Right-Wing Discussion Thread

[The Grey Wolf]

You don't get to make that fucking call.

The Supreme Court does, and a constitutional convention does.

Are you the Supreme Court or a constitutional convention? No?

Then take your fascism elsewhere.

I'm not even fascist, take your socialist whining elsewhere and stop crying lol.

I noticed your sig. How the hell are you a "neo-reactionary traditionalist" while being a "Rothbardean capitalist;" or a European nationalist while a Celtic separatist?

[United Marxist Nations]

It isn't a made up word, it comes from the septuagent (i.e. the Greek translation of the OT)

"If a man lies with a man (arsenos koiten) as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13

Moreover, every single traditional Church (e.g. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Oriental Orthodox) all hold it to mean that all homosexuality is a sin. So, either 1) They are wrong, and the real meaning was magically lost for no reason, or 2) It refers to homosexuality.

If there really wasn't a word for homosexuals in Hellenistic Greek, Paul was a real high school writer if he didn't just say "a man who has sex with a man" or "a man who impregnates a man".

No, he went with "man-bed", which could also mean "man-bedder".

Is that a bed made out of a man? Or a man made out of beds? Or a man who makes the beds of other men?

The term is wholly unclear and unhelpful when analyzed by institutes who DON'T have a vested interest in making homosexuals look bad, as the source shows.

It could mean a multitude of things and imply many other things that the translation does not imply.

Also, yes, they could be super wrong... Because the term simply didn't exist at the time. Or maybe the translator was a clumsy clod. Or if it did, it just didn't occur to Paul to write it. Probably because Greek wasn't his first language.

Or maybe the Churches made a leap in logic, which is the bread and butter of faith, even though the term "arsenokoiten" doesn't appear anywhere else in the Greek translation of the OT. The terms are either "sodomites", which are not always homosexual, and "catamites".

Because, you know, all gays are effeminate.

For example, the modern Greek word for homosexual is totally different: omofylófilos.

Once again, God sucks at linguistics.

Again, ignoring the Septuagint. If you accept that Leviticus (arsenos koiten) refers to homosexual activity (and most rabbis agree that it does), then you would have to accept that arsenokoiten does as well. Paul wasn't actually from Judea, but Tarsus, and spoke Greek, so, presumably, he would have been familiar with the Septuagint. It means whatever it does in the Septuagint, which most rabbis (i.e. Hebrew speakers) would say refers to homosexual activity.

[Chinese Peoples]

Then let me introduce the largest terrorist organization in the world: the Waffen-SS. At over 1 million members, it dwarfs Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the Taliban, Hamas/Hizbollah, the Contras, and the Vatican (at least the active portions of them).

Free speech is not the freedom of abusive speech.

Yes, freedom of speech is to guarantee the right of all speech. One does not need an amendment to protect sycophantic dialogue or non-offensive speech. Yes one can criminally misuse freedom of speech in an abusive way but that is assault, slander, breach of peace, public endangerment, et al (laws already on the books against such and crimes in their own right). To misconstrue offensive speech with abusive speech is scurrilous to say the least, and those who do so have already impeached themselves in the public debate. Take note of them for they are dangers to liberty, security, and sanity.

There is no such thing as the "right" to all speech. Society will be at risk should there ever be such a right, or any similar right. When something can be curtailed, it must be enforced by the government; of this nature, we have rights like the right to trial by jury. We have right to land. All these rights are enforceable in a court of law. Freedom of speech (see freedom is indivisible) is not protected at the same level as an actual right, because there is nothing to enforce behind it. There is no legal interest to be controverted. In addition, I never proposed that the freedom be limited; you can say all kinds of things you like to say, just that when it contravenes another person's interests or rights, you're responsible for your speech.

[Chinese Peoples]

Again, ignoring the Septuagint. If you accept that Leviticus (arsenos koiten) refers to homosexual activity (and most rabbis agree that it does), then you would have to accept that arsenokoiten does as well. Paul wasn't actually from Judea, but Tarsus, and spoke Greek, so, presumably, he would have been familiar with the Septuagint. It means whatever it does in the Septuagint, which most rabbis (i.e. Hebrew speakers) would say refers to homosexual activity.

Then don't accept Leviticus.

Leviticus reads that "if a man sleeps with a man as with a woman"; if this means inserting a penis into vagina, then I contend that it couldn't be done with a man, because (most) men don't have vaginas. If at that time they had double beds, then men are not allowed to be on the same bed with each other.

[United Marxist Nations]

Again, ignoring the Septuagint. If you accept that Leviticus (arsenos koiten) refers to homosexual activity (and most rabbis agree that it does), then you would have to accept that arsenokoiten does as well. Paul wasn't actually from Judea, but Tarsus, and spoke Greek, so, presumably, he would have been familiar with the Septuagint. It means whatever it does in the Septuagint, which most rabbis (i.e. Hebrew speakers) would say refers to homosexual activity.

