User Controls
Fags shouldn't raise children
-
2018-01-03 at 3:47 PM UTC
-
2018-01-03 at 3:49 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader no,
homosexuality is natures way of making individuals who're not sterile sterile.
like how nature makes rats commit mass suicide by marching into a body of water when over population had been achieved …..
or turning your friendly grasshoppers into locustses ….
homosexuality is just a hormonal imbalance combined with some sort of neurodegenerative disease. -
2018-01-03 at 4:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock homosexuality is just a hormonal imbalance combined with some sort of neurodegenerative disease.
How many girls called you yesterday bill? I'm going to guess 0. How many have called you today? I'm going to also guess 0.
0 + 0 = FAG
remember that you lil mathematician
//thread. -
2018-01-03 at 5:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Bill Krozby How many girls called you yesterday bill? I'm going to guess 0. How many have called you today? I'm going to also guess 0.
0 + 0 = FAG
remember that you lil mathematician
//thread.
calling. zero. i dont talk to people in a personal-manner on my phone unless i need instant communication for some reason or another. -
2018-01-03 at 6:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock homosexuality is just a hormonal imbalance combined with some sort of neurodegenerative disease.
thats the clinical explanation of why men become gays, but it doesnt explain why nature make gay men.
and i think that reason is population density, or whatever it is that turn normal grasshoppers into swarming locusts or make lemmings leaping off cliffs en mass.
by turning some men gay, nature is essentially turning these perfectly functioning men into outcasts that offend the senses and decencies of the of the majority of the population and causing them to be expelled.
this expulsion eventually leads to the clearing of new lands and new areas of settlement and farming, and in the grander scheme of things ...
the expansion of human settlement.
in the next century, you are more likely to encounter gay men on mars than ordinary, straight heterosexual men. -
2018-01-03 at 6:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader thats the clinical explanation of why men become gays, but it doesnt explain why nature make gay men.
and i think that reason is population density, or whatever it is that turn normal grasshoppers into swarming locusts or make lemmings leaping off cliffs en mass.
by turning some men gay, nature is essentially turning these perfectly functioning men into outcasts that offend the senses and decencies of the of the majority of the population and causing them to be expelled.
this expulsion eventually leads to the clearing of new lands and new areas of settlement and farming, and in the grander scheme of things …
the expansion of human settlement.
in the next century, you are more likely to encounter gay men on mars than ordinary, straight heterosexual men.
ask china about that... -
2018-01-03 at 7:36 PM UTC
-
2018-01-03 at 7:44 PM UTC
-
2018-01-04 at 12:23 AM UTC
-
2018-01-04 at 3:09 AM UTC
-
2018-01-04 at 3:34 AM UTCNobody should really give two warm shits what someone's face looks like. This isn't a beauty contest.
Disclaimer: holey nosers, cane-bashers and motherbeaters may not apply in every situation -
2018-01-04 at 8:36 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon The latter two are not necessarily features of the religion. They are part of the potential harms of a concept and construct like religion but they don't necessarily have to be a part of it, including Christianity.
Sure, I'm not calling religion in general a cult or collection of cults. I'm calling the flavor religion Dargo subscribes to and would force upon a child if said child were real a cult.The first isn't so bad by itself. There's not really much difference between believing in the expertise of the Master Heal Boy (doctor) or Super Sparkman (electrician) who can do complicated things way beyond your understanding our ability to reasonably verify and audit, and believing in the abstract good luck powers of God.
It seems pretty easy to audit the powers of doctors and electricians no? The macro level audit seems the most compelling: places without doctors have overwhelmingly shorter lived denizens than those with doctors. Places without electricians don't have a lot of working wiring. On the more fine grained level there's a large academic apparatus dedicated to auditing (admittedly not without flaws, but auditing it is) the finding of the medical field or electrical engineering.
On the other hand there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to believe the absence of christ does much of anything, save perhaps for resulting in a few more dollars in ones pocket. I'm fully willing to believe people find religion a fulfilling and wonderful experience, that it facilitates the maintenance of social order in some cases, but this seems as much of an exception as a rule.
