Twitter Bans Misgendering & Deadnaming Transgender Community

Oct 24, 2017
5,260
3,869
315
Can you explain the way more balanced version of capitalism in which no giant corporation could ever exist and plunder endlessly?
The philosophy behind capitalism was as I said the exponential grow of a company a sector etc. But this money should have been also given to the working people. So basically with more and more profit it was thought that this also flows back to the loans which then would have lead to more money people would spend into the ecconomy. It was a circle of exponential grow for everyone.

Problem was and is that companies do not give it back to the workers to make even more profits but this was not the meaning behind capitalism.

Sorry my english is way to bad to describe it in detail but I hope you can get the meaning.
 
Likes: Cybrwzrd
Aug 24, 2016
1,032
275
265
Example for what? Do you want me to explain, using an example, why I think that christian religion is immoral?
That is what it says

Ah so the end goal is to create a supergroup of megacorporations and merge with the government? Which is not a for profit entity? So they're doing it all with ulterior motives?





Did they already have an effective monopoly in their field when they did that?
Incidentally people forgot that Twitter was losing money and heading for doom years ago. Panicking trying to find ways to make money. Which oddly resulted in a closer relation ship if you get what I'm saying.
 
Apr 8, 2009
19,968
677
380
This is so wrong. Twitter and facebook have HUGE influence in our daily life. They are the public places of the inernet. You can not ignore this no matter what. That is also why the Government jumps now in. regarding hate speech and fakenews, false propaganda etc.
They on,y have influence if you decide to let them. I have no idea what you’re referring to with the “government jumps now in.” That isnt true in the US.
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
5,260
3,869
315
They on,y have influence if you decide to let them. I have no idea what you’re referring to with the “government jumps now in.” That isnt true in the US.
No. It is a fact for the majority of people and I am talking about Europe here especially in which they have to remove content in whcih they are forced to pay etc but Zuckerberg also was questioned because of the election etc. There was a huge facebook scandal about this as well. You can not just ignore this.
 
May 4, 2005
11,450
673
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
- Christianity is a religion that is optimised to spread, it is ingrained into christianity to distribute a large amount of unscientific, unbased factual claims. I cannot call it lying, because Christians tend to believe their outrageous claims, but let's call it bullshitting. Distributing obviously false stuff as truth is immoral from my perspective.
- On top of that, in Germany, the churches have schools, hospitals and kindergartens where the state pays almost the full expense, but the churches still claim special rights in terms of employment, e.g. they demand people who work there are members of the church, do not remarry, do not marry homosexually, cannot form unions and so on.
- Christianity stood in the way of science countless times and has been used as validation for war
- Christian belief is the best friend of deadly sexuall transmittable diseases particularly in Africa
- The churches put arbitrary restrictions, e.g. on sexuality, on their members
- The churches still are opposing scientific progress, e.g. in the case of genetic research. Particularly in Germany their influence is horribly large in that regard...
- Christian groups actively try to attack education with bullshit teachings such as intelligent design
- Christians like to cherrypick "Christian ethics", but if you look at the bible, it becomes very clear that you need to be very, veeery picky with Christian doctrine to get anything remotely resembling ethics.

I hope this are sufficiently many examples for you why I consider the church deeply immoral
 
Apr 8, 2009
19,968
677
380
No. It is a fact for the majority of people and I am talking about Europe here especially in which they have to remove content in whcih they are forced to pay etc but Zuckerberg also was questioned because of the election etc. There was a huge facebook scandal about this as well. You can not just ignore this.
Zuckerberg testified before the Senate. So what? Why does this mean the government has to take over Twitter so it gives Richard Spencer and Milo their accounts back and allow chuds to tweet “tranny” at people all day long?
 
Aug 24, 2016
1,032
275
265
- Christianity is a religion that is optimised to spread, it is ingrained into christianity to distribute a large amount of unscientific, unbased factual claims. I cannot call it lying, because Christians tend to believe their outrageous claims, but let's call it bullshitting. Distributing obviously false stuff as truth is immoral from my perspective.
- On top of that, in Germany, the churches have schools, hospitals and kindergartens where the state pays almost the full expense, but the churches still claim special rights in terms of employment, e.g. they demand people who work there are members of the church, do not remarry, do not marry homosexually, cannot form unions and so on.
- Christianity stood in the way of science countless times and has been used as validation for war
- Christian belief is the best friend of deadly sexuall transmittable diseases particularly in Africa
- The churches put arbitrary restrictions, e.g. on sexuality, on their members
- The churches still are opposing scientific progress, e.g. in the case of genetic research. Particularly in Germany their influence is horribly large in that regard...
- Christian groups actively try to attack education with bullshit teachings such as intelligent design
- Christians like to cherrypick "Christian ethics", but if you look at the bible, it becomes very clear that you need to be very, veeery picky with Christian doctrine to get anything remotely resembling ethics.

I hope this are sufficiently many examples for you why I consider the church deeply immoral
1. I need an example of the obviously false stuff for your first point to be clear.

2. This seems more like a Catholic or Orthodox thing.

3. This seems more like a Catholic or Orthodox thing.

4. This seems a Catholic thing, a false preacher thing, or a running church for money and not even reading the book thing because if you're referring to the god will heal you" thing that's not how it actually works in the bible/scriptures. They just use the word Christian to brainwash people but they could do that without even using the word. (Hi NK)

5. I need examples of arbitrary restrictions. That may be just how the organization runs things.

6. Similar to the above thing i said.

7. This is new to me.

8. ?

