Arthur Brain

Well-known member
“It’s bang out the machete, boom in her face and grip her by the neck." -- Andrew Tate

More on your hero here:

A real piece of work...


Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Great. Now you're developing a case of Tate Derangement Syndrome. It's still early in its progression. If you fight against it now, it won't be able to sink its hooks into you.
Tate is a pathetic misogynist and likely worse. It's not 'deranged' to find his lurid brand of toxic "masculinity" abhorrent. If he's your idea of an "alpha male" then wow, what an example...

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
These things are immoral, not necessarily Satanic. Try again.

Plus, what do you disagree with about what he said in the link I provided in post #971?
How about you just post what he said? Link won't work for me. Anyway,one of your favourite podcasters is a Satanist isn't he, where it comes to politics at least?

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
As opposed to the whinings of Arthur Brain...

Bet you didn't even bother to look the verses I posted up.

If it were legalism, Arthur, then I would be promoting every law in every book under the sun.

But I don't. I promote five laws, on which the foundations of society rest upon, and from whence all other just laws are derived from.



Looks like I was right. You didn't even bother to read the verses I referenced.

But please, make a counter-argument. Show, from scripture, where it supports your position. Prove me wrong.

You can't, because 1) you won't even try, and 2) even if you did, you wouldn't be able to, because the Bible doesn't support the idea that children be punished for crime differently than adults.

Why? Because that idea came long after the Bible was written, because ACTUAL legalists needed to put into law-books what should have never needed to be, because society slowly stopped teaching basic morality to the next generation. Look where that's gotten us today. Homos and pedophiles roam the streets unafraid, murderers run rampant, children are taught by strangers while their parents work, all while those who stand against such things are pushed further and further from the public square.

The Bible was written in a way that expects the one reading it to be on the same page (pardon the pun) as the one writing it. Meaning that the authors expected people to be aware that many laws are simply unnecessary when the basics, the fundamentals, if you will, are firmly ingrained in one's mind. In other words, you don't need laws specifically telling people not to take money from the cash register, because "you shall not steal" covers all forms of theft.

I just gave you what you keep denying exists. The saying holds true: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it.

Throwing a tantrum and using fallacies won't make your beliefs any less false.

Ad hominem, and disrespect of a moderator has earned you a warning and temporary ban.

Then why are you still here?

Misery loves company, is my guess.
Oh, I read them and still bemused as to how you think they support your posit. I'll provide a verse after using basic common sense, logic and science that in themselves refute your position but firstly, the Bible does encourage to judge with discernment does it not? With that in mind and in relation then here's my counter argument:

Five year old children are in the early stages of physiological/neurological development. This is plain and simple science. The reasoning centers of the brain are nowhere near fully formed yet. They are no way aware of the ramifications of their actions as a fully grown adult, again, basic science and common sense. This is why we have laws that recognize this and are enacted accordingly, not out of "legalism". It's also why we have laws that protect children along with denying them access to things that adults are allowed - tobacco/alcohol etc for reasons that again, should be obvious. Any sane, responsible and ethical society doesn't hold five year old children as accountable for their actions as fully developed adults. Do you need links to the science? In similar manner we don't hold the mentally impaired to the same standards as those fully compos mentis.

So, why stop at 5? Why not 4? 3? How about a one year old baby? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and presume that even you wouldn't hold a baby accountable for their actions but then why not? I can say it's ridiculous with free abandon but you, not so much can you? As I mentioned in an earlier exchange on another thread regarding this: The laws as they stand have an adult having sex with a ten year old as statutory child rape, period. The minor is deemed too young to give informed consent even if they claim to. I agree with this law as the adult is a predator and the child is a victim. Do you agree with this law? If you do then you've just blown your position on accountability completely out of the water as how can a five year old be deemed old enough to commit a capital crime and a child twice that age not be accountable for having sex if they say they consented to it? That's complete inconsistency on your part and if you don't agree with that law then you've just opened up one heck of a can of unsavoury worms...My position is easily consistent on both.

There were no tantrums here JR although your hyperbolic diatribe about "Homos" et al roaming the streets is perilously close to one. If by "roaming the streets" you mean that gay folk are allowed to live their lives and go about their everyday business then sure and so they should. Convicted pedophiles don't have freedom with abandon and I don't know where you live but murderers aren't allowed to run rampant where I'm at. I'm presuming that your 'children being taught by strangers' refers to public schools and it's your prerogative to be against them if you want. This forum is still part of that 'public arena' and your freedom of speech isn't censored here is it?

My beliefs in regards to the issue at hand aren't false JR, they're consistent and supportable. It's one thing to go out on a limb with an outlandish viewpoint but it's another altogether to try and stand on a broken leg without support which is the equivalent of what you're doing. Science, logic, common sense and the Bible itself does not support you. To give him his due @Jefferson was one of the few to address your contention and gave the one logical answer on the topic.

Oh, the verse...:

Proverbs 31:9

Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.
Last edited:

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Looks like Musk has pulled a classic "bait-and-switch" game on right-wingers! You've been scammed:


way 2 go

Well-known member

“We” are being manipulated into the vision of Elon being the free speech shield-bearer - but what has Musk revealed recently as to his true motivations for wanting Twitter.

Musk’s vision for Twitter is “one stop shopping.” E-commerce. He intends to bring social media, banking, auto loans, Amazon type buying, insurance, paying loans and utility bills, medical insurance, service estimates, you name it- under the umbrella of Twitter. Everything you do, buy, need - could be bought on the Twitter website. This is about power and money.

Elon Musk told Twitter employees on Thursday that the company needs to become more like WeChat and TikTok if it wants to achieve his goal of hitting 1 billion users.
When asked how Twitter could grow its user base and increase engagement, Musk explained that the app should offer more utility and make sure “people are very entertained and informed,” according to employees who heard the remarks during his first internal all-hands. He drew a comparison to WeChat, the super app in China that mixes social media with payments, games, and even ride-hailing.
“There’s no WeChat equivalent outside of China,” Musk said after dialing in 10 minutes late to the virtual meeting via his phone camera. “You basically live on WeChat in China. If we can recreate that with Twitter, we’ll be a great success.”
Nov 13, 2022

payment system
Screenshot from 2023-01-30 16-32-22.png

way 2 go

Well-known member
Not stupid enough to consider legit medications as being on par with street drugs.


This space intentionally left blank
Not stupid enough to consider legit medications as being on par with street drugs.
From your posts, at least, it really does not seem as though you've ever scrupled much over such a question as that (a mere question of Names), User.
Last edited:

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
I was prescribed Valium a few years ago for a muscle relaxant. It turned out to be more effective than the opioids I was taking for pain, so they cut the opioids and kept the Valium prescription until it ran out. I liked it. A lot. If it was readily available I would have difficulty self-regulating.

way 2 go

Well-known member
I was prescribed Valium a few years ago for a muscle relaxant. It turned out to be more effective than the opioids I was taking for pain, so they cut the opioids and kept the Valium prescription until it ran out. I liked it. A lot. If it was readily available I would have difficulty self-regulating.
was prescribed xanax once , tried 1/3 of a pill , wow , immediately wanted more , never took another pill .