Jebrim AMA

[Jebrim 99]

19 minutes ago, Josh said:

So will you share your manifesto? I think it’s clear you have one. 
 

Why do you socially and culturally want to live in the 1700s, but happy to economically live in 21st century as you said you support a globalised economy. 
Why should the economy evolve but not legislation? 
 

 

Which outlawed forms of capital punishment would you like to see back?

 

Is breaking the law ever excusable if it’s in the name of religion?

The human institutions we have form the stable foundation upon which economic and technological growth can occur.

 

The only manifesto is the manifesto talking about a rejection of manifestos. 😂

 

Read The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk.

 

My favorite philosophers throughout history are Edmund Burke, David Hume, and John C Calhoun. Take from that what you will.

 

I wouldn’t have a problem with the return of any past capital punishment. Hangings are fine. I also don’t think people should sit on death row for decades.

 

No, it is never justified to break the law. In fact, the Bible says to obey the authorities. The only reason not to is when the authorities are illegitimate. This occurs when the government exceeds its constitutional limitations and tries to exercise powers it does not have. The Constitution is the law of the land, not whatever administration just happens to be sitting in power at the time.

[Jebrim 99]

6 hours ago, Blogs said:

When you say the states were fighting for their rights, can you elaborate on their rights to what? Was it slavery?

Self-government. The right to govern their own affairs. A right they’ve always had. Outsiders simply have no say on what their laws ought to be on any matter when it doesn’t affect them. This is the very principle that the American Revolution was fought over. The North violated that principle in their quest to forcibly change Southern law against their will, just as the British had done to them decades prior. 

[Clark Kent 55]

6 hours ago, true said:

Do you think billionaire Bruce Wayne does enough to help people in need?

Absolutely not.

[3lite 111]

Religious individuals follow and abide by their own set of moral codes.  Different denominations and organizations follow different guidelines.  What one group finds morally unacceptable, another may actively embrace.

 

In Runescape, each clan has its own set of moral codes that attracts a certain type of individuals.

 

Historically, we've seen such things as:

- Returning in a battle being "dishonorable" (Alliance clans from ~2004-2006)

- Looting being frowned upon, sometimes leading to disciplinary action (many clans throughout history)

- Insulting or "flaming" individuals from other clans on community sites leading to a kick/temporary clan ban (Eternal Honour)

- Praying in P2P single being punishable (Damage Inc from around 2007ish)

- Rules against 1-iteming/welfare gear (many clans throughout history)

- Rules against multiboxing or account sharing

On the flip side, we've seen some clans (and probably progressively so from early times) disregard all rules.  We've seen that when one clan plays by rules and an "honor code" it can be taken advantage of and preyed upon.

 

Given the above, would you draw parallels between Runescape clans and religion? 

 

Edited May 14, 2021 by 3lite

[Josh 137]

2 hours ago, Jebrim said:

1. They are enemies that have threatened us. For our own security, we cannot trust them. This is especially the case for Iran, which comes from a culture where suicide bombings runs rampant. Mutually Assured Destruction won’t work with them.

 

There has been 7 suicide bombings in Iran since 2009, or at least suicide bombings that resulted in a fatality which I guess is the definition of Suicide... Since 2010 there have been 85 different school shootings with at least 1 fatality (Over 200 if you count without fatalities) in the US. That doesn't include shooting up cinemas, restaurants, gas stations, churches, mosques, festivals etc. As for Suicide, from the 85 unique school shootings over 50 resulted in suicide from the gunman.

 

Why do you think the US has such an issue with domestic terrorism, and as a country that breeds so many terrorists whom are happy to commit suicide, why should the US be trusted with the concept of mutually assured destruction? 

 

What legislation would you propose to reduce the number of domestic terrorists that Texas is creating (3rd highest of any state re. school shooters) and the broader US?

Edited May 14, 2021 by Josh

[VirgoVaca 581]

What do you think about conversion therapy?

 

Do you think secularism has a place in government?

[Jebrim 99]

11 hours ago, Blogs said:

Did Nazi Germany have the right to commit genocide?

I would not have gone to war to end the genocide, no. In fact, we didn’t even learn about it until the war came to an end. That wasn’t even the justification used for the war.

 

We have mass murder occurring every single day with the unborn all across the world. What is happening is just as bad as the Holocaust. Are we obligated to conquer the globe to end this travesty? How many additional tens of millions died under the Communists? Are we obligated to conquer them too?

 

These are ultimately other people’s problems. They need to figure them out for themselves. The same goes for whatever happens in another US state. It isn’t any of my concern, just as what goes on in my state isn’t any of anyone else’s concern. I will defend Texas against any outsiders trying to tell us what we ought to be doing. They need to mind their own business.

[Da Bazz 715]

  

9 hours ago, Jebrim said:

Not a single place in the entire world had ever accepted same-sex marriage as a concept until the Netherlands did in 2001. That's how recent this is. In fact, if you were a true constitutionalist, you would oppose the way it was forcibly legalized across the nation in America against the will of the people of the states. It shouldn't even matter whether you favor same-sex marriage or not, you should oppose the way that the Supreme Court unconstitutionally legislated from the bench and overrode all state constitutions and statutes on the matter. What they did was wrong.

This confuses me are you ok with same-sex marriage but opposed to LGBTQ and the way the Supreme Court forced each states hand?

I am from the Netherlands with no singular religious believes (I think all religions all have values that we can learn from) and have always thought it was weird that other nations don't allow same-sex marriage. I believe it is perfectly normal for people that genuinely love each other (consent from both parties) should be allowed to marry. Especially since marriage brings economical benefits with them (house insurance, tax cuts, child care benefits,....). Since the system is disproportionately tied with economics, would you say it is just to take away those opportunities from LGBTQ couples? Why yes, no?

 

I am not fully familiar with American politics and each systems constitutional rights, but if the Supreme Court vastly overstepped the jurisdiction in this regard then I agree that that should be what you are concerned about. That's far more grievous than whatever law was pushed through. No matter what your political stance is. If institutions start operating outside of their jurisdiction distrust will follow and without trust you can't have a healthy state/nation (just look at the state of the USA and EU alike).

5 hours ago, Jebrim said:

Self-government. The right to govern their own affairs. A right they’ve always had. Outsiders simply have no say on what their laws ought to be on any matter when it doesn’t affect them. This is the very principle that the American Revolution was fought over. The North violated that principle in their quest to forcibly change Southern law against their will, just as the British had done to them decades prior. 

If this is the case then why has to USA militarily (Vietnam, Middle East, North Africa) and covertly (CIA mostly in South America) intervened in the creation of those states? In my point of view America in the 20th and 21st century has been the one trying to push their values and laws onto these less fortunate nations. How are these issues different from the one where the North forcibly changed Southern laws?

Edited May 14, 2021 by Da Bazz

[Josh 137]

Which widely accepted scientific fact/theory/principle (e.g Gravity) do you find hardest to believe and why?

 

E.g - The Earth is round, Gravity, relativity. 

[Da Bazz 715]

13 minutes ago, Jebrim said:

I would not have gone to war to end the genocide, no. In fact, we didn’t even learn about it until the war came to an end. That wasn’t even the justification used for the war.

 

We have mass murder occurring every single day with the unborn all across the world. What is happening is just as bad as the Holocaust. Are we obligated to conquer the globe to end this travesty? How many additional tens of millions died under the Communists? Are we obligated to conquer them too?

 

These are ultimately other people’s problems. They need to figure them out for themselves. The same goes for whatever happens in another US state. It isn’t any of my concern, just as what goes on in my state isn’t any of anyone else’s concern. I will defend Texas against any outsiders trying to tell us what we ought to be doing. They need to mind their own business.

I have always wondered how people with strong state bonds considered themselves. I think you feel very much like a Texan more so than an American, just like someone from Germany would see himself as a German rather than a European. The EU and the USA are about the same in scale, similar population, GDP,...  Do you think of each state as it's own country as we in the EU have countries (Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands,... vs Texas, California, New York, Colorado,...)?

[Jebrim 99]

20 minutes ago, Da Bazz said:

  

This confuses me are you ok with same-sex marriage but opposed to LGBTQ and the way the Supreme Court forced each states hand?

I am from the Netherlands with no singular religious believes (I think all religions all have values that we can learn from) and have always thought it was weird that other nations don't allow same-sex marriage. I believe it is perfectly normal for people that genuinely love each other (consent from both parties) should be allowed to marry. Especially since marriage brings economical benefits with them (house insurance, tax cuts, child care benefits,....). Since the system is disproportionately tied with economics, would you say it is just to take away those opportunities from LGBTQ couples? Why yes, no?

 

I am not fully familiar with American politics and each systems constitutional rights, but if the Supreme Court vastly overstepped the jurisdiction in this regard then I agree that that should be what you are concerned about. That's far more grievous than whatever law was pushed through. No matter what your political stance is. If institutions start operating outside of their jurisdiction distrust will follow and without trust you can't have a healthy state/nation (just look at the state of the USA).

If this is the case then why has to USA militarily (Vietnam, Middle East, North Africa) and covertly (CIA mostly in South America) intervened in the creation of those states? In my point of view America in the 20th and 21st century has been the one trying to push their values and laws onto these less fortunate nations. How are these issues different from the one where the North forcibly changed Southern laws?

I oppose same-sex marriage. It is actually part of the Texas Constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman and that the state may not create anything of the sort or similar with regards to members of the same sex. Yet our state constitution is no longer being enforced. It’s a travesty. 76% of Texans voted for this to be added to the state constitution just a few years ago.

 

America did not always get involved in the affairs of other nations. We used to only be concerned with protecting the Western Hemisphere from European interference. We do have some trading partners and allies like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea that provide many mutual benefits. We should protect our shipping lanes with them.

 

I would not have gotten involved in European wars. I would’ve let the Nazis and Communists kill each other. It’s none of our concern. I think Europe today is largely ungrateful and leeches off of us. I see little reason why we should continue our NATO alliance with them. 

[Jebrim 99]

Christianity in Europe is a joke. Only the Northern Irish embrace anything like the Evangelical Christian faith that is common here in America. The Northern Irish opposed same-sex marriage and abortion. The British Parliament a couple years ago forcibly legalized it in that country against their will. I think it’s an utter travesty. Their people did not support it.

[eggshell24 29]

do you think a woman should have to get permission from her husband to cut her hair?

[Jebrim 99]

42 minutes ago, Josh said:

Which widely accepted scientific fact/theory/principle (e.g Gravity) do you find hardest to believe and why?

 

E.g - The Earth is round, Gravity, relativity. 

DSM-5

[eggshell24 29]

22 minutes ago, Jebrim said:

DSM-5

out of all the crazy shit you've posted so far, this must be the most harmful. i know nobody reading this will take you seriously, as nobody in this thread has done so far, but just on the off chance anyone does please do not listen to any of this guy's opinions on mental illness/health, he's irreparably damaged his by sleeping 3 hours a day for months (which is much worse than shitting your pants one time btw)