Alyssa wrote:
I fail to see why the right should cancel Trump with POSSIBLE p3dophillia
Imagine denying that Trump is a pedophile. Wild, shit take.
Trump is a misogynist, an adjudicated rapist, and at least 28 women have publicly accused him of various acts of sexual misconduct, including rape, sexual assault, and unwanted kissing or groping.
In Remy's eyes, that makes Trump God like, he will always defend the man against anything short of worship.
Here is what AI says about Spawnism, note that it's become a serious problem because "predators on platforms like Discord and Roblox convinced minors to take the fictional "respawning" lore literally". So, pedophiles are claiming it's real in an effort to "manipulate and groom vulnerable children". I guess that explains why SatanLucy claims it's a true religion.
Spawnism is a dangerous online phenomenon that originated as a fictional cult in the horror video game Forsaken on Roblox. Manipulative groups and bad actors weaponized the game's lore, recruiting impressionable children and convincing them to perform real-life rituals, including carving symbols into their skin to achieve "reincarnation".
Origins in Gaming
Spawnism is rooted in the multiplayer horror game Forsaken, which features a fictional cult that worships "The Spawn". In the game's story, followers believe in a "second life". While this was designed as a harmless, spooky fictional concept, cyber-exploiters and predatory individuals hijacked the concept to manipulate and groom vulnerable children.
Real-World Exploitation & Danger
The movement became a severe real-world safety concern when predators on platforms like Discord and Roblox convinced minors to take the fictional "respawning" lore literally. Members of online exploitation networks encouraged players to perform harmful acts, such as cutting the game's symbol into their own skin. This behavior raised alarm bells among parents, mental health experts, and online safety organizations.
Warning Signs & Prevention
For families and educators, the "Spawnism" craze serves as a stark warning about the dangers of online echo chambers and unregulated communication features in gaming. Experts advise monitoring who children interact with online, maintaining open communication about uncomfortable or secretive digital encounters, and intervening early if a child shows withdrawal, secrecy, or signs of self-harm.
linate wrote:
You guys do realize there's a vast difference from nobody working and being completely required to work or else starve?
You are OK with other people working, just not you.
That's where legislation that actually helps people comes in even if they are still by and large working.
Can you be a little more explicit, what kind of legislation makes it so you don't have to work?
Also I'm not down playing needing to work. But I am saying it's not right to call it freedom like conservatives say.
I'd agree it's not right to call it freedom, but you are the only person I've ever heard call needing to work "freedom". It's also not right to call needing to work a pickle.
And again government can help. The horror, amiright??
You think the government can help you not have to work? Why exactly would they do that?
Understand, the US government has around two million civilian employees, the US Post office adds another 600,000, and the US Military employs another 2.8 million people. All of them have to work for a living, I really don't think you can count on them to recognize how unfair it is that you have to work for a living too (The horror), and then take action to fix that problem.
Maybe don't hold your breath on that one.
FLRW wrote:
While we know how the universe has evolved over the last 13.8 billion years, scientists are still investigating exactly why the initial explosion occurred. Because space and time were created at the exact moment of the Big Bang, questioning what happened "before" it remains one of the greatest mysteries in modern physics.
If "space and time were created at the exact moment of the Big Bang", then there was no "before", the moment of the Big Bang and anything prior to that lies outside the space and time frame of reference of science. We can and have come close to the initial moment of creation, within trillionths and trillionths of a second, but by definition, we can't reach it scientifically, whatever the process was, it transcends the scientific frame of reference.
There are scientists working on theories of "everything from nothing", but those are futile because they involve a "process", and a process, bt definition, requires time and space for it to occur in.
The problem of a prior existence to the moment of creation is scientifically irreducible, but human beings have an inherent sense of wonder and we are constitutionally designed to question that prior existence. All science can say about that is that any prior existence you did postulate would have to be postulated as a given, it would necessarily transcend the scientific frame of reference, it would defy physical description since you could not apply the terms of time and space to it, and consequently, it would be rationally incomprehensible and logically transcendent. It would be a matter of having faith in a greater reality that our four dimensional exists within, this realm of being would necessarily be non-physical, and it would not be in any way subject to a logical "proof" within the scientific frame of reference.