This read more like you believing non-Christians calling themselves Christians are Christians and are falsely labeling Christians immoral based on some control freaks and likely fakes scammers that are making millions off tithes. A big problem that's slowly being resolved (well not so much in Europe but in Africa and south Asia. as well as parts of America. But that's because of historically reasons and long-term control more than anything in that region. )
 
Jun 13, 2017
267
296
195
Do you only feel this way about Christianity? I'm an atheist and even though I dislike religion (All religion) for all the wrong it has caused in the world I have no issue with anyone individually being religious as long as what they believe in doesn't interfere with anybody else. I think it's weird you're singling out Christianity here.
 
Oct 24, 2017
5,260
3,869
315
Zuckerberg testified before the Senate. So what? Why does this mean the government has to take over Twitter so it gives Richard Spencer and Milo their accounts back and allow chuds to tweet “tranny” at people all day long?
It has shown how much nfluence these sites have to ban people based on opinions is censorship and almost on a public level to say that there are other platforms they can go is pretty weak and naive and you always have to think about what if feminist opinions or BLM accounts suddendly were banned from twitter? Would this also be ok?

More and more accounts gets suspended for being anti feminist for example. This is a totally reasonable stand to be in. Being a Trum Supporter should not be ued to suspend people having a poltical ideology and opinion that is not the norm should not be lead to a susension and so on.

Places like Twitter and Facebook have a huge respnsibility regarding free speech they should hold high. How about google censoring Twitter searches in China? Still ok I mean people could just use other serach engines. Or how about your electric company does not like your political view and suddenly cancel your power? You could still go somewhere else right? Even if they have 90% of the whole market.

Being on other social media similar to twiter and facebook would be comparable with shouting in the deepest dungeon to the ublic. No one will ever hear you anymore.
 
Likes: matt404au

Ailynn

Faith - Hope - Love
Jan 1, 2017
184
608
325
East Tennessee, USA
@Yoshi: I agree that many atrocities have wrongly been committed by others in the name of God and religion, and I hope that you yourself weren't harmed by the church at some point. Aside from the countless failings and evils of humanity, how do you feel about the teachings of Jesus on love, compassion, humility, and charity?
 
Last edited:
Likes: Damage Inc
Apr 8, 2009
19,968
677
380
It has shown how much nfluence these sites have to ban people based on opinions is censorship and almost on a public level to say that there are other platforms they can go is pretty weak and naive and you always have to think about what if feminist opinions or BLM accounts suddendly were banned from twitter? Would this also be ok?

More and more accounts gets suspended for being anti feminist for example. This is a totally reasonable stand to be in. Being a Trum Supporter should not be ued to suspend people having a poltical ideology and opinion that is not the norm should not be lead to a susension and so on.

Places like Twitter and Facebook have a huge respnsibility regarding free speech they should hold high. How about google censoring Twitter searches in China? Still ok I mean people could just use other serach engines. Or how about your electric company does not like your political view and suddenly cancel your power? You could still go somewhere else right? Even if they have 90% of the whole market.

Being on other social media similar to twiter and facebook would be comparable with shouting in the deepest dungeon to the ublic. No one will ever hear you anymore.
How do you think people got heard before social media? I get that you don't like that people who share your ideology got banned, but you aren't really making an argument here. It's the Chinese government that requires google to censor searches. Facebook doesn't allow you to post porn either - is that a violation of pornographers' free speech too?
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,205
4,547
700
Australia
But Twitter/Facebook haven’t captured the public square. There are plenty of other sources for people to recieve information. A lot more people watch Fox News than read Twitter. Nor are Twitter, etc. homogenous. There sre a lot of conservative voices on them. And, of course, nothing is stopping people from using other outlets. Alex Jones still has his website. Milo could have published his book had he not defended kiddy-diddling. The demand that the government seize private property to force dissemination of a particular message is very illiberal. You only support it because Alex Jones and Milo and the like are on your team.
I haven’t seen anyone demanding that Facebook or Twitter be seized, simply regulated like megacorps that affect the way the public communicates have in the past. So I guess we can chalk that up as another strawman on your part.

You need to stop comparing the social media corporations to news corporations. The former are open platforms in which anyone can sign up and post in an unlimited space whereas the latter must curate their content for a finite space. This was especially important in the past for your NYT example where the media was print and space was even more limited.
 
Jun 3, 2013
4,362
1,687
410
Canada
Pertinent read from a few years back by Nassim Nicholas Taleb on the subject of minority push: -

https://medium.com/incerto/the-most...ctatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15
That was a pretty interesting read, I keep seeing this guy's name and I've never read any of his work. The top highlighted paragraph:

Let us conjecture that the formation of moral values in society doesn’t come from the evolution of the consensus. No, it is the most intolerant person who imposes virtue on others precisely because of that intolerance. The same can apply to civil rights.
 
Likes: Kadayi
Oct 24, 2017
5,260
3,869
315
How do you think people got heard before social media? I get that you don't like that people who share your ideology got banned, but you aren't really making an argument here. It's the Chinese government that requires google to censor searches. Facebook doesn't allow you to post porn either - is that a violation of pornographers' free speech too?
First of all. They do not share my ideology I do not follow any ideology. Secondly having an opinion and sharing porn are two total different things Faceboook also got under huge backlash because they suspended an acocunt who had a famous picture of a nude child fleeing from war.

And I do not know if oyu knew but times change and social meida has become a huge opinion make and influencer why do you think people talk now about how russia has influenced the elections trhough social media for example?
 
Likes: matt404au
Apr 8, 2009
19,968
677
380
I haven’t seen anyone demanding that Facebook or Twitter be seized, simply regulated like megacorps that affect the way the public communicates have in the past. So I guess we can chalk that up as another strawman on your part.

