RE: Four questions for Christians
July 6, 2013 at 2:12 pm
(This post was last modified: July 6, 2013 at 2:23 pm by pineapplebunnybounce.)
I have no idea what the hell you're responding to anymore.
First you asked why killing innocent people is wrong. Then I said that moral evolved. Then you said it didn't, and say that my examples aren't of premeditated murders, and then later you said you only mean premeditated murders that are unprovoked. These shifts are blatantly dishonest, you have lost your original position. And with psychopaths in the picture, you lost the last one too, since they are part of everyone and it's not clear to them that unprovoked murder is wrong.
The rest of your arguments have no bearing on the above. Most of it you're responding to things I have not said. Some of it you're repeating what I've said in a different tone. I see no reason to respond to any of them. You refuse to admit that a lot of people changed their moral values with the slave trade and gay rights examples but admit that there's a change. Elaborating how the change came about doesn't negate the fact that there was a change. With the slave trade you basically went against your own position that everyone knows all men should be treated equal, unless you add the qualification that "except when there's profit to be made". Your argument basically is that everyone knows all men are equal, and when i point out the gay movement, you say oooh but no no no no, they didn't know they were men, otherwise they'd have treated them equally. I think the fact that they look like us and have the same fucking DNA as we do is a big fucking clue, isn't it? Men should be treated equal is something inherent in us? you might as well not say that if we suck so much at detecting what's human and what's not, then only what we like is considered human, and what we don't we say they're not human. Well great job, if that's the morality you're willing to concede to, I think we've arrived at an agreement.
First you asked why killing innocent people is wrong. Then I said that moral evolved. Then you said it didn't, and say that my examples aren't of premeditated murders, and then later you said you only mean premeditated murders that are unprovoked. These shifts are blatantly dishonest, you have lost your original position. And with psychopaths in the picture, you lost the last one too, since they are part of everyone and it's not clear to them that unprovoked murder is wrong.
The rest of your arguments have no bearing on the above. Most of it you're responding to things I have not said. Some of it you're repeating what I've said in a different tone. I see no reason to respond to any of them. You refuse to admit that a lot of people changed their moral values with the slave trade and gay rights examples but admit that there's a change. Elaborating how the change came about doesn't negate the fact that there was a change. With the slave trade you basically went against your own position that everyone knows all men should be treated equal, unless you add the qualification that "except when there's profit to be made". Your argument basically is that everyone knows all men are equal, and when i point out the gay movement, you say oooh but no no no no, they didn't know they were men, otherwise they'd have treated them equally. I think the fact that they look like us and have the same fucking DNA as we do is a big fucking clue, isn't it? Men should be treated equal is something inherent in us? you might as well not say that if we suck so much at detecting what's human and what's not, then only what we like is considered human, and what we don't we say they're not human. Well great job, if that's the morality you're willing to concede to, I think we've arrived at an agreement.
