Censorship by Big tech attacked Parler.com

[Smoke]

The laws that made it legal were passed in the 70s weren't they? I don't think the constitution ever intended to make porn a right. It's a blight on any society and should be illegal. I believe in any media platform banning anyone who tries to post it.
My point is censorship is appropriate for a moral society.

Good luck getting politicians who more than likely watch it themselves along with having countless mistresses in real life to actually ban porn.

Freedom means allowing people to do (or watch in this case) things we might not necessarily agree with or like, provided it doesn't take away from our own (or anyone elses) individual liberty. I'm against drinking alcohol, but I'm for people having the right to get drunk in their own home every day if that's what they wish to do. As long as no one forces me to drink alcohol, they are free to drink all they want even if I wish they didn't. That's the beauty and curse of free-will/liberty.

 

[CS1]

Good luck getting politicians who more than likely watch it themselves along with having countless mistresses in real life to actually ban porn.

Freedom means allowing people to do (or watch in this case) things we might not necessarily agree with or like, provided it doesn't take away from our own (or anyone elses) individual liberty. I'm against drinking alcohol, but I'm for people having the right to get drunk in their own home every day if that's what they wish to do. As long as no one forces me to drink alcohol, they are free to drink all they want even if I wish they didn't. That's the beauty and curse of free-will/liberty.

I will say this there is a Haman Moment coming for the Democrats.

The calling for the 25th Amendment will be used. it will be used before 2022, by VP Kamala Harris supported by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It will not be used to remove President Trump, it will be used to remove Joe Biden.

 

[Smoke]

I will say this there is a Haman Moment coming for the Democrats.

The calling for the 25th Amendment will be used. it will be used before 2022, by VP Kamala Harris supported by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It will not be used to remove President Trump, it will be used to remove Joe Biden.

I can see this too. I think that's what Trump warned when he said "Be careful what you wish for." As much as I don't like Biden, I can't help but feel bad for him.

 

[Lisamn]

I can see this too. I think that's what Trump warned when he said "Be careful what you wish for." As much as I don't like Biden, I can't help but feel bad for him.

I have a hard time feeling sorry for creepy Joe.

 

[CS1]

I can see this too. I think that's what Trump warned when he said "Be careful what you wish for." As much as I don't like Biden, I can't help but feel bad for him.

He is going to reap what he sowed, he is a pon used by the devil and those in the democratic party. The sad thing is the end of both parties are over DNC is done the GOP is done, the Supreme Court is done. And 2021 is going to be far more challenging and guess what on the table for us all?

The collapse of our economy. The Democrats won't fix it and the GOP will not win another POTUS without God and they are wimps and cowards. 2021 will be growing pains and birth pains as we have never seen. Until the church is made ready.

Jesus said " when I come will I find faith on the earth? " He shall see and so will we.

 

[calibob]

Good luck getting politicians who more than likely watch it themselves along with having countless mistresses in real life to actually ban porn.

Freedom means allowing people to do (or watch in this case) things we might not necessarily agree with or like, provided it doesn't take away from our own (or anyone elses) individual liberty. I'm against drinking alcohol, but I'm for people having the right to get drunk in their own home every day if that's what they wish to do. As long as no one forces me to drink alcohol, they are free to drink all they want even if I wish they didn't. That's the beauty and curse of free-will/liberty.

I strongly disagree because such extremes in freedom would be anarchy. As with most things how far is to far. Do we not have the privilege to choose whats reasonably acceptable? My daughter was glad to move from Las Vegas so she wouldn't have to some day explain, to her daughters, why there are posters of girls bent over in G-strings mounted on the backs of taxis. Freedom isn't free. Ask any Veteran!

 

[Lisamn]

I strongly disagree because such extremes in freedom would be anarchy. As with most things how far is to far. Do we not have the privilege to choose whats reasonably acceptable? My daughter was glad to move from Las Vegas so she wouldn't have to some day explain, to her daughters, why there are posters of girls bent over in G-strings mounted on the backs of taxis. Freedom isn't free. Ask any Veteran!

