DOMA smacked the f*ck down.Posted 7 years Ago

At 6/29/2013 6:49:01 PM, medic0506 wrote:
If I could prove God's existence then I'd be disproving Christianity, which is a faith-based worldview. So telling someone to prove that God exists is really kinda silly.

In other words, you believe something without having any evidence, and then expect others to believe it to.

More over, you think this is a good way to behave.

...what the f*ck are you even doing on a debate website? Ban this piece of sh*t troll.
Forums Home > News

DOMA smacked the f*ck down.Posted 7 years Ago

At 6/29/2013 6:25:45 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Hypothetically, a guy could get off by sticking it in someone's armpit and humping. But no one in their right mind calls that "sex".

http://lmgtfy.com...

Just because you CAN use some other part of the body for that purpose doesn't change the natural use of the sexual organs.

Oh really? Because, the it would stand to reason that if one can get off naturally in a particular manner, that is the natural use of the organ. It occurs in nature, hence, natural.

Also, the human body was designed for many things, not just procreation.

That's obvious but we're not discussing thermoregulation or cardiac function here.

And yet, you claimed: "Procreative sex is what the human body was designed for."

So, yes, we are. The human body was designed for many things, not just procreative sex. It was designed with many functionalities in mind, even complex sexual functions beyond procreative sex.

You are scientifically, factually incorrect.

How do you think the universe and life got here??

There are a number of theories in the scientific community, but the answer as it stands is a resounding "we don't know".

Our lack of current fully-formed explanation does not, however, serve as evidence for God.

I ask again, where is your evidence for God?

Like I said, you'll have to take that issue up with Him.

Hardly. Putting aside whether or not he exists for the moment, it is not he, but his agents, who influence the world and it's laws.

So I don't have to take it up with him. I'm taking it up with you. To follow him is barbaric, and you should not do it. And who are you to force his law upon myself and others?

Think for yourself for once, instead of being a mindless drone.

Can you identify a time in human history when procreation and raising a family was not a part of marriage??

Not what I'm saying; I'm saying marriage has existed for any number of reasons. Individual love, strengthening family and foreign ties, ect. It's central purpose has not always been procreation. It has served multiple purposes, as it continues to evolve throughout history.

And in fact, in our modern age, it has become less and less about reproduction. I mean, for goodness sakes, just look at Japan. Japan is barely having any kids these days, yet marriages are still occurring with regularity. Many households aren't having any kids, and not because they can't, but because they simply do not want to.

And there's no practical difference between choosing not to reproduce with someone, and not being able to reproduce with someone (especially, again, when we consider that infertile couples are allowed to marry)

You mean like the Greeks and their pederasty??

Greeks and Romans are some examples of societies, certainly, thought there are also others.

Further more, we live in an age where human beings are 7 billion strong, and under no threat of dying out as a species. Reproduction is the last of our worries.

So??

So...you're entire reason for wanting marriage to be about procreation is pointless. It might make sense, in early human society, to encourage procreation by marriage. Societies were small and under threat from a number of outside forces.

But our society has advanced technologically enough now, and our numbers are large enough, that procreation is no longer an immediate concern. We are perfectly stable. In fact, we could probably use to reduce our numbers right now.

So this idea that procreation is something that is of high importance is complete bollocks, and to limit marriage to an institution only for procreation is void of any practical application. It's nothing more than a reason to propagate your own personal bigotry.

Letting men play in the WNBA doesn't stop women from playing basketball either, but there's a reason that men don't play in the WNBA. It's because they don't fit the definition of the institution.

1) That's a completely different scenario. The reason the leagues are split is precisely because it might cause women to stop playing. Or at least, not as many. Allowing homosexual marriage literally does not impact heterosexual marriage in any way.

2) I'm not in favor of keeping the leagues separate to begin with, so your argument is meaningless to me.

Uh-huh, I see what you did there. Who's dodging now?? "Produce" is what I said.

Homosexuals can produce children. We've been over this.

They can also raise them, which is arguably a part of "producing" children.

There is a point to be made that answers your question. I'm answering yours so please humor me and answer mine.

You are not answering my question, you are posting meaningless pictures of couples, and asking me to make impossible judgements about them.

Now, stop doding the question. Should chaste and infertile individuals be banned from marriage? Yes or no?

Should there be a time limit on when couples have to reproduce? Should reproduction be mandatory?

This is why your argument is so bloody asinine. It makes no practical sense and serves no purpose other than to be very oppressive to everyone in society. It provides no benefit, and causes all sorts of harms.

Homosexual reproduction, as you call it, is despicable.

So it's not enough that homosexuals reproduce and raise children, they ALSO have to have the right sexuality?

Holy sh*t. What purpose does that kind of thinking any serve?

It requires bringing a child into the world intentionally, knowing full well that the child will be deprived of one of it's parents.

Being the biological producer of a child is not the same as being a parent. Dear god. Being a parent, a GOOD parent, is about the relationship you have with your child. It's about how you raise them. It's about the love and bond you share with them.

Biology doesn't count for sh*t.

If you see that as a moral action then I can't help you at all. That's way worse than someone having casual sex and getting pregnant. At least that child stands a chance of having an actual father figure at some point.

Because a father who didn't give birth to you can't be an actual father figure, right?

From the deepest reaches of my soul, f*ck you you atrocious pile of sh*t. I'll have you know the most inspiring father figure I ever had was a man who loved and cared about me my entire life, and he was NOT my biological father. My biological father walked out on my family and was a f*cking insane piece of sh*t who, among other things, threatened horrifying and barbaric actions against my mother and family. And you want to stand here and tell me that this man, because he isn't one of my biological parents, somehow is not a legitimate father figure for me?

And what about the millions of orphaned children across the globe, seeking to be adopted? Are you saying that the families that adopt them are not "legitimate" parental authorities, because they don't share the same DNA?

Are you honestly saying that biological heritage is more important, than how you actual raise your child?

F*ck you you slimy piece of sh*t-faced garbage.
Forums Home > News

DOMA smacked the f*ck down.Posted 7 years Ago

At 6/29/2013 4:51:39 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Kids these days, they want everything done for them. Go read your Bible, the real thing, not CliffsNotes. It explains what you need to know, and justifies itself much better than I can.

Except:

1) The Bible is not a good source for it's own truthfulness. That be the equivalent of me saying "I'm right, and my source is that I say so".

2) The Bible has been shown to be false on a number of teachings, and has been subject to editing and revision, additions and subtractions, for hundreds of years.

Oh, and by the way:

3) It's not laziness. When you make a positive claim, you have a duty to provide evidence for the claim. Without evidence, we have no reason to believe you.
Forums Home > News

DOMA smacked the f*ck down.Posted 7 years Ago

At 6/29/2013 3:58:21 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Procreative sex is what the human body was designed for. The fact that some choose to co-opt other body parts doesn't make it "sex", it's just a way to get your rocks off.

Procreative sex is just one form of sex.

Also, the human body was designed for many things, not just procreation.

Where is your evidence?

I don't feel like playing the nuh-uh game today, so I'll just say that the universe exists, and you exist. That's enough proof.

No, it's not.

That's proof that you and I exist, and that the universe exists.

Where is your evidence that GOD exists?

He who creates all, gets to make the rules. You can take that up with Him.

That doesn't (1) mean his rules are moral, or (2) that we should follow them.

Again, you're appealing to a barbaric sense of authority and power. If god is the playground bully, you advocate doing what he says out of fear fo repercussion.

It is deplorable.

Reproduction and family has always been a part of it.

Hardly. Marriage has existed for thousands of years, and for many reason; not just child rearing.

Even thousands of years ago, people knew that children do best when raised by both their mother and father. That is why the male/female relationship is recognized as marriage.

Not quite true. Plenty of past societies were one one level or another completely okay with homosexual relationships, and did not view it as a negative thing outright. Further more, we live in an age where human beings are 7 billion strong, and under no threat of dying out as a species. Reproduction is the last of our worries.

Finally, letting homosexuals marry doesn't somehow prevent heterosexuals from marrying and reproducing, so the argument is moot.

It is the only relationship that can produce future citizens,

Except that is entirely false. Homosexual partners can raise children just fine.

2) So should infertile couples or willfully chaste not be allowed to marry then?

Which of these couples are infertile, and which is willfully chaste and will never, ever, have children??

You're dodging the question.

According to you, since reproduction is the only reason we allow marriage, willfully chaste individuals, and infertile individuals should be legally banned from getting married.

Is this not so?

3) Homosexual couples can still reproduce; just not necessarily with one another.

They can also get married, just not necessarily with one another.

Again, dodging the point. Your argument is that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry one another, because they cannot reproduce. But homosexuals can reproduce. Homosexuals women often time go to clinics for in vitro fertilization. Homosexual men produce sperm all their life, and are entirely capable of impregnating a woman, if they so desire.

So again, your argument is null.
Forums Home > News

DOMA smacked the f*ck down.Posted 7 years Ago

At 6/29/2013 9:02:38 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/29/2013 2:51:52 AM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 6/26/2013 12:57:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
In spite of attempts to mimic the real thing, plugging your best friend's poopchute, or sticking a foreign object into her vajayjay, isn't exactly what most normal people would call "sex".

Um...yes it is. Sex is not merely "put the pen0r in the vagoogoo". It's a whole array of acts that derive couples with sexual pleasure. Oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, the list goes on.

Procreative sex is what the human body was designed for. The fact that some choose to co-opt other body parts doesn't make it "sex", it's just a way to get your rocks off.

I haven't changed anything about my position. Marriage is still a union of one man and one woman, blessed by God.

1) Prove god exists.

Prove that He doesn't.[/quote]

Not how it works. When you make a claim, you have a burden of proof. You affirm God exists.

Where is your evidence?

2) Explain why we should care about anything He says.

Because you will be judged for your actions, your believing in Him is irrelevant. If that doesn't concern you then don't care, you have the free will to do just that.

So the reason we should follow God is because He threatens to make us suffer if we don't.

Uhuh. And you call this moral? Pah. Barbarism is more like it.

Because they can produce offspring.

1) When did marriage become about reproducing. People can reproduce outside of marriage, people within marriages can choose not to reproduce, and most people din't get married because of children, but for other reasons (financial stability, mutual love, ect.) There is no law that demands you must reproduce, or be capable of reproducing, to marry.

2) So should infertile couples or willfully chaste not be allowed to marry then?

3) Homosexual couples can still reproduce; just not necessarily with one another.
Forums Home > News

DOMA smacked the f*ck down.Posted 7 years Ago

At 6/26/2013 12:57:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
In spite of attempts to mimic the real thing, plugging your best friend's poopchute, or sticking a foreign object into her vajayjay, isn't exactly what most normal people would call "sex".

Um...yes it is. Sex is not merely "put the pen0r in the vagoogoo". It's a whole array of acts that derive couples with sexual pleasure. Oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, the list goes on.

I haven't changed anything about my position. Marriage is still a union of one man and one woman, blessed by God.

1) Prove god exists.
2) Explain why we should care about anything He says.
3) Explain why we allow atheists and agnostics to marry.
Forums Home > News

I am 'fence-sitting' on the topic of AbortionPosted 7 years Ago

The fetus has no right to the mother's womb. The mother has a right to bodily sovereignty. If the mother decides she no longer desires to allow the fetus to use her body, the fetus is now in violation of her bodily sovereignty. Her right to bodily sovereignty overrides the fetus' right to life, rendering any argument about the humanity and rights of the fetus entirely moot.
Forums Home > Politics

Why Does Communism Choose the Proletariat?Posted 7 years Ago

Why do they choose the proletariat as the class who should be victorious?

Two reasons. One, because it's inevitable, and two, because the proletariat are well in the majority.

When I say it's inevitable, I mean the struggle will not stop happening until the proletariat are successful. Capitalists can't "win", they only keep the struggle going. So the only way in which struggle ends is with the proletariat's victory.

As for what practically makes them win, they're the majority over the Capitalists. This is one of the main complaints of Communists and Socialists; that so much power and wealth lies in the hands of an undeserving minority. Once the proletariat all unite behind the cause, nothing stops them. It's happened before in history, and it can, and almost assuredly will, happen again, and on a much grander scale.
Forums Home > Politics

Wealth Redistribution: Just or Unjust?Posted 7 years Ago

At 6/9/2013 6:45:29 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
1.) IQ is heavily heritable (something like 75% to 85% in adults)

First of all, IQ is not the same as intelligence. Further more, heritability and a result of biology are not necessarily the same thing. After all, if someone is born into an anti-IQ environment, their IQ will be lower; but not because of their biology.

2.) IQ correlates highly with income (0.4 correlation is very strong)

Correlation =/= causation.

Now, correlation doesn't equal causation. However, the IQ explanation for income inequality is more consistent with the available evidence than any of the other stories I have heard for a large variety of reason.

Except, no, it's not. The intelligence to income raise has been shown to be due to economic class, and the ability of the rich to more easily expand their knowledge of the world. This has nothing to do with race. Which...let me guess. Is exactly what you'll try to prove next, by showing blacks make up more of the poor.

So far, there is no mention of race and there needn't be. That is really the full extent of my views.

Okay, but then some progressive comes along and says something like "Did you know that African Americans, on average, make 60% of what Caucasian Americans make? We must have state action to rectify this racist inequality"

Well, yeah, we do. The reason blacks make up the majority of the impoverished is because of the after effects of slavery and Jim Crow laws. We can't reasonably expect that to just solve itself.

This is where race comes in. Note that before the progressive brought up race and used it to categorize people into groups to compare, nobody was talking about race. It was the progressive who used race as a category not me.

Well, technically, it's not race. They're just using the term, because that's the popular usage.

I then respond by pointing out that different races (I define races the same way the progressive does) have different average IQs.

Except they don't; at least, not as a biological reality. I man sure, you can say blacks have lower IQs...if you take your sampling from Africa. But is that really a judge of Africans, or the society in which they live?

Most intelligent people will say the latter.

That explains the racial income gaps and there is no reason to have state force try to rectify a totally logical inequality.

No, it doesn't, and yes, it does.

The progressive then comes back and starts calling me a racist and then tells me that "race" doesn;t really exist even though about 5 minutes earlier the progressive was using race to justify statism.

And? There's nothing wrong there.

You realize one can not believe in something, and yet, see how belief in something affects the natural world, right? Race is not a real phenomenon. Black people are not of a different race. That doesn't mean people don't treat them as such however, and when they do, it's racism.

This isn't a hard concept to understand.

This is where the debate is. So, whether or not race exists is totally irrelevant to my points here.

But, if you really hate people using race as a category, please take it up with progressives.

Or the racist individuals who continue to treat race as if it were real. But you know, your idea works too. In the Twilight Zone.

The only reason it got brought up in this forum is that the OP (an advocate of wealth redistribution) thought that any mention of genetics was racist.

It is.

So, if you don't think race exists, you need to PM the OP not me.

lol.

If you have anything to say about my arguments, tell me. This whole question of whether or not race exists is irrelevant.

Well my post is here, so you can read it now.
Forums Home > Politics

Wealth Redistribution: Just or Unjust?Posted 7 years Ago

At 6/8/2013 10:54:27 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/8/2013 10:41:20 PM, PrivateEye wrote:
At 6/8/2013 10:37:37 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/8/2013 2:16:03 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:

Okay. Your last response pretty much consisted of you screaming "Your stupid and science supports my position".

You weren't providing evidence here, just repeating that.

Anyways, the mainstream science on this actually is totally in contradiction with you here. You are basically endorsing a position that is taken as seriously as Young Earth Creationism.

In fact, just like Creationists, you pretty much deny evolution. That is, you deny evolution in the brain. By denying that races have any biological, genetic differences in behavior, mental traits, etc, you are denying evolution. You are denying it because evolution and science contradict your preexisting belief in egalitarianism.

I don't waste time on anti science, evolution deniers like you.

To be frank, I am simply too intelligent and knowledgable on this topic to waste time talking to someone as ignorant and unintelligent as you. We are simply on different levels.

If you show yourself to be more intelligent or more knowledgable, perhaps I will consider continuing this discussion.

For now, you have shown yourself to be out of your league intellectually.

You're an absolute retard dude

No. I am the only one here who actually knows what I am talking about.

Bahahahahahaha!! Holy sh*t, you MUST be a troll. You come in, acting superior, then get shot down not only by myself, but others, and your only response is "I'm right, everyone else is crazy, waahhhh!!!"?

Jesus f*cking christ. Wait a minute...I think I've heard about you. You're an older member, aren't you? You fled the site, and are now returning? You have a history of idiotic remarks. Oh this should be fun indeed.
Forums Home > Politics

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.