Gr666mer Updates

[jamil]

Can you show me a single place where @Creedmoor explained his position in between all the snide comments about how we hate the First Amendment and what hypocrites Christians are? Even you are left only inferring and guessing at what his position actually is.

I'm not against someone having a different opinion; even one that I find morally abhorrent. Heck, some accounts on here that have gone on to be banned (I'm thinking of Epicenity as one example) at least in the threads that I interacted with them in, to be honest, seemed to have more interest in expounding a position and debating it on logical grounds. I didn't (and wouldn't) accuse them of trolling; at least they told you what they think, instead of just trying to goad you into thinking they are defending something, while always refusing to tell you whether they actually are or aren't.

But when someone keeps on posting vague attacks against anyone expressing a certain position, and then gets all up in arms when they assume that this means that he believes the opposite position, all while consistently refusing to expound his actual beliefs, or answer any questions about them; that, to me, is just trolling.

I agree that it's hard to get past snark to see the points. But they're there.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I agree that it's hard to get past snark to see the points. But they're there.

Well perhaps, if you are willing, you could act as an interpreter, then. I still have many unanswered questions that I can't seem to find the answer to no matter how many times I re-read his posts.

Could you ask Creedmoor for me if he is or is not okay with porn being shown in publicly visible places, and give me an interpretation of his response? Thanks!

 

[jamil]

So a pencil drawing of two people laying in a bed is porn? But a color picture of nude women and men in the jungle is not.

Do not both have redeming value to some?
Cannot both be used as porn with some?

A pencil drawing of two people laying in bed is not in itself porn. A pencil drawing of a naked person performing sexual acts on another naked person is porn. It could be a how-to book. Or you can argue that porn is art. But you can't argue that either way, it's not pornographic at least a little.

It's not the place of schools to teach kids about the details of sex. People figure that stuff out on their own. And they don't need a book in a school library for that. It's available on their phone.

My personal opinions of any of the Constitution and its Amendments are irrelevant. They hold no water to what is printed.
I run my household as I see fit, I raised my sons as I saw fit.
My neighbors run there homes as they see fit.

I understand the Freedom is and can be Uncomfortable, more so for some than others.

I'm having a hard time understanding the importance or what point you're trying to serve by how you run your household or how you raised your kids. It's these vague statements that make people's imaginations turn to their worldview for an explanation. And they will find the least charitable explanation because they disagree with you. At least give me some context so I can form a charitable interpretation. Surely you didn't have the TV set to the porn channel all day in your home. Uncharitable people might wonder though without better context.

 

[Creedmoor]

But they're there.

Yes they certainly are.

 

[jamil]

Well perhaps, if you are willing, you could act as an interpreter, then. I still have many unanswered questions that I can't seem to find the answer to no matter how many times I re-read his posts.

Could you ask Creedmoor for me if he is or is not okay with porn being shown in publicly visible places, and give me an interpretation of his response? Thanks!

Post a link and I'll see what I can do.

 

[DadSmith]

That's a tricky question. From a secular/evolution standpoint, morality has been primarily formed by religion until recently in human history. So I think the morals serve an evolutionary advantage. For example, in some religions you don't wipe your ass with your right hand. That's sacrilege. You eat with your right hand. Did that belief form because people who wipe their ass and then eat with the same hand got sick? And then that was interpreted as defying the gods' will? Seems likely.

Point is, morals that help societies thrive are the morals that last. We figured out that you can wipe with whatever hand you want. Just wash your hands afterwards and you won't get sick. That really wasn't a lasting moral. The question is, can humans override religion and derive morals from something else, and have those morals help societies thrive? That remains to be seen.

We don't need religion to have morals. We may not need religion to create lasting morals. Don't know yet. Maybe religion is what was needed before people could figure out what works without it. Or maybe we can't predict soon enough what bad might come of harmful moral standards. Like the moral standards of woke people. I don't think that a society based on that could last very long.

We are back to a persons worldview.
If you don't believe in the creator than you'll never see the worldview of those who do, and vise versa.
A religious worldview says that morality comes from God and was reinforced in the laws he gave the Israelites.
Atheist believe that we evolved from an ape and developed morality over time. If that was so why are we regressing and acting worse than wild animals nowadays. Civilization is getting worse not better. In evolution shouldn't things improve not regress morally?

 

[Creedmoor]

A pencil drawing of two people laying in bed is not in itself porn. A pencil drawing of a naked person performing sexual acts on another naked person is porn. It could be a how-to book. Or you can argue that porn is art. But you can't argue that either way, it's not pornographic at least a little.

It's not the place of schools to teach kids about the details of sex. People figure that stuff out on their own. And they don't need a book in a school library for that. It's available on their phone.


I'm having a hard time understanding the importance or what point you're trying to serve by how you run your household or how you raised your kids. It's these vague statements that make people's imaginations turn to their worldview for an explanation. And they will find the least charitable explanation because they disagree with you. At least give me some context so I can form a charitable interpretation. Surely you didn't have the TV set to the porn channel all day in your home. Uncharitable people might wonder though without better context.

I'll have to look at those pics later on the laptop, I didnt see any acts being portrayed in those drawings.



I was in elementary school in the 60's we were shown filmstrips of boys, girls, men and women. Shown 8mm fms and pamphlets. Was it good bad or indiererent? I dont know. We didnt learn much at home then or now in most homes.
Just look at the rate of std's and then the aids epidemic and whats still happening in the world of std's.

What about teen pregnancy for christs sake?

Parents by and large still arnt teaching there children to protect themselfs.
I believe if schools dont teach, for a huge portion of children its just not going to be taught.
Protection is easier to get not more than ever and folks keep passing the gifts that keep giving back and forth.

Porn is not the root of all thats evil in this world.

 

[Creedmoor]

We are back to a persons worldview.
If you don't believe in the creator than you'll never see the worldview of those who do, and vise versa.
A religious worldview says that morality comes from God and was reinforced in the laws he gave the Israelites.
Atheist believe that we evolved from an ape and developed morality over time. If that was so why are we regressing and acting worse than wild animals nowadays. Civilization is getting worse not better. In evolution shouldn't things improve not regress morally?

Why does one have to believe in the creator to understand ones worldview?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I'll have to look at those pics later on the laptop, I didnt see any acts being portrayed in those drawings.



I was in elementary school in the 60's we were shown filmstrips of boys, girls, men and women. Shown 8mm fms and pamphlets. Was it good bad or indiererent? I dont know. We didnt learn much at home then or now in most homes.
Just look at the rate of std's and then the aids epidemic and whats still happening in the world of std's.

What about teen pregnancy for christs sake?

Parents by and large still arnt teaching there children to protect themselfs.
I believe if schools dont teach, for a huge portion of children its just not going to be taught.
Protection is easier to get not more than ever and folks keep passing the gifts that keep giving back and forth.

Porn is not the root of all thats evil in this world.

It may shock you to know, but myself, my siblings, and all my friends managed to avoid contracting any STD's or getting pregnant as teens, all without needing graphic depictions of all the various ways you can have sex taught to us in school.

There's an incredibly simply trick to it, but if I told you what it was, you'd probably just ask me why I hate turtles in the Pacific Ocean, or something else unrelated...

 

[Creedmoor]

It may shock you to know, but myself, my siblings, and all my friends managed to avoid contracting any STD's or getting pregnant as teens, all without needing graphic depictions of all the various ways you can have sex taught to us in school.

There's an incredibly simply trick to it, but if I told you what it was, you'd probably just ask me why I hate turtles in the Pacific Ocean, or something else unrelated...

Enhance your day son.

How about you just stop engagement with your so called troll.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Enhance your day son.

How about you just stop engagement with your so called troll.

I'm still open to hearing about you actual position on these issues, if you ever deign to make it known.

 

[Creedmoor]

I'm still open to hearing about you actual position on these issues, if you ever deign to make it known.

Like ive posted, my personal positions dont matter whether I agree or not.

What matters is The 1st Amendment and what it says.
We here want no abridgment with our 2nd Amendment and what it says.

Freedom is Uncomfortable.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Like ive posted, my personal positions dont matter whether I agree or not.

What matters is The 1st Amendment and what it says.
We here want no abridgment with our 2nd Amendment and what it says.

Freedom is Uncomfortable.

Dude, the Constitution doesn't even have the word pornography in it. You keep referencing the Constitution and the First Amendment, so you must believe that it has some application to this debate, but if it's to be applied to this debate, then there is some interpretation required. But now you're just going to explicitly say that you don't intend on telling us what your position is regarding this interpretation, as apparently it "doesn't matter"?

So, if you're not here to argue in favor of any position, why are you still in this thread dishing out vague platitudes and snarky insults?

 

[Creedmoor]

Dude, the Constitution doesn't even have the word pornography in it. You keep referencing the Constitution and the First Amendment, so you must believe that it has some application to this debate, but if it's to be applied to this debate, then there is some interpretation required. But now you're just going to explicitly say that you don't intend on telling us what your position is regarding this interpretation, as apparently it "doesn't matter"?

So, if you're not here to argue in favor of any position, why are you still in this thread dishing out vague platitudes and snarky insults?

Do you understand our 2nd Amendment?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Do you understand our 2nd Amendment?

At it's basic level, yes. Do I consider myself the ultimate authority, or even extremely well educated on it? No.

What does that have to do with the question at hand?

 

[Creedmoor]

At it's basic level, yes. Do I consider myself the ultimate authority, or even extremely well educated on it? No.

What does that have to do with the question at hand?

They are all written so the common man can understand them.
Maybe time should be spent on learning to understand them.

We all have Rights, some we all like, and some we dont.
I cant help you understand them any better.
Hence my statement,
Freedom is Uncomfortable.

Im going to get a steak, later.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

They are all written so the common man can understand them.
Maybe time should be spent on learning to understand them.

We all have Rights, some we all like, and some we dont.
I cant help you understand them any better.
Hence my statement,
Freedom is Uncomfortable.

Im going to get a steak, later.

I have dedicated a great deal of time to learning about and understanding them. One of the main reasons I like to try to engage in conversations about them is to see new perspectives, and thus hopefully continue to learn more about them.

But you say you can't help me understand them any better? So now you've both said that you aren't willing to explain your own position (because it apparently doesn't matter), and that you can't help with understanding the Constitution better. Isn't that basically saying that you have nothing to add to the conversation? If that's the case, than for the last time, why did you jump into this conversation in the first place?

If you don't want to be called a troll, than please give me some, any, reason to believe that you aren't.

 

[Creedmoor]

I have dedicated a great deal of time to learning about and understanding them. One of the main reasons I like to try to engage in conversations about them is to see new perspectives, and thus hopefully continue to learn more about them.

But you say you can't help me understand them any better? So now you've both said that you aren't willing to explain your own position (because it apparently doesn't matter), and that you can't help with understanding the Constitution better. Isn't that basically saying that you have nothing to add to the conversation? If that's the case, than for the last time, why did you jump into this conversation in the first place?

If you don't want to be called a troll, than please give me some, any, reason to believe that you aren't.

Third time with that troll stupidness, we are done son.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Third time with that troll stupidness, we are done son.

I've given my reasons for what I've said. I've not seen you say anything to refute them, only, in fact, to reinforce them.

(P.S. Or perhaps what I should say is: "Feel free to put me on ignore son.")

 

[DadSmith]

I didn't ask for something exhaustive. I think the claim, or at least the motivation behind the claim, has more to do with justifying a more prominent role of Christianity than there was. Citing scriptural references doesn't really established that. It seemed more like that before, in service of the point about porn, you were saying the nation was founded on biblical principles. And now, it seems like you're saying that biblical principles were merely used. I disagree with the former, but the latter I think is true. The influences of Christianity on the forming of our government are obvious. But anyway, if you always meant the latter, how does that serve the point you were making about porn and what you think government should do about it?

I think I must have not brought out what I was thinking very well.
I believe the government type was taken from several forms of good government from history and our founders made those even better.
Our laws and Morality were definitely biblical principles at least at the beginning of our country.