You need to stop comparing the social media corporations to news corporations. The former are open platforms in which anyone can sign up and post in an unlimited space whereas the latter must curate their content for a finite space. This was especially important in the past for your NYT example where the media was print and space was even more limited.
There have been plenty of calls for Twitter to be nationalized. That you haven't seen something does not mean it does not exist.

What "megacorps" that "affect the way the public communicates" have been regulated? Television stations that use public airwaves? Viewpoint neutral obscenity laws? Where are your calls for the return of the fairness doctrine? Why is it "censorship" only when Alex Jones' ox is getting gored?

The fact is that getting banned on Twitter hasn't effectively silenced any of your free speech heroes. Regulations that would force Twitter to act as Milo's personal megaphone are a solution in search of a problem. It just irks you that your co-ideologues aren't entitled to use other people's property to goad a gunman to visit a pizza parlor.
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
5,260
3,869
315
There have been plenty of calls for Twitter to be nationalized. That you haven't seen something does not mean it does not exist.

What "megacorps" that "affect the way the public communicates" have been regulated? Television stations that use public airwaves? Viewpoint neutral obscenity laws? Where are your calls for the return of the fairness doctrine? Why is it "censorship" only when Alex Jones' ox is getting gored?

The fact is that getting banned on Twitter hasn't effectively silenced any of your free speech heroes. Regulations that would force Twitter to act as Milo's personal megaphone are a solution in search of a problem. It just irks you that your co-ideologues aren't entitled to use other people's property to goad a gunman to visit a pizza parlor.
The problem that it is totally one sided. You can say that women who are pregnant whith white boys should consider a trip to the abortion clinic and you are verrified. You are saying feminism is cancer and you get suspended for it.

There are no rules to these suspendings and shadowbannings that is the problem here.
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,205
4,547
700
Australia
So a gigantic corporation holding an obscene amount of capital and using it to destroy all competition is not capitalism? It's actually socialism? Can you explain the logic behind that one?


That's exactly what happened here. Twitter did not receive any government subsidies to my knowledge. It was entirely their own entrepreneurship and risk taking that netted them an effective monopoly in this field.


Again, just capitalism. You own capital and you use it to further expand your business.


You'll have to explain this one too. How did they get as big as they did if not for creating a demand for a service? Did they just happen on a bunch of gold?
I don’t see anyone here arguing for unfettered capitalism. Capitalism is the best economic system the world has ever seen because it incentivizes entrepreneurship and taking risks but it is not without fault and regulation is required in many instances. Antitrust laws exist for good reason.
 
Likes: Kadayi
Apr 25, 2009
5,205
4,547
700
Australia
There have been plenty of calls for Twitter to be nationalized. That you haven't seen something does not mean it does not exist.

What "megacorps" that "affect the way the public communicates" have been regulated? Television stations that use public airwaves? Viewpoint neutral obscenity laws? Where are your calls for the return of the fairness doctrine? Why is it "censorship" only when Alex Jones' ox is getting gored?

The fact is that getting banned on Twitter hasn't effectively silenced any of your free speech heroes. Regulations that would force Twitter to act as Milo's personal megaphone are a solution in search of a problem. It just irks you that your co-ideologues aren't entitled to use other people's property to goad a gunman to visit a pizza parlor.
No one here is calling for nationalization but you’re presenting it that way so you can carry on with your usual schtick. Nationalization and regulation are completely different things.

Have I ever mentioned Milo or Alex Jones? I feel like you need a tag warning anyone that engaging with you will inevitably result in their arguments being strawmanned.
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,205
4,547
700
Australia
No that was never the philosophy of capitalism. Capitalism is about exponential grow in which in therory everyone would have profited. Humans however used this to create a way more unbalanced form of it because unlike the ideology and the therorie they never gave it to the working peole with raising loans etc.
Capitalism is about wealth creation; socialism is about wealth redistribution. Both seek to provide group-level wealth but capitalism does so in a bottom-up way (individual -> group) and socialism in a top-down way (group -> individual). Both are necessary but socialism must be subordinate to capitalism because you cannot redistribute more wealth than you create.
 
Apr 8, 2009
19,968
677
380
No one here is calling for nationalization but you’re presenting it that way so you can carry on with your usual schtick. Nationalization and regulation are completely different things.
The argument applies with equal force either way. You want to use state power to force a private company to publish speech. Perhaps you need a tag warning that any engagement with you is likely to result in tangential quibbling when you have no good argument.

Have I ever mentioned Milo or Alex Jones? I feel like you need a tag warning anyone that engaging with you will inevitably result in their arguments being strawmanned.
Jones was the outrage du jour last time the statists made their argument for compelled speech.. Try to keep up.
 
Last edited:
Apr 25, 2009
5,205
4,547
700
Australia
The argument applies with equal force either way. You want to use state power to force a private company to publish speech. Perhaps you need a tag warning that any engagement with you is likely to result in tangential quibbling when you have no good argument.



Jones was the outrage du jour last time the statists made their argument for compelled speech.. Try to keep up.
Tangential quibbling? Ha! You are the one constantly looking for gotchas.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,351
2,879
460
Pertinent read from a few years back by Nassim Nicholas Taleb on the subject of minority push: -

https://medium.com/incerto/the-most...ctatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15
Kind of how all it takes is a few assholes to cause a traffic wave.





I hope you understand the metaphor I am making here. The majority drive in their lanes and don't try to inconvenience others because all are following the same set of rules. When someone comes in with a different set of rules and forces it on the majority, the majority has no choice but to accommodate the new rule unwillingly.
 
Last edited:
Apr 27, 2018
273
138
190
So if your name is John in real life, I can call you Bob?

