Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
What is this?
Less
More

Memberships

Liberty Politics Discussion

4.3k members • Free

85 contributions to Liberty Politics Discussion
Scares the hell out of me about some Jews from Discord.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY1IyRGiHNs This link copied from Armin's Discord. 'Man on the Street' interview in Israel. Would you rather enter a mosque or a church? --- Most fear Christianity. I'm stunned. I hope this is NOT representative of Jews inside of Israel. I've encountered many Jews in USA and am still surprised at some of their prejudice against Christians and false beliefs about what Christianity is about in regard to Jewish people. I am not religious but was raised in a Christian household. I know the perspectives of the general community and the level of prejudice and dysfunction in this relationship between Christians and Jews is so unwarranted. There's so much ignorance involved. Some Jews are simply ignorant about what Christians really believe in regard to them. Christian evangelicals are commonly taught over their lifetimes to revere Jews. And they're taught to defend Israel as a commandment.
0 likes • 3d
@Soap Box Your main claim as you wrote it is "most fear christianity", which I directly addressed every time to show it is completely false, but for some reason you can't concede as false. Your new claim seems to be "being willing to enter a mosque but not being willing to enter a church is fucked". My response to this is that religious people do weird things for religious reasons. I don't find the preference to not visit a church more reprehensible than the preference to not eat pork, even if the same person is hypothetically willing to visit a mosque. There's more to say about forbidding people from entering your synagogue , but again that's just religion for you. If you don't like it, be an atheist.
0 likes • 2d
@Soap Box You put jerusalem post in your reply, you put ask project in the original post where you made your original claim.
1 like • 6d
This is an excerpt of a 1993 lecture that was uploaded by Oxford a few years ago. https://youtu.be/1YhTS7Ccumc?t=1768
1 like • 6d
@Treety Farahmand The only thing that's not real is the artificially added oldtimey effect. This video is from 1993, not 1893.
It Started With Marriage
On April 1st, 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in human history to legalize same-sex marriage. Years later, in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court likewise declared marriage a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. President Barack Obama, in a speech at the Rose Garden, declared "love is love" as he celebrated the ruling as "a victory for America." And most Americans seem to agree. A gallop poll suggests that approximately 88% of democrats and nearly 50% of Republicans support gay marriage. So it seems the debate is over. But should it be? In 2007, an Assumptionist priest by the name of Barry Bercier wrote in his book, Skies of Babylon, that if traditional marriage were re-defined to include same sex couples, "the result would be nothing less than the end of the world of man." Sound dramatic? Well -- what is marriage? If marriage were merely a proclamation of love, and if the fundamental purpose of marriage were to reward people who love each other, then gay marriage should be legal. But society does not give certain legal rights, financial benefits and tax breaks to people simply because they fall in love. At least, until two decades ago, that's not how it worked. Barry Bercier defines marriage as "the public and legal recognition of the pre-political duality of the sexes and the significance of the duality for human beings and the social and political order." In other words, marriage -- traditional marriage as it existed across every civilization for nearly all of human history, is the recognition of a unique relationship that pre-exists law and human constructs. That is, the institution of marriage - from Mesopotamia, to Egypt, China, Rome and every Western nation until 2001 -- recognized the duality of the sexes through law because the duality is the nucleus from which life emerges. The relationship between male and female -- man and woman -- whether you are gay, straight, black, white, bisexual, asexual, rich or poor, is our beginning; our source. For every human being, the duality of the sexes is our 'sine qua non' -- without it, life would not exist.
0 likes • 6d
Can't there be some way of saying "a marriage can be hetero, gay, or lesbian" without also saying "men are women and women are men and neither category exists"? I generally agree with you but I don't see anything wrong with homosexuals adopting children. Is there a good reason to deny those people the same incentives that straight people having children get from the institution of marriage?
0 likes • 6d
@Greg Penta Polygamy is an arrangement that is completely demeaning to women and which typically exists involuntarily on their part, in places where women are treated more like property. We can say that we're not doing more than two people to a marriage because groups of three people who are all adequately happy with the arrangement long-term don't exist, and 4=2+2 so at that point you're just two couples. If we had to choose ban this or allow that, maybe, but I still don't think we do if we come from a place of special recognition for homosexuals and not from delegitimizing sex.
Is Regime change still on the table?
At the start of operation epic Fury, Trump promised the people of Iran a chance at taking over their government and replacing it with something for the people by the people, but now that vision seems further than ever. My question is wether regime Change is still on the table or should Iranians stop hoping for change and settle for the current regime cutting a deal that keeps the west satisfied for another decade or so?
5 likes • 17d
Yes it's still the plan, and as long as you don't have blood on your hands Farbod you are still welcome in a free Iran.
0 likes • 11d
@Bob Bolte hello sir are you a robot do you mind if I ban you
Armin please answer John Mearsheimer
Hello Armin. You're my hero. I have a question. please answer. I'm a fan of King Reza Pahlavi. But I listened to John Mearsheimer. He has a theory: --- States are power-maximizers, not just security-seekers. Mearsheimer: Alliances Are Temporary, Power Is Permanent. Israel should never want a powerful Iran, ally or not. The smart move is always to keep potential rivals weak and divided, regardless of their current diplomatic posture. --- I think Prince Reza Pahlavi will be killed by Islamic people or Isreal when the Islamic Republic collapsed. and Iran will go to chaos. Like: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria. John Mearsheimer argues U.S. doesn't want to help Iranian people. U.S. wants to wrack Iran. I hate Islamic Regime of Iran but they don't have any place to go so they will stay and protect the land. Prince Reza Pahlavi and his family will be killed and Iran will go to civil war like Libya. could you give me your opinion?
4 likes • 21d
There are very few topics on which that person has something value to say, and this isn't one of them. In this case the obvious answer is correct - Islamic theocracies cannot be permitted to have a nuclear weapon by any of the two countries that do not wish to have nuclear war in the world. Since it will not stop attempting to get a nuclear weapon, the Islamic theocracy has to go. Whether you believe in conspiracy theories about the US or Israel that they are secretly evil countries that want to kill as many people as possible is irrelevant. If you want Armin to give you the same answer in less polite terms I invite you to join the discussion group tomorrow at 9:00pm Copenhagen time.
0 likes • 19d
@Alex Sørensen If you think no one else here is worth talking to you'll have to join the discussion groups because Armin doesn't have time to check every comment
1-10 of 85
Dani Spivak
5
265points to level up
@daniel-spivak-9366
🔱

Active 11h ago
Joined Jan 2, 2026
Powered by