Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@Raltar
Thanks.
It's silly because he can't stop anyone from voting anyway.
Plus, the only people who will debate him after reading that bit of stupidity will be idiots or trolls.
Very funny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
OK, thanks for telling me what you want.
What I want is Jesus, and for me there's no other option. I already know the the truth, and reality for me is just dandy. So I wish you good searching in your quest for truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Just think critically for a moment.
Who did I call stupid?
See? This is where reading comprehension comes in. I did not call anyone stupid.
Now to you. You get angry, call people clowns, type in all caps, and needlessly repeat posts. It undercuts your argument. You look like a mentally unstable person.
You're too emotional. All we have to do is make you angry and you go ahead and kill your own argument for us. If you trust your arguments are right, then there is no need for insults or all bold/caps shouting. Calm down.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't. And I don't think this is a flame war. Don't worry, neither RM or I will start or take part in a flame war.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I still perceive a big difference between your type of atheist and our troll emeritus.Social and political has always been a blurry line.
I agree. But I hope we wait till our troll who clutters every thread with vitriolic nonsense gets banned. The more interesting the topic, the more irritating troll droppings in the thread are.That's begging for its own thread. Begging.
(Oh, and in my post before I meant to say, "He" still did. Not "I" still did.)
Created:
Posted in:
I think its reasonable to think you and others exist from the posts you make. You aren't a ghost.....the 'PC brigade' are like ghosts - something people worry abut but don't actually exist.
Created:
Posted in:
And if God so loved the world by trying....
God doesn't try. He does.
....to get Jesus to kill himself...
Jesus did not kill Himself, Nor did God try to get Him to.
You still seem unhappy. If you are believing what you want, and I am believing what I want, why aren't you happy? It doesn't bother me at all that you worship Satan.Think.
I do think, that is why I worship He who is more beautiful than words can describe. Does who you worship not satisfy you? Perhaps you should address your inner dissatisfaction before trying to advise anyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
For 2,000 years the world has known why Jesus gave Himself up.
"For God so loved the world...."
Thanks but I think I will stay with the one who loves me and gave Himself up for me. You are welcome to Lucifer, or whatever he has you calling him these days.
So you do what you want, and I do what I want. Everybody's happy right?
Created:
Imagine if we ever got a deluded person like this in a position of power?
But we have. J. Edgar Hoover ring a bell? Or Neville Chamberlain? Richard Nixon? All with disastrous results.
It's fascinating to speculate about whether this is due to physical mental handicap, or if its wholly psychological.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
It's never a fault to err on the side of hope and belief in people. Jesus also had no doubt it was futile for some people. I did it anyway.
Don't change.
Created:
Posted in:
Brazil will not be a liberal democracy under Jair Bolsonaro.
Hopefully he will make a dent before he is killed or fake newsed away.
Created:
Posted in:
No. Brazil finally has a great president. If he follows through and doesn't let the moron liberals derail him, the country will become great. It has every thing to become great. Natural resources, diverse people. Rich culture. Big enough population. No shortage of land.
All Brazil needs now is for a few of the people mucking up the country, like drug dealers, kidnappers, corrupt politicians, and career criminals to, with a gentle nudge from the security forces, assume room temperature, and the country will rise like creme to the top.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Raltar
Stalking confirmed. √
He's like on permanent warning, so if his yapping gets bothersome, just report him. Most people just ignore him. He's inconsequential.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
You can't say 'bodily autonomy is a right' and then give a list of exceptions to it. It is either a right for everyone all the time or it is not a right. Furthermore, if a person doesn't have property right on their own body, then all rights are meaningless. Simple as.
Yet you don't follow this. I could ask you a few questions that would expose your irrationality. That is why you don't answer questions. You want to keep your illogical worldview, but pretend you operate by logic.
YOU have an exception to virtually every right there is. Yes you. So your first two sentences are either lies, or the comments of a person who lives inconsistently to his worldview.
I believe you know this, so you breeze in , make these absurd statements, and then dodge questions and fade out. Check past threads. That is your MO.
For me, it's enough that you can't ( and better, won't) answer questions to your world view. So whether you run or dodge, with you, all we have to show is your unwillingness. That way, we leave the Gentle Reader with one nagging question.
Why won't he answer???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Raltar
Guys, I found the troll!
Lol. We've known about him for ages. He's sort of like a pet. But feed him at your own risk, he's as stupid as they come, and has been that way for years. He's sort of a stalker too so don't let him smell you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
I understood fine. It just seemed a little unself-aware to me that you said you weren't here to name call and was the worse name caller.
I didn't ask for, or need any explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
...testing and observation by experiments that produce repeatable results.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
Ah, I got it. You can call people names if you're not in a debate.
My mistake. When you said you had not come here for debates with children calling each other names on a forum, I assumed that excluded you.
Created:
-->
@Raltar
I saw the same thing, and felt the same way. Do make a complaint to bsh1 of virt if you feel its warranted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
So far, you have the edge on calling others names on this forum.I came here for real debates. Not debates with children calling each other names on a forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Wow. Like a movie. Any step moms or step dads in the picture?
If you had been asked, which parent would you have preferred to stay with?
How old were you when yo left home?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
RM, how did you know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Would you mind telling us about it? If it's too personal then excuse me. I just find people very interesting.Plus my dad kidnapped us,....
Was your dad foreign?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Your answer to q#1 was high. The idea is that homosexual men have repressed hatred for their mothers.
I hated my dad for a while. He was an abusive drunk.
Could it be you blamed your mom for not protecting you?
Seems silly, being attracted to every woman who is attractive, if anything makes me like a super hetero.
It means you have a high libido. The fact that it's any woman means the woman doesn't matter, the sex does. If it's just the sex, highly attractive men will set off your response too whether you like it or not. So you over compensate by being hyper on vaginas.
I was always told I was their favorite, by both of them which is fucked up
Tough childhood. How is your relationship with your siblings now?
I have no defense for question 16, LOL they got me there.
I best not say anything here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think the 'gods' in ps82 are kings and rulers of the ancient world who claimed divinity.
Yes. Human beings.
The psalm presents YHWH as instructing earthly rulers how they should rule and judge.
Cause He is the standard (authority) of morality.
The psalmist seems to accept that at least some such rulers are indeed 'gods', but very much lesser ones;
6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”
You got that right. So maybe the bible is not talking about a plurality of gods. Maybe it's just another self-serving loony interpretation.
In essence, the psalmist has YHWH telling earthly rulers who is boss.
You'd better recognize. The Boss is His Awesome Coolness, His Legendary Bigness, His Eternal Smoothness, King Jesus Christ!
(and the crowd goes wild!)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
But he doesn't want to. With bully it isn't a matter of ability or power, it's a matter of will.I remind you that it's within your power to change....
Created:
Posted in:
Ramshutu never votes against the atheist/ liberal. No matter who wins the debate, check the votes and Ram has voted against the conservative position. With as many times he has voted, this clearly shows that he isn't a fair voter. He's what we call a ringer. A sure liberal/atheist vote regardless of argument content.
If you want this to work, you may have to pair judges cause the club would quickly become a joke when judge Ram ransacks the voting with auto checks marks on every atheist position every time.
Created:
Posted in:
And there is the famous and no getting away from.....
Why would a Christian want to get away from a verse telling us that God is the master and ruler of all other so called gods? I use that verse to show idolaters that who they worship does not really deserve the title of God.
God was speaking to human beings. That's who the "Ye" refers to in psalm 82.Ps 82 - I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
So what's the problem?
Psalm 95:3 - For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods.
Psalm 135:5 - For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all gods.
Call anything that you want "god", they all still bow down to His Beatific, Majestic, Excellence, King Jesus. If they like holding the title "god" while they kiss the feet of the one true God above all, that is perfectly fine with me. I'll even bow with them.
o√L, --> That's Ethan humbly bowing to the Great King, the Lord of lords, and the God of gods, His Royal Omnipotent Holiness, King Jesus.
o√L, --> That's Buddha
o√L, --> That's Allah
o√L, --> That's Vishnu
o√L, --> That's Ram
o√L, --> That's Lucifer
o√L, --> That's Darwin
o√L, --> That's Odin
q√L, --> That's Athena
o√L, --> Krishna
Etc. You get the picture......
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Lol. Your comment's like a humble brag, except more like a complimentary insult.
I see the complimentary insult, but not the humble brag.
I'll guess I'll take what I can get...
If everyone is telling you similar things, maybe, just maybe, you might be wrong. Strength has its value, but if you don't bend somewhat with the wind, you'll break.
It was meant as positive encouragement.
Created:
Posted in:
Those are social values. You differ mainly in your political values.
I have very un-conservative ideas about sex and "promiscuity",
No matter where I've found myself, among conservatives or liberals, girls like you were most popular.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Chesterton didn't often make arguments FOR christianity, but this is a brilliant one.
Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
+1Christians created the scientific method. Atheists have abandoned it. They believe in something that hasn't been observed, and have no idea how it could even happen. That's not science. It's dogma.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I liked house of cards. Funny and sharp. I'll check out the British version.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
This was a good idea. Even I grudgingly like you better now.
You must have learned something in communications class. Your apparent assumption that people want a human being for a mod is spot on. Keep it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Ok
Wow. After the compulsive obsessive aggression of magiAintReal, that was refreshing.
I want to change my response. Here.
Thank you blamonkey. Your recommendations gave me much to think about. I hope we have a fruitful discussion in some other thread more worthy of you presence. And thanks for caring.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
..do you understand that women are often coerced, plied with false promises, and yes, sometimes even forced to have sex?
Sometimes billy-bob. Only sometimes. And rarely. You talk as if every pregnancy is due to rape.
An estimated 70% of sexual assaults go unreported to law enforcement officials.
Unrelated to our subject which is Pregnancies. And pregnancy is rarely due to rape.
About 32,000 pregnancies result from sexual assaults or rape every year in the United States [that we know of].
Confirms my point. Relatively few are due to rape.
So if you know more than 5 women, you probably know someone who either has been or will be a victim of sexual assault.
Pregnancies from rape are rare. When you are done with your strawman, that will still be true. You talk as if every pregnancy is due to rape. Very few are.
You kill immigrants based on predicted outcome.
Lie. We do not kill immigrants. We send them home.
We send them to war zones, to be killed.
Liberals are the champions of privacy right? You say we should not poke our noses into the business of other countries. Their war is not our business. They should stay at home. Why is privacy sacred only for pregnant mothers?
There are many things that kill people. Alcohol kills people. Prescription drugs, illicit drugs, cigarettes, and sugar all kill people.And yet we allow these things to continue being used.
Ok, what privacy invading laws do you propose we enact in order to enforce such a policy? Or does privacy matter only when you want an innocent infant dead?
If you can prevent a death, and you do nothing, most people believe you are morally responsible for that death.
That is why most people are against abortion jedthro.
It's like the classic abortion problem. By standing by and doing nothing about abortions, you are killing people.
You do not "consider all life sacred" any more than the psycho liberals do.
We do not murder defenseless babies. And we see a moral difference between an innocent infant and a mass murdering terrorist.
Conservatives only bring up "all life is sacred" specifically when they want to tell a woman what she should do with her own body.
Or when they want to save a life and solve the trolly problem.
In every other case, in every case of (already born) people dying, they say, "suck it up, it's your own damn fault".
Only the babies are innocent. You go “save” killers, we'll concentrate on innocents. OK?
Can't afford a doctor? - "suck it up, it's your own damn fault"
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. I know people who claim not to be able to afford a doctor but spend 500 dollar a week on drugs.
Can't escape a war zone? - "suck it up, it's your own damn fault"
Who’s fault is it? Are you daft? Conservatives know we aren't responsible for citizens of other countries.
Can't break a deadly addiction? - "suck it up, it's your own damn fault"
Whose fault is it? What happened to privacy and lordship over your own body? Privacy is too sacred to break when saving the life of an innocent child, but can be violated when spending other peoples money to save a stinking drug addict?
You are self contradictory and illogical. Your worldview makes no sense. We don't want your PC illogic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain how your opinion on the matter is based on science?
It isn't opinion, it is science. The mother and baby are genetically different. Two different people.
By this logic, a genetically mutated cancerous tumor and its host also qualify as two different people.
No. Because a cancer cell is not genetically different. You just are uneducated about genetics.
If it cannot exist without the mother, it is part of the mother.
Illogical. This is just something you are saying. Your opinion not based on sound reasoning. Medicine is getting better and better at keeping babies alive without the mother. Some babies are even conceived outside the mothers body.
Simply because I could hypothetically donate a kidney and it might survive intact for some period of time in another person does not mean that particular kidney is not part of me.
Your kidney is genetically identical to you. A baby isn't. That is why the kidney is considered part of you whether its in or out of you.
Even a parasite would be considered part of the host if it was 100% dependent.
Untrue. Some parasites are 100% dependent but even your own body will fight and reject them as foreign.
A cancerous tumor, with genetically mutated DNA would also be considered part of the host.
Only to a science ignorant person looking for an excuse to murder babies.
I don't give unsolicited medical advice to strangers. Why would you think I do? Are you confused?
If you are telling strangers what medical procedures they should have access to, you are giving medical advice to strangers.
Then you think just my talking is “medical advice”. Since I don't debate stupidity, I can leave this one untouched.
How I choose to spend my time is not your business, and I don't care what you think of of my choices.
Certainly, do as you wish, but don't try to pretend your opinions are part of a "logical worldview" when you just now admitted they are purely arbitrary.
I made no such admittal. You have not been able to scratch my world view. Yours is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. You win by logic, not assertions. Use some.
...and how do you prioritize your focus?
I stay within science and morality.
In other words, purely arbitrary,
If science and morality are “purely arbitrary” to you, OK sure
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There are examples of humans with different genes in different parts of their bodies.
Please give us an example Dr. Science.
There was a famous case where a woman's children did not match her DNA in a maternity test, this led to the discovery of a phenomena called "human chimeras".
One way chimeras can happen naturally in humans is that a fetus can absorb its twin. This can occur with fraternal twins, if one embryo dies very early in pregnancy and some of its cells are "absorbed" by the other twin. The remaining fetus will have two sets of cells: its own original set, plus the one from its twin.
In some cases, fetal cells [from their offspring] may stay in a woman's body for years. In a 2012 study, researchers analyzed the brains of 59 women ages 32 to 101, after the women had died. They found that 63 percent of these women had traces of male DNA from fetal cells in their brains. The oldest woman to have fetal cells in her brain was 94 years old, suggesting that these cells can sometimes stay in the body for a lifetime.
Pay close attention now liberal, the following might short circuit your liberal brain.
I say the baby is not part of the mother, because they have different genes.
You reply that sometimes people have different genes in them,
I ask for an example and your example is……..a baby!!
Lol. What happens inside the heads of liberals?
When cells become cancerous, they also become 100 times more likely to genetically mutate than regular cells, researchers have found.
Cancer cells are always identifiable as the genes of the person they are taken from. You just have a poor understanding of genetics.
What does "individual" mean? And so what? The embryo is a human being.
Individual: existing as a distinct entity; separate. The embryo is comprised of human cells but is not an individual because it is 100% dependent.
It it is arbitrary and a logical leap to assume that person hood depends on being separate. Some conjoined twins are not separate and cannot survive apart. Would you call them one person? A baby is a different person, regardless of dependency.
Genetics [is the key distinction between humans and other mammals]. On a letter-by-letter basis, the genes [of mice and men] are 85 percent the same.Previously it has been suggested that differences between human and mice genome can be as high as 15%, but recent studies based on the comparison of mouse chromosome 16 with human DNA have revealed this differences to as low as 2.5%.
So, mr. "logical worldview" do you believe that mice should be granted 97.5% human rights since, genetically, they are a near perfect match?
No. Because that is not how we assign rights. Mice are not human, and are not 97.5% human. Genes are not interpreted on a "letter by letter basis. Rights are not given based on genetic percentage. You just have a poor understanding of genetics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You aren't even thinking. You're just spouting liberal nonsense and contradicting yourself all over the board. Let me show you.
Ok, what privacy invading laws do you propose we enact in order to enforce (charging a mother with murder/criminal-negligence/manslaughter for a miscarriage) such a policy?
Hold this thought. You obviously think the right to privacy should trump the right to life. But we need no new laws. Laws against murder are already on the books.
I'm glad that we can agree that child abuse is a crime.
We don't agree. You think the crime should not be prosecuted because that would violate the privacy of the mother. I know why you're so eager to have me agree with you, but I don't. I do not agree that killing defenseless infants is OK.
Still, not every death is due to a direct result of parental neglect and or abuse.
In the case of a miscarriage, how do you propose we make this distinction?
Exactly how we make the distinction now. Police, witnesses, medical examiners, courts, common sense.
Am I reading you the law? There was a time killing a black man did not meet the legal definition of murder. So what? The question here is, " Is it murder?" Not, "does the current law call it murder?"
If you don't care about the law, why are you trying to change the law?
I do care about the law. Are you confused? When have I tried to change the law? Are you confused? The law right now condemns murder. It doesn't need to be changed, it needs to be enforced.
A baby is not a part of the mother.
An embryo is part of the mother.
No sir, it is not. Medical technology is reducing how early a baby can survive outside the womb. By your lame argument, person hood changes based on technology. In 1892, a baby could not survive outside of the mother before 6 months. So a baby up to six months old was not a person in 1982. But today, babies as young as 5 months old can survive outside the mother. So today, personhood begins at 5 months? Does that make sense to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Same thing I think about your post. But notice I did not ask you to explain any goals to me, I did not give you any unsolicited "recommendations", or express any sympathy for you.I am left confused as to the goal of this thread that you created.
Did you notice that?
Created:
Posted in:
Arguing with an internet troll is like playing chess with a pigeon.
No matter how good you are at chess
The pigeon is only going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and then strut around acting like it won going, "Bwahahahaha!!
Created: