Recent Racist Trolling and Trolling against fundamentalism and morals

[Karl]

Yeah, but you find it much easier to judge than I do.

Sometimes.

[TheWhiteRabbit]

Some things are hard-coded in to the religion and can not be changed.  Even the Dalai Lama said people were pressuring him to accept certain things.  That happened with every religion that was opposed to a political agenda.  Long story short, if Evil pressures or attempts to corrupt something good... There is always someone who knows about it.  So, repeating the lie is a joke.

[TheWhiteRabbit]

Funny, Luke.

 

I don't know that religions or nations are the deepest reasons humans go to war. I think they are concomitant pre-symptoms perhaps -- but I can envision a world where despite people having their own ways of going about rapport with the divine, self-exploration, and communities based on location, they are not at war.

 

It's like corporations. Fundamentally they operate mostly for evil at the highest level these days but it is entirely possible to operate a corporation so that it is a great thing for everyone directly and indirectly involved and affected. That humans don't choose to do that is not a statement on corporations so much as it is a statement on humans.

 

RC

How do you feel about people like the Dalai Lama being pressured by LGBT activists to get his religion to change.  Is that right?

Is it right at all for humans to behave that way?

 

One could argue that this is the only way to be tolerated.  But, some things humans also do are not understood.  Like, okay... I do care about people.  But, some geniuses have issues being emotionally available.  So, changing society is not a way for these to be accepted.  It is a flaw in human thinking when we try to force others to change for our benefit.  That is what caused the whole issue and if some of us had caught it before it happened maybe I would not even have to have said anything about it to anyone. 

 

As for religion not existing, then Daoism does not exist.  Then what would be the purpose?

It means that us talking about these types of things are irrelevant.  So, we would have to think Daoism matters somewhat, right?

 

In the Christian religion there is a passage.  One is where people claim "Peace and security"

1 Thessalonians 5:3 "When people are saying, "Everything is peaceful and secure," then disaster will fall on them as suddenly as a pregnant woman's labor pains begin. And there will be no escape."

 

This is a part of the eventual acceptance of a Globalist type society.  It is inevitable.  But, I think you will find this prophesy timely as it is part of the events leading up to the final war.

Edited October 30, 2016 by TheWhiteRabbit

[redcairo]

 

How do you feel about people like the Dalai Lama being pressured by LGBT activists to get his religion to change.  Is that right?

Is it right at all for humans to behave that way?

Er, no, though that kind of supports my point that the problem isn't religion it's people. (When it's religion, it's because of people making stupid things in it or using it badly.)

 

He knows better than anyone, that he cannot simply mandate a change in a religious tradition that is very, very old. The only thing he could do is have a personal opinion openly -- but it's his personal opinion -- which it wouldn't be if he were bowing to someone else's opinion.

 

The Dalai Llama has stood up to the entire Chinese empire -- I think he can resist social activists. :-)

 

But, some geniuses have issues being emotionally available.  So, changing society is not a way for these to be accepted.

 

I apologize that I think I missed the post that would put the above lines in context. I'm not sure how they relate to each other right now. When you think about it though, if an individual cannot relate to society, it seems a bit injust to expect society to relate to that person. Maybe in a larger sense, those two things are not unrelated at all.

 

It is a flaw in human thinking when we try to force others to change for our benefit.

 

Sure. Well, on the surface I agree with that statement.

 

But I will mention that we do live in a communal world, and if others are behaving antisocially by which I mean harmfully to others; or if we are "responsible for feeding and protecting" person-X but person X will neither leave (so he's not our problem anymore) nor allow us to feed and protect him (which his presence requires, since starving or shooting him would also be injust), then trying to mitigate the situation so that he changed somewhat -- enough to make the larger situation tenable all around -- would make sense to me.

 

I do think I may have missed some previous context in my skim of the thread though so if I'm kind of off on Mars here I apologize. Are we only talking about LGBT-etc.?

 

As for religion not existing, then Daoism does not exist.  Then what would be the purpose?

 

I was under the impression that Daoism was a term that sort of described one's intuitive, innate desire and effort to live within a sense of balance with What IS (the IS-ness of Truth about which not much can really be said). What IS, is not the Tao?

 

I guess I didn't realize it was a religion-with-a-tax-bracket formally? Sorry I am a bit new to the topic.

 

This is a part of the eventual acceptance of a Globalist type society.  It is inevitable.  But, I think you will find this prophesy timely as it is part of the events leading up to the final war.

 

I think some of the elements in humans that cause them to 'bond' to one another in positive ways, also cause that same bonding to create a division -- what is in the group, what is ok, defines by its existence what is not in the group, and not ok. I think until human beings fundamentally change (perhaps the fourth density, as some call it) this probably won't improve.

