Ibrahim (Banned)

Okay so say you were born a hundred years ago were the overwhelming consensus was that being gay was morally wrong: Would you say that therefore at that time being gay WAS indeed morally wrong yes or no? And if you said "no" what are you basing it on since you don't believe in objective morality?

Order of Skybreakers!

You can believe in your "moral nihilism" if that's what you choose to believe but I think most of us would all agree that if our female relatives are raped and slaughtered in front of us, that it would be morally wrong. However not only would we believe it to be morally wrong but we would believed it to be objectively morally wrong. What I mean by "objective" is that if the rapists and murderers somehow successfully took over Europe/America and brainwashed us all to believe that it was ok to commit those acts, it would still be objectively morally wrong regardless of human experience. In fairness to Lan however, if we agree that our universe contains objective morality, which it certainly does, then it can only make sense with God’s existence, because God is required as rational basis for objective morality. Without God morality is subjective, as God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity.

I am not going to break it down for you. It is patently obvious you were heavily implying that I shouldn't have been born. Like I said that's a bit rich coming from the bstd son of a prostitute.

You say whatever you want about other peoples mothers but if anyone saying anything about yours you get upset. So now you have to resort to bringing my mother into this...... Surely, nobody can be this stupid? The rule remains: "don't dish it if you can't take it".

You were the first to resort to name calling and profanity, granted it was directed at another person, but never the less the rule is "don't dish it if you can't take it". I am baffled at the fact that you're still unable to comprehend why I chose to respond to you, despite going out of my way to explain it very clearly & in great detail, several times. And regarding your last comment, I am very confident that is what your mother does for a living. It's not about that. It's about rape and how to best prevent it. The solutions I gave, however much you may dislike them, does prevent that crime to a large extent.

This is the "debate" section, all members of Mensa HQ who got lost on their way to the Forum Games & Spam section, please click on the link provided.

Okay, I don't know how you read this: "I already answered your questions, couple of posts above you, but since you decided to ignore me i will just copy & past them together in response to you." and still managed to respond with such sheer stupidity. I know you were speaking to another person, you little !@#$, but the silly questions you raised were Identical to ones I had just answered and who's points I have refuted. Again, what prompted my response to you specifically, if you still don't understand, was the fact that you decided to ignore my refutation and went ahead and posed the same questions anyway to someone else without even attempting to address any of the points I raised.

I basically got Skybreaker and to a lesser extent Bondsmith, can't remember the rest.

Lan - I think it's safe to say stubborn ignorance is a defining feature of your character so I'll quite responding.

I think it's safe to say judging by how many words you used, that you failed to try and de-construct my argument, but i will give a brief response to the points you raised. 1) Nothing to respond to. 2) Clothing is a human invention and the fact that humans make clothes for pets doesn't change the fact that it is something that distinguishes us from other living beings and to argue this point is nonsensical and groundless. 3) Rape is in fact committed every 32 seconds in America, that is the reality in the west, while Saudi Arabia has some of the least numbers of rapes and the lowest crime rates in the world: http://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp Am i really meant to respond to such silliness? Shariah Law is Islamic Law, it has nothing to do with culture. All i said was men and women should be dressed modestly, i didn't say how they should dress, and i also stressed on numerous occasions that i wasn't blaming women for rape yet you keep bringing it up like that is what i am suggesting, which is very disingenuous. You also not only strayed from the topic of the discussion/debate but you also once again appealed to your emotions and ignored the facts that i have presented to back up my argument. Also you don't understand the concept of modest dressing in Islam one bit so don't claim that you do. The reason why men don't wear Burka/Hijab is because the Quran directly instructs the Muslim women to cover up in that fashion and the men are given a different set of instructions on dressing modestly. And to get back on topic, have you ever heard of a man being raped by a woman? No and Muslims believe God understands the human psychology better than we ever could, so the Quran is what makes that distinction for them, something you don't believe in so why are you bringing all this up when i haven't? Go look at my previous posts i have not mentioned religion in any of them. There is a very clear distinction between a baby in the womb and ovaries. Death is a natural part of life but murder and killing is what you are essentially talking about so don't conflate the two. Just type "abortion" on google images and feast your eyes on what you call "merciful death". So going to the parts of Africa were people are suffering and slaughtering people like a deranged serial killer, is mercy killing according to you? Okay.

Rape has to be prevented. Killing the baby for no reason, other than it was conceived through rape, is ludicrous as long as the mother is able to give birth without serious risk.

