• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens[W:165; 667]

mac said:
No, it isn't. It's the definition of assumable. It can easily be argued that the rule of law, basic human standards, and rights that we have developed over the maturation of our species has had a detrimental affect as well. It's all about perception.
Click to expand...

Ah, what a post modernist you are. Everything but your religious views are apparently susceptible to human perception. Imagine that.
 
mac said:
No, it isn't. It's the definition of assumable. It can easily be argued that the rule of law, basic human standards, and rights that we have developed over the maturation of our species has had a detrimental affect as well. It's all about perception.
Click to expand...
But proven?.....meh.....not so much.

And the comparison of societies where "rule of law, basic human standards, and rights" do not measure up to ours....how are they doing?
 
Last edited:
mac said:
That is the point.
Click to expand...
the point is that "it could be argued"? No. The point was proving, via direct causation, that an effect caused a result. You are trying to call that an "assumption".



China seems to be doing quite well.
Click to expand...
Maybe in a gross output sense, but on a per capitia basis...no. And especially not on a "rule of law, basic human standards, and rights" scale....YOUR scale.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
the point is that "it could be argued"? No. The point was proving, via direct causation, that an effect caused a result. You are trying to call that an "assumption".
Click to expand...

The point is that it can't be proven.

Maybe in a gross output sense, but on a per capitia basis...no. And especially not on a "rule of law, basic human standards, and rights" scale....YOUR scale.
Click to expand...

Didn't you want a comparison?
 
mac said:
The point is that it can't be proven.



Didn't you want a comparison?
Click to expand...
Sure, I wanted a comparison...that would prove your assumption. You provided a comparison that fails to support your assumption. Your loss, your fail. Wanna go for 2 outa 3?
 
mac said:
When did I do that? Quotes please.
Click to expand...

All I gotta say is, "homosexuality is not a sin" and you will bust out your handy six verses from the Bible. And if I argue that your interpretation of them is wrong you will proclaim that the Holy Spirit is whistling in your ear that your interpretation is right and mine is wrong because I'm not a Christian.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Sure, I wanted a comparison...that would prove your assumption. You provided a comparison that fails to support your assumption. Your loss, your fail. Wanna go for 2 outa 3?
Click to expand...

Not so much. The Chinese have a far different view on human rights than we do and they're successful on the world stage in a number of catagories.
 
CriticalThought said:
All I gotta say is, "homosexuality is not a sin" and you will bust out your handy six verses from the Bible. And if I argue that your interpretation of them is wrong you will proclaim that the Holy Spirit is whistling in your ear that your interpretation is right and mine is wrong because I'm not a Christian.
Click to expand...

We've had this discussion. I've never told you that I think that homosexuality is a sin...according to the Bible or anything else. So, when you're done with your assumptions, get back to me. All you've proven here is that you'll attack anything I say..right or wrong...because I am Christian. Great thinker, you are. Very open minded.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
Not so much. The Chinese have a far different view on human rights than we do and they're successful on the world stage in a number of catagories.
Click to expand...
LOL....so are you going by your own scale....or a Chinese scale?

Talk about moving the goal posts!
 
Gimmesometruth said:
LOL....so are you going by your own scale....or a Chinese scale?

Talk about moving the goal posts!
Click to expand...

By someone's scale, the Chinese are awesome. That's the point I'm making. It's all about perspective.
 
mac said:
By someone's scale, the Chinese are awesome. That's the point I'm making. It's all about perspective.
Click to expand...
No, you lost track of your point, here was your point:

the rule of law, basic human standards, and rights that we have developed over the maturation of our species has had a detrimental affect
Click to expand...

You were going to somehow show that this assumption was provable.....but I still have not seen any proof of your assumption....since the underlying point was that assumptions would be valid with direct evidence supporting them.

So go ahead....I'll wait.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, you lost track of your point, here was your point:

You were going to somehow show that this assumption was provable.....but I still have not seen any proof of your assumption....since the underlying point was that assumptions would be valid with direct evidence supporting them.

So go ahead....I'll wait.
Click to expand...

No, you've lost track. My point with that statement was to illustrate that the net effect of increased human rights is not provable but assumable. It can adequately be argued that many of the things we consider civilization are leading to the demise of our planet...primarily through over population and resource depletion. Increased human rights means less people get killed off early, they live longer, and they consume more.
 
mac said:
Yeah, the gay uncle theory. How many gay uncles contributed to your survival?
Click to expand...


Maybe you haven't noticed but we don't live in a hunter/gatherer society. Traits that were selected over the past couple hundred thousand years haven't had time to be eliminated thru natural selection. Never mind the fact that as same sex attraction is not a genetic trait with negative repercussions in modern cultures, there is little selective pressure toward its removal from our genome.
 
mac said:
No, you've lost track. My point with that statement was to illustrate that the net effect of increased human rights is not provable but assumable.
Click to expand...
Wrong, your "point" was to create some argument (the assumption) that the human condition has gotten worse. You didn't do that, in fact you showed improvements. We KNOW that the human condition has IMPROVED do to the recognition of human rights, whether you want to say that rights "are deserved" or not.


It can adequately be argued that many of the things we consider civilization are leading to the demise of our planet...primarily through over population and resource depletion. Increased human rights means less people get killed off early, they live longer, and they consume more.
Click to expand...
LOL.....now you completely rip the goal posts out of the ground and move them to a totally different field!

FFS....how pointless. You once again show that debate with you is a waste of time.
 
nota bene said:
You might want to point out that apes are not monkeys. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I should also note that our common ancestor was neither ape nor human. They may have looked like apes to a modern viewer but they are really proto-simians. The split between that ancestral group and monkeys goes back even further in time, 30-35 mya. Us hominids split away from the ape line at times varying between 18 mya (gibbons) and only 3.5-4 mya for chimps and bonobos, our closest relatives.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Yep, I'm "seriously" doubting the THEORY of macroevolution. I believe in microevolution because it happens in front of us all the time. But I do not believe that all life came from one source. You do? Also, I believe that God granted us and all animals the gift of microevolution. Why? Because if He didn't, we would have ruined this Earth a long time ago. God's wisdom and foresight far exceeds our ability to hypothesize. BTW, thanks for agreeing with me about the Big Bang Theory. We're off to a good start.
Click to expand...
Obviously the poster doesn't understand the meaning of THEORY in a scientific context.

"Microevolution" leads to "macroevolution" over time. I know creationists, the modern type who slightly understand that total rejection of evolution just isn't gonna work with all of the science showing the validity of evolution, luv to use "microevolution" but accepting minute changes means that eventually one sees big changes in a species.

MarineTpartier said:
There are a couple of problems with your statements. 1) I would like some specific contradictions, historically, that you find in the Bible. Not spiritual contradictions, historical ones. 2) What version of archaelogy are we talking about? The one where archaeologists have mislabeled many of the Earth's layers and added years upon years to them? When the measuring unit being used is inaccurate, naturally the results will be off. For instance, it has been said and is taken as fact that Joshua did not conquer Jericho but merely came upon the city after it was deserted. Even after evidence of a wall was found, a portion of it is collapsed, and that portion is burnt. The conclusion was that Joshua had broken the wall down and burnt it to make it look like he conquered the city or he came upon it like that and simply took credit for it. So the question is, why would Joshua do this? It makes no sense. If the town was deserted, then people of that day would know it was deserted. Therefore, the story given would have been a laughingstock because all of the people of the time would have known it to be untrue. The Bible wasn't written just for future readers. People of that day read it as well. In addition, no documents have been found to support the theory that Joshua made it up. The only thing that supports the theory is the faulty dating scale used by archaeologists. After that, its pure speculation.
Click to expand...

We have a couple of problems with the following statement: "The conclusion was that Joshua had broken the wall down and burnt it to make it look like he conquered the city" ONE, the existence of some warrior king named Joshua and TWO - chronology, if one accepts the Biblical tale of the Hebrew people leaving Egypt and wandering in the Sinai for 40 years, the best fit places Joshua and the Hebrews in Canaan about 1400 BCE. The burnt walls, actually they are mud brick showing signs of fires affecting them, are dated to approximately 1550 BCE. There was no city at Jericho at the time the Hebrews supposedly came out of the Sinai.

There is no archaeological evidence supporting the idea of a nomadic group of several hundred thousand living in the Sinai at the time of the Exodus.

There is no evidence of a large group of non-Egyptian slaves suddenly leaving Egypt.
some 'librul' newspaper
The reality is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt. Yes, there's the story contained within the bible itself, but that's not a remotely historically admissible source. I'm talking about real proof; archeological evidence, state records and primary sources. Of these, nothing exists.
Click to expand...

There is basically little evidence of a monotheistic band of people who became the Jews prior to about 1000 BCE. In fact there is evidence that even as late as the 7th Century BCE, many of those we call Hebrews, or Jews, were still polytheistic. Archaeology and the bible only begin to mesh following the Return from Babylon.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Wrong, your "point" was to create some argument (the assumption) that the human condition has gotten worse. You didn't do that, in fact you showed improvements. We KNOW that the human condition has IMPROVED do to the recognition of human rights, whether you want to say that rights "are deserved" or not.
Click to expand...

No, that wasn't my point. My point is that the concept of rights is not provable and at it's core is little more than faith.

LOL.....now you completely rip the goal posts out of the ground and move them to a totally different field!

FFS....how pointless. You once again show that debate with you is a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Well, like I've been telling you...that the goal post is movable on this particular point relative to subjective personal perpesctive....is the point. I'm sorry you don't get it.
 
Somerville said:
Maybe you haven't noticed but we don't live in a hunter/gatherer society. Traits that were selected over the past couple hundred thousand years haven't had time to be eliminated thru natural selection. Never mind the fact that as same sex attraction is not a genetic trait with negative repercussions in modern cultures, there is little selective pressure toward its removal from our genome.
Click to expand...

So tell me. What objective evidence exists that the gay uncle theory was ever anything more than theoretical at any point in human history?
 
mac said:
So tell me. What objective evidence exists that the gay uncle theory was ever anything more than theoretical at any point in human history?
Click to expand...

Go back and find the post in which I provided a link to a study that supported the "gay uncle" hypothesis (not theory)
 
Somerville said:
Go back and find the post in which I provided a link to a study that supported the "gay uncle" hypothesis (not theory)
Click to expand...

http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/Test of homosexual hypothesis.pdf

"Overall, little support was found for the kin selection theory in a community sample."

"Of particular interest was the lack of significant group differences in benevolent tendencies towards nephews or nieces. Heterosexual and homosexual also did not significantly differ in differential channelling of resources towards specific classes of siblings."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom