Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 29, 2024, 8:50 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Refuting fundamentalists
#51
RE: Refuting fundamentalists
(November 20, 2013 at 12:08 am)Darkstar Wrote:
(November 19, 2013 at 9:48 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Two gay men dont have lactating breasts. How on earth can they provide the scientifically proven benefits of maternal breast milk?
Does this mean that lesbians get bonus points?

Sure, they can breast feed babies for the gay men in return for the gay men teaching their adopted teenage boy about male issues pertinent to puberty that women wouldnt understand.

I mean, really! How on earth can two gay men teach their adopted teenage daughter about menstruation and what pregnancy feels like?
Reply
#52
RE: Refuting fundamentalists
Quote:That's a nonnegotiable point. That's what rights mean. It's something everyone deserves, you don't take it away for petty reasons, by doing so you're in the wrong. Esquillax has already compared this to slavery being socially acceptable but fundamentally it disregards a whole slew of human rights. By saying it's all about acceptance, you have no concept of right and wrong, all you know is to listen to the majority. Therefore you really have no point to argue at all since I live in a society where the majority support gay marriage, so you are the one who'll be the misfit here and should be, according to you, abolished completely.
No, its not something everyone deserves. IF everyone deserves freedom, why are there still prisons? Obviously, not everyone deserves everything, neither is everyone equal with everyone on certain things.
And as for your comparison of slavery, slavery was abolished. Not modified as to allow slaves to own slaves, by which they would have become equal with their masters in owning slaves.
This is what you're trying to do to marriage.
Quote:This doesn't support your point at all. They were denied their rights, they have now successfully claimed it. Again I refer you to the slavery and abolition of slavery.
They were denied their rights? What bullshit. They never were part of the marital institution, let alone of society, they walked the back-alleys of society before the notion of them marrying could even be fathomed.
Refer to me nothing, as the abolition of slavery has nothing to do with it. The slaves never even campaigned for their rights, as they had no rights. They were given to them after slavery itself was abolished.
And again, I say abolished not modified. Giving slaves "rights" and equality is to grant them the right to own slaves.
Quote:The concept of equality is that EVERYONE is equal. Not that you decide who is equal. That practice is the opposite of equality.
If the man who has worked for his food and the man who has stolen for his food are equal, I'll agree on what you say. The homosexuals, while having no part in the creation of perpetration of the marital instituion, claim rights on it, I'd say that its equal to the thief, which steals for his bread, while the heterosexuals have maintained this tradition when the homosexuals were confined to the darkest corners of society. And truly, they had no real relevance to society back then, as they have no relevance to society today. So what renders them equal with the people who have been part of this insitution from its very beginning?
Quote:Bare assertions. Dismissed as such.
So try to discard the traditions related to marriage. It won't be marriage anymore. For example, discard fidelity. Claim that in a marriage, its okay for one of the parties to go on and have an extra-marital relationship.
Quote:Oh yea you know me so fucking well.
Your words speak for themselves.
Quote:Bare assertion. Tell that to the kids who were sent to camps to "correct" their homosexuality. I think they'd have fared a lot better with loving parents homo or hetero, who would accept who they are, instead of thinking there's something wrong with them that needs to be abolished because society doesn't like it.
Then your suggestion is we give homo kids to homo parents? Really you're not making any sense at all.
[Image: trkdevletbayraklar.jpg]
Üze Tengri basmasar, asra Yir telinmeser, Türük bodun ilingin törüngin kim artatı udaçı erti?
Reply
#53
RE: Refuting fundamentalists
(November 20, 2013 at 12:16 am)Lion IRC Wrote:
(November 20, 2013 at 12:08 am)Darkstar Wrote: Does this mean that lesbians get bonus points?

Sure, they can breast feed babies for the gay men in return for the gay men teaching their adopted teenage boy about male issues pertinent to puberty that women wouldnt understand.

I mean, really! How on earth can two gay men teach their adopted teenage daughter about menstruation and what pregnancy feels like?

Funny, my dad didn't teach me about puberty and my mom didn't breast feed me (as far as I know), but I turned out okay. Weird, huh?

Oh, wait. I'm an atheist. Scum of the earth. Never mind.
John Adams Wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
Reply
#54
RE: Refuting fundamentalists
(November 20, 2013 at 12:07 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Drinking happens in almost all the pregnancies.

RUBBISH! (Yeah, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.)
Aboriginal women in Australia have been getting pregnant without the need for alcohol for 50,000 years and there was never any problem with FASD

(November 20, 2013 at 12:07 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: ...Here's some science for you. You miss your period on the 2nd week of pregnancy, this is when most will find out they're pregnant.

Here's some altruistic parenthood advice for you.
DONT DRINK if you are planning on getting pregnant.
It may come as a shock to you, but some women actually DO care about the future welfare of their baby BEFORE becoming pregnant.
And the world is NOT full of Western liberal feminists who think pregnancy is the equivalent of owning a trendy new pet.

(November 20, 2013 at 12:07 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: ...The most susceptible period of pregnancy to alcohol is the first 4 weeks, especially first 2, the earlier the worse it is.

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) changed the guidelines on drinking during pregnancy in 2009.
Since then it has recommended pregnant women abstain from drinking alcohol, as there is no safe level of alcohol consumption during pregnancy.


(November 20, 2013 at 12:07 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: ...It happens to almost every pregnancy...

In your neighborhood???
Reply
#55
RE: Refuting fundamentalists
(November 20, 2013 at 12:37 am)Lion IRC Wrote:
(November 20, 2013 at 12:07 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Drinking happens in almost all the pregnancies.

RUBBISH! (Yeah, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.)
Aboriginal women in Australia have been getting pregnant without the need for alcohol for 50,000 years and there was never any problem with FASD

(November 20, 2013 at 12:07 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: ...Here's some science for you. You miss your period on the 2nd week of pregnancy, this is when most will find out they're pregnant.

Here's some altruistic parenthood advice for you.
DONT DRINK if you are planning on getting pregnant.
It may come as a shock to you, but some women actually DO care about the future welfare of their baby BEFORE becoming pregnant.
And the world is NOT full of Western liberal feminists who think pregnancy is the equivalent of owning a trendy new pet.

(November 20, 2013 at 12:07 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: ...The most susceptible period of pregnancy to alcohol is the first 4 weeks, especially first 2, the earlier the worse it is.

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) changed the guidelines on drinking during pregnancy in 2009.
Since then it has recommended pregnant women abstain from drinking alcohol, as there is no safe level of alcohol consumption during pregnancy.


(November 20, 2013 at 12:07 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: ...It happens to almost every pregnancy...

In your neighborhood???

Can't read one more sentence right? That's some dishonest bullshit you just pulled. I said in my previous post that alcohol still has an effect on the remaining months of the pregnancy and it has not been properly quantified, meaning, we don't know what does is safe, and really any alcohol will have an effect it seems, depending on genetics and other factors. I did not say people needed alcohol to get pregnant.

And are you so dumb as to not understand why women would drink if they had no idea they were pregnant? And are you too dumb to realize that unplanned pregnancies happen? And are you too dumb to realize that a lot of people don't realize the effect of drugs and alcohol on the very early periods of pregnancy? I think you really aren't, but you're just too dishonest and want to twist everything your way. Is that why you're selectively responding to only the first part of my reply?
Reply
#56
RE: Refuting fundamentalists
Pineapplebunnybounce Wrote:Is that why you're selectively responding to only the first part of my reply?

You think that's bad, they just refuse to respond at all to mine! I guess the truth hurts. So they hush it bye bye.
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!

Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.

Dead wrong.  The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.

Quote:Some people deserve hell.

I say again:  No exceptions.  Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it.  As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.

[Image: tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif]
Reply
#57
RE: Refuting fundamentalists
(November 20, 2013 at 12:56 am)missluckie26 Wrote:
Pineapplebunnybounce Wrote:Is that why you're selectively responding to only the first part of my reply?

You think that's bad, they just refuse to respond at all to mine! I guess the truth hurts. So they hush it bye bye.

He completely twisted what I said in the first half. Which is way more infuriating than just plain ignoring the entire post.
Reply
#58
RE: Refuting fundamentalists
(November 20, 2013 at 12:47 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: ...Is that why you're selectively responding to only the first part of my reply?

The second part of your reply was unsubstantial and an admission of your own ignorance.

"has not been properly quantified, meaning, we don't know..'

What response does THAT need?
Reply
#59
RE: Refuting fundamentalists
I think you've just proven how dishonest you are. I'm done with you.
Reply
#60
RE: Refuting fundamentalists
Maybe he's just that stupid, pineapple---I'd put money on it actually.
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!

Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.

Dead wrong.  The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.

Quote:Some people deserve hell.

I say again:  No exceptions.  Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it.  As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.

[Image: tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif]
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)