Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Adultery Is Perfectly Natural And Genetic

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    No non thinker, I haven't. What You've shown is that you can't understand the problems here because yeah, in most cases, the goal is to sleep with lots and lots of women
    It's all just wishful thinking on "thinker's" part. He has to get out of his mom's basement and actually talk to a woman first.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      It's all just wishful thinking on "thinker's" part. He has to get out of his mom's basement and actually talk to a woman first.
      ouch...
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        ouch...
        Considering the prevalence in history and today for adultery among humans regardless of religion nor philosophical belief, how is this behavior not natural to all human beings?
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          It's all just wishful thinking on "thinker's" part. He has to get out of his mom's basement and actually talk to a woman first.
          Thinker might be Jimmy's roommate?


          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Considering the prevalence in history and today for adultery among humans regardless of religion nor philosophical belief, how is this behavior not natural to all human beings?
            So is war and murder.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Considering the prevalence in history and today for adultery among humans regardless of religion nor philosophical belief, how is this behavior not natural to all human beings?
              Who said it was not natural? War is natural.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Who said it was not natural? War is natural.
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Rattlesnake venom is perfectly natural and genetic.

                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #68
                  [QUOTE]
                  Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                  No non thinker, I haven't. What You've shown is that you can't understand the problems here because yeah, in most cases, the goal is to sleep with lots and lots of women and not care anything about who they are. No mistake made, expect you trying to deny reality and watching you continue to deny the reality staring you in the face. Remember, I work with lots of guys and by and far the whole 'polyamourous' thing is just an excuse to be able to sleep with lots of women. Don't believe me? What about Richard Carrier who came out as 'polyamourous' and divorced his wife of 20 years? How about Joseph Smith, who told his followers that God wanted him to sleep with their wives and when his wife questioned him on this, he said God was going to destroy her. This isn't even getting into the fact that many of these 'polyamourous marriages' are more often than not having young women growing up in this sort of thing and being married off to much older men. Yep, such wonderful endorsements that your 'polyamourous' claims have. No wonder you're an idiot that flat ignores anything that proves you wrong. If anything I have presented is incorrect, go ahead and prove it because I know all of these things are true and accurate.
                  Yes, I'm fully aware someone can have sex with lots of people and not respect any of them. I acknowledged that right up front. So you're wrong there once again. The issue is whether it is possible in principle to have sex with lots of people and respect them. You are implying it isn't, yet have not proved that. And again, one can believe in "respect" as you define it and still think women are subordinate to men and be sexist. As far as polyamoury in order to excuse sleeping with lots of women, polyamoury applies to men and women, gay and straight. It is not exclusively a straight male thing. You seem to assume it does. As far as straight males who are polyamourous, sleeping with more than one woman is the whole point - because may people are not naturally monogamous. As long as it's done with consent of legal age people, there's nothing wrong with it. Nothing about this logically entails having no respect for women. A polyamourous man might or might not involve "respect" for women - depending on how you define respect. But a monogamous man might not have respect for women either. So the Richard Carrier thing is irrelevant.


                  And where is your data showing "polyamourous marriages" are more often than not "having young women growing up in this sort of thing and being married off to much older men" - which is technically perfectly fine according to the Bible by the way? Show me the data. As far as I know, there is no society that has legal polyamourous marriage. Is your dumb lil ditzy brain confusing polyamoury with polygamy? So I'm not ignoring anything. I'm the only one here having an actual conversation that makes sense. So almost everything you said is incorrect.


                  And yet you keep failing to establish that as not being true and keep claim that it is possible, when you haven't established it at all, but keep asserting it and want others to do work you yourself refuse to do. Funny how you have to flat ignore all the examples we have of this whole 'polyamourous' thing as being excuses to sleep with tons of women and continue to scream that isn't true, but fail to provide us with any ready examples of the opposite. While I have examples that say otherwise. Keep those fingers in your ears and keep screaming that what I have said isn't true and maybe all that nasty evidence stuff will disappear into a puff of smoke.
                  No, sorry. The burden is on you since you are the one making the claim that 'having sex with lots of women' logically negates 'respect' for women. Again we are debating totally different things here, just like you ignorantly did with our slavery debate, which you in no way showed the bible doesn't condone.


                  This happens here in the US to this day and the Bible never supported it, non thinker because by and far, the examples the Bible gives us is that having multiple wives is a very bad idea that leads to all kinds of problems. Solomon and David's problems are often blamed (directly and indirectly) upon their marriages with multiple women (just to name one example). Likewise, if it is actually true that Christianity approves of having multiple wives this, why was King Henry not just marrying multiple women and instead seeking a divorce from his wife? Why did the US government ensure that Utah put in something specifically against polygamy before they were allowed to join the union? Do you have any examples of major Christian denominations supporting and making excuses for polygamy or are you just letting words fall out of that giant hole in your head that you call a mouth because you can't refute the arguments put forth? Finally, yeah non thinker, polyamory would indeed include polygamy and this practice would indeed include marrying off young women to much older men. Deny reality all you want, non thinker, but like it or not the whole 'polyamourous' thing does indeed have a pretty dark side that you want to deny even exist. Why do you deny this? I don't deny that men who are married to a single women can't be sexist too, why do you deny that the whole 'polyaourous thing' is indeed often used as an excuse to sleep with lots of women?
                  Then why not just say polygamy is wrong? Just because there are some examples of polygamous relationships in the Bible going sour, that is not showing the Bible says it is wrong. As for King Henry, nothing about polygamy says you cannot get a divorce. So that makes no sense. And also, what Christians do does not reflect what the Bible says. I am well aware the majority of Christians throughout history have been against polygamy. But Christianity doesn't forbid it.

                  And again, you seem to be confusing polyamoury with polygamy. Polyamoury is "the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships where individuals may have more than one partner, with the knowledge and consent of all partners." Nothing about that leads to arranged marriages and you have provided zero evidence for it. You just made claims. And I perfectly acknowledge some men can use polyamory as an excuse to have sex with lots of women. When did I deny that?

                  Some Christians can use Christianity as an excuse to hate gays and Muslims, so according to your logic, we should all be against Christianity for that. Right?

                  Irony at it's finest. I await your examples of any major Christian denomination supporting polygamy because if that was true, King Henry wouldn't of had to seek a divorce from his wife and could have simply married another women. Likewise, you are aware that polygamy does fall under the polyamourous umbrella, right? Do you ever get tired of opening your pie hole and letting stupidity fall out of it?
                  See above....what Christians do does not reflect what the Bible says. Show me the line in the Bible that says polygamy is wrong. I've defined polyamoury for you above. Tell me what's wrong with it. You've provided zero evidence it leads to arranged marriages of girls to older men - something the Bible is perfectly fine with coincidentally.


                  Sorry non thinker, but my experiences with sexist people tends to be that they could care less about any of that stuff, yet again, you're opening your fat mouth and letting words fall out of it because you don't know what you're talking about. Please non thinker, do atheism and favor and shut your giant pie hole and start thinking. However; I seem to notice a pattern with you, whenever you've been refuted and find yourself over your head and unable to admit defeat, you throw out something sexist and try to deflect from your own objectives failures where you pretend Christians believe something that has long ago been refuted, but you're just too stupid to refute it. Sorry non thinker, but men who don't respect their wives do not take the time to understand their wives and only learn enough about them to manipulate them and not much else. Something your fundy mind can't figure out. Why?
                  Your experiences are anecdotal evidence. Can you logically prove to us that 'having sex with lots of women' necessarily negates the possibility of respecting women, or are you going to admit that you don't know what you're talking about like you did in the slavery debate?

                  Wait, when have I been refuted? List everything I've been refuted on. I never claimed most Christians believe polygamy is OK. I said the Bible says it is ok, and you know that's true. See, the problem is you cannot distinguish making a claim about Christianity, with making a claim about Christians. Christianity says polygamy is ok, it says girls being sent into arranged marriages with older men is ok, that doesn't mean I'm saying Christians think it is ok. Is your retarded excuse for a brain capable of this, or are you going to attack strawmen over and over and over? To quote yourself, "You're just showing you too stupid to understand what people told you."


                  Sorry, non thinker, but I didn't say that at all. You're just showing you too stupid to understand what people told you. See, you're a coward that is too chicken to e mail those people you accuse of lying and instead you prefer to make up claims about them, throw out accusations about them, and don't want to inform them of your accusations you made against them. What I have actually been doing is informing them of your accusations against them since you didn't do the proper thing and e mail your objections to them first and foremost. Of course, getting input from them to make sure that I understand them correctly is a good thing to do too (something you refuse to do yourself), but why bother to understand what your opponents say when making up things about them is easier? You seem to have a real bad habit of making up what you want your opponents to believe and refuting that vs dealing with their actual arguments. Why is that, fundy boy?
                  I'm in no way too coward to email Miller. Please. There is no need for me to email him because it is clear to me he is flat out wrong on the issue of whether or not the Israelites can force others into servitude, you know, what everyone considers slavery. It is clear as day to anyone investigating the issue that he's pulling a common apologetic trick to make it seem as if they didn't. Paul Copan, another lying apologist tried this too. So there is no reason for me to email him. There is for you, since you're on his side. But I have nothing against you emailing him. Go ahead. Has he responded? Will you reprint his email in its entirety when he does? See, I don't need to make stuff up, that's what you do since you have no argument. You just link to an apologetic website and hope it's too much too read such that people won't notice its mistakes. But I read it and refuted those claims on my blog - so I dealt with your actual "argument" -- if you can even call it an argument. And I know several Christians much starter than you who do acknowledge that the Bible does indeed condones actual slavery.
                  Blog: Atheism and the City

                  If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    It's all just wishful thinking on "thinker's" part. He has to get out of his mom's basement and actually talk to a woman first.
                    Except the fact that I moved out at 20 and have no problem talking to women. The question originally is whether there is a genetic component to adultery. That has been answered. The answer is yes. lil ditzy is once again having a debate with an imaginary atheist that she's conjured up in her head.
                    Blog: Atheism and the City

                    If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                      Except the fact that I moved out at 20 and have no problem talking to women. The question originally is whether there is a genetic component to adultery. That has been answered. The answer is yes. lil ditzy is once again having a debate with an imaginary atheist that she's conjured up in her head.
                      That's your story and you're sticking to it!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        It's all just wishful thinking on "thinker's" part. He has to get out of his mom's basement and actually talk to a woman first.
                        True, he seems to have tons and tons of time to post endless rants here, on his blog, and who knows where else.
                        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                          Yes, I'm fully aware someone can have sex with lots of people and not respect any of them. I acknowledged that right up front. So you're wrong there once again. The issue is whether it is possible in principle to have sex with lots of people and respect them. You are implying it isn't, yet have not proved that. And again, one can believe in "respect" as you define it and still think women are subordinate to men and be sexist. As far as polyamoury in order to excuse sleeping with lots of women, polyamoury applies to men and women, gay and straight. It is not exclusively a straight male thing. You seem to assume it does. As far as straight males who are polyamourous, sleeping with more than one woman is the whole point - because may people are not naturally monogamous. As long as it's done with consent of legal age people, there's nothing wrong with it. Nothing about this logically entails having no respect for women. A polyamourous man might or might not involve "respect" for women - depending on how you define respect. But a monogamous man might not have respect for women either. So the Richard Carrier thing is irrelevant.
                          How cute, non thinker keeps making up arguments to refute vs dealing with what his opponents actually said. Time to correct your stupidity:

                          1. Where did I say that it was impossible non thinker? See, you should really try asking your opponents to clarify things for you vs making up things in your head. My actual position is not that it is impossible, but nearly impossible. Something totally different. Figures that you'd muck that up because of your inability to understand what your opponents believe and to make up things you want them to believe in order to refute what you want to believe, while leaving their true arguments untouched.
                          2. I also never said it was impossible for women to be caught up in this polyamourous thing non thinker. Yet again, you make up things in your head to refute and don't bother to understand what your opponents believe. Figures, that a stupid man, like you, would do this. Go ahead, quote me where I said it was purely a man thing because I never said anything of the sort. Did I use male examples? Sure, because men are more likely to try to sleep with lots of women than the reverse, non thinker.
                          3. What does legality have to do with this? I never said anything about legality either because something being a bad idea, immoral, and illegal are different things. What I have actually maintained is that the whole 'polyamourous' thing is not only a very bad idea, but immoral to boot. I have never said or argued it should be illegal or that it is illegal.

