By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - ‘You’ve made your choice’: Man shares dad’s brutal letter disowning him for being gay

Jay520 said:
Runa216 said:
Jay520 said:
Runa216 said:

I'm kind of mean, though.  I argue with people over things like this becuase I get a sort of a high knowing that I'm dealing with an ignoramus.  It feels good to know I'm better than some people, and seeing these threads is further proof.  I'm kind of mean, but at least I'm not trying to convince the world that being gay is a choice or peddling some other nonsense that is completely contradicted by science. 

You're cool, though.  I like you.  in fact I like most people on here, just not the ones that use religion as a basis for an argument and demand I take them seriously. 


This arrogant mentality is the prime reason why nobody ever changes their mind when debating. People are more open to agreeing with someone who is humble & respectful rather than someone who has already set his mind that he's the 'superior' man. And it's especially bad when not just one, but both debaters are like you. In these situations, you won't get anything close to a discussion or civilised debate. Just two people driven to 'win' the debate by any means necessary.

Yeah, but there's a difference between, say, hating or not hating Final Fantasy XIII and being plain wrong about something that has scientific proof.  

Like I said before, if it was something as simple as a difference of valid opinions, I really don't care and I do respect people who have different opinions, but there is such a thing as being wrong.  I only feel superior when someone tries to argue stupidly.  

And when people say they like FInal Fantasy XIII, that game sucks, there's no debating that :P (Just to clarify for those who will inevitably report me, that last comment was facetious) 

 

I'm not just talking about Final Fantasy or just your posts in this thread. I'm talking about virtually every single post I've seen from you. You're posts reek off arrogance & condescension. It's like you feel like you're forcing youself to communicate with a lesser species or something. No one wants to talk to someone like that.

 

Then don't.  I don't want to talk to people who refuse to accept science as truth.  Far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks being gay is a choice, black people are inferior, that jews are the devil, or any other sexist, racist thing (especially those who use the bible as a REASON to feel that way) ARE lesser than  I am; they are barbarians, uncivilized whelps who deserve no respect or acceptance.  

I am incredibly easy to get along with, provided the people I'm talking to are reasonable, intelligent people.  Ignorance and intolerance get only disdain and hatred from me.  am I perfect?  hell no, but I'm sure as shootin better than racist, sexist pigs.  

And people who like Final Fantasy XIII, those blokes have no taste in quality games! 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Around the Network
Zappykins said:

"Regardless, if history serves us right there was more death in the name of non-religion than in the name of religion, the holocaust and red russia being the two biggest ones I believe."

Um, what?  Are you now saying the Nazi Holocaust was not in the name of religion?

 Cause, that doesn’t make any since to me.  Cause Christian Hitler would beg to differ.


Adolf Hitler wasn't a christian. He favoured Islam (tho he wasn't a muslim) and traditional japanese religions, which he highly respected. He used to say that is ''disappointing'' and saddening  that German official religion was christianity. He used christianity to turn the public against the jews, but all of his close relatives and colleagues said that he was an atheist. And holocaust was in the name of racism, supremacy and ''cleansing'' more than in the name of religion. Also, the church was strongly against their actions



Runa216 said:
Player1x3 said:
Runa216 said:
Player1x3 said:
Further point Runa, im not gonna further discuss on whether or not atheism or religion are illogical because it has nothing to do with the topic. Im sorry if i accidentally started the topic

No you're not, you bring it up in every topic that even remotely relates to religion or religious intolerance. 

And your image is even more ignorant because anyone with a brain sees the illogical nature of the fallacious argument on it.  What you just did was a strawman fallacy.  Congratulations.  You fail at logic. 


Nah, i just bring it up when i see irreligious intolerance. That's something inseparable from you

d'awww, you think I care about some bogus pseudoscience just becuase people believe really hard!  


Obviously



KungKras said:
Player1x3 said:
KungKras said:
Player1x3 said:
Mnementh said:
Player1x3 said:

Mnementh said:

Nobody died in the name of atheism. Or did someone made an atheist crusade or an atheist burning of witches or an atheist inquisition? What you mean is, that religions aren't the only ideologies, that cause harm. Facism, Stalinism, Maoism and so on had many victims. Although these ideologies weren't religious, tehy didn't claim they had to kill you because they are atheists.


No, they just killed you because you were theist. That's like saying ''KKK didn't lynch people for being black, they lynched them for not being white''

You're wrong. If you look at this list you can see, that a big number of the deaths can be accounted to famines, produced by completely wrong decisions. Namely the big leap forward in China was a big desaster. Communists killings were mostly against political enemies. Also the different facism killed people mostly because of their race and secondly because they were on a different political side (communists and social democrats mostly). In the atlantic slave trade most people were harmed simply because of profits. Most wars were fought over power. So this leaves the number of people killed from atheist because they were theists very small in comparison to all the other reasons.

And what, you think Inquisition and crusade killings were all just because one wasn't catholic ??? No it was still largely politics,greed and lust for power same as everything. The problem is, religion and politics were irreseperatable back than. In fact, the whole massacre the church committed on friday the 13th 1307 was because the Templars were getting too powerful and the church wanted them dead. The original point was that the regimes who favour atheism also killed tons of people like the institutions that favour religion.

It doesn't work that way. People can, have, and will kill each other for religious reasons. Atheists will never kill because of religion because there is no religious text that will tell them to kill.

It works like this. Religious people can kill because of non-religion factors plus because of religion. Non-religious people can only kill because of non-religious factors. It's as simple as that. And if you look at most societies today, there is a trend that, the more secular the society, the better it works.