 

RC

Edited October 30, 2016 by redcairo

[redcairo]

Wow.

 

"...admitted pathologists harvested organs from dead Palestinians, and others, without the consent of their families – a practice it said ended in the 1990s – it emerged at the weekend."

 

Probably putting myself up as a punching bag, here, but:

 

So? They were already dead. They ain't gettin' any deader. They aren't using those organs now. They don't care. 

 

People support recycling and composting, and using every part of the animal. But there is some requirement human body parts should be wasted, when they can save other human lives, as organs or as tissue?

 

The only reason I can see for this being a serious issue is because, of course, it could definitely lead to killing people solely for their body parts (like that book COMA). As if we lack enough reasons to kill people already, especially in the middle east.

 

But aside from that element, I fail to see what the problem is. I mean, in combat, people can be tortured and raped and eviscerated and hey, that's war, but if they die and then a medic uses their liver to save someone else's life, it's a war crime??

 

RC

Edited October 30, 2016 by redcairo

[ralis]

Why not include the hate mongering toward Hillary Clinton in several threads on this forum? One poster today was calling for her to be put in the electric chair! These comments are not just personal beliefs, but are hate speech.

[redcairo]

It was a tongue in cheek insult as I recall. He wasn't inciting people to kidnap her and put her in an electric chair. And he wasn't making the insult "because she was a woman."

 

Disliking someone and happily considering their potential manners of doom is not actually hate speech in my book -- unless your reason, and your words when you say it or joke it, are because they are part of some specific group/class of people.

 

As opposed to just the group/class of people who are such boneheads they're easy to wish doom upon. Those come in all colors, genders and politic!

 

RC

Edited October 30, 2016 by redcairo

[liminal_luke]

How do you feel about people like the Dalai Lama being pressured by LGBT activists to get his religion to change.  Is that right?

Is it right at all for humans to behave that way?

 

 

I`d like to add a little context here by quoting from your ppf: "in short, homosexuality is evil."  There´s been an uptick in organized hatred here at TTD lately, and it`s broader than just race -- some people are piling on the anti-LGBT bandwagon as well.  The above quote about gay activists and the Dalai Lama, well, it`s just more of the same I`m afraid.

 

And to answer your question, it`s just fine for people to ask the Dalai Lama anything they like.  He`s free to say yes or no just like anybody else, and surely more than capable of stating his opinion.

Edited October 30, 2016 by liminal_luke

[redcairo]

Do you suppose the energy of the election is actually sort of permeating everything, and things will mellow everwhere when it's over and we are back to the same-ol?

 

RC

[liminal_luke]

Do you suppose the energy of the election is actually sort of permeating everything, and things will mellow everwhere when it's over and we are back to the same-ol?

 

RC

 

Oh gosh, I sure hope so.

[ralis]

It was a tongue in cheek insult as I recall. He wasn't inciting people to kidnap her and put her in an electric chair. And he wasn't making the insult "because she was a woman."

 

Disliking someone and happily considering their potential manners of doom is not actually hate speech in my book -- unless your reason, and your words when you say it or joke it, are because they are part of some specific group/class of people.

 

As opposed to just the group/class of people who are such boneheads they're easy to wish doom upon. Those come in all colors, genders and politic!

 

RC

 

Tongue in insult cheek? Really? That is the most out of bounds comment I have heard tonight. Did you read his mind and determine intent? I happen to take what he writes at face value.

Edited October 30, 2016 by ralis

[redcairo]

I quoted what I wrote and what he wrote, to give context.

I thought what he said, how he said it, and his emoticon, implied a "spikey humor insult."

Not "hate speech."

 

Clearly you care deeply for HIllary and/or are extremely sensitive to people not being positive in their conversation and/or perhaps just "here." I apologize for apparently making it worse.

 

RC

[ralis]

I quoted what I wrote and what he wrote, to give context.

I thought what he said, how he said it, and his emoticon, implied a "spikey humor insult."

Not "hate speech."

 

Clearly you care deeply for HIllary and/or are extremely sensitive to people not being positive in their conversation and/or perhaps just "here." I apologize for apparently making it worse.

 

RC

 

Let me put it this way, Hillary is taking far too much abuse from the patriarchal authoritarians. Trump was stalking her on stage during the debate as well as spewing other accusations that were nothing but dog whistle demagoguery.

 

BTW, I don't care what his emoticon denotes and his comments are not humorous whatsoever. My partner just read it and she found no humor whatsoever.

[TheWhiteRabbit]

[redcairo]

 

BTW, I don't care what his emoticon denotes and his comments are not humorous whatsoever. My partner just read it and she found no humor whatsoever.

 

Well I thought it was kinda funny.  Sorry.  I'd have thought it was just as funny if someone said it about Trump!

 

 

Hillary is taking far too much abuse from the patriarchal authoritarians. Trump was stalking her on stage during the debate

 

Have you ever been present in controversial meetings in business? Board of Directors furious debate about stock splits and takeovers? I have. Trump behaved pretty much in keeping with the professional deformation his working role has provided. He didn't behave like an aggressive bonehead because she was a woman... he behaved that way because he is an aggressive bonehead, who has had a long history of jobs that tend to be (sadly) dominated by aggressive boneheads, and he is running for a CEO job in which he believes (wrongly or rightly) that an aggressive bonehead personality will actually be a good thing for the job. Apparently some people agree with him.

 

Hillary basically said a woman should be president solely because of being a woman, and then said outright that women simply better understood issues about families and jobs. To me, that's completely sexist. Had a man said the opposite about a woman, he'd have been crucified.

 

So when people react to her, considering them "patriarchal authoritarians" does not seem fair to me -- she is in a position of authority and she herself openly says she wants to literally invalidate two of the most primary freedoms that define the nature of our country and our culture, she insults men, she insults everybody not on her wagon actually and not just a little but with all kinds of globally demeaning epithets, but if someone insults her, it is because they are behaving injustly?

 

They may be, but I don't think you have to be a patriarchal authoritarian to find her comments and her behavior problematic.

 

Or to find DT's problematic, frankly, I don't like either of them.

 

RC

Edited October 30, 2016 by redcairo

[Kar3n]

Let me put it this way, Hillary is taking far too much abuse from the patriarchal authoritarians. Trump was stalking her on stage during the debate as well as spewing other accusations that were nothing but dog whistle demagoguery.

 

BTW, I don't care what his emoticon denotes and his comments are not humorous whatsoever. My partner just read it and she found no humor whatsoever.

Patriarchal authoritarian abuse? Boy, you are really turning it up to defend her and have been watching too much political TV.

 

You need to remember that she has put herself in the spotlight in her run for POTUS. In doing so, every man and woman in the US not only has the right but the duty to question and scrutinize her every action and political agenda. Same goes for Trump. Should she be treated more delicately because she is a woman?

 

Instead of presenting a viable argument for the candidate of your choice, you choose to place labels on the people whom you have no viable rebuttal against their comments. I am sure you can not deny that she has done some pretty questionable and illegal things in her political career, yet you choose to not acknowledge that about her. Instead, you paint her as a victim. BTW, that is the latest in pro Clinton media news defense of HRC.

 

Trump is no angel, that is for certain, however,it has yet to be proven that any of the accusations against him are true. Can we say the same about HRC? No, no we can not.

 

Just because a person speaks out against or disagrees with a human being, no matter their sex or race, running for public office, especially the highest in our land, it does not make them anti anything other than the candidate themselves, their policies and political agenda. For you to ascribe to thinking otherwise is surprising and opposite of your proclaimed intellect and knowlege.

[ralis]

Patriarchal authoritarian abuse? Boy, you are really turning it up to defend her and have been watching too much political TV.

 

 

Political TV? You have no idea what I do in my spare time so stop inferring as if you know something about me. I reveal little as to who I am in this public forum. Further, I never once said who I am voting for and am concerned as to the direction this thread is taking. I brought up the example earlier regarding Joeblast's comments that Hillary should be in an electric chair. I find that neither amusing or useful in the context of this forum.

 

I find it baffling that moderators say nothing in regards to Joeblast's comments, but you have criticized me on more than one occasion. Why is that?

Edited October 30, 2016 by ralis

[redcairo]

Thank you Ralis, and everyone else, for the conversation. I have nothing useful to add further I feel to this thread, so I will bow out gracefully and wish you well with it.

 

Best regards,

RC

[Karl]

Political TV? You have no idea what I do in my spare time so stop inferring as if you know something about me. I reveal little as to who I am in this public forum. Further, I never once said who I am voting for and am concerned as to the direction this thread is taking. I brought up the example earlier regarding Joeblast's comments that Hillary should be in an electric chair. I find that neither amusing or useful in the context of this forum.

 

I find it baffling that moderators say nothing in regards to Joeblast's comments, but you have criticized me on more than one occasion. Why is that?

Because you are sexist. You are saying exactly the same things which you accuse others. You seem to be an agitator for some agenda narrow, or broad. Are you married ? It just doesn't seem to me that you know much about woman and there are two particularly feisty, bright woman here who are not the shy retiring wallflower stereotypes you seem to believe exist, they are telling you how it is. I understand if you don't listen to another guy, but at least listen to them.

 

Joe did not call for a member of the forum to be put into an electric chair. He opined that a criminal should go to the electric chair if found guilty of the kind of crimes HRC has been accused of, I think that's wrong -a public hanging might be more in order. Don't forget that one of the emails talked of hanging, drawing an quartering the person who allowed HRC to have a private server-it has to said, if it's suggested for her supplier, it must certainly apply to she who pulled the trigger.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

Why not include the hate mongering toward Hillary Clinton in several threads on this forum? One poster today was calling for her to be put in the electric chair! These comments are not just personal beliefs, but are hate speech.

 

No, the electric chair is not fitting.  But she should be taken to task for what she did and didn't do.  We should be allowed to know the truth.  She was, after all, working for us.

 

But I agree with you, the hate speeches should be reduced as much as possible without denying people to express what they believe to be the truth.  If we talk the truth will eventually show itself.

[joeblast]

Why not include the hate mongering toward Hillary Clinton in several threads on this forum? One poster today was calling for her to be put in the electric chair! These comments are not just personal beliefs, but are hate speech.

Look, words you disagree with are not automatically hate mongering speech.  No matter how often you try and assert that to be so.

 

Tongue in insult cheek? Really? That is the most out of bounds comment I have heard tonight. Did you read his mind and determine intent? I happen to take what he writes at face value.

She did rather well, because if she does get convicted for all the treason, I doubt they'd actually use the chair, lethal injection would be more likely.  But honestly I'd rather see the bag over her face and dont care if she apologizes for the war crimes before it would happen.

 

Let me put it this way, Hillary is taking far too much abuse from the patriarchal authoritarians. Trump was stalking her on stage during the debate as well as spewing other accusations that were nothing but dog whistle demagoguery.

 

BTW, I don't care what his emoticon denotes and his comments are not humorous whatsoever. My partner just read it and she found no humor whatsoever.

Oh stfu, taking too much abuse.  Look, if she didnt have a trail of dead bodies behind her from running gun & drugs for the cia when her & bill were in the governor's mansion then she probably never would have been in a position to help get those guns to ISIS.  And then we wouldnt be talking about what a corrupt piece of shit hillary clinton is.

 

What's your partner going to do when she sees Bill's pedo videos? 

 

She's asked for every bit of it, ralis.  Every last bit of it, and then some.

[ralis]

Because you are sexist. You are saying exactly the same things which you accuse others. You seem to be an agitator for some agenda narrow, or broad. Are you married ? It just doesn't seem to me that you know much about woman and there are two particularly feisty, bright woman here who are not the shy retiring wallflower stereotypes you seem to believe exist, they are telling you how it is. I understand if you don't listen to another guy, but at least listen to them.

 

Joe did not call for a member of the forum to be put into an electric chair. He opined that a criminal should go to the electric chair if found guilty of the kind of crimes HRC has been accused of, I think that's wrong -a public hanging might be more in order. Don't forget that one of the emails talked of hanging, drawing an quartering the person who allowed HRC to have a private server-it has to said, if it's suggested for her supplier, it must certainly apply to she who pulled the trigger.

 

The comment by Joe was that HRC should be put in an electric chair. A member of this forum? Don't know where you contrived that one.

[dawei]

The comment by Joe was that HRC should be put in an electric chair. A member of this forum? Don't know where you contrived that one.

 

To be fair, there was a comment by him (god knows where) about her being in an orange jump suit... this can only happen if convicted of a crime.  So that is the context of an electric chair too.

 

But I take it as more forum expressed hyperbole... I can imagine some will call it TAD, Trump effective Disorder.  

[ralis]

To be fair, there was a comment by him (god knows where) about her being in an orange jump suit... this can only happen if convicted of a crime.  So that is the context of an electric chair too.

 

But I take it as more forum expressed hyperbole... I can imagine some will call it TAD, Trump effective Disorder.  

 

The intent of his comment was clear. I guess it is just hyperbole, a colorful joke or whatever and not to be taken seriously. You expect me to believe that?

 

I reviewed some of the posts that came in today and Joe has told me to "stfu", Karl has labeled me a sexist and I should just by process of divination realize it is all in good fun and humor here. It appears that the so called rules don't apply.

 

Joe's comments directed towards me, is in your view is just more colorful language and forum hyperbole?

 

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/42339-recent-racist-trolling-and-trolling-against-fundamentalism-and-morals/page-5#entry716616

 

 

Oh stfu, taking too much abuse.

Edited October 30, 2016 by ralis

[ralis]

This man was removed before the game between Wisconsin and Nebraska last night. I seriously doubt that most posters here recognize the serious ramifications of so called free speech.