Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
The Old Homosexuality/Bisexuality as Choice debate..
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 3/15/12

wrote:

It doesn't matter whether it's influenced genetically, naturally, or purely based on decision. It's a preference that -CAN- be prevented, and it's sad to see the increasing number of homosexuals to this day are ruining the built up set morals that God gave us. It's delusional to think that homosexual is -acceptable- and that only "assholes" are against homosexuality.

I fear for the future, where homosexual couples are roaming around everywhere as common as a straight couple. Not only because it's disgusting and immoral, but also because they're all eating their "forbidden fruits" without foreseeing the regret coming ahead up them.


Frankly, you saying it doesn't matter whether it's influenced etc, pisses me off. If you look at the title of this debate, the MAIN question of this topic IS whenether it is a psychological choice or something genetical.
The topic however is NOT whenether it is good, bad, ''disgusting'' or ruining the morals that your delusional god gave us. So please leave your insufferable opinion about that on the doorstep.

I fear for the future, where people desperatly chase a set of morals that are over 2000 years old, and even at those times they were relatively immoral compared to the rest of the world.
But nevertheless that is not the debate at hand, the question is, is it a choice or genetically forced?


Posted 3/15/12

amersfoort wrote:

Frankly, you saying it doesn't matter whether it's influenced etc, pisses me off. If you look at the title of this debate, the MAIN question of this topic IS whenether it is a psychological choice or something genetical.
The topic however is NOT whenether it is good, bad, ''disgusting'' or ruining the morals that your delusional god gave us. So please leave your insufferable opinion about that on the doorstep.

I fear for the future, where people desperatly chase a set of morals that are over 2000 years old, and even at those times they were relatively immoral compared to the rest of the world.
But nevertheless that is not the debate at hand, the question is, is it a choice or genetically forced?


The topic of this thread is certainly whether it is a "psychological choice" or something "genetically induced".

However don't you think that it's the job for psychologists to figure that out, and not for us to debate? Hence my statement that it is irrelevant.

Morals that are "2000 years old". Just because it's been awhile, it doesn't mean there needs to be a change. Sure morality develops but flipping an objective moral upside-down is not something that should be endorsed nor encouraged.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 3/15/12

lIlIlIIlI wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

Frankly, you saying it doesn't matter whether it's influenced etc, pisses me off. If you look at the title of this debate, the MAIN question of this topic IS whenether it is a psychological choice or something genetical.
The topic however is NOT whenether it is good, bad, ''disgusting'' or ruining the morals that your delusional god gave us. So please leave your insufferable opinion about that on the doorstep.

I fear for the future, where people desperatly chase a set of morals that are over 2000 years old, and even at those times they were relatively immoral compared to the rest of the world.
But nevertheless that is not the debate at hand, the question is, is it a choice or genetically forced?


The topic of this thread is certainly whether it is a "psychological choice" or something "genetically induced".

However don't you think that it's the job for psychologists to figure that out, and not for us to debate? Hence my statement that it is irrelevant.

Morals that are "2000 years old". Just because it's been awhile, it doesn't mean there needs to be a change. Sure morality develops but flipping an objective moral upside-down is not something that should be endorsed nor encouraged.


No I do not think it's irrelivant that we discuss the origins of homosexuality, and I most certainly do not agree that it is not for us to debate it's origins. Infact, I see it as every humans duty to understand the origins of the feelings other people have and the actions they make.
To disregard those feelings and say that's a pshychologists job is irresponsible and shows how much you really care for your fellow human beings.

Morals that are 2000 year old do not carry the progress we as humanity and society have made, therefore they are dangerous and should be disregarded immidiatly.
Even you, are cherry picking from the 2000 year old morals, or do you believe that adultery should be punished by death, or for that case, how about working on sunday? Besides how would working on a sunday show that a person is deprived from moral value, does it not show a strong work ethic?

And flipping objective morals upside-down has been done quite a lot, as you know in the old testament slavery (sex slavery as well) is encouraged and done to a horrible extent, but I am sure that you as well agree that slavery is an immoral thing to do, and that it is a good thing we got rid of it.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 3/15/12

lIlIlIIlI wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

Frankly, you saying it doesn't matter whether it's influenced etc, pisses me off. If you look at the title of this debate, the MAIN question of this topic IS whenether it is a psychological choice or something genetical.
The topic however is NOT whenether it is good, bad, ''disgusting'' or ruining the morals that your delusional god gave us. So please leave your insufferable opinion about that on the doorstep.

