Choices [W:1315]

RamFel · May 13, 2017

FutureIncoming said:
Just because you have no answers on what to do about Msg #1123, that does not make abortion wrong! (In other words, you and all other abortion opponents have yet to present an Objectively Valid argument supporting the claim that abortion is wrong. All you have offered is Bad Data, Bad Logic, Stupid Lies, Stupid Prejudice and Stupid Hypocrisy, among other erroneous blatherings.)

And the very simplest argument for why abortion should be legal is, you have not one valid reason to make it illegal. Period!

I don't have answers, it's true, but since all answers (especially yours) can be either proven wrong, or responded to with BS, I don't see the point. You have been putting out so much BS and passing it off as objective that some people here, who I consider fairly intelligent, are being pulled to your view of things. And it's not right.

On on the evidence thing, it's a big scam. But in order to show you that it is wrong, I can prove it, to even you, but I cannot convince you over to my side. So I have decided long ago that I would quit trying so hard and free myself a useless futile excercise.

RamFel · May 13, 2017

minnie616 said:
See you cannot imagine there is no hell.

You cannot imagine all the people living life peace.

There is a hell' and peace is impossible.

FutureIncoming · May 14, 2017

RamFel said:
I don't have answers, it's true,

SO WHY DO YOU BOTHER POSTING NON-ANSWERS??? Like, when we ask you to present just one Objectively Valid reason to make abortion illegal, any non-answer is just worthless blather!!!

RamFel said:
but since all answers (especially yours) can be either proven wrong,

PICK ONE AND DO IT. Because until you do (which you most certainly have not done yet!), no one need believe your worthless blather about that!

RamFel said:
or responded to with BS,

YOU ARE EXPLICITLY TALKING ABOUT **YOU** BLATHERING EVEN MORE NONSENSE!!! Tsk, tsk!

RamFel said:
I don't see the point.

THIS IS A DEBATE SITE. Either you participate, or you are just wasting time here.

RamFel said:
You have been putting out so much BS

GENERIC DENUNCIATION IS IDENTICAL TO WORTHLESS BLATHER. I keep asking you (and others) to pick something specific of what I've written that you/they claim is erroneous, and yet you, at least, still haven't done it!

RamFel said:
and passing it off as objective

BECAUSE IT IS. I often present either links to directly verifiable data, or links to other things I've written (because of space-limitations here) that contain links to directly verifiable data. But when I ask you (or others) to present some data showing how an unborn human qualifies as a "being", in the same sense that an intelligent extraterrestrial alien could qualify as a being, you have never done that! All you have ever done is CLAIM that an unborn human is a being! Why should anyone believe you???

RamFel said:
that some people here, who I consider fairly intelligent, are being pulled to your view of things.

IF MY ARGUMENT IS MORE VALID THAN YOURS, WHAT OTHER RESULT CAN YOU EXPECT?

RamFel said:
And it's not right.

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Since when should an inferior argument, totally unaccompanied by any linked Objectively Verifiable Facts, win a Debate?

RamFel said:
On on the evidence thing, it's a big scam.

SO BALD WORDS ARE SOMEHOW SUPERIOR TO EXPERIMENTALLY PROVABLE DATA? In theory, that means I could say, "You are an idiot" --and no matter what experimentally provable data you present to the contrary, my bald words must somehow be more correct than the evidence! That's the consequence of claiming evidence is a "scam"!!! --and I truly hope you are actually not idiotic enough to believe that thing you wrote that I quoted above!

RamFel said:
But in order to show you that it is wrong, I can prove it, to even you,

GO AHEAD AND TRY; PICK JUST ONE THING AND TRY.

RamFel said:
but I cannot convince you over to my side.

