God died in Auschwitz

[Mavorpen]

Really? That's why nearly all of them cherry pick the good parts of the Bible to follow while pretending like the bad parts don't exist.

there are no bad parts, except the parts where the devil, demons, and sin appears

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion." Deuteronomy 21:10-14

So, if we capture a woman, we can rape them and do whatever we want. That isn't bad? Once again, your morals are horrible.

[Vazdania]

no, thier was a suggestion that God does not have rights because he is human, animals have rights and are not human. the point is invalid

Social Darwinism is far from Nazi-ism

Social Darwinism promotes people and corperations to advance themself
whereas Nazi-ism destorys and segregates people directly
Nazi-ism is further based on the"Aryan" race. where as Social Darwinism can be used in any race or culture

^Supports Social Darwinism.
*cough* Nazi! *cough*

however I am no Nazi, I fully respect the Jewish, Romani, and other persecuted cultures.

[Mavorpen]

^Supports Social Darwinism.
*cough* Nazi! *cough*

I support corperate and bussiness social darwinism, yes. Competeing to advance yourself is perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged

Too bad that doesn't work in the real world.

[Nornalhorst]

Jesus doesn't tell you to stone people he even saved a woman from being stoned despite her being an adulteress, divorce is permitted in the Bible but in cases like martial infidelity. God hates to see people get divorced so its important for you to try to stick with your spouse but God knows sometimes this isn't possible so its still allowed.

I guess the Pope didn't get that memo. Isn't there something about not breaking apart something god has joined?

Divorce is only permitted in more serious circumstances than it is today like marital infidelity. Divorcing your spouse because you are bored isn't permitted.

[Central Slavia]

no, thier was a suggestion that God does not have rights because he is human, animals have rights and are not human. the point is invalid

Social Darwinism is far from Nazi-ism

Social Darwinism promotes people and corperations to advance themself
whereas Nazi-ism destorys and segregates people directly
Nazi-ism is further based on the"Aryan" race. where as Social Darwinism can be used in any race or culture

^Supports Social Darwinism.
*cough* Nazi! *cough*

The problem of Social Darwinism are two,
One is that it fallaciously tries to assign values to the process of natural selection - what survives in such a process is better , and better suited merely in said circumstances, not universally, never mind trying to assert absurd definitions on what defines as better.

Second thing is practical - by having everyone for himself, it promotes a sub-optimal state oi matters because inevitably, it brings success to those who are reasonably optimalised but not necessarily exceptional, while a system based on cooperation can allow those with exceptional upsides, but poor or mediocre by other traits to succeed.
EG. In a privatised healthcare system, Stephen Hawking would have long died before being able to show his worth as a scientist simply because he and his relatives would have run out of money.

[Vazdania]

I support corperate and bussiness social darwinism, yes. Competeing to advance yourself is perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged

Too bad that doesn't work in the real world.

yes it does? Why do you think Burger King and McDonalds went at it for awhile? McDonalds won obviously, it won chiefly due to its ability to "evolve" and adapt

[Mavorpen]

I guess the Pope didn't get that memo. Isn't there something about not breaking apart something god has joined?

Divorce is only permitted in more serious circumstances than it is today like marital infidelity. Divorcing your spouse because you are bored isn't permitted.

Except no one divorces for this reason. People divorce for legitimacy reasons. Pope: LOLNOPE!

[Crystalcliff Point]

yes it does? Why do you think Burger King and McDonalds went at it for awhile? McDonalds won obviously, it won chiefly due to its ability to "evolve" and adapt

Again, please respond to my post here: viewtopic.php?p=8212938#p8212938.

I'm starting to feel like you're ignoring me.

[Seperates]

Yes it does. The Bible has been proven to be self-contradictory in many places and it is historically inaccurate for much of the time. And clapping your hands on your ears is a sign of the ignoranmus who does not come to the debate to learn, but to justify his already decided opinion.