I fear for the future, where people desperatly chase a set of morals that are over 2000 years old, and even at those times they were relatively immoral compared to the rest of the world.
But nevertheless that is not the debate at hand, the question is, is it a choice or genetically forced?


The topic of this thread is certainly whether it is a "psychological choice" or something "genetically induced".

However don't you think that it's the job for psychologists to figure that out, and not for us to debate? Hence my statement that it is irrelevant.

Morals that are "2000 years old". Just because it's been awhile, it doesn't mean there needs to be a change. Sure morality develops but flipping an objective moral upside-down is not something that should be endorsed nor encouraged.


No I do not think it's irrelivant that we discuss the origins of homosexuality, and I most certainly do not agree that it is not for us to debate it's origins. Infact, I see it as every humans duty to understand the origins of the feelings other people have and the actions they make.
To disregard those feelings and say that's a pshychologists job is irresponsible and shows how much you really care for your fellow human beings.

Morals that are 2000 year old do not carry the progress we as humanity and society have made, therefore they are dangerous and should be disregarded immidiatly.
Even you, are cherry picking from the 2000 year old morals, or do you believe that adultery should be punished by death, or for that case, how about working on sunday? Besides how would working on a sunday show that a person is deprived from moral value, does it not show a strong work ethic?

And flipping objective morals upside-down has been done quite a lot, as you know in the old testament slavery (sex slavery as well) is encouraged and done to a horrible extent, but I am sure that you as well agree that slavery is an immoral thing to do, and that it is a good thing we got rid of it.
Posted 3/15/12

amersfoort wrote:

No I do not think it's irrelivant that we discuss the origins of homosexuality, and I most certainly do not agree that it is not for us to debate it's origins. Infact, I see it as every humans duty to understand the origins of the feelings other people have and the actions they make.
To disregard those feelings and say that's a pshychologists job is irresponsible and shows how much you really care for your fellow human beings.

Morals that are 2000 year old do not carry the progress we as humanity and society have made, therefore they are dangerous and should be disregarded immidiatly.
Even you, are cherry picking from the 2000 year old morals, or do you believe that adultery should be punished by death, or for that case, how about working on sunday? Besides how would working on a sunday show that a person is deprived from moral value, does it not show a strong work ethic?

And flipping objective morals upside-down has been done quite a lot, as you know in the old testament slavery (sex slavery as well) is encouraged and done to a horrible extent, but I am sure that you as well agree that slavery is an immoral thing to do, and that it is a good thing we got rid of it.


Truthfully, it doesn't matter whether you "think" it's relevant or not. Because it isn't. It's the job for psychologists to figure out, through objective research. There's only going to be one final answer, as it's legitimate science. Debating on this forum using speculation and questionable articles is never going to lead to a conclusion; in other words it is completely pointless.

It certainly is important for everyone to understand the origins of homosexuality. I agree that we need to figure out the cause in order to find a way to prevent this "preference". Personally, I'd prefer if it were genetically induced. Because it would make it simple to prevent this preference during childhood development and stages of puberty. Human psychology isn't difficult to alter, with few exceptions. Did you know that education is what teaches us the rights and wrongs of murder?

Like I said, you're just going through an irrational stage of false justification. Morals are set, and just because it's "old" doesn't mean it's time to reverse the morals. According to your ideology, in a few decades murder is going to be perfectly acceptable. I disagree.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 3/15/12

lIlIlIIlI wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

No I do not think it's irrelivant that we discuss the origins of homosexuality, and I most certainly do not agree that it is not for us to debate it's origins. Infact, I see it as every humans duty to understand the origins of the feelings other people have and the actions they make.
To disregard those feelings and say that's a pshychologists job is irresponsible and shows how much you really care for your fellow human beings.

Morals that are 2000 year old do not carry the progress we as humanity and society have made, therefore they are dangerous and should be disregarded immidiatly.
Even you, are cherry picking from the 2000 year old morals, or do you believe that adultery should be punished by death, or for that case, how about working on sunday? Besides how would working on a sunday show that a person is deprived from moral value, does it not show a strong work ethic?

