Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Styxhexenhammer666"
channel.
-
27
-
17
-
15
-
@6500s1
"but how come your country has school shootings every weeks lmao?"
Shootings, school shootings even more so, are extremely rare and only happen in regions of gun control, (schools being massively under gun control regulations excepting Texas because usually teachers can carry) there have been multiple cases of cases where shootings were tried outside of gun control regions and the dude was killed before he could do much of anything. Texas has a track record of killing shooters before they even fire the gun, there was another attempt in a church in December, dude was dropped dead before he got a second shot off.
You want to know what's more common? Gang violence, and that's not unique to the US (technically neither are shootings, in fact in Europe a shooting is thousands of times more deadly then in the US) and even then very few people are killed by a gun every year, and guns are used many more times to save lives in the US then take lives, without being used either.
"no, I have never needed a gun and I see other countries having next to literally 0 school shootings ever,"
Actually, you're just ignoring reality, Denmark and Germany have had their fair share of shootings, and usually what happens is they can get at least 10 kills before someone stops them, that doesn't usually happen in the US, most shootings that do happen have less then 5 people die here, even injuries tend to be lower. School shootings generally are extremely rare, and in the US the citizenry is capable of stopping them long before anyone else.
Also the explicit reason for gun ownership is to ensure the rights of the individual and defend a nation of an invader, nobody would dare invade the US because of our gun owning population, Japan, Germany, Mexico, even Russia, they all wouldn't invade us because of our gun ownership, you can't suppress a population that can carry a gun. And that applies just as much to your own government. The German government is funny because once again they're enforcing infringement of free speech and creating a dictatorial government again and they don't need to care what the civilians think because they're merely serfs, they can do whatever they want without opposition. This aside guns also give you capability to defend yourself from many other situations. Owning a gun is the same as owning a fire extinguisher or defibrillator, they're emergency equipment to preserve life. Just in this case a gun is more useful because not only does it preserve life, but it preserves rights.
On a side note all communist, fascist, tyrannical, and authoritarian governments first took the guns and weaponry away from the citizens before they started oppressing their people. I wonder why?
"there is a correlation hidden somewhere, don't you think? :D"
Stupid for multiple reasons, aside from no idea how statistics work. Aside from starting from a disingenuous premise with assumptions of the world which aren't true, you also try to associate gun ownership with shootings which isn't true (pre-war Yemen and Switzerland both are perfect examples where that doesn't stick, both have high gun ownership and had some form of gun ownership capability) but it doesn't even work in the nation you're pointing out, especially when you don't even understand how the United States works, its as you see a headline of "shooting" and assume its the whole US (news flash, nope, we have just as many states that practically ban firearms entirely, [some are more anti-gun then Europe] and you can't cross those state lines with firearms, and the statistics say that doesn't happen anyway, for example if we pull up Chicago, most gun ownership there is already illegal but nobody cares and shootings happen there all the time despite practically entirely banning guns)
12
-
7
-
@akatsukicloak Honestly, as a Christian, I don't think its the government's job to ban prostitution, it should be the job of the citizenry (specifically the church) to regulate and control that, there is no right being infringed with legal prostitution, but there is with banned prostitution.
I also don't believe its the job of the government to ban drugs, same as prostitution. Its the job of the citizenry to control this through personal action.
For highest per capita pornstars, that means very little.
As for sex trafficking, this one is easier to end with citizen gun ownership. Also I would like statistics on the specifics about this to understand the problem.
And the STD one IDK.
The rest Europe is much better, still oppressive tyrannical pagans claiming to be moral, but you can't say anything without be arrested, and owning a gun is basically a capital offense in most of Europe. Also most of them are lying about their religion.
5
-
Trust busting doesn't work, (it actually tends to make things worse) removing segregated large business protections and state/business provisions and go-betweens is the problem, not trust problems, Facebook, Twitter, and Google have government provisions and government protection, you kill those and you lose the monopoly. (not like its a hard monopoly even now since there is no prevention of competition in the first place, you can't even compare this to the railroad or steel companies because there is no control over the marketshare infrastructure, [even tho I still see that unjustified as its not a legitimate role of government, especially since the market solved that before the government did anything] justifying socialistic ideals instead, we should not rely on government to solve problems, most especially business, that is not its job)
IDK what to say about Trump's opposition to 230. Personally I'm actually opposed to 230 because it should be obvious that production (most especially including media production) lawsuits be handled on a case by case basis in a court depending on the context of the producing individual, the company publicizing the production, and the party receiving the production offense, no different then how you can't just sue a market for selling something that caused harm and had to be recalled. I don't see a manner in capable regulating that by law, precedent would be more adequate with dignified judges, if it can't be done by our modern systems, the system is broken and is unsuitable for continued representation of liberty. In which case it must be renewed.
Also screw the concept of IP, that is literally only made to ensure monopolies, it was never designed for the peasants, and they can never take good advantage of it, and that aside you can't demonstrate ownership of ideas.
4
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@akatsukicloak
"You want the church to be the pimp?"
Never said this, don't strawman.
"And regulate sinning?"
I don't see how this is wrong, you're not banned from sinning, you're just socially discouraged (or socially isolated) if you do. That's you're fault for doing wrong.
"Also good luck regulating a mafia's drug routes without getting iced with your sense of local communal duty."
Doesn't happen in an armed community where there aren't weaponry regulations. Even with anti-full-auto regulations but with a highly armed society its extremely difficult for gangs and mafia to get away with such stuff.
"Porn is not healthy, participating in porn is damaging even more, especially for women, it means a lot, to say otherwise is childish or ignorant."
This seems like a random tangent, I never said anything regarding this, besides I agree, I think its societal and life destroying.
"Owning a gun does not end sex trafficking of foreign women in your country, what will you do?"
High gun ownership tends to significantly reduce most of these types of problems, foremost because you're unlikely to get away with it without being shot at (which nobody ever wants) and moralistic vigilante mobs are very likely to start acting against gangs, especially if the gang starts pissing off the community.
"Shoot out a brothel? You are free to find the public statistics yourself on the internet, no one is your servant here."
No region in the world has laws that allow you to perform this without getting arrested, (which will lose you access to your gun if you had one, you will never get that right back if you get arrested) and only a few regions in the world even allow you the liberty to own firearms to a level that could enable you to act on that even then. And that behavior is heavily discouraged regardless.
"but guns simply have age restrictions and some regulations."
Outside specific states in the US, there's way more then that. You need to get a license, you need to go through a background check and a personality check, you usually have to give "good" reasoning for owning a firearm, if you committed a crime, usually a violent one, at any point in your life, even if it was a fist fight as a 14 year old where you got caught by cops and you're now 60 with no sign of violence since, you are barred from ever owning a firearm as well. This still applies in most US states, and most of this stuff still applies even then. And not even to mention red flag laws where if someone tattles on you for something, regardless of evidence, you will be SWAT'ed, they'll arrest you, (if you don't stand your ground, otherwise you die) and take away your gun and your right to own one. Some states only require a background check but the violence record, and sometimes the red flag law problem, still apply. There's other restrictions that apply in specific states then that, but those are generally how it works in pretty much every nation aside from Yemen.
"All in all you tried to come off as a Christian, but come off more as a Satanist to me or deluded at the very least, especially on positions like porn, prostitution, drugs, I can't fathom the cognitive dissonance of "devout christians" who upvoted you."
How am I a satanist? I believe in divine rights, which includes a capability to sin so long as you don't infringe someone else's rights. God gave us our rights to follow Him or reject Him, by not banning such behavior such mindsets are openly exposed and can be rebuked, instead of silently conceptualized or being easily hidden. It is not the right of the state to tell people how to live their lives, that's a moralistic position reserved for the church, and the church's power is social in nature, not legislative. The only legitimate role of the government is to protect the innocent and to punish the wicked, which means its punitive and has no right to control, that is tyranny. And that's what God described government to be.
1
-
@HussiteWarrior I already explained how I agree with legal prostitution, and that it should be socially opposed, as I don't see the government having justification to control such a system if people are acting in voluntary consenting manners. If the people want to sin, the government's only job is to ensure the rights they have to sin are upheld, if someone is stolen from, coerced, or assaulted, it is the government's job to assess the case, and if undoubtedly true, (as in there is literally not a single doubt about the accusation) convict the criminal, with rape that's a death sentence, with theft that's a double the payment or indentured servitude for that due if it can't be paid. And if there were no gun restrictions at all, and you weren't barred from owning a gun for life for servicing your act of a violent crime, then you could not easily coerce or assault people.
1
-
1
-
There's a few I would say are modest, but definitely the bikini ones, hotpants ones, those where men could be provoked by the female form, they are definitely what I'd call immodest and I would oppose, because Paul speaks quite clearly about this, I also oppose bikinis and immodesty of the female form in the modern era elsewhere, I don't care why they dress immodest, God despises that, He makes it quite clear.
"likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." - 1 Timothy 2:9-15
Modesty and respectable apparel bikinis and hotpants ain't, that which has cleavage and thigh, that which you consider to have sex appeal not reserved for the woman in the home, that's definitely immodest and not respectable. Why?
"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." - Matthew 5:28
Because they are to love all men so as not to provoke them. The same standard applies to makeup and proactive dresses, that which draws attention to the male gaze so as to lust after the woman in any regard are inherently sinful. A woman of marriage is good for her, but to show her sexual appeal to anyone is immodest, degenerate, and wicked, it is these things that are condemned.
"Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening." - 1 Peter 3:1-6
"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." - Romans 12:2
God is pretty clear, the point of her modesty isn't for her sake, its for the sake of men, it is hatred and selfishness for which one will gratify themselves by causing another to stumble.
"Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding." - Romans 14:13-19
“Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire." - Matthew 18:7-9
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have to respectfully disagree with a lot of what you say, foremost when you get hung up on a lot of Christian standards surrounding it, you only refer to the regular, usually nominal, joeschmoe Christians who can't even discuss the simplest concepts of faith because its majorly fake in their heart, its a paintjob not a lifestyle. If they can't argue apolgetics and theology then they aren't worth arguing faith over, everything they say about their facade half-assed religion is not worth considering, even if they are are a young Christian they should not be held accountable as a representative of any faith. And if they also can not argue and debate generally they also are unlikely to be considerable for discussion. In that case they're the embodiment of a strawman because they are about as useful a reference for debate as one. As for everything about it, circumcision from an theological worldview no longer means anything, we are not required by law any longer to be circumcised because the Holy Spirit has circumcised our hearts. Why Christian still performed circumcision is really dependent on the Christian, the Catholics were superstitious and would make up all sorts of tradition about it, (whatever they say now I'm unsure, but the the older ones likely still do much of that) however the Protestants would not, we instead come from the worldview instead that its merely a reflection on our house in marking after the faith much like it meant for Jews however it is nothing more then a reflection, it is neither actually for faith nor required for it, being circumcised has nothing on being saved. (those who believe it does are specifically condemned in fact by the Disciples and Paul) The other reason is hygiene, which yes it is objectively cleaner then lack of circumcision, its not just a lack of knowledge of cleaning, it is actually very much less hygienic. Now to rattle off some points that honestly strawmans on the argument:
No, it does not protect anymore effectively against AIDs and nobody smart would argue that; No it does not decrease the inclination of masturbation nor harm sexual performance in any manner, again nobody with intellect would argue that; No we don't actually perform it to prevent some rather minor and likely insignificant case of a possible disease that is "worse." Anyone who makes these arguments is trying to rationalize it secularly, which is foolish because its not a secular argument and from a secular worldview it wouldn't make much sense. (though there are a few valid secular arguments to be had, it was never gonna outweigh the opposition the enemies of God anyway) And after all that the chance of complications caused or the claim of torture as a result are so minuscule as to be less then being hit by a vehicle while on a light traffic sidewalk, and the claims of torture are rather unfounded since recollection of the event is not possible at such an age. If you want to degrade the practice don't sell fallacies on the subject, if you want to come at this from your subjective standard, call it permanent physical damage, but torture is well beyond the line, by your logic on this case being born is torture. (by strict definition it is but I don't see a good argument for that sticking either) Who can you recall has been psychologically damaged thanks to a successful circumcision, who can make that claim if they couldn't clearly see their penis.
1
-
Anyone who thinks us total pro-life people somehow don't support a procedure to preserve the life of the woman (as in the woman's life is threatened by the child's continuation) is absolutely using a strawman, that's not an argument any of us use, the only people who I've seen use that are the tiny slim of ignorant people who don't understand anything about biology and have no power to do anything, and they never argue with anyone, its like complaining you're getting death threats for criticism because one guy said kys. Every single abortion abolition bill, a bill of equal protection, still preserved the cases that a woman's life was under threat, then it becomes the prerogative of the father, mother, and potentially the family to decide whether it is legitimate to terminate the child. Also using incest as a justification separate from rape is dumb, rape already covers incestual rape and so consensual incest is the only thing left. (unless you don't consider penetration of a child, which is rape of a child, to be rape) There is no argument you can claim for consensual incest to be a justification for abortion, so the separation of incest as a justification makes no sense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1