Posted on 03/17/2004 9:33:04 PM PST by 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.
Can't say I've ever posted anything on homosexual sites, nor can I think of any off the top of my head. Sorry, if I dispel any insinuations you may have been making.
It's not, but it is still a legitimate purpose of government. Keep in mind that 1) The Constitution is for the Federal government only, and 2) the framers of the Constitution recognized a higher law to which the Constitution was subordinate. They understood that no man could pursue happiness while evil remained unchecked. They also understood that no society could long endure while evil remained unchecked.
You don't have to agree with me. That's what debate is for. You don't even have to look up anything or read the actual statistics posted in front of you. You don't have to interpret those statistics the way typical people will.
But you have to accept the fact that we can all see your shucking and dodging throughout this thread, trying to focus on the small when people are discussing the large, and vice-versa. You can claim the winning ground all you like. You may hold it among your friends. But your attempts at suppressing the obvious truths with games and misdirection are evident to most of us. It's entertaining for a while, but it gets old.
Now you're going to say you could say the same of me, and John O., and little jeremiah, and ed reform, and scripter, and etc. I'll accept their company.
Shalom.
If they would accept this standard, I would march in their protests with them.
The problem is, they won'. Homosexual behavior is a symptom of a mental illness. It is actually one of the last steps in the complete dehumanization of man. The first steps were taken when heterosexuality was the norm and homosexuals had to fear the things you mention. Instead of standing firm for the truths that sustained us, in this case that human relationships are about much more than sexual gratification and marriage is about much more than a license to screw, then we wouldn't be in this mess now.
And the worst part is, the Church was complicit in the silence, which makes the Church culpable for where we are now. We need to be praying BIG-TIME for G-d to restore the Church if the Church is ever to have the power to restore America.
Shalom.
The same reason why I claimed you support homosexual marriage.
By continuing your attacks on all who wish to point out the evils of homosexuality you align yourself with all that those evils are attempting to accomplish.
Shalom.
ArGee, you can make any claim you like, but just stating it doesn't make it true.
I've not dodged or shucked anything. I've taken every point and countered it head on. I've poked holes in every bit of illogical, hysteria-laden rhetoric you and others have put up. It must be frustrating for you, but rather than call me names and make insinuations, why not improve your logic?
Which is incorrect. I don't.
By continuing your attacks on all who wish to point out the evils of homosexuality...
I'm attacking? Where am I attacking? You mean by pointing out misstatements and illogical arguments? That's attacking? So I should just let those misstatements and illogical arguments slide lest I be called a gay-rights activist? Please!
But you don't. You claim they may be misstatements or illogical, but I can only think of one instance where you point out the illogic. And your point was correct, except that you made it without looking into the issue at all.
In the mean time you bring up attacks against religious groups (when I talked about having seen some footage and saying I don't like such pictures), statistics in general (without even beginning to review the data presented to you), and the people who present them to you.
Believe you're being moderate and rational if you like. I define those words differently.
Shalom.
I pointed out that religious groups use videos such as the one you mentioned as part of their fundraising techniques. That's a charge you neither denied or made any attempt to refute, nor did you deny that this is where you saw the video in question. Sort of validates my point don't you think? And that's not an attack. It's a truthful statement.
statistics in general (without even beginning to review the data presented to you)
I wasn't presented the data to review. I was expected to accept the statistics at face value, something I would never do no matter what the topic.
and the people who present them to you
I'm supposed to review the people I have discussions with on FR? How am I to do that?
A very helpful point, considering it had nothing to do whatsoever with what we were talking about. It was an outright attempt to smear those who are anti-homosexual and try to get those to associate the smear with me. But I wasn't talking about making homosexual perversion illegal, nor about supporting religious groups. I was just saying I didn't want any such pictures on FR.
And that's not an attack. It's a truthful statement.
If we had been talking about religious group fundraising, it might have been. In the context of my post, it was an attack.
I wasn't presented the data to review. I was expected to accept the statistics at face value, something I would never do no matter what the topic.
You have been presented the data time and time again. You always wave it off, without ever truly addressing it.
I'm supposed to review the people I have discussions with on FR? How am I to do that?
Parentheses are our friends. Learn how to use them. Or maybe you really are stupid? I still don't think so. I still think it's all an attempt to dodge, but I have been wrong before.
Shalom.
Of course the source of the tape is very relevant, and that's probably why you want to steer clear of that subject. It's important to understand the context and credibility of those who are distributing the tape. If you didn't want to discuss this tape, and it seems you don't, you shouldn't have brought it up.
You have been presented the data time and time again.
I've not been presented with data, I've been presented with questionable statistics which no one has stepped up to legitimize or defend. That's the most I've been given. In most cases, I've simply been told something to the effect of "go see scripter's database". To say that's a weak argument is to insult weak arguments. That's no argument at all.
No it's not, and I'm not going to reply to anything else you say until you explain why you think it is.
But, to refresh your memory, let's look at what we were talking about.
You said something like, They [the gays] aren't doing it [parading their perversion] where you live either. And if they are, post the pictures here on FR so we can all see them.
I said I had seen video of what they do, and I don't want the pictures here on FR.
I did not try to condemn anyone. I just said I didn't want disgusting pictures on FR.
You immediately turned to who had produced the video, I guess because you don't want to focus on what was in the video. I want to focus on what I saw, not on who showed it to me.
Now, why is the person (or group) who showed it to me at all relevant to my point? Please answer. And don't duck by saying the fact that I won't tell you who produced it makes your point. Tell me why it's relevant.
Shalom.
Am I saying they're faking it, or staging it? No, but you're intelligent enough to know how people can be slandered by selective editing and an omission of context. It's done to conservatives by the leftist media all the time. I'm not defending anything that might be on this tape, but trying to consistently practice objective fairness.
Conservatives complain about media bias all the time. It's a bit self-serving and hypocritical to raise the issue of bias and slander when it's a group you belong to, but say nothing when the target of denigration is a group you oppose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.