Posts made by eobox91103

@raphjd said in Co-founder of Christian TV network that railed against vaccines dies of Covid-19:

You are a "whataboutism" nazi and hypocrite.

This demonstrates my point that when you have no rational argument to make, you resort to insults. Do you have any idea how asinine and childish this is?

So, let's have a look at your own post. You called me a fucking liar, illiterate and ignorant.

I thought giving you a taste of your own medicine might be helpful. But perhaps you know these things already.

@raphjd said in Co-founder of Christian TV network that railed against vaccines dies of Covid-19:

@eobox91103

AH, the "whataboutism" nazi.

Many people on here notice that your responses to other people are almost always an ad hominem, attacking the person rather than addressing issues. While this might give you some childish satisfaction, it shows the reader that you have surrendered on the topic and are left with nothing else than hurling your feces at people. This is not worthwhile discussion

If you are going to slag off a person for not getting a vaccine and then repeat boosters and not wear masks, you have to accept it when people point out that your side dies too. .

I have no idea what this incoherent rambling means. I do know that it's very likely nonsense.

@raphjd said in Co-founder of Christian TV network that railed against vaccines dies of Covid-19:

Even the Mayo Clinic website said that if you get the vaccine, you won't get covid.

No, it doesn't

If you search for "mayo clinic covid vaccine," the first page that comes up is https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/why-get-vaccinated. This page says, "A COVID-19 vaccine might ... Prevent you from getting COVID-19 or from becoming seriously ill or dying of COVID-19"

Notice the word "might" in there. I think this wording is quite clear.

So, by your own definitions, this would make you a fucking liar. (I would prefer to say that it suggests that you are illiterate and/or ignorant).

@raphjd said in Co-founder of Christian TV network that railed against vaccines dies of Covid-19:

@bi4smooth

But fully vaccinated people have died too.

But what about....?

Yes, some fully vaxed people do get very ill and die--but the undeniable fact is that people who are vaxed are much less likely to do so.

Public health and safety issues should be seen as risk reduction, not risk elimination. People who follow traffic signals might still get into a crash at a junction, but they're less likely to. People who exercise might still get heart disease, but they're less likely to. The fact that preventive measures don't always work doesn't mean they aren't effective and should be taken. This might be a difficult concept for some people to understand.

Who are YOU to say that he would have survived?

@bi4smooth did not say that. But it is a fact that people who are vaccinated are less likely to become very ill and die.

Marcus Lamb, 64, whose Daystar network reaches an estimated 2 billion viewers worldwide, had pushed alternative therapies. See https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb-covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies

This score just in: Science 1; Dumbass 0.

@leothar There is indeed a pussy preventer:

From the search page, click on your user name in the upper right. Select "profile" from the drop-down list. When that page comes up, tick the boxes called "turn off straight (or bisexual) categories." Then click "submit changes" at the bottom of the page. (This last step is important.)

I have these boxes ticked in my profile, and and my view is almost vagina-free. Occasionally a user posts straight content but doesn't tag it as such, so it will show up. When this happens, users often post messages reminding the uploader of the rules.

I hope this works for you.

@illustrious said in Is FOX even "news" anymore?:

@raphjd LOL. Literally not a single piece of evidence.

Did you read the Mueller report?

The first part of the investigation was not about Donald Trump (although his worldview thinks everything is about him). It was a "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election." That interference did take place "in sweeping and systematic fashion," according the report. (The report is available at https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download. It's 448 pages long, far exceeding a Trumper's attention span. The introduction and executive summary is only 10 pages, and one hopes that people could read that much.)

While it has been clearly established that the Internet Research Agency of Russia interfered with the 2016 election, it is not surprising that there was no provable conspiracy between Donald Trump and the Russian actors. Putin and his gang are as smart as they are evil: They did not want an erratic and naive person involved in a carefully designed and executed project.

After the Mueller report was released, Trump and his sycophants (none of whom read the report) screamed loudly that they had been "totally exonerated." That is factually false. The investigation was conducted according to a rigorous standard of proof, which found sufficient evidence to establish that there was Russian interference in the election.

While there was also much evidence of interaction between Trump campaign staff and advisers and Russian actors, there wasn't a provable link that Trump himself was involved in the conspiracy. This is hardly "total exoneration."

@hubrys said in Is FOX even "news" anymore?:

It's strange that ordinary Joes think that Tucker Carlson really understands them

A while back some people sued Tucker Carlson and Fox News saying that Carlson's on-air rants were a breach of an implied contract between a journalist and his audience. Fox News responded by saying that Carlson was not a journalist, but rather an entertainer.

If that's the case, Carlson knows how to work his room of uncritical Trumpers: Feed them baseless conspiracy theories reaffirming their unhinged world view that they can absorb within their 30-second attention span.

In the real world, complex problems don't have simplistic solutions, but in the Fox world, facts are inconvenient and ignored.

@massafera There is another LGBT torrent site (something.org...I won't mention the name) that is not publicly accessible, and has lots of torrents from sources that send takedowns to gt.ru. As a member of that site I have no problem using it. Whatever they're doing should be done here.

@bi4smooth said in Karen in FL files criminal charges because school library didn't censor a LGBTQ book.:

20 years ago (eek, maybe closer to 30?) I was visiting Indianapolis and was taken to a "private club" (I had to pay $5 at the door to get a membership!

There was a similar law in North Carolina some years ago that prohibited bars from serving a "predominantly homosexual clientele" (or something like that). So, gay bars had to be "private clubs." I recall visiting a friend there and having a similar $5 membership fee. I also had to sign in...I signed as "Jesse Helms," a senator from that state with rabidly homophobic views.

