Chira numbuh wan!

[shovelquest]

Why did the crucades happen?

Answer: Because islamic theocratic armies were geocoding Christians.

Botten: Because Christians were trying to expand their hydra religion around the world.

[shovelquest]

The one, the literal ONE TIME Christians organized and fought against Islamic theocracy killing innocent people, they were called racist colonizers.

Isn't that ironic, that literally the exact same shit is happening to the Jewish religion right now.

[Trexller]

Originally Posted by shovelquest [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The one, the literal ONE TIME Christians organized and fought against Islamic theocracy killing innocent people, they were called racist colonizers.

Isn't that ironic, that literally the exact same shit is happening to the Jewish religion right now.

sounds pretty familiar

Hamas murders and/or rapes and/or kidnaps 1400 Israelis on oct 7th 2023

Israel wages a military response, Israel is called the bad guy for destroying Hamas, even though Hamas hides behind women and children because they are brave islamic warriors

[Botten]

Ignoring the crusades where the Pope Innocent III was the first person to essentially reunite Europe after Charlemagne, who was in turn the first person to unite it since the glory days of the Western Roman Empire. Innocent used Crusading as a political tool to get rid of rules who wouldn't tow the line--and it worked, even if it killed tens of thousands in the process.

Quickly listing 4 others:
Inquisition: Persecution and execution of heretics and non-Christians by the Catholic Church.

Colonial Conquests: European powers used Christianity to justify the subjugation and conversion of indigenous populations.

Wars of Religion: Conflicts between Catholic and Protestant states in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries.

Missionary Violence: Forced conversions and violence against native populations by Christian missionaries.

[Botten]

Steve Wynn's petition to the Supreme Court to overturn the New York Times v. Sullivan decision is indeed significant. The 1964 ruling established a high bar for public figures to win defamation lawsuits, requiring them to prove "actual malice" — that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

If the Supreme Court were to overturn this decision, it could weaken press freedoms and make it easier for public figures to sue media organizations for defamation. This could lead to a chilling effect on investigative journalism, as media outlets might become more cautious about publishing critical stories out of fear of legal repercussions.

In terms of propaganda, this change could be exploited to silence critics and control the narrative. Public figures and powerful entities could use defamation lawsuits to intimidate and deter journalists and media outlets from reporting on controversial or damaging information. This could result in a less informed public and a media landscape that is more susceptible to manipulation and misinformation.

What are your thoughts on this potential shift in press freedom?

[shovelquest]

Originally Posted by Botten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Steve Wynn's petition to the Supreme Court to overturn the New York Times v. Sullivan decision is indeed significant. The 1964 ruling established a high bar for public figures to win defamation lawsuits, requiring them to prove "actual malice" — that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

If the Supreme Court were to overturn this decision, it could weaken press freedoms and make it easier for public figures to sue media organizations for defamation. This could lead to a chilling effect on investigative journalism, as media outlets might become more cautious about publishing critical stories out of fear of legal repercussions.

In terms of propaganda, this change could be exploited to silence critics and control the narrative. Public figures and powerful entities could use defamation lawsuits to intimidate and deter journalists and media outlets from reporting on controversial or damaging information. This could result in a less informed public and a media landscape that is more susceptible to manipulation and misinformation.

What are your thoughts on this potential shift in press freedom?

I am totally for people being able to sue media for misinformation.

Individuals can speak however they want, but for profit corporations are not "people" and they should not have the same rights.

[Ekco]

that horse on the far right has seen some shit. god damn

[shovelquest]

Where in thet bible does it tell the goverment of Spain to become authoritarian and torture people?

Colonial Conquests: European powers used Christianity to justify the subjugation and conversion of indigenous populations.

This is a stupid lie and where in the bible does it say to conquest? WHERE?

Wars of Religion: Conflicts between Catholic and Protestant states in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries.

By your logic the revolutionary war was a Christian war because it was for Christians to worship freely and rule themselves.

Everything you hate about the Christian religion, was actually the result of "mankind/governance" not religion.

Everything that was horrific that was done by the Islamic religion, was done because their religion outright says to do it.

Governments are bad.

New testament is squeaky clean.

[shovelquest]

Christ Wins.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[shovelquest]

Literally Christian religion says "if you are attacked, just take it."

Anti christian people need to stop conflating the greed of man, with the religion they are fucking straight up ignoring.

At least if you're jewish, or islamic you can say, "My religion told me to do it"