Isn’t that what laws are for...to hold back lawlessness?

Romans‬ ‭13:1, 3‬ ‭
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same.​

‭‭

 

[calibob]

Y

Isn’t that what laws are for...to hold back lawlessness?

Romans‬ ‭13:1, 3‬ ‭
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same.​

‭‭

Yes but freedom taken to extremes would be lawlessness. San Francisco before California became US territory was the capitol city of California's Barbary Coast. No laws or nations. Tortuga, and New Orleans they were the pirates cities of refuge. Human trafficking, Open brothels, public drunkenness', endless gambling, rapes and murders. De-regulation taken to extremes'.

 

[Lisamn]

Y

Yes but freedom taken to extremes would be lawlessness. San Francisco before California became US territory was the capitol city of California's Barbary Coast. No laws or nations. Tortuga, and New Orleans they were the pirates cities of refuge. Human trafficking, Open brothels, public drunkenness', endless gambling, rapes and murders. De-regulation taken to extremes'.

I agree...my argument was we need laws to go with free will.

 

[Smoke]

I strongly disagree because such extremes in freedom would be anarchy. As with most things how far is to far. Do we not have the privilege to choose whats reasonably acceptable? My daughter was glad to move from Las Vegas so she wouldn't have to some day explain, to her daughters, why there are posters of girls bent over in G-strings mounted on the backs of taxis. Freedom isn't free. Ask any Veteran!

Everything can be considered a slippery slope though. Everything can be subjective. At the end of the day, my belief is that as long as it doesn't effect my individual liberty or take away from anyone elses individual liberty, we should allow for it.

I would assume you have a moral objection to girls in g-strings mounted on the back of taxis (I doo too actually). You and I are Christian brothers, so it's "unreasonable" for that to take place from our point-of-view. Nevertheless, to other Americans, especially non-Christian men, it's perfectly reasonable and benign to have a woman in a g-string on the back of a taxi. We do try to legislate that fine line, but often times we take away from people's individual liberty when we do because others have a moral objection.

Lots of people have a supposed "moral objection" to Christianity/Jesus Christ. I would hate for legislation to pass laws where it would be illegal to wear a cross or hang a picture of our Savior Jesus Christ on the wall because it's offensive to some people. Obviously it's reasonable to us, we are Christian after all, but the country is comprised of a multitude of diverse people.

 

[Lisamn]

I would hate for legislation to pass laws where it would be illegal to wear a cross or hang a picture of our Savior Jesus Christ on the wall because it's offensive to some people.

Wearing a cross doesn’t make you a believer does it? You can still believe can’t you? We don’t know what Jesus looks like..so how can we hang a picture of him on the wall?

 

[Smoke]

Here's a perfect example:

I refuse to call transgender people the wrong pronoun because I think pretending they are something they are not does more harm than good. Nevertheless, the left feels this is not only unreasonable, but it's offensive and considers it "hate speech". I don't think science is "hateful" at all, nor do I hold contempt for anyone suffering from a mental disorder (part of why I feel bad for Biden). I believe I read that Canada now considers it hate speech to call a transgendered person a different pronoun than the one they identified as. This is utterly ridiculous. I must now ignore science and my personal beliefs so that someone else feels better about pretending to be a sex/gender that they are not if I were to live in Canada. I am not violating anyone's liberty by calling the transgender person the pronoun they really are, however, I could make a case my liberty is violated by my speech being denied with such a law being passed here in the US.

To one group of people it's unreasonable for me to call someone a pronoun that correspond to their sex from birth, to another group of people it's unreasonable to be forced to call someone a pronoun they aren't by law. It's all subjective. We need to not legislate these personal objections that do not effect anyone's liberty to avoid favoritism and to be consistent with our ideology of freedom/liberty.

 

[Smoke]

Wearing a cross doesn’t make you a believer does it? You can still believe can’t you? We don’t know what Jesus looks like..so how can we hang a picture of him on the wall?

