(April 5, 2015 at 2:15 am)Heywood Wrote: The reality is, you just want to force people to behave the way you want them to behave for no good reason other than you think that is the way they should behave.
What's really interesting is I believe this is the same guy that argued, on the topic of abortion, that the state should have the right to take away a woman's right to choose based purely on what he acknowledge to be his arbitrary opinion that life begins at the moment of conception.
I argued that if the state is going to take away someone's right to choose, they need to have hard evidence that another being is being harmed by this choice and step one is to show reasonable proof that there is even another being at all.
That didn't seem to matter to him. He felt no sense of shame that he was wanting to bully his way into a woman's life and make choices for her without any logical justification at all.
But now, on an issue where there really is other beings involved who are potentially harmed by certain choices, he's indignantly using inflammatory language like "slavery" and defending people's "rights" to practice bigotry in their businesses.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
