The Mandalorian & Grogu Plummets With $6.5M Friday As Backrooms Scores Third Biggest Horror Movie Debut Ever

@JackDeth - Exactly what i meant.

People like you, watching slop lile this, is the reqson slop keeps getting shoved in our faces.

@SuperiorHeckler - Good.

One less moron for me to see if he blocks me lol

@kylo0607 - But . . . you watched it, so you are also responsible for the slop, n'est-ce pas?

@kylo0607 - I believe you, but worse than any of the awful sequel trilogy films is a high bar. They killed SW worse than the Empire ever could

@Elle79 - i’ve blocked no one and yet I’ve been blocked by a number of whining, complaining, right wing snowflakes so stuff your inaccurate generalizations.

@kylo0607 - I see a lot of people say this but I just don't get it. I would way rather be bored than the movie be actively irritating me. Maybe when it comes to artistic expression or something, but I'd watch mandalorian and grogu a dozen times before I'd ever rewatch something like thor love and thunder. I guess it's just preference.

@RolandD - Lol, uh-huh. I'm totally sure that happened to you. It's primarily you self-hating male "progressives" who are so weak you can't handle getting your bubble burst.

But hey, keep pretending that slop like TLJ and this latest Star Wars disaster are good.

@Clintthahamster - there are shitheads lol. To be honest, that’s kind of inside everyone though. Sometimes people act on that but can learn to do better. Sometimes they will not learn and that’s a good time to consider blocking maybe? Even then though it’s kind of better most of the time to just even try to understand why they are on a different side of things. But I won’t deny, blocking has a place. But the dude in question brags about blocking anyone that holds a different worldview haha and I still hold that that’s really really unhelpful. I don’t wish him ill but it’s no secret that this is his thing because he brags about it like some others on this site. Since he brags about it I in turn am just pointing out, that this is not something to brag about. It actually portrays an insecurity about one’s position and a thin skinned posture towards those that are different from the person. Ironically the opposite of the tolerance that leftists congratulate themselves for ¯\(ツ)/¯

@Clintthahamster - the problem with pepper’s paradox is that pepper or whoever gets decide at a surface level who is right regarding an issue and who is not. I’m sure you’ll disagree which is fine but you take the trans issue and that quickly labeled anyone that said men shouldn’t play women’s sports as a phobe. No debate. Just declared with authority.

There’s a lot of issues that people will imagine they’re right about - that they could very well be immensely wrong or ignorant about - and then they won’t do the helpful thing which is to try to understand their opponent’s position … and a CBM place is fine for debate since CBMs have decided to swim into these issues (though shallowly).

@Clintthahamster - we did delve into this one a good while ago. It’s all junk science to support the notion that a man biologically could be anything other than a man, despite how he feels. There’s all kinds of things that people feel that are not healthy or moral to indulge in. It’s the same with the trans issue. Not mean spirited when I say that it’s a disorder of the person to long to be a different sex… or gender if that’s how you want to label it. It’s like if a person is born with one arm. It’s wrong to call that normal and flourishing. We would want to aid them towards prosthetics that give them the functionality of two arms. They are worse off with one arm. It is likewise wrong to encourage a man to name himself a woman just because he desires it. It’s better for him to acknowledge his longings and recognize them as anti flourishing and to pursue embodying what he was made to be: a man.

I’m not phobic in saying this. I’m not afraid of a person with these proclivities. I just want to be loyal to what is true.

@Lucasberg - Two addenda...
1. Just to confirm, the answer to "is there any evidence I could present that would change your mind about the nature of trans women and trans men?" seems to be "no." Is that correct?

2. "anti flourishing?" What the [frick] is that? Y'all realize how weird you sound, right?

@Lucasberg - "there are things you don’t need to study to know are true. Nature testifies to the facts I’m articulating."

Some other things that were considered self-evidently unnatural: homosexuality, women in the workplace, interracial marriage . . . the reactionary position is always wrong. Always.

"There are “experts”, scholars and PHDs on all sides of everything."

I mean, not everything but sure, granted. Should be pretty easy for you to find some current science that supports your beliefs.

"Pointing to one grouping of experts as authoritative is an argument from authority which is a logical fallacy."

Appeal to Authority applies when there's no empirical evidence to support a claim. Simply citing to the work of an expert isn't fallacious. You know what is, though? Claiming that evidence can't be true or doesn't matter, because one's own position is "just common sense." That's the Appeal to Incredulity. In other words, I know you are, but what am I?

"it’s not a question at all for me. Zero doubt. I have less doubt about this than I do about the sun rising and setting in its place."

Man, that is a wild thing to admit. But, yes, at least we agree that your beliefs seem to be dogmatic and fundamentalist in nature. If no amount of evidence can dissuade you from your beliefs, your beliefs are irrational. Full stop.

"Supposing that your data is right"

You can check the science out here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35212746/

"It’s better instead to seek to live according to what’s true"

I would argue that "living" is the most important outcome. I've seen some parents of trans kids point out that they'd rather have a living daughter/son, than a dead son/daughter. That's what we're talking about.

