IT.COM

What's going on with Epik and Rob Monster?

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

MapleDots

Account Closed (Requested)
Impact
13,169
I'm catching the tail end of this, seems to be some kind of controversy...

https://domaingang.com/domain-news/rob-monster-off-twitter-after-christchurch-massacre-controversy/

Must be something odd to evoke this type of a response from one of our members.

Picture0016.png
 
8
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
1
•••
Goodbye forever!
Noooooo! Frank, don't go! This thread will not be the same without your contributions... :xf.cry:

Seriously now: I may not agree with you on many things, but yours is a voice of reason that's needed here! You know, for some balance! :xf.smile:

Going out for fresh supply of more popcorn... please don't disappoint me! :dead:
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Here is a good example of why actively protecting Free Speech is more important than ever -- Draconian content enforcement in the UK:

https://www.cnet.com/news/uk-to-keep-social-networks-in-check-with-internet-safety-regulator/

This is hot on the heels of the heavy-handed EU Copyright Directive just passed. I shared that news before, but this video has had more than 800,000 views in a week and is a must-watch if you missed it before:


Can you imagine a scenario where a forum like NamePros would not be possible? In the wake of NZ, these scenarios are looking very real, and Orwellian RightSpeak would be a reality.

In China, where the social credit scoring system will be mandatory for 2020, it is almost a reality.

Just consider the convergence of 5G, RFID, IPv6, IoT, machine vision, and how it provides the ultimate framework for social control, including self-censorship. The surveillance tech is 100% ready to go in 2019.

I realize that there are folks that think Trump is going to stop this, e.g. in light of recent policy statements about protecting free speech on US college campuses. I frankly doubt it.

If anyone is still asleep now would be a really good time to wake up. Domains will be impacted if the voice of free speech is silenced.

And if you value civil liberty, I suggest you show it by bringing your domains to Epik, use our marketplace, and clear escrow transactions through Epik. We welcome all, regardless of bias or preference.
 
2
•••
Having spoken with Rob, I get the impression he is honest and sincere in his beliefs.

It does not seem good business sense to me, or sensical for any other reason, to post like this, except in order to preach to an audience outside of the “converted”.

As a blogger, you are free to throw rocks. However, as a self-declared Christian, you might reconsider. Regardless, I don't judge you, and would not hesitate to share your work if I thought it was good, just as I did yesterday for DomainIncite, for which the author promptly returned the favor. :)

upload_2019-4-9_10-14-24.png


Just to clarify here:

1. Going forward, I don't anticipate being too openly declarative about matters of faith at NamePros on threads other than this particular one that is specifically about me, as it would be quite difficult to understand me without having the context of faith, as I put faith above earthly prosperity.

2. It is quite possible that some aspects of life and business would be easier for someone who goes with the flow and is not openly declarative of any faith. Indeed, I think for many youth, that is the direction many went. Per Psalm 73, that is not a great option in the scheme of eternity (see a teaching here).

3. Epik is actively pursuing a Board expansion as part of an investment round for accredited investors. It is possible that the new Board members will not be Christians. They just need to be awesome. I don't rule out handing over the Chairmanship to one of the new Board members.

It has been great getting back into the domain industry since September. The Gab controversy, and being an apologist for free speech, was not part of the plan. Nevertheless, I do believe there are some exciting times ahead for Epik.com, BitMitigate.com and Anonymize.com as well as new projects.

My point in raising faith is not so much to proselytize, offend, or even to be provocative. Rather it was to illustrate that free speech, made possible by the sovereign and lawful use of domains, enables people to ask questions and seek answers. I view that is a good thing and that Draconian censorship is far worse.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Rob,

I agree with you that there are legitimate concerns about free speech and censorship. Such as new stringent laws proposed in the UK, ending Net neutrality in the US, the possibility of domains being confiscated in Australia from legitimate investors, etc. Those are things we should be seriously concerned about.

But to post hate-speech or providing a platform for it, to deny that the real pain caused by mass shooters is actually staged, to promote crazy conspiracy theories, all in the name of "free speech", to me that is false equivalency. It goes against the "Christian values" you claim to hold in high esteem.

You covered a lot of points in your post. It continues the pattern from your blog where you made uninformed accusations and then promoted a witch-hunt:

To report the news and comment on the facts is not a "witch-hunt". I have been honest in stating and correcting any factual errors. The links I posted to the other blogs also covered the facts regarding the same story that shed more light or updates since the post. I guess you don't like all "free speech" after all.