I change my opinions with the facts. Do you?

where??? furthermore your "facts" are likely personal truths.

an example

Is abortion okay? that is a personal truth, similar to an opinion, but diffrent

It is not a "truth". It is an opinion. Fuck man, nothing is "true" unless the facts support it.

I base my opinion on the fact that over %75 are for medical nessecities in which the women will die if it not aborted. Also the fact that %50 of otherwise viable pregnancies are aborted spontaniously by the human body. That the fetus is not a human. That women have a natural right to their bodies.

I think abortion should be an option. But just that, an option. Non-enforced, but I will not stop a woman from getting one.
De-railing aside.

I have no personal "truths". Only opinions based on facts. And they change as new arguements are presented. You, on the other hand, just keep trying to pound the square block into the round hole, like a frusterated toddler.

[Vazdania]

^Supports Social Darwinism.
*cough* Nazi! *cough*

The problem of Social Darwinism are two,
One is that it fallaciously tries to assign values to the process of natural selection - what survives in such a process is better , and better suited merely in said circumstances, not universally, never mind trying to assert absurd definitions on what defines as better.

Second thing is practical - by having everyone for himself, it promotes a sub-optimal state oi matters because inevitably, it brings success to those who are reasonably optimalised but not necessarily exceptional, while a system based on cooperation can allow those with exceptional upsides, but poor or mediocre by other traits to succeed.
EG. In a privatised healthcare system, Stephen Hawking would have long died before being able to show his worth as a scientist simply because he and his relatives would have run out of money.

it may be flawed but so is any other system,

[Mavorpen]

Too bad that doesn't work in the real world.

yes it does? Why do you think Burger King and McDonalds went at it for awhile? McDonalds won obviously, it won chiefly due to its ability to "evolve" and adapt

What? McDonalds didn't advance itself at all. It still sells crappy food. Competition in the business world doesn't mean advancing yourself, it means finding the cheapest, dirtiest way to destroy your competition.

[Genivaria]

Too bad that doesn't work in the real world.

yes it does? Why do you think Burger King and McDonalds went at it for awhile? McDonalds won obviously, it won chiefly due to its ability to "evolve" and adapt

Unlawful business practices and putting growth hormones to raise cows for meat faster?

[Arbites]

^Supports Social Darwinism.
*cough* Nazi! *cough*

I support corperate and bussiness social darwinism, yes. Competeing to advance yourself is perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged

Suppose you advance yourself at the expense of others, as often is the case? Furthermore, I thought it was "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven." Isn't Social Darwinism fundamentally opposed to some of what I call the "good" messages of Christianity? "Love thy neighbor" seems a far cry from "Fuck it, I got mine. If he's poor, he deserves it."

[Seperates]

Divorce is only permitted in more serious circumstances than it is today like marital infidelity. Divorcing your spouse because you are bored isn't permitted.

Except no one divorces for this reason. People divorce for legitimacy reasons. Pope: LOLNOPE!

*Sighs* Even so, if we are bored, why can't we divorce? It's obviously going to be an unhealthy relationship. We only live once... might as well not be with someone we dispise.

[Mavorpen]

Except no one divorces for this reason. People divorce for legitimacy reasons. Pope: LOLNOPE!

*Sighs* Even so, if we are bored, why can't we divorce? It's obviously going to be an unhealthy relationship. We only live once... might as well not be with someone we dispise.

True. If there's no "spark" or if there's no longer special link between the two, making them suffer by staying with each other for their entire life is rather cruel.

[Seperates]

*Sighs* Even so, if we are bored, why can't we divorce? It's obviously going to be an unhealthy relationship. We only live once... might as well not be with someone we dispise.

True. If there's no "spark" or if there's no longer special link between the two, making them suffer by staying with each other for their entire life is rather cruel.

Humans do naturally prefer monogamous relationships... but that doesn't mean that they should be legally enforced...

