TheUnderdog

Because you choose to take the risk for pregnancy by giving sperm, the kid's existence is your fault

Every male in the universe (with a properly functioning sex drive) would like nothing better than to be paid to impregnate females so I'm not surprised you would be happy but being paid hardly improves the moral situation you seemed so certain of.

How is it that joe-average gets his kidney cut out if he produces a child and the woman decides against his will to have an abortion but you get to sell your swimmers with no risk to your kidneys?

No moral fault on you in that case because you were paid?.... doesn't really follow.

That sounds false. I'm going to need a source on both those claims if you want me to accept them.

I don't even know why blowjobs feel good.

It's got to be a troll.

That's correct. It indicates that so many people go to heaven that their number can't be counted.  It never says anything like this for the people who end up judged.  So at least I have a figure. You are just pulling an idea out of their air.  

are you familiar with the opium wars ?

Imagine Mao, Hitler, or Stalin's reforms on a global scale.

Why would you just assume that a woman is just going to bite your dick off.

If you don't trust someone enough to put your dick in their mouth sex is definitely a bad idea.

STIs are contagions they come from infected people not the acts that spread them

everything I said can apply to a small number of sex partner(s) who have clean health.

The exact and quite immeasurable make up of their motivations is irrelevant. They aren't forced.

Do I have to explain that human females are in fact sexual creatures as well?

First, If you were serious about not wanting kids why would you not get a vasectomy?

Are you asexual? Well most people aren't.

Second, How about you confine yourself to anal and fellatio?

Perhaps like female sex drive and consent you haven't considered those yet?

If not you then what about others?

Your lack of life experience is quite apparent

He very well may. Heck, both might then the woman could change her mind.

And how many of them threatened aborters with stealing their kidneys?

I'll repeat myself, you can have continuous orgies without ever causing a pregnancy with some basic precautions. Prudishness is fully disconnected with pregnancies when brain is engaged.

That is a thin criticism, suppose the man was exempted if he was willing to raise the child and notarized his objection to the abortion.

You threaten to forcibly sterilize men because of something a woman they had sex with did.

The difference is I don't 'threaten' innocent parties.

So putting us in the same boat is about as accurate as calling both people who support fines for violating speed limits and others who support cutting off thieves' arms for stealing "authoritarian".

The female who aborted harmed the kid and the deadbeat dad harmed the women by getting her pregnant.

Neither are inherently harms.

The majority of all abortions occur before it's even a fetus.

As for her getting pregnant to begin with: The vast majority of sex is consensual.

Seems quite odd to automatically make a presumption of a guy being a POS because someone else did something.

I'm not sure if threats will stop sex, but if we ever get dictator Alec, I'm afraid we'll find out.

You are proposing massive harms of mutilating people who have harmed no one.

It'd be about as sensible as declaring those punishments for anyone who wears white after labor day, or just do a lottery system.

While there is a mild benefit of more donor kidneys available (most of these forced donations would just become medical waste)

it would certainly cause backlash against organ donations in general.

 It seems like the group that would benefit the most, are sadists who get their jollies from other people being in pain.

So having finally had the opportunity to read your argument your summary is men's money is important, women's bodies are not.

You also seem to think as long as a man gives a woman money he doesn't have to parent those children but a woman should certainly be present and parent her children because she's a woman.

I always hate the slut shaming arguments

Additionally, your argument here simplifies the burdens of pregnancy down to just the labor pains; put simply, pregnancy trashes mother's body.

You want to forcibly sterilize women AND steal their kidneys. For this argument to even be consistent, the man should also suffer the same.

Revelation 7:9

Nonsense.  Bootlicking is sucking up.

 If Hell is God's idea by the way - it is just. 

There is a difference between spiritual and non-spiritual offences. The fact that you don't see sin against God as a particularly severe thing is emblematic of what you think about sin.

God does not punish people in Hell for rape or murder. Rape and murder are fruits of a much worse situation. Rebellion against God.  

 It stands to reason that an eternally perfect and just God has his own standards which are going to be very different from ours.

But any offense against an infinitely powerful entity is worthy of infinite punishment.

Bootlicking is about trying to win the superior person's gratitude.

No  I did not contradict myself.  I said most people wont burn in Hell.  To contradict this - would mean that I would say that most people will burn in Hell.  I did not say that.  To claim that Hell is justified by God does not contradict that most people go to Heaven.   Do you understand logic?  

Eh, and if you find your faith again, you'll be a bootlicker again?

Myself, I doubt the terms "Bootlicker" and "Mr. Sky Wizard", will get most faithful to question their faith,

More likely it'll just trigger anger and defense, a closed mind.

Myself, I 'prefer, disagreeing without insulting other people, though I 'do fail in my preference, at times.

They will flee the country if they are taxed this high

They earned their wealth and taxing them would discourage the future earning of their wealth

This is socialist/communist (I don't know the difference between these terms)

So thinking of yourself in the past, you'd call the yourself of back then, a bootlicker?

Assumably some of your family, friends, acquaintances, back then, you'd call bootlickers, as well?

My position as many people in the church is that most people in history will end up in Heaven and that only a minority of people will end up being judged in Hell.

The Book of Revelation tells us that the number of people in Heaven is number without count.

and it was speaking in general terms to those people in Jesus' time and more or less to a time prior to the incarnation

Yes, I have seen the numbers in the West suggesting christians are reducing in number. But have you seen the numbers in Africa, and China, and Asia, and South America? Exponential growth is still occurring.  

I think you will find that Christians generally say - that EVERYONE - christian or non-christian deserves judgment from God - for all have sinned and fallen short of his requirements. That's why Jesus is significant. Because he is the only one who did not deserve judgment because he alone did not sin.  Since Christians hold to the view that God is good and just - we take the view that since we know the punishment for our sin and do it anyway that - we have no excuse. And we have no defense.  Noone forces us to sin - we choose to do it ourselves - knowing full well it will have consequences. 

If Hellfire is the punishment - why is it so severe and harsh? In normal legal systems - the more severe and heavy the punishment - the greater the value of what is being protected.

We value life as a rule so someone who takes away someone else's life is given a punishment appropriate to that - which is mitigated only by circumstances and intent. We value the sanctity of the marriage which is why rape, and adultery and other forms of sexual offences are given heavy sentences (at least historically).  Incidentally, one way to show marriage is not valued anymore in the west is the fact we don't in many countries have punishment for adultery. 

And the answer is interestingly, even on most legal books the most serious offence- treason. Go and have a look at the various legal systems around the world. One of the few offences which still carries the death penalty in most cases is treason. 

In Thailand - treason is expressed simply saying something negative about the king. 

I suggest to you that sin - is treason against God.

Nope. It is not bootlicking.  God can do anything he chooses to do.

How about you go and create your own world and make the rules.

If someone is holding a pistol to your head, then nobody would judge you as being overly deferential for doing whatever your assailant demands.  Therefore if the pistol is everlasting and the pain of being shot is eternal, so much more the appropriateness of any degree of  deference demonstrated.

If I believed in God,

I would not believe he burns humans in Hell forever,

There's also not an issue with honoring one's father or mother,

Why an issue with honoring God?

Most nations have their own internal problem I can't imagine the crap one would have to deal with if there was one nation across the whole world. And any sort of small group like LGBT, women, probably even those with special needs would just get crushed.

sink all boats

cut all intercontinental communication cables

And how would you convince Mexico to bow down and adhere to a one world USA?

Okay and how would you go about making Islamic cultures obey the new enforcement of gender equality and feminist protections against abuse?

How would we ensure that these far-right cultures don't end up making the liberal, democratic cultures end up swayed in their direction instead?