Total posts: 970
-->
@Tradesecret
How god allegedly created humans.I don't think the bible says that God created humans that were perfect.
The bible says that God created man in his image, which means that the image in which man was based on is one which is perfect. Either God isn't perfect, or he isn't a very good artist.
The temptation came from Satan.
A perfect being would not be tempted by Satan.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
How god allegedly created humans.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Because he is perfect.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
But let's say for the sake of the argument that God did create the perfect body, sin entered the world and distorted everything including the human body.
A perfect man would not be tempted or effected by sin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
One of the most misrepresented public figures.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
But if they're not, then they can kill their children?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Good point. While we're at it, why don't we kill some fatherless children to illeviable stress from the black community?
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
For you and anyone else interested, here is the book is authored by a conservative working for the Daily Wire. Here is the blurb.
Johnny is a little boy with a big imagination. One day he pretends to be a big scary dinosaur, the next day he’s a knight in shining armor or a playful puppy. But when the internet people find out Johnny likes to make-believe, he’s forced to make a decision between the little boy he is and the things he pretends to be — and he’s not allowed to change his mind. From Daily Wire personality and bestselling author Matt Walsh comes a timely tale of innocence, identity, and imagination.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
That's right only the Christians are correct
The Christians aren't correct on a lot of things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You've utterly missed the point - saying "you don't have to live in a house" ignores the fact that you will die eventually if you continually sleep outside with no access to shelter
Even if this is true, no one owes me a house.
you are politically forced to pay rent and water bills
You are not forced to pay rent or water bills. People pay rent because they want to live in a nice home. People pay water bills because they want hot water.
The bottom line is that no one owes me anything - I do not have an intrinsic right to inhabit someone else's building unless they consent to it - which is usually a process called renting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I see your study and training in the art of Reiki is coming along just swimmingly, then , Witch.
That's what happens when you study a false doctrine, Stephen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Wouldn't it be easier just to say all the other atheists and not try to list everybody that you believe is an atheist wouldn't that just be easier.
Not all of us like generalising and labelling people who do not believe the same things as us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I'm not here to engage with anybody in any sort of meaningful manner because when I got here and tried to do that I was told I was a f******mentally ill moron.
My first interaction with you was respectful; I asked you to simply evaluate your view. You then popped off about how all atheists are evil. Perhaps the reason you are told that you are a f******mentally ill moron is because those who try to engage in conversation get told that they could not "ever be repaired" and that they are inherently "evil". I think it's time for you to re-examine your character, because thus far you are simply littering this cite with your self-pitying, unproductive jargon.
there's no point to it a perfect example of this is every post after yours and if you don't get it that's because you a biased ignorant bigot like the rest of them.
Well if I'm just a biased ignorant bigot and you are so much more intellectually able then me, you should swoop the floor on my in an intellectual debate. Of course, you wouldn't do though, because you are not a thinker - you are a polluter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Calling me mentally is questioning my position?
First off, mentally is an adverb which describes process occuring in the mind or with regard to the mind and it's capacities. Secondly, I questioned your intial statement being "not sure about irrational but it's immature as fuck" which right of the bat represents a close minded invidiaul who doesn't want a propper conversation. Mind you, I engaged in conversation quite politely simply asking "how so", to which you gave a rambled response littered with phrases such as "I honestly believe they're just evil. Not bigots, not close-minded, but evil... I don't know how any of them speak to their parents, I don't know how any of them speak and marry people that are theist", and to top it of with another kick to ensure that no productive conversation can be had "I'm not sure that it's anything that could ever be repaired". Are these the words of someone who wants to have a productive conversation, or does it sound more like phrases from a "close minded bigot".
Calling me sub human is questioning my position?
Please link and quote where I referred to you as a sub human .
Calling me evil is questioning my position?
It was you who called me a bigot.
Yeah bigot fits fine for you all.
Do you want to debate? I assume you're just like ethang - you'll hide in the forums and never step into the arena.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Why theists are irrational and immature: Questions their position. Theist that all atheists are evil. Theists states that all atheists are bigots. Talk about obtuse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Yes I ignored your lie
I remember it was the roman catholics killing apostates and nonbelievers, not the other way around.
if you're saying close-minded people are following me around then you basically just admitted that the atheist who post here or closed-minded thank you.
Not what I'm saying but you're proving my point by being obtuse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Perhaps it's because they are bigots and that will not change. Nothing to do with gods.
With this attitude, I see where the issue may have arisen. Perhaps the reason "close-minded" people follow you around is because you are the one who is close-minded. And you also ignored my comment
Not bigots, not close-minded, but evil. It goes beyond just I don't like you because of this or I hate you because of this. They honestly believe we're subpar human beings who don't deserve to live.I don't know any atheist who believes that theists don't deserve to live. I do, however, know theists who think atheists do not deserve to live, in fact history is littered with such people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
What exactly do you think Rittenhouse should have been charged with?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
When I first started going on the internet and interacting with atheist where there's no filter, they don't know you they don't know any of the people they're talking to so they say exactly what they think, I found out exactly how much atheist hate me for believing in a higher power and spirit. And that's never gone away over the years if anything is always reinforced over and over and over and over and over again. I'm reaching a point where I honestly believe they're just evil.
That's known as a hasty generalisation.
Not bigots, not close-minded, but evil. It goes beyond just I don't like you because of this or I hate you because of this. They honestly believe we're subpar human beings who don't deserve to live.
I don't know any atheist who believes that theists don't deserve to live. I do, however, know theists who think atheists do not deserve to live, in fact history is littered with such people.
I'm not sure that it's anything that could ever be repaired I just know too much at this point they could never talk me out of it.
Perhaps it is because the topic of God is one which if true, is the most important discussion that exists. A topic with such at stakes is bound to be controversial.
Created:
Posted in:
Also, he specifically took Monoclonal antibodies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Perhaps you have an opinion on Ivermectin?
Created:
Posted in:
I was listening to the Joe Rogan experience episode with Theo Von, in which the two discuss Joe's quick recovery from Covid-19 - a conversation which followed after a discussion of "fake news", in particular how CNN repeatedly makes the claim the Joe took horse dewormer (this claim is, by the way, is completely false. Rogan invited neurosurgeon and CNN chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta onto his podcast where he asked “does it bother you that the network you work for…just outright lied about me taking horse dewormer?” to which Gupta replied that his colleagues “shouldn’t have said that.”)
Right of the bat, CNN lying about what Joe took is suspicious, it is akin to saying that I promote ingesting cleaning products on the basis that I promote water. Joe went on to say that he was well within 2 days, received a negative covid test within 3 and back in the gym in 5 days. He went on to say something along the lines of the Biden administration restricting the use of Ivermectin in Florida and then concluding that they are doing this because pharmaceutical and vaccine companies want people to use their products and treatments.
How much of this is true? I would consider myself politically neutral and a person who follows where the evidence goes so this isn't a view which I will passionately defend, though thus far it does seem at least possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Whether he should or shouldn't have been there is of no relevance to the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I think the fact that Kyle was open carrying makes the court's ruling even more of a no brainer. Think about it -Rosenbaum attacked a kid knowing that he had an AR-15. Who would ever run at a guy carrying a gun soldiers literally use at war whilst yelling "kill me ni****" with good intentions?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Okay, let's say all that's forgivable and legal, the real question is this:Why was he at the event? He was neither a qualified security guard, police officer or officially requested assister of any kind. He took it upon himself to approach people he knew were aggressive and probably armed, while blatantly being aligned against their cause.Why was he doing that and would he have been stupid enough to do so had he not had a massive gun to inspire the idea?That's the blunt, harsh aspect that the anti-Rittenhouse crowd are fundamentally basing their attitude on.He went there bloodthirsty and looking for trouble. He then found it and as soon as he could justify it, killed. If he had truly not been looking for trouble, why would he have gone out of his way as a 17-year-old to obtain a firearm that's very legally questionable for a guy of his age to be carrying and gone to an event with people he clearly detests for ruining property?
Like I said, why he was there is not an issue in this case. For all I care, that could have been Alex Jones or Joe Biden under the grasp of Rosenbaum, whoever it may have been they would have been in their right to defend themselves.
Let's assume that you are right and Rittenhouse is a right wing Nazi white supremacists. Does that mean he would forfeit his right to self defence if he were attending a rally which supported opposing views? Does someone lose their right to defend their life simply because of their political beliefs? Regardless of Rittenhouse's political stance, the fact of the matter is that he was placed in a situation where he was within his legal rights to defend himself.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Also, I want to ask another question that I forgot to specify, why did he fire three further bullets into Rosenbaum after the initial one, the fourth specifically aimed at his skull?
When you are in a life or death situations, you do not have time to use utilitarianism to calculate the loss and benefit of each action. If I were in a situation where a man who literally threatened to kill me twice is standing on top of me rendering me essentially in his grasp, I would close my eyes and unload every bullet I have and hope that one hits him.
You are directly lying about the order of events, by the way, despite correctly admitting that Huber and the 'mob' only properly engaged Rittenhouse after he'd killed Rosenbaum.
The order of events I proposed was the one documented and recited at court, appears in FBI documentation and can be confirmed by video footage from both bystanders and by FBI infrared footage. [1][2]
The confrontation between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum was witnessed by McGinniss to whom it seemed that Rosenbaum and other protesters were moving toward Rittenhouse, who was trying to evade them; Rosenbaum tried to engage Rittenhouse who avoided this by sidestepping and running away.[22][60] Rittenhouse testified at trial that Rosenbaum had threatened to kill him.[61]
The part I don't comprehend is why he shot Rosenbaum four times to 'confirm a kill' instead of once, focusing back on the guy who fired the shot that distracted him. That already seems odd to me.
You have to remember that we are siting here in our living-rooms calmly contemplating what Rittenhouse could or couldn't have done. We can both agree in hindsight that Rittenhouse could have physically evaded Rosenbaum whilst causing less damage, but that is not the point. A rape victim which could possibly evade a rapist by stabbing them 2 times in stead of 3 yet no one would argue that the victim was in the wrong - in the moment no one knows what is sufficient to alleviate the danger.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Q1
Why was someone who blatantly is affiliated with white supremacists (ones whom paid instantly to get him bail and have been socialising with him frequently before and after he was initially arrested) at a BLM protest?
Why he was there is in no way relevant to why he shot the men that he did. We ought judge Rittenhouse's actions on the available footage. For all I care, that could have been Alex Jones who was at the protest - the point of the case is to show that whoever the defendant was, his actions were a result of self-defence.
Q2
Why did he murder Rosenbaum? I am aware of the things Rosenbaum has been found guilty of and that he was very high asking to be shot but nobody in their right mind would presume that the right action would be to literally kill him just because he's asking to be shot.
As the court ruled that Rittenhouse acted in self defence, he did not murder anyone. Also, I think you are considering Rosenbaum as a little too much of a saint. The following is a minute to minute recount of Rosenbaum's death, extracted from the available footage.
(1) Kyle H. Rittenhouse (hereinafter “the defendant”), is running southwest across the eastern portion of the Car Source parking lot
(2) Following the defendant is Rosenbaum and trailing behind the defendant and Rosenbaum is a male who was later identified as Richard McGinnis, a reporter.
(3) Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the defendant. The object does not hit the defendant.
(4) Defendant and Rosenbaum continue to move across the parking lot and approach the front of a black car parked in the lot.
(5) Rosenbaum appears to continue to approach the defendant and gets in near proximity to the defendant when 4 more loud bangs are heard.
(6) Rosenbaum then falls to the ground.
(7) The defendant then circles behind the black car and approaches Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum remains on the ground. McGinnis also approaches, removes his shirt, and attempts to render aid to Rosenbaum.
In addition to these facts, which are what the prosecutor is able to determine from the numerous cell-phone videos of the incident, an eye witness, Richard McGinnis, provides his testimony in the criminal complaint, which strongly points towards an affirmative defense of perfect self-defense. Here is McGinnis' testimony broken down:
- Rosenbaum, the first shooting victim, initiates the confrontation
(1) McGinnis stated that before the defendant reached the parking lot and ran across it, the defendant had moved from the middle of Sheridan Road to the sidewalk and that is when McGinnis saw a male (Rosenbaum) initially try to engage the defendant.
- the defendant tried to retreat and disengage
(1) McGinnis stated that as the defendant was walking Rosenbaum was trying to get closer to the defendant.
(2) When Rosenbaum advanced, the defendant did a “juke” move and started running.
(3) McGinnis stated that there were other people that were moving very quickly. McGinnis stated that they were moving towards the defendant. McGinnis said that according to what he saw the defendant was trying to evade these individuals.
- the defendant was not brandishing and used his gun in self-defense after attempting to retreat and Rosenbaum catching him
(1) McGinnis described the point where the defendant had reached the car. McGinnis described that the defendant had the gun in a low ready position. Meaning that he had the gun raised but pointed downward. The butt of the gun would have been at an angle downwards from the shoulder.
(2) McGinnis stated that the defendant brought the gun up. McGinnis stated that he stepped back and he thinks the defendant fired 3 rounds in rapid succession.
(3) McGinnis stated that the first round went into the ground and when the second shot went off, the defendant actually had the gun aimed at Rosenbaum.
(4) McGinnis stated he did not hear the two exchange any words.
- Rosenbaum physically engaged with the defendant and tried to take the defendant's gun
(1) McGinnis said that the unarmed guy (Rosenbaum) was trying to get the defendant’s gun. McGinnis demonstrated by extending both of his hands in a quick grabbing motion and did that as a visual on how Rosenbaum tried to reach for the defendant’s gun. Detective Cepress indicates that he asked McGinnis if Rosenbaum had his hands on the gun when the defendant shot. McGinnis said that he definitely made a motion that he was trying to grab the barrel of the gun. McGinnis stated that the defendant pulled it away and then raised it.
(2) McGinnis stated that right as they came together, the defendant fired. McGinnis said that when Rosenbaum was shot, he had leaned in (towards the defendant).
Additional Facts
In addition to the facts presented in the criminal complaint, the defendant will seek to introduce:
- the evidence of Rosenbaum's extremely agitated state of mind, where he appears on video to be hot tempered, circling around, and yells, "shoot me, ni--a" twice.
- the evidence that while the defendant was being pursued, an unknown third party fires into the air, with the muzzle flash appearing in footage filmed at the scene. At the same time the third party's gun goes off, the defendant turn towards the sound of the gunfire as Rosenbaum lunges towards him.
Q3
Do you agree that if (and it is the case that) the 'mob' only set on Rittenhouse after the Rosenbaum murder on an unarmed man,
No the mob did not set on Rittenhouse after he murdered an unarmed man that is visually, logically, reasonably and legally incorrect.
Q4
After he'd also murdered Huber instead of surrendering, what exactly is he using as his moral high ground?
Here are some facts leading up to Huber's death. These are some relevant facts I have excerpted from the criminal complaint in regard to the his shooting. I added the numbering as the criminal complaint presents the facts in paragraph format.
The facts leading up to Anthony Huber being shot:
- The defendant tried to disengage and retreat from the situation and was being followed.
(1) The third video that your complainant reviewed shows the defendant running northbound on Sheridan Road after he had shot Rosenbaum. The street and the sidewalk are full of people. A group of several people begin running northbound on Sheridan Road behind the defendant.
- Multiple people called for immediate violence against the defendant and acted on it.
(2) A person can be heard yelling what sounds like, “Beat him up!”
(3) Your complainant reviewed a fourth video that showed a different angle of the defendant running northbound. In this video a person can be heard yelling, “Get him! Get that dude!”
(4) Then a male in a light-colored top runs towards the defendant and appears to swing at the defendant with his right arm. This swing makes contact with the defendant, knocking his hat off. The defendant continues to run northbound.
- The defendant could not retreat further as he tripped and the crowd caught up with him.
(5) A male can be heard yelling, “Get his ass!” The defendant then trips and falls to the ground.
- A person did a fly kick at the defendant, which made contact with him.
(6) As the defendant is on the ground, an unidentified male wearing a dark-colored top and light- colored pants jumps at and over the defendant.
- Huber physically engaged with the defendant with his skateboard and hands and tried to grab the defendant's weapon. The defendant used minimal force to terminate the interference with his person.
(7) A second person who was later identified as Anthony Huber approaches the defendant.
(8) When Huber reaches the defendant it appears that he is reaching for the defendant’s gun with his left hand as the skateboard makes contact with the defendant’s left shoulder. Huber appears to be trying to pull the gun away from the defendant. The defendant rolls towards his left side and as Huber appears to be trying to grab the gun the gun is pointed at Huber’s body. The defendant then fires one round which can be heard on the video.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you support the Elite assassinating Epstein to stop him exposing them? I think you only helped my point.
He killed himself.
You say 'combined', how can the pedo testify if he is dead?
Well he obviously went to court for his plethora of sexual abuse charges before he died.
Are you saying he came with targets in mind, tactically baited them and delivered vigilante justice?
No I am trying to show that it is entirely plausible that the people who attacked him are not good people and that it should not come as a surprise that they would attack a kid on the street. It isn't like these are completely clean good people who came to protest.
That's a line I could buy into and may fit his personality more, explaining that he's a hero-complex narcissist as opposed to just a simple sociopath.
Not a hero, but a kid you defended himself. You realise Kyle would be dead if he didn't do anything?
Kyle is clearly high functioning and knew exactly how and when to unleash the weapon so as to justify doing what he did
If he was a shooter, why didn't he just unload in a crowd? It seems to much of a coincidence that he only unloads when he is literally seconds away from being beat to death.
he primed it for just the right moment to not get labelled a mass shooter or lunatic, had he done it a moment sooner, we'd be seeing him differently.
We can both agree here, if he had unloaded sooner we would not be having this debate - he would be a killer. But the fact is that he only shot them when they were trampling over him waving whatever weapon they had.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Monsters huh? What the fuck do you think a guy who murders two people by shooting them multiple times like it's a video game is and kept shooting others?
Not important, but the guys he killed in self defence had over 60 combined criminal charges including domestic abuse and rape. The first "victim" was Rosenbaum who was charged by a grand jury with 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity with children, including anal rape. The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old. The other lad, Huber is a repeated abuser with the following being some of his charges:
940.19(1) Battery Misd. A Dismissed on Prosecutor’s Motion
Modifier: 939.62(1)(a) Repeater
Modifier: 968.075(1)(a) Domestic Abuse
2 947.01(1) Disorderly Conduct Misd. B Guilty Due to Guilty Plea
Modifier: 968.075(1)(a) Domestic Abuse
Modifier: 939.62(1)(a) Repeater
1 941.30(2) 2nd-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety Felony G Charge Dismissed but Read In
Modifier: 939.63(1)(c) Use of a Dangerous Weapon
Modifier: 968.075(1)(a) Domestic Abuse
2 940.235(1) Strangulation and Suffocation Felony H Guilty Due to Guilty Plea
Modifier: 968.075(1)(a) Domestic Abuse
3 940.30 False Imprisonment Felony H Guilty Due to Guilty Plea
Modifier: 968.075(1)(a) Domestic Abuse
Modifier: 939.63(1)(b) Use of a Dangerous Weapon
4 940.19(1) Battery Misd. A Charge Dismissed but Read In
Modifier: 968.075(1)(a) Domestic Abuse
Modifier: 939.63(1)(a) Use of a Dangerous Weapon
5 947.01(1) Disorderly Conduct Misd. B Charge Dismissed but Read In
Modifier: 968.075(1)(a) Domestic Abuse
Modifier: 939.63(1)(a) Use of a Dangerous Weapon
6 947.01(1) Disorderly Conduct Misd. B Charge Dismissed but Read In
Modifier: 968.075(1)(a) Domestic Abuse
Not exactly good people who have a record of being reasonable or lawful, as the Kenosha shooting will also reveal.
Was he a police officer? Was he the fire brigade? Was he military?
He was a kid who was attacked by a pedo and a wife beater - in fact the pedo later testified in court and confirmed that he stated"I'm going to cut your fucking heart out" called him a "ni***r" and taunted him by daring him to shoot him.
Put yourself in the fucking shoes of the people who tried to disarm him.
Be honest here. If you were attacked by a pedo, wife beater and his accomplice and heard slurs such as "beat him up, get him, get that dude, get his ass" directed at you whilst a men charge you with skateboards, wooden planks and bottles, would you just subject? Remember, the people attacking Rittenhouse knew he had a gun - would a person with no malicious intents really charge an armed man whilst yelling "I'm going to cut your fucking heart out".
^ These images are used by right wing news
What is your point? I can easily say
^ Look at this look at his smile, he had a family!
Created:
Posted in:
If someone changes their gender, it is bigotry to refer to them in the way that they presented years ago: we accept people for who they are currently. If this were considered a good standard, then why is it acceptable to refer to an unsavoury tweet from a decade ago by a person who has since changed?
Created:
-->
@949havoc
If you were at Glasgow Climate Change Conference and were asked "what do you propose we ought to do to prevent climate change", what would you say?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Right, because we choose to pay rent and bills?
You don't have to pay rent if you don't live in a house. You don't have to pay for bills if don't want water and electricity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
"But regardless, I think that marxist have a pretty good point that hiring someone to do labor for you, then taking the profit for that labor and giving them a fraction of that while the profit increases, kinda sucks"
But like what if the person hired gives their complete and unequivocal content to work for a fraction of the money? No one is forcing the worker, after all.
"kinda back not really"
You kinda getting back into doing debates?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You measure immortality by 2 things that both have to be met:1) Is a victim produced?2) Is it rare?
Number 2 is completely incorrect. Killing someone with a pencil whilst yodelling is rare, bu this doesn't make it moral.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
imagine the rate of rape was 97%, and no one was following the law. Does this mean we lift the law to allow rape?If 97% of men were rapists, it would be political suicide for any politican to want to ban rape to begin with, and that politician would porbably be a hypocrite if they tried to ban rape because they would probably be a rapist.
But you're asserting that we should ban rape on the basis that it is the general consensus. I disagree, I would ban rape because it is immoral and unproductive for the maximisation of one's well being.
If rape (as harmful as it is) was done by 97% of men, then people trying to ban rape would be viewed a lot like vegans are viewed in a society where 98% of us are responsible for the death of animals for food. Banning rape in this hypothetical society would sound a lot like banning meat in this society.
But does this make rape moral? It doesn't does it.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I'm surprised you're really contesting this. Tell me, what is the point of a penis and vagina.I’m surprised you don’t understand what it means to ask what “the point” of something is.
Well that's a fundamental disagreement then. I think that sex is for reproduction - I think that this is true both biologically and evolutionarily.
imagine the rate of rape was 97%, and no one was following the law.A country of 97% rapists wouldn’t outlaw rape.And that makes rape moral?Nope, never said that. Never implied it either.
Well you imply that a country with 97% of its people who want to rape should not outlaw rape. My understanding is that morality is not a democracy.
Do you want to debate me about abortion? I'm not a fan of this forum back and forth.I’d be open to it. When I began pushing back on your use of “purpose” I expected you might go down the God path,
I'm an atheist. I hate religion so no I would not have gone down that path. As for the debate, I'll initiate one in the near future.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The evolutionary reason we have sex is to reproduce to multiply the gene pool, in hopes of creating a useful mutation.You didn’t answer the question. You claimed it was non controversial that the purpose to sex is procreation to which I challenged you to support that claim. You didn’t because you can’t, because evolution doesn’t have a purpose, no one is sitting down and mapping out how our species will evolve.
I'm surprised you're really contesting this. Tell me, what is the point of a penis and vagina.
So back to the beginning, the desire to have sex is basic human nature, yet your position is that sex should only be for procreation. How do you square denying such a basic element of human nature, especially one for which we would not otherwise be here?
But the reason that we have that basic human nature is to procreate. If it was not in the interest of humans to procreate, no they would likely not have developed sex and died off.
imagine the rate of rape was 97%, and no one was following the law.A country of 97% rapists wouldn’t outlaw rape.
And that makes rape moral?
Do you want to debate me about abortion? I'm not a fan of this forum back and forth.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If abstinence unless wanting to concieve was practiced by the vast majority of Americans, or even if it was preached by the vast majority of Roe V Wade opponents, then it could be argued to be decent advice.However, we (assuming your American) live in a country where 97% of the population doesn't wait until marraige.
Ok so consider this, imagine the rate of rape was 97%, and no one was following the law. Does this mean we lift the law to allow rape? After all, no ones following the law so might was well let em loose.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The purpose of sex drive is to expand the gene pool.Demonstrate this claim. Who decided this?
The evolutionary reason we have sex is to reproduce to multiply the gene pool, in hopes of creating a useful mutation.
Created: