Message from @fr0shT
Discord ID: 522560644327800843
Yeah but what was the goal of Christianity from the Beginning?
Was it to bring people together and outlie some rules?
Or was it to conquer the world?
Why does the beginning matter? The point of reformation is to REFORM it with modern sensibilities in mind.
The point is to get rid of those beginnings.
Judaism.
Because there are passages in Islam that do not allow any kind of reform.
There are parts of the Bible that day you're not allowed to change them.
Guess where thy are
Omitted.
Yes, but does the Bible say its the ultimate word of god and preserved in perfection?
There were 613 commandments, BTW.
Your Bible is your god
You're following idolatry
You've allowed the word to be abridged
And you worship it, instead of God.
Just saying.
You're an atheist to a muslim
Perspective is important if you want to evoke change.
This guy's being accused of being a white supremacist
I like that clip of the black pastor that says something to the effect of "Every day I wake up in the morning, and I thank God for the white man."
i finally found a video with the characte r from monoply in it
people said that that was alex jones
Are you talking about the thing that Candice promoted ?
They reference Candice in the article. I don't follow Candice so I'm guessing it's the same thing.
Just checked. It is.
Know anything about it? I only found this article.
>people trusting Social Autopsy creator's platform
Not even out of the frying pan and into the fire. Aiming your jump at the next frying pan
You have anything showing Candice Owens did anything more than download, join and tell others to join?
You're not adding anything here and, if anything, are insinuating that Candice Owens made the platform (of which I have seen little to no evidence of--the phrasing of her tweet suggests she only 'found' it)
Was pointing out that I'm not inclined to trust anything Owens suggests my dude
For someone who talks up their ability to understand and analyze the SJW mindset, you sure do seek to be rather easily offended yourself.
Looked up the org behind the org- looks like libertarians. Hopefully they're prepped to be called Nazis and yeeted by MasterCard
Because there's like 6 people involved
No, I get irritated when you go making comments that read as untrue. Nice job with the little ad hominem jab. You also like interjecting into these things without really contributing much. That last thing is a contribution (there's 6 people and they're libertarians), but the snarky nonsense digging up Candice Owen's role in Social Autopsy doesn't add much of anything at all and reads like you're saying she's behind it all--which is untrue.
You also tend to read my comments rather uncharitably, including above and beyond what is reasonable (not in this instance, but exactly the last time this occurred- when I was telling someone to boycott the Google play store)
Further, your definition of contribution seems to map very specifically to a particular vector of thought, *almost* as though there are particular acceptable lines of disagreement that *just so happen* to have one foot in your boat. Finally, it's not adhom. It was neither the crux of my argument, nor the insinuation that you should be disregarded due to a particular factor. Attacks on *my* character seem to be fair game regardless though
I wouldn't say it's one vector of thought. I would say there's a difference between being a snarky asshole who's making an incorrect statement.
No, We've talked for awhile. I know exactly where you're going in everything--kill all social media. It doesn't work and never will.
```For someone who talks up their ability to understand and analyze the SJW mindset, you sure do seek to be rather easily offended yourself.```I'd say that's a pretty direct attack on me. Fits the ad hominem definition rather cleanly. Also completely aside from the issue at hand.
```It was neither the crux of my argument```And what was the crux of this argument? You never made it in the original comment. Which is why I said you weren't really adding anything. You were just being a snarky asshat about Candice Owens endorsing something. Personally, I don't see why I should care what Candice Owens thinks but by suggesting she was behind the platform you both de-legitimize the people who built it on their own and make it harder to tell who is doing what.
```Attacks on my character seem to be fair game regardless though``` If you mean calling out the fact that you tend to repeat the same lines over and over again on the subject of social media. Sure. Whatever. It is true you almost never suggest alternatives or do anything other than tear down social media platforms with no ideas on what to do about them.
To be fair, @Beemann it did sound like you claimed Parler News was made by Owens
was bad phrasing