Originally posted by benny vader [pictures of Obama]
Is there a point? Have you ever seen me ascribe mystical powers to the former president, interact with his campaign committee, or give him a dime of my money? Or was that just an unsolicited jab at a finished politician for kicks? -
2018-01-04 at 8:38 AM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock faggotry is no different than any other mental disease that should be treated, then if treatment fails, controlled.
Well there's a history of some debate about if homosexuality is a disease or not within the medical profession. On the other hand there's clear consensus that autism is a disorder. You might consider this before casting stones. -
2018-01-04 at 9:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny It seems pretty easy to audit the powers of doctors and electricians no?
Starting from first principles and establishing it so you know to the best of your rational abilities is basically beyond 99.99% of people, and that includes me and probably you. I'll try to illustrate this:The macro level audit seems the most compelling: places without doctors have overwhelmingly shorter lived denizens than those with doctors.
How do you know that? Where are you getting this information? Some book written by some people who may or may not exist?
Or stepping back from tbe "durr, establish from first principles" argument, how can you causatively link that to the lack of doctors? Why might it not just be a correlative aspect of those places being socioeconomically inferior? What about their culture? Can you control for that? How about their diet?Places without electricians don't have a lot of working wiring.
Ditto the above.On the more fine grained level there's a large academic apparatus dedicated to auditing (admittedly not without flaws, but auditing it is) the finding of the medical field or electrical engineering.
How can you trust this apparatus? How do you even know this apparatus exists at a broad scale? Even if you trust the parts of it you've seen, how do you know that they are being fed reliable information?On the other hand there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to believe the absence of christ does much of anything, save perhaps for resulting in a few more dollars in ones pocket. I'm fully willing to believe people find religion a fulfilling and wonderful experience, that it facilitates the maintenance of social order in some cases, but this seems as much of an exception as a rule.
Let me apply the above macro-audit to the situation: obviously Christian nations/nations with large Christian populations are doing way better in basically every way, than non-Christian nations. Clearly the love of Christ is assisting the socio-economic status of Christians. -
2018-01-04 at 9:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Starting from first principles and establishing it so you know to the best of your rational abilities is basically beyond 99.99% of people, and that includes me and probably you.
Shifting goalposts. First you talked about "auditing" fields of study and now I need to personally be able to justify them from first principles? I'll freely admit I can't explain medical practice nor a defense divine law and miracles from first principles. I can, however, conduct a simple inductive investigation of medical practice and arrive at results which don't constitute formal logical proof but at least give me a reason to believe in its efficacy. The same can not be said for claims within Christian metaphysics.How do you know that? Where are you getting this information? Some book written by some people who may or may not exist?
Occam's razor suggests typical statistic sources on this kind of thing doing what they say they do is more plausible than grand conspiracy orchestrated to support a farcical medical profession.Or stepping back from tbe "durr, establish from first principles" argument, how can you causatively link that to the lack of doctors? Why might it not just be a correlative aspect of those places being socioeconomically inferior? What about their culture? Can you control for that? How about their diet?
A reasonable question. We can control for it reasonably well by looking at the reverse case: suddenly injecting practicing medical professionals into a community where none existed. Seems safe to say the introduction of, say, ten doctors in a pacific island isn't going to cause a radical shift in culture, socio-economics, or community dietary habits within a generation but we can see that it improves life expectancy of populations. That's actually a point that, while I'm pretty sure I can find you some stats for from a reputable source, I have pretty direct experience of.How can you trust this apparatus? How do you even know this apparatus exists at a broad scale? Even if you trust the parts of it you've seen, how do you know that they are being fed reliable information?
Again, my argument isn't for the absolute infallibility of the academic apparatus but rather that I have better reasons to believe it's conclusions than deny them. Massive coordinated fraud is a complicated explanation, people engaging in research and reporting their findings with the expected degree of reporting bias and petty fraud is pretty simple. -
2018-01-04 at 9:54 AM UTC
How do you know that? Where are you getting this information? Some book written by some people who may or may not exist?
Or stepping back from tbe "durr, establish from first principles" argument, how can you causatively link that to the lack of doctors? Why might it not just be a correlative aspect of those places being socioeconomically inferior? What about their culture? Can you control for that? How about their diet?
Hahaha, I started loling when I read this. This is the stupidest thing I've ever read from Falco.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-01-04 at 1 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Let me apply the above macro-audit to the situation: obviously Christian nations/nations with large Christian populations are doing way better in basically every way, than non-Christian nations. Clearly the love of Christ is assisting the socio-economic status of Christians.
its got fuck all to do with the love of christ. its due to the european nations still living fat of their empires and all the technological effort they put into their abilities to be able to conduct war. jesus was only ever used as an excuse to cover up the fact that the europeans are such aggressive fuckers.
. -
2018-01-04 at 2:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Shifting goalposts. First you talked about "auditing" fields of study and now I need to personally be able to justify them from first principles?
That's pretty much where you're at with regards to both religions as well as these fields, so I don't see why that's a problem. In any case, below I called the first principles point a "Durr" memerino, so calm your Tetris tits.I'll freely admit I can't explain medical practice nor a defense divine law and miracles from first principles. I can, however, conduct a simple inductive investigation of medical practice and arrive at results which don't constitute formal logical proof but at least give me a reason to believe in its efficacy.
Okay, how?Occam's razor suggests typical statistic sources on this kind of thing doing what they say they do is more plausible than grand conspiracy orchestrated to support a farcical medical profession.
I mean I don't know dude, we seem to have a lot of stuff flying around these days about conservative or liberal media bias, it could all be fake news.A reasonable question. We can control for it reasonably well by looking at the reverse case: suddenly injecting practicing medical professionals into a community where none existed. Seems safe to say the introduction of, say, ten doctors in a pacific island isn't going to cause a radical shift in culture, socio-economics, or community dietary habits within a generation but we can see that it improves life expectancy of populations. That's actually a point that, while I'm pretty sure I can find you some stats for from a reputable source, I have pretty direct experience of.
Sure, now that's a decent answer. Do you have these stats? Could you demonstrate it for this specific point.
[Wuote>Again, my argument isn't for the absolute infallibility of the academic apparatus but rather that I have better reasons to believe it's conclusions than deny them. Massive coordinated fraud is a complicated explanation, people engaging in research and reporting their findings with the expected degree of reporting bias and petty fraud is pretty simple.
But the point still stands, you have no idea if such an apparatus exists, is effective, or if it's even functional. I mean, I certainly couldn't prove the existence of the planet Mercury. I probably couldn't audit the existence of Mercury. I probably couldn't audit the science behind the demonstration of the existence of Mercury. That's why I'm asking you to actually take the steps to quickly audit something like doctors: we can talk about the apparatus in place to do X, Y and Z and why it's preposterous for something to be any other way, but I believe that proving or confirming things that we generally take to be true, is not easy and you should have about as much confidence in their validity, as that of the existence of God.
I mean, how do you know that the prosperity of Christian nations Vs non-Christian nations is not because of the love of Buddy Jesus? -
2018-01-04 at 3:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Well there's a history of some debate about if homosexuality is a disease or not within the medical profession. On the other hand there's clear consensus that autism is a disorder. You might consider this before casting stones.
the only thing i consider when it comes to the modern medical profession, in all its different forms, is that they dont know jack, nor shit.
that being said...it is a simple process to observe the procedures they use to make a determination for mental diseases then apply it to faggotry.
on a related side note, i was in a 'debate' with an uber-liberal about mental diseases then went down a list about how the witch-doctors determined a certain mental disease was to be listed in the DSM, the causes, behaviors, traits, etc, then after the fucktard agreed with everything in the mistaken assumption i was furthering their side of the argument i pointed out that everything i had listed applied to the mental disease known as liberalism. thats when the name calling started and throwing around newspeak terms like 'you ith rathiss' and stuff. -
2018-01-04 at 3:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist its got fuck all to do with the love of christ. its due to the european nations still living fat of their empires and all the technological effort they put into their abilities to be able to conduct war. jesus was only ever used as an excuse to cover up the fact that the europeans are such aggressive fuckers.
go bathe yourself, you dirty handsome and well tanned individual, you stink of jealousy and envy.