IF YOU HAVE GENUINE PROOF THAT SOMETHING I PRESENTED IS WRONG, I HAVE THE INTEGRITY TO ADMIT IT. But I doubt that what you **claim** is proof is actually, truly, proof. The Bible, for example, isn't proof of anything other than that a bunch of humans wrote a bunch of words. Some of the words might be verifiable (David begat Solomon), and some of the words have been proven wrong (there was never any such thing as a World Wide Flood --the closest thing to it happened something like six hundred million years ago, when the Moon was orbiting LOTS closer to the Earth, and the tides were literally kilometer-high waves washing across the continents, twice a day for millennia).

RamFel said:
So I have decided long ago that I would quit trying so hard and free myself a useless futile excercise.

GIVING UP MAKES YOU A DEBATE-LOSER, LACKING THE INTEGRITY TO ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG. I recommend against it, especially IF you actually have a provably-valid argument! But so far as I've seen, you don't have any such argument, just like all other abortion opponents. Which is exactly why the simplest-of-all reasons to keep abortion legal is, there is no valid reason to make it illegal.

RamFel · May 14, 2017

FutureIncoming said:
SO WHY DO YOU BOTHER POSTING NON-ANSWERS??? Like, when we ask you to present just one Objectively Valid reason to make abortion illegal, any non-answer is just worthless blather!!!

PICK ONE AND DO IT. Because until you do (which you most certainly have not done yet!), no one need believe your worthless blather about that!

YOU ARE EXPLICITLY TALKING ABOUT **YOU** BLATHERING EVEN MORE NONSENSE!!! Tsk, tsk!

Î
THIS IS A DEBATE SITE. Either you participate, or you are just wasting time here.

GENERIC DENUNCIATION IS IDENTICAL TO WORTHLESS BLATHER. I keep asking you (and others) to pick something specific of what I've written that you/they claim is erroneous, and yet you, at least, still haven't done it!

BECAUSE IT IS. I often present either links to directly verifiable data, or links to other things I've written (because of space-limitations here) that contain links to directly verifiable data. But when I ask you (or others) to present some data showing how an unborn human qualifies as a "being", in the same sense that an intelligent extraterrestrial alien could qualify as a being, you have never done that! All you have ever done is CLAIM that an unborn human is a being! Why should anyone believe you???

IF MY ARGUMENT IS MORE VALID THAN YOURS, WHAT OTHER RESULT CAN YOU EXPECT?

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Since when should an inferior argument, totally unaccompanied by any linked Objectively Verifiable Facts, win a Debate?

SO BALD WORDS ARE SOMEHOW SUPERIOR TO EXPERIMENTALLY PROVABLE DATA? In theory, that means I could say, "You are an idiot" --and no matter what experimentally provable data you present to the contrary, my bald words must somehow be more correct than the evidence! That's the consequence of claiming evidence is a "scam"!!! --and I truly hope you are actually not idiotic enough to believe that thing you wrote that I quoted above!

GO AHEAD AND TRY; PICK JUST ONE THING AND TRY.

IF YOU HAVE GENUINE PROOF THAT SOMETHING I PRESENTED IS WRONG, I HAVE THE INTEGRITY TO ADMIT IT. But I doubt that what you **claim** is proof is actually, truly, proof. The Bible, for example, isn't proof of anything other than that a bunch of humans wrote a bunch of words. Some of the words might be verifiable (David begat Solomon), and some of the words have been proven wrong (there was never any such thing as a World Wide Flood --the closest thing to it happened something like six hundred million years ago, when the Moon was orbiting LOTS closer to the Earth, and the tides were literally kilometer-high waves washing across the continents, twice a day for millennia).

GIVING UP MAKES YOU A DEBATE-LOSER, LACKING THE INTEGRITY TO ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG. I recommend against it, especially IF you actually have a provably-valid argument! But so far as I've seen, you don't have any such argument, just like all other abortion opponents. Which is exactly why the simplest-of-all reasons to keep abortion legal is, there is no valid reason to make it illegal.

I will do as I please, and you cannot command me to do anything that I do not want. You want me to jump into a giant quagmire to sort through a Jungle to find proof against your lies which as you must realize can be countered only to be proven and ,re-countered again and again. There are just as many writers for as there are against in this issue. Why should I go into it with you when there are smart people about that do a much better job than you?

I can't. And you most certainly can't either.

You have my refusal.

FutureIncoming · May 14, 2017

RamFel said:
I will do as I please,

LIKE BLATHER LIES AND STUPID PREJUDICE AND STUPID HYPOCRISY? Based on your past postings, that appears to be what everyone can expect from you in the future!

RamFel said:
and you cannot command me to do anything that I do not want.

THAT'S TRUE. Too bad what you want to do, and what you need to do, per participating in a Debate site, are apparently two wildly different things!

RamFel said:
You want me to jump into a giant quagmire to sort through a Jungle to find proof against your lies

INACCURATE. You have claimed that my postings are in-essence chock-full of lies. I want you to specify just one of them --if there are so many, then pointing out just one should be super-easy. Then, NOT using my postings, but using superior and Objectively Verifiable data from elsewhere on the internet, you should then prove what I wrote is a lie.

RamFel said:
which as you must realize can be countered

TO DO THAT I WOULD HAVE TO FIND EVEN-MORE-SUPERIOR DATA ON THE INTERNET. But since Facts are Facts, only one of us can actually find support for opposing claims. When two claims disagree, the Facts will support only one of them. For example, unborn humans are human entities; that is a Fact and I've never said anything to the contrary about that. What I do say is, "just because something is human, that doesn't mean it automatically deserves to survive". A hydatidiform mole, after all, is a 100% human entity that originates as a zygote, just like a normal human embryo that originates as a zygote, but a hydatidiform mole MUST be killed. So, if you think it is a lie, me claiming that "just because something it human, that doesn't mean it automatically deserves to survive", then you need to show why a hydatidiform mole deserves to survive (not to mention showing why any brain-dead human adult on life-support, for which a Death Certificate has been filled out, deserves to stay on life-support!).

THAT WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE. More often abortion opponents simply make Positive Claims, like "there exists such a thing as intrinsic value", yet no abortion opponent has yet proved that statement to be true, and in a Debate, Positive Claims are **required** to be proved. (So see again my earlier use of the phrase "what you want to do, and what you need to do" ....) My claim that there is no such thing as intrinsic value does not have to be proved, simply because it is not a Positive Claim. If my claim is a lie, you can prove it is a lie by proving that intrinsic value actually exists!

RamFel said:
only to be proven and ,re-countered again and again.

FACTS ARE FACTS. Any given set of Facts generally leads to just one conclusion, when conflicting claims of "Is So!" and "Isn't So!" need to be settled. Now, if someone can show that the particular set of Facts is incomplete, and that certain additional Facts must be taken into account, then the conclusion might change. But in the end, there is some maximum total number of relevant Facts, and when all of them are taken into account, only one conclusion will prevail.

RamFel said:
There are just as many writers for as there are against in this issue.

WRITERS DON'T MATTER. Facts matter!

RamFel said:
Why should I go into it with you when there are smart people about that do a much better job than you?

I HAVEN'T MET ONE OF THEM YET. Every single abortion opponent I've encountered has ended up doing exactly the same thing as you --spout generic denunciations, without pointing out a specific single major error in my arguments. (Minor errors have been identified, but they have not significantly affected my arguments. One example of that relates to the numbers of species that human overpopulation is causing to go extinct every year. I originally found data saying "thousands of entire species", but more-accurate data says "hundreds of entire species". It is still a lot of Life getting killed by human overpopulation, while so-called "pro-lifers" keep encouraging human overpopulation!)

RamFel said:
I can't. And you most certainly can't either.

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! See above!

RamFel · May 27, 2017

FutureIncoming said:
ABORTION IS JUST A TOOL. Like any other tool, it can be used and it can be misused. Being in favor of the existence of a tool, and the right to use a tool, is very different from being in favor of some particular way of using (or mis-using) that tool. Have you never heard of this saying before? "It is better to have something and not need it, than to need something and not have it." While abortion opponents like to focus on the relatively few women who regret getting an abortion, The Fact Is, most women don't regret it, and that means that when a woman thinks an abortion is necessary, she is glad that that tool exists and is accessible.

HERE IS AN ANALOGY. Lots of folks dislike the existence of nuclear explosives. Yet they also are just another tool that can be used (say to deflect or destroy an incoming asteroid on a collision course with Earth), or abused (to destroy cities). Being in favor of the existence of that tool does not automatically mean one is in favor of a particular way of using (or mis-using) it! It can simply mean one understands that it is indeed better to have something and not need it, than to need something and not have it!

IT IS A REAL THING THAT ALREADY EXISTS. No "waiting" needed (as stated in quote below).

WE ARE ALREADY KILLING HUNDREDS OF ENTIRE OTHER SPECIES EVERY YEAR. If you claim to be "pro life" you should be against that!

AND AFTER ALL THE OTHER ANIMALS ARE EATEN, THEN WHAT??? Do you really want the majority of humanity to starve to death in a Malthusian Catastrophe?

Me, I want to prevent that! MORE, if we humans claim to be so much smarter than ordinary animals, and if we let ourselves experience a Malthusian Catastrophe, then in what way have we actually proved we are smarter than ordinary animals? THEY aren't smart enough to understand the situation, and the consequences, if they happen to be breeding themselves into an overpopulation situation!

Look, you're going to have to figure out what I already know without the tricks, that no amount of subjective garbage that you try to produce is going to prove anything. All you're doing here is trying to get me into a discussion that you fully intend to contradict me on at every turn. But I am not your fool. I have learned through experience with your type of debater that the honest debater cannot win even though he is right. If you want to promote death, then do so but don't try to trick us with garbage disguised as fact. Be honest.

RamFel · May 27, 2017

I

FutureIncoming said:
Just because you have no answers on what to do about Msg #1123, that does not make abortion wrong! (In other words, you and all other abortion opponents have yet to present an Objectively Valid argument supporting the claim that abortion is wrong. All you have offered is Bad Data, Bad Logic, Stupid Lies, Stupid Prejudice and Stupid Hypocrisy, among other erroneous blatherings.)

And the very simplest argument for why abortion should be legal is, you have not one valid reason to make it illegal. Period!

it seems that "just because" is your only argument. All the others.

FutureIncoming · May 28, 2017

RamFel said:
Look, you're going to have to figure out what I already know without the tricks,

I ALREADY KNOW THAT YOU DENY FACTS. Therefore what you "know" is irrelevant; what matters are the Facts that you refuse to know/accept. Like the Fact that reproduction is not the primary purpose of human sex. Like the Fact that unborn humans are 100% guilty of committing assaults worse than a parasite. Like the Fact that it is impossible for an unborn human to qualify as a person, in the same way that a dolphin or True Artificial Intelligence or extraterrestrial alien being could qualify as a person.

RamFel said:
that no amount of subjective garbage that you try to produce

MERE CLAIMS ARE WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I dare you to specify some particular data-item I presented that Objectively qualifies both as "subjective" and "garbage".

RamFel said:
is going to prove anything.

THE ONLY THING I NEED PROVE IS THAT YOUR ANTI-ABORTION ARGUMENTS ARE FLAWED. And I have done that, every time you posted one that I saw.

RamFel said:
All you're doing here is trying to get me into a discussion

NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. This is a Debate site, after all!

RamFel said:
that you fully intend to contradict me on at every turn.

FALSE. Every once in a while you say something valid. Not very often, but, every once in a while you do say something valid. Like when you claim unborn humans are humans. YUP, I AGREE! (But that doesn't mean their human-ness matters in the slightest!)

RamFel said:
But I am not your fool.

ARE YOU SAYING YOU ARE YOUR OWN FOOL? Me, I only say that your arguments are foolish (and worse)!

RamFel said:
I have learned through experience with your type of debater that the honest debater

I AM THE HONEST TYPE OF DEBATER. I am perfectly willing to admit it when I am wrong.

RamFel said:
cannot win even though he is right.

ANYONE WHO IS ACTUALLY RIGHT CAN PROVE IT!!! You, however, have usually not been right, regardless of how much you think or believe you might be right.

RamFel said:
If you want to promote death,

I PROMOTE CHOICE. And I am totally against the promotion of mass deaths/extinctions of hundreds of entire species every year, that abortion opponents are working to cause!

RamFel said:
then do so but don't try to trick us with garbage disguised as fact.

IF SOMETHING I PRESENT IS ACTUALLY GARBAGE, THEN IT CAN BE PROVED TO BE GARBAGE. Yet I don't see you offering the slightest bit of evidence showing that something I presented is garbage. Why?

RamFel said:
Be honest.

I AM HONEST. But you...how can you possibly think that **claiming** something is garbage, without proving it is garbage, is an honest thing to do???

FutureIncoming · May 28, 2017

RamFel said:
It seems that "just because" is your only argument.

FALSE. It is the simplest argument.

PLEASE EXPLAIN: If you don't have a valid reason to ban swimming, why should swimming be banned? (actually, don't bother; just think about that, but do try Answering the next Question. Thanks in advance!)
PLEASE EXPLAIN: If you don't have a valid reason to ban abortion, why should abortion be banned?

RamFel · May 28, 2017

FutureIncoming said:
I ALREADY KNOW THAT YOU DENY FACTS. Therefore what you "know" is irrelevant; what matters are the Facts that you refuse to know/accept. Like the Fact that reproduction is not the primary purpose of human sex. Like the Fact that unborn humans are 100% guilty of committing assaults worse than a parasite. Like the Fact that it is impossible for an unborn human to qualify as a person, in the same way that a dolphin or True Artificial Intelligence or extraterrestrial alien being could qualify as a person.

If reproduction was not mans first purpose for having sex, then what was it? Please answer this. I have got to know the answer to this crazy idea.

The rest of your opening paragraph are much too ridiculous for words. We can be pretty destructive people one born but the unborn are only taking what the mother is giving. The mothers natural role is to provide.

And no matter what you say, a person once born has full rights as any other human being on earth to protection from unnecessary death. Absolute and undeniable. No matter what you say.

Oh, short answers are appriecated.

MERE CLAIMS ARE WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I dare you to specify some particular data-item I presented that Objectively qualifies both as "subjective" and "garbage".

THE ONLY THING I NEED PROVE IS THAT YOUR ANTI-ABORTION ARGUMENTS ARE FLAWED. And I have done that, every time you posted one that I saw.

NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. This is a Debate site, after all!

FALSE. Every once in a while you say something valid. Not very often, but, every once in a while you do say something valid. Like when you claim unborn humans are humans. YUP, I AGREE! (But that doesn't mean their human-ness matters in the slightest!)

ARE YOU SAYING YOU ARE YOUR OWN FOOL? Me, I only say that your arguments are foolish (and worse)!

I AM THE HONEST TYPE OF DEBATER. I am perfectly willing to admit it when I am wrong.

ANYONE WHO IS ACTUALLY RIGHT CAN PROVE IT!!! You, however, have usually not been right, regardless of how much you think or believe you might be right.

I PROMOTE CHOICE. And I am totally against the promotion of mass deaths/extinctions of hundreds of entire species every year, that abortion opponents are working to cause!

IF SOMETHING I PRESENT IS ACTUALLY GARBAGE, THEN IT CAN BE PROVED TO BE GARBAGE. Yet I don't see you offering the slightest bit of evidence showing that something I presented is garbage. Why?

I AM HONEST. But you...how can you possibly think that **claiming** something is garbage, without proving it is garbage, is an honest thing to do???[/QUOTE]

FutureIncoming · May 28, 2017

RamFel said:
If reproduction was not mans first purpose for having sex, then what was it?

