Gr666mer Updates

[Ingomike]

Did you not post all men are sinners?
Hypocrite fits well.

Everyone has standards, and they differ across the board.

As long as ones standards are lawful, no one should care.

@#$& @#$, #$ &@ $#@&…

We know what your standards are…

 

[Cameramonkey]

@#$& @#$, #$ &@ $#@&…

We know what your standards are…

 

[BugI02]

Funny how some seem to believe what ones personal thoughts and believes are here, without posting them.
Freedom is Uncomfortable.

The People vers Larry Flint.

Being gut-shot with a .44 mag is uncomfortable

 

[BugI02]

Did you not post all men are sinners?
Hypocrite fits well.

Everyone has standards, and they differ across the board.

As long as ones standards are lawful, no one should care.

Depends on whether you are talking about the law or The Law

 

[Creedmoor]

You going to keep trolling me?

 

[Creedmoor]

@#$& @#$, #$ &@ $#@&…

We know what your standards are…

How about you post "My Standards"

 

[Ingomike]

How about you post "My Standards"

No need to be redundant, you have prolifically posted them for all to see.,,

 

[jamil]

What porn is being distributed to underage children?

Have you been hiding under a rock?

Many public school officials have been fired for doing this. An the thing is, they’re not denying it. They’re justifying it.

 

[jamil]

Cool story bro, Kut was a racist.

I mean. You’re not wrong.

 

[jamil]

Did you miss where it veered into all porn? Go back and review the previous page.

Yeah, I know. But I was referring to AM’s post where he specifically said distributing porn to children.

 

[DadSmith]

You act like Christians dont have abortions, get drunk, watch porn, go to adult stores, curse, steal, lie, kill, and by and large are huge hypocrites and so on.

If a person is doing that they are not following Christ's teachings nor are they following God's word. Christian means you are a follower of Christ not just in word but in deed.

Account Suspended

This is what the Methodist church is supposed to follow. Only a few churches still do.

 

[DadSmith]

A hypocrite as you call them are far better that those without standards. It is not even accurate to use the word hypocrite. All men are sinners. The fact that a Christian sins or fails is not a negative on Christ, it is the mortal failings of man. The act of having standards and failing is far better than not having standards at all, though that is not the narrative the left promotes…

I don't believe in that doctrine of sinning word thought and deed. If Christ is whom you follow you well not sin daily or even weekly. If a Christian sins it should be rare and if he/she does they have and advocate in Christ.
If a Christian commits sin and doesn't repent they are called backsliders.

 

[Ingomike]

I don't believe in that doctrine of sinning word thought and deed. If Christ is whom you follow you well not sin daily or even weekly. If a Christian sins it should be rare and if he/she does they have and advocate in Christ.
If a Christian commits sin and doesn't repeat they are called backsliders.

Good for you. To each their own…

 

[DadSmith]

Good for you. To each their own…

It isn't my intention to come off sounding holier-than-thou.
I'm just relating what I've found in the Bible the last year or so.
I'm trying to live a better life, and be a better person than I was 14 months ago. My life has changed for the better, and I can't figure out why I denied Christ and his teachings for the majority of my life.
I believed in Christ, but I wasn't a follower. I've changed that over the last 14 months.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

What porn is being distributed to minors?

I just answered this in my last post.

And to add to what is distributed to minors in schools is the issue of what is publicly available online with no meaningful safeguards against children viewing it. Given the ubiquity of internet-connected devices these days, I don't see how posting porn online is, in effect, far different from public indecency/nudity, and if we have laws against the latter, I don't understand why it would be unconstitutional to have laws against the former. Free speech, like all other rights, has its limits, and if your neighbor set up a giant screen TV in their front yard showing porn 24/7 I would hope you would agree with me that you and your neighbors would have cause for complaint under the law, and I don't think it would be an acceptable answer to just tell someone "well, don't let your kids look at it if you don't like it." When indecent material is set up such that it is easily viewable by the public, including children, that's not a question of Free speech anymore, no more than someone sitting in their front yard pointing guns at everyone passing by on the street would be protected by the right to keep and bear arms.

AndreusMaximus said:
Back then it wasn't glorified by mainstream culture, nor pushed for children, and I don't believe for a moment that the founding fathers planned on the First Amendment being used as a justification for changing either of those things.

Yes, I am aware that there are people who disagree with me. I've found that those are generally the same people who are fine with children being dismembered alive and their body parts harvested for scientific experiments. This isn't about me being "uncomfortable" with those people, it's about me recognizing that what these people push is evil, and has no place in decent, civilized society.

The highlighted orange is a huge generalization.

You act like Christians dont have abortions, get drunk, watch porn, go to adult stores, curse, steal, lie, kill, and by and large are huge hypocrites and so on.

You keep trying to make this about Christian vs non-Christian when I never once brought religion into the conversation.

I'm talking about people who push for (or defend) sexually explicit/pornographic material being used in schools and being publicly available online for anyone of any age to see because of "Free Speech". I've found that those people, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof, are also typically the ones who argue in favor of dismembering babies because "Right to Privacy". I don't know why you seem so miffed about this given that you've come out pretty vocally in favor of that very thing in multiple other threads.

Yes, many people who label themselves "Christian" fall into this camp of evildoers (just look at our "Catholic" president, and the evils he promotes daily.) When did I act like this wasn't true?

 

[Creedmoor]

I just answered this in my last post.

And to add to what is distributed to minors in schools is the issue of what is publicly available online with no meaningful safeguards against children viewing it. Given the ubiquity of internet-connected devices these days, I don't see how posting porn online is, in effect, far different from public indecency/nudity, and if we have laws against the latter, I don't understand why it would be unconstitutional to have laws against the former. Free speech, like all other rights, has its limits, and if your neighbor set up a giant screen TV in their front yard showing porn 24/7 I would hope you would agree with me that you and your neighbors would have cause for complaint under the law, and I don't think it would be an acceptable answer to just tell someone "well, don't let your kids look at it if you don't like it." When indecent material is set up such that it is easily viewable by the public, including children, that's not a question of Free speech anymore, no more than someone sitting in their front yard pointing guns at everyone passing by on the street would be protected by the right to keep and bear arms.

You keep trying to make this about Christian vs non-Christian when I never once brought religion into the conversation.

I'm talking about people who push for (or defend) sexually explicit/pornographic material being used in schools and being publicly available online for anyone of any age to see because of "Free Speech". I've found that those people, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof, are also typically the ones who argue in favor of dismembering babies because "Right to Privacy". I don't know why you seem so miffed about this given that you've come out pretty vocally in favor of that very thing in multiple other threads.

Yes, many people who label themselves "Christian" fall into this camp of evildoers (just look at our "Catholic" president, and the evils he promotes daily.) When did I act like this wasn't true?

Our country had hundreds of porn showing drive-in theaters operating before the ease of renting adult VHS tapes became available. Then the internet mostly killed renting-buying CD's.
I believe El Paso still has two porn Drive-in's running.


Local laws/ordinances can curtail something's, and when that encroaches on The First Amendment, law suits like Flints need to happen.
Your believes dont trump others believes.

Heres a little article from one of many porn drive-in near where I grew up.

The Central Drive-In, named for its location on Central Avenue, opened in 1958. It could accomodate about 650 cars.

By 1970, the drive-in had turned to adult films, which caused many a fender-bender on Central Avenue, from which the pornographic films could be partially seen. By the time the theater closed in 1987, it had been showing mainstream films for a couple of years once again.

It was afterward demolished and a shopping center built on the site.

 

[Creedmoor]

No need to be redundant, you have prolifically posted them for all to see.,,

Since you know me so well, please be redundant.

 

[jamil]

Our country had hundreds of porn showing drive-in theaters operating before the ease of renting adult VHS tapes became available. Then the internet mostly killed renting-buying CD's.
I believe El Paso still has two porn Drive-in's running.


Local laws/ordinances can curtail something's, and when that encroaches on The First Amendment, law suits like Flints need to happen.
Your believes dont trump others believes.

Heres a little article from one of many porn drive-in near where I grew up.

The Central Drive-In, named for its location on Central Avenue, opened in 1958. It could accomodate about 650 cars.

By 1970, the drive-in had turned to adult films, which caused many a fender-bender on Central Avenue, from which the pornographic films could be partially seen. By the time the theater closed in 1987, it had been showing mainstream films for a couple of years once again.

It was afterward demolished and a shopping center built on the site.

Were there a lot of children watching porn in drive through theaters?

 

[JEBland]

Were there a lot of children watching porn in drive through theaters?

And were teachers taking children on field trips to those places without notifying parents?

 

[jamil]

What adults do in the privacy of their own homes is their own business. There’s a societal cost to allowing unchecked access of porn to children though. Can we all at least agree with that?

Yes, drive through adult theaters existed. Maybe a small segment of society’s children snuck in to see it. Hardly a society impacting problem. Cmpare that with any child with a phone having unchecked access to it.

This problem can be solved with technology. It doesn’t have to curb free speech. Larry Flynt never won the right to distribute Hustler to minors on demand. Now, anyone with a device and internet access has free access to porn. Society has a right and responsibility to stop that.