Silly Chrisitian-Conservative-Obama Hating Morons

[scraze]

Turns out this is just the forum for raptureready. com ... There's more!

[Charlieace]

i know RR is the only one out there, and that is what's scary.

[aNewHobby4me]

i was banned because I said i didn't hate tree huggers, and explained how they helped...

That's apparently where you went wrong. I was reading their Board Rules & Guidelines for Posting and you apparently broke rule #4 and possibly rule #5. In effect, you disagreed with them. Seriously, it isn't allowed that you disagree with their beliefs in their forums. They certainly don't want me over there, as they have one line especially for me!

Do not play 'devil's advocate' for the sake of argument.

Well, it *is* their house, so it's their rules.

As a parallel, guests here at HTS aren't allowed to discuss black hat hacking directly...you have to be sly about it, and give a 'what if' scenario. And if you are thinking 'that's different, that is legal vs illegal', they look at it as 'the ways of man' vs 'the Holy Word of God'. Given their point of view, which do you think they hold more important?

Charlieace, you can't discuss it there--but there is absolutely no reason you can't invite them here to discuss their beliefs. Might be fun, eh?

-- Mon May 04, 2009 11:02 am --

these people are insane

Which is the only reason I don't hate the individuals, only what they are. So changing them would be for their own sake as much as everyone else's.

Which is, ironically, the same way they feel about you( and anyone else "...not of the body").

[myhexhax]

I see... alot of people that are just mad they were banned d: Why would you join if you don't want to engage in the conversations of the forum? That would be like joining HTS exclusively to discuss the ins and outs of creating soda cans. While you may not be banned for it, it is certainly off-topic. Now if you discuss hacking into website X, you will be banned, because it is against the website rules. They have their own website rules, as do we. Privately owned websites are allowed to do so. The day that ends is the day freedom dies. If you want to express your own opinion, start your own website. If you want to 'convert' them, then find a place that you can engage in that sort of conversation; just as you would find a forum that allows black-hat discussions.

Also, being a conservative doesn't mean you're a christian; being a christian doesn't mean you're a conservative; being a moron does not mean you are either of the above; and being silly, well, I'm not sure what that makes you. Although being conservative and hating Obama are almost mutually inclusive. It is hypocritical to require everyone to be tolerant when you yourself are vehemently denouncing someone's belief system. What if it was a gay or liberal website, that had threads like "How do I convert my conservative neighbor to liberalism?" Would that bother you? If not, why? (warning, very loaded question) I have a feeling that it wouldn't. And if it did, then what would your reasoning be? That you don't feel it is right for someone to try to induce their beliefs onto others? Then why do you care that they do not support Obama or believe in gay marriage, etc.? The only reason that I would think that you would is that you don't think it is right, and want to change that fact. And even if you don't want to change that fact, then why are you complaining? The only possible reason would be for the sake of complaining.

I have to wonder why you are here; do you not support free speech and free expression? Nor the right to live in a way you want? The right to play, think, and love? That's getting to the core of what hacking is all about. Exploring and embracing, not destroying, which is what you are doing.


-Edit-
On a side note, what you are asking us to do in the first post is technically illegal, as you are bound by contract (the ToS you agree to when you register, to obey the board rules..), so according to the rules of HTS, this thread should be closed, but, it'd be nice to be able to discuss this in a civil manner (even though, after posting in another one of your topics, I'm afraid that might not be possible, but it is worth trying)

Regards,
--myhexhax

[AtlasDark]

Yes, your points are valid.

No, it's not okay to assert that one or a group that follows one is superior to anybody else in particular. This group seems to be absolutely certain of their pretentious beliefs and are actively shoving their own ideology down others' throats - that isn't discussion, that's rampant idiocy.

I wouldn't defend them for any sum or proposition.

Hacking need not be affiliated with "destructive" or "constructive" abilities - it is simply the observation and subsequent access to systems, networks, and subsidiary infrastructures that are otherwise inaccessible or inaccessible to those without given permissions. Thus, we condone only the spread of dangerous applications of this knowledge per protocol, in accordance with the law.

[myhexhax]

This group seems to be absolutely certain of their pretentious beliefs

If they were, they wouldn't be beliefs, would they? I am absolutely certain that the world is round, not flat. Am I being pretentious? Am I bigoted to say that someone that doesn't believe me is delusional? Are you for not allowing me to have my beliefs, if you were to argue otherwise?

and are actively shoving their own ideology down others' throats

But, funny question; What are you going to do about it? Think before you answer.

that isn't discussion, that's rampant idiocy.

And your point? They can think anything they want. I can disregard everything you say as if it were written in Japanese and I didn't know my カタカナ. I don't believe they were calling for people's discussion over there, nor do they show any intention of listening to people denouncing what they believe.

You call for tolerance, yet you advocate the criticism of a specific group of people. I still don't see how this isn't hypocrisy.

At what point do you tell people to not believe in what they do, and to not pursue what they want to.