And flipping objective morals upside-down has been done quite a lot, as you know in the old testament slavery (sex slavery as well) is encouraged and done to a horrible extent, but I am sure that you as well agree that slavery is an immoral thing to do, and that it is a good thing we got rid of it.


Truthfully, it doesn't matter whether you "think" it's relevant or not. Because it isn't. It's the job for psychologists to figure out, through objective research. There's only going to be one final answer, as it's legitimate science. Debating on this forum using speculation and questionable articles is never going to lead to a conclusion; in other words it is completely pointless.

It certainly is important for everyone to understand the origins of homosexuality. I agree that we need to figure out the cause in order to find a way to prevent this "preference". Personally, I'd prefer if it were genetically induced. Because it would make it simple to prevent this preference during childhood development and stages of puberty. Human psychology isn't difficult to alter, with few exceptions. Did you know that education is what teaches us the rights and wrongs of murder?

Like I said, you're just going through an irrational stage of false justification. Morals are set, and just because it's "old" doesn't mean it's time to reverse the morals. According to your ideology, in a few decades murder is going to be perfectly acceptable. I disagree.


''Because it isn't'' Well let's create a what if situation, what if a homophobe christian fanatic is reading this very forum topic, and on this he/she bases the decision to either bomb the local gay bar or not to, would it still make this topic completely irrelivant?
Now let's go a level lower, what if this debate influences the view some people have on homosexuality? Every debate on what is good, what is beautifull, what is true and what is pure, is always worth having. Just because we are not able to give the final answer does not mean we should simply refrain from having it.
So yes, it does matter what I think, and it does matter what you think.

Now it is good that you agree that it is important to understand fellow human beings, and what that information means to you.
And actually, recent studies has shown us that babies already partially know on what is ''good'' to do and what is ''bad'' to do. Nevertheless education does play a huge role.

Now to say i'm going through a phase is ofcourse quite an insult, I've been an atheist since I was 14 and started thinking rationally. Now my feelings on the subject actually are irrational, I do see religion as a danger, and I do wish it to be gone soon.
Now I don't understand your remark of false justification, but I honestly want to leave it at that because in my experience theist have a very thwarted meaning of justice.

And yes according to my ideology murder could be acceptable, but the truth is I am a pacifist, and against any form of the death penalty or violence. However since society is constantly changing (slavery or sunday workers for example, still haven't gotten an awnser) and so are our moral values, then there might be a point that humanity thinks that murder is okay (if we don't already, deathpenalty/war).
But for now, I say no, it is not okay untill prooven without doubt otherwise.
Posted 3/15/12

amersfoort wrote:

''Because it isn't'' Well let's create a what if situation, what if a homophobe christian fanatic is reading this very forum topic, and on this he/she bases the decision to either bomb the local gay bar or not to, would it still make this topic completely irrelivant?
Now let's go a level lower, what if this debate influences the view some people have on homosexuality? Every debate on what is good, what is beautifull, what is true and what is pure, is always worth having. Just because we are not able to give the final answer does not mean we should simply refrain from having it.
So yes, it does matter what I think, and it does matter what you think.

Now it is good that you agree that it is important to understand fellow human beings, and what that information means to you.
And actually, recent studies has shown us that babies already partially know on what is ''good'' to do and what is ''bad'' to do. Nevertheless education does play a huge role.

Now to say i'm going through a phase is ofcourse quite an insult, I've been an atheist since I was 14 and started thinking rationally. Now my feelings on the subject actually are irrational, I do see religion as a danger, and I do wish it to be gone soon.
Now I don't understand your remark of false justification, but I honestly want to leave it at that because in my experience theist have a very thwarted meaning of justice.

And yes according to my ideology murder could be acceptable, but the truth is I am a pacifist, and against any form of the death penalty or violence. However since society is constantly changing (slavery or sunday workers for example, still haven't gotten an awnser) and so are our moral values, then there might be a point that humanity thinks that murder is okay (if we don't already, deathpenalty/war).
But for now, I say no, it is not okay untill prooven without doubt otherwise.


