The burden of the Intellectual

[Runa216]

Adinnieken said:

1.  This is debatable.  Evidence to the contrary suggests that there are indeed medical benefits.  Mainly in the prevention of disease/illness.  Should parents hold off on circumcising for as long as possible?  Sure, but there are issues that a parent may run into during infancy that require the child be circumcised.  Namely recurring urinary tract infections, as well as a few other conditions.  To say there are none is just ignorance of the issues that exist, most likely because you've never experienced them.

 

2.  Again, debatable.  My personal opinion is that sexuality is a choice.  It may not be the same kind of choice that you make when you decide to eat at Subway instead of McDonald's, but I do believe one's environment helps determine paths and choices.  Likewise, I don't believe hormones dictate sexual preference.  It boils down to the experiences of that person and how they influence them.

 

3.  Again, debatable.  If you believe sexuality is a learned response, then change is a perfectly reasonable thing to believe that could be beneficial.  Just as changing the behavior of someone with OCD or TTM has a beneficial outcome.  You believe people are hardwired for sexuality, I don't.  I believe what we are hardwired for is to eat, breath, drink, and have sex.  Everything else and in between is a learned experience, including what to eat, what to drink, what to breath and who to have sex with.

4.  Again, debatable but sadly I think this is due to environment.  There are two issues at work here, some people are in an environment where it is too difficult to break out of (i.e. it is easier to follow a certain path and they are not challenged to follow a different one) and others are pigeon holed.  In terms of the latter, there are unfortunately people who stereo-type and because of that they fall into that stereo-type.

 

I can speak from personal experience, where a person I know is going down a path contrary to their upbringing simply because they want to fit into a specific culture.  Granted, neither this nor my initial response is quite what you're talking about.  You're talking very literally, where I'm implying people can fall into a stereo-type.     

 

 5.  Your challenge here is in framing it with respect to religion.  Only those fervently religious will deny evolution.  So how do you frame it within the context of religion?  Simple.  If God is perfect, and Adam was made in God's image, Eve was made from Adam's rib, and DNA is composed of 26 chromosome pairs, then why do we not all look alike?  All men would look like God, and all women would look like a female version of God.  So why are there blonds, brunettes, red heads, blue eyes, brown eyes, green eyes, and everything in between?

6.  This doesn't address the brunt of the argument, which is global warming a man-made thing or is it a naturally cyclical thing.  The argument that it is naturally cyclical is what most people who now argue against global warming use, but the problem is the world was different during the last warming.  The problem is that some people see the world as static, never changing, so the world we see today was the same as the world that existed during the last warming cycle.  It isn't.  There is a significant difference in that the land bridge between North and South America (essentially Central America) didn't exist during the last warming cycle.  The currents flowed from the Pacific to the Atlantic helping to keep th oceans warmer.  When this land bridge finally formed, those currents were cut off and the planet cooled significant sending us into an ice age.

If that isn't enough, there is significant evidence that shows the impact of naturally occurring phenomenon on the environment, not to mention the impact of human carbon dioxide production since the industrial age and our overall impact on the environment since the rise of modern man over 20,000 years ago.

7.  They can however, also be tools for hunting or as a hobby for shooting.  You can't argue your point without also accepting the other two points.  What a tool is designed to do and how people use them are two different things.  A hammer is designed to pound a nail into a board, but you'd be amazed at how many people use it for a screw driver. a mallet, or an instrument of death.  Likewise, knifes were tools invented for killing as well, but they've also been utilized as a utensil for eating, an implement for preparing game or fish, letter/box opener, and for sport/hobby. 

 

 

 

 

1 - There are no medical benefits to circumcision.  Plenty of studies have taken place.  for every potential disease the act protects against, it exposes the penis to just as many or more diseases and problems.  Not to mention it takes away sensitivity.  

2 - your opinion is irrelevant, you're wrong.  That's what this entire post is about.  Dude, Science doesn't lie. 

3 - dude, no. 

4 - Seriously?  that's racism, pure and simple. 

5 - doesn't matter, Evolution is still a real and observed biological phenomenon.  doesn't matter what religion has to say on the matter.

6 - so I didn't specify.  Climate Change IS man made.  Yes, the planet goes in cycles, but this 'cycle' is far more severe than any other cycle that has ever existed, and they've found huge levels of chemicals in the ice caps and glaciers over the past decades.  Even IF global warming is a myth, it wouldn't kill us to take precautions to make the planet a better place. 

7 - They are specifically designed to kill, it's what they were designed to do.  just becuase you CAN do other things with them doesn't mean that's what they were made to do. 

Arguing for the sake of arguing (especially when you're wrong or misguided on all of your points) makes you look rather silly. 

I will not be 'debating' these points further.  I've seen the science, I've read the research, there is no arguing any of these points.  I've even investigated all the supposed counter arguments to check them for authenticity, and while there's a little bit of evidence on the contrary, there's mountains of material supporting each claim.  There is no argument.  

And this is precisely what I'm getting at, people.  Every one of these points posted to me are the same nonsense 'double negatives' and 'false positives' that zealots are known to spew any time their argument is brought up, parroting it back becuase they heard it on fox news or whatever.  Science people, learn to science.