Unless I'm not understanding your point, in which case I apologize, I don't think you understand the point I'm making. It has nothing to do with whether or not a person is really a Christian if they wear a cross of Jesus... It has nothing to do with knowing what Jesus really looks like...

My point is that there are people in this diverse country who find them offensive. In fact, I know some Christians who find the cross of Jesus offensive because the cross is/was a torture device. So if we arbitrarily legislate what is and isn't reasonable/acceptable, it's completely possible to see our right to wear a cross or hang a picture of Jesus on the wall taken away.

My niece loves to draw. She drew a picture of me... I won't tell her this, but it looks absolutely nothing like me... but she's only 5 for goodness sakes lol... I still framed the picture and it sits on my living room table. Whether the picture looks like me, or a picture looks like Jesus is of no relevance.

 

[Lisamn]

Here's a perfect example:

I refuse to call transgender people the wrong pronoun because I think pretending they are something they are not does more harm than good. Nevertheless, the left feels this is not only unreasonable, but it's offensive and considers it "hate speech". I don't think science is "hateful" at all, nor do I hold contempt for anyone suffering from a mental disorder (part of why I feel bad for Biden). I believe I read that Canada now considers it hate speech to call a transgendered person a different pronoun than the one they identified as. This is utterly ridiculous. I must now ignore science and my personal beliefs so that someone else feels better about pretending to be a sex/gender that they are not if I were to live in Canada. I am not violating anyone's liberty by calling the transgender person the pronoun they really are, however, I could make a case my liberty is violated by my speech being denied with such a law being passed here in the US.

To one group of people it's unreasonable for me to call someone a pronoun that correspond to their sex from birth, to another group of people it's unreasonable to be forced to call someone a pronoun they aren't by law. It's all subjective. We need to not legislate these personal objections that do not effect anyone's liberty to avoid favoritism and to be consistent with our ideology of freedom/liberty.

I just think that people in their bid to rebel against God’s good..they can’t just do it alone. Their consciences testify to them that what they are doing is wrong..so they think by getting everyone to agree with them..then they will be able to live a life free from the condemnation of the law...that doesn’t work like that. doesn’t Which is why they hate God...they can’t get around His moral law.

 

[Lisamn]

Unless I'm not understanding your point, in which case I apologize, I don't think you understand the point I'm making. It has nothing to do with whether or not a person is really a Christian if they wear a cross of Jesus... It has nothing to do with knowing what Jesus really looks like...

My point is that there are people in this diverse country who find them offensive. In fact, I know some Christians who find the cross of Jesus offensive because the cross is/was a torture device. So if we arbitrarily decide what is and isn't reasonable/acceptable, it's completely possible to see our right to wear a cross or hang a picture of Jesus on the wall taken away.

My niece loves to draw. She drew a picture of me... I won't tell her this, but it looks absolutely nothing like me... but she's only 5 for goodness sakes lol... I still framed the picture and it sits on my living room table. Whether the picture looks like me, or a picture looks like Jesus is of no relevance.

I understood what you meant...my point was that you don’t need those things to be a Christian...so if they take those things away..no big deal. That doesn’t stop the Christian from believing or praying does it? That’s my point.

 

[Smoke]

I understood what you meant...my point was that you don’t need those things to be a Christian...so if they take those things away..no big deal. That doesn’t stop the Christian from believing or praying does it? That’s my point.

Oh, I get your point now. However, it's a huge deal to me and ought to be a huge deal to Christians and non-Christians. If politicians can legislate and take individual liberty away like that, then we really dishonor those who served and/or died to defend liberty in this country.

The fact I can still be a Christian doesn't make it okay that they take away people's liberty to wear a cross of Jesus. Not knowing what Jesus really looks like doesn't make it okay for them to make it illegal to hang a picture of Jesus either. Even if I was an atheist, I would like to think I would be in 100% support with Christians having the right to wear a cross/hang a picture of Jesus because of my view of individual liberty.

 

[Lisamn]

Oh, I get your point now. However, it's a huge deal to me and ought to be a huge deal to Christians and non-Christians. If politicians can legislate and take individual liberty away like that, then we really dishonor those who served and/or died to defend liberty in this country.