Then don't accept Leviticus.

Leviticus reads that "if a man sleeps with a man as with a woman"; if this means inserting a penis into vagina, then I contend that it couldn't be done with a man, because (most) men don't have vaginas. If at that time they had double beds, then men are not allowed to be on the same bed with each other.

I'm going to go with the rabbinical interpretations, since, again, they are the ones who actually study this and have been for thousands of years.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Then don't accept Leviticus.

Leviticus reads that "if a man sleeps with a man as with a woman"; if this means inserting a penis into vagina, then I contend that it couldn't be done with a man, because (most) men don't have vaginas. If at that time they had double beds, then men are not allowed to be on the same bed with each other.

I'm going to go with the rabbinical interpretations, since, again, they are the ones who actually study this and have been for thousands of years.

Because any one individual has been doing anything for thousands of years.

[United Marxist Nations]

I'm going to go with the rabbinical interpretations, since, again, they are the ones who actually study this and have been for thousands of years.

Because any one individual has been doing anything for thousands of years.

>what is rabbinical study and tradition

[Germanic Templars]

Tradition is that balance you need so you can play a fiddle on the roof, да?

[Chinese Peoples]

I'm going to go with the rabbinical interpretations, since, again, they are the ones who actually study this and have been for thousands of years.

I have noticed something about your argument. You selectively note the views that agree with your own and call them tradition, and when scholars present different views through history, which may also receive widespread acclaim, you dismiss them as untraditional. Am I accurate in saying so?

[United Marxist Nations]

I'm going to go with the rabbinical interpretations, since, again, they are the ones who actually study this and have been for thousands of years.

I have noticed something about your argument. You selectively note the views that agree with your own and call them tradition, and when scholars present different views through history, which may also receive widespread acclaim, you dismiss them as untraditional. Am I accurate in saying so?

When has the view you are supporting been put forward in history prior to modern times?

[Germanic Templars]

I have noticed something about your argument. You selectively note the views that agree with your own and call them tradition, and when scholars present different views through history, which may also receive widespread acclaim, you dismiss them as untraditional. Am I accurate in saying so?

When has the view you are supporting been put forward in history prior to modern times?

You mean socialism?

I know one, we call this country Venezuela.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I'm not even fascist, take your socialist whining elsewhere and stop crying lol.

1. No. Your immaturely-ostentatious amalgam of nigh-nonexistent ultra-reactionary ideologies recognized as legitimate only in the smallest, darkest, and nastiest corners of the internet is nowhere near coherent or principled enough to be equated with Fascism.

2. What's this? An attempt to curtail free speech? How about you conform to your own fucking stereotypes, and perhaps reveal to the world some slight shred of consistency or reason you've kept hidden until now?

3. Literally all I've seen from you in this thread as of late is attempts at silencing posters you don't like, and incessant whining, crying, yelling, and bitching about some invisible wailing hordes of oppressive leftist censors.

You are the only one here that fits this description of the "other side" - outspoken and even obnoxious, possessing strong authoritarian views and showing sophomoric/inappropriately-emotional behavioral tendencies. A description you yourself repetitively developed.

[Farnhamia]

While it would be the whitest pairing in history. Newt got what Drumpf does not, and that is a seriously intellectual mind.

Even with all the junk he got in his past he is clever and easily the best debater in the entire field. Would at least be fun to have on-board.

Drumpf isn't white.

*** Warned for political nicknaming. ***

If you're using the browser plug-in that changes Trump to Drumpf, disable it before posting here.

[Chinese Peoples]

I have noticed something about your argument. You selectively note the views that agree with your own and call them tradition, and when scholars present different views through history, which may also receive widespread acclaim, you dismiss them as untraditional. Am I accurate in saying so?

When has the view you are supporting been put forward in history prior to modern times?

Just because they've been held continuously doesn't make them correct. The geocentric model, as entrenched in religion doctrine, as evidenced in so many manuscripts, is still my example.

[Liberaxia]

"Fuck the Constitution", says a guy complaining about unconstitutional behavior.

As long as it exists, parts of it should be. Some parts are too left-wing and promote cultural marxism.

I've forgotten just how incredibly petulant and bratty neo-reactionaries are.

[The Grey Wolf]

As long as it exists, parts of it should be. Some parts are too left-wing and promote cultural marxism.

I've forgotten just how incredibly petulant and bratty neo-reactionaries are.

They're a pretty incoherent lot.

[United Marxist Nations]

When has the view you are supporting been put forward in history prior to modern times?

