Topic: Repent thy atheist ways.
Anonymous A started this discussion 13 years ago #30,240
Or be smitten by God's wrath!
Syntax joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 20 minutes later[^] [v] #436,358
Which Gods?
Phoebus Apollo Apollo God of the Sun, poetry, music and oracles
Dionysus Bacchus God of Wine
Demeter Ceres Goddess of Agriculture
Eros Cupid God of Love
Artemis Diana Goddess of Hunting
Maia Fauna Goddess of Animals
Chloris Flora Goddess of Flowers and Spring
Tyche Fortuna Goddess of Fortune
No Greek Equivalent Janus God of Doors and beginnings and endings
Hera Juno Goddess of Marriage
Zeus Jupiter aka Jove The King of the Gods and the God of the sky
Ares Mars God of War
Hermes Mercury Messenger of the Gods and Finance
Pallas Athena Minerva Goddess of Wisdom
Poseidon Neptune God of the Sea
Hades Pluto God of the Underworld and Death
Kronos Saturn God of Time, Harvest and Agriculture
Aphrodite Venus Goddess of Love and Beauty
Hestia Vesta Goddess of the Hearth, the Home and the Roman state
Hephaestus Vulcan God of Fire, the Forge and Blacksmiths
Phoebus Apollo Apollo God of the Sun, poetry, music and oracles
Dionysus Bacchus God of Wine
Demeter Ceres Goddess of Agriculture
Eros Cupid God of Love
Artemis Diana Goddess of Hunting
Maia Fauna Goddess of Animals
Chloris Flora Goddess of Flowers and Spring
Tyche Fortuna Goddess of Fortune
No Greek Equivalent Janus God of Doors and beginnings and endings
Hera Juno Goddess of Marriage
Zeus Jupiter aka Jove The King of the Gods and the God of the sky
Ares Mars God of War
Hermes Mercury Messenger of the Gods and Finance
Pallas Athena Minerva Goddess of Wisdom
Poseidon Neptune God of the Sea
Hades Pluto God of the Underworld and Death
Kronos Saturn God of Time, Harvest and Agriculture
Aphrodite Venus Goddess of Love and Beauty
Hestia Vesta Goddess of the Hearth, the Home and the Roman state
Hephaestus Vulcan God of Fire, the Forge and Blacksmiths
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 47 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #436,364
squeegee joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 40 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #436,369
Don't forget buddah and allah and ganesh and zorostar. Also don't forget brigham young, david koresh and Lord Xenu.
Let's see... oh yeah, the Falun Gong's god, and... there's bound to be other modern gods, which am I forgetting?
Let's see... oh yeah, the Falun Gong's god, and... there's bound to be other modern gods, which am I forgetting?
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 32 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,374
You know what i always find weird about the atheist ways? The whole religion is bad because of terrorism thing.I mean thing about it you are some typical Muslim in the middle east just hanging out and then some other Muslim with different interpretations of Islam, kills your family and says this is what happens if you practice your religion! meanwhile the atheists on the internet are saying the exact same thing except maybe a little more this is what happens when anyone practice religion so lets slay religion away from this world!
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,405
Well I do venerate Big E. Does that count?
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 32 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,428
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,498
@436,364 (C)
> The Judo-Christian God.
He was listing Greco-Roman gods. You mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caelus#As_the_Jewish_god
> The Judo-Christian God.
He was listing Greco-Roman gods. You mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caelus#As_the_Jewish_god
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 5 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,550
@436,374 (E)
> so lets slay religion away from this world!
No no no, it's about defeating stupidity with the scientific method and logical reasoning. Faith doesn't function logically or reasonably, and atheists merely point this out as they refute the argument that atheism is a rejection of god, as opposed to the belief that gods aren't real claiming otherwise requires evidence.
Also, 99% of atheists don't give a fuck what you do with your god as long as they're not forced to take part in your little activities.
> so lets slay religion away from this world!
No no no, it's about defeating stupidity with the scientific method and logical reasoning. Faith doesn't function logically or reasonably, and atheists merely point this out as they refute the argument that atheism is a rejection of god, as opposed to the belief that gods aren't real claiming otherwise requires evidence.
Also, 99% of atheists don't give a fuck what you do with your god as long as they're not forced to take part in your little activities.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Dragon fuzz joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 11 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,558
How can you be smitten by something fictional?
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,560
@436,550 (squeegee)
Yet they don't even have the common sense to know that calling people stupid won't help them. So sad.
Anyway why don't you do the same thing with morals? If you are required to use scientific method to find out the truth, then opinions, like moral opinions are false since they are opinions and thus cannot be proven to be true.
Yet they don't even have the common sense to know that calling people stupid won't help them. So sad.
Anyway why don't you do the same thing with morals? If you are required to use scientific method to find out the truth, then opinions, like moral opinions are false since they are opinions and thus cannot be proven to be true.
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 54 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,566
@previous (J)
I should have used the word ignorance instead of stupid.
Also your logic is self defeating in that you are trying to construct a truth about moral opinions which is, by your distinction, abjectly false.
Circular logic is circular logic no matter how you try and hide it
I should have used the word ignorance instead of stupid.
Also your logic is self defeating in that you are trying to construct a truth about moral opinions which is, by your distinction, abjectly false.
Circular logic is circular logic no matter how you try and hide it
Anonymous J replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,568
@previous (squeegee)
I don't understand what you mean here? What is it that you think i am doing? You probably do not know so i will point it out to you. Most people and this includes atheists, do not always use evidence to see
what the truth is. So its all a matter of taste when or where you use evidence in this way.
I believe in my morals even though i cannot find evidence to support them. I guess this is what the price of being a human is. You have opinions and you want to believe in your own opinions. Its just annoying that
atheists go around pretending to be different from all other people, superior, and then don't even realize that if you only use evidence to tell you what the truth is, opinions cannot ever be the truth.
I don't understand what you mean here? What is it that you think i am doing? You probably do not know so i will point it out to you. Most people and this includes atheists, do not always use evidence to see
what the truth is. So its all a matter of taste when or where you use evidence in this way.
I believe in my morals even though i cannot find evidence to support them. I guess this is what the price of being a human is. You have opinions and you want to believe in your own opinions. Its just annoying that
atheists go around pretending to be different from all other people, superior, and then don't even realize that if you only use evidence to tell you what the truth is, opinions cannot ever be the truth.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,578
Anonymous J replied with this 13 years ago, 16 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,583
@previous (K)
I know enough to be more mature then simply try and insult the person you disagree with and hope that makes him wrong like a moron. I mean seriously to sink so low to just try and disqualify the arguments people make based
on their poverty? their unfortunate circumstances in life that they are not able to get what most people would call a good education? Its disgusting and i hope you learn the error of your ways.
I know enough to be more mature then simply try and insult the person you disagree with and hope that makes him wrong like a moron. I mean seriously to sink so low to just try and disqualify the arguments people make based
on their poverty? their unfortunate circumstances in life that they are not able to get what most people would call a good education? Its disgusting and i hope you learn the error of your ways.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 20 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,586
@436,550 (squeegee)
This post is so wrong. I'm not sure it's possible to point out how wrong it is because the universe might not be around long enough for me to finish if I started now. I will make two points though. First, since your opinion is that opinions are always wrong, you're advocating a self-defeating proposition.
Secondly, the distinction between "facts" and "opinions" is pretty thin. For example: "Water is H2O.". That is a fact. It can be turned into an opinion by adding "I believe" in front of it, but that doesn't magically make the sentence somehow false.
This post is so wrong. I'm not sure it's possible to point out how wrong it is because the universe might not be around long enough for me to finish if I started now. I will make two points though. First, since your opinion is that opinions are always wrong, you're advocating a self-defeating proposition.
Secondly, the distinction between "facts" and "opinions" is pretty thin. For example: "Water is H2O.". That is a fact. It can be turned into an opinion by adding "I believe" in front of it, but that doesn't magically make the sentence somehow false.
