Smut for Smut

[tavarish]

"If God started evolution, he essentially made 100% of animals will the knowledge that 99% of all species would die out."

No. God didn't make 100% pf the animals. God made the system and the function of the system made the animals. You're misunderstanding ID. God didn't sit there and think "ummmm, duck billed platypus.... ummm... giraffe!" God, if she exists, created and may sustain the system of life, but not each animal. That's what I mean when I say you define efficiency when you call something inefficient. The world is not inefficient, the world is almost perfectly functioning.

Can you provide evidence for any of this?

"You're making the exact same point I asked you to elaborate and back up with supporting evidence. And yet you STILL came up with irreducible compexity. Ouch."
Now you lost me. I did not make an "irreducible complexity" argument about darwinism. You must have misunderstood.

Did you forget what you wrote?

Here, let me remind you:

How does evolution account for (a tired example, and not the best) a flagellan motor? That the organism either evolved each seperate part of the system, and it was somehow selected for? Or that the organism evolved the entire motor systrm in one generation, so as to be selected for. All of the reality around us falls into that paradox, in my humble opinion. That most things here are too complex, myself and my ability to have this conversation with you included, to be wholly attributed to evolution.

I gave you a specific example of a video DEALING WITH A FREAKING FLAGELLAN MOTOR.

I would make the point that there is more perversion now than there was 20 years ago. I can't argue that we are better than the ancient greeks or something because I don't yet have a time machine. It's not that porn makes people perverse in general, but that porn is more and more and more perverse these days. Like the Big Mac. A big mac is food (kind of). Food is not bad for you, it is necessary. Porn is pictures of sex stuff. That is also not too bad for you, but certainly no necessary like food. But modern porn is like the big mac of pictures. It is about as destructive to us as possible. Find a way to make a photograph more destructive to our neural selves. The modern porn has gotten so ubiquitous and extreme that it is now something terrible.

Do you have evidence to support your claim that humans are more perverse than 20 years ago?

"Again you don't have anything to back this up. Taking your word for it and "I bet you" it's a persuasive argument. "
So you won't take that bet? "The United Nations has reported that the retail market value of illegal drugs is $321.6 billion USD." "The agribusiness/food sector is the second most profitable industry in the United States — following pharmaceuticals — with annual sales over $400 billion." ""The United States has the largest pharmaceutical industry in the world. In 2007, its pharmaceutical revenue totaled at US$ 315 billion." (The food numbers are from '09, the pharma '07)
So if you included a small percentage (or half) of the pharma's as dangerous, should be illegal drugs, then like I said it is estimated that illegal drugs make more money than anything else. I also think the number quoted for illegal drugs profit is low.

Are you actually serious? You said:

"Illegal narcotics make more money than guns, food, precious metals, real drugs, houses, cats, and pornography. I bet you it's the case, if you feel like looking it up, and you can disprove that, please do."

Now, there are a lot of things wrong in this statement.

First, you make an assumption without backing up any of your claims, and trying to shift the burden of proof.
Second, you make a claim that illegal narcotics makes more money than your other criteria. You then try to include pharmaceuticals as dangerous and "should be illegal". What the hell? I'm not here to cater to your assumptions and think that would be illegal in your view of the world.
Third, you say the number for illegal narcotics is low, based on ???

You made a claim, and not only have you failed to back it up, you have disproven it.

So you had thought of all of the perversions you saw in extreme porn? I mean, dismiss the argument if you want too... But if some of most of those perversions were tings that you didn't consider people doing (I though foot fetish was a joke, no one lives like that!) then how can the market be pandering to the consumer? Unless the porn market is pandering to sexual degenerates, and then normal 12 year olds happen to see it. The majority of people don't demand extreme porn until then know it exists. The slippery slope of porn addiction, needing more and more disturbing material to get the bio chemical rise...

"If I couldn't have thought of it, how could it be possible?"

You also make MORE claims with no evidence. It's traversing from intellectual dishonesty into full-on willful ignorance.

"don't care if people really want Big Macs or not, Mcdonald's makes money, just like the porn industry makes money."
Again, I make a moral judgment on something and you r response is that it makes a lot of money. So do drugs and sex slav-... Oh yeah. I learn. So your response to my moral judgment of a big mac is that McDonald's makes money, so it can't be bad? You got upset last time when I thought you were arguing the morality of profit, so I assume you're not now. McDonald's makes money because it's food is soooo bad.

Please show me where I said that if something makes money, it can't be bad.

"t doesn't disguise itself as anything other than what it is. It doesn't pretend to give you life advice, nor does it portray a facade in which it lures you in to get to the goal of becoming some sort of deviant pervert."
But it does. It pretends it's a restaurant. It pretends it a great place to work. It pretends it's clean. If you look at the adverts, it does pretend to give life advice. And talk about a facade that lures you in with a goal in mind, you never considered the happy meal and play structure paradigm. McDonald's is trying to hook (see addict) children, fucking children, to it's unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle, for the sake of making as much money as possible. So no, the only thing you were right about it the McDonald's doesn't want to make us perverts, they want to make us slow and fat and sad and dead. But the porn industry, THEY want to make us perverts.

Thanks.

McDonald's is a lifestyle? Since when did McDonald's give you advice on life? They're in the business of making money. That's it. They make advertisements to make their food enticing so people will come in and eat it. That's how marketing works. It's not like the second you get there, they inject intravenous drugs in your arm. Moderation is key. They also provide nutritional information for their consumers on demand, so you know what you're eating. It can be unhealthy, but so can anything if you practice it in excess.

Did I say McDonald's is good? No. Did I say it had absolutely no outlook or stance on morals? Yes.

The picture you're trying to paint is that porn, like McDonald's, is some kind of wolf in sheep's clothing that pretends to be a shining beacon of moral value. I'm saying you have a seriously skewed view.