Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:Quote:
They are the overwhelming financiers of vices including America's slave industry.
No, Jews are not. Not even ****ing close. You're just spewing antisemitic conspiracy theories now.
How about the pornography industry?
Sapper Redux said:Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:Quote:
They are the overwhelming financiers of vices including America's slave industry.
No, Jews are not. Not even ****ing close. You're just spewing antisemitic conspiracy theories now.
How about the pornography industry?
Like any industry, there are Jews involved. But of course you assume it must be a Jewish plot, right GNLS1488?
Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:Quote:
They are the overwhelming financiers of vices including America's slave industry.
No, Jews are not. Not even ****ing close. You're just spewing antisemitic conspiracy theories now.
How about the pornography industry?
Like any industry, there are Jews involved. But of course you assume it must be a Jewish plot, right GNLS1488?
Jewish involvement wouldn't be a big issue, just if there's a massive over-representation. Or if one of the pioneers of porn says that Jews do porn because they hate Christ and Catholics.
Sapper Redux said:Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:Quote:
They are the overwhelming financiers of vices including America's slave industry.
No, Jews are not. Not even ****ing close. You're just spewing antisemitic conspiracy theories now.
How about the pornography industry?
Like any industry, there are Jews involved. But of course you assume it must be a Jewish plot, right GNLS1488?
Jewish involvement wouldn't be a big issue, just if there's a massive over-representation. Or if one of the pioneers of porn says that Jews do porn because they hate Christ and Catholics.
Lol. Yeah, that's why. As for "massive over-representation," what exactly is proper representation? What is the representation of Jews in the pornography industry? I mean hard numbers with data cited.
Does every industry need the same demographics as America writ large? If you knew jack **** about the history of film, you'd know Jews invested and built Hollywood early because movies were seen as too low brow for those WASPs from upper class backgrounds to be involved with. Same with virtually any entertainment venture from professional baseball (the first paid professional was Jewish) to Broadway to jazz to rock to movies. Jews were kept out of the more prestigious fields and found ways to develop their businesses. No surprise some Jews wound up in porn. But it's just a small few.
Oh, and you should post the rest of that quote. Mr. Goldstein was deliberately being an ******* and it's clear in context.
Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:Quote:
They are the overwhelming financiers of vices including America's slave industry.
No, Jews are not. Not even ****ing close. You're just spewing antisemitic conspiracy theories now.
How about the pornography industry?
Like any industry, there are Jews involved. But of course you assume it must be a Jewish plot, right GNLS1488?
Jewish involvement wouldn't be a big issue, just if there's a massive over-representation. Or if one of the pioneers of porn says that Jews do porn because they hate Christ and Catholics.
Lol. Yeah, that's why. As for "massive over-representation," what exactly is proper representation? What is the representation of Jews in the pornography industry? I mean hard numbers with data cited.
Does every industry need the same demographics as America writ large? If you knew jack **** about the history of film, you'd know Jews invested and built Hollywood early because movies were seen as too low brow for those WASPs from upper class backgrounds to be involved with. Same with virtually any entertainment venture from professional baseball (the first paid professional was Jewish) to Broadway to jazz to rock to movies. Jews were kept out of the more prestigious fields and found ways to develop their businesses. No surprise some Jews wound up in porn. But it's just a small few.
Oh, and you should post the rest of that quote. Mr. Goldstein was deliberately being an ******* and it's clear in context.
Wow MR. Goldstein. Seems like an important guy.
This is all a huge joke Sapper. A rabbi owns pornhub, a Jewish senior citizen couple were the largest distributors of gay porn in the USA.
I like how it I say "the Jews built Hollywood" it's an antisemitism, but if you say it, it's a brag.
Sapper Redux said:Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:Quote:
They are the overwhelming financiers of vices including America's slave industry.
No, Jews are not. Not even ****ing close. You're just spewing antisemitic conspiracy theories now.
How about the pornography industry?
Like any industry, there are Jews involved. But of course you assume it must be a Jewish plot, right GNLS1488?
Jewish involvement wouldn't be a big issue, just if there's a massive over-representation. Or if one of the pioneers of porn says that Jews do porn because they hate Christ and Catholics.
Lol. Yeah, that's why. As for "massive over-representation," what exactly is proper representation? What is the representation of Jews in the pornography industry? I mean hard numbers with data cited.
Does every industry need the same demographics as America writ large? If you knew jack **** about the history of film, you'd know Jews invested and built Hollywood early because movies were seen as too low brow for those WASPs from upper class backgrounds to be involved with. Same with virtually any entertainment venture from professional baseball (the first paid professional was Jewish) to Broadway to jazz to rock to movies. Jews were kept out of the more prestigious fields and found ways to develop their businesses. No surprise some Jews wound up in porn. But it's just a small few.
