Mall

Simply species and arguing for your own species which I believe people have tried to argue but I noticed they overlap in arguing for separate species as if they're supposed to share the same "moral" agency. Then double standards get flushed out.

Yes pro choice means pro abortion . When you choose abortion, you're looking for support on that decision. It doesn't always mean the abortion option is chosen . But it is a supported choice as much as choosing the other option.

If I'm pro vegetables, no matter which vegetable we're talking about, I'm pro that vegetable because it is a vegetable. 

So if you say I'm pro carrots, yes because it's a vegetable. If you say lettuce, peas, spinach, etc. I didn't say only that vegetable but I do support the consumption of that vegetable.

People tend to shy away from saying pro abortion as it's too grim. Pro choice lands a softer mitigated blow. 

If you're familiar with laveyan satanism, you'd know what god I'm referring to.

If not and want to read into it on your own so you're not taking my word for it , have at it.

"If that was true then the nazis were not objectively wrong."

The "in the eye" language is subjective just like beauty is in the eye. 

So from a subjective standpoint, people can see themselves as saving something while others see it as senseless destruction in the process.

Do you believe the woman was made for the MAN or the man made for the woman?

Why or why not?

Any females on the site come forward.

Don't we have at least one?

Name a trait.

Saving is in the eye of the savior.

See, ain't too hard to understand.

How can something real don't exist?

If course it exists, it's the one that atheists believe in. It has to be real in order for them to at least believe in.

Ok well by proxy. If one person has consumed an animal, particularly the first man, from that man we all have been developed from that regurgitated molecular substance that makes up what we are down to the fatty acids, proteins, water, amino acids and other periodic chart elements.

The individual vegan gains argues for a greater health of humans via veganism so to call that hatred of humans, what would love look like?

A bunch of fast food, junk food, highly processed food.  I guess it is love because people tend to love you, enjoy you indulging in tons of sweets and unhealthy things with them to include drugs and liquor .

Maybe it was reincarnated by someone majestic powerful, an inventor. So now it'll be reincarnated again.

Would you like to be a cyborg?

We all love animals. We play with them ,kill them and eat them.

A woman can beat up a man literally his hands down , hers up.

They succeeded in suckering you in or in marketable terms, successfully added you to their conversion rate.

The real one is the one atheists believe in and are religious about. 

There was a movie about this where the man was being physically abused by the wife. Hardly anybody would be on his side.

"You don't disagree, because disagreeing with me doesn't exist. God says you shouldn't disagree even if you somehow did, therefore God disagrees and you are wrong."

A bunch of mumbo jumbo if you ever read any.

It is a broad notion and it's more to it than just love.

More than consent too.

"We are not discussing love but sexual attraction."

Oh folks blend the two.

Then you better pray to this God that this site is not acquired by YouTube.

Some believe love is love whether you are an adult or child.

Do you thank God for lack of censorship on this site?

The god of this world, the wicked one sure, done created the homosexuality and pedophilia well because he is the wicked one.

Ok I gotcha. Point taken.

"NINJA ART, KILL YOURSELF NO JUTSU!!!!!!!"

Translates to "I don't have any intelligent responses to your questions so I'll just play goofy instead".

Gotcha.

"Homosexual activity has no plausible way of "causing genetic annihilation" of any kind."

Ok no "plausible" way so what other type of way is it?

"It's not incapable of producing good."

Yes this doesn't answer the question. There's no way to answer that question without deviating.

"We have a good idea about crime rates even if not all perpetrators are found."

I appreciate the indirect agreement with my point.

 

Slavery like unto a gun in itself is not morally good.

No I don't take issue. Others scrutinizing for your stances doesn't give me an issue either.

A case of homosexual activity that causes genetic annihilation of non defective genes is a reasonable fear.

God created evil. Does the person decide to do evil or does God?

Does the person act to do things to bring about the creation of evil from God?

Anything that is not in agreement with the skeptic of that which would be good is bad. Perhaps the concept of hell is all wrong in and of itself as a punishment right out the gate.

No such thing as a correct opinion. No such thing as a wrong opinion.

Correct and incorrect applies the accuracy of facts.

I'm not wrong in my opinion of marvel over DC , mustard over ketchup, etc.

Preaching to the choir.

All mothers aren't necessarily pro choice for abortion.

So when we say leave it up to all mothers, a set of those mothers will believe it's justified to die in order for the baby to live or will always choose for the baby to live meaning the only justification.

That's why I say levels of justification are different. Some people will choose either or based on whatever justification they arrive at in their minds while others by default just act upon belief to have(birthing) children without deciding.

Just combine the idea of preventing pain by preventing people to be born with having freedom.

Don't you argue both the stances?

I'm putting them side by side for congruent measure.

To prevent pain would be good, is that so?

It has been argued to me that freedom is good. No pain is good. So anytime, any means, that's any period ...you can eliminate pain, it is good.

So by taking away freedom which is bad to feel no pain is good concurrently taking away the happiness portion which would of been good would be the opposite at bad again.

Just compounded paradox on top of paradox on top of paradox stacked like pancakes better than IHOP.

That's basically the sticky syrupy mess of stance I'm getting through this topic in tandem with another from the same author.

 

Needs to have 2.1 versus 1 or zero. Scientists are on "the more the merrier " bandwagon.

A homosexual case where the genes are not obvious defects would be a fearful case. 

But look it doesn't mean you're homophobic or make you homophobic. You just stand on the facts and you have a natural instinct on high alert for genetic survival. You hold genetic facts, you stand on them.

This individual argues for denying the pursuit of happiness. What else is akin to denying freedoms and rights, sexual abuse, trafficking?

The same individual argues freedom is good and denies it at once.

"Positive effects can outweigh negative effects."

How can something incapable of producing good produce good?

"Most people haven't committed crimes."

I don't know about the quantity of people. Some people haven't gotten caught, some are doing wrong things that are not technically crimes .

Things you get an impression from also that should not be free to do such things so I'm not staking anything on quantity.

But your impression, your perception, your view of it. Just like people can be guilty even though not proven guilty. People can be guilty even looked at as innocent so quantities, moot.

I can see how that impression is misleading.

I think this went off the rails. I was asking about where did the impression come from that slavery is bad most of the time.

Since you're arguing for nihilism, the destruction of life, why not wait and see the net positive results are possible first, then resume the diminishing of life?

Keep in mind euthanasia so don't even argue back about pain and suffering.

We have people that want to pursue happiness even if the cost is heartache. 

What gives you the right or a so called parent to take that right away outside of the law ?

What cases are you fearful of genetic annihilation?

Would it not include a case of homosexuality?

What if the offspring want the pursuit of happiness in the world.

You would want to continue to deny that.

What gave you this "most" circumstances impression and it's bad by default ideology?

Also something that is bad in nature, how can it produce any good?

Something bad in nature, there's nothing in it AT ALLL that can produce any good.

Is homophobia akin to so called racism?

Can you disagree with a skin color?

Are you fearful of skin color?

Are you fearful of genetic annihilation?