I THOUGHT I TOLD YOU BEFORE. For humans (not for almost any other animal that reproduces sexually), the primary purpose of sex is "pair bonding". Human infants are SO helpless, compared to other animal infants, that the chances for their survival is greatly increased if two parents care for them, instead of just the mother. If you accept that Evolution favors organisms that find ways to survive, then It Logically Follows that if a woman can keep her man around to help raise offspring, she is more likely to pass on genes relating to doing what it takes to keep her man around. Therefore, for humans, sex is more about ensuring offspring can be raised successfully, than getting them produced in the first place. (Nevertheless, It Also Logically Follows that the more sex two human adults have, for whatever reason --like the Fact that sex is just plain fun-- the more likely offspring will be produced. Nature doesn't care that human reproduction is just a side-effect of sex; All That Matters Is Whatever Works For Species Survival.)

RamFel said:
The mothers natural role is to provide.

IGNORANTLY FALSE. For lots and lots of species, like most insects, but also quite a few other species like salmon and the octopus, the mother provides nothing for her offspring --she dies before they are even hatched. Even for humans, modern technology allows women to reproduce their genes without providing anything. Look up "surrogate mother" and "male parental adoption" for proof! (Not to mention that artificial wombs are getting researched, which means that even surrogate mothers won't be needed in the future.)

NOW ADD IN FETAL RESORPTION. It is perfectly Natural, on occasion, for a pregnant female's womb to kill its occupant by working backward, recovering the biological nutrients that had previously been stolen from the mother's body. And, yes, female human wombs can do that, too.

NOW ADD IN ECTOPIC PREGNANCIES. They take place outside the womb and are generally fatal to the woman, and they absolutely prove the woman is not a "provider". She is a victim! Nature doesn't care in the least about the unborn human killing her just so IT can steal what it needs to survive!

THEREFORE THE GENERIC PERCEPTION OF WOMEN AS NECESSARY PROVIDERS IS FALSE. There is absolutely no "must" about a woman and a pregnancy, unless that is what she wants.

RamFel · May 28, 2017

FutureIncoming said:
I THOUGHT I TOLD YOU BEFORE. For humans (not for almost any other animal that reproduces sexually), the primary purpose of sex is "pair bonding". Human infants are SO helpless, compared to other animal infants, that the chances for their survival is greatly increased if two parents care for them, instead of just the mother. If you accept that Evolution favors organisms that find ways to survive, then It Logically Follows that if a woman can keep her man around to help raise offspring, she is more likely to pass on genes relating to doing what it takes to keep her man around. Therefore, for humans, sex is more about ensuring offspring can be raised successfully, than getting them produced in the first place. (Nevertheless, It Also Logically Follows that the more sex two human adults have, for whatever reason --like the Fact that sex is just plain fun-- the more likely offspring will be produced. Nature doesn't care that human reproduction is just a side-effect of sex; All That Matters Is Whatever Works For Species Survival.)

You know, if I were utterly stupid, I still could never bring myself to come up with an answer as wrong as that one.. I am happy not to ... Well, I think I will just assume that you had a senior moment and give you a clear chance to explain that answer.

i of species, like most insects, but also quite a few other species like salmon and the
octopus, the mother provides nothing for her offspring --she dies before they are even hatched. Even for humans, modern technology allows women to reproduce their genes without providing anything. Look up "surrogate mother" and "male parental adoption" for proof! (Not to mention that artificial wombs are getting researchedwhich means that even surrogate mothers won't be needed in the future.)

NOW ADD IN FETAL RESORPTION. It is perfectly Natural, on occasion, for a pregnant female's womb to kill its occupant by working backward, recovering the biological nutrients that had previously been stolen from the mother's body. And, yes, female human wombs can do that, too.

NOW ADD IN ECTOPIC PREGNANCIES. They take place outside the womb and are generally fatal to the woman, and they absolutely prove the woman is not a "proviuuuider". She is a victim! Nature doesn't care in the least about the unborn human killing her just so IT can steal what it needs to survive!

THEREFORE THE GENERIC PERCEPTION OF WOMEN AS NECESSARY PROVIDERS IS FALSE. There is absolutely no "must" about a woman and a pregnancy, unless that is what she wants.[/QUOTE]

Celebrity · May 28, 2017

RamFel said:
You know, if I were utterly stupid, I still could never bring myself to come up with an answer as wrong as that one.. I am happy not to ... Well, I think I will just assume that you had a senior moment and give you a clear chance to explain that answer.

FutureIncoming said:

i of species, like most insects, but also quite a few other species like salmon and the
octopus, the mother provides nothing for her offspring --she dies before they are even hatched. Even for humans, modern technology allows women to reproduce their genes without providing anything. Look up "surrogate mother" and "male parental adoption" for proof! (Not to mention that artificial wombs are getting researchedwhich means that even surrogate mothers won't be needed in the future.)

NOW ADD IN FETAL RESORPTION. It is perfectly Natural, on occasion, for a pregnant female's womb to kill its occupant by working backward, recovering the biological nutrients that had previously been stolen from the mother's body. And, yes, female human wombs can do that, too.

NOW ADD IN ECTOPIC PREGNANCIES. They take place outside the womb and are generally fatal to the woman, and they absolutely prove the woman is not a "proviuuuider". She is a victim! Nature doesn't care in the least about the unborn human killing her just so IT can steal what it needs to survive!

THEREFORE THE GENERIC PERCEPTION OF WOMEN AS NECESSARY PROVIDERS IS FALSE. There is absolutely no "must" about a woman and a pregnancy, unless that is what she wants.

Click to expand...

It would be quite simple to explain to you how this all works if FutureIncoming would tell you how to exit a so called "pair bond." But that would clearly jeopardize someone's position. I don't doubt that you would find some way to nefariously exploit that exit.

FutureIncoming · May 29, 2017

RamFel said:
You know, if I were utterly stupid, I still could never bring myself to come up with an answer as wrong as that one..

YOU HAVE MERELY CLAIMED THAT MY EXPLANATION IS WRONG. But you did not point out any specific detail of my answer, that qualifies as "wrong". Why should anyone believe your mere claim?

RamFel · May 29, 2017

FutureIncoming said:
YOU HAVE MERELY CLAIMED THAT MY EXPLANATION IS WRONG. But you did not point out any specific detail of my answer, that qualifies as "wrong". Why should anyone believe your mere claim?

And for that matter, you have failed to show how your statement about the what the purpose of sex is, and you forget to state how you knew that what you claim is true. You have not spoken to any pre-historic individuals, nor have you interviewed any witnesses. Also, I cannot claim anything I state is true or false. That's not my task. My intent is to cast doubt on the multitude of questionable untruths you have posted. I believe that I have done that.

The whole entire purpose of sex is not to bond. Bonding is merely a secondary by product, I have shown this before against captain courtesy and the second time here. The whole entire purpose, I have shown, is and will always be PROCREATION.

Scrabaholic · May 29, 2017

RamFel said:
The whole entire purpose of sex is not to bond. Bonding is merely a secondary by product, I have shown this before against captain courtesy and the second time here. The whole entire purpose, I have shown, is and will always be PROCREATION.

You've made this claim before and were proven wrong. Humans having sex has more than one purpose.

year2late · May 29, 2017

RamFel said:
The whole entire purpose of sex is not to bond. Bonding is merely a secondary by product, I have shown this before against captain courtesy and the second time here. The whole entire purpose, I have shown, is and will always be PROCREATION.

The whole purpose of sex is whatever the partners think it is.

You have zero say in why an individual has sex.

If the piurpose of sex for individuals was always procreation, then there would be no need for contraception.

Hell, are you thinking that menopausal women need to abstain"

RamFel · May 29, 2017

Scrabaholic said:
You've made this claim before and were proven wrong. Humans having sex has more than one purpose.

Tell me how. Also how do you know what the purpose of sex was. Who told you. By The way I am not arguing about all the purposes of sex. I already know that sex has many purposes. But what I am saying is that sex has one main purpose. And that purpose is procreation. So please respond and tell me how I was Defeated because of my memory serves me correctly I made mincemeat out of you guys.

Scrabaholic · May 29, 2017

RamFel said:
Tell me how. Also how do you know what the purpose of sex was. Who told you. By The way I am not arguing about all the purposes of sex. I already know that sex has many purposes. But what I am saying is that sex has one main purpose. And that purpose is procreation. So please respond and tell me how I was Defeated because of my memory serves me correctly I made mincemeat out of you guys.

You said "The whole entire purpose, I have shown, is and will always be PROCREATION." which means you are saying that there is only one purpose of sex. That is incorrect. Humans use sex to bond, for pleasure and sometimes even to make money (ie. prostitutes) as well as for procreation. If procreation was the only purpose of sex, women would only be horny when ovulating, like in most of the non-human animal kingdom.

TheGoverness · May 29, 2017

Scrabaholic said:
You said "The whole entire purpose, I have shown, is and will always be PROCREATION." which means you are saying that there is only one purpose of sex. That is incorrect. Humans use sex to bond, for pleasure and sometimes even to make money (ie. prostitutes) as well as for procreation. If procreation was the only purpose of sex, women would only be horny when ovulating, like in most of the non-human animal kingdom.

I certainly don't use sex for procreation.

TheGoverness · May 29, 2017

RamFel said:
Tell me how. Also how do you know what the purpose of sex was. Who told you. By The way I am not arguing about all the purposes of sex. I already know that sex has many purposes. But what I am saying is that sex has one main purpose. And that purpose is procreation. So please respond and tell me how I was Defeated because of my memory serves me correctly I made mincemeat out of you guys.

Your memory obviously isn't serving you correctly, because now you're trying to change what you said previously.

TheGoverness · May 29, 2017

RamFel said:
And for that matter, you have failed to show how your statement about the what the purpose of sex is, and you forget to state how you knew that what you claim is true. You have not spoken to any pre-historic individuals, nor have you interviewed any witnesses. Also, I cannot claim anything I state is true or false. That's not my task. My intent is to cast doubt on the multitude of questionable untruths you have posted. I believe that I have done that.

The whole entire purpose of sex is not to bond. Bonding is merely a secondary by product, I have shown this before against captain courtesy and the second time here. The whole entire purpose, I have shown, is and will always be PROCREATION.

Me and my SO don't have sex for procreation purposes. No matter how hard she tries, I'm pretty sure she can't get me pregnant (and vice versa). We just do it for the pleasure and because it's a bonding experience.

RamFel · May 29, 2017

Scrabaholic said:
You said "The whole entire purpose, I have shown, is and will always be PROCREATION." which means you are saying that there is only one purpose of sex. That is incorrect. Humans use sex to bond, for pleasure and sometimes even to make money (ie. prostitutes) as well as for procreation. If procreation was the only purpose of sex, women would only be horny when ovulating, like in most of the non-human animal kingdom.

Then I stand corrected on those points but I stand by the fact that you don't know for sure. How could you. You weren't around those thousands of years ago. Guessing proves nothing. Btw. You don't use it for procreation but others do.

RamFel · May 29, 2017

TheGoverness said:
Me and my SO don't have sex for procreation purposes. No matter how hard she tries, I'm pretty sure she can't get me pregnant (and vice versa). We just do it for the pleasure and because it's a bonding experience.

You say that as if you knew for sure. Some may but not everyone

TheGoverness · May 29, 2017

RamFel said:
You say that as if you knew for sure.

Knew what exactly? That she can't get me pregnant? That we have sex for pleasure and bonding?

Because I'm about 110% certain that we can't have kids together.

Some may but not everyone

That's exactly our point. Some use sex for procreation purposes; some don't.

Choices [W:1315]

RamFel

RamFel

FutureIncoming

RamFel

FutureIncoming

RamFel

RamFel

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

RamFel

FutureIncoming

RamFel

Celebrity

FutureIncoming

RamFel

Scrabaholic

certified batshit crazy

year2late

IIJAFM

RamFel

Scrabaholic

certified batshit crazy

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine

RamFel

RamFel

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine