Keeping misleading stories off of the forum
Quote from watchman87 on August 20, 2020, 6:22 PMFar right inbred conspiracy nut... are you by chance a democrat? What a joke. How do I abolish my membership?
Have you been on mymilitia??
some of the stuff on there gives just that impression...
completely made up stuff that just screams I'm an inbred far right conspiracy nut. It's not a statement about every one on there but it prevalent enough to drive out LOTS of good ppl.
I absolutely agree.
Some things should be locked if they become a problem.
some things should be deleted.
warnings are a good thing, but if ppl are warned several times then off you go.
Most will do great!!! Some might need a reminder. Others are just contentious jerks and shouldn't be here.
Quote from watchman87 on August 20, 2020, 5:03 PM
Are the people not the militia?
No. All Militia are people (unless we count K9s) but not all people are (or should be) militia.
Are you to decide the definition of words?
Well yes, at least there has to be some reliable, universal definition of words. Imagine if we all made up our own definitions. No one would understand anyone. This is one of the problems with the left, they want to redifine words, often on the fly, to suit their agenda de jour.
Are you the arbiter of truth?
Again, there has to be an agreed upon truth and it has to be based on fact and measurable data. It has to be observable and repeatable. And it must be universal and constant. Otherwise it is just an opinion.
Is it not to the individual to decide what they believe to be true?
Yes they can decide what they **believe* to be true. But their belief or lack thereof does not affect reality. It does not make something false into something true or vice versa. It does make them delusional if they choose to believe as true something that is factually false.
A free man is one who is free in mind and spirit. A critical thinker, discerning what is truth from fiction. This kind of censorship is exactly why I won’t be staying long. You will be no better than CNN, Facebook or Twitter in deciding what’s “worthy” news. You can count me out if this is decided to be implemented. Before you could even get off the ground, you’ve shot yourself in the foot.
You've got the idea in a big picture sort of way, but you're missing the fine details of the issue. There is a difference between not letting someone post lies, and blocking content capriciously based on how it will suit a political agenda. That is what CNN, Facebook and Twitter are doing. Their censorship has nothing to do with what's true or not, what's factual or not. In fact they often fly in the face of known scientific data. It also has nothing to do with their community standards etc., as they often use that excuse without any specifics and while ignoring much more egregious violations by folks who agree with their political agendas. They are capricious and dishonest and are censoring simply to win an election (if this were not true, they would have been censoring like they are now, for the last 10+ years. But their censorship has ratcheted up as the election draws near and their party of choice digs itself in deeper and deeper). If you can not see the difference between that and expecting that members verify and vet info that they post before they post it, and share the data that posts are based on so we can see for ourselves, of making sure that this site is not used to spread actual lies and misinformation, then you're probably right, this might not be for you. And that would be too bad because a person who constantly questions and makes folks defend their ideas and actions is always a benefit to any group, as long as they have a truly open mind and can asses things rationally and objectively. Dogma is not the same as reason. The latter helps people find the truth. The former is the crutch one relies on when reason eludes them.
Quote from Marc Sayer on August 20, 2020, 6:47 PMQuote from watchman87 on August 20, 2020, 5:03 PMAre the people not the militia?
No. All Militia are people (unless we count K9s) but not all people are (or should be) militia.
Are you to decide the definition of words?
Well yes, at least there has to be some reliable, universal definition of words. Imagine if we all made up our own definitions. No one would understand anyone. This is one of the problems with the left, they want to redifine words, often on the fly, to suit their agenda de jour.
Are you the arbiter of truth?
Again, there has to be an agreed upon truth and it has to be based on fact and measurable data. It has to be observable and repeatable. And it must be universal and constant. Otherwise it is just an opinion.
Is it not to the individual to decide what they believe to be true?
Yes they can decide what they **believe* to be true. But their belief or lack thereof does not affect reality. It does not make something false into something true or vice versa. It does make them delusional if they choose to believe as true something that is factually false.
