Whataboutery
No its not, I am pointing out that religion is allowed and I fail to see why Trump has been banned for causing this when religion does and says much much worse.
I have answered and not used diversion.
I think we need to count up the number of times Barry has used ‘echo chamber’ in this thread so far. Was google word of the day or something Barry? Please note, it does not take you appear more intelligent just because you use the same metaphor several times.
1 Like
HELP! being sucked into a Barry vortex of shite on another thread… difficult to get any traction on his slippery turds…
2 Likes
It’s a valid question and I guess the answer is that over thousands of years religions been core to humanity seeking to understand fundamental questions of our origin, the existence of souls and the afterlife.
Most religions have can underlying base of a moral code that is, at least in theory, fundamentally good. God-figures are normally seen as protectors, worthy of worship for the overarching good that they provide. They are all-giving, forgiving, comforters. Trump is none of those.
But they are also the catalyst for religious fervour and the biggest cause of wars: I don’t dispute that. If we’re trying to equate following Trump with a religion I’d suggest that gods aren’t only out for themselves, Trump isn’t a benign source of goodness and goodwill to all men. Maybe the whole of religion is a lie, but I’d say it’s an innocent lie, not one perpetrated for personal gain.
Sorry, I’ve wandered off a bit there, but your point got me thinking. And if you’re wondering, I’m an atheist.
Discuss.
Didn’t Trump assume power only because of religion so therefore evangelical Christianity should be the first faith to be banned from twitter?
Fine by me but good luck with that.
No, it’s because he’s been here before, exposing the US government lies to the public about the Vietnam war. I would imagine he has all sorts of contacts within government and the military. Whether i agree or disagree with him is irrelevant.
He might still be there physically, but he won’t have a voice.
7 Likes
Most religious content is harmless. If it ventures into the hate area then that is the point where it needs to be silenced. Religion is a point of view. You don’t believe that people should be banned from expressing their views so why ban religious posts?
Because it spreads hate and fundamentalism is on the rise, after all, warts and all religion isn’t a pick and mix of what you like and what you don’t, its black and white on observance.
Answer the question Baz.
You want to ban quotes from the Bible?
No, I’d like a disclaimer that the blble, koran and the torah aren’t verifiable sources so aren’t proven as fact.
Religion is an experience, a deeply personal one but its just that, personal.
This is what Baz is fighting for.
This is what he demands be allowed to be promoted as free speech - INCITEMENT
(Baz incitement to commit murder that results in murder is NOT Free Speech.
End.
Of.
Debate
For everyone else - this should scare the shit out of us all.
1 Like
For @BTripz
The video was posted there before the site was de-platformed earlier this week, but not before one hacker managed to legally download 99.9% of the site’s entire contents by exploiting a weakness in the site’s coding to index and download all public posts.
That should be banned, why would I disagree? Trump wasn’t there though, how can it be proven he did that? Those are two of my points, how will Trump be charged and how will it be proved?
Actual harm is totally and utterly different to subtle words and divisive words, sure they can lead to this but does mean we ban everything that could possibly lead to this?
No protests ever again then, it’ll shit down debate.
No overturn in Poland at their womens reproductive laws etc etc.
And I refute that totally, you’ve misrepresented me on that.
Subtle is a word you can never apply to Trump. This was more than encouraging a protest. Both Trump and the earlier speakers were clearly whipping the mob up to "fight’ and stop a legislative process. Trump wasn’t physically with them but his words emphasised that his was with them in spirit and supporting them.
There’s loads of other evidence. The way he was watching on TV and ignoring pleas for him to put out a statement and call in the National Guard, for a start.
And his rhetoric and lies since the election have all been building up to this. From reports, he’s still seething that it didn’t ultimately work.
2 Likes
Instigating doesn’t abdicate responsibility for his involvement but as I have always said, what is he charged with and can those charges be proved?
Where do you draw the line with this?
And does this lead us into a tit for tat indignation war of being offended that get us further from where we are now.