Incoming pro-gay troll alert!

self | march 17 2004 | little jeremiah

[little jeremiah]

Dear Freepers,

A fellow Freeper alerted me to another discussion board, wherein the leftist/deviants are advising one another to register at Free Republic in order to pose as Christians, with the purpose of promoting homosexuality in a subversive manner, thereby disrupting Free Republic.

Here are a few comments, just so that you will be on the alert for this sort of thing: (if I may be so bold):

I'm a troll on a Freeper board by: anonymous 32 03/17/2004 @ 06:09PM

Hey....I've never done it but stumbled across a conservative board and created a character of a right-wing intolerant born-again Christian zealot. It's amazing how many people love me there. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You create a character which you believe is preposterous and find out there are 100's out there like it. Use words like Rosie in an abomination and the posts of approval you get. I'm trying to figure out if somehow I can turn this into a good thing.

RE: I'm a troll on a Freeper board by: anonymous 03/17/2004 @ 06:10PM

LOL that's crazy OP (j/k)

RE: I'm a troll on a Freeper board by: anonymous 03/17/2004 @ 06:11PM

easy... just string them along for a few months, then let loose and tell them how you REALLY feel! Of course you'll be banned immediately, but with any luck you'll create so much mistrust among them that the board will fall apart. Good luck!

RE: I'm a troll on a Freeper board by: anonymous 03/17/2004 @ 06:13PM

Use your persona to ask how you as a Christian can reconcile hating gays with eating shrimp, per Leviticus.

RE: I'm a troll on a Freeper board by: anonymous 03/17/2004 @ 06:13PM

Nah, you get them to like you and know you, and then you start injecting some common sense here and there, like how you just cannot support government intrusiveness into the bedroom, and how it's just Democrat-like "Big Government" to think the government should solve all the social problems, and to just let the market decide, and that no churches would ever or should ever be compelled to perform gay marriages, but that you believe in freedom of religion in this country as a founding principle, so people should be able to choose to burn in hell or not, and that Bush shouldn't be forcing that choice on them. Stuff like that. I'm sure you can figure out a way to slowly, subtly get some stuff in there. Lots of good fodder in the whole budget big-government thing too.

RE: I'm a troll on a Freeper board by: anonymous 03/17/2004 @ 06:14PM

Start raging about sodomites and anal sex like they do, and gradually make it sound more and more erotic.

RE: I'm a troll on a Freeper board by: anonymous 03/17/2004 @ 06:14PM

6:11's idea is good, plus waiting will give you time to get used to how the board is moderated, and when would be the optimum time to reveal your true self when you don't expect any deleting moderators around for a while.

RE: I'm a troll on a Freeper board by: anonymous 03/17/2004 @ 06:15PM

I'm on my 2nd subversive character at Lucianne.com It's fun in a way, but I can only take those people in small doses. They really are toxic.

[tdadams]

Seems that most of the worst serial killers are 'gay'.

John, like I said, stop digging. Get some facts.

You really want to see a statistic that indicates the probability that someone will be a serial killer? Look at Caucasian American males in their 20s and 30s. They commit 84% of all serial killings. Oh, and homosexuals? They only make up 14% of serial killers.
Source

So, should we really make laws restricting people's freedom based on what "seems" to be true? What "seems" to be true is often colored by your own preconceptions and is, in fact, not true at all.

[John O]

We're talking about adult homosexuality. Not murder, not child molesting. Those are different issues

No, we were talking about the HARM caused by homosexuality. Which can not be separated from child molesting and which must be regulated just as murder is.

Laws exist to control or eliminate immoral behavior. Homosexuality, murder, child molestation are all immoral behavior. And all have been illegal in this country for about 200 years before the current decay started.

[tdadams]

Original calculated from death announcments in 'gay' newspapers.

One issue of one gay newspaper in San Francisco. Possibly, call me crazy, but just possibly that's not a very accurate sample.

[John O]

(see scripter's database)

That's so lazy as to be contemptible. ...
You do concede the point, I hope, that statistics can be manipulated.

That's why you need a wealth of sources so you can compare and contrast and see where the trends go and where the vast majority of the data leads.

And so I direct you again to scripter's database where the vast majority of proven, non-debunked studies support my contentions in this discussion

If you're too lazy to read it (or too scared to let your pro-gay world view be challenged by reading it) then that's your problem.

[BSunday]

but with any luck you'll create so much mistrust among them that the board will fall apart.

Right. BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH !!!!!

[tdadams]

No, we were talking about the HARM caused by homosexuality

Fair enough, but using the same approach you're using, all of the same things can be said about heterosexuality. Heterosexuals spread disease, molest children, etc. Let's not even mention the rate of unwed childbirth and what enormous harm that does to society.

None of what you're lamenting is exclusive to homosexuality, so it can't be supported that homosexuality ought to be outlawed because of these things. You're being blatantly inconsistent.

[tdadams]

I direct you again to scripter's database where the vast majority of proven, non-debunked studies support my contentions in this discussion

So says you, but I think I've already done enough to show why just taking your word for it isn't a good idea.

[John O]

Tell me again where "restraining evil" is enumerated in the Constitution.

In the preamble, "promote the general Welfare". Restraining evil definately promotes the general welfare while not restraining it damages the general welfare

Likewise Ammendments 6 and 7 refer to criminal laws (also mentioned in various other places in the main document, felonies and such) Which while never defined in the document itself give cause to recognize that congress has the power to make such laws

[tdadams]

Tell me again where "restraining evil" is enumerated in the Constitution.

In the preamble, "promote the general Welfare". Restraining evil definately promotes the general welfare while not restraining it damages the general welfare

Oh, so now you're embracing Al Gore's "living Constitution" theory? Tell me again, where is "restraining evil" enumerated (can I get you a dictionary?) in the Constitution?

If we must accept your interpretation of "general welfare", who's to say we mustn't also accept the interpretation of Ted Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or Nancy Pelosi? Is that where you want to take this country? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[cupcakes]

The turning point in my life was when I recognized myself in sermons rather than trying to justify myself against them
____

I couldn't agree more. I'd never thought of it that way, but you are right, this is precisely what happened to me along the way too.

[cupcakes]

Sometimes it can say a lot. I haven't been on long under this name, but I dismantled, by my own request, an old persona in the hopes of taking a break, quietly, from FR(no one ticked me off, I just spent too much time posting here;-). Didn't last long and I just signed back up rather than bother with getting my persona reinstated. The old one was registered in 01, but I know I've been lurking here since 98 or 99. Just because one doesn't have an FR "pedigree" does not mean they are fake. I suspect except for outright tomfoolery, one has to wait a few posts in to figure out who is legit upon sign up and who isn't. I always say check the bookmarks too. Folks who aren't planning on staying here, generally don't bookmark articles to keep in their repetoire for later reading or reference.

[johnb838]

Your post is right on. In the religious arena, if they would just admit it was a sin, I would defend their right to be a full part of the congregation. Likewise in the social realm, if it was recognized as disordered behavior I would be more accepting. Legitimization sentences more and more children to the hell of the "life". It's wrong, wrong, wrong, and it's the real reason homos are going to hell. Jesus said "There's a special place in hell reserved for any who causes these little ones to stumble."

[cupcakes]

I simply disagree with you that you have any place to tell people in the next house or next state how they have to conform to your values.
____

You, of course, hold this same standard to gays who are making sure that "gay literature" and picture books are being placed in elementary schools right? You don't sound very consistent. In one breath, you say you understand gays are behaving in their own self interest, yet in another breath you verbally flog a conservative person for doing the same. A little consistency, please!

In the end though it gets down to you have to take a side. Either you side for the self-interest of parents and their children or you side for the self-interest of militant homosexuals. The two will never mesh so you can't live in a bubble and pretend like they will and I can't understand what is so damn wrong with children not having to be thrown into the sexual fray in kindergarten--it is abhorent to think this is acceptable when most kindergartners don't even register that their own parents had to have sexual intercourse to make them. The only thing that will mesh is if homosexuals go back to what they originally claimed to want--privacy in their bedrooms with tolerance for that privacy and the desire to be able to walk about in public without being physically attacked. Pushing your self-interest on other folk's children is not going to fly. People don't take kindly, and I speak as a parent, to having another person's idea of morality pushed on their children. I notice you call conservatives out on this, yet you don't seem to have the same disdain for homosexuals interested in forcing their version of morality on a nation. Like I said, it comes to taking a stand since the moral ideas here are polar opposites.

[cupcakes]

See my post. There is an incredible inconsistancy when one would say it is ok for gays to act in their self-interest ie force their version of morality on the public, but it is not ok for conservatives to do the same. It says a lot about what libertarianism is really all about. It is the same old rebellion to traditional ideas that you find in the liberal sphere. Sure you find more moderate libertarians, but in general there is a basis for rejection of law, order, and traditional morality.

[cupcakes]

I agree with you, but this gets back to the difference between militant gays and those gays who truly just wanted to be able to live their lives privately without fear of repercussions. My sil is a lesbian in a committed long term relationship and they tend to disabled folks, many of them relatives of her partner and two of them saved from neglect and abortion. They have never been overt or obvious about what they do in the bedroom, much like most long term married heterosexual couples. THey don't march in parades or advertise their sexuality via books for 1st graders. They are content to live quiet, relatively normal lives in the sleepy midwest. This type of homosexual is a far cry different than the parading freaks on the streets of san fran. It is like the difference between a girl having her first sexual encounter with her boyfriend out of wedlock and a porn star. Both commit sinful acts, but one does not seek to find acceptance and a market for her behavior.
BTW, my sil and her partner have no intention of marrying if given the oppurtunity.

[tdadams]

I'm not sure why you directed that long diatribe toward me since I've never even skirted anywhere near the issue of school curriculum.

[johnb838]

tdadams is a sleeper troll

[cupcakes]

I'm sure there are plenty of people you don't like and would love to keep them out of your sight, but the best way to avoid them is to simply stay within the confines of your own home. Otherwise, you're venturing out into the real world. Better learn to deal with it.

____
You of course post this on homosexual sites also as far as having to deal with conservative/Christian people and the real world? I mean after all, homosexuals can not expect Christians to go into a closet either and will have to deal with the real world that involves the theology and values people live by.
I'm assuming you are equally outraged with how Christian Canadians have been put "out of sight" in the interest of not offending gays with the real world right? There is a lesson in that for those like yourself who refuse to take a stand.

BTW, you are missing the point. Sexual immorality has no place being put on display for children. Average folks think heterosexual immorality is just as abhorent to expose children to as homosexual morality--at least the consistant ones do. I don't want my children exposed to "The Two Kings" anymore than I want them exposed to "Debbie and her numerous princes prior to marriage". I think you'll find most folks object to heterosexual immorality, particularly on public display, just as much as they do homosexual immorality.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to get my son ready for school(a school which thankfully still thinks Kindergartners should not be exposed to "alternative lifestyles")

[cupcakes]

Nothing brings in the cash like cultural fearmongering

Works both ways--Matthew Shephard ring any bells?

[cupcakes]

I'm with you ArGee. Who presents the material does not change the truth within the visual material. It would be like saying that just because Israel presented a tape of a Pali blowing himself up and taking 10 innocent people with it is not reliable. Just because it was caught on the Israeli monitors above the streets does not change the fact that 10 innocent lives were taken by a Pali nutcase. It may make a difference if signifigant parts are degraded or altered or it comes with a verbalized editorial with its own slant, but the images themselves do not lie.