I love how i see no response to my comment. I guess that shows what a freak of nature i am. A motivated ehyeh who's feeling cute on that day is incapable of taking an L.
We do say it has a biological grounding (how much is debated). The idea that it is debated, is why we air on the side of life and that this person can be saved. Although, these things exist on a spectrum (like most things). Some people need to watch what they eat more than others, to maintain a healthy weight, and in this same sense some people need to be more mindful of the things they think as to not become depressed. Some people can be unfazed by a poor childhood, others not so much, sociological outcomes are only averages after all. The same very, and i mean very likely applies to trans people to a degree at which affects averages due to biological reasons, or sex characteristic reasons, as you would call them. Most trans people with different environments can be "socialised" or be put in a situation where those genes may not express themselves. Just like depression or schizophrenia genes. So the idea that it even is socialisation, is only half true. Socialisation simply awakens or reinforces genetic predispositions.
there's a difference between refraining belief and saying something isn't true or potentially true. You've previously made the statement God DOESNT exist at all. In the past we also couldn't prove evolution. Does that mean it wasn't true that evolution happened back then? I'll leave you to ponder that one.
"no one can prove god exists, therefore no god." is essentially what you're saying.
Just as i may or may not be able to prove Gods existence, you too cannot disprove it. So it strikes me as odd you're just as dogmatic and black and white as the ones you claim to be fools.
I'm unsure what you mean by " we don't support these manifestations" can you elaborate? some neuroscientists/psychologists are very deterministic about peoples chances of getting depression based on genetic predispositions in certain environments. Depression does have genes, which means it's not all simply made up or cultural, but biological. So if gender is actually created through biological facts and things existing in reality, then it could very easily be categorised as part of sex, simply a different aspect of it, no? It is somewhat like how a car and a truck are both vehicles, just different types of vehicles. Gender and sex are both biological, just different aspects of biology.
Well, what elicits our feelings? Why do women generally have different interests than men, etc.? It's almost certainly genes. If I do a quick google search, we know of 21 genes linked to gender dysphoria. If I google schizophrenia, which we know is a gene condition which expresses itself under specific environments and stresses, we know that it has around 50 genes linked to it. Once we extrapolate, it seems more obvious why some people wouldn't be trans in, say, medieval Europe as opposed to the modern day. It could simply not express itself in those environments. There are a million what ifs to these discussions, and anyone who thinks they have the answers doesn't know what they're talking about. The research increasingly indicates biological differences between men and women mentally.(considering the fact that the more egalitarian a country is, the bigger the interests between men and women actually become). So yes, we could say gender is still part of biological sex. It is simply the more "mental" aspect of sex. The part of sex which influences how we choose to view ourselves and the lens to look at the world. I imagine you will not understand this argument. Things can overlap. Such as the fact i can say the word "car" to mean a vehicle. But i can also call a truck a vehicle. But both hold the same position of being vehicles even if they're different types of vehicles, in this same sense gender/sex are different types of sex categorisations (potentially). Gender is the inside (unseen) aspect of sex, while sex is the outer viewable body. We could very well be very wrong of considering sex and gender not interlinked all this time, if the science increasingly shows biological or genetic reasons for gender identity and interests differing between genders. Which is linked to biological structures (genetics) and not culture or a vivid imagination.
I think you can draw consistent lines on someone being considered a female, both on sex and gender. I think the answer to this question doesn't come down which is logically more consistent metaphysically (since both can be if you respond to Bones properly) but rather which holds more pragmatic utility to human society to hold. In our current use of language, it does strike us as "odd" to consider a trans woman a female due to the way our language is structured like it is "odd" to call someone an "it". Although its not necessarily circular in my mind if you don't believe animals and humans 1 to 1. Its still less grammatically consistent. But to me the overall deciding factor is which offers more utility to humanity. In terms of medical documents, it makes sense to consider female/male based on sex. In terms of documents unrelated to this stuff, whatever you want. I don't see why everyone has to go to extremes of one or the other. I feel bones especially thinks like this.
I struggle to follow your "circular" reasoning argument. Can you put it in more simpler terms? from what i gathered. It sounded like you were arguing because trans people can communicate or we can call trans people female it then makes sense just because its possible. I can also call my self 99 years old, and it sound consistent it doesn't mean it is with reality. Or is that a complete misrepresentation of your theory?
I understand now. I do agree we can create a differentiate between what female should mean for a human and an animal, such as the word cap meaning both a hat and to lie depending on what we're referring too). Bones has a tendency to think in black and white terms. Your problem was the fact you didnt go DEEP enough into why Bones is wrong in the animal human syllogism. You should demonstrate why agency matters and not simply state it as if we should know. All bridges must be gapped, he must be rigorously defeated. Which even if you can do that now, you didnt in the debate rounds i don't think. You didnt go hard enough. Its important to note, i do agree with you, i do think we can call trans women female.
"rock and roll should never have been invented," or "punk culture is degenerate" or "debate club culture is nerdy and people shouldn't do debates" - there are a lot of assumptions baked into those statements, and we could not simply prove that "rock and roll is true / false"
If you could make a syllogism to demonstrate participating in these acts is internally incoherent then... id have to agree. I just don't think you can do such a thing with a syllogism to these art forms. Or can you? if you can, i imagine you would be the first where you don't need a counter syllogism to disprove it.
You can definitely talk about context to add more nuance into a discussion like this. I still don't see why you didnt argue point for point with him though. I don't see how the historical significance and utility outsets the rigidity of Bones' syllogisms. I seen no debunking of the analogy bones did on animals. Why didnt you do that?
P1. If "Female" is determined by one's feelings, then we cannot categorise "female" animals.
P2. "Female" is determined by one's feelings.
C1. We cannot categorise "female" animals.
Why didnt you respond to this 1 for 1? i feel like this was a really strong blow to your position and i see no debunking of this syllogism on your part. How can you be said to of won if there is still holes you haven't gapped which seemingly leave the answer to the prompt unresolved?
I must agree that bones has a difficult writing style to read sometimes. It's extremely scientific and accurate and good for voters and winning debates, but it's not very poetic.
You're right. Can mods take down my vote? your argument was still ridiculously lazy. The only reason you can be said to won is the immense burden of proof rayhan has.
What is the argument? Reading your argument, it sounded more like you were making a case for WHY we have trans people and why our language is changing in this way (hence your argument of capitalism and things changing due to societal changes). This is a separate discussion from whether or not it is more consistent . Not to be rude, but I honestly didnt see you once directly attack any of Bones's arguments. I understand you addressed this and said you're doing just that, but not quoting the things Bones is saying. Yet, I'll be honest, I can't tell when and where you're attacking bones arguments and when you're not because your arguments are that ambiguous. You never DIRECTLY attacked Bones' ideas 1 for 1. Not that i could see anyway. You talked about why our language is becoming more inclusive from an socio- economic standpoint. I'm not sure what that has to do with consistency though, it was a nice written piece of interpretative history at least. Your argument felt like one big appeal to the ad populum fallacy. "Society is moving in this way for a reason" therefore correct.
"here is absolutely nothing about this that requires one to either be non-separate nor separate from god"
we'll see about that. I could of even conceded that argument you presented there, as long as getting rid of separation gets rid of duality and necessitates a new emotional inner world. All of that science stuff is irrelevant. Your argument also presented as extremely generalising of men and women's roles. at the end of it all, if we both agree we feel angry due to expectations. You give me a very powerful foothold there regardless of what makes different people angry. if you choose to take the debate again in the future. It will be far far stronger of an argument too, i always win in the end.
I'm sorry but that's just not convincing to most people. You once more just say "free will" without explaining why its so valuable. You also once more say life is a gift and a test, without explaining why. I don't think this life is a gift if the Abrahamic God in the form of Islam and Catholicism is real. Its pure misery for the vast vast majority of people LITERALLY. I don't know how you can say that's a good reality, when from a utilitarian perspective its the worst hell imaginable. From a deontological perspective God goes against all deontological moral maxims, he is a bit of a madman, or we would say he were such if he were a human. We would literally say you were the craziest most evil person of all time, if someone literally thought like the Abrahamic God. Hitler looks tame in comparison, and i don't intent to be offensive while saying that, but that is how non religious people feel about it with the existence of Hell.
why is eternal damnation necessary for failed souls? why not simply extinguish them painlessly? why enact the highest form of sadistic vengeance when you knew they would fail? These are all questions a religious person needs to be able to answer.
I understand that. Most atheists understand this. Many of them just don't understand how free will is justified with the amount of suffering it creates, most people would rather not be born than giving the test of life is Allah is real. I'm sure you can understand an atheist thinking this is evil right? God is punishing people for ignorance when he KNOWS they're going to be ignorant. How do you think that is justified by free will? what is Gods argument? why is free will so important even allowing eternal damnation for probably 99% of the billions of humans in history? and he knew this would happen. How is it justified? why is free will so valuable?
Admittedly i think he had some very strong points in the first round, i think you refuted them quite poorly. But he just gave up in round two.
"Why would Allah punish people for doing bad things that Allah wanted and determined for them to do?"
Your response to this was basically, " but free will". I think its a genuinely good question that needs a more thorough response as to why God lets us do these things when he already knows the results of the test. Outside of just proclaiming we have free will, which science itself doubts.
I don't have a problem with that. I'm simply curious how the Quran justifies it, as admittedly I'm unaware. Although I do think its reasonable, if its not just pigs but all animals of its kind and predator animals with fangs etc.
trichinosis affects many animals outside of pigs. Its something that can be found in any animal if it eats meat. just because an animal plays in mud doesn't make it any more dirty to eat if cooked sufficiently. Rats, bats, and many many other animals objectively are far more likely to carry disease or infections than pigs are. To use an example, these are the infections I can get from cows: ringworm, Q fever, chlamydiosis, leptospirosis, campylobacterosis, salmonellosis, listeriosis, yersiniosis, cryptosporidiosis and infections with pathogenic strains of Escherichia coli, Mycobacterium paratuberculosis, campylobacteriosis, MRSA, rabies, and Anthrax.
What are the many reasons exclusive to pork, which doesn't overlap with other red meats? such as lamb, turkey, etc.
I'm unsure why eating pork is more dirty than any other domesticated animal which produces red meats. Most historians believe eating pork became something mandated against in Islam because during that time people were getting sick due to diseases it could carry. The same happened in India with cows, hence why they don't eat cow in India. If you agree with this being the case, wouldn't eating pork being sinful not be the case today? or do you disagree with that theory, what do you think?
I'm unsure if this was an argument against the idea i present or? human complexity is not relevant whatsoever for my philosophy. Genetics are irrelevant too.
I've got my copium tank right next to me. Taking a puff right now, you want some? Bones has been "guilty" of doing this in the past too. I hold them accountable for it as well.
It seems like you would never change your mind, irrespective of what the Quran said. It could literally tell you straight up to kill all non-believers and you would still find a way to interpret it to your mental box. Not that I'm saying your mental box is wrong. You just cant prove it sufficiently for most people who aren't moderate Sunnis' to agree with you.
There's also 10 or more other sects of Christianity outside of those two. For every catholic argument there is, i can just use a scholar such as meister Eckhart who takes this perspective into question. Which he got put on trial for, by the way. You cant question the dominant perspective, which in itself is in large part why it is the main sect, its far less forgiving than the Quakers for instance. Spread through the sword. These debates don't go far, as they're wholly about interpretation. Any argument can be argued for in the bible, pro slavery, no slavery? you can argue anything.
It seems the deciding factor in this debate, was the pragmatic viability of banning cigarettes, and id probably agree with Danielle it isn't worthwhile to ban them wholly. Although its interesting to note, the only reason it isn't worthwhile to ban these substances is simply because of consumer need, spurred by their addictiveness. There was no black market pandemic made when we banned leaded fuel in most developed nations. It should be very easy to make cigarette alternatives (outside of ecigs) Which are wholly biodegradable or healthy for consumption with nicotine in. We all used to eat those sticks that looked like cigarettes with a tattoo inside (minus the sugar) lol
I love how i see no response to my comment. I guess that shows what a freak of nature i am. A motivated ehyeh who's feeling cute on that day is incapable of taking an L.
Yes my beloved.
Keep crying straw boy.
"Suspension of disbelief is not different than denialism."
suspension definition: An interruption or temporary cessation
denialism definition: To declare untrue; assert to be false.
To refuse to believe; reject.
yeah, clearly the same.
"do you like chocolate ice cream"
suspension of belief would go: i dont know i havent tried.
denial would go: no i havent even tried i just know i wont like it.
There is no God. You cannot prove the unprovable.
Especially when God, the monotheism version, was created out of a perversion of many gods.
The entire concept of religion and deities is man-made. Period.
Religion is the first best example of not only mass hysteria, bit also mass psychosis.
Any fallacious belief in an unknowing so-called God is a farce.
The Bible, Old and New Testaments are replete with one contradiction after another.
You've directly said there is no God, within this comment.
We do say it has a biological grounding (how much is debated). The idea that it is debated, is why we air on the side of life and that this person can be saved. Although, these things exist on a spectrum (like most things). Some people need to watch what they eat more than others, to maintain a healthy weight, and in this same sense some people need to be more mindful of the things they think as to not become depressed. Some people can be unfazed by a poor childhood, others not so much, sociological outcomes are only averages after all. The same very, and i mean very likely applies to trans people to a degree at which affects averages due to biological reasons, or sex characteristic reasons, as you would call them. Most trans people with different environments can be "socialised" or be put in a situation where those genes may not express themselves. Just like depression or schizophrenia genes. So the idea that it even is socialisation, is only half true. Socialisation simply awakens or reinforces genetic predispositions.
there's a difference between refraining belief and saying something isn't true or potentially true. You've previously made the statement God DOESNT exist at all. In the past we also couldn't prove evolution. Does that mean it wasn't true that evolution happened back then? I'll leave you to ponder that one.
"no one can prove god exists, therefore no god." is essentially what you're saying.
Just as i may or may not be able to prove Gods existence, you too cannot disprove it. So it strikes me as odd you're just as dogmatic and black and white as the ones you claim to be fools.
Nice black and white thinking.
"Islam is the religion of peace. In no circumstances can Muslims oppress individuals who are innocent nor kill innocents. Nor even raping innocents."
You said this like its surprising that Islam says we shouldn't rape people lol
LETS GET THIS COMMENT SECTION DEBATE GOINNNNNNGG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btPJPFnesV4
I'm unsure what you mean by " we don't support these manifestations" can you elaborate? some neuroscientists/psychologists are very deterministic about peoples chances of getting depression based on genetic predispositions in certain environments. Depression does have genes, which means it's not all simply made up or cultural, but biological. So if gender is actually created through biological facts and things existing in reality, then it could very easily be categorised as part of sex, simply a different aspect of it, no? It is somewhat like how a car and a truck are both vehicles, just different types of vehicles. Gender and sex are both biological, just different aspects of biology.
Based brother based. Enjoy the game.
Why you up so late at night? get to bed bruv.
Well, what elicits our feelings? Why do women generally have different interests than men, etc.? It's almost certainly genes. If I do a quick google search, we know of 21 genes linked to gender dysphoria. If I google schizophrenia, which we know is a gene condition which expresses itself under specific environments and stresses, we know that it has around 50 genes linked to it. Once we extrapolate, it seems more obvious why some people wouldn't be trans in, say, medieval Europe as opposed to the modern day. It could simply not express itself in those environments. There are a million what ifs to these discussions, and anyone who thinks they have the answers doesn't know what they're talking about. The research increasingly indicates biological differences between men and women mentally.(considering the fact that the more egalitarian a country is, the bigger the interests between men and women actually become). So yes, we could say gender is still part of biological sex. It is simply the more "mental" aspect of sex. The part of sex which influences how we choose to view ourselves and the lens to look at the world. I imagine you will not understand this argument. Things can overlap. Such as the fact i can say the word "car" to mean a vehicle. But i can also call a truck a vehicle. But both hold the same position of being vehicles even if they're different types of vehicles, in this same sense gender/sex are different types of sex categorisations (potentially). Gender is the inside (unseen) aspect of sex, while sex is the outer viewable body. We could very well be very wrong of considering sex and gender not interlinked all this time, if the science increasingly shows biological or genetic reasons for gender identity and interests differing between genders. Which is linked to biological structures (genetics) and not culture or a vivid imagination.
I feel like Con can escape that circularity if he argues we derive gender from biological facts. But we've already talked about that though.
I think you can draw consistent lines on someone being considered a female, both on sex and gender. I think the answer to this question doesn't come down which is logically more consistent metaphysically (since both can be if you respond to Bones properly) but rather which holds more pragmatic utility to human society to hold. In our current use of language, it does strike us as "odd" to consider a trans woman a female due to the way our language is structured like it is "odd" to call someone an "it". Although its not necessarily circular in my mind if you don't believe animals and humans 1 to 1. Its still less grammatically consistent. But to me the overall deciding factor is which offers more utility to humanity. In terms of medical documents, it makes sense to consider female/male based on sex. In terms of documents unrelated to this stuff, whatever you want. I don't see why everyone has to go to extremes of one or the other. I feel bones especially thinks like this.
I struggle to follow your "circular" reasoning argument. Can you put it in more simpler terms? from what i gathered. It sounded like you were arguing because trans people can communicate or we can call trans people female it then makes sense just because its possible. I can also call my self 99 years old, and it sound consistent it doesn't mean it is with reality. Or is that a complete misrepresentation of your theory?
thank you for your service.
I understand now. I do agree we can create a differentiate between what female should mean for a human and an animal, such as the word cap meaning both a hat and to lie depending on what we're referring too). Bones has a tendency to think in black and white terms. Your problem was the fact you didnt go DEEP enough into why Bones is wrong in the animal human syllogism. You should demonstrate why agency matters and not simply state it as if we should know. All bridges must be gapped, he must be rigorously defeated. Which even if you can do that now, you didnt in the debate rounds i don't think. You didnt go hard enough. Its important to note, i do agree with you, i do think we can call trans women female.
"rock and roll should never have been invented," or "punk culture is degenerate" or "debate club culture is nerdy and people shouldn't do debates" - there are a lot of assumptions baked into those statements, and we could not simply prove that "rock and roll is true / false"
If you could make a syllogism to demonstrate participating in these acts is internally incoherent then... id have to agree. I just don't think you can do such a thing with a syllogism to these art forms. Or can you? if you can, i imagine you would be the first where you don't need a counter syllogism to disprove it.
You can definitely talk about context to add more nuance into a discussion like this. I still don't see why you didnt argue point for point with him though. I don't see how the historical significance and utility outsets the rigidity of Bones' syllogisms. I seen no debunking of the analogy bones did on animals. Why didnt you do that?
P1. If "Female" is determined by one's feelings, then we cannot categorise "female" animals.
P2. "Female" is determined by one's feelings.
C1. We cannot categorise "female" animals.
Why didnt you respond to this 1 for 1? i feel like this was a really strong blow to your position and i see no debunking of this syllogism on your part. How can you be said to of won if there is still holes you haven't gapped which seemingly leave the answer to the prompt unresolved?
R2D2 could write Bones arguments and id be none the wiser.
I must agree that bones has a difficult writing style to read sometimes. It's extremely scientific and accurate and good for voters and winning debates, but it's not very poetic.
You're right. Can mods take down my vote? your argument was still ridiculously lazy. The only reason you can be said to won is the immense burden of proof rayhan has.
Good troll.
What is the argument? Reading your argument, it sounded more like you were making a case for WHY we have trans people and why our language is changing in this way (hence your argument of capitalism and things changing due to societal changes). This is a separate discussion from whether or not it is more consistent . Not to be rude, but I honestly didnt see you once directly attack any of Bones's arguments. I understand you addressed this and said you're doing just that, but not quoting the things Bones is saying. Yet, I'll be honest, I can't tell when and where you're attacking bones arguments and when you're not because your arguments are that ambiguous. You never DIRECTLY attacked Bones' ideas 1 for 1. Not that i could see anyway. You talked about why our language is becoming more inclusive from an socio- economic standpoint. I'm not sure what that has to do with consistency though, it was a nice written piece of interpretative history at least. Your argument felt like one big appeal to the ad populum fallacy. "Society is moving in this way for a reason" therefore correct.
"here is absolutely nothing about this that requires one to either be non-separate nor separate from god"
we'll see about that. I could of even conceded that argument you presented there, as long as getting rid of separation gets rid of duality and necessitates a new emotional inner world. All of that science stuff is irrelevant. Your argument also presented as extremely generalising of men and women's roles. at the end of it all, if we both agree we feel angry due to expectations. You give me a very powerful foothold there regardless of what makes different people angry. if you choose to take the debate again in the future. It will be far far stronger of an argument too, i always win in the end.
reading cons argument made me feel like i was being psychically attacked from all sides by Charles Xavier
I'm sorry but that's just not convincing to most people. You once more just say "free will" without explaining why its so valuable. You also once more say life is a gift and a test, without explaining why. I don't think this life is a gift if the Abrahamic God in the form of Islam and Catholicism is real. Its pure misery for the vast vast majority of people LITERALLY. I don't know how you can say that's a good reality, when from a utilitarian perspective its the worst hell imaginable. From a deontological perspective God goes against all deontological moral maxims, he is a bit of a madman, or we would say he were such if he were a human. We would literally say you were the craziest most evil person of all time, if someone literally thought like the Abrahamic God. Hitler looks tame in comparison, and i don't intent to be offensive while saying that, but that is how non religious people feel about it with the existence of Hell.
why is eternal damnation necessary for failed souls? why not simply extinguish them painlessly? why enact the highest form of sadistic vengeance when you knew they would fail? These are all questions a religious person needs to be able to answer.
I understand that. Most atheists understand this. Many of them just don't understand how free will is justified with the amount of suffering it creates, most people would rather not be born than giving the test of life is Allah is real. I'm sure you can understand an atheist thinking this is evil right? God is punishing people for ignorance when he KNOWS they're going to be ignorant. How do you think that is justified by free will? what is Gods argument? why is free will so important even allowing eternal damnation for probably 99% of the billions of humans in history? and he knew this would happen. How is it justified? why is free will so valuable?
Admittedly i think he had some very strong points in the first round, i think you refuted them quite poorly. But he just gave up in round two.
"Why would Allah punish people for doing bad things that Allah wanted and determined for them to do?"
Your response to this was basically, " but free will". I think its a genuinely good question that needs a more thorough response as to why God lets us do these things when he already knows the results of the test. Outside of just proclaiming we have free will, which science itself doubts.
I just unlocked voting privileges so i will likely give this debate a vote. I will be as non biased as i possibly can be.
I forfeit this debate. I just unlocked voting without needing 100 forum posts. LOL so clearly i misinterpreted the rules, that's embarrassing.
You're motivated today rayhan. I've never seen someone pump out arguments so fast xD
I don't have a problem with that. I'm simply curious how the Quran justifies it, as admittedly I'm unaware. Although I do think its reasonable, if its not just pigs but all animals of its kind and predator animals with fangs etc.
trichinosis affects many animals outside of pigs. Its something that can be found in any animal if it eats meat. just because an animal plays in mud doesn't make it any more dirty to eat if cooked sufficiently. Rats, bats, and many many other animals objectively are far more likely to carry disease or infections than pigs are. To use an example, these are the infections I can get from cows: ringworm, Q fever, chlamydiosis, leptospirosis, campylobacterosis, salmonellosis, listeriosis, yersiniosis, cryptosporidiosis and infections with pathogenic strains of Escherichia coli, Mycobacterium paratuberculosis, campylobacteriosis, MRSA, rabies, and Anthrax.
What are the many reasons exclusive to pork, which doesn't overlap with other red meats? such as lamb, turkey, etc.
this is an easy win for Darth maul.
I'm unsure why eating pork is more dirty than any other domesticated animal which produces red meats. Most historians believe eating pork became something mandated against in Islam because during that time people were getting sick due to diseases it could carry. The same happened in India with cows, hence why they don't eat cow in India. If you agree with this being the case, wouldn't eating pork being sinful not be the case today? or do you disagree with that theory, what do you think?
Do you mind if i take this debate, rayhan?
What happened to your Jesus debate with oromagi? i cant see it anymore.
I'm unsure if this was an argument against the idea i present or? human complexity is not relevant whatsoever for my philosophy. Genetics are irrelevant too.
Thank you for giving us your thoughts. I agree with everything you said. Even on the parts where you said I made my arguments much weaker.
I've got my copium tank right next to me. Taking a puff right now, you want some? Bones has been "guilty" of doing this in the past too. I hold them accountable for it as well.
Outside of insults, There's nothing i find more dishonorable in a debate than telling people to vote for you at the end of your arguments.
It seems like you would never change your mind, irrespective of what the Quran said. It could literally tell you straight up to kill all non-believers and you would still find a way to interpret it to your mental box. Not that I'm saying your mental box is wrong. You just cant prove it sufficiently for most people who aren't moderate Sunnis' to agree with you.
There's also 10 or more other sects of Christianity outside of those two. For every catholic argument there is, i can just use a scholar such as meister Eckhart who takes this perspective into question. Which he got put on trial for, by the way. You cant question the dominant perspective, which in itself is in large part why it is the main sect, its far less forgiving than the Quakers for instance. Spread through the sword. These debates don't go far, as they're wholly about interpretation. Any argument can be argued for in the bible, pro slavery, no slavery? you can argue anything.
I'm not sure why you thought that was mocking. I'm not sure where there was any statement of ridicule or contempt. Sorry if it came across that way.
It seems the deciding factor in this debate, was the pragmatic viability of banning cigarettes, and id probably agree with Danielle it isn't worthwhile to ban them wholly. Although its interesting to note, the only reason it isn't worthwhile to ban these substances is simply because of consumer need, spurred by their addictiveness. There was no black market pandemic made when we banned leaded fuel in most developed nations. It should be very easy to make cigarette alternatives (outside of ecigs) Which are wholly biodegradable or healthy for consumption with nicotine in. We all used to eat those sticks that looked like cigarettes with a tattoo inside (minus the sugar) lol