(April 15, 2014 at 9:22 am)c172 Wrote: That cripple Pistorius doesn't even deserve a pretty blonde woman in bed with him, much less his own life.It's looking like he'll get convicted.
![[Image: thfrog.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img577.imageshack.us%2Fimg577%2F6942%2Fthfrog.gif)
Unconventional opinions
|
(April 15, 2014 at 9:22 am)c172 Wrote: That cripple Pistorius doesn't even deserve a pretty blonde woman in bed with him, much less his own life.It's looking like he'll get convicted. ![]()
Women are visual creatures, too.
RE: Unconventional opinions
April 15, 2014 at 9:34 am
(This post was last modified: April 15, 2014 at 9:41 am by MJ the Skeptical.)
If the hypothetical idea of an afterlife means more to you than the objectively true reality we all share, then you deserve no respect.
RE: Unconventional opinions
April 15, 2014 at 9:51 am
(This post was last modified: April 15, 2014 at 9:51 am by Ben Davis.)
(April 15, 2014 at 9:28 am)Sejanus Wrote:OI! NO SPOILERS!!!(April 15, 2014 at 9:22 am)c172 Wrote: That cripple Pistorius doesn't even deserve a pretty blonde woman in bed with him, much less his own life.It's looking like he'll get convicted. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Sum ergo sum
(April 15, 2014 at 9:22 am)Quantum Theorist Wrote:(April 15, 2014 at 9:02 am)ElDinero Wrote: 1. How would we terraform the moon? How, with current technology, would we go about exploring the cosmos to a greater degree than we already are (which is to say with satellites, probes, rovers etc)? It may be a hypothetical thread, but surely it's implied that there should be some kind of practical way to achieve these goals, otherwise why not just say 'no hardships for anyone'? In what way is 'free food and water for all' unconventional? I would think that support for such an idea would be near universal. But nobody would suggest it because it's so fantastical and is pointless in a discussion like this. Similarly, in what way is 'we should explore the cosmos' unconventional? I'm not sure you understand what the word means if you think it's unconventional. The only question that remains is how we would go about doing it. Obviously I'm in favour of animal welfare generally, but what is it you mean when you say they should be given person-hood?
One more: Christians themselves will end up destroying Christianity, not Atheists.
(I say this in response to how Christians think atheists are out to "destroy" their faith. Nope, Christians and their hypocritical behaviors and antics are doing a fine job at destroying their own faith.) Irony at its best. :-) RE: Unconventional opinions
April 15, 2014 at 3:59 pm
(This post was last modified: April 15, 2014 at 4:11 pm by MJ the Skeptical.)
(April 15, 2014 at 9:53 am)ElDinero Wrote: It may be a hypothetical thread, but surely it's implied that there should be some kind of practical way to achieve these goals, otherwise why not just say 'no hardships for anyone'? I'd say a lot of them are practical, but, I've yet to hear any alternatives or refutations. Just more complaining. (April 15, 2014 at 9:53 am)ElDinero Wrote: In what way is 'free food and water for all' unconventional? I would think that support for such an idea would be near universal. But nobody would suggest it because it's so fantastical and is pointless in a discussion like this. Did you run out of theists to argue with or something? this is just obnoxious of you to say. You would think that it would be universal, but it's not. You still got most of the world who thinks it's okay to charge money for everything and they do. We still charge people for the basics of life and we will likely not take care of our species fully like that for a long time. Therefore unconventional opinion since the majority aren't doing anything about it. (April 15, 2014 at 9:53 am)ElDinero Wrote: Similarly, in what way is 'we should explore the cosmos' unconventional? I'm not sure you understand what the word means if you think it's unconventional. The only question that remains is how we would go about doing it. Again, in the sense that it's not important to society and a lot of what I said is not on the agenda right now. (April 15, 2014 at 9:53 am)ElDinero Wrote: Obviously I'm in favour of animal welfare generally, but what is it you mean when you say they should be given person-hood? In 2013, India officially recognized dolphins as non-human persons But animal equality isn't likely to happen soon because people love to eat their Bacon and we know for a fact pigs are smarter than our pets who we give partial person-hood too. So again, it's unconventional since most people don't give a shit about other animals to the extent they should. You can poll people all day and they may be in favor of what I'm saying, then they will go eat Pork afterwords or forget about it. Person-hood is closely tied to legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. And of those 3 choices, the only one that other animals have no need for right now is citizenship.
If the hypothetical idea of an afterlife means more to you than the objectively true reality we all share, then you deserve no respect.
(April 15, 2014 at 9:34 am)Quantum Theorist Wrote:(April 15, 2014 at 9:30 am)Deidre32 Wrote: Women are visual creatures, too. Get back to me with sapphires. I'm not a fan of diamonds. ![]() Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni: "You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???" RE: Unconventional opinions
April 15, 2014 at 4:21 pm
(This post was last modified: April 15, 2014 at 4:22 pm by MJ the Skeptical.)
(April 15, 2014 at 4:05 pm)Beccs Wrote:(April 15, 2014 at 9:34 am)Quantum Theorist Wrote: Visual eh? Meet me in the middle and take a blue diamond ![]() ![]()
If the hypothetical idea of an afterlife means more to you than the objectively true reality we all share, then you deserve no respect.
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|