I am punching out of this thread as well. Don't see like there is anything else left to say that hasn't been said.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Rob,

I agree with you that there are legitimate concerns about free speech and censorship. ... But to post hate-speech or providing a platform for it, to deny that the real pain caused by mass shooters is actually staged, to promote crazy conspiracy theories, all in the name of "free speech", to me that is false equivalency.

Let's examine that list:

(a) post hate-speech
(b) provide a platform for others to do (a)
(c) deny the real pain caused by mass shooters
(d) promote crazy conspiracy theories

We agree on (a), (c), and (d). Personally I disapprove of people saying such things. Should they be allowed to say such things in person and online? In a free society, I think that is an inevitable consequence of allowing open debate. So I'd be in favor of that free speech even though I disagree with what's said. But I will agree completely that, insofar as Rob is perceived by people to have engaged in (a), (c), or (d) personally, then that can't be good for the Epik brand. So we largely agree on (a), (c), and (d) as things that should not happen.

But buried in that list is a CRUCIAL POINT: Item (b). Should someone provide a platform that others use, in large part, to promulgate intolerant views? Acting as an individual, I would never wish to do so because I disagree with such views and consider them to be very harmful.

However, isn't providing a platform for online speech EXACTLY what domain registrars do? Domain names are primarily a mechanism for online communication, whether by email or as a website address. The real question for online free speech is precisely this: Should registrars be neutral, or should they take an ideological position? Should registrars be amoral, or should they rely on their morals to ban content? (Keep in mind, domain registrars oversee online addresses NOT content.)

If a registrar wants to stake out an ideological position and refuse to service domain names that might be used for content that the registrar considers objectionable (whether on moral grounds or based on any policy or whim whatsoever), that – most would agree – is the registrar's right. A business can refuse to do business with potential customers of some category or to put limits on how the business's services are indirectly used by the customer. We'll set aside cases of racial or religious or LGBTQ discrimination for now, though some might see a connection.

I personally believe that registrars ought NOT to be ideological. Instead, I'd like registrars to behave like neutral service providers. Specifically, registrars ought to handle domains in the same way for everybody. In practice, this means that a domain transfer is not banned merely because the customer is racist – or because the customer runs a website that includes racist content or which does not ban racists.

Registrar employees and registrars should not be seen as endorsing content published on websites merely because they don't ban the domain name. That seems obvious. Yet there is a growing social trend to attempt to bully registrars into banning domains based on content some group of people (large or small) objects to. And this behavior is based on the assumption that registrar employees and registrars ought to be condemned based on the content published on websites. That is only logical and appropriate if we view registrars as endorsing the web's content. And that expectation leads inexorably toward censorship or partisanship among registrars – companies that ought to strive to be neutral and content-agnostic. And it also leads simply to cowardice among risk-averse publicly traded registrars, who would rather evict / censor any customer than stand up to pressure from lobbyists or a social-media mob. Alt-right content isn't the only content that can be banned. In the past, or in many countries today, content that normalizes the LGBTQ community would be banned based on pressure from the general public. This should not be forgotten.

Individual registrar employees have opinions that may be progressive or conservative, left-wing or right-wing. They might object to some idea as a conspiracy theory, or they might wish to stand up for that minority opinion against an official narrative. Depending on the view and the environment, that "conspiracy theory" might be crazy or it might be the actual truth. Talking about the Armenian genocide outside Turkey might be a non-controversial examination of history. But inside Turkey it might be deemed a dangerous conspiracy theory that undermines the state and which should be banned.

So should a domain registrar provide a platform for others to spread ideas that are [insert label]? If you believe in free speech and want registrars to be neutral insofar as possible, then YES. Fundamentally, registrars provide domains, which are platforms. Should registrars police content, banning even what is legal? If so, then according to whose ideology? And how?

If a registrar should refuse to service domains that might be used to spread ideas that are [insert label], then this the category of ideas being banned will vary based on time and place. Maybe that's alt-right racism. Maybe it's misogyny. Maybe it's nutty conspiracy theories that question the causes of mass murder. And to many of us, that sounds superficially like a good thing because we want to reduce the spread of such ideas. But elsewhere this may mean banning ideas that question official state narratives, or which undermine the locally dominant religion, or which are favorable to the LGBTQ community, or which question (let's say) the motivation of that country's ongoing wars.