Just because they've been held continuously doesn't make them correct. The geocentric model, as entrenched in religion doctrine, as evidenced in so many manuscripts, is still my example.

Again, please find any patristics that espouse the necessity of the geocentric model.

Also, scientific study is quite a bit different than linguistics, the latter being dependent upon social constructs (i.e. meaning that authority on the matter actually is important).

[Chinese Peoples]

Just because they've been held continuously doesn't make them correct. The geocentric model, as entrenched in religion doctrine, as evidenced in so many manuscripts, is still my example.

Again, please find any patristics that espouse the necessity of the geocentric model.

I won't submit to such a request. It's public knowledge that such a view was espoused by the entire church, which is why it is traditional.

Also, scientific study is quite a bit different than linguistics, the latter being dependent upon social constructs (i.e. meaning that authority on the matter actually is important).

Ah, since you mentioned science, do you think Genesis is a scientific account? I read a good book somewhere, stating, "The Bible was written by a number of people of different backgrounds with a prescientific worldview." How does that strike you?

[Liberaxia]

I've forgotten just how incredibly petulant and bratty neo-reactionaries are.

They're a pretty incoherent lot.

Supporting Trump and calling oneself a Rothbardian takes the cake. I've always regarded those Bircher-esque views as more of oddities than real political ideologies. Like the sovereign citizen movement. Or the idiotic theocrats who rant about the state while looking to implement their own.

[United Marxist Nations]

Again, please find any patristics that espouse the necessity of the geocentric model.

I won't submit to such a request. It's public knowledge that such a view was espoused by the entire church, which is why it is traditional.

Also, scientific study is quite a bit different than linguistics, the latter being dependent upon social constructs (i.e. meaning that authority on the matter actually is important).

Ah, since you mentioned science, do you think Genesis is a scientific account? I read a good book somewhere, stating, "The Bible was written by a number of people of different backgrounds with a prescientific worldview." How does that strike you?

Is that why there were theologians who were unsure as to Galileo's findings and there was little agreement as to whether it was heresy or not? In fact, I can't find any indication that it was a view held by the entire Church at all. It certainly was never declared by an Ecumenical Council.

The patristics themselves dispute a literal interpretation and offer a mostly spiritual metaphor, though some do maintain that some events did literally occur. There has never been an official consensus, as far as I am aware, on whether a literal interpretation is necessary.

Regardless, I don't see what this has to do with their authority to determine the meaning of words in a language that they spoke, used regularly in context, and never seemed to have any disagreement on what the words meant.

[Chinese Peoples]

Regardless, I don't see what this has to do with their authority to determine the meaning of words in a language that they spoke, used regularly in context, and never seemed to have any disagreement on what the words meant.

Because that's the deeper meaning of pederasty in those ages. It means (amongst others) that a married man is depriving his wife of the pleasures of his company, and a chance at free love, towards either sex, for the youngster, and I am sure that such an institution that grants sexual monopoly for the older man over the youngster will still not be acceptable today.

[Germanic Templars]

They're a pretty incoherent lot.

Supporting Trump and calling oneself a Rothbardian takes the cake. I've always regarded those Bircher-esque views as more of oddities than real political ideologies. Like the sovereign citizen movement. Or the idiotic theocrats who rant about the state while looking to implement their own.

Huh, low blowing someone based on their beliefs... That is pretty low, regardless of how dumb you think it is... But we all got to make ourselves feel better somehow, right?

[Great Kauthar]

They're a pretty incoherent lot.

Supporting Trump and calling oneself a Rothbardian takes the cake. I've always regarded those Bircher-esque views as more of oddities than real political ideologies. Like the sovereign citizen movement. Or the idiotic theocrats who rant about the state while looking to implement their own.

I'm a Hayekian Capitalist, and there is nothing wrong with Theocracy so quiet.

[United Marxist Nations]

Regardless, I don't see what this has to do with their authority to determine the meaning of words in a language that they spoke, used regularly in context, and never seemed to have any disagreement on what the words meant.

Because that's the deeper meaning of pederasty in those ages. It means (amongst others) that a married man is depriving his wife of the pleasures of his company, and a chance at free love, towards either sex, for the youngster, and I am sure that such an institution that grants sexual monopoly for the older man over the youngster will still not be acceptable today.

Then please say why they suddenly and randomly, without any internal dialogue or dispute, came to a new meaning without any clear evolution on it.

[Zoice]

Supporting Trump and calling oneself a Rothbardian takes the cake. I've always regarded those Bircher-esque views as more of oddities than real political ideologies. Like the sovereign citizen movement. Or the idiotic theocrats who rant about the state while looking to implement their own.

I'm a Hayekian Capitalist, and there is nothing wrong with Theocracy so quiet.

Theocracy is one of the worst systems, up there with rolling dice, and electing Trump.