If someone loves someone and it is deemed wrong by society, should the be persecuted?
If someone believes something, and it is deemed wrong by society, should they be ostracized?

They are not harassing you, and they are not affecting you personally. When they do, I'll advocate action, but whilst they sit in their corner wondering how to get someone to believe what they do, there is no reason in attempting to affect them. When they point a gun to your head, and tell you to believe; that is when you should so something.

You cannot make thought a crime without dire consequences. You cannot restrict speech without restricting your own.

The justification of your affectation is frankly outrageous, and I don't see how you can argue your position without coming up with a new point, besides "We can only tolerate this much, but you must tolerate us"

[AtlasDark]

I believe I can sum up my defense with the quote "one man's freedom ends when another man's begins;" with this iteration, the group's ideology clashes with the ideology of another's.

Currently, they are not affecting us, and will, perhaps, never have any real political influence. Should it come to a point where they can and possibly will influence the ideology of the masses, however, they could thus infringe on another's rights by implementing their ideas as superior or of an "obvious standard" and thereby influence thought by subversion or direct intervention. I believe that this point would call for an intervention, and I do not advocate tolerance of such if one's beliefs are suppressed by the biased opinions of another group.

Racism is not acceptable by any means, so no matter the ethics or ideology behind defending it, it will never become right. If they advocate hatred towards ANY given group, I do not believe such should be reinforced. This may be an opinion but does call for objection, though it may be one's own.

Otherwise, I think you present some rather interesting statements in your defense.

[Spectre557]

At what point do you tell people to not believe in what they do, and to not pursue what they want to.

At the point when they are totally incapable of rational thought, unwilling to even think about reasonable debate, and base their whole life around blind, unthinking, slavery to their cause. Especially when they try to force that on others, and on to their children.

I won't debate whether or not people have a right to brainwash their children. But when that includes racism, ignorance, and hate, any truly compassionate person must disagree with it.

They are not harassing you, and they are not affecting you personally. When they do, I'll advocate action, but whilst they sit in their corner wondering how to get someone to believe what they do, there is no reason in attempting to affect them. When they point a gun to your head, and tell you to believe; that is when you should so something.

I cannot tell you how strongly I disagree with this.

This poem by Niyi Osundare sums it up:

They picked Akanni up one morning
Beat him soft like clay
And stuffed him down the belly
Of a waiting jeep.

What business of mine is it
So long they don’t take the yam
From my savouring mouth?

They came one night
Booted the whole house awake
And dragged Danladi out,
Then off to a lengthy absence.

What business of mine is it
So long they don’t take the yam
From my savouring mouth?

Chinwe went to work one day
Only to find her job was gone:
No query, no warning, no probe -
Just one neat sack for a stainless record.

What business of mine is it
So long they don’t take the yam
From my savouring mouth?

And then one evening
As I sat down to eat my yam
A knock on the door froze my hungry hand.

The jeep was waiting on my bewildered lawn
Waiting, waiting in its usual silence.

You cannot make thought a crime without dire consequences. You cannot restrict speech without restricting your own.

Both points are true. But this isn't about "thought crimes". As for the restriction of speech, that's a different debate entirely, but it seems reasonable that some restrictions are placed on everyone. For example, you can't walk up to a random person in the street and start shouting abuse at them, and claim you have the right to do so under free speech. IMO, speech should be free as long as it isn't unjustifiably hateful, directly or otherwise. By all means, Christians can preach all about their big friend in the sky as much as they want, but when they call for the burning of gays, that is where I think the line should be drawn.

The justification of your affectation is frankly outrageous, and I don't see how you can argue your position without coming up with a new point, besides "We can only tolerate this much, but you must tolerate us"

If you're saying we can't prove our validity of argument over theirs without being hypocritical, then consider this: My personal validation is that everything I believe in is because I can see no reasonable alternative, not because I've been told or influenced. But more importantly, I can prove that I am a free and fair thinker simply because I possess the ability to examine my own arguments and change my beliefs depending on evidence; these people cannot.

My reason is my justification.
Cogito ergo sum.

[aNewHobby4me]

Its kind of amazing, how quickly this blossomed. And it all started by someone childishly going to a forum to deliberately start trouble so he could be banned, then he could come here and brag about it and encourage others to do the same. Don't believe me? Re-read his first post.

cHarLiEaCe.loves.to.aggravate@arguing.org

Indeed.

[ And no--I didn't realize this was his sole reason for posting when I responded. Had I known, I wouldn't have.]

[myhexhax]

Its kind of amazing, how quickly this blossomed. And it all started by someone childishly going to a forum to deliberately start trouble so he could be banned, then he could come here and brag about it and encourage others to do the same. Don't believe me? Re-read his first post.

cHarLiEaCe.loves.to.aggravate@arguing.org

Indeed.

[ And no--I didn't realize this was his sole reason for posting when I responded. Had I known, I wouldn't have.]

I tend to reply directly to OP in these sorts of topics, and I also like to feed trolls.. trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls. That's why I typically review someone's prior posting history before replying to them :p