Atheists have killed for irreligious purposes and have persecuted people for following a religion. They didn't do it in the name of atheism, but they did it in the name atheist favourable ideology that persecutes religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

And not this was only aimed at christians, which had it easiest of all persecuted groups. Islam and Judism were almost non existent

As I said, they killed because of ideological reasons. An atheistic holy book did not tell them to kill. There is no logical pathway from atheism to killing people, however, from religion, there is.

I also don't get what you mean by atheist favourable ideology. You're not saying that atheists favour communism do you?


Atheism? No. Anti-theism (fundemental form of atheism)? Absolutely



forevercloud3000 said:

Player1x3 said:


1.) Again, how is it natural ? Just because it happens to animals.

2.) And homosexuality is vastly inferior to heterosexuality in every possible aspect (and before someone jumps the ban hammer, im not saying homosexual people are inferior, they're not.) So how can it be considered normal (''natural'' is debatable, it dependents on your definition of natural ) when its alternative is just plain superior?

 

1.) because name one unatural thing animals do? Everything they do is natural, they don't know malice or any level of deeper brain thought. They run on instinct and simple problem solving mostly.

2.)How so? Please do tell because I would love to see this argument. By general consensus of definition, Homosexuals are on average...smarter than most heterosexuals. They are also often much more well groomed. Homosexuals also have a penchent for physical health and in many cases are some of the most fit people around. Gays virtually never have unplanned children which makes the raising process a WHOLE lot easier.


1) See my discussion with Jay on the matter

2) Wait, what? What does any of that have to do with their sexuality ?? Even if we pretend any of that bullshit its true, it's completely irrelevant to my point. I've never said that homosexuals,as people, are inferior, just their sexuality. Unplanned children ? They can't even have their own biological children to begin with, and you seriously ask me why their sexuality is inferior??? And if heterosexuals dont want any unplanned children, they can adopt as well (and with much less difficulty) There's also much higher probability of getting HIV, AIDS and countless other STDs. Hell, during 80's AIDS was considered homosexually exclusive disease.



Around the Network
Runa216 said:
happydolphin said:
Runa216 said:
happydolphin said:

I can live with that. I think whether what I say is wrong or right, what really matters is that I can argue it with people who disagree with me, so that if I'm ignorant they can help me change my mind.

except nobody EVER changes their opinion as a result of losing an online debate.  Nobody. Ever.  So what you're saying is that arguing with you is pointless? 

You couldn't be more deluded.

The number of debates I've had with Rol where I conceded points to him because he was simply right. If nobody has changed their opinions towards you, it's maybe because you have some homework to do.

Oh, I could be more deluded, but that's besides the point.  And how am I deluded?  People never change their opinions in online debates.  Even when utterly crushed under the weight of science, logic, and undeniable fact, I've never seen anyone say "you know, you're right!".  

Of course, "I've never seen" and "it never happens" aren't the same thing, but that's just arguing semantics.  the percentage of accepted losses to unaccepted losses is so unbalanced it's virtually true that nobody ever does.  

You like arguing semantics, don't you?  like that one time you said "being gay is a choice", and it took three pages of back and forth for you to amend your original statement to "in the cases where someone is inherently bisexual and chose to be monogamous, it is in fact possible for them to CHOSE which gender to stick with."  a good debate strategy, but it still doesn't change the fact that you can't chose to be gay.  

What you basically did there is describe how he changed his stance because of online debating :P



I LOVE ICELAND!

Player1x3 said:


Atheism? No. Anti-theism (fundemental form of atheism)? Absolutely


Atheism and Antitheism are two different things. And no Antitheism is not a fundamental form of Atheism. One is rejection of beliefe in God or Gods, and other is active opposition to theism. So simply put some Atheists are Antitheists as well. But Atheism and Antitheism aren't synonymes.



Zappykins said:

"But very fact that the society made out of homosexuals of one gender would go extinct while the heterosexual one would continue to live tells you that homosexuality isn't normal"

Do you really think that could happen?  That homosexuality could spread over the planet like a fabulous colourful silk scarf and make everyone gay?  Everyone in the entire planet just suddenly gay?  (Disco Ball and Plant shops everywhere, people would give up cars and just use rollerblades on the freeways.)

As far as ‘homosexual societies’ I was going to talk about the New Mexico Whiptail lizard, but rather have you just answer the question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_whiptail

 

 

 

It was just a hypothesis to shows that their inability to reproduce could have them go extinct. Of course i don't think anything like that would happen.. and you're using a lizard to show me a human homosexual society could strive?



Nem said:
Player1x3 said:

So...much...fail...in one post...this post gave me cancer


If you have any arguments, bring them forth. My post is supported by science and logic, where is yours?

Also, best get that cancer treated because no god or afterlife is gonna help you with that.

How the FUCK is your post supported by science, let alone logic ??? And im not gonna bring any arguments, because this discussion would be highly off topic. I just felt some urge to express my opinion on that clusterfuck of a post. Don't feel like you should reply to me



Runa216 said:
Nem said:


If you have any arguments, bring them forth. My post is supported by science and logic, where is yours?

Also, best get that cancer treated because no god or afterlife is gonna help you with that.

He doesn't have any.  He's very bigoted and has an agenda.  I haven't nailed down what that agenda is, becuase he USUALLY argues on the religious zealot side,  but I've seen him argue on the opposing side, as well.  I think he's just taking the unpopular, ignorant side as a challenge or something to give people something to argue about.  

At least that's the only explanation I can think of as to why he's always wrong and refuses to admit it. I'm not sure it's even possible to be THAT narrow minded and intolerant and still be able to breathe.