A free man is one who is free in mind and spirit. A critical thinker, discerning what is truth from fiction. This kind of censorship is exactly why I won’t be staying long. You will be no better than CNN, Facebook or Twitter in deciding what’s “worthy” news. You can count me out if this is decided to be implemented. Before you could even get off the ground, you’ve shot yourself in the foot.
You've got the idea in a big picture sort of way, but you're missing the fine details of the issue. There is a difference between not letting someone post lies, and blocking content capriciously based on how it will suit a political agenda. That is what CNN, Facebook and Twitter are doing. Their censorship has nothing to do with what's true or not, what's factual or not. In fact they often fly in the face of known scientific data. It also has nothing to do with their community standards etc., as they often use that excuse without any specifics and while ignoring much more egregious violations by folks who agree with their political agendas. They are capricious and dishonest and are censoring simply to win an election (if this were not true, they would have been censoring like they are now, for the last 10+ years. But their censorship has ratcheted up as the election draws near and their party of choice digs itself in deeper and deeper). If you can not see the difference between that and expecting that members verify and vet info that they post before they post it, and share the data that posts are based on so we can see for ourselves, of making sure that this site is not used to spread actual lies and misinformation, then you're probably right, this might not be for you. And that would be too bad because a person who constantly questions and makes folks defend their ideas and actions is always a benefit to any group, as long as they have a truly open mind and can asses things rationally and objectively. Dogma is not the same as reason. The latter helps people find the truth. The former is the crutch one relies on when reason eludes them.
Mark that was spot on!!!!! You articulated that much better than me.
Marc, I appreciate the productive discord here.
- Yes, the people ARE the militia. It's written right in the second amendment.
- Yes, we must agree on the definition of words. This is why law is written with a common dictionary. We must agree on language if we are to walk together. Amos 3:3: Can two walk together, except they be agreed? C.S. Lewis even gives this example in Mere christianity:
The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said—so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully—"Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?"
They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A "nice" meal only means a meal the speaker likes.)
A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say "deepening," the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge.
It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.
We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to "the disciples," to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ" than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.
So in stating what a "militia" is, and using the definition appropriately, I see a valid reason as to stating this is a militia, in the truest sense of the word. IF you want the REPUBLIC to be ruled by law, then we must agree what the law is. We must agree on the language used and the definitions of each word are critical. This is a militia, unless it isn't, but I will not be deluded into thinking it isn't, unless you are creating ~something else~ that doesn't qualify in the definition. Otherwise, you're just playing the fool in deluding yourself to fool others. And you're right, this is how the leftists communists are.
- ARBITER OF TRUTH: Agreed. That was the point of the question. Reality and Delusion are diametrically opposed. AMERICA used to be a Christian nation. We were once a great nation founded on the principles of Christianity. It was our foundation and core and held a UNIVERSAL truth. This is where I believe to be the epicenter of TRUTH. I use my own mind when coming upon new knowledge to discern its truthfulness. UNFORTUNATELY, the founding fathers didn't expect for such a dumbed down populace to allow the destruction of our REPUBLIC to come from within. But they did give us a total solution in case we had to face down tyranny either foreign or domestically against us.
- DECIDING WHAT TO BELIEVE: Right again, but if you decide to believe that MAO is your God, and I believe that Christ is mine, I would not stop you from proselytizing YOUR beliefs, but it doesn't mean that I'm deluded and you'd have a right to stop me from doing the same. As much the same as you'd have the right to speak your belief, and I'd have a right to NOT listen. Had you believed in freedom, you'd understand that this is why our founders wrote the first amendment to keep the government out of it. It doesn't matter if you believe you're a fairy transgender fruitcake, but I dont have to believe that your woman trapped in a mans body. The government would have no authority in this respect either. It is this very penalty of freedom that makes it so great.
- The point is, this is telling people that certain topics are forbode without allowing the people to discord amongst themselves to separate and discern for themselves what is true and what is not. I would suggest educating yourselves in freedom philosophy before acting through dictates what can or cannot be discussed.
Otherwise, I'd like to see how BIG that list of NO NO topics are to funnel people into a one way think hive mind. 1984 called it NEW-SPEAK.
Sorry if any of that is incoherent, I'm having my evening bourbon and coke.
Wether you like it or not The meaning of words Do change.
Take the original 1611 King James Version of the Bible for instance (not the 1850s version) the original.
It had the word old spelled olde and there's are about 40+ words that changed and not just spelling also meaning.
If you don't like the fact that the word "militia" has changed in meaning. to bad that's the way it is. For the common person it's changed.
Its definition is determined by common consent not what it once was. To continue to believe that it is what it was just because you don't like the new definition is delusional and the hight of hubris.
Quote from cb85 on August 20, 2020, 8:06 PMWether you like it or not The meaning of words Do change.
Take the original 1611 King James Version of the Bible for instance (not the 1850s version) the original.
It had the word old spelled olde and there's are about 40+ words that changed and not just spelling also meaning.
If you don't like the fact that the word "militia" has changed in meaning. to bad that's the way it is. For the common person it's changed.
Its definition is determined by common consent not what it once was. To continue to believe that it is what it was just because you don't like the new definition is delusional and the hight of hubris.
Please see.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia or go find a dictionary of your choosing. Mentioning the "olde to old" spelling change was hilarious, I just hope your shooting groups are more accurate than that, cause you totally missed the mark. Come back when you'd like to apologize. Now if you wanted to use the example of "Let" or "Replenish" in the KJV as examples of words changing their meaning (I.E. NOT the spelling) then you would have been a little closer on the mark. But then again, we're talking about the English translation AFTER it was romanticized (know history bruh if you wanna go toe to toe).
PS. ..and I'm a high school drop out.
I'm done with you. you've insulted me twice now having an open discussion with you.
ppl like you with your clear arrogance is exactly the example of the kind of ppl we really don't need here.
You should take marks advice and your own for that matter and find somewhere else to spend your time.
oh and by the way we know ppl attack others when they can't or chose not to make good arguments.
perhaps you should try to make your own arguments some time in the future rather than just constantly quoting C.S. Luis
Quote from cb85 on August 20, 2020, 8:33 PMI'm done with you. you've insulted me twice now having an open discussion with you.
ppl like you with your clear arrogance is exactly the example of the kind of ppl we really don't need here.
You should take marks advice and your own for that matter and find somewhere else to spend your time.
oh and by the way we know ppl attack others when they can't or chose not to make good arguments.
perhaps you should try to make your own arguments some time in the future rather than just constantly quoting C.S. Luis
My dearest, disgruntled friend, when was the last time you've actually picked up a book to learn something new? Is it the 5G towers melting your brain? I hear tin foil works to block the microwaves. Nonetheless, I simply quote to show a reference (and reverence) for the knowledge and perspective I've gained and to expose it for others to consume. I am willing to debate in healthy discourse, yet all you seem to be able to do is muster a few ignorant jabs at the wind in the hopes that it would deter me from exposing the truth. The truth is, you're either really young (teenage) or really old (senior citizen) and I can almost guarantee it's the latter. New dogs have short attention spans and Olde dogs don't like new tricks. They become lazy and quick tempered when demanded that a change must occur. That change must be in your own mind. You have the world at your finger tips and could download any book in the world and read it to gain knowledge and perspective. You only have so long on this earth to teach others your knowledge, so make it count before you leave it.
Sincerely,
The Far Right Inbred Conspiracy Theorists
Love the quality debate, but not the personal attacks. It seems to me that quality debate is impossible if the subject matter is pre-digested for us. We are not all super knowledgeable, nor super smart, but we are entitled to make up our own mind instead of the smart people doing it for us. If we let some trash through the gate, that is preferable to someone else sanitizing before we can see it. I am confident that we are able to detect lies and off-topic discussions well enough to not let this site become a garbage dump. In short, I don’t believe censorship is good for us in the long run.