@bi4smooth said in Karen in FL files criminal charges because school library didn't censor a LGBTQ book.:

I don't think it's legal to drive naked in this state, much less attack people with your car while naked...

The Florida statues don't address specifically address driving while naked (would that be a DWN?), but it is a first degree misdemeanor to be "naked in public in a vulgar or indecent manner." This gives rise (!) to three questions:

1. Is being in one's car on a public road considered being "in public?"
2. Does being naked in itself inherently imply a "vulgar or indecent manner?"
3. What is the definition of "being naked?" Florida law is silent on this.

I'm not going to research the case law here, although there are probably some amusing precedents. I wouldn't, myself, want to drive while naked: I always wear the seat belt, and the lower portion of such would be in position to saw off my gentleman's bits. This would be uncomfortable was well as unsafe.

(As an aside, the definition of "naked" is not as straightforward as one might think. Some time back I was visiting a friend of mine in Washington, DC, and he took me to a gay bar that had male "dancers." They appeared to be completely naked, but on closer inspection (!), I noticed that they were wearing socks--and I was told that this was to quash any accusation that they were naked.)

@bi4smooth said in Required military service... or?:
...(Can I volunteer to be a tester - someone who confirms their gay sex eligibility??????)

Some years ago I was at a university with on-coed dorms that had a strict policy that persons of the other sex could not be in the dorm between 11pm and 8am. One student complained to me that this policy was discriminatory, as straight students couldn't have a sex partner stay over with them, but gay/bi students could.

In a column for the student newspaper, I proposed a solution: Have each student declare their orientation at the beginning of each year, and apply the rule to them accordingly: For example, straight male students could not host women, gay male students could not host men, and bi students couldn't host anybody. This approach would preserve the "sex prevention" intent of the rules.

As I predicted, in the next week's edition a student responded that people could game the system by declaring the opposite orientation: e.g., straight male students would declare themselves gay so that they could have women stay over with them.

I was ready for that, so the following week I proposed that we needed a "Qualify Undergraduates by Interview and Carnal Knowledge Evaluation” (QUICK-E) process to determine if a someone who declared himself gay was, in fact, gay. I volunteered to be part of this activity, available to do a QUICK-E with students as needed.

Unfortunately, my proposal was not implemented.

@raphjd The law that applies here appears in every state: One is prohibited from distributing obscene materials to minors, and I provided Florida's legal definition of obscenity. Criminal charges would only apply if the book in question contained obscene material. Given Florida's definition of this, it would not appear that it does. As @bi4smooth reminds us, there are professionals who can be called on here.

The other item at issue is, "who decides what books [my] children may read?" Parents are the first line of defense. If Suburban Momzilla Karen doesn't want her children to read a particular book, she is within her rights to enforce that.

But she doesn’t want to stop there: She wants to govern the reading list for other parents’ children. Think about the inherent self-contradiction here: “I think parents should decide what books their children can read, so I want to decide what other parents’ children can read.” She cannot argue both for and against parental responsibility at the same time.

@raphjd The relevant question is, "Would this material be considered obscene under Florida law?"

That is defined in 2021 Florida Statutes, Title XLVI, 847.001 as:
(10) “Obscene” means the status of material which:
(a) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
(b) Depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct as specifically defined herein; and
(c) Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

It is far from clear that the book contains material that satisfies all three of those criteria.

@dorftimbre said in Why is everything new being deleted from the "Fan Sites" category?:

@therock07 wow never knew about that! The things one can find on the internet. gay-torrents.net does not seem to be tat affected as this site. I have never seen their search results pop up on Google. I guess I'll be using them instead

I think gt.net has fewer takedowns because they don't permit posting of torrents with material from quite a few sources--for example, EnglishLads can't be posted there. They also have a much smaller collection, usually less than 50 torrents per day, so there's less likelihood that they'd have takedown-prone material. (But I'm not criticising the site: It's well-designed, the content it has is good, and the forum has nice discussions.)

@hubrys We should note that the book was in the library of a high school, not an elementary school. At that point, most of the kids are sexually active. And...for some of them, it will be their last formal education and thus the last opportunity for them to experience content outside of their own narrow bubble.

Also, the right-wing book burners who want government (i.e., school boards) to censor library content also rail against a nanny state that would override individual responsibility. If a parent wants to regulate what their high school student reads, s/he should step in and do so. It sounds like "Karen in Florida" wants government to take over that job for her.

@flozen said in Why is everything new being deleted from the "Fan Sites" category?:

I feel as if half of the posters (guess) are late for their Ivermectin boosters.

You're right! Not only was I getting my booster, but I had to change my IV bag because it ran out of bleach. But now that I've had my litre of Clorox, I can return to the forum.

@deliverator9 said in Greetings from somehwere in the US :

@bi4smooth I'm south of Hell, MI - one state downward lol

That might be Indiana? I lived in South Bend for two years.

Another great place name for @bi4smooth's list: Intercourse, Pennsylvania.

Unfortunately, there is no more Fucking in Austria; the residents of that town voted last year to change its name to Fugging. You can, though, still visit Fucking, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AZbO2rcbX8.

@kytec G'day from Canada, and welcome. I have some good friends in Queensland, and it's always a pleasure to visit down there.

@vmalar Please re-read what I said, and I'll also try to simplify it for you: There's a big difference between a parent who circumcises a child without his consent, and that child who grows up to be a circumcised man.

I think the parent was wrong to enforce this upon the child. While this might fall under the category of child abuse, it cannot be compared to the holocaust.

But the guy who was circumcised is not wrong. He had nothing to do with the decision, and he has a right to enjoy his sex life--and his penis--to the fullest. Telling him that he is defective and mutilated serves no purpose.