The fact I can still be a Christian doesn't make it okay that they take away people's liberty to wear a cross of Jesus. Not

You are talking two different things here. Being
a Christian and having rights in America. Those two aren’t mutually exclusive.

They may be able to take away your right to wear a cross...but it doesn’t matter if you are a Christian.

Not knowing what Jesus really looks like doesn't make it okay for them to make it illegal to hang a picture of Jesus either.

I’m sorry...this makes absolutely no sense.

Even if I was an atheist, I would like to think I would be in 100% in support with Christians having the right to wear a cross/hang a picture of Jesus because of my view of individual liberty.

This is hypothetical isn’t it? You don’t really know what you‘d think as an atheist.

 

[Smoke]

Y

Yes but freedom taken to extremes would be lawlessness. San Francisco before California became US territory was the capitol city of California's Barbary Coast. No laws or nations. Tortuga, and New Orleans they were the pirates cities of refuge. Human trafficking, Open brothels, public drunkenness', endless gambling, rapes and murders. De-regulation taken to extremes'.

Why do you think my definition of liberty is the equivalent of no laws? Liberty provided it doesn't take away from anyone elses individual liberty would mean there would be numerous laws. Anarchy is quite the opposite in that they don't have laws, meaing, you're free to take away from someone's individual liberty because there is no authority to stop you from doing so.

We shouldn't conflate "liberty provided it doesn't take away from anyone's personal liberty" with "anarchy". Not even close to being the same thing.

 

[Smoke]

You are talking two different things here. Being
a Christian and having rights in America. Those two aren’t mutually exclusive.

They may be able to take away your right to wear a cross...but it doesn’t matter if you are a Christian.

I’m sorry...this makes absolutely no sense.


This is hypothetical isn’t it? You don’t really know what you‘d think as an atheist.

My entire objection is to taking away my right to wear a cross. What you're saying is something a liberal would say if they outlawed all Christian churches... "It doesn't matter you can't go to church, you are still a Christian. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian." So I guess it's okay somehow... =/

I'm responding to you saying "We don’t know what Jesus looks like..so how can we hang a picture of him on the wall? " That doesn't make sense nor is it relevant to the fact that it shouldn't be a possibility to outlaw hanging a picture of Jesus just because some people find it offensive or unreasonable.

It's hypothetical yes, as I'm a Christian. I'm hypothesizing because of my belief in what liberty is. However, at one time I wasn't a Christian, and was an atheist. I still had the same idea of liberty. My being born again only confirms this idea of liberty.

 

[Lisamn]

My entire objection is to taking away my right to wear a cross. What you're saying is something a liberal would say if they outlawed all Christian churches... "It doesn't matter you can't go to church, you are still a Christian. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian." So I guess it's okay somehow... =/

I'm responding to you saying "We don’t know what Jesus looks like..so how can we hang a picture of him on the wall? " That doesn't make sense nor is it relevant to the fact that it shouldn't be a possibility to outlaw hanging a picture of Jesus just because some people find it offensive or unreasonable.

It's hypothetical yes, as I'm a Christian. I'm hypothesizing because of my belief in what liberty is. However, at one time I wasn't a Christian, and was an atheist. I still had the same idea of liberty. My being born again only confirms this idea of liberty.

Wearing a cross doesn’t make you a Christian though. Belief in Jesus Christ does...so it really doesn’t matter if they take away you ‘right’ to wear a cross...that’s not wear your salvation comes from

We don’t know what Jesus looks like. So..there is no picture of Him to hang on a wall. What is most important is that you are saved and have the Holy Spirit in your heart.

Romans‬ ‭5:5‬ ‭
and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.​

‭‭
So..you don’t really know what you’d think as an atheist. Atheists hate God..so do you really think you’d want one of His to have anything of God...if thats what you think makes someone a Christian? I highly doubt it.

You’re being born again shouldn’t inform your view on liberty should it? Being born again has everything to do with being reconciled to God not the world.