3RU7AL

Someone reads about the website, goes to the help center and sees the ban log, which by the way includes defamatory bullshit about me, not just others. It has a series of shit twisted out of context, like it says Ethang sexually harassed, he genuinely didn't. Idk about Wylted but even his scenario is really, scarily stated since he's UNBANNED meaning you're suggesting this website harbors someone who did that.

A lot of shit has to be done to the ban log before it should be what a new visitor to the website sees upon intriguingly looking into a 'help center'.

2. Plus mods can not always set up community events and such. A president can do such things to involve the community and bring site engagement up

Your homework Stevie blunder keeps coming up with dum dum ideas like Ethang and Tradesecret are the same person.  Dum dum. That is your research skills to a tee. 

the attention-thirsty racist in denial

attacking me (calling me a troll, attention seeking, offensive etc.) instead of my arguments is Ad Hominem,

What "win" exists in Forum? It's an open-season discussion. That we disagree on this point is obvious, but there is no vote to designate win/lose. Don't make a mountain of a molehill. It looks petty. Take your ball and go home; that's your choice.

My character has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments.

What is a half breed?

Well everyone is a half breed I suppose, in so much as they have two parents.

Yes, there is no room for distinction between "concrete" and "abstract." I value scientific integrity no more than I do spiritual integrity.

"Expertise is a scam" is a scam.

 

Notwithstanding the occasional fraud.......Denying real expertise is usually down to jealousy."

We agree that you have no foundation to tell anyone not to engage in bestiality, pedophilia, or rape if they want to.

No, it isn't. Culture has moral values as part of it, language doesn't. Learn to read things in context.

My question:

Where did I agree that bestiality is exactly as bad as contempt for parents?

Where did I agree that bestiality is exactly as bad as contempt for parents? I asked a specific question and you responded by making a false assertion that didn't actually answer the question.

You do an excellent job at answering questions I don't ask while ignoring the questions I do ask.

You’re a contestant on ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’. You are asked a question pertaining to the field of medicine. Being that you have no medical expertise and have no idea what the answer is, you use your lifeline to ask a crowd of 1,000 doctors. 999 of them tell you its choice A. 1 says it’s choice B. There are no other choices.

For $1 million dollars, what is your final answer and why?

If all 1,000 doctors are "equally qualified" to provide an answer, then it doesn't matter whose counsel I take. The probability of my selecting the correct answer would be still be 50% whether I select choice A or choice B. The fact that 999 doctors chose choice A doesn't make it more reliable or "likely to be" correct as a consequence of comparing the number of doctors who chose choice A to the one doctor who chose choice B. If you are asserting that selecting choice A  is correct or "more likely" to be correct because 999 is greater than one, then that is informed by your feelings; that is not medicine; that is not science; that is not statistical; that is not logical.

1. Non-alpha men mitriculated to academia.

2. These men tended to hire non-alpha men like themselves.

3. Soon, academia was majority non-alpha men.

4. Non-alpha men tend to be liberal.

4. Scientists are grown in academia.

Do you not yet know that certain personality types gravitate to certain careers more than to others?

[God "exists" as a matter of definition] may or may not be a logically coherent claim

A definition of the term, "exist," incorporates spiritual being. God is a spiritual being; therefore God "exists." Lexically speaking, the dispute is resolved rather simply. If however we intend to have more fun with with the notion and explore the scope of existence and define logical parameters, I suppose we could. But as you'd recall, I'm a proponent of, how did you put it, ontological bedrock. I'd simply repeat what I've consistently stated: everything exists, and nonexistence is irrational, much more, value statements which seek to give it information.

Rule #2 is the go to for 99% .  Marginalize and attack the opponents character and play the authority card. Authority card>> You are not a expert or a professional in what ever so you cant comment about anything having to do with that.  Take the covid debate for example, Unless you are an epidemiologist you cant say anything.  My favorite authority card is the "EXPERT"

You're a winner in my book anyway.

 Muslims into your country, you're bringing in a

Systemic racism is real but assimilation of Muslims towards a 'Western' culture is dependent on them and the community within that culture. It's neither a definitely yes or definitely no type thing. They do assimilate though, just not always. 

The cost of having African Americans in America costs around $1 trillion a year Fiscal Impact by Race in the United States - altCensored . A good policy would be to stop African immigration into the U.S. (or at least vet for the top Africans). We can also (and we are) look into automation and robotics to replace the low-skilled jobs that a lot of African Americans typically do, thus relieve the U.S. of some of the burden of importing the 3rd world to complete these jobs. A similar but lesser problem applies to Hispanics. A solution for Hispanics would be to deport illegals back to South America (this deportation is cost effective because you only need to transport them over the border). You could also limit Hispanic immigration, too. You furthermore replace any African/Hispanic immigration into the U.S. with an Asian and the U.S. would be financially better off.

Stop bombing Middle Eastern countries (and receiving costly terrorist attacks in response: 9/11 costing $3 trillion). Stop supporting Israel (0.38 trillion over the next 10 years). Just get out and leave them all alone.

Paying off the debt will be easy.

Are you agreeing that the Bible considers bestiality an immoral act to some degree? Because the fundamental issue is if bestiality is immoral.

Because it goes against the natural order. Sex is reserved for a married man and woman - a human man and woman.

Bestiality is not condemned because of the pain or discomfort caused to the animal.

Does the holy scripture perhaps explain when and where it is appropriate to inflict pain and discomfort on other living creatures ?

How is this relevant to the clear command not to engage in bestiality?

You're overlooking the foundation, the moral bedrock.

Determining if something is immoral is more foundational than determining how immoral something is.

Well, there appear to be some subtle, yet rather important distinctions between degrees of "immoral" and I'd like to make sure we're all on the same page.

The original question was question whether bestiality is immoral or not. If we agree that it can be categorized as "immoral," then the degree of immorality is irrelevant. We have already answered the original question.

Well, there appear to be some subtle, yet rather important distinctions between degrees of "immoral" and I'd like to make sure we're all on the same page.

The original question was question whether bestiality is immoral or not. If we agree that it can be categorized as "immoral," then the degree of immorality is irrelevant. We have already answered the original question.

Can you be slightly more specific ?

Why? Even if it did somehow require equal punishment under the law, that wouldn't change the fact that bestiality is immoral.

They should both carry equal penalties under the law.

For example, video of children speaking ill of their own parents (or even parents in general) should be censored in the same manner and with the same urgency as bestiality.

If you have read the book of Leviticus, you would know what a ridiculous statement that is - if you are seeking to apply consistent principles of textual interpretation of course.

If they are both considered morally evil, then what point are you trying to make?

I don't employ what is typically known as the "ontological argument" to demonstrate God's existence.

The fact that we are having a dialogue shows me you understand at least the most basic principles of textual interpretation. Do I really need to explain things such as definitions, grammar, and authorial intent for you to understand what I am referring to?

I can show deference to that stance so long as the reasoning is consistent.

Consistent principles of textual interpretation.

It's nice to know that the admonishment against bestiality is condemned with the exact same gravity as parental contempt.

That depends on how you understand the term "cursed." The point is that bestiality is clearly condemned. But it doesn't take a biblical scholar to see the depravity involved in humans having sex with animals.

Yes, If a majority of people believe in God it doesn’t make it true.

Doesn't make what true? That they believe in God? The existence of God is not contingent on how many people believe it. God exists as a matter of definition and a matter of logical consequence.

• ‘Cursed is he who lies with any animal.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ (Deuteronomy 27:21)
  

• ‘Cursed is the one who treats his father or his mother with contempt.’ (Deuteronomy 27:16)

And one could argue that even plant-based foods can serve the purpose of gastronomical gratification.