Oh, and you should post the rest of that quote. Mr. Goldstein was deliberately being an ******* and it's clear in context.
Wow MR. Goldstein. Seems like an important guy.
This is all a huge joke Sapper. A rabbi owns pornhub, a Jewish senior citizen couple were the largest distributors of gay porn in the USA.
I like how it I say "the Jews built Hollywood" it's an antisemitism, but if you say it, it's a brag.
A rabbi doesn't own Pornhub. A Jewish lawyer who went to a Jerusalem yeshiva is part of a team that came on board to get rid of some of the illegal **** on Pornhub. I have no idea about the gay porn, given you accept every Nazi meme without critical thought, I don't automatically believe it, but also don't care if it's true. And I am not saying Jews alone built Hollywood or that "Jews run Hollywood." I'm saying there's a historical reason for why you see a lot of Jews in Hollywood's history and in entertainment in general. But of course, you aren't interested in the history, GNLS1488, you're just interested in perpetuating falsehoods.
Mr. Thunderclap McGirthy said:
Not a fan of how this thread went.
Jews and Christians are spiritually connected.
I love Us against the world. I hate Us against each other.
Mr. Thunderclap McGirthy said:
Not a fan of how this thread went.
Jews and Christians are spiritually connected.
I love Us against the world. I hate Us against each other.
one MEEN Ag said:
This board is basically the political future. Calling everyone who disagrees with you even the slightest anti-semetic isn't going to be the win friends and influence people more as we move into the post boomer world. I'd start earnestly engaging in discussion here instead of flailing around calling everyone anti-semetic.
kurt vonnegut said:one MEEN Ag said:
This board is basically the political future. Calling everyone who disagrees with you even the slightest anti-semetic isn't going to be the win friends and influence people more as we move into the post boomer world. I'd start earnestly engaging in discussion here instead of flailing around calling everyone anti-semetic.
Should we call out name calling in place of civil and earnest discussion in all cases or just when atheists do it? Just curious?
one MEEN Ag said:
America is not allowed to A) define for itself as an ethnic nation with ethnic people group roots and norms. America is also not allowed to B) enforce norms for foreigners. Thats where we are as a country now. Is an Indian who worships Vishnu who was born in italy Italian? What about if a million indians immigrated to Italy, are they now italian?
Rocag said:
Considering America got its start by claiming lands held by people of other ethnic groups and importing massive amounts of African slaves I think it ought to be pretty clear that no, we don't get to define ourselves as a nation made up of a single ethnic group. Unless you're advocating stripping rights away from non-whites or doing something (expulsion or genocide, presumably) to remove them from the country.
I'm not sure exactly what you're advocating for here, but I'm pretty sure I won't like it.
The Banned said:one MEEN Ag said:
America is not allowed to A) define for itself as an ethnic nation with ethnic people group roots and norms. America is also not allowed to B) enforce norms for foreigners. Thats where we are as a country now. Is an Indian who worships Vishnu who was born in italy Italian? What about if a million indians immigrated to Italy, are they now italian?
As Rocag said, I don't think we could have ever defined ourselves as an ethnic nations. Even if we just consider the white people that were here at the time of the revolution, they come from a number of different countries and would have seen themselves as ethnically different. The treatment of Irish and Italian immigrants shows that "white" still has deviations. What ethnicity could we claim?
I know you'd agree that Christianity is offered to people of all races and colors. I see no reason to go down the anti-Semitic rabbit hole when you can simply advocate for Christianity to be the norm once again. If there are wealthy Jews that are intent on undermining Christianity, idk why they should be anymore of a concern than the atheist, the muslim, etc.
kurt vonnegut said:
You didn't answer the question.
Quote:
The underpinning of america is Christianity
Mr. Thunderclap McGirthy said:
On the slavery issue. It has always amazed me how slaves embraced this "white mans' God." God's Trombones is a collection of negro sermons.
Rocag said:
Considering America got its start by claiming lands held by people of other ethnic groups and importing massive amounts of African slaves I think it ought to be pretty clear that no, we don't get to define ourselves as a nation made up of a single ethnic group. Unless you're advocating stripping rights away from non-whites or doing something (expulsion or genocide, presumably) to remove them from the country.
I'm not sure exactly what you're advocating for here, but I'm pretty sure I won't like it.
Zobel said:Quote:
The underpinning of america is Christianity
I think we need to pick at this a little bit, because this statement is so broad as to probably be untrue.
I'd suggest modifying this to say - the underpinning of America is a moral and cultural framework rooted in Christianity combined with some specific secular ideals coming from the enlightenment.
If that seems like an untenable combination, you're right. At the very most basic level they at least have tension if not exist in direct opposition. One is based in some absolute statements about the nature of reality, the other in what amounts to a consensus approach.
But the US has always been a country that existed, or was constituted, on some level at odds with its stated ideals (e.g., slavery).
Zobel said:Quote:
The underpinning of america is Christianity
I think we need to pick at this a little bit, because this statement is so broad as to probably be untrue.
I'd suggest modifying this to say - the underpinning of America is a moral and cultural framework rooted in Christianity combined with some specific secular ideals coming from the enlightenment.
one MEEN Ag said:kurt vonnegut said:
You didn't answer the question.
Sure, go ahead call out name calling. You have my blessing.
kurt vonnegut said:one MEEN Ag said:kurt vonnegut said:
You didn't answer the question.
Sure, go ahead call out name calling. You have my blessing.
Aw! So close, but I asked if 'we' should call out name calling.
If you are going to get your panties in a twist when someone suggests antisemitism, but say nothing when someone condemns liberals as demonic psychopaths who love to butcher children, then how can I take your interest in engaged dialogue seriously? If you find me being guilty of some similar hypocrisy, by all means, call me out. I'll own my mistakes.
This country is so far from being able to have reasonable discussions with one another. I despise some of the things I see on the left. But on this board, I'm not aware of atheists making statements that all Christians are deranged self righteous women hating racist cult members, who if left along for 2 seconds, will impose Christian Sharia law while molesting alter boys and protecting pedophiles. If I missed that post, I'm sorry.
Please understand that I am not trying to 'call you out' or call anyone out. I'm not trying to win a point for my 'team' by showing that the right can be hateful sometimes. I legitimately don't understand.
Quote:
I'd suggest the underpinning of America assumes Christianity as the moral framework, and subsidiarity (power resting at the local level) is the cultural one. The early states were perfectly ok with other states having a different state religion. They were not ok with a very few and defined rights being infringed. The Anglicans in VA didn't expect the Catholics in Maryland to drop their Catholic practices or vice versa.
I don't think "culture" was really a big deal to them, as they recognized the wide variety of them. And it wasn't a big deal because the FedGov wasn't supposed to weigh in on the vast majority of issues. States ban together for strong defense and strong economy. Differences outside of those issues are of minor importance. If it were still that way today, then California could fly the rainbow flag, Texas could do the opposite, and we could agree that in matters of economy and defense, we come together.
Quote:
A state exists for the sake of a good life, and not for the sake of life only...Nor does a state exist for the sake of alliance and security from injustice, nor yet for the sake of exchange and mutual intercourse; for then...all who have commercial treaties with one another would be the citizens of one state. True, they have agreements about imports, and engagements that they will do no wrong to one another, and written articles of alliance. But there are no magistrates common to the contracting parties who will enforce their engagements; different states have each their own magistracies. Nor does one state take care that the citizens of the other are such as they ought to be, nor see that those who come under the terms of the treaty do no wrong or wickedness at all, but only that they do no injustice to one another. Whereas, those who care for good government take into consideration virtue and vice in states. Whence it may be further inferred that virtue must be the care of a state which is truly so called, and not merely enjoys the name: for without this end the community becomes a mere alliance which differs only in place from alliances of which the members live apart; and law is only a convention, 'a surety to one another of justice,' as the sophist Lycophron says, and has no real power to make the citizens virtuous.
This is obvious; for suppose distinct places, such as Corinth and Megara, to be brought together so that their walls touched, still they would not be one city, not even if the citizens had the right to intermarry, which is one of the rights peculiarly characteristic of states. Again, if men dwelt at a distance from one another, but not so far off as to have no intercourse, and there were laws among them that they should not wrong each other in their exchanges, neither would this be a state. Let us suppose that one man is a carpenter, another a husbandman, another a shoemaker, and so on, and that their number is ten thousand: nevertheless, if they have nothing in common but exchange, alliance, and the like, that would not constitute a state. Why is this? Surely not because they are at a distance from one another: for even supposing that such a community were to meet in one place, but that each man had a house of his own, which was in a manner his state, and that they made alliance with one another, but only against evil-doers; still an accurate thinker would not deem this to be a state, if their intercourse with one another was of the same character after as before their union. It is clear then that a state is not a mere society, having a common place, established for the prevention of mutual crime and for the sake of exchange. These are conditions without which a state cannot exist; but all of them together do not constitute a state, which is a community of families and aggregations of families in well-being, for the sake of a perfect and self-sufficing life. Such a community can only be established among those who live in the same place and intermarry. Hence arise in cities family connections, brotherhoods, common sacrifices, amusements which draw men together. But these are created by friendship, for the will to live together is friendship. The end of the state is the good life, and these are the means towards it. And the state is the union of families and villages in a perfect and self-sufficing life, by which we mean a happy and honorable life.
Our conclusion, then, is that political society exists for the sake of noble actions, and not of mere companionship.