“Don’t forced me to call you something I don’t want to!”

I mean it’s not like transgender people face severe discrimination in many aspects of life, let’s give them a hard time about names and pronouns, something we can all easily accommodate and do to make them feel just a little better more secure

You’ll either address people how they want or be an asshole. Your choice, but it’s such a lame hill to plant your flag on, Hope you feel good about it
Cut the virtue signaling. Just because transgender people face discrimination it doesn't change the fact that they're not biologically that gender and they can't force people who believe in it to call them by the gender they want to be called. You can't change people's minds.

I sure do feel good about telling the truth.
 
May 4, 2005
11,450
673
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
1. I need an example of the obviously false stuff for your first point to be clear.
The complete Christian doctrine. To name some of the most egregious stuff:
- virginal birth
- earth created in seven days; sun created after earth
- Noah's ark
- splitting bread to multiply it
- demons possessing people and being exorcised (e.g. by Jesus)
- woman created from the rib of a man
- the earth has ends
- dead people walking among us

2. This seems more like a Catholic or Orthodox thing.
This is also including the protestants.

3. This seems more like a Catholic or Orthodox thing.
Protestants are a bit lucky here with their branch only existing from a later point, but they are the originators of creationism afterall.

4. This seems a Catholic thing, a false preacher thing, or a running church for money and not even reading the book thing because if you're referring to the god will heal you" thing that's not how it actually works in the bible/scriptures. They just use the word Christian to brainwash people but they could do that without even using the word. (Hi NK)
I'm not referring to that, I am referring to sexual "ethics", i.e. do not use contraception (including condoms).

5. I need examples of arbitrary restrictions. That may be just how the organization runs things.
One example is directly above. Others: See the part about restrictions to their workforce, this is an extension of their restrictions on believers (remarriage, gay marriage).

6. Similar to the above thing i said.
The protestants are also opposing genetical research in Germany

7. This is new to me.
It is pretty big in the US to try to establish intelligent design as an alternative or as a replacement for evolution in schools. Read, e.g. this: http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...y_supports_alternatives.html?via=gdpr-consent

Yahweh is a genocidal control freak, he requests his followers to completely eradicate the population of cities and countries when Moses conquers what became Israel, he requests killing people who work on saturdays, he requests arbitrary animal slaughtering for his pleasure, he request death penalty for homosexuality, he tortures the pharao and kills innocent children to torture the pharao, he requests death penalty for minor crimes, he calls women who menstruate unclean and requires sacrifices to make up for it, do you need more?

This read more like you believing non-Christians calling themselves Christians are Christians and are falsely labeling Christians immoral based on some control freaks and likely fakes scammers that are making millions off tithes. A big problem that's slowly being resolved (well not so much in Europe but in Africa and south Asia. as well as parts of America. But that's because of historically reasons and long-term control more than anything in that region. )
No, I do not agree, it is a problem with current day European and US churches.

Do you only feel this way about Christianity? I'm an atheist and even though I dislike religion (All religion) for all the wrong it has caused in the world I have no issue with anyone individually being religious as long as what they believe in doesn't interfere with anybody else. I think it's weird you're singling out Christianity here.
The specific things I pointed out were about Christianity, but many of the points also apply to Islam and Judaism and were they don't, equivalent things exist instead. That does not mean I dislike all religious people, I have religious friends and religious people I respect very much exist. I do dislike (all) religions though. Please not, that originally I was not singling out Christianity here, I was just specifically asked about it. Originally, Christianity was merely an example.
@Yoshi: I agree that many atrocities have wrongly been committed by others in the name of God and religion, and I hope that you yourself weren't harmed by the church at some point. Aside from the countless failings and evils of humanity, how do you feel about the teachings of Jesus on love, compassion, humility, and charity?
I have not personally been harmed by the church. I agree that love, compassion, humility and charity are good values. The specific teachings asigned to Jesus are much better than the average of scripture, though there are questionable things among the things ascribed to him (e.g. exorcism), his specific teachings are the part of the bible that allows for easiest selection of acceptable values. If people obtain good values from what I consider a bad source (the bible), it's still good values and I very much believe that a lot of good people of Christian belief exist. To ascribe modern western values to Christianity is not OK though, because the bible requires extensive cherry picking to obtain a good set of moral values. This specific cherry picking isn't practiced consistently and where it is, it is an achievement of enlightenment, not of religion per se. Good people of Christian belief would still be good people if they did not believe supenatural stuff though (well, unless they only act good out of fear, but then it is questionable whether they are actually good people).
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,205
4,547
700
Australia
You sure like do like to talk about me a lot. Kinda weird.
Because I don’t like your attitude and you post more than most so there’s plenty of opportunity.

You try to paint us as two sides of the same coin but you know the main difference between us? I understand that words are vessels for ideas and try to look for the underlying ideas behind people’s posts and respond accordingly. You, on the other hand, are constantly on the lookout for gotchas to tear people down irrespective of the meaning of their posts. Tangential quibbling indeed.
 
Apr 8, 2009
19,968
677
380
Because I don’t like your attitude and you post more than most so there’s plenty of opportunity.

You try to paint us as two sides of the same coin but you know the main difference between us? I understand that words are vessels for ideas and try to look for the underlying ideas behind people’s posts and respond accordingly. You, on the other hand, are constantly on the lookout for gotchas to tear people down irrespective of the meaning of their posts. Tangential quibbling indeed.
Yeah, I heard you the first time. Let me know when you can play the ball not the man. I'm always happy to educate you, but I'm not particularly interested in watching you suck your own dick.
 
