What the actual fvck is happening to the funny pics community. This meme's comment section represents everything I hated about all forms of social media. It's quite literally religious propaganda at this point....
@Mhael, I hoped to start a conversation. But people on line clam up on religions fervor as a topic. Only really comfortable in the presents of like minded people.
So, if you find it to be religious propaganda, put forward the case with your veiw.
@Mhael, sorry mate. When things dont get fixed and your forums for discorse are shut down or censored, you will have politics and religion pop-up in your safe space. Blame the zealots. Blame the liberals. They started this. We are just playing along.
@That one lurker,
"I hoped to start a conversation"
"let the country be torn asunder"
@Slovak Guy , under threat of violence, a group of radical terrorist will throw bricks, molotovs, and low grade explosives at anyone they deem as threats.
I'm getting tired of people letting evil happen.
The Taliban are a bunch of pedo, cousin f@cken, mass murders. That would rape a man for being gay or shoot a guy for making fun of them.
They are evil.
These people I call wokest, morally equivalent.
Where I got my sick catharsis from was the fact the Taliban proved a maxim.
These people only gain power when people do nothing.
If our country is only staying together because we're not standing up to them. Then fine.
@That one lurker, I honestly don't care, not here. I have my own beliefs about events and I do enjoy debating, but this is a meme app for god's sake. People come here to laugh at shjt while they take a shjt, not to discuss events they have to deal with daily.
Besides, none of what you just said explained how enticing people to "toss some f@cking tables" is supposed to start a conversation
@Slovak Guy , so, I thought I explained it well with a response to @Good Pineapple Pizza.
Then a conversation homosexuality popped up from that reply from @Ultimatum, where I finally got an answer to a question I had for since thanks giving. So I'm happy how that went.
Then there was @TheBigQ who made fun of my plight as a disenfranchised Christian. Then went ahead and used near perfect obscuration skills to give a wholesome debate.
So, please don't think this as callus, I got what I wanted from this. You have all the agency to do as you wish. At the time of wrighting 5/7 of people felt the way you do, while 0/3 feels my comment on trying to push back against what I many consider to be an evil cultural blight. Not homosexuality mind you, the wokism, a creeping authoritarian communist takeover using gay people as human shields while they're trying to take us over.
Probably the worst take ever.
There's a small bit of catharsis in seeing the Taliban win against wokests.
I define wokests as people that spend their day trying to Virtue signal over an ever redefined group of "perceived victims". I.e. nazis with bleeding hearts.
It's like watching two rats fight, pure blood sport.
But I wish Christians would rise back, taking back the the cultural zeitgeist from the wokest.
Cause I'm getting disgusted about stories of mother's turning there kids trans to gain victim points and internet clout.
Like, do what you will, I think I summed up my feelings well.
Wokest are evil white supremacist Nazis that are only toleratable because the drape themselves in a veneer of gay tolerance.
Taliban are the worst, but accurate, aspects of Islam, that may never be reconciled from or with there faith.
And Christians need to wake the f@ck up and start being as uncompromising as the wokest. Let the country be torn asunder, just toss some f@cking tables already!
@That one lurker, Taliban 2: Christian Boogaloo
@That one lurker, yeah, our anger is justified, but "blessed are the peacekeepers" right?
but there's also the fact they want the right to engage in violence so they can play the victims. and with the un being in on the globalist take over of america and waiting for civil conflict to declare us a failed state and take control, the only real way to not lose is to use our own laws and non-violence to kick them our of power, which we know how to do now because they revealed how they've been rigging elections. we know how to get rid of them now and that has them freaked out, so they're causing chaos to distract us. just keep praying and spreading what you know, and stay up to date on new information that can give people hope that things can be made better
@Good Pineapple Pizza, my apologies if it sounded like War rhetoric.
Specifically what I am talking about is a reference to Jesus flipping tables in the temple.
I think the church has gotten to soft, and is willing to allow to much when it comes to moral conflicts.
Gay people shouldn't get "married" because marriage is a very specific religious term.
The fact that preachers cower at the mare discussion at this principles shows that the church has let convenience bind it.
In the Bible it specifically "laying with a man as you would a woman" is abhorrent.
Other things the same verse talks about is bestiality, incest, adultery and pedophilia. All of these are called abhorrent, and the church can't stand tall to one claim. Can the church then hold to the same principles or will it crumble.
Flip these tables, clear the temples of worldly convenience, and hold true to the principle of these sacrifices.
Or will the church fall away?
@That one lurker, The church has been going down hill since they started editing the bible so much the book basically is a man made one not one written by God.
And say what you want about Islam but I can say for certain that the verses we use today are the same we have been using for over 1400 and some may say we need to modernise the book like the Christian did but look at what that did to their religion.
@That one lurker, on the “laying with a man” point, the word translated as “man” is a generalized translation because there isn’t an exact one-word English equivalent (or they thought it was more convenient for their purposes, doesn’t make much difference); the word is specifically used in reference to young boys, pre-14 demographic, making the passage about condemning pederasty, which at the time was not an uncommon practice among their Greek neighbors.
@Ultimatum, what's your reference?
@That one lurker, https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27 is a good recent reference, although it’s far from the only one.
@TheBigQ, the main problem that happened to Christianity wasn't revisements to any book or doctrine. It set in portions of the enlightenment. I personally believe it was wrong to hold back science. That doesn't mean holding it back was bad thou, just that it did it wrong.
The clear break happened simultaneously with the Industrial Revolution, when people was moved out of rural areas to cities. That congregation of influence made the world start to spiral.
As for Islam, it's regressive, which can be fine. But it's core tenants encourages pedophilia, the stoning of rape victims, and kills apostates. All while legally makinging non-believers into third class citizens, or straight up declares a religious mission to genocide a race of people.
@Ultimatum, ok, dug through some stuff with your source found some stuff on top of it.
I disagree on two key aspects, the word arsenokoitai which has very little definition and ed oxford himself.
In the attached document to your source oxford went over the life of David(a guy from 1950~) he found a discrepancy in one version a bible was written. The version was making a shorthand, using the word homosexuality instead of a broader set of wording.
The fun of it, after he talked with the group, they changed it for better accuracy in the next version.
Yet, in the review oxford makes a set of declarations to accuse the US to blatantly coerce Germany to put homosexuality in there bible.
It was purely agitating, trying to read through it all so quickly. I distrust ed oxford, specifically because h
@Ultimatum, have links or pictures of the Polish and Norwegian translations he was using. Or links to any secondary or tertiary source that provided the translations. Everything came from his friends. Worst kind of source possible.
(Also, I squashed that stuff together because I wanted to make sure you didn't think that was the main argument. Just an explanation. If you'd like I can reprint them.)
@That one lurker, There’s a difference between “woke” people and actual activists.
But I never thought I’d see the day where conservatives were pro Taliban.
@That one lurker, dude, let me make this perfectly clear if this is what you think Islam is then you have never done a single bit of research on the topic outside hearsay and gossip.
Islam and its laws allow for Muslims and non-muslims alike to live in equality under the banner of God and we never force people to do anything and if you see any sauces that say otherwise then those people are not true muslims.
@TheBigQ, are we talking about the Quran or the Hadith. Because some sects of Muslims do not recognize the Hadith as a form of teaching. That's where you have the Prophet Muhammad commanding all Muslims to kill all Jews.
Where the Quran only talks about subjugation. Where the non-believers don't get recognized under Sharia. They're not even considered a person under Sharia.
If this isn't what true Muslims believe, then how did they get this idea from the 1400 years of Islamic teaching. Where they have an entire second book that's their prophets journal.
So, how is the Taliban, Quran and the Hadith not good representation for Islam?
@MrTuxPenguin, sure, I'd say not all activists are wokests, but all wokest are activists.
Conservatives from what I've seen are not pro Taliban. Conservatives are furious at blatantly being proven right, and hopeful that this will show moderates just how objectively evil the dem party is being right now.
@That one lurker, quran and habits are the go to for all aspects of Islam if someone follows anything else than they are not Muslims no matter how much they say they are.
The teachings of Islam are basically divided into 2 different aspects. Quran which is the word of God and Sunnah (hadith) which is the story of our prophet Muhammed, we call him a living quran because he is the example we should follow when we live our day to day lives which is why the Sunnah on him is basically stalker level biography so that we can know all aspects of his life and apply it to ours because he is the perfect example
And the idea that non-muslims are somehow lesser than Muslims is false we are all equal under god but I understand where your coming from because the quran does come down on non-believers in the quran alot but we have to understand that those are the ones already destined to go to hellfire so they have already failed the test and therefore are lesser than us who are still taking it.
@TheBigQ, please re-read your third statement.
Now if you may, re-read it with one thing in mind. If Allah only forgives those that become Muslim, then any non-muslim is going to hellfire. As you suggest preordained. Any that convert to being Muslim is obviously not going to hellfire. Meaning they're equal to Muslims.
So, all non-muslims are lesser to Muslims. Because they're going to hell. If the non-muslim was equal to Muslims, they'd just become Muslims.
With that in mind, what is Sharia, and how do their courts treat non-muslims?
@That one lurker, Sharia is just Islamic law plain and simple law applied in accordance to quran and the sunnah.
And non-muslim are allowed to live in Islamic countries with laws that allow them to follow their religion, drink, and eat pork.
But their is a very important thing that you have mistaken about Islamic countries. The whole point of going to war is the convert as many people to Islam as possible and so the laws are there to favour this change from non-muslims to Muslims. Just like the Christian did when they fought to take back the holy lands to you think they would have spared the people who refused to be Christian?
@TheBigQ, I'm glad you're writing so plainly. It is hard to get people to be so honest yet not apologetic, it is these kinds of answers that reminds me what the Quran described as the three kinds of Holy Wars. By coin, by war, and by the word. To some one that doesn't understand it, reading your statements right now may consider them to be a denial or a refutation of my words. But you're far to clever, since you know I say the truth you weave language to make sure you honour the doctrinal teachings of your book.
To that I applaud.
To keep to mine, I must be honest, even if you're not a Christian. Which makes it hard to admit that Christians should have held Constantinople instead of fighting in the hotter climates. To say it as well, if Christians had the choice, the holy wars would not have happened. Since it was the invation of Islam to Christian lands that caused the need for retaliation.
@That one lurker, There really is no getting through to you is there. Well can’t say I didn’t try.
@MrTuxPenguin, this isn't trying. You've tryed other times, but you always misrepresent my side and what I say.
As I said, this is two rats fighting. My only problem with them is they both want to kill Americans, destroy America, and Institute a totalitarian dogmatic belief.
So, all I need, is confirmation that the wokest have the best interest of this country.
That they wouldn't sell us out to communists, and that they're able to admit when they're wrong.
Because this current Administration is not saying anything of the sort but are in fact doubling down.
So how can I be assured that they're capable of
1. Seeing and empathizing with reality.
2. Having humility in the face of contradictory evidence to their narrative.
3. Being able to drop out dated perceptions of the world that have been proven time and time again to have the sole purpose of mass genocide of a undesirable group of people.
@That one lurker, You just called the Dems “objectively evil”.
You want tell me some things good the Dems have done? Just ever?
@MrTuxPenguin, so saying the party is evil means I'm calling the people that support the party evil?
Please read it again.
I rewrote it five times trying to get the point across.
Democrats don't pay attention to politics, so the party just uses them as vote silos.
Because the party wants to win by any means necessary.
Cause, that's how they make bank.
A person could call the voters evil, but unless proven otherwise, I'd say they're just ignorant of politics.
@That one lurker, I’ll ask again. Is there anything the Dems have done that was good?
@MrTuxPenguin, I'm not a big government man. Many Dem policies are based around exspaning the power of the federal government and diminishing the power of the states.
So I may be getting this wrong, it was either Kennedy or Roosevelt who made the interstates roads. Great for economic advancement made travel easy.
I've been racking my mind about it for good bit. The main problem I have with remembering their policies, I don't know about most of their pre Civil War achievements. But even so, I have can have a hard time with any of them, Republican or Democrat. I have more problems with dems since they want a bigger goverment.
@That one lurker, The Dems don’t want bigger government. They want government to do their job.
You got this notion that Dems=bad. You’ve gotta let go of that.
@MrTuxPenguin, why? Rep=bad to. The big difference between the two is the Dems super delegates program, so the party can choose who their presidential candidate is going to be. That's how they screwed Bernie Sanders over. Reps at least don't got that. F@cking Trump got in, no one in the Rep party wanted him but enough Rep constituents wanted him. So, he was put in, against the will of the party. Dems on the other hand, plan who the candidate will be.
So if anything that's a specific example.
Rep is less bad then Dem
I just wish the system had more serious options.
@That one lurker, And that’s why we need to elect people who will change things. Not conserve things.
@MrTuxPenguin, and I'd argue we're in the position that we're in because of laxidasical changes. With no introspective veiw on what the nation needs or wants. If we're to change things, change them back to how they were. One of a few problems I had with the 10s~70s was three fold the lack of civil rights for minority groups, the gain of power of the federal government through governmental programs, and the way we teach kids.
If we could go to an earlier subset of laws, while giving civil rights to minorities, increasing the threshold of Education, but lowering the reach of government.
I think I'd be fine.