The U.S. Supreme Court rules all states must allow same sex-marriages

This is a perfect depiction of a much bigger issue in this country. The arrogance and pompous tendencies cloud the difference between objectives and things that are subjective.

First, many of the cannibalism stories of tribal cultures were used for propaganda to push certain agendas . . . . When in starvation it has been recorded that humans hallucinate to a point that anything or anyone would be sustenance. This is not what you would call psychologically sound would you? Originally Posted by Mgm84

Sounds like a cop-out. I believe you failed to answer my first assertion. Of course I would not consider it sound to eat another human being under any circumstances. But you are asking me.

If nobody is starving, why is it still o.k. to consume another human being? Propaganda? Give me a break FOX news anchor.

Sounds like a cop-out. I believe you failed to answer my first assertion. Of course I would not consider it sound to eat another human being under any circumstances. But you are asking me.

If nobody is starving, why is it still o.k. to consume another human being? Propaganda? Give me a break FOX news anchor.

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Actually your assertion DISproved nothing I said. A cop-out would imply that you've provided me with some enlightening information that I could not refute. Like did you not read my response? What are you talking about? It seems like your only objective is to see yourself talk or maybe intellectually discuss something that you actually don't have the ability to argue against as your claim seems to lead to my conclusion of a psychological malfunction.

Now when did I confess cannibalism to be ok or psychologically sound? You are making less sense each time you post. Can you do me a favor and give me a breakdown, timeline or something to reference your point because you are beginning to lose me with your rambling about claims that are irrelevant and or inaccurate to anything I have stated.

Lets see whos the real Fox news anchor. Please go and find the EMPIRICAL evidence that there are African tribals that pass on proper sustenance to feast on humans? I will start it off with evidence of the false propaganda.


http://allafrica.com/stories/201505210075.html

Btw cannibalism has been evidenced to also lead to psychological issues. I hope that I don't have to spoon feed anyone this information too.

I have admitted to maybe being out of my league in this discussion. I just don't shy away from discussions that could enlighten me. Or vice versa.

http://newobserveronline.com/canniba...can-conflicts/

many gay couples adopt unwanted children that would otherwise grow up without a real family. . . seems like a plus for society. there are many straight people who chose not to procreate. . . should we mandate these people have children?? the evolutionary argument to ban gay marriage is simply absurd.

http://newobserveronline.com/canniba...can-conflicts/ Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Eating HUMAN flesh was not observed. You were TOLD that they were eating human flesh but how do we know that they are actually eating human flesh? Did you not read the entire article?

"I believe that the negro may become a more useful member of mankind than he is at present, that he may be raised to a higher standard; but that, if left to himself, he will soon fall back into barbarism, for we have no example to the contrary. In his own country the efforts of the missionaries for hundreds of years have had no effect;"

This sounds like racist propaganda who's intent was to color Africans as savages. This is the same bs the BBC attempted to pull off in the article I posted.

many gay couples adopt unwanted children that would otherwise grow up without a real family. . . seems like a plus for society. there are many straight people who chose not to procreate. . . should we mandate these people have children?? the evolutionary argument to ban gay marriage is simply absurd. Originally Posted by southtown4488

Biology does not care about the by product of social matters leading some to not want to procreate as they almost ALWAYS end in parenthood. Parenthood is not often planned but seems to happen a large majority of the time. Why? Because hormones ultimately sway us into the necessary act for REPRODUCTION.

Btw a "real" family is having a mother and father. If you disagree and think that only the number of parents and not the gender and sexuality matters, then wouldn't 3 or 4 parents be better than 2. Think about