3RU7AL

You have LITERALLY not engaged my point AT ALL. 

On a lot of levels humans and chimpanzes ARE the same - they are eukaryotes, they are vertebrates, they are primates! There is a DISTINCT genome which is UNIQUE to humans - within that UNIQUE genome or genetic code for humans - we know that there is MORE difference between black people as a population than between white and black people.

YOU are attempting to say, "Well if the measure of difference in the genetics between two populations means that they aren't different, then your saying apes and humans aren't different!" 

INCORRECT - you are misconstruing the REASON I brought up this difference. You claim that there is a genetic difference which gives black and white people different performances in various fields, HOWEVER, the only way you could substantiate that and prove that those differences in performance aren't merely social differences would be to locate the SPECIFIC difference in genetics that Black people have from White people. HOWEVER, my point was to debunk that argument before you made it - AS if people performed differently BECAUSE of genetics, then CATEGORICALLY the two groups which are being compared HAVE to be different on that genetic level. SO the fact that the populations are actually more different against themselves means that the difference in performence CANNOT BE GENETIC. 

You have ignored, strawmanned, and continously been obtuse so as to avoid actually discussing my points. This will be my last explanation for you UNLESS you can actually adress my point in its completetion and not merely repeated yourself. Good luck. 

Does God exist?

Yes, no or I don't know?

Next, give an explanation for what you believe is sufficient reasoning of your answer. Any explanation that claims simply "there is no evidence God exists" will be dismissed for lack of intelligent thought, in other words that explanation won't be good enough for this topic. Be creative and at least try and come up with an original thought that supports your theory. For this topic, lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. The indication that God exists is very strong, so there needs to be a clear indication of the contrary.

There also needs to be clear explanation for why you believe God exists, to be fair. So if you want to be taken seriously you'll have to give sufficient reasoning. Those who don't know, you're not off the hook...please explain, with all the information available why you believe it's justified to claim you don't know.

 

There's hundreds of people within this forum too, so every single one of you has one of the three options. I don't want just the same 8 people giving their opinion, if you have a brain you should contribute to this topic one way or another. This is a serious topic and one that applies to every single member. 

I have many times. But no one wants to listen to me

How did you manage to reach that conclusion ?

Anyone could do it

Dadaism is fake art imo

ILLEGAL DRUG TESTING IS NOT FEDERALLY MANDATED.

Drug testing illegal? Nah. Why you screaming, bud? You okay?

NOBODY IS REQUIRED TO FEDERALLY REGISTER AND PROVE AND CARRY A CERTIFICATE FOR SEATBELT AND OR HARNESS COMPLIANCE.

Nobody is required to federally register, prove, and carry a certificate for covid vaccinations either. 

The only function of a vaccine is to give your body a very mild case of the disease it is designed for.

That is not true.

The mRNA vaccines do not contain any live virus. Instead, they work by teaching our cells to make a harmless piece of a “spike protein,” which is found on the surface of the virus that causes COVID-19. After making the protein piece, cells display it on their surface. Our immune system then recognizes that it does not belong there and responds to get rid of it. When an immune response begins, antibodies are produced, creating the same response that happens in a natural infection.

In other words,

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT

No, those are your words and your message, having nothing to do with what I’m talking about.

You haven't said anything beyond what I have responded to.

Creating threads to call-out specific users qualifies as targeted harassment, as does obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges. However, criticising statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game.

To anyone who actually is a socialist of any kind, yes, but you have even struggled to say the Holocaust happened until forced to take a side after still hesitating so really I got nothing to say to you.

You're just someone who thinks they're so smart because they fail to conclude a single thing. Your indecisiveness isn't intellect.

posing as a libertarian socialist.

You're actually even friends with MGTOWDemon, not just Mesmer, despite posing as a libertarian socialist.

I don't have any questions, "You" have said nothing to respond to.

I think so. Why respond to someone who is to lazy to even say what it is they want to discuss and what their position or thought  is.

Posting links that give no description or what they are about is kinda lame.  I personally never kick on them, why would I?

Any object can be displayed by any person or organization for any reason.

Should it though?

Present the fake as real and prison will show you the difference. :)

originality and effort

Why do we need to exhibit something we can easily see everyday, especially since it can literally be seen, felt and used a few hundreds of feet away?(museums, especially ones that display "famous" works, like this, should have bathrooms).

This "fountain" is no different than the normal one you use in the bathroom, except for maybe a few signatures. If anything, it is WORSE at being an urinal due to it being an old model and new designers have came up with more ergonomic designs. Why do we have to appreciate this one thing we consider as art when we can see equivalent-artistic things, but more useful, in the bathroom? What more artistic value does this one bring when you can't even use it(you will get fined and get kicked by the guards if you attempt to pee in this one artwork)?

The fact is that most urinals we see in museums qualified enough to exhibit this artwork is as artistic, if not more artistic than Duchamp's fountain. If we are appreciating a certain fountain just because someone signed on it or someone touched on it, aren't we straying away from the message it is trying to convey?

Vaccines reduce your chances of contracting, spreading and becoming severely ill from COVID.

If you have a driving job, your employer can certainly require you to wear a seatbelt. If you drive a cherry picker, you will 100% lose that job if found not wearing your harness.

So? Besides, companies require drug tests on a regular basis. Some jobs might require a physical...

Vaccine mandate’s are about public health, so the question at hand is whether one who refuses to reduce their potential to contract and spread the virus should have the complete right to expose themselves to other people.

4} less significant and less relevant outside

every single conception preventative has a failure rate but one, abstinence

It's not illegal - there is precedent. Eg. Seatbelts in our vehicles.

he's requiring it on large businesses. i might be wrong but i think a person doesn't have to get the shot if they get weekly testing. 

if ya'll idiots dont care about the people you're killing by not getting vaxed and wearing masks when needed, why should i care that someone is illegally trying to coerce you into doing the right thing, what you should have done all along? 

You're confusing internal reality and external reality.

That's actually called agnosticism. There are agnostic atheists, but you seem like you are calling all atheists agnostic here.

But how did people get on DDO??

you can't really cite Occam's Razor

Atheists believe in Satan but no gods, lol.

1. God told this guy to murder.  (Unlikely that God has any interest in seeing this guys family die)

We already agreed it was probably not God telling him to do it,