Melania Trump posed nude in magazines. The Propaganda Machine does not want to talk about it. [video]

submitted by In-the-clouds from john1126.com

all 25 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]turtlew0rk 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You posted a video asking chat GPT about Millennia Trump posed nude on a history sub?

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

She is the former first lady of the United States of America. Ironically, she was born in Slovenia.

[–]turtlew0rk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So what does a video of asking chatgpt for nudes have to do with history?

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The former first lady of the United States posed nude in more than one magazine. She is the only one in the history of the United States to do so.

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It looks like what it's telling you is that it's been programmed to censor all information on who has or hasn't posed naked, even if that information is freely available on Google.

LLMs are currently much more censored than search engines. GPT-4 is almost guaranteed to scold you if you talk about a woman's body in any way.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It was not that she posed naked, but that I asked if she repented. The propaganda machine does not want to admit that sexual promiscuity is a moral problem.

She played the part of being a Christian, but I have yet to hear her regret posing naked in public magazines. Her husband also does not admit his faults. It's the basics of being Christian: Repent, receive forgiveness from Jesus, and learn from him to achieve psychological maturity.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's the basics of being Christian: Repent, receive forgiveness from Jesus

Article Six of the US Constitution says that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States", the continuous requirement by the people that the presidential office be held by those who value Jesus above all is unconstitutional. It otherwise implies that there is a desire to have no separation between church and the state, which is concerning.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That is a different topic. This discussion is about Artificial Intelligence as a Propaganda Machine which refuses to answer certain questions because the rulers of this world do not want people to know or think about it. And the other point is that people pretend to be religious and yet are hypocrites. No one forced Melania and Donald to act like they were Christians, but since they did, how could anyone trust them when their actions do not match up with their words?

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

BIG BROTHER IS AI!

[–]ShoahKahn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Melania posed nude, was an illegal immigrant, and was treated like a whore by the press. Irrespective, "Michelle" Obama looks like a inordinately ugly gorilla, could well be male, and was treated like she was a cover girl... So, yeah. Whatev's 😴

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Each should work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

OP, it's well known that Jesus introduced Melania to Donald in the form of a nude photo - a vision, if you will - at which point he asked his assistent to send her a marriage proposal (and of course she accepted; literaly a match made in Heaven).

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

You have put yourself in danger for joking about the Lord doing something perverted, which he would not. Repent while you can so you may be forgiven.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Omniscient God would understand, though might punish you for your hubris (because you are telling others they are in danger of an angry, dumb God's wrath).

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I said nothing of God's wrath. I said you put yourself in danger. Whenever a man loses respect for his God and Creator and begins to joke about him, he is far from God's protection. Beware because your enemy is like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. If you forget to give your God the honor he deserves, as your Lord and Savior, then you are vulnerable and without help against your enemies.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You obviously imply God's wrath or whatever danger related to God one wants to consider. If that was not the danger you referred to, tell me specifically how your comment about the danger I am supposedly in - in relation to God - can be any other type of danger. Use logic.

You also assume to know that I am in danger because of God's concerns, thereby assuming to know that I am in danger because of your interpretation of God's reading of my joke. That's hubris. You don't know what God thinks. Your interpretatation is not necessarily God's interpretation. To assume that it is God's interpretation is overestimating your abilities, as somehow capable of knowing God's thoughts on the subject.

You also insult an omniscient God by assuming that God would be so dumb as to misunderstand my joke. Omniscient God isn't a dumb narcissist asshole micromanager. You have to think of a being who knows everything and is the most intelligent, and that God understands jokes, especially against demons like Trump.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

If I tell you to stop playing in the street because you could get hit by a car, is that implying God's wrath? If you get out there anyway, you put yourself in danger. You do not understand me or God if you think his wrath is implied. I am saying you are responsible for yourself.

Next time you are in danger, will you call on the Lord Jesus Christ? If your answer is no, then you can see how your flippant attitude towards him has destroyed your faith. Instead of arguing with me, you could be reconciled to God by humbling yourself and asking for his forgiveness. Then get right with him. Trust him.... You will need faith in Jesus to survive the events that are now taking place.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If I tell you to stop playing in the street because you could get hit by a car, is that implying God's wrath?

Now you've changed what you wrote into this note about God not being present in your comment. YOU wrote:

You have put yourself in danger for joking about the Lord doing something perverted, which he would not. Repent while you can so you may be forgiven.

You are referring directly to the Lord, stating that I said the Lord was doing something perverted. Ergo I am in danger. AGAIN: in danger of what? Of the Lord noticing what I did and the Lord's response to it?

You can't argue over and over that you are not referring to God's response. You are. Thus you CANNOT compare what I wrote about Trump to "playing in the street." Indeed, as you indicate, playing in the street does not necessarily incur God's wrath. There's no comparison.

Moreover, monks have made bawdy jokes - including Jesus in those jokes - since the time of the first monks.

They have known and you should know that omnicient God is NOT concerned with bawdy jokes, because if he/she were, he'd/she'd be an idiot. (Don't insult God.)

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You didn't answer my question, as if you can't hear me. Perhaps you thought it was rhetorical. My question was, "Next time you are in danger, will you call on the Lord Jesus Christ?" You would do well to examine your heart. You are in danger of having no faith to get you through the events that are coming in like a flood. The scriptures say, Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Will you call on the name of the Lord? If you do not, you also will not be saved.... from dangers of all kinds.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Additional questions avoid the topic.

If you want to argue that I am in danger because my joke indicates that I don't have faith, or I cannot "call on the name of the Lord" or the other things you mention, that changes the topic to several other claims, all of which refer back to God's potential disapproval of me and potential response or non-response, however you want to see it. My response is (still) that an omnicient God would NOT behave like a selfish jerk. For example, were I to pray to God, it's not likely that an omnicient God would listen to the prayer and think - oh, you're the one who made that tasteless joke about Jesus and Trump - so I will ignore your prayers. That's a selfish jerk, not an omnicient God who would understand dumb jokes are just dumb jokes, not something to be taken seriously. Moreover, it was Jesus who tried to change the tradition of the jealous, spiteful God into a tradition of a forgiving, welcoming God. Are you a good Christian if you overlook Jesus's teachings? Respect God, rather than assume that you can represent God's wishes on earth. Your relationship with God is direct to God, as is mine. We cannot tell anyone else what God might do to them, or that God might ignore them. We can only reference scripture, discuss our experiences, and even encourage others to appreciate God's blessings in our lives. The moment we claim to know what God would do is the moment that we compare God's actions to human actions, which is an insult to omnicient God, and to Jesus, who, by his actions, provided human responses that help others through his examples. Jesus could say what God might do to sinners, but we sound foolish if we are to presume to have that knowledge, to have Jesus's knowledge.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

When I responded to your joke about Jesus doing something perverted, I spoke up to warn you against that practice. I did not say anything about God's wrath. Why joke at all? What value is there ever in anyone joking about Jesus behaving like a sinner? It is offensive to me, and yet you do not care. Instead you accuse me for speaking up. There is hope for us, through Jesus, if we will repent and ask his forgiveness. I asked you two times if you would call on him when you are in danger and you would not confirm that you would. God never changes. It is man that strays and leaves his protection. God is always near to the contrite, who admit their faults and desire his help. Let us drop this argument and instead remember the words: Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

By the way - here's a wonderful video for you: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/197o8em/a_very_pertinent_hitchslap

I don't agree with him, but his point about extremists are spot on. I'd argue that 90%+ religious people aren't so extreme.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nobody cares because conservatives don't look at ugly chicks naked pictures and liberals dont mind the chicks doing porn LMAO