As an individual, on moral grounds, I would never provide a platform for racism. But as a registrar employee, I regard my responsibility as neutrality toward customers and their content. If they sell crappy products / services, I don't intervene just because I personally think they're ripping off their customers. If they are spreading ideas that I think are foolish or worse, I don't enforce my worldview on the web by banning content I disagree with. Such actions by a registrar seem like dangerous overreach, and on principled ethical grounds I want registrars to be agnostic, amoral, non-ideological, neutral.

Bad ideas can be combatted in an open forum by critical debate. We should not reach for censorship as our first option. That is a very slippery slope and a precedent far more dangerous than allowing dumb or dangerous ideas to be expressed. Bad ideas can be defeated by talking. Not by suppression. Bad ideas dissolve when exposed to evidence, to argument, to satire, to condemnation, to ridicule, to empathetic persuasion. Bad ideas sink to the bottom whenever they mix with good ideas.

That doesn't mean that everybody who believes bad ideas will be persuaded. Obviously that can never be true. But when bad ideas are suppressed, those who hold such opinions feel persecuted. And persecution lends the bad ideas an aura of rebellion or legitimacy, which attracts new followers.

Think about it. If all racists are banned from all mainstream websites and all mainstream registrars, where these racists were in the minority, then what happens? The racists will congregate elsewhere, where they are in the majority. If some suggestible 18-year-old is undecided and walks into a room, then it makes a big difference whether the room is 90% racist or 1% racist. On Facebook, perhaps, the racism would be rebutted by the 18-year-old's friends and fail to spread. But once Facebook bans racist views, then the kid will find that racism in a much more concentrated form on some other platform where it is expressed in much more extreme ways. And there nobody will rebut the dumb racist opinion. So it will seem more plausible. Add to that the allure of having been banned by all the major platforms, and it's no wonder that some naturally rebellious teenager or disgruntled middle-aged dude finds satisfaction and a sense of belonging by participating in a gang of too-dangerous-for-mainstream folks who know the secret truths that "The System doesn't want you to know".

The remedy for the spread of bad ideas isn't to continue de-platforming and suppressing and censoring them until they end up super-concentrated. If you ask me, it's the opposite: Let offensive ideas be expressed in the person's normal social circles and on normal online platforms. That is where those ideas will be challenged in the MAXIMUM way. This dilutes and dissolves most of the bad ideas.

Once again, the list was:

(a) post hate-speech
(b) provide a platform for others to do (a)
(c) deny the real pain caused by mass shooters
(d) promote crazy conspiracy theories

People should do NONE of (a) - (d) in their capacity as individuals. But society only functions properly if certain service providers are non-ideological. Registrars exist to provide platforms for online speech. Asking all registrars to deny service on ideological grounds is a bad idea.

Individuals who work for neutral service providers have to act in ways that are amoral and agnostic even though the individual has a moral belief and a strong opinion about the customer. Domain registrars are not the only service providers in question. Even white supremacists go to the dentist, buy cars, take the bus or subway, order hamburgers, set up WiFi in their home or office, check into hotels, board planes, etc. Individual business owners might deny them services, and that's arguably their right. Perhaps society as a whole could band together to refuse all services to people who engage in hate speech. Maybe that will somehow starve or ostracize the racists into submission, and they will spontaneously stop being racist. Or maybe that sense of persecution will harden them, cause them to band together to provide alternative services to a majority-racist clientele, and maybe their racism will become even more extreme as a result of being concentrated and under attack.

Domain registrars are so vital to online communication, and online communication is so vital to solving all of society's problems in the 21st century, that domain registrars really ought to be the last kind of business to ban content based on partisan or ideological grounds. The web needs to be neutral and open in order for persuasion to function. If the righteous and the racists use different social media platforms, different registrars, different hosting providers, different everything, then how is that chasm to be bridged?

Content can be censored through legal means when the law is changed or enforced by officials who are answerable to the citizens. Registrars provide domains, which are platforms. If we want non-ideological non-partisan registrars that are neutral and fair, then we should not ask registrars to reject domain transfers or suspend domains except based on guidelines that are determined through legitimate democratic mechanisms.
 
1
•••
However, isn't providing a platform for online speech EXACTLY what domain registrars do? Domain names are primarily a mechanism for online communication, whether by email or as a website address. The real question for online free speech is precisely this: Should registrars be neutral, or should they take an ideological position? Should registrars be amoral, or should they rely on their morals to ban content? (Keep in mind, domain registrars oversee online addresses NOT content.)
It's not the core of the issue here. Epik was not criticized for being neutral or not being neutral. Epik was criticized for engaging in objectionable activity, that is the posts made by Rob. Because there is no clear distinction between Rob and Epik.
Forgive me for staying focused on the simple facts. It doesn't take a long philosophical discussion.

The bottom line is that registrars all have TOS, and they will make judgment calls. Or they will simply tell the difficult clients to take their business elsewhere. So they are not completely neutral.
Even Epik has done that, so it's not really different than the other registrars. Perhaps has a slightly higher tolerance threshold.
 
3
•••
Slanted,

The point made by TCK was about hate speech. Your reply is in defence of free speech. We need to recognise the difference.
 
0
•••
Slanted,

The point made by TCK was about hate speech. Your reply is in defence of free speech. We need to recognise the difference.

The problem here is that hate speech is subjective.

For example, there is news this week of "Black Hebrew Israelites", or so they claim, asking "white people" to kiss their feet. Apparently people cooperating with their request. See here:

https://www.chron.com/news/media/This-Black-Hate-Group-is-Making-White-People-Kiss-1291957.php

Is it hate speech to:

1. Investigate whether these people have their claimed genetic lineage?

2. Deplore the stupidity of their request for reparation for something that did not happen to them and was not perpetrated by the people from whom they seek reparations?

I could go on here but I think it illustrates the point. Evaluating claims and exposing stupidity is not per se engaging in hate speech.
 
2
•••
Yeah, some people are trying to make this more complicated than it needs to be or muddying things up repeating "free speech" or talking about different issues.

If you were just a registrar of Gab and nothing else, it wouldn't have been a big issue for many. For some it will be because of the type of content.

But it went beyond that.

When you (re)tweet anti-semitic graphics or repost anti-Muslim memes, you are now a participant in spreading anti - fill in the blank type stuff. This does nobody any good. Obviously, some had issues with helping to spread the massacre video, manifesto and throwing up doubts about it.

So there's that.

The other stuff, religious/political type posts, is usually a bad idea because you're going to offend somebody. Again, it's why you don't see CEO's/employees from other companies engaging in that type of discussion, it's usually not good for business.

The conspiracy nutter stuff just isn't a good look. It makes you look crazy. It really is some of the most ridiculous stuff I've read. Adults discussing whether the Earth is flat, it's like some people skipped elementary school, never saw satellite images etc. Some hardcore Christians don't believe dinosaurs existed, as if fossils and museums don't exist.

Free speech. Again, companies have TOS. Slanted posted about one that got handled, it was obvious he was talking about the Incel stuff/site. So Epik enforced their TOS as they see fit, just like GoDaddy did.

Again, I don't see anybody saying you can't say this or that, they're using their own freedoms to say they disagree, point out issues etc. Free speech goes both ways.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Yeah, some people are trying to make this more complicated than it needs to be or muddying things up repeating "free speech" or talking about different issues.

As mentioned elsewhere, outside of this thread, not really going to touch the theology stuff. I will say this:

- There are plenty of examples of wildly successful business run by Bible-believing Christians. If you look around, it is really only Christians who are mocked. There is a reason for that.

- Dinosaurs are described in the Bible. They were on the earth with mankind and either perished in the flood who were wiped out by dragon-slaying hunters. Nimrod was one of them. Esau likely as well.

- I have no beef with any Jew. There is one reference to media concentration but in no way was that reference as anti-semitic. Stop beating that horse. It has no validity whatsoever and you likely know it.

As for what to believe or not to believe, that is everyone's sovereign choice. Free speech and low cost internet allows people to exercise their free will in making informed choices about most matters.
 
0
•••
As mentioned elsewhere, outside of this thread, not really going to touch the theology stuff. I will say this:

- There are plenty of examples of wildly successful business run by Bible-believing Christians. If you look around, it is really only Christians who are mocked. There is a reason for that.

- Dinosaurs are described in the Bible. They were on the earth with mankind and either perished in the flood who were wiped out by dragon-slaying hunters. Nimrod was one of them. Esau likely as well.

- I have no beef with any Jew. There is one reference to media concentration but in no way was that reference as anti-semitic. Stop beating that horse. It has no validity whatsoever and you likely know it.

As for what to believe or not to believe, that is everyone's sovereign choice. Free speech and low cost internet allows people to exercise their free will in making informed choices about most matters.

As far as mocked, depends what type of Christian you are. You guys really can't even get your story straight is part of the problem. Some believe you take the Bible literally, some don't. Some believe dinosaurs existed, some don't. Some believe they were around with man, some don't. I had a former boss who was a deacon at a Baptist church I believe, thought the Earth was only 2,000/3,000 years old, that dinosaurs didn't exist. We have Christians in the Political thread that disagree on whether they did or not. They did, and they were before man. That takes the Christian story right apart. I guess when the Bible was written, they had no idea what was in the ground, way beneath their feet. But when new information comes about, you're supposed to adapt to it.

Yes, I know Christians can run successful businesses. Might be even more successful if they kept the conspiracy stuff to themselves. I read where you posted you thought the Internet was one of the signs of the End Times. That doesn't come across well to a lot of people. Not wars, diseases that took out great chunks of the population etc, but the Internet?

And, yet again, you're completely free to have those views, nobody is saying you can't. People can disagree with them, that how free speech works.

As I pointed out earlier, we also have an existing Religious thread and somebody can hit the New Thread button and start up a Conspiracy thread, I know lots of people are interested in stuff like that.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
As far as mocked, depends what type of Christian you are. You guys really can't even get your story straight is part of the problem. Some believe you take the Bible literally, some don't. Some believe dinosaurs existed, some don't. Some believe they were around with man, some don't. I had a former boss who was a deacon at a Baptist church I believe, thought the Earth was only 2,000/3,000 years old, that dinosaurs didn't exist. We have Christians in the Political thread that disagree on whether they did or not. They did, and they were before man. That takes the Christian story right apart. I guess when the Bible was written, they had no idea what was in the ground, way beneath their feet. But when new information comes about, you're supposed to adapt to it.

Yes, I know Christians can run successful businesses. Might be even more successful if they kept the conspiracy stuff to themselves. I read where you posted you thought the Internet was one of the signs of the End Times. That doesn't come across well to a lot of people.

And, yet again, you're completely free to have those views, nobody is saying you can't.
Your assessment of Christianity applies to all religions. There are differences within all religions. There is no religion with 100% consensus. I felt the need to point this out because you seem to be picking on Christianity.
 
2
•••
Your assessment of Christianity applies to all religions. There are differences within all religions. There is no religion with 100% consensus. I felt the need to point this out because you seem to be picking on Christianity.

Actually, you're not reading. I quoted and responded directly to his post. No kidding to what you posted.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
As far as mocked, depends what type of Christian you are. You guys really can't even get your story straight is part of the problem.

Well, the rabbit hole runs deep there. Prosperity preachers with private jets, pedo priests, and false prophets are all symptoms of modern day Babylon (aka Mystery Babylon aka the Harlot). The folks who know their Bibles have nothing to do with any of it and ultimately see through deception. I am not saying it is easy.

As for my persona in the industry, I have hosted and sponsored the Christian Domainers breakfast at Nmaescon for the last several years. My Christian testimony was not a secret, however when the Huffington Post and others attempted to propagate a false caricature, it needed to be addressed more specifically.
 
1
•••
I know I said I am punching out. But can't let this another outrageous claim slip by:

FYI, you can buy these 23-30 foot wall charts that map out the timeline since Adam and Eve about 6000 years ago. Example:

- Dinosaurs are described in the Bible. They were on the earth with mankind and either perished in the flood who were wiped out by dragon-slaying hunters. Nimrod was one of them. Esau likely as well.

Rob, you're saying that dinosaurs existed less than 6000 years ago? :banghead:

Anyways, back to work.
 
0
•••
Rob, you're saying that dinosaurs existed less than 6000 years ago? :banghead:

Sure. And if you actually believed your Bible, you would too. And therein lies the problem. Eventually you have to determine your source of truth. Free speech allows that investigation. Propaganda doesn't.

As for glaciers, they were very possibly formed by the frozen remnants of the Biblical flood which was approximately 1648 Anno Mundi, or 2348 BC and has provided fresh water in summer time ever since.
 
0
•••
Sure. And if you actually believed your Bible, you would too. And therein lies the problem. Eventually you have to determine your source of truth. Free speech allows that investigation. Propaganda doesn't.

I do believe in the Bible. I don't let other people interpret it for me. I let it interpret itself. And it is in perfect harmony with true science. To believe that dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans is pure fantasy.
 
1
•••
2
•••
0
•••
That doesn't mean that everybody who believes bad ideas will be persuaded. Obviously that can never be true. But when bad ideas are suppressed, those who hold such opinions feel persecuted. And persecution lends the bad ideas an aura of rebellion or legitimacy, which attracts new followers.

Think about it. If all racists are banned from all mainstream websites and all mainstream registrars, where these racists were in the minority, then what happens? The racists will congregate elsewhere, where they are in the majority. If some suggestible 18-year-old is undecided and walks into a room, then it makes a big difference whether the room is 90% racist or 1% racist. On Facebook, perhaps, the racism would be rebutted by the 18-year-old's friends and fail to spread. But once Facebook bans racist views, then the kid will find that racism in a much more concentrated form on some other platform where it is expressed in much more extreme ways. And there nobody will rebut the dumb racist opinion. So it will seem more plausible. Add to that the allure of having been banned by all the major platforms, and it's no wonder that some naturally rebellious teenager or disgruntled middle-aged dude finds satisfaction and a sense of belonging by participating in a gang of too-dangerous-for-mainstream folks who know the secret truths that "The System doesn't want you to know".

The remedy for the spread of bad ideas isn't to continue de-platforming and suppressing and censoring them until they end up super-concentrated. If you ask me, it's the opposite: Let offensive ideas be expressed in the person's normal social circles and on normal online platforms. That is where those ideas will be challenged in the MAXIMUM way. This dilutes and dissolves most of the bad ideas.
how often do people post really bad stuff out in the open on facebook or twitter, giving their more normal friends and family the chance to argue with them? like the worst things you might see on gab? most people know that has the potential destroy your life.
even if people did, there would probably be a lot of animosity directed towards them, not empathy and sound arguments. then they would likely stop..or continue and lose a lot of respect.
that could push them away too, to other communities.
most of the internet isn't just some kind of public square where everyone is out in the open, engaging in somewhat civil dialogue.

but anyway, people can always make other accounts to interact on bad facebook pages and groups, follow crazy people on twitter, and tweet whatever they want.
they can ignore the few dissenting voices who happen to engage on their crazy twitter feed. there's not really a way to have a good discussion there anyway.
the big social media networks aren't full of patient and empathetic people with rational arguments.
there's a lot of good information to be found, but it's often overlooked or ignored.

if social media was like a public square where everyone was interacting with everyone else, and people usually interacted with civility, and all the best arguments and most convincing evidence were in plain view, then it might be fine to allow hateful racists to have their "booth" in the square, next to everyone else's booths.

(not that a public square is the solution. the majority of the citizens could still end up being idiots who are swayed by the flat-earther or racist. I guess the solution is a good education system, but some would probably whine that it's "indoctrination", because they don't understand what good education is. maybe just getting people to read good books too.)
 
1
•••
Should registrars be neutral, or should they take an ideological position?

The smart small ones should be completely neutral and take a leadership position as Rob has with Gab. Let the thought police, investors and public mob and moral outrage be directed at the large public corporation registrars who care more about share prices to allow selective bias to exist. Just like mainstream media bias. Let the niche and small news and opinion websites do their thing and be left alone.
 
2
•••
Last edited:
0
•••
0
•••
If you decide that the Bible is more important than science you have a problem. Isn't the definition of fanaticism ? You're bound to make lots of bad decisions.
But then it becomes impossible to have a rational discussion. It's like trying to debate a 3-year old child who still believes in fairy tales. Cause the Bible is no different than fairy tables, but for adults. My opinion.

On the other hand scientific facts are not opinions. You like them or you don't, but facts remain facts.

Eventually you have to determine your source of truth. Free speech allows that investigation. Propaganda doesn't.
I don't think you are a truth-seeker, you are only looking for validation. You're a victim of (religious) propaganda yourself. Free speech is useless without the ability to think for yourself.

It's no wonder society is falling apart, when you have more and more people feeding on conspiracy theories and the most unreasonable stuff you can find on the Internet.

Society cannot function without a minimum consensus on reality, which of course does not exclude differences of opinions. Enjoy your stay in the 4th dimension.
 
1
•••
Back