Hello, you absolute moron! I already answered your questions, couple of posts above you, but since you decided to ignore me i will just copy & past them together in response to you. That is a societal problem and what you should be asking is, what allowed for that rape to take place in the first place? The problem will be solved if society: 1) Brought back the death penalty for rapists (instead of murdering the children born from rape). And this is very effective at deterring criminals, we know this without even having to resort to statistic, by virtue of the human intellect, which some people seem to be lacking. If you are going to be say "killed by a firing squad or beheaded (like in Saudi Arabia)" for rape, are you going to rape? The answer is, a lot less people will be willing to do that, as opposed to the number of people who would be, had the punishment been say 10-20 years in prison. 2) Had a decent dress code of modesty for both Men and Women (not blaming the victim), clothing is something that distinguishes Human beings from Animals and both Men and Women should be modestly covered. I am not singling out women. 3) Segregate men and women in public places who are not married or related (If you really want to solve the issue). This would have almost certainly prevented it but if it still happened it is not an excuse to end the life of a innocent child as long as the mother is not in danger. Abortion should be allowed if it is confirmed in the early period (before 120 days) of the pregnancy that a foetus suffers from a defect that can't be treated and that will cause unbearable suffering to the child. Also, kindly stop assuming you know other peoples answers.

I'm not only against gay marriage but the act of homosexuality, since one result of this perversion is HIV/AIDS – which attacks the immune system – that should be enough. Newly acquired HIV infection in Australia, 2009–2013: MSM = Men who have Sex with Men IDU = Injected Drug Users MSF/FSM = Heterosexual Contact That's all I have to say, and I'm saying it.

1) The death penalty if written into law is not murder. You need to learn the definition of the words you choose to use before using them. Definition of Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. And it is very effective at deterring criminals, we know this without even having to resort to statistic, by virtue of the human intellect, which some people seem to be lacking. If you are going to be say "killed by a firing squad or beheaded (like in Saudi Arabia)" for rape, are you going to rape? The answer is, a lot less people will be willing to do that, as opposed to the number of people who would be, had the punishment been say 10-20 years in prison. 2) Clothing is something that distinguishes Human beings from Animals and both Men and Women should be modestly covered. I am not singling out women. 3) I never said that about women so I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. I just said women AND men who are not related should be segregated in public and the sad thing is, you know it will solve the problem of rape, but you choose to appeal to your emotions rather than look at what I said objectively. You just made a blanket statement about Saudi Arabia's judicial system out of thin air just to support your argument, which is frankly absurd. There is in fact a written law criminalizing rape in Saudi Arabia... it's called the "Shariah Law" and it has the death penalty for rapists. A woman is not an object to be owned, that is simply your western mentality which you are projecting on to others. Who is objectifying women? Saudi Arabia where woman are covered from head to toe or the West where they wear bikinis in the middle of winter (true story I live in the UK), were porn industry is flourishing, were billboards/ads of semi naked women advertising products with their bodies are everywhere? The answer is very simple but it's not one that you will like so I expect you to appeal to your emotions once more.

I change my mind. I will opt not to say anything

Sup Milord.

Hello, Vitaris! And Welcome.

Free money! Nation Name: Islamic State Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=20794

What does that have to do with anything? I'm sorry but that's the logic of the stupidly insane: "The baby will have a short life expectancy so let's kill it." If that will be it's entire life, and it will undoubtedly suffer immensely, then you should be able to abort early before 120 days have passed. That is a societal problem and you should be asking, what allowed for that rape to take place in the first place? Maybe the problem will be solved if society: 1) Brought back the death penalty for rapists (instead of murdering the children born from rape) 2) Had a decent dress code of modesty for women (not blaming the victim) 3) Separated men and women in public places who are not married (If you really want to solve the issue) This would have almost certainly prevented it but if it still happened it is not an excuse to end the life of a innocent child as long as the mother is not in danger.

Abortion should be legal only: 1) If the life of the mother is in real danger. 2) If it is confirmed in the early period (before 120 days) of the pregnancy that a foetus suffers from a defect that can't be treated and that will cause unbearable suffering to the child. Otherwise it should be completely illegal.

I'll see you and raise you a bucket of mud.

I will ignore the Crusader dog barking on here. No. This.

Everyone wins I take it? Give me my money.

I agree with almost everything you said Hawkeye, and would have liked your comments, if it wasn't for the whole impersonating Jesus thing. Anyway, good job!