Why Does Porn Get a Pass?

Patric Henry Center for Individual Liberty ^ | 8/29/2002 | Gary Aldrich

[Zon]

You speak for your NT cult, so hence, you speak foe those that develop the website. Their views = YOUR views.

You don't like their Web site, fine. That you're a proponent of guilt by association, that's irrational and dishonest.

Ending Lawyer-Like Dishonesties #4

Let's Call Neo-Tech a Cult

Perhaps the most-obvious, lawyer-like dishonesty archived throughout Internet search engines is the assertion that Neo-Tech is a cult. Neo-Tech is not only the antithesis of cults, but is the tool that vanishes them. ...Neo-Tech is based on wide-scope accountability and fully integrated honesty, while cults are based on narrow-scope restrictions and manipulated deceptions. Consider the following dozen contrasts between Neo-Tech and cults:

1. Neo-Tech has no members or leaders. Cults exist through members and leaders.
   
2. Neo-Tech requires crossing boundaries to generate ever expanding knowledge. Cults prohibit crossing boundaries to protect ever stagnant dogmas.
   
3. Neo-Tech generates open-ended wealth for individuals and society. Cults dissipate wealth earned by others and society.
   
4. Neo-Tech is anchored in factual reality. Cults float in imagined mysticisms.
   
5. Neo-Tech holds the individual self and natural law -- one's own self and objective law -- as the only authorities to guide man's life. Neo-Tech (1) posits self-responsibility as a primary of conscious life and (2) rejects the concepts of political-agenda "laws", collectivist "leaders", and external "authorities". With Neo-Tech, conscious beings become self-leaders, allowing no outside "authority" to rule their lives. By contrast, cult members demand that their leader and his group-agenda "laws" rule their lives.
   
6. Neo-Tech seeks out its errors in order to correct them. Cults evade their errors in order to propagate them.
   
7. Neo-Tech yields productive interactions with others and life. Cults demand harmful withdrawals from nonmembers and life.
   
8. Many people avoid or attack Neo-Tech because its integrated honesty exposes their own irrationalities and destructiveness. Cultists avoid or attack society because the real world exposes their cult's irrationalities and destructiveness.
   
9. Neo-Tech brings growth, prosperity, and life to individuals. Cults bring restrictions, stagnation, and death to individuals.
   
10. Neo-Tech spreads social benefits through integrated honesty and competitive business. Cults spread social harms by manipulating their victims through dishonesty and frauds.
    
11. Neo-Tech propagates individual freedom. Cults propagate group oppression.
    
12. Neo-Tech will prevail in the 21st century. Cults will vanish in the 21st century.

Ending Lawyer-Like Dishonesties

[Windsong]

You don't like their Web site, fine. That you're a proponent of guilt by association, that's dishonest and irrational. Considering that some of your lies have been documented here, that shows a lack of commitment to being a good Christian. Or are your lies you speaking for Christianity according to Windsong's policy of guilt by association.

Interesting that you keep posting this same link over and over and over and over, and yet strangely, I see *zero* freepers taking you up on it. As a matter of fact, I see zero freepers actually taking your side at all in this silly NT nonsense. Guilt by association? You have posted link after link along with all the cut and paste jobs you could muster, and we're supposed to think you actually DONT have an axe to grind with "mysticism" (i.e. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc)? Your founder's websites make it crystal friggin' clear to anyone that they are militantly opposed to Christianity and any belief in a Supreme Being. You know, the same Being who protects our SEALS, Marines, and Army guys out on the front friggin lines that permit *you* to spout all of this athiestic nonsense without fear of being thrown in jail.

One of those agents punched and kicked an editor to the ground, sending him to the hospital with broken ribs. You laugh at people that are working toward curing death.

Cry me a river. You go up against the feds, you had better be prepared for a firefight. They love their jobs. IRS, FBI, CIA, same same when all is said and done. Both have their disgruntled workers here and there.

And judging from your past posts regarding legalized drugs, abortion, porn and science, you in all likelihood wouldn't know a "good Christian" if it bit you on your conceited ass. Just my two and a half cents, mind you. Do the rest of us patriots an enormous favor and attend church one Sunday. You might sample a bit of residue as to what a real Christian is.

[Redleg Duke]

Because the Libertarians would throw a hissy fit.

[Zon]

Bottom line:

No doubt you too detest The Constitution of the Universe posted at #49  because it doesn't grant government agents nor yourself the power to initiate force against people nor allow you to enlist government agents to initiate force against people on your behalf.

[Windsong]

Bottom line: No doubt you too detest The Constitution of the Universe posted at #49 because it doesn't grant government agents nor yourself the power to initiate force against people nor allow you to enlist government agents to initiate force against people on your behalf.

And like any cult automaton, the mindless goop continutes to flow until the Mothership arrives. Are you wearing your Reeboks today, or your Nikes, per Wally's request?

[FreeLibertarian]

Prohibition would have worked if we made possession a Capital Offense. We need to do the same for Drug Possession today. Along with Homosexuality, Blasphemy, Fornication, Adultery and Pornography.

I guarentee you that if it was a Capital Crime people would think twice about it.

Alert! Alert! The Taliban has invaded FreeRepublic. Alert! Alert!

[FreeLibertarian]

And no, porn is not protected by the first amendment, which was intented to protect political dissent and not smut.

The First Amendment was intented to protect the free discourse of any subject.

Case closed

[traditionalist]

The First Amendment was intented to protect the free discourse of any subject.

So porn is discourse? That's a new one.