Aug 15, 2018
423
276
185
The complete Christian doctrine. To name some of the most egregious stuff:
- virginal birth
- earth created in seven days; sun created after earth
- Noah's ark
- splitting bread to multiply it
- demons possessing people and being exorcised (e.g. by Jesus)
- woman created from the rib of a man
- the earth has ends
- dead people walking among us

This is also including the protestants.

Protestants are a bit lucky here with their branch only existing from a later point, but they are the originators of creationism afterall.

I'm not referring to that, I am referring to sexual "ethics", i.e. do not use contraception (including condoms).

One example is directly above. Others: See the part about restrictions to their workforce, this is an extension of their restrictions on believers (remarriage, gay marriage).

The protestants are also opposing genetical research in Germany

It is pretty big in the US to try to establish intelligent design as an alternative or as a replacement for evolution in schools. Read, e.g. this: http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...y_supports_alternatives.html?via=gdpr-consent

Yahweh is a genocidal control freak, he requests his followers to completely eradicate the population of cities and countries when Moses conquers what became Israel, he requests killing people who work on saturdays, he requests arbitrary animal slaughtering for his pleasure, he request death penalty for homosexuality, he tortures the pharao and kills innocent children to torture the pharao, he requests death penalty for minor crimes, he calls women who menstruate unclean and requires sacrifices to make up for it, do you need more?

No, I do not agree, it is a problem with current day European and US churches.


The specific things I pointed out were about Christianity, but many of the points also apply to Islam and Judaism and were they don't, equivalent things exist instead. That does not mean I dislike all religious people, I have religious friends and religious people I respect very much exist. I do dislike (all) religions though. Please not, that originally I was not singling out Christianity here, I was just specifically asked about it. Originally, Christianity was merely an example.

I have not personally been harmed by the church. I agree that love, compassion, humility and charity are good values. The specific teachings asigned to Jesus are much better than the average of scripture, though there are questionable things among the things ascribed to him (e.g. exorcism), his specific teachings are the part of the bible that allows for easiest selection of acceptable values. If people obtain good values from what I consider a bad source (the bible), it's still good values and I very much believe that a lot of good people of Christian belief exist. To ascribe modern western values to Christianity is not OK though, because the bible requires extensive cherry picking to obtain a good set of moral values. This specific cherry picking isn't practiced consistently and where it is, it is an achievement of enlightenment, not of religion per se. Good people of Christian belief would still be good people if they did not believe supenatural stuff though (well, unless they only act good out of fear, but then it is questionable whether they are actually good people).
I didn't want to respond to your points because many of your arguments against Christianity were fallacious and you may be dead set on them without really knowing about the religion or wanting to actually learn about them (then again, this is an assumption), also this thread is about transgenderism and not religion. However ultimately, I feel I must make an attempt, even a small one, to defend the faith.

Alot of your arguments seem to stem from the fact that you seem to think all Christians are fundamentalists who take the Bible literally and attack science. This is absolutely false. Many christians believe science and faith are complimentary forces (the how and the why). As a catholic, I believe in the theory of evolution. Adam and Eve are not necessarily literal figures.

The bible is a collection of books that were made with different purposes in mind, some allegorical, some literal, some historical, etc. The Bible was created from the oral tradition of a group of people that spans thousands of years. These people had different audiences, different cultures, different points of reference, etc. The bible is by NO means monolithic and straightly literal. One has to look at the context at who made these books and why. Also, the bible is a spiritual book, it was never something that was intended to tell all about our world and how it works.

I have said it before on this site and It seems I have to say it again, but science and religion are not opposing forces. Many Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc have contributed to the sciences and continue to do so. To ignore that is to be willfully ignorant.

On top of that, in Germany, the churches have schools, hospitals and kindergartens where the state pays almost the full expense, but the churches still claim special rights in terms of employment, e.g. they demand people who work there are members of the church, do not remarry, do not marry homosexually, cannot form unions and so on
You don't want special exemptions for Churches? Why?

Also, many protestant churches allow things like priests getting married and etc. The Catholic Church does not allow priests to marry because being tied to 2 vocations might be distracting to the priest as one would have to give their all in a marriage. The priest marries the Church in essense and marrying another would make things difficult. This is not from dogma though and cpuld actually be changed. We are against homosexual unions because of our belief that married couples have to have sex. 2 men or women cannot be fruitful or unitive. A penis is made for a vagina, so on and so forth.

Christian belief is the best friend of deadly sexuall transmittable diseases particularly in Africa
- The churches put arbitrary restrictions, e.g. on sexuality, on their members
- The churches still are opposing scientific progress, e.g. in the case of genetic research. Particularly in Germany their influence is horribly large in that regard...
- Christian groups actively try to attack education with bullshit teachings such as intelligent design
- Christians like to cherrypick "Christian ethics", but if you look at the bible, it becomes very clear that you need to be very, veeery picky with Christian doctrine to get anything remotely resembling ethics.
I ask for evidence. Also as I said, religion doesn't oppose science and there are many scientists who are christian out there.
 
Feb 23, 2016
317
47
200
Cut the virtue signaling. Just because transgender people face discrimination it doesn't change the fact that they're not biologically that gender and they can't force people who believe in it to call them by the gender they want to be called. You can't change people's minds.

I sure do feel good about telling the truth.

Lol ""virtue signaling" is. That what were calling basic human deceny now? Miss me with that bigot nonsense the same shit was said about gay marriage what gives you the right to decided who they are ignoring the fact your just being a rude piece of shit that information had no bearing on you in anyway . Dam it feels good to call out uneducated bigots.
 