                          Yet again, when non thinker's back is against the wall, he just makes up things to debate against while leaving his opponents argument untouched. No wonder you can't refute Glenn Miller's article and keep making up things about it to refute, while leaving 99.9% of his arguments and comments untouched You're simply too dumb to understand it.

                          And where is your data showing "polyamourous marriages" are more often than not "having young women growing up in this sort of thing and being married off to much older men" - which is technically perfectly fine according to the Bible by the way? Show me the data. As far as I know, there is no society that has legal polyamourous marriage. Is your dumb lil ditzy brain confusing polyamoury with polygamy? So I'm not ignoring anything. I'm the only one here having an actual conversation that makes sense. So almost everything you said is incorrect.
                          Poor fundy boy, his fundy mind keeps overloading and keeps having to deal with things his fundy mind can't comprehend. Yet again:

                          1. 'More often than not' does not mean all the time, non thinker. Yet again, you make up things to refute because you're too dumb to refute what your opponents believe. Are you denying that the whole 'polyamourous' thing has a dark side too that includes stuff like that? You really need to get yourself a grasp on this whole 'non literal language' thing that you clearly keep failing to grasp.
                          2.You claim the Bible supports this, but where does it actually said that it is a okay to get married to multiple women, non thinker? Because the examples we find in the Bible seem to point out that it is a pretty bad idea. It is cited as being one of the things that causes both David and Solomon to slip up (just to name two examples). Can you actually name a single time that polygamy is mentioned, in the Biblical record, that shows it's a great idea that is given full support because it doesn't do anything of the sort. You are aware there's a difference between recording what has happened and condoning what has happened, right?
                          3. Who said any of this has to do with logic? We are dealing with relationships here and relationships are not always logical. I have given the data and you've ignored it or made excuses for why you don't like what it says. It's quite simple, for those of us who really are in a good marriage and who understand what it is like. See, building a bound between each other is something that doesn't come overnight and can take years and years to develop and it continues to grow. When you begin to divide up your attention between multiple partners, you find it harder and harder to build that sort of bond as your attentions become more and more divided. Details may get mixed up, favoritism becomes an issue, jealousy works it's way into the picture, and all sorts of emotional issues begin to come up that wouldn't come up if you just stuck to one other person and only one other person. Are you denying that these are not serious issues because I know they are.

                          So, yet again, non thinker makes up things to debate and leaves his opponents true arguments untouched. No wonder you accuse others of debating 'atheist in their head' because you frequently debate Christians you made up, in your head. Projecting your flaws upon others, yet again?

                          No, sorry. The burden is on you since you are the one making the claim that 'having sex with lots of women' logically negates 'respect' for women. Again we are debating totally different things here, just like you ignorantly did with our slavery debate, which you in no way showed the bible doesn't condone.
                          Poor fundy boy, still making up arguments to refute while leaving his opponents views untouched. Sorry, non thinker, but relationships are emotional and I have already given valid reasons that you seem intent on ignore. While it's cute to watch you project your flaws upon me because I never said anything about logic. You did and you continue to shoehorn in what you wanted me to say vs what I said because you're the one making up things to debate because you're a stupid fundy atheist that is way over his head, but unable to admit defeat.

                          Then why not just say polygamy is wrong? Just because there are some examples of polygamous relationships in the Bible going sour, that is not showing the Bible says it is wrong. As for King Henry, nothing about polygamy says you cannot get a divorce. So that makes no sense. And also, what Christians do does not reflect what the Bible says. I am well aware the majority of Christians throughout history have been against polygamy. But Christianity doesn't forbid it.
                          Poor fundy boy, so over his head, but so incapable of admitting to defeat because he's a stupid fundy that refuses to admit he's wrong. Go ahead, non thinker, give an example of a polygamous relationship, in the Bible, that doesn't have serious issues and go ahead and show a single biblical passage that says it's a okay to take part in these relationships. Bet you can't find it. Next, yeah King Henry's desire to seek a divorce does indeed refute your nonsense because if he was able to take multiple wives, why doesn't he just find a new wife and keep the old one that he already had and have two? It's pretty obvious, to anybody, but a stupid fundy like you. Christian Europe didn't approve of a man having more than one wife. While we sure do know that the Kings and Queens of the era sure had no problems with having affairs with people they were not married to, they only kept one wife/husband and no more than one at a time. By and far, the examples we find among Christian Europe seems to point out that you're wrong. If this is incorrect, go ahead and give some examples to prove that the major Christian denominations have approved or currently do approve of polygamy because the laws of Christian Europe (in fact, most of those laws still exist today) were very specific that you could only be married to one man/women at a time. Of course, we both know you will not produce such examples because such examples do not exist and was something you blurted out, before you put any thought into it. I already know you will not admit you were wrong here and will likely either dig in, call me a bunch of names to run from yet another one of your failures, ignore the issue, or a little of all of them, but admitting you were wrong? That is beyond your capacity. Now, I await your examples to prove you were right.

                          And again, you seem to be confusing polyamoury with polygamy. Polyamoury is "the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships where individuals may have more than one partner, with the knowledge and consent of all partners." Nothing about that leads to arranged marriages and you have provided zero evidence for it. You just made claims. And I perfectly acknowledge some men can use polyamory as an excuse to have sex with lots of women. When did I deny that?
                          Sorry non thinker, but polygamy does fall under the polyamourous umbrella and all the wonderful things that has come with it. That is what I have discovered, just by searching for the term 'polyamourous' and reading the results. The Wiki article here says that. Keep digging and remember, never admit you're wrong about anything. No matter what!

                          Some Christians can use Christianity as an excuse to hate gays and Muslims, so according to your logic, we should all be against Christianity for that. Right?
                          Yep, dig in instead of admitting that you were wrong again. No wonder you don't think that I have proved you wrong because you simply ignore all of your mistakes and errors and make it all go away. Sorry, but yeah, the whole polyamory thing does indeed include polygamy and this includes all the messed up stuff that comes with it. Can't you just admit already that you were wrong instead of digging in?

                          See above....what Christians do does not reflect what the Bible says. Show me the line in the Bible that says polygamy is wrong. I've defined polyamoury for you above. Tell me what's wrong with it. You've provided zero evidence it leads to arranged marriages of girls to older men - something the Bible is perfectly fine with coincidentally.
                          Funny, I would have thought all the examples of how polygamy lead to the fall of the people involved in it and continued to lead to problems would indicate that it is a bad idea (besides, several Bible passages kind of refer to the whole two becoming one flesh thing and not 3,4,5, etc). Likewise, no you haven't because what I have found indicates that polygamy is indeed part of the umbrella and all the wonderful stuff that comes with it comes along for the ride. I know you want to deny that simple reality because it refutes you and refutes you badly, but yeah, polyamoury includes that too. Rather you want to admit it or not.

                          Your experiences are anecdotal evidence. Can you logically prove to us that 'having sex with lots of women' necessarily negates the possibility of respecting women, or are you going to admit that you don't know what you're talking about like you did in the slavery debate?
                          And yours are too, but it's funny how others have to meet burdens that you yourself do not need to meet. Funny how that works how you can keep sitting on your judgment seat and keep casting down divine judgments and don't have to meet any of the burdens you demand others have to? Sorry, non thinker, but just like your incompetence in the slave debate, makes you see things that were really not there and keep debating against positions I never held to, you make the same mistakes here. I already made my burdens, go ahead and refute them or you can just keep sitting there and pretending that your views are default and others have to meet burdens that you don't have to. Your choice.

                          Wait, when have I been refuted? List everything I've been refuted on. I never claimed most Christians believe polygamy is OK. I said the Bible says it is ok, and you know that's true. See, the problem is you cannot distinguish making a claim about Christianity, with making a claim about Christians. Christianity says polygamy is ok, it says girls being sent into arranged marriages with older men is ok, that doesn't mean I'm saying Christians think it is ok. Is your retarded excuse for a brain capable of this, or are you going to attack strawmen over and over and over? To quote yourself, "You're just showing you too stupid to understand what people told you."
                          No it doesn't non thinker and I challenge you to show a single verse that it says that it's a okay because every example we have, says it's a very bad idea. While it's cute to watch you scream, "WAAAAA!!! CHRISTIANITY SAYS IT'S OK!" no it doesn't you stupid fundy atheist. Go ahead, give just a single verse, in the entire Bible, that says that polygamy is acceptable and perfectly good for a Christian to take part in. Likewise, go ahead and show a single major denomination that says it's a okay to take part in too. Sorry, non thinker, you're just projecting your flaws upon others and making up things you want to hear because you're a stupid fundy. Support your arguments with facts or are those fact things only things I need to present and all you need to preset is your lies, assertions, and rants in place of facts? Oh, I forgot, evidence is only something Christians need to present, non thinker is above the rules and standards he expects others to follow. I await a single piece of evidence for your assertions.

                          I'm in no way too coward to email Miller. Please. There is no need for me to email him because it is clear to me he is flat out wrong on the issue of whether or not the Israelites can force others into servitude, you know, what everyone considers slavery. It is clear as day to anyone investigating the issue that he's pulling a common apologetic trick to make it seem as if they didn't. Paul Copan, another lying apologist tried this too. So there is no reason for me to email him. There is for you, since you're on his side. But I have nothing against you emailing him. Go ahead. Has he responded? Will you reprint his email in its entirety when he does? See, I don't need to make stuff up, that's what you do since you have no argument. You just link to an apologetic website and hope it's too much too read such that people won't notice its mistakes. But I read it and refuted those claims on my blog - so I dealt with your actual "argument" -- if you can even call it an argument. And I know several Christians much starter than you who do acknowledge that the Bible does indeed condones actual slavery.
                          AKA you're a coward that is too cowardly to inform others of your objections because you don't want to be challenged, you just want to be the challenger. Yep, typical fundy atheist, all talk, no walk. Sorry fundy boy, but I have already received a response from one person and I haven't e mailed Glenn Miller yet, but will do so sooner or later and nope, I will not copy those e mails or PM's because it's none of your business. Why do you keep refusing to seek clarity and understanding and instead trying to combat your opponents vs trying to understand them? I bet I know why because your goal isn't to understand them or understand Christianity, it is to attack Christians and who cares if your arguments are not representative of your opponents arguments and beliefs? You have an agenda to press and screw it. Have you e mailed or challenged any of those Christians you mention on your blog or do you prefer to hang out on your fundy blog and not be challenged, in any way?
                          Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 08-31-2016, 05:50 PM.
                          "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                          GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                            How cute, non thinker keeps making up arguments to refute vs dealing with what his opponents actually said. Time to correct your stupidity:

                            1. Where did I say that it was impossible non thinker? See, you should really try asking your opponents to clarify things for you vs making up things in your head. My actual position is not that it is impossible, but nearly impossible. Something totally different. Figures that you'd muck that up because of your inability to understand what your opponents believe and to make up things you want them to believe in order to refute what you want to believe, while leaving their true arguments untouched.
                            2. I also never said it was impossible for women to be caught up in this polyamourous thing non thinker. Yet again, you make up things in your head to refute and don't bother to understand what your opponents believe. Figures, that a stupid man, like you, would do this. Go ahead, quote me where I said it was purely a man thing because I never said anything of the sort. Did I use male examples? Sure, because men are more likely to try to sleep with lots of women than the reverse, non thinker.
                            3. What does legality have to do with this? I never said anything about legality either because something being a bad idea, immoral, and illegal are different things. What I have actually maintained is that the whole 'polyamourous' thing is not only a very bad idea, but immoral to boot. I have never said or argued it should be illegal or that it is illegal.

                            Yet again, when non thinker's back is against the wall, he just makes up things to debate against while leaving his opponents argument untouched. No wonder you can't refute Glenn Miller's article and keep making up things about it to refute, while leaving 99.9% of his arguments and comments untouched You're simply too dumb to understand it.
                            1. You implied it. All you had to do was say what you did now a few days ago and that would have clarified everything. Instead I had to ask you over and over.
                            2. I know you never said that those words, but all your focus is on men, as if polyamoury is a male thing. I've attacked all your main points head on, so don't pretend that I just attack strawmen.
                            3. You mentioned arranged marriages, implying polyamoury encourages arranged marriages of girls to older men. I asked you to provide evidence for that. The legality I mentioned is simply to show you that under polyamoury philosophy you'd always have consenting people of legal age - hence arranged marriages of underage girls to men are not permitted.

                            And I noticed you barely touched my points. You must be dreaming if you think I left your arguments untouched. I addressed every relevant point. Disagree? List the argument you claim I didn't respond to.

                            Poor fundy boy, his fundy mind keeps overloading and keeps having to deal with things his fundy mind can't comprehend. Yet again:


                            1. 'More often than not' does not mean all the time, non thinker. Yet again, you make up things to refute because you're too dumb to refute what your opponents believe. Are you denying that the whole 'polyamourous' thing has a dark side too that includes stuff like that? You really need to get yourself a grasp on this whole 'non literal language' thing that you clearly keep failing to grasp.
                            2.You claim the Bible supports this, but where does it actually said that it is a okay to get married to multiple women, non thinker? Because the examples we find in the Bible seem to point out that it is a pretty bad idea. It is cited as being one of the things that causes both David and Solomon to slip up (just to name two examples). Can you actually name a single time that polygamy is mentioned, in the Biblical record, that shows it's a great idea that is given full support because it doesn't do anything of the sort. You are aware there's a difference between recording what has happened and condoning what has happened, right?
                            3. Who said any of this has to do with logic? We are dealing with relationships here and relationships are not always logical. I have given the data and you've ignored it or made excuses for why you don't like what it says. It's quite simple, for those of us who really are in a good marriage and who understand what it is like. See, building a bound between each other is something that doesn't come overnight and can take years and years to develop and it continues to grow. When you begin to divide up your attention between multiple partners, you find it harder and harder to build that sort of bond as your attentions become more and more divided. Details may get mixed up, favoritism becomes an issue, jealousy works it's way into the picture, and all sorts of emotional issues begin to come up that wouldn't come up if you just stuck to one other person and only one other person. Are you denying that these are not serious issues because I know they are.

                            So, yet again, non thinker makes up things to debate and leaves his opponents true arguments untouched. No wonder you accuse others of debating 'atheist in their head' because you frequently debate Christians you made up, in your head. Projecting your flaws upon others, yet again?
                            1. I never say it was and I'm perfectly aware that you didn't mean always. Nothing in my response indicates that. But you didn't even provide any evidence at all for your claim that it is more often than not. Where is the evidence backing that up? (crickets)
                            2. Yes I'm aware of that, and I'm aware there isn't a single line in the Bible saying god disapproves of polygamy. The argument against polygamy from the Bible is very weak. I'm merely saying it is technically allowed under the Bible.
                            3. You have given no data whatsoever. Where is your data polyamoury "more often than not" leads to arranged marriages of underage girls to older men, or arranged marriages at all? If this is your reason against it, you better have data backing that up. You'd given none. As far as the not respecting women part, I already agreed that men could use polyamoury to just have sex with women. But some people use it to have loving, consenting relationships with multiple people. And my view is that whatever consenting adults do in their personal lives with one another is their business.


                            Poor lil fundy Christian, is your brain capable of actually backing up your views with evidence?

                            Poor fundy boy, still making up arguments to refute while leaving his opponents views untouched. Sorry, non thinker, but relationships are emotional and I have already given valid reasons that you seem intent on ignore. While it's cute to watch you project your flaws upon me because I never said anything about logic. You did and you continue to shoehorn in what you wanted me to say vs what I said because you're the one making up things to debate because you're a stupid fundy atheist that is way over his head, but unable to admit defeat.
                            No one has denied relationships are emotional, but not all of them have to be. Tell me exactly what you've mentioned that you claim I've ignored. List them one by one and I will tell you if I addressed them. If not, I will address them directly. The logic becomes important when you claim or imply that X is incompatible with Y. If you meant to say X is usually incompatible with Y, then use the term 'usually' - otherwise you seem to make a logical claim that X is necesarily incompatible with Y.


                            And I am clearly not way over my head. I've refuted your puny evidence to claim slavery isn't condoned in the Bible, and you basically admitted you weren't sure your evidence made your case. It's a good thing I had to force you to do that. I better not see you using that same link again to claim slavery isn't condoned in the Bible or I will immediately call out your dishonesty.


                            Poor fundy boy, so over his head, but so incapable of admitting to defeat because he's a stupid fundy that refuses to admit he's wrong. Go ahead, non thinker, give an example of a polygamous relationship, in the Bible, that doesn't have serious issues and go ahead and show a single biblical passage that says it's a okay to take part in these relationships. Bet you can't find it. Next, yeah King Henry's desire to seek a divorce does indeed refute your nonsense because if he was able to take multiple wives, why doesn't he just find a new wife and keep the old one that he already had and have two? It's pretty obvious, to anybody, but a stupid fundy like you. Christian Europe didn't approve of a man having more than one wife. While we sure do know that the Kings and Queens of the era sure had no problems with having affairs with people they were not married to, they only kept one wife/husband and no more than one at a time. By and far, the examples we find among Christian Europe seems to point out that you're wrong. If this is incorrect, go ahead and give some examples to prove that the major Christian denominations have approved or currently do approve of polygamy because the laws of Christian Europe (in fact, most of those laws still exist today) were very specific that you could only be married to one man/women at a time. Of course, we both know you will not produce such examples because such examples do not exist and was something you blurted out, before you put any thought into it. I already know you will not admit you were wrong here and will likely either dig in, call me a bunch of names to run from yet another one of your failures, ignore the issue, or a little of all of them, but admitting you were wrong? That is beyond your capacity. Now, I await your examples to prove you were right.
                            Having a polygamous marriage go sour is not the same as saying polygamy is disallowed. Monogamous marriages can go sour, is that an argument against monogamy? Try using logic. As far as King Henry, the answer is simple, he doesn't like his wife. Why would I keep a wife I don't like even if I am allowed to have multiple wives. Hey, I can have more than one phone, but I throw the one I don't like out. You are so utterly incapable of being logical it is not even funny.


                            Sorry non thinker, but polygamy does fall under the polyamourous umbrella and all the wonderful things that has come with it. That is what I have discovered, just by searching for the term 'polyamourous' and reading the results. The Wiki article here says that. Keep digging and remember, never admit you're wrong about anything. No matter what!
                            They are not the same thing. Polyamoury is a specific philosophy that does not allow arranged marriages of girls to men - and you have shown precisely zero evidence it does.


                            Yep, dig in instead of admitting that you were wrong again. No wonder you don't think that I have proved you wrong because you simply ignore all of your mistakes and errors and make it all go away. Sorry, but yeah, the whole polyamory thing does indeed include polygamy and this includes all the messed up stuff that comes with it. Can't you just admit already that you were wrong instead of digging in?
                            Show me some actual evidence I am wrong. You have provided absolutely nothing to show your point that polyamoury allows for or encourages child marriage. Nothing! When will you start being honest and stop being a liar for Jesus?


                            Funny, I would have thought all the examples of how polygamy lead to the fall of the people involved in it and continued to lead to problems would indicate that it is a bad idea (besides, several Bible passages kind of refer to the whole two becoming one flesh thing and not 3,4,5, etc). Likewise, no you haven't because what I have found indicates that polygamy is indeed part of the umbrella and all the wonderful stuff that comes with it comes along for the ride. I know you want to deny that simple reality because it refutes you and refutes you badly, but yeah, polyamoury includes that too. Rather you want to admit it or not.
                            And yet you can't point to a single line that says polygamy is wrong. Meanwhile you can point to a dozen of lines on mixing fabrics, what to do with animals, and women on their period. When the two become one flesh is just referring to your first spouse. IT says nothing about not being able to have another. This is why the Bible is incompetent. On serious matters it is ambiguous. A single verse saying polygamy is wrong would clear this up. Secondly, you have shown precisely zero evidence that polyamoury leads to the negative things polygamy does, and you've mentioned nothing on what polygamy does.

                            And yours are too, but it's funny how others have to meet burdens that you yourself do not need to meet. Funny how that works how you can keep sitting on your judgment seat and keep casting down divine judgments and don't have to meet any of the burdens you demand others have to? Sorry, non thinker, but just like your incompetence in the slave debate, makes you see things that were really not there and keep debating against positions I never held to, you make the same mistakes here. I already made my burdens, go ahead and refute them or you can just keep sitting there and pretending that your views are default and others have to meet burdens that you don't have to. Your choice.
                            What burdens do I not meet on what claims, lil ditzy? Incompetence in the slave debate? Oh you're too funny. You mean the one where you admitted your evidence didn't actually work to again my argument? Oh that one. Funny how you remember things differently when you lose a debate. You are the queen of arguing against things your opponent isn't. You do this all the time. You have provided zero evidence polyamoury leads to child marriages or even arranged marriages. ZERO. So provide evidence first and I will refute it.

                            No it doesn't non thinker and I challenge you to show a single verse that it says that it's a okay because every example we have, says it's a very bad idea. While it's cute to watch you scream, "WAAAAA!!! CHRISTIANITY SAYS IT'S OK!" no it doesn't you stupid fundy atheist. Go ahead, give just a single verse, in the entire Bible, that says that polygamy is acceptable and perfectly good for a Christian to take part in. Likewise, go ahead and show a single major denomination that says it's a okay to take part in too. Sorry, non thinker, you're just projecting your flaws upon others and making up things you want to hear because you're a stupid fundy. Support your arguments with facts or are those fact things only things I need to present and all you need to preset is your lies, assertions, and rants in place of facts? Oh, I forgot, evidence is only something Christians need to present, non thinker is above the rules and standards he expects others to follow. I await a single piece of evidence for your assertions.
                            It absolutely says it is ok. God had a million opportunities to say it was not ok. He never does - you stupid fundy Christian pretending to be intelligent. You're not fooling anyone. I never said a single denomination says it's ok. Did you not read what I just wrote or are you going to strawman me again? I just wrote that your problem is that "you cannot distinguish making a claim about Christianity, with making a claim about Christians. Christianity says polygamy is ok, it says girls being sent into arranged marriages with older men is ok, that doesn't mean I'm saying Christians think it is ok. Is your retarded excuse for a brain capable of this, or are you going to attack strawmen over and over and over? To quote yourself, "You're just showing you too stupid to understand what people told you."


                            AKA you're a coward that is too cowardly to inform others of your objections because you don't want to be challenged, you just want to be the challenger. Yep, typical fundy atheist, all talk, no walk. Sorry fundy boy, but I have already received a response from one person and I haven't e mailed Glenn Miller yet, but will do so sooner or later and nope, I will not copy those e mails or PM's because it's none of your business. Why do you keep refusing to seek clarity and understanding and instead trying to combat your opponents vs trying to understand them? I bet I know why because your goal isn't to understand them or understand Christianity, it is to attack Christians and who cares if your arguments are not representative of your opponents arguments and beliefs? You have an agenda to press and screw it. Have you e mailed or challenged any of those Christians you mention on your blog or do you prefer to hang out on your fundy blog and not be challenged, in any way?

                            Now you're really just getting pathetic. Is this what you have to tell yourself in order to convince yourself you're right? Specifically name what I'm too cowardly to inform others about. I mentioned my objections not only on my blog but to everyone on this site. That kinda disproves the cowardly claim. Oh, so now we find that you haven't even emailed Miller yet. Figures. I have no problem with asking him myself. Maybe I will. If you will not copy those messages it probably is because they show you were wrong. I care about truth and I have evidence to back it up. You care about name calling. Go to the kids table. I also care about being challenged. That's why I allow anyone to comment on my blog to challenge my views and I spend my time on sites where almost everyone disagrees with me. So your pathetic excuse for a claim that I don't like being challenged is empirically refuted by the fact that I'm even on this site, and that I pour all my views out on the internet openly and publicly for anyone to challenge. This is your stupid excuse for a brain at it again. Pathetic.
                            Blog: Atheism and the City

                            If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                              1. You implied it. All you had to do was say what you did now a few days ago and that would have clarified everything. Instead I had to ask you over and over.
                              My dear sweet non thinker, I 'implied' nothing of the sort The problem is your hatred of Christians/Christianity controls you and you saw 'Christian' on my profile and automatically decided to foam at the mouth and rant before you decided to ask about the details. Why would I give you any sort of details or attempt to have any sort of decent conversation with you, when you treat every Christian you run across like trash? You deserve this attitude and earn everything you get thrown at you, than some. Sorry that the egg is still all over your face and you have to blame others for your own failures to think, but what should I expect from a massive idiot, like you?

                              2. I know you never said that those words, but all your focus is on men, as if polyamoury is a male thing. I've attacked all your main points head on, so don't pretend that I just attack strawmen.
                              Poor moron, so frustrated about his failures that he needs to just start making up things about his opponents in order to refute. If this is wrong, quote me my precise words where I specifically said that ONLY men could sleep with lots of the opposite sex and it was impossible for women to do the same.

                              3. You mentioned arranged marriages, implying polyamoury encourages arranged marriages of girls to older men. I asked you to provide evidence for that. The legality I mentioned is simply to show you that under polyamoury philosophy you'd always have consenting people of legal age - hence arranged marriages of underage girls to men are not permitted.
                              You haven't heard of the series 'Escaping Polygamy' and all the articles and stuff that it was recorded? It appears you've never heard of the Kingston Clan and 'the order' and all the horrible things they practice and preach. Go look them up really fast and see what others have to say about them. They are some pretty messed up people that do some pretty messed up things to lots of people. Like it or not, your precious polyamoury is indeed and extension of these sort of practices. It's so cute to watch you deny reality and try to escape the truth that polygamy does indeed fall under your precious polyamoury umbrella. Poor fundy boy, so frustrated, but unable to admit that a dark side exist to the stuff he's trying to defend.

                              And I noticed you barely touched my points. You must be dreaming if you think I left your arguments untouched. I addressed every relevant point. Disagree? List the argument you claim I didn't respond to.
                              Poor fundy boy, your delusions have been addressed quite well. The problem is that you're a delusional fundy boy that is way over his tiny little head, but too stupid to understand when he's been beat. So sad to watch what rabid hatred for a belief system does to a person as it makes them ignore things their puny minds are not capable of understanding.



                              1. I never say it was and I'm perfectly aware that you didn't mean always. Nothing in my response indicates that. But you didn't even provide any evidence at all for your claim that it is more often than not. Where is the evidence backing that up? (crickets)
                              Your ignorance is so entertaining, but it goes to show how over your head your are and how you should stop talking and showing you're a sheep. Do you deny that these actions happen? Yes or no? I want your denial on record so I can nail you to wall. Unlike you, fundy boy, I'm not stupid enough to 100% say something never happens because I know when dealing with humans, you can't say with 100% absolute certainty that something didn't happen because you'll end up with egg all over your face. Unlike you, non thinker, I don't deny that some actions can and do happen. Why do you live in denial that there's young women married off as children, to much older men, in the US today? We know it happens because we have people coming forward and saying it happens who lived in these situations. Still don't believe me? Here's an article on the dead father and some of the stuff he was doing:

                              "Kingston also taught child marriage to girls just attaining puberty. Kingston and other members of the Kingston clan, having a "Pure Bloodline", had an advantage over almost any outsider in convincing teenage women, sometimes as young as fourteen, to join their bloodline as part of the polygamous family."
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ortell_Kingston

                              That's just some of the material out there on this group. I hope you enjoy eating your crow because I'm going to enjoy watching you eat crow as you fall right into my traps and do just what I expect a non thinking moron, such as yourself, to do. See, I'm smart enough to know that humans can be pretty messed up and do some pretty messed up things to each other. This information took me 3 minutes to find. Oops, you just keep showing why you should stop talking.

                              2. Yes I'm aware of that, and I'm aware there isn't a single line in the Bible saying god disapproves of polygamy. The argument against polygamy from the Bible is very weak. I'm merely saying it is technically allowed under the Bible.
                              Funny how me 'implying' things is enough for you to accuse me of things that you think I believe, but the Bible continues to show and implies that polygamy is a very bad idea as everybody caught up in it, seems to have serious issues with it. It's so amusing to watch you speaking out of two sides of your mouth, depending upon what argument you want to support next. So what is it, non thinker? Is implying things enough or not? Poor fundy boy, letting his hatred control him instead of thinking before he opens his fat mouth and lets stupidity pour forth.

                              3. You have given no data whatsoever. Where is your data polyamoury "more often than not" leads to arranged marriages of underage girls to older men, or arranged marriages at all? If this is your reason against it, you better have data backing that up. You'd given none. As far as the not respecting women part, I already agreed that men could use polyamoury to just have sex with women. But some people use it to have loving, consenting relationships with multiple people. And my view is that whatever consenting adults do in their personal lives with one another is their business.
                              I already gave it above because I figured you were stupid enough to deny things, but go ahead non thinker. Show me my precise words where I specifically said where it was ALWAYS impossible for men to have sex with lots of women and respect them? What I have actually implied is that it's nearly impossible and so improbable, that it's unlikely to happen since the examples I keep finding of men who want to sleep with lots of women, do not have respect for women (and since you're black/white fundy, yeah the same goes for women who sleep with lots of men too). Poor fundy boy, so frustrated, but unable to admit defeat.

                              Poor lil fundy Christian, is your brain capable of actually backing up your views with evidence?
                              Already did so, fundy boy. I've known about this group for sometime. Unlike you, I try to inform myself on things going on vs ranting about a belief system I don't even believe is true all day.

                              No one has denied relationships are emotional, but not all of them have to be. Tell me exactly what you've mentioned that you claim I've ignored. List them one by one and I will tell you if I addressed them. If not, I will address them directly. The logic becomes important when you claim or imply that X is incompatible with Y. If you meant to say X is usually incompatible with Y, then use the term 'usually' - otherwise you seem to make a logical claim that X is necesarily incompatible with Y.
                              You keep wanting logical argument for something that is based in emotion. What's the problem, non thinker, have you never had that kind of relationship and you don't actually know what it is like? I feel very sorry for you that you haven't formed a deep connection with a lady because I'm sure that CP and his wife and Ralph and his wife understand what I'm talking about. I know my husband and I do.

                              And I am clearly not way over my head. I've refuted your puny evidence to claim slavery isn't condoned in the Bible, and you basically admitted you weren't sure your evidence made your case. It's a good thing I had to force you to do that. I better not see you using that same link again to claim slavery isn't condoned in the Bible or I will immediately call out your dishonesty.
                              No you haven't, but I suppose when you need something to defend your strawman and rewriting history with, go with it. It's so adorable to watch you repeat your same refuted garbage and think your onto something.

                              Having a polygamous marriage go sour is not the same as saying polygamy is disallowed. Monogamous marriages can go sour, is that an argument against monogamy? Try using logic. As far as King Henry, the answer is simple, he doesn't like his wife. Why would I keep a wife I don't like even if I am allowed to have multiple wives. Hey, I can have more than one phone, but I throw the one I don't like out. You are so utterly incapable of being logical it is not even funny.
                              Go ahead, non thinker, give us a single example, from Christian Europe, where Christians or Christianity was totally cool with having multiple wives. Of course, you can't name an example and every example we have continues to show that the Christian world has been against polygamy and didn't allow even the rulers to keep multiple wives. Are you even aware of the story of King Henry, fundy boy? He had no problems with having affairs with lots of women, but only had one wife at a time. Why did he only have one wife at a time, if it was totally no big deal? Keep digging fundy boy and remember, never admit you're wrong about anything. No matter what! He didn't just didn't have one wife, dear fundy boy, King Henry VIII had 6 marriages, for various reasons. Yet, he was only married to one at a time and never two. Likewise, you should read about the presidential run of 1828. Let me help you out here:

                              "When Andrew Jackson migrated to Nashville, Tennessee in 1788, he boarded with Rachel Stockley Donelson, the mother of Rachel Donelson Robards. Shortly after, they married in Natchez, Mississippi, believing that her husband had obtained a divorce.[1][2] As the divorce had never been completed, their marriage was technically bigamous and therefore invalid.[2] Historians found that a friend of Lewis Robards had planted a fake article in his own newspaper, saying that the couple's divorce had been finalized.[citation needed] The Jacksons later found out about Robards' action in planting the article, and that he had never completed the divorce. Later, Rachel ensured that the divorce was completed.[citation needed] Jackson and she remarried in 1794. During the presidential election campaign of 1828, supporters of John Quincy Adams, Jackson's opponent, accused his wife of being a bigamist, among other things. Despite the accusations, he won by a comparative landslide; he was a popular military hero after his victory in the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812."
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Jackson

                              If it was totally no big deal, why care so much? Oops, the evidence keeps mounting against you, non thinker. Christians did not approve of having multiple spouses and if you have any examples of where any major denomination doesn't, go ahead and post them. History seems to show that by and far, Christians nor Christianity has not nor ever approved of this practice, in any way and you're just spouting out stupidity because you're not capable of admitting you're wrong about anything. Keep digging...

                              They are not the same thing. Polyamoury is a specific philosophy that does not allow arranged marriages of girls to men - and you have shown precisely zero evidence it does.
                              Sorry non thinker, but Polyamoury isn't a specific philosophy and I have demonstrated that it isn't seen that way at all. You just go into denial mode because you're not capable of admitting to being wrong about anything, to a Christian.

                              Show me some actual evidence I am wrong. You have provided absolutely nothing to show your point that polyamoury allows for or encourages child marriage. Nothing! When will you start being honest and stop being a liar for Jesus?
                              Yeah I have shown that polyamoury is a general philosophy that is just about having sex with multiple people, which does indeed include polygamy, which includes those practices of marrying off young girls. Why are you so incapable of admitting to this simple point? Would your entire belief system come crashing down if you had to admit to a single mistake, that a Christian caught you in? Yep, your rabid hatred is in control of you yet again. Of course, it's funny how I need to present all this evidence and all you need to do is make bald assertions while you sit upon your judgment seat and cast down divine judgments. So adorable to watch how over your head your are, but how incapable of admitting to defeat you truly are.

                              And yet you can't point to a single line that says polygamy is wrong. Meanwhile you can point to a dozen of lines on mixing fabrics, what to do with animals, and women on their period. When the two become one flesh is just referring to your first spouse. IT says nothing about not being able to have another. This is why the Bible is incompetent. On serious matters it is ambiguous. A single verse saying polygamy is wrong would clear this up. Secondly, you have shown precisely zero evidence that polyamoury leads to the negative things polygamy does, and you've mentioned nothing on what polygamy does.
                              Again, funny how me 'implying' things is enough for you to accuse me of supporting something you want me to support, but when it is implied that the Bible keeps saying how bad of an idea polygamy is, you than try to say that the Bible must specifically condemn something, for it to actually condemn something. Can you please make up your mind about if implying things is enough or not? Second, you've showing precisely zero evidence to support your conclusions yourself, but of course, all your opponents are the ones that have to meet burdens that you yourself do not need to meet. Poor fundy boy, crying that others need to do things that he himself is too cowardly to do. The evidence is pretty strong to support the idea that your precious polyamoury is a very bad idea and the fact you keep saying it isn't, sees to indicate how little experience you have in romantic relationships. Hummm... I wonder if Sparko is right about you living in your mother's basement and pondering on things you have little to no experience in.

                              What burdens do I not meet on what claims, lil ditzy? Incompetence in the slave debate? Oh you're too funny. You mean the one where you admitted your evidence didn't actually work to again my argument? Oh that one. Funny how you remember things differently when you lose a debate. You are the queen of arguing against things your opponent isn't. You do this all the time. You have provided zero evidence polyamoury leads to child marriages or even arranged marriages. ZERO. So provide evidence first and I will refute it.


                              So amusing to watch how others have to support things while you sit on your judgment seat and cast down divine judgments. Sorry, non thinker, but I said nothing of the sort and challenge you to quote me where I said that. What I have actually said is that polyamoury is a general philosophy that includes polygamy, which includes child marriages. Do you ever get tired of making up things about your opponents to refute, to make it easier to refute?

                              ....blah blah blah...
                              Sorry, tired of listening to your obsessive ranting and raving.
                              "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                              GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 09:58 AM
                              3 responses
                              11 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                              Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                              16 responses
                              194 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post One Bad Pig  
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              53 responses
                              419 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              25 responses
                              114 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              33 responses
                              198 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Roy
                              by Roy
                               
                              Working...
                              X