This thread may influence one's view on homosexuality. However if this thread serves as a determining factor of whether homosexuality is genetically induced or not, that's ridiculously detrimental. Are you a psychologist? No. You're merely a homosexual presenting your biased perspective on how you became a homosexual. It's illogical to take biased perspectives into account when -determining- scientific theories, especially when they've got no justification besides their personal anecdotes. Psychology is a science, not a subjective philosophy. There's only one answer.

Your admittance for the contradiction in your ideology simply proves that you are being biased. Hence my stance remains adamant, homosexuality should not be accepted in society. Period.
Posted 3/15/12

lIlIlIIlI wrote:


This thread may influence one's view on homosexuality. However if this thread serves as a determining factor of whether homosexuality is genetically induced or not, that's ridiculously detrimental. Are you a psychologist? No. You're merely a homosexual presenting your biased perspective on how you became a homosexual. It's illogical to take biased perspectives into account when -determining- scientific theories, especially when they've got no justification besides their personal anecdotes. Psychology is a science, not a subjective philosophy. There's only one answer.

Your admittance for the contradiction in your ideology simply proves that you are being biased. Hence my stance remains adamant, homosexuality should not be accepted in society. Period.
You there, you insensitively religious bigot with your pseudoscience authoritarian crap! From one heterosexual to another, suck on your precious psychology.

Psychiatric Disorders



Paraphilias



Common Characteristics

Paraphilias all have in common distressing and repetitive sexual fantasies, urges, or behaviors. These fantasies, urges, or behaviors must occur for a significant period of time and must interfere with either satisfactory sexual relations or everyday functioning if the diagnosis is to be made. There is also a sense of distress within these individuals. In other words, they typically recognize the symptoms as negatively impacting their life but feel as if they are unable to control them.



Disorders in this Category

Exhibitionism

Fetishism

Frotteurism

Pedophilia

Sexual Masochism

Sexual Sadism

Transvestic Fetishism

Voyeurism





Sexual Disorders and Dysfunctions



Common Characteristics

The primary characteristic in this category is the impairment in normal sexual functioning. This can refer to an inability to perform or reach an orgasm, painful sexual intercourse, a strong repulsion of sexual activity, or an exaggerated sexual response cycle or sexual interest. A medical cause must be ruled out prior to making any sexual dysfunction diagnosis and the symptoms must be hindering the person's everyday functioning.



Gender Identity Disorder has also been placed in this category, although no outward dysfunction needs to be present for this disorder. Basically, it includes strong feelings of being the wrong gender, or feelings that your outward body is inconsistent with your internal sense of being either male or female.



Disorders in this Category

Dyspareunia

Female Orgasmic Disorder

Female Sexual Arousal Disorder

Gender Identity Disorder

Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder

Male Erectile Disorder

Male Orgasmic Disorder

Premature Ejaculation

Sexual Aversion Disorder

Vaginismus

-from "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)"
Nothing was said about homosexuals being unnatural or sick, but there's a special mentioning about someone like you:

Narcissistic Personality Disorder



Category

Personality Disorders



Etiology

Like most personality disorders, there are many factors that may contribute to the development of symptoms. Because the symptoms are long lasting, the idea that symptoms begin to emerge in childhood or at least adolescence is well accepted. The negative consequences of such symptoms, however, may not show themselves until adulthood.



Symptoms

The symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder revolve around a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and sense of entitlement. Often individuals feel overly important and will exaggerate achievements and will accept, and often demand, praise and admiration despite worthy achievements. They may be overwhelmed with fantasies involving unlimited success, power, love, or beauty and feel that they can only be understood by others who are, like them, superior in some aspect of life.



There is a sense of entitlement, of being more deserving than others based solely on their superiority. These symptoms, however, are a result of an underlying sense of inferiority and are often seen as overcompensation. Because of this, they are often envious and even angry of others who have more, receive more respect or attention, or otherwise steal away the spotlight.



Treatment

Treatment for this disorder is very rarely sought. There is a limited amount of insight into the symptoms, and the negative consequences are often blamed on society. In this sense, treatment options are limited. Some research has found long term insight oriented therapy to be effective, but getting the individual to commit to this treatment is a major obstacle.