Sep 4, 2018
1,062
952
225
It is pretty big in the US to try to establish intelligent design as an alternative or as a replacement for evolution in schools
this is some fear mongering bs. i grew up in the bible belt in rural Georgia and even we thought Young Earth Creationists were full of crap. this isn't happening. maybe you can track down a news story about one guy that tried to do this ten years ago. there isn't a mass movement. this acting as if evangelicals have such a strangehold is akin to the pearl clutching over Shariah Law.
 
May 4, 2005
11,450
673
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Alot of your arguments seem to stem from the fact that you seem to think all Christians are fundamentalists who take the Bible literally and attack science. This is absolutely false. Many christians believe science and faith are complimentary forces (the how and the why). As a catholic, I believe in the theory of evolution. Adam and Eve are not necessarily literal figures.
Even non-literal ones attack science like stem cell research on the basis of nothing but their superstitions.
You don't want special exemptions for Churches? Why?
Yes, I do not. Because all employers should be treated equally and no one's rights should be limited just because the church happens to have a near-monopoly on the market segment. I mean, it is OK for priests that church does not allow them to marry, but why would a medic or a teacher not be allowed to remarry or enter a homosexual marriage? All the more if the state pays their wages for the church... I think this also answers your following paragraph, I was not talking about rules for priests, but regular employees.
I ask for evidence. Also as I said, religion doesn't oppose science and there are many scientists who are christian out there.
I refer to my post that I posted directly before yours, I assume you haven't read it before posting.
 
Oct 24, 2017
5,260
3,869
315
Yes, I do not. Because all employers should be treated equally and no one's rights should be limited just because the church happens to have a near-monopoly on the market segment. I mean, it is OK for priests that church does not allow them to marry, but why would a medic or a teacher not be allowed to remarry or enter a homosexual marriage? All the more if the state pays their wages for the church... I think this also answers your following paragraph, I was not talking about rules for priests, but regular employees.
Here you also could compare it to twitter being allowed to suspend anyne based o their beliefs. MAybe they should just go and seek a new relgion?.

In a more serious answer this is changing more and more epscially with Christians we have gay priests in Germany we have priests that are married etc. The thing is that Christian religion has and is reforming all the time. If we compare it to the Islam for example they are still stuck in the middle ages overall.

Christianity did a lot of shitty things but they also has been reformed quite a lot that it is today seen as very peacfully and openminded If you critizse Christanity as harshly what do you think about the Islam.?

In my opinion Religion should be abolished but if they were to stay Chrsitianity today has the most right to do so because they do not teach hatred or extreme values.
 
Aug 24, 2016
1,032
275
265
The complete Christian doctrine. To name some of the most egregious stuff:
- virginal birth
- earth created in seven days; sun created after earth
- Noah's ark
- splitting bread to multiply it
- demons possessing people and being exorcised (e.g. by Jesus)
- woman created from the rib of a man
- the earth has ends
- dead people walking among us

This is also including the protestants.

Protestants are a bit lucky here with their branch only existing from a later point, but they are the originators of creationism afterall.

I'm not referring to that, I am referring to sexual "ethics", i.e. do not use contraception (including condoms).

One example is directly above. Others: See the part about restrictions to their workforce, this is an extension of their restrictions on believers (remarriage, gay marriage).

The protestants are also opposing genetical research in Germany

It is pretty big in the US to try to establish intelligent design as an alternative or as a replacement for evolution in schools. Read, e.g. this: http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...y_supports_alternatives.html?via=gdpr-consent

Yahweh is a genocidal control freak, he requests his followers to completely eradicate the population of cities and countries when Moses conquers what became Israel, he requests killing people who work on saturdays, he requests arbitrary animal slaughtering for his pleasure, he request death penalty for homosexuality, he tortures the pharao and kills innocent children to torture the pharao, he requests death penalty for minor crimes, he calls women who menstruate unclean and requires sacrifices to make up for it, do you need more?

No, I do not agree, it is a problem with current day European and US churches.


The specific things I pointed out were about Christianity, but many of the points also apply to Islam and Judaism and were they don't, equivalent things exist instead. That does not mean I dislike all religious people, I have religious friends and religious people I respect very much exist. I do dislike (all) religions though. Please not, that originally I was not singling out Christianity here, I was just specifically asked about it. Originally, Christianity was merely an example.

I have not personally been harmed by the church. I agree that love, compassion, humility and charity are good values. The specific teachings asigned to Jesus are much better than the average of scripture, though there are questionable things among the things ascribed to him (e.g. exorcism), his specific teachings are the part of the bible that allows for easiest selection of acceptable values. If people obtain good values from what I consider a bad source (the bible), it's still good values and I very much believe that a lot of good people of Christian belief exist. To ascribe modern western values to Christianity is not OK though, because the bible requires extensive cherry picking to obtain a good set of moral values. This specific cherry picking isn't practiced consistently and where it is, it is an achievement of enlightenment, not of religion per se. Good people of Christian belief would still be good people if they did not believe supenatural stuff though (well, unless they only act good out of fear, but then it is questionable whether they are actually good people).

1.
A. what do you mean?
B. The Bible doesn't say this unless it's taken out of context. though I know people who say their are christians and say they understand the bible spread that teaching around sometimes without even reading the actual context.
C. I don't know what this means? Do you mean the flood? There's even actual evidence of a big flood a long period of time ago. Whether you beleiv the details of the story around the flood is a different story.
D. I'm not following you on this one. Do you have an issue with the actual splitting of bread?
E. Media/Catholic/Apostolic/orthodox nonsense.
F. Out of context by the same group above.
G. What do you mean? Are you talking about the flat earth thing? No where in the writings does it say the earth is flat. 4 corners of the earth is mentioned but it has nothing to do with flatness unless you take that quote out of context and put it in a vacuum
H. Must be some new thing that came out of nowhere because the dead are in the grave.

2. Likely influenced by the same groups I mentioned before. Not real christians.

3. But again the question is it in the actual scriptures or is the Catholic church and others full of crap and made stuff up (See Easter and Mardi Gra)

4. Same groups i mentioned before.

5. Yeah same as the above. Gay Marriage is the only real thing here at least form how you presented it, but the only reason why we have gay marriage now instead of an alternative is because of politics and it only applies to marriage. A christian can unionize a same sex couple if they wanted to.

6. Likely influenced by the above groups. Europes taking the brunt of the centuries of lies and "changes". Just more fake Christians.

7. it's not big, that would require it to be much more widespread than it currently is. However, the topic of this point is again, the same usual groups.

8. Keep in mind that some of Moses laws were of the time or of Moses and not of god hence why got had intervened later and clarified certain things people though were right were not and that Moses "let them do things" making them THINK it was right before the clarification. The only exception being that sleeping with men as a women (or beast) is against the nature of man which is technically scientifically true as well ) however the death penalty part was not from god.

9. I'm don't think you read my post correctly.

10. I know this wasn't toward me but Christianity isn't in the bible either, Jesus didn't come to start a "religion" in the way we think of religion now, but to show the people to be holy and to be Christians (be christ-like) and search the scriptures as a guide. Christianity became a thing much later and not coincidentally was the banner used for some of the early atrocities of the European churches.

The scriptures are not a left-to-right book, context is important, and you need to be able to go back to certain points to see what other parts are referencing. most anti-Christians and fake so called 'real Christians" take quotes out of context or change meanings for personal reasons. major problem in Europe but a declining problem in Africa and certain parts of the US.
 
Aug 15, 2018
423
276
185
Even non-literal ones attack science like stem cell research on the basis of nothing but their superstitions.
I'm am for adult stem cell research but am against embryonic stem cell research. The reasons why I am against embryonic is because it kills an unborn child in the process (which is scientifically and objectively true, you can however argue that the unborn child doesn't have much worth) and I believe every human life is sacred. Also what do you mean by "superstition"? It also seems a bit demeaning to call things you don't believe in or understand as "superstition". Do you think it would be appropriate for me to label all your sets of beliefs as false without trying to be respectful and understanding your point of view?

Yes, I do not. Because all employers should be treated equally and no one's rights should be limited just because the church happens to have a near-monopoly on the market segment. I mean, it is OK for priests that church does not allow them to marry, but why would a medic or a teacher not be allowed to remarry or enter a homosexual marriage? All the more if the state pays their wages for the church... I think this also answers your following paragraph, I was not talking about rules for priests, but regular employees
What do you mean that medics and teachers/ people who work for churches can't marry? I honestly have never heard of this. Also what do you mean by the church having a market monopoly?

Churches aren't businesses, they don't exist to raise captial. They exist for spiritual purposes to help get their community closer to God. I don't see whu they shouldn't have certain exemptions.

refer to my post that I posted directly before yours, I assume you haven't read it before posting.
I have, you just didn't give any reason. For example, you claim that Christianity is anti-science without an actual evidence and also claim that Christians help make the aids crisis in Africa worse without saying why.

Hate/dislike Christianity all you want, but don't pretend that all Christians are anti-science and anti-intellectualism.
 
Aug 24, 2016
1,032
275
265
Lol ""virtue signaling" is. That what were calling basic human deceny now? Miss me with that bigot nonsense the same shit was said about gay marriage what gives you the right to decided who they are ignoring the fact your just being a rude piece of shit that information had no bearing on you in anyway . Dam it feels good to call out uneducated bigots.
Wouldn't human decency be to try and fix the issues that's making transgenderism grow instead of having more struggling people add to the body count? I mean Ailynn said a drug caused their defects, shouldn't we start goingafter the drug companies, and also the food and water companies, from causing all these issues like cancer, gender disconnects, and other issues that were not even close to as prominent 20-30 years ago than now?
 
Last edited:
Feb 23, 2016
317
47
200
Wouldn't human decency be to try and fix the issues that's making transgenderism grow instead of having more struggling people add to the body count? I mean Ailynn said a drug caused their defects, shouldn't we start goingafter the drug companies, and also the food and water companies, from causing all these issues like cancer, gender disconnects, and other issues that were not even close to as prominent 20-30 years ago than now?

Ummm we tried and the only thing that didnt lead to people killing themselves is reassignment surgery . i mean if you can find a way to stop it from happening i doubt anyone would complain but for the time being these people are here and should be allowed to live And i doubt a bunch of uneducated bigots "screaming we know your genetic code you cant hide" helps anyone?
 
Jul 7, 2018
812
1,177
240
Never bow down to this authoritarian, censorious shit for one minute. Anyone who thinks that this is going to lead to better things for people affected by gender dysphoria is delusional. The science is far from settled. We're not even close to having all of the answers. But even if we thought that we did, to ban dissenting voices is fucking idiotic.

If I say "I'm a woman now", does that mean I am one? You all have to call me "she" and "her" and what not just cos I demand it? If anyone dares to question that, they should be banned, shamed, fired, ousted etc.? Fuck off. Seriously. Please think what you are advocating for here.

We're seeing retarded leftist shaming having an effect on science itself too, such as peer reviewed studies that don't align with the pro-trans activists getting pulled from sites. This is not the way.
 
Dec 22, 2010
1,880
244
525
Never bow down to this authoritarian, censorious shit for one minute. Anyone who thinks that this is going to lead to better things for people affected by gender dysphoria is delusional. The science is far from settled. We're not even close to having all of the answers. But even if we thought that we did, to ban dissenting voices is fucking idiotic.

