be so and you can't just change that and make it happen.
Being, however, a totalitarian despot, and using the state to flog people for premarital sex or homosexuality absolutely would come under destabilising society though. This would be considered more like the nasty hateful shit Iran does and be met with severe opposition. You would essentially destroy all of modern culture and media by force. Social liberalism has been integrated into most tv shows, films, video games, literature since the 1960s to varying degrees.
Should all known LGBT people right now in society be rounded up and attacked, or "flogged"? Should all producers of TV shows, films, video games that depict LGBT people (in a positive way that you despise) or premarital sex be flogged?
On that note, I'm also wondering if you support blasphemy laws?