Anonymous J replied with this 13 years ago, 16 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,588
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Ah now i understand you. Thanks a lot. I was under the impression that we had a certain definition of opinions in this argument but its okay my argument still stands as i will explain.
In your second point you mention that facts can be turned into opinions by simply adding i believe in the sentence, you also mention that in this way opinions don't just magically turn false. This is true i believe.
So as given by your second point, if they don't just magically turn false then the same must be that they don't just magically turn true.
So given by this, i have something to support my opinion that there is no evidence to support the belief that people should not be pedophiles , the support is of course that there is no evidence. Therefor i can rightfully
form the opinion that if one only thought things that has evidence to support it to be true, as true, then the belief as mentioned above is therefor false by that method.
Ah now i understand you. Thanks a lot. I was under the impression that we had a certain definition of opinions in this argument but its okay my argument still stands as i will explain.
In your second point you mention that facts can be turned into opinions by simply adding i believe in the sentence, you also mention that in this way opinions don't just magically turn false. This is true i believe.
So as given by your second point, if they don't just magically turn false then the same must be that they don't just magically turn true.
So given by this, i have something to support my opinion that there is no evidence to support the belief that people should not be pedophiles , the support is of course that there is no evidence. Therefor i can rightfully
form the opinion that if one only thought things that has evidence to support it to be true, as true, then the belief as mentioned above is therefor false by that method.
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,593
@previous (J)
There is sufficient evidence to show that people shouldn't be pedophiles. If not only the public embarassment and ridicule they encounter they are jailed and forever marked as a danger to children and a public menace and should be watched and singled out for discrimination.
I woukd say that is sufficient evidence to not be a pedophile.
That plus the fact that they are causing children trauma and psychological disorsers that have led some kids to suicide later I in life even...
Just doesn't sound like a good idea. And I haven't really even got into the moral issues of it, like mudering or threatening kids to silence them.
Nah, it's too fucked up regardless how you look at it.
There is sufficient evidence to show that people shouldn't be pedophiles. If not only the public embarassment and ridicule they encounter they are jailed and forever marked as a danger to children and a public menace and should be watched and singled out for discrimination.
I woukd say that is sufficient evidence to not be a pedophile.
That plus the fact that they are causing children trauma and psychological disorsers that have led some kids to suicide later I in life even...
Just doesn't sound like a good idea. And I haven't really even got into the moral issues of it, like mudering or threatening kids to silence them.
Nah, it's too fucked up regardless how you look at it.
(Edited 37 seconds later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,595
@previous (squeegee)
By scientific standards what you point out is just the harmfulness of being a pedophile. It is not evidence that people should not be pedophiles. It is something that makes us believe that people should not be pedophiles. But
the belief comes from empathy, not evidence.
By scientific standards what you point out is just the harmfulness of being a pedophile. It is not evidence that people should not be pedophiles. It is something that makes us believe that people should not be pedophiles. But
the belief comes from empathy, not evidence.
Anonymous K replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,597
@previous (J)
Evidence that people should not be pedophiles is in secular law. I am sorry you don't see it that way, and I'm sorry you seem to have feelings of defensiveness and inferiority but that doesn't change anything.
Evidence that people should not be pedophiles is in secular law. I am sorry you don't see it that way, and I'm sorry you seem to have feelings of defensiveness and inferiority but that doesn't change anything.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,599
Anonymous J replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,600
@436,597 (K)
I am sorry you fool yourself into actually thinking that you believe that when a government makes a law it means that its proven that humans should behave that way. Meanwhile the empirical evidence mounts up of
people behaving barbarically, behaving in a way that violates the secular laws. It doesn't matter if a human makes a law that its forbidden to be homosexual, it doesn't mean that people should not be homosexual.
I am sorry you fool yourself into actually thinking that you believe that when a government makes a law it means that its proven that humans should behave that way. Meanwhile the empirical evidence mounts up of
people behaving barbarically, behaving in a way that violates the secular laws. It doesn't matter if a human makes a law that its forbidden to be homosexual, it doesn't mean that people should not be homosexual.
Anonymous J double-posted this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,601
@436,599 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Sure thing, i know that i often don't form sentences properly, but you got me worried you are going to trick me somehow by making me saying something wrong. Anyway.
I have lack of evidence to show that people should not be pedophiles. Therefore if i were a person that wanted evidence to show me the truth, i would conclude that the belief that people should not be pedophiles is false.
Sure thing, i know that i often don't form sentences properly, but you got me worried you are going to trick me somehow by making me saying something wrong. Anyway.
I have lack of evidence to show that people should not be pedophiles. Therefore if i were a person that wanted evidence to show me the truth, i would conclude that the belief that people should not be pedophiles is false.
(Edited 54 seconds later.)
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 36 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,602
@436,595 (J)
"There's no evidence to support this sewer water is tainted, therefor I should drink it despite the foul smell and awful appearance."
"There's no evidence to support this sewer water is tainted, therefor I should drink it despite the foul smell and awful appearance."
Anonymous J replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,603
@previous (squeegee)
False. Just because there is lack of evidence that i should not drink it, doesn't mean i want to drink it.
False. Just because there is lack of evidence that i should not drink it, doesn't mean i want to drink it.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,607
@436,601 (J)
OK, so I think I get the gist of what you're saying. Let's say hypothetically there was evidence that someone shouldn't be a pedophile. What would that evidence look like?
OK, so I think I get the gist of what you're saying. Let's say hypothetically there was evidence that someone shouldn't be a pedophile. What would that evidence look like?
Anonymous J replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,608
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Well i believe that one can scientifically say that some people should not be pedophiles and the evidence is the empirical evidence of people not being pedophiles. However the same goes for the other dark side.
Well i believe that one can scientifically say that some people should not be pedophiles and the evidence is the empirical evidence of people not being pedophiles. However the same goes for the other dark side.
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,609
Oh oh oh... I got it. He has mistaken "should" for "are."
Some people are pedophiles and some people aren't. Based on statistics.
But are and should are two completely different things.
Some people are pedophiles and some people aren't. Based on statistics.
But are and should are two completely different things.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,611
@436,608 (J)
I'm trying to find out exactly where we disagree so we can address whatever that is. We agree that most people are not pedophiles, but some are. I'm not talking about how people actually do think and act, but how they should. For example. Most people are not serial killers. Some people are. However, when I say no one should be serial killers, I mean that murder is a morally bad thing, and multiple murders are worse than a single murder, and that the world would be an objectively better place if no one murdered anyone else. I'm not denying that people do commit serial murder, just that they ought not to.
I'm trying to find out exactly where we disagree so we can address whatever that is. We agree that most people are not pedophiles, but some are. I'm not talking about how people actually do think and act, but how they should. For example. Most people are not serial killers. Some people are. However, when I say no one should be serial killers, I mean that murder is a morally bad thing, and multiple murders are worse than a single murder, and that the world would be an objectively better place if no one murdered anyone else. I'm not denying that people do commit serial murder, just that they ought not to.
Anonymous J replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,612
@436,609 (squeegee)
So then i can say i believe in God because he should exist and somehow that would be somekind of untouchable by science? oh oh oh.... let me guess your made up difference only applies to your beliefs for some reason
that you can't and won't come up with.
So then i can say i believe in God because he should exist and somehow that would be somekind of untouchable by science? oh oh oh.... let me guess your made up difference only applies to your beliefs for some reason
that you can't and won't come up with.
Anonymous J double-posted this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,618
@436,611 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Well i think that now we have entered a new phase in the argument. Most people don't mean what you mean and i feel that you are twisting your words to try and make them harder to argue against.
If you say that you don't believe that people should not ACTUALLY be pedophiles despite them being so. Then do you not believe that they ACTUALLY SHOULD be pedophiles?
Well i think that now we have entered a new phase in the argument. Most people don't mean what you mean and i feel that you are twisting your words to try and make them harder to argue against.
If you say that you don't believe that people should not ACTUALLY be pedophiles despite them being so. Then do you not believe that they ACTUALLY SHOULD be pedophiles?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,630
@previous (J)
What do you mean by "should"? I don't want us to be agreeing yet arguing against each other because of differences in terminology. By "should" in this context, I mean it in a moral sense. People should not be sexually attracted to children because it's not morally acceptable. People absolutely are sexually attracted to kids but morally that is wrong.
What do you mean by "should"? I don't want us to be agreeing yet arguing against each other because of differences in terminology. By "should" in this context, I mean it in a moral sense. People should not be sexually attracted to children because it's not morally acceptable. People absolutely are sexually attracted to kids but morally that is wrong.
Anonymous J replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,633
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
should as in a claim about how the world is supposed to be like. As in pedophilia harms children, therefor it is supposed to not exist because i believe that my moral compass dictates what should or should not exist
should as in a claim about how the world is supposed to be like. As in pedophilia harms children, therefor it is supposed to not exist because i believe that my moral compass dictates what should or should not exist
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,634
@previous (J)
So we are using the terms in identical ways, and we agree on all the facts. I'm absolutely stumped. Where do we disagree?
So we are using the terms in identical ways, and we agree on all the facts. I'm absolutely stumped. Where do we disagree?
Anonymous J replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,638
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I think the disagreement is between if science can tell us a opposing view about what is supposed to exist and what people should be like.
I think the disagreement is between if science can tell us a opposing view about what is supposed to exist and what people should be like.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 21 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,650
@previous (J)
OK , then can you explicitly lay out your thoughts on that? I don't have a sense of your views on it.
OK , then can you explicitly lay out your thoughts on that? I don't have a sense of your views on it.
Anonymous J replied with this 13 years ago, 51 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,659
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Well i don't exactly know what more to explain. Like we believe that our moral compass is what tells us what human behavior should or should not exist. For example pedophilia is not supposed to exist.
However we know that it does exist and we have empirical evidence of its existence. So the evidence or science/knowledge contradicts our belief. Its like we are disagreeing with the world about how it should be, its the same
as saying that water should not freeze when put in a freezer for a long time, its the same in the sense that we are saying that there should not be struggle between us humans even though about 6-? billions of us have been put
on a planet squeezed together.
Well i don't exactly know what more to explain. Like we believe that our moral compass is what tells us what human behavior should or should not exist. For example pedophilia is not supposed to exist.
However we know that it does exist and we have empirical evidence of its existence. So the evidence or science/knowledge contradicts our belief. Its like we are disagreeing with the world about how it should be, its the same
as saying that water should not freeze when put in a freezer for a long time, its the same in the sense that we are saying that there should not be struggle between us humans even though about 6-? billions of us have been put
on a planet squeezed together.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,670
@previous (J)
Whoa oh OK I see where the confusion lies. When I said nobody should be a pedophile I didnt mean I think none could exist. All I meant was that it would be morally preferable if no one was a pedophile.
It would be like someone who thought cars polluted the environment too much said "No one should drive a car." They don't mean they think no one drives a car, because obviously the existence of car driving is what made them come to this conclusion. What they mean is that it would be preferable if no one drove a car because of the damage it causes to society/the environment/whatever.
Whoa oh OK I see where the confusion lies. When I said nobody should be a pedophile I didnt mean I think none could exist. All I meant was that it would be morally preferable if no one was a pedophile.
It would be like someone who thought cars polluted the environment too much said "No one should drive a car." They don't mean they think no one drives a car, because obviously the existence of car driving is what made them come to this conclusion. What they mean is that it would be preferable if no one drove a car because of the damage it causes to society/the environment/whatever.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,687
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
so the existence of pedophilia is valid to you? scientifically speaking?
so the existence of pedophilia is valid to you? scientifically speaking?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,688
@previous (M)
I don't know what you mean by scientifically valid. Are there pedophiles currently living and breathing on the planet? Yes. Is that something I like? No.
I don't know what you mean by scientifically valid. Are there pedophiles currently living and breathing on the planet? Yes. Is that something I like? No.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,690
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Are there pedophiles currently living and breathing on the planet? Yes. Is that something I like? No.
Wow are you advocating some kind of systematic extermination of paedophiles?
> Are there pedophiles currently living and breathing on the planet? Yes. Is that something I like? No.
Wow are you advocating some kind of systematic extermination of paedophiles?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,691
Anonymous M replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,692
@436,688 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
You know they do exist, but you feel that the sickness should not exist. Don't you?
You know they do exist, but you feel that the sickness should not exist. Don't you?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,693
@previous (M)
I think the world would be a better place if it didn't exist, but the fact that it does exist isn't unfathomable or unexpected to me.
I think the world would be a better place if it didn't exist, but the fact that it does exist isn't unfathomable or unexpected to me.
Anonymous N replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,694
@436,691 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
You are implying you do not like that paedophiles are "currently living and breathing".
Are you supporting some kind of mass elimination of paedophiles?
A "final solution", as it were?
You are implying you do not like that paedophiles are "currently living and breathing".
Are you supporting some kind of mass elimination of paedophiles?
A "final solution", as it were?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 22 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,695
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 27 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,696
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
"Are there Jews currently living and breathing on the planet? Yes. Is that something I like? No"
"Are there Jews currently living and breathing on the planet? Yes. Is that something I like? No"
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 25 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,697
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 57 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,698
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,699
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,701
Green !BEERiVqJJw (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 second later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,702
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 38 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,703
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 44 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,704
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,705
Green !BEERiVqJJw (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 13 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,706
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,708
@436,693 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Okay. Lets clarify what it is that we are doing. Or at least i will describe my way of seeing it.
You have suddenly (and unfairly) make it seem that all moral claims are actually claims about ones own feelings but i disagree. The feelings you carefully describe are actually feelings about the world and how it should be.
You question what should mean which is hard to answer because i don't really know what it means because its a feeling of something, a feeling about the world.
When i say that pedophiles should not exist i mean that the existence of pedophilia is something that is not meant to be in this world. Now i ask you to take aside your own interpretations of your own words when you say
that pedophiles should not exist and instead see if my whole argument is true in the sense that my opinion above (about pedophilia) will be false if you only allow evidence to tell you what is true.
Okay. Lets clarify what it is that we are doing. Or at least i will describe my way of seeing it.
You have suddenly (and unfairly) make it seem that all moral claims are actually claims about ones own feelings but i disagree. The feelings you carefully describe are actually feelings about the world and how it should be.
You question what should mean which is hard to answer because i don't really know what it means because its a feeling of something, a feeling about the world.
When i say that pedophiles should not exist i mean that the existence of pedophilia is something that is not meant to be in this world. Now i ask you to take aside your own interpretations of your own words when you say
that pedophiles should not exist and instead see if my whole argument is true in the sense that my opinion above (about pedophilia) will be false if you only allow evidence to tell you what is true.
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 6 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #436,709
@436,705 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Then please never bring back Lost it is terrible. I'd hate to see some kind of spin-off, maybe where the goings on of Radzinsky inside the Swan station, after the purge, are explored. That would be awful.
Then please never bring back Lost it is terrible. I'd hate to see some kind of spin-off, maybe where the goings on of Radzinsky inside the Swan station, after the purge, are explored. That would be awful.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #436,733
@436,687 (M)
I remember seeing a research paper noting that pedophiles often suffered head injuries as children. I didn't follow it up because it wasn't what I was researching, but it's an interesting possibility.
I remember seeing a research paper noting that pedophiles often suffered head injuries as children. I didn't follow it up because it wasn't what I was researching, but it's an interesting possibility.
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #436,736
ca@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
It is interesting that head injuries could affect people that way. I read about a research on Icelandic males who had been abused as children, the research found out that one of the top reasons that the male victims keep the abuse
a secret even as adults is because of the theory that the abused become the abusers. So its the last label they want.
It is interesting that head injuries could affect people that way. I read about a research on Icelandic males who had been abused as children, the research found out that one of the top reasons that the male victims keep the abuse
a secret even as adults is because of the theory that the abused become the abusers. So its the last label they want.