Radical Group wants to control Speech on social Media.

[KCfromNC]

There used to be monopoly laws in this country to prevent one entity from having absolute, nearly totalitarian control of one slice of the market.

Now, the intent of those monopoly laws was economic in nature because no one envisioned a day like today, where things like free social media and search engines have so much power and control.

Certainly any website can run their site according to their values etc. It's a long held belief concerning internet freedom.

But our situation today begs the question of monopolies when the largest platform for speech that exists on the planet, is owned by one person or one small group of people and can silence anyone they disagree with.

Same issues with Google as well, when their search engines can refuse to list certain results or put them on page 1000 and no one would ever be the wiser as there is no oversight.

The power of Google alone is frightening.. they are now standard on every phone on the planet and track your every move via GPS. Not only that but if you absolutely rid Google from your phone you can't use aps for things such as for your local weather.. They have more power than anyone I think realizes.

So someday, issues of monopolies on the internet will arise - it's either that or totalitarianism will rise from small internet corporations, as it already seems to be...

Well, just as long as no one resorts to hyperbole over a few violent racists being kicked off a web site or anything...

 

[FireDragon76]

As stated, it was indeed an agenda pushed nationally in 1972, contrary to what you said. I even cited the transcript.

No one is arguing nor has ever argued that Civil rights are only for some people. That's a straw man always trotted out by the expected demographic. Anyone of the age of and ability to consent could always marry at any time in history. This was never about Civil rights anyway. It was about redefining the concept of marriage to include any two people, which is outside its meaning.

Christians don't have a monopoly on their understanding of marriage. And if we go by "biblical" standards, lots of things were marriages that Christians don't accept today. So it seems to me the Bible is not an exhaustive guide to human ethics or conduct, just as my religious tradition teaches.

The fact is the Bible's context is largely a patriarchal culture where heterosexuality is the norm and women are property. We've progressed since then and realized women are not property and the biology of sex is more complicated.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Nvm..

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Know of none of this coming from the Christians we know?

The goats are asking -- where do they live? We don't see that or hear that around here?

M-Bob

I see it all the time from Christians. Im sure most clame the same as you. Until they let things slip up. As for the gay thing . it's crazy how they go into great detail about gays personal sex details.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

There used to be monopoly laws in this country to prevent one entity from having absolute, nearly totalitarian control of one slice of the market.

Now, the intent of those monopoly laws was economic in nature because no one envisioned a day like today, where things like free social media and search engines have so much power and control.

Certainly any website can run their site according to their values etc. It's a long held belief concerning internet freedom.

But our situation today begs the question of monopolies when the largest platform for speech that exists on the planet, is owned by one person or one small group of people and can silence anyone they disagree with.

Same issues with Google as well, when their search engines can refuse to list certain results or put them on page 1000 and no one would ever be the wiser as there is no oversight.

The power of Google alone is frightening.. they are now standard on every phone on the planet and track your every move via GPS. Not only that but if you absolutely rid Google from your phone you can't use aps for things such as for your local weather.. They have more power than anyone I think realizes.

So someday, issues of monopolies on the internet will arise - it's either that or totalitarianism will rise from small internet corporations, as it already seems to be...

Something Yakov Smirnoff said in comparing freedom of speech between the U.S. and the USSR was that in both places you can say whatever you like, but only in America did you have freedom afterward.

In the U.S. today, people are losing freedom after speech, and that is frightening. They are losing jobs, losing their social media accounts, having their websites shut down by the service provider etc.

We can sit and say we cannot stand these people and their message is more than offensive to us, but what happens when it's our freedom? And whose to say it won't soon be us?

Something is going wrong in America, and it's at a fundamental level.

Agreed.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Christians don't have a monopoly on their understanding of marriage. And if we go by "biblical" standards, lots of things were marriages that Christians don't accept today. So it seems to me the Bible is not an exhaustive guide to human ethics or conduct, just as my religious tradition teaches.

The fact is the Bible's context is largely a patriarchal culture where heterosexuality is the norm and women are property. We've progressed since then and realized women are not property and the biology of sex is more complicated.

Marriage between a man and a woman is the only recognized entity on which families and societies were built.

We are not progressing to subvert God's design. That's regression. Women have never been property anyway, not by God's design. That is OT legalism and worldly economics at play. Not God's design at all, as Jesus clearly said in Matthew 19:
The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

There is no other way. God's Word has spoken.

 

[FireDragon76]

We are not progressing to subvert God's design. That's regression.

Women have never been property anyway, not by God's design.

Oh really?

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." - Exodus 20:17

That implies a wife is a possession, similar to a servant or a house.

That is OT legalism and worldly economics at play. Not God's design at all, as Jesus clearly said in Matthew 19:
The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

There is no other way. God's Word has spoken.

The argument that Jesus is condemning gays here rests on philosophical assumptions that neither I, nor many other CHristians in our churches, do not share.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

their marriage was illegal in the state where they lived. They were arrested for it and faces imprisonment. So no, they couldn't marry. It is an insult to Richard and Mildred and their family to lie and pretend that they could get legally married where they lived.
yes the laws against interracial marriage were based in racism even if their supporters claimed they were based on morals and tradition. Just like the laws against same gender marriage were based in homophobia even if their supporters claimed they were based on morals and tradition

In other words, civil rights are only for some people.

They were arrested not because they were feigning marriage but because their state had an unconstitutional law that was overthrown within a few years.

They WERE legally married in D.C.

And racism has nothing to do with sexual behavior.

Stop conflating the two. You cannot and will not ever make work.

Homophobia is a made-up word to silence and delegitimize those who uphold marriage according to scripture.

NO ONE is "afraid" of people who have sex with the same gender, and only rarely even can identify them.

They are indeed afraid of say, spiders, so arachnophobia is a legitimate and correct term. Or acrophobia, the fear of heights. Or glossophobia, fear of public speaking, to name a few common and legitimate fears.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Oh really?

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." - Exodus 20:17

That implies a wife is a possession, similar to a servant or a house.



The argument that Jesus is condemning gays here rests on philosophical assumptions that neither I, nor many other CHristians in our churches, do not share.

That is ridiculous. You could as easily insert "neighbor's husband" in there. That verse is about the sin of coveting what does not belong to you. Someone else's spouse - gender irrespective - does not belong to you.

 

[FireDragon76]

That is ridiculous. You could as easily insert "neighbor's husband" in there. That verse is about the sin of coveting what does not belong to you. Someone else's spouse - gender irrespective - does not belong to you.

Spouses are people, not objects that can be owned. The whole bronze age mindset is incompatible with modern notions of personal freedom.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Spouses are people, not objects that can be owned. The whole bronze age mindset is incompatible with modern notions of personal freedom.

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Timothy 4:13

 

[FireDragon76]

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Timothy 4:13

If you think the equality of the sexes or the universality of human rights is unsound doctrine, might I suggest finding a time machine and going back a few centuries to the world in which this stuff belongs?

 

[Phil 1:21]

If you think the equality of the sexes or the universality of human rights is unsound doctrine, might I suggest finding a time machine and going back a few centuries to the world in which this stuff belongs?

The word of God is not contingent upon the approval of morally relativistic postmodern society. We should never put ourselves above God.

 

[FireDragon76]

The word of God is not contingent upon the approval of morally relativistic postmodern society. We should never put ourselves above God.

Contempt for modern society does nothing to endear me to your worldview.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Contempt for modern society does nothing to endear me to your worldview.

”What does it benefit a man to gain the world, yet lose his soul?”

 

[FireDragon76]

”What does it benefit a man to gain the world, yet lose his soul?”

Indeed. Better ask the evangelical Trump supporters if their hatred of gays and women was worth it.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Indeed. Better ask the evangelical Trump supporters if their hatred of gays and women was worth it.

How about we stay on topic instead of going down a pro-gay anti-Trump rabbit hole again, mkay?

 

[FireDragon76]

How about we stay on topic instead of going down a pro-gay anti-Trump rabbit hole again, mkay?

This conversation went downhill the moment you guys started implying my church is a synagogue of Satan.

 

[Phil 1:21]

This conversation went downhill the moment you guys started implying my church is a synagogue of Satan.

I’m not sure how me quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 constitues calling your church a synagogue of satan and leads to you waving a rainbow “resist” flag, but whatever.

Would you like to discuss the thread topic now?

 

[variant]

Why is everybody suddenly so down on free markets?

People get very down on free market capitalism when it turns heavily against them.

Remember this?