If I say "I'm a woman now", does that mean I am one? You all have to call me "she" and "her" and what not just cos I demand it? If anyone dares to question that, they should be banned, shamed, fired, ousted etc.? Fuck off. Seriously. Please think what you are advocating for here.

We're seeing retarded leftist shaming having an effect on science itself too, such as peer reviewed studies that don't align with the pro-trans activists getting pulled from sites. This is not the way.
"We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. " Seems pretty clear cut to me. Funnily enough I imagine "retarded leftist" would likely fall under this rule.
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,205
4,547
700
Australia
"We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. " Seems pretty clear cut to me. Funnily enough I imagine "retarded leftist" would likely fall under this rule.
It's a problem when you hand over the reigns of defining what constitutes a slur to the self-identified victim of said slur.
 
Dec 22, 2010
1,880
244
525
It's a problem when you hand over the reigns of defining what constitutes a slur to the self-identified victim of said slur.
I don't see your point. Even here, this supposed "alt-right haven" that Era loves to call it (hi lurkers), gives us a self-policing tool to report others for showing their ass. Am I to believe, on faith, that Twitter is banning people for misgendering someone based on a singular, accidental instance? Are people being similarly banned for such violations as applicable to other protected groups?
Also
I don't know I guess I'm not yet cynical enough to buy into the authoritarianism/communism trite that gets peddled here when social media policies are showing assholes the door.
 
Jun 20, 2018
1,295
1,297
205
- Christianity is a religion that is optimised to spread, it is ingrained into christianity to distribute a large amount of unscientific, unbased factual claims. I cannot call it lying, because Christians tend to believe their outrageous claims, but let's call it bullshitting. Distributing obviously false stuff as truth is immoral from my perspective.
- On top of that, in Germany, the churches have schools, hospitals and kindergartens where the state pays almost the full expense, but the churches still claim special rights in terms of employment, e.g. they demand people who work there are members of the church, do not remarry, do not marry homosexually, cannot form unions and so on.
- Christianity stood in the way of science countless times and has been used as validation for war
- Christian belief is the best friend of deadly sexuall transmittable diseases particularly in Africa
- The churches put arbitrary restrictions, e.g. on sexuality, on their members
- The churches still are opposing scientific progress, e.g. in the case of genetic research. Particularly in Germany their influence is horribly large in that regard...
- Christian groups actively try to attack education with bullshit teachings such as intelligent design
- Christians like to cherrypick "Christian ethics", but if you look at the bible, it becomes very clear that you need to be very, veeery picky with Christian doctrine to get anything remotely resembling ethics.

I hope this are sufficiently many examples for you why I consider the church deeply immoral
This says more about your understanding of Christianity than it does about actual Christianity, the crazy thing is even if your list would be true Christianity STILL would be the most harmless out of the big three which is one reason why to this day I dont understand the lefts fixation on Christianity while courting Islam for example. To me it feels like a excuse to be bigoted against the one religion out of the big 3 that is easy to hate because it doesn't hit back.
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,205
4,547
700
Australia
I don't see your point. Even here, this supposed "alt-right haven" that Era loves to call it (hi lurkers), gives us a self-policing tool to report others for showing their ass. Am I to believe, on faith, that Twitter is banning people for misgendering someone based on a singular, accidental instance? Are people being similarly banned for such violations as applicable to other protected groups?
Also
I don't know I guess I'm not yet cynical enough to buy into the authoritarianism/communism trite that gets peddled here when social media policies are showing assholes the door.
Nah, what I mean is that your argument is operating on the assumption that the purported "slur" is actually a slur. The parameters haven't been defined so it's essentially left up to the offended person to define what a slur is. That's a very dangerous social mechanism to have in your system.
 
Jun 20, 2018
1,295
1,297
205
I don't see your point. Even here, this supposed "alt-right haven" that Era loves to call it (hi lurkers), gives us a self-policing tool to report others for showing their ass. Am I to believe, on faith, that Twitter is banning people for misgendering someone based on a singular, accidental instance? Are people being similarly banned for such violations as applicable to other protected groups?
Also
I don't know I guess I'm not yet cynical enough to buy into the authoritarianism/communism trite that gets peddled here when social media policies are showing assholes the door.
Jack dorsey himself was forced to admit on live TV that twitter unjustified banned thousands of conservatives, a couple of months later he stated that "yes twitter is left leaning" so spare me your deliberate misrepresentation when the literal twitter ceo comes out and is forced on live tv to confirm what anyone with a brain already knew.
 
Last edited:
Dec 22, 2010
1,880
244
525
Nah, what I mean is that your argument is operating on the assumption that the purported "slur" is actually a slur. The parameters haven't been defined so it's essentially left up to the offended person to define what a slur is. That's a very dangerous social mechanism to have in your system.
Twitter has moderators, like most forums. The moderators here decide what is crossing the line, not the ones doing the reporting.
 
Jun 20, 2018
1,295
1,297
205
Twitter has moderators, like most forums. The moderators here decide what is crossing the line, not the ones doing the reporting.
Yes and on twitter they are far left cali morons for the most part, what is your point?
What did making up rules on the fly because of the npc thing while ignoring calling every conservative a bot for 2 years not give it away?
What did the racist the nytimes hired that ranted and raved in the most disgusting language about white people for two years not getting banned hell not even losing her blue checkmark not give it away?
What did jack admitting twitter is left leaning and unjustified banns thousands of conservatives not give it away?
Are you blind or deliberately and knowingly just pretend these things are a not a thing because it wouldn't fit your political and world view?
 
Last edited: