Psychopath Kills Teen Becuase of RejectionPosted 7 years Ago

At 6/1/2013 3:58:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:51:41 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
I'm confused as to how she died...

I think the "Kidnapped her to be the hero, but then she died!" story he's trying to sell is getting air for being more interesting than the "Kidnapped her to rape and murder her but then got cold feet on the rape" version. I'm sure more'll come out soon enough...one way or another.


And, what the hell was this guy doing, trying to impress another girl, when he already had a girlfriend? What a repulsive ingrate.

Also she was 15, don't forget. There's not just one level of repulsive here.

I actually see no problem with the age difference. I think in general restrictions on age are nonsense, as there is nothing inherently wrong with an old person having emotional feelings for a younger person, and vice versa. In fact, I daresay, to condemn such relationships is harmful and immoral. But that's not so relevant to the topic at hand.

In any case, the kidnapping story was his story? Oh, I thought that was what police had discovered themselves or something. Because, yeah, I'm having a real hard time buying that. "I put her in the back of a truck, and then when I looked again, she was dead!" Exactly how does someone die by just laying in the back of a truck? I'm definitely betting on something more sinister having happened.
Forums Home > News

Psychopath Kills Teen Becuase of RejectionPosted 7 years Ago

I'm confused as to how she died...

And, what the hell was this guy doing, trying to impress another girl, when he already had a girlfriend? What a repulsive ingrate.
Forums Home > News

Vegan SpeechPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/29/2013 3:00:51 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 5/29/2013 12:00:58 AM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:45:54 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:35:47 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
Veganism on moral grounds is idiotic

/thread

I don't think that, if you had watched the video, you could have said that.

What makes you think I did not watch the video? The fact that I disagree?

"If you don't agree with me, you just don't understand my argument!!!"

Uhuh. Sure buddy. Sure. *patpat*

Yeah yeah. Look at it this way, if you watch the video, you will have something interesting to say in this thread. And the next time you see the word "vegan", you can say something more insightful than, "that's stupid". Take the opportunities you're given in life to expand your mind.

You missed the entire point of my post.

I DID watch the video.

Your video is not some mind blowing, miracle elixer, that will radically alter everyone who watches it. What arrogance.

I watched it, I still disagree with moralistic veganism.

Oh, but I suppose your response will be "You just don't GET it man! If only you'd open your eyes, THEN you'd see how wrong you are!"

Uhuh. Talk to me when you have an actual argument.
Forums Home > Philosophy

The hypocrisy of abortion supportersPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/29/2013 8:06:01 AM, Sower4GS wrote:
To answer your questions according to Scripture I say this:

Ooo fun. Fresh meat.

Self Defense? What did the fetus do to the mother, eye? I was not aware of a fetus being able to assault the mother.

Violation of the mother's right to bodily sovereignty. The fetus' does not have a right to the mother's womb. It belongs to he mother. The fetus can only stay there as long as the mother allows it to. If the fetus remains when the mother no longer desires it there, she has every right to remove it by any means necessary. For better or worse, abortion is the only means currently available. Therefore, she has every right to abort the fetus.

The mother's right to self-ownership overrides the fetus' right to life.

Also, I don't see any sign of scripture in that comment. Colour me unimpressed this far.

Self preservation?

Yes. Self-preservation. To preserve her bodily sovereignty. This is the same reason why, say, if someone is being attacked by a rapist, they have every right to defend themselves, to the point of killing the rapist if necessarily. Their right to bodily sovereignty overrides the violators right to life.

The Torah mentions that a mother, since she has responsibilities (many besides producing off spring, a lot of other responsibilities!) and relationships primarily with YHWH, should choose Her life over the fetuses only if they are both going to die and one has to be chosen over the other for one to survive.

Show me where.

It is pretty sad that you would say women should exist if all they can do is have babies I will quote you "If He did not the women to have off-spring He would not have made women" end of quote. You sound like you are contradicting yourself.

I have never made that claim. If you think I have, show me the exact post.

Until then, straw man.

YHWH exists, open your eyes, if you are unable to see, then listen, if you are deaf then feel with your hands, if your nerves are gone, think with your mind and notice those thoughts in your head, YHWH made it all possible. There is your proof. Right there in front of you.

That's not proof. I can see many things with my eyes, that is not evidence that a God is what gave me sight. I can hear many things, yet that too does not prove the existence of this Yahweh in of itself. Feeling and thinking too are not sufficient evidence, because just as easily as I can think Yahweh exists, I can also think he does not exist.

No, none of that emotional nonsense is proof. Show me actual proof please.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Vegan SpeechPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 11:45:54 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:35:47 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
Veganism on moral grounds is idiotic

/thread

I don't think that, if you had watched the video, you could have said that.

What makes you think I did not watch the video? The fact that I disagree?

"If you don't agree with me, you just don't understand my argument!!!"

Uhuh. Sure buddy. Sure. *patpat*
Forums Home > Philosophy

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 11:53:31 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
Technically the devil had the power of death, not God.

I'm sorry, what? God claims to have directly caused s global flood, slaughtering millions, and it's the DEVIL who killed them?

WHAT?

Oh, and whether or not the devil has "the power of death", God must necessarily have it to, if he is omnipotent, as your religion claims.

Either way, again, you are wrong about something. Either we do not have the inalienable right to life, as God kills people in the bible...fairly regularly, either by proxy or directly. Or God is immoral, as he is violating our rights.

So, which is it? More importantly, which claim were you wrong about before? ;)
Forums Home > Politics

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 11:44:32 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
As for proving God exists, I just had an in-depth debate on the subject here:

http://www.debate.org...

So let me get this straight...you seek to prove God's existence, and your evidence, is a debate on the subject...which you lost?

Colour me very unimpressed.

I had another in-depth debate on whether the God of the Bible can be shown immoral:

http://www.debate.org...

God gives us the "inalienable right to life" according to you.

God then violates that right by killing millions globally.

Either our right to life isn't inalienable, or God violates our rights, and is immoral.

Either way, you're wrong about something.
Forums Home > Politics

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 11:34:57 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
When there's about 200 different points being made at once, it's tough to keep track of them all. I can give some passages showing life begins prior to birth though according to the Bible if you really want to focus on it:

None of those versus answer my questions. Show me where God says that unborn children have a right to life. Then show me anything that would suggest the fetus' right to life supersedes the mother's right to bodily autonomy. Then prove God exists. Then explain why we should even care what God says.

Come back when you can answer at least the first two.

I think bodily sovereignty is like free speech, freedom of religion, right to privacy, etc. It's a right I think people should have so long as it doesn't go too far, namely harming others.

In other words, you don't believe in bodily autonomy, you believe in some bastardized concept of it.

Tell me, when is it okay to use a woman's body against her will? When does a woman cease to have autonomy over her body, according to you? When does she lose the right to control what uses her body?

Please, enlighten women everywhere, who they are allowed to say no to, and who they are not allowed to say no to. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear.
Forums Home > Politics

Vegan SpeechPosted 7 years Ago

Veganism on moral grounds is idiotic

/thread
Forums Home > Philosophy

On the Rights of the UnbornPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/28/2013 11:17:03 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
It obviously...

Nope, hence the issue. Even if you were speaking in "old english", that would make it inherently UNOBVIOUS, as that is not the language of the times. Come on man.

In looking at how I stated it, at first I thought it was a typo, then realized it was grammatically correct the way I worded it. It means except or notwithstanding.

Tell me, how can you "slip into" old English, and then not realize what you said in it? Again, come the f*ck on, do you really think we're this stupid mate? "Oh yeah, sometimes I slip into old English. When I look at it, I don't understand it, but hell, I can speak it!"

*facepalm*

If I make a clear mistake I'll admit it, not when I stated it correctly and critics are just trying to twist the words.

In otherwords, you'll admit it's a mistake, until people point out it's a mistake, and then you scramble to try and "one up" everyone, by pulling some stunt about how you "meant to do it"?

Good to know.

That you're making this big a deal out of your incorrect mistranslation of a single word shows how thoroughly you've run out of arguments.

Hello? There's literally 4 posts of mine you haven't responded to. I've yet to run out of arguments mate, you're the one scrambling for something to post about.

I think we're done here. Your tactics are low even for abortionists.

Pfft. Whiny little p*ssy.
Forums Home > Politics

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