[Mavorpen]

True. If there's no "spark" or if there's no longer special link between the two, making them suffer by staying with each other for their entire life is rather cruel.

Humans do naturally prefer monogamous relationships... but that doesn't mean that they should be legally enforced...

There are those that would disagree with the monogamous relationships, especially men.

[Genivaria]

Humans do naturally prefer monogamous relationships... but that doesn't mean that they should be legally enforced...

There are those that would disagree with the monogamous relationships, especially men.

Your kidding right? Now don't get me wrong, I would gladly participate in a Ménage à trois. But multiple WIVES!?
Hell no.

[Mavorpen]

There are those that would disagree with the monogamous relationships, especially men.

Your kidding right? Now don't get me wrong, I would gladly participate in a Ménage à trois. But multiple WIVES!?
Hell no.

I was talking more about in places where a "wife" is more of the "object who cooks, cleans, is a sex toy, and is not allowed to speak her mind."

[Central Slavia]

The problem of Social Darwinism are two,
One is that it fallaciously tries to assign values to the process of natural selection - what survives in such a process is better , and better suited merely in said circumstances, not universally, never mind trying to assert absurd definitions on what defines as better.

Second thing is practical - by having everyone for himself, it promotes a sub-optimal state oi matters because inevitably, it brings success to those who are reasonably optimalised but not necessarily exceptional, while a system based on cooperation can allow those with exceptional upsides, but poor or mediocre by other traits to succeed.
EG. In a privatised healthcare system, Stephen Hawking would have long died before being able to show his worth as a scientist simply because he and his relatives would have run out of money.

it may be flawed but so is any other system,

Oh, but other systems being flawed doesn't mean they are flawed equally.
As far as I know, for example, the social democracy of Scandinavian type wins hand down to primitive, unrestricted capitalism in almost all topics relating to the quality of life of citizens.
Also, you know who 's one of the biggest producers of cellphones? NOKIA , a concern that has a large participation by the Finnish government.

[Genivaria]

Your kidding right? Now don't get me wrong, I would gladly participate in a Ménage à trois. But multiple WIVES!?
Hell no.

I was talking more about in places where a "wife" is more of the "object who cooks, cleans, is a sex toy, and is not allowed to speak her mind."

Ah. Yeah I oppose that.

[Mavorpen]

I was talking more about in places where a "wife" is more of the "object who cooks, cleans, is a sex toy, and is not allowed to speak her mind."

Ah. Yeah I oppose that.

Of course. It's rather annoying to me, but unfortunately people can do that in some places. Female equality would improve the world quite a lot.

[Genivaria]

Ah. Yeah I oppose that.

Of course. It's rather annoying to me, but unfortunately people can do that in some places. Female equality would improve the world quite a lot.

Emphasis on EQUALITY. Not female dominance.
I've been rather sensitive on that ever since I found this page:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... maleOnMale

[Mavorpen]

Of course. It's rather annoying to me, but unfortunately people can do that in some places. Female equality would improve the world quite a lot.

Emphasis on EQUALITY. Not female dominance.
I've been rather sensitive on that ever since I found this page:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... maleOnMale

I've never been a fan of female dominance, minority dominance, etc. I'm for EQUALITY. For instance, despite being black, I hate that some people think that a black person with no qualifications for a job should get picked over a white person who is better for the job simply for being black. It's stupid and against the entire purpose of people like MLK's teachings/wishes.

[New Conglomerate]

Emphasis on EQUALITY. Not female dominance.
I've been rather sensitive on that ever since I found this page:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... maleOnMale

I've never been a fan of female dominance, minority dominance, etc. I'm for EQUALITY. For instance, despite being black, I hate that some people think that a black person with no qualifications for a job should get picked over a white person who is better for the job simply for being black. It's stupid and against the entire purpose of people like MLK's teachings/wishes.

Nobody really thinks that. At least, nobody sane thinks that. It's a strawman position.