Prognosis

Prognosis is limited and based mainly on the individual's ability to recognize their underlying inferiority and decreased sense of self worth. With insight and long term therapy, the symptoms can be reduced in both number and intensity.
- from "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)"
Posted 3/15/12

DomFortress wrote:

You there, you insensitively religious bigot with your pseudoscience authoritarian crap! From one heterosexual to another, suck on your precious psychology.
Nothing was said about homosexuals being unnatural or sick, but there's a special mentioning about someone like you:


I'm not going to argue or deny any of the "diagnosis" you gave me, because I don't support personal attacks as a justification for an argument. I find it essentially pointless. However the statement you highlighted in red, "Your admittance for the contradiction in your ideology simply proves that you are being biased. Hence my stance remains adamant, homosexuality should not be accepted in society. Period," I believe is a reasonable justification that his point was biased and (harsh, but) pointless. Because the ideology that homosexuality should be accepted because morality needs a change and it's okay to flip set morals, is a justification for murder, which he apparently made an exception for. It's ridiculous.
Posted 3/15/12

lIlIlIIlI wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

You there, you insensitively religious bigot with your pseudoscience authoritarian crap! From one heterosexual to another, suck on your precious psychology.
Nothing was said about homosexuals being unnatural or sick, but there's a special mentioning about someone like you:


I'm not going to argue or deny any of the "diagnosis" you gave me, because I don't support personal attacks as a justification for an argument. I find it essentially pointless. However the statement you highlighted in red, "Your admittance for the contradiction in your ideology simply proves that you are being biased. Hence my stance remains adamant, homosexuality should not be accepted in society. Period," I believe is a reasonable justification that his point was biased and (harsh, but) pointless. Because the ideology that homosexuality should be accepted because morality needs a change and it's okay to flip set morals, is a justification for murder, which he apparently made an exception for. It's ridiculous.
And so is the monotheistic Christian God Yahweh and His justification for genocide in the Old Testament, later on with "tho shalt not kill" in the New Testament, and how Christian monotheism was actually evolved from polytheism. So what's your point? Other than the eloquent evolutionary psychological explanation called Terror Management Theory.

Sheldon Solomon - Ernest Becker & The Denial of Death
Terror Management Theory (TMT) was proposed in 1986 by social psychologists Jeff Greenberg, Tom Pyszczynski, and Sheldon Solomon. The theory was inspired by the writings of cultural anthropologist, Ernest Becker, and was initiated by two relatively simple questions: Why do people have such a great need to feel good about themselves?; and Why do people have so much trouble getting along with those different from themselves?

The basic gist of the theory is that humans are motivated to quell the potential for terror inherent in the human awareness of vulnerability and mortality by investing in cultural belief systems (or worldviews) that imbue life with meaning, and the individuals who subscribe to them with significance (or self-esteem). Since its inception, the theory has generated empirical research into not just the nature of self-esteem motivation and prejudice, but also a host of other forms of human social behavior. To date, over 300 studies conducted in over a dozen countries have explored such topics as aggression, stereotyping, needs for structure and meaning, depression and psychopathology (e.g., phobias), political preferences, creativity, sexuality and attraction, romantic and interpersonal attachment, self-awareness, unconscious cognition, martyrdom, religion, group identification, disgust, human-nature relations, physical health, risk taking, and legal judgments.
Posted 3/15/12

DomFortress wrote:

And so is the monotheistic Christian God Yahweh and His justification for genocide in the Old Testament, later on with "tho shalt not kill" in the New Testament, and how Christian monotheism was actually evolved from polytheism. So what's your point? Other than the eloquent evolutionary psychological explanation called Terror Management Theory.


My point? My point was that his point was biased hence pointless. Period. I don't debate on interpretations of the Bible, because it's futile. Since you pointed fingers at other subjects for being equally hypocritical, rather than denying that it's contradictory, I guess makes it safe for me to assume that you are aware that it's a ridiculous ideology. Which makes me ask you back, what is your point?
Posted 3/15/12

lIlIlIIlI wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

And so is the monotheistic Christian God Yahweh and His justification for genocide in the Old Testament, later on with "tho shalt not kill" in the New Testament, and how Christian monotheism was actually evolved from polytheism. So what's your point? Other than the eloquent evolutionary psychological explanation called Terror Management Theory.


My point? My point was that his point was biased hence pointless. Period.
I don't debate on interpretations of the Bible, because it's futile. Since you pointed fingers at other subjects for being equally hypocritical, rather than denying that it's contradictory, I guess makes it safe for me to assume that you are aware that it's a ridiculous ideology. Which makes me ask you back, what is your point?
And so are yours, but I don't see you upholding your own standards to your own equally biased opinions. You're just selfish, greedy, and scared of uncomfortable ideas. That's my point.

And for the topic itself, I stated since last November. Now stop being a pragmatic sellout and study, you're making scientific rigours look bad with your pseudoscience.
Posted 3/15/12

DomFortress wrote:

And so are yours, but I don't see you upholding your own standards to your own equally biased opinions. You're just selfish, greedy, and scared of uncomfortable ideas. That's my point.

And for the topic itself, I stated since last November. Now stop being a pragmatic sellout and study, you're making scientific rigours look bad with your pseudoscience.


My point can't be pointless, because the point I made was that his point was biased and pointless. As you are aware, I was correct. So your statement is moot.

As for your second statement, if you desire discussion with me you should reply in correspondence to what I'm posting. I mean, you were the one who quoted me in the first place. Don't you consider that common courtesy? Don't tell me to go read your previous posts, when you quoted me in the first place.

Posted 3/15/12

lIlIlIIlI wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

And so are yours, but I don't see you upholding your own standards to your own equally biased opinions. You're just selfish, greedy, and scared of uncomfortable ideas. That's my point.

And for the topic itself, I stated since last November. Now stop being a pragmatic sellout and study, you're making scientific rigours look bad with your pseudoscience.


My point can't be pointless, because the point I made was that his point was biased and pointless. As you are aware, I was correct. So your statement is moot.

As for your second statement, if you desire discussion with me you should reply in correspondence to what I'm posting. I mean, you were the one who quoted me in the first place. Don't you consider that common courtesy? Don't tell me to go read your previous posts, when you quoted me in the first place.

You claimed here that "Psychology is a science, not a subjective philosophy. There's only one answer". Not only that you didn't empirically establish what exactly is this "subjective philosophy", because that doesn't exist in our cultural lexigram when you just made it up. You also intentionally ignored psychology as a whole here, simply because while it identifies you with narcissism, it doesn't support your biased opinion on homosexuality.

Finally, you're the one who turned your back away from pragmatism when scientific rigours didn't support your entitlement claim on homosexuality. So don't you dare try to suggest that I should treat you with "common courtesy", when yourself lacking self-respect, integrity, dignity, and not to mention compassion for fellow human beings. Homosexuals and pragmatists included.
Posted 3/15/12

DomFortress wrote:

You claimed here that "Psychology is a science, not a subjective philosophy. There's only one answer". Not only that you didn't empirically establish what exactly is this "subjective philosophy", because that doesn't exist in our cultural lexigram when you just made it up. You also intentionally ignored psychology as a whole here, simply because while it identifies you with narcissism, it doesn't support your biased opinion on homosexuality.

Finally, you're the one who turned your back away from pragmatism when scientific rigours didn't support your entitlement claim on homosexuality. So don't you dare try to suggest that I should treat you with "common courtesy", when yourself lacking self-respect, integrity, dignity, and not to mention compassion for fellow human beings. Homosexuals and pragmatists included.


While I admit that it was an empty adjective, it doesn't really divert what I was implying. You're unintentionally turning this discussion into a bickering of trivial semantics. I don't blame you, because it's natural, but I'm just going to give you useful advice that it doesn't make your argument any stronger. Like I said, psychology is a science. It only has one answer. Hence "debating" science over the Crunchyroll forums is pointless, because science isn't something to "debate" about, but rather, something to hypothesise and research on (let alone the CR forums). Two opposing stances will never reach an agreement or conclusion with insufficient amount of evidence present to this day.

As for your second link, I hope you are aware of the foundations of logic. Accusing me of being "narcissistic" isn't justifying your stance. If you want to promote healthy discussion, rather than attacking myself personally, you should attack the content of my posts. Please take good note of this.

And finally, you're pointing fingers again.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.