Anyway, I appreciate your candor, but since we've established that there's no evidence that could change your mind about your beliefs, there's zero point in us having this discussion.

@Lucasberg - just to add: I think I practice what I preach here. I have no sensitivity about you or anyone else telling me their views about sexuality which are completely contrary to mine. I have never blocked anyone over this. Guaranteed, there’s plenty on this site that just cannot handle that I differ from them in this and will block me. Like they can’t handle reality that someone will not agree with their views

@Clintthahamster - I’m sure you will dislike my answer and maybe drop 15 articles from this and that scientific paper haha to say otherwise but in both same sex activity and trans activity these simply don’t work. Nature refutes both these in their function. You cannot build a family naturally with these means. With same sex activity you cannot build a family naturally. Likewise, with trans you either have to pretend, or worse, you have to mutilate yourself to try to make it work (it still doesn’t). It’s again, the opposite direction you want to encourage people to go. It’s anti flourishing. And everyone knows it and can see it no matter what data or heartstring we can pull on.

Notice, I didn’t need a PHD or study to observe these things. You can just “observe” these realities naturally occurring. A man cannot change his organs. Nor two women produce a child.

Regarding scripture forbidding this, here’s Jesus:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.”

‭‭-Matthew‬ ‭5‬:‭27‬-‭29‬

Sexual activity, external or internal outside the bonds of God ordained marriage is forbidden by Jesus with warnings of severe consequences if we don’t correct our course.

Here’s Paul:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth…“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
‭‭
-Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭ 18, 26‬-‭27‬

…and here’s one more from him:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

‭‭-1 Corinthians‬ ‭6‬:‭9‬-‭10‬

So my views are informed by the plain teachings in Scripture that you don’t need a PHD or material to study in a Petri dish to decipher and that have been confessed by believers in Jesus since well before 20th century evangelicalism. All the church fathers - and Rabbis of Judaism before the advent of Christianity - along with Scripture have taught and confessed these things. There’s plenty in the Law that affirm same sex activity as well as men assuming the identity as women and vice versa is bad (Deuteronomy 22:5) and outside the bounds that God has created for us to function within.

Now here’s the thing: those things listed out as sins excluding people from God’s kingdom (like say in 1 Corinthians 6:9) capture stuff that everyone is guilty of. So I don’t thumb my nose at anyone who is guilty of whatever sin. I don’t imagine I’m better off than they. We are all in need of mercy and redemption. I believe that this is exactly why Christ came. Instead of greedy, he was generous. He never stole or swindled anyone; in fact as the possessor of all things He gave all things away at the cross including his very self. He was defiled and murdered at the cross to bear the full punishment for the unclean, murderers, and idolaters to make worshippers of God from atheists and opponents towards God.

So again, I don’t thumb my nose at anyone. I merely just want to affirm what He taught which is that on our own we are condemned as guilty in our sins but full pardon and redemption is freely offered by Him through his death to those who would choose to trust in Him for their salvation and seek to repent and embrace His rule over their lives- which necessitates that we call spades, spades - including our sins. We have to own our sins as wrong and believe in Him for His mercy and then seek to turn from these sins.

As I said, I come fully from a Christian worldview. Nothing I said here is anything but standard Christian confession - and it’s miles ahead of the game when it comes to ordinary intuition for what is good for people and their flourishing.

Regarding a persecution complex: I just observed again, what is plain to see: leftists do not want me to be able to post comments like this one and would like to force me to stop if they could. I didn’t use the word persecution but if you want to label this behavior by leftists towards ordinary Christians persecution then, so be it :)

@RolandD - The fact is that your weak "progressives" comrades here are notorious for blocking anyone they disagree with. The reverse almost never happens.

Liberal men especially seem to be the weakest type of person. It's really sad, but not surprising.

@Elle79 - Funny, people who are the weakest are the ones who keep telling others how much stronger they are and how weak others are. It’s a telltale sign of insecurity. You have a great day.

@Clintthahamster - yes we talk past each other on this one and repeat ourselves lol…

The only little bone I would pick at is theological:

Its the New Testament (Colossians 2:16-17; Hebrews 10:1) that teaches the ceremonial law was a shadow of good things to come and is fulfilled in Christ and no longer applicable… but that the law of love as expressed in the 10 commandments and their implications still remains under the new covenant. So when you say “if one part is not applicable than all is not applicable” you’re just denying the plain teaching of Scripture to be clear. It’s your prerogative to do so but I’m just clarifying that when you say that, you’re not capturing accurately the clear teaching of Scripture.

And when you said “most” scholars claim the letters from Paul are just letters is an abundantly a-historical claim about the Christian faith. As far back as you can go the letters were cited as the inspired Word of God universally in the Church (and Paul’s were the letters in the canon that had least debate as to their authority - especially Romans and 1 Corinthians actually!

Anyhow, have a great day dude

@RolandD - The proof is in the pudding. The vast majority of people on this site or similar sites who block people are "progressives" who live in their ridiculous bubbles. Your moral grandstanding doesn't help, which is why there are far less of you here now than even a few years ago.