This existence could only be described by analogy because words are relative things that can't adequately describe transcendent concepts. The "ultimate reality" being described would necessarily have to be timeless rather than everlasting, universally present rather than infinite in space, uncaused and therefore eternally changeless. This would all have to fall completely outside the realm of science because objective knowledge of it would be impossible, it could not be approached from any ordinary, finite point of reference, and therefore it could never be fully grasped in any fixed form.
This is not to say it cannot be conceived of, or that it does not exist, and I would like to point out that in all times and places that human beings have been known to exist, the vast majority of mankind has postulated just such an entity as existing, and in general they have in described it in much the same way.
linate wrote:
"I can't believe people think having to work for basic needs is synonymous with freedom.
I don't think anyone defines "freedom" as "having to work for basic needs", so it's good you can't believe it.
It's literally a bunch of rich people hoarding essential resources and telling us to serve them or die."
So, you don't want to work, then you need to find someone that is willing to work for you and have them take care of you. I can't believe you think having someone take care of you is synonymous with freedom.
It's how life works, all animals must expend energy to have their basic needs met, you don't want to do the work so you want others to do the work for you, you want to be the rich person with people serving you.
If you don't want to do the work for your basic needs, it's unlikely you will want to do the work necessary to become rich.
There's always the lottery, see if you can find someone who will buy you tickets,
linate wrote:
Whereas you believe that God watches evil and is unwilling or unable to stop it
We are not the same
What exactly do you mean by "foreordained evil for his good purposes"?
By "foreordained" are you talking determinism, "foreordained" would mean no "free will" wouldn't it?
By "for his good purposes" are you saying God uses "evil" to bring about "good"? How does that work?
Please explain.
Misterio wrote:
I'm not saying it's true, that's why I ask if this movie is the result of a coordination between Spielberg and the government. I think it's too much coincidence, there's something behind it.
Of course, there is something behind it, a major motion picture marketing strategy.
linate wrote:
.... from Hillary's emails
Amiright??
What about Hunter's Laptop, if it weren't for Trump, Hunter's Laptop could easily have destroyed society as we know it.
Lock him up, lock him up...
Misterio wrote:
He says he believes aliens exist.
A lot of people believe aliens exist, including me, that doesn't mean your conspiracy theory is true. Do you think Close Encounters and ET were true stories?
It's not just about making money because Steven doesn't need it.
The reason Steven doesn't need money is because he's so good at making movies and hyping them to make money.
SatanLucy wrote:
Aliens are just government projects for experimenting on population.
So, you are saying we are all victims of the government.
Shoresy wrote:
lol
I recently got a promotion to a collegiate charter school, so I can't be as active as I used to be, sorry.
So you are Greyparrot, you haven't been married that long, I'm surprised she's feminized and Canadianized you so much already.
I'm sure you're already watching Hallmark Movies, and it's only a matter of time till you are a campaign rep for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Anyway, welcome back.
Misterio wrote:
It's really a coincidence that this film comes out just when Trump is fully disclosing all the UFO files the US agencies have.
Do you think this has been coordinated? Is Steven Spielberg part of this agenda of revealing the existence of alien life?
It could certainly be coordinated for marketing purposes; Spielberg knows how to make hit movies happen.
If you watch the trailer, you'll see the movie revolves around how people react to the UFO files disclosure. I think they're preparing people for the first alien contact which is very close.
Steven Spielberg isn't just great at making movies, he is also masterful at promoting movies, what he's "preparing People for" is to go see the movie, building excitement, creating viral conversations about it, it's hype and he's very good at it.
Kohai wrote:
GreatfulGoy wrote:
I didn’t realize shoresh was grey parrot
Me neither, are you guys sure?
GP had a noticeably different style than Shoresy, last we heard from GP he was getting married to a Canadian woman, so you think she already made him Canadian, and now Shoresy is the married version of GP. Interesting, I'm not seeing it, but hey, I still don't really get the internet, it's all so Felliniesque and confusing to me, so, maybe so.
Shoresy, it's time to speak up, are you Greyparrot, or just an unreasonable facsimile?
SatanLucy wrote:
You cant process arguments. But in simple terms, someone capable of ruining tik tok = someone capable of ruining the world if given control over it.
OK, so now you are talking victimhood on a global scale, that's so you lol.
Your appetite for victimhood is very strong Grasshopper.
SatanLucy wrote:
I just see leftists for what they are. They ruined Tik tok.
You still don't have an argument?
SatanLucy wrote:
Not even going to pretend you think the left's corruption is analogous.
to this, I will respond using classical fallacy "ad hominem". Leftists are corrupting our society! that disproves your arguments.
So, what you are really saying is, "Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo, I'm a victim of the left"....and also a victim of "ad hominem" attacks too.
Poor baby.
SatanLucy wrote:
"Wah wah wah, boo boo hoo, I still don't have an argument." - Sidewalker
"Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo, I'm still a victim." - SatanLucy
SatanLucy wrote:
Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo.
Is that what you tell to all victims of abuse?
"Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo, I'm a victim." - SatanLucy
SergeantLynch wrote:
Yep...Normal is as normal does.
Nope, what some people do is not "normal". That's why we also have the word "creepy"
And one persons normal is the ritualistic abuse of young boys penises...A practice unarguably performed for sexually inspired reasons.
Nope, that's not normal, it's creepy.
Whereas another persons normal is quite the opposite...Leave kids alone and let them make their own decisions about their sexuality, when they are adults.
Nope, what's normal is for parents to raise their kids, leaving them alone is what is normally called "neglect". I suppose people who have sexual thoughts about infants would like parents to "leave them alone", but like it or not, part of raising kids is protecting them from the creepy people who think of them sexually.
And you are an exponent of the former.
Nope, I'm way over here in the normal world where we don't think of infants as sex objects, but hey, if you are so needy that you need to label me an "exponent" of your creepy way of looking at the world, then so be it, your creepy world of sexualized infants has its own rules, I guess.
I would say you and Lucy are the exponents of sexualizing infants and I'm not, but hey, if you see infants through creepy colored glasses, then I suppose you are gonna see me through those same creepy colored glasses, that's how creepy works I suppose.
Enjoy your circumcision porn, and there you go, now I'm an "exponent" of you enjoying circumcision porn.
And furthermore you are just as involved in this conversation as both Lucy and I, so don't try and make out that you are not.
Nope, I'm having a completely different conversation than you and Lucy are having, I just don't join you in having sexual thoughts about infants, but hey, creepy is as creepy does, whatever floats your boat.
Definitely the conclusion to this thread for me, I will not comment further.
Of course, the conclusion to this thread for you is creepy, that's because you see the thread through those creepy colored glasses.
SatanLucy wrote:
Why do you love being a victim.
I don't. I would prefer to have my foreskin back.
Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo.
SatanLucy wrote:
So what you are really saying is, ""Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo, I'm a victim"
Why do you hate victims?
Why do you love being a victim.
I suppose a non-sequitur looks better than dumb as a post.
SatanLucy wrote:
Is there any subject where your response isn't "wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo, I'm a victim"
Oh, blaming the victim and telling victim to "suck it up".
So what you are really saying is, ""Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo, I'm a victim" of your post.
What a surprise.
You were lucky so that circumcision didn't disrupt your sexual function. If it did, you would be telling a different story now.
Fortunately, I'm not a victim personality, is there anything that you don't turn into your beloved victimhood.
Is there any subject where your response isn't "wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo, I'm a victim"
Poor baby..
You are making an argument for the supremacy of white people over people of color.
No surprise there.
SergeantLynch wrote:
Okay...So we establish you're views on the issue...It was easy...Be proud.
Yes, you have established my views on the subject, instead of me establishing my views on the subject, be proud.
So we think that the ritual abuse of an infants penis is bad.
So you think of the circumcision of infants sexually.
And you think that it is fine.
Nope, what we have established is you think of circumcision of infants as a sexual thing, and like "normal" people, I don't.
End of story.
My thinking is what is referred to as "normal", the way you and SatanLucy think is referred to as "creepy".
End of story.
SatanLucy wrote:
I didnt want to participate in your circumcision world either, but I wasnt asked.
I don't care.
You are boring as hell.
SatanLucy wrote:
I mean, it's the only place you ever had a social life isn't it?
Sure. I guess no more arguments from you.
There never was an argument from me, there was just you harassing me with your infant porn shit and me telling you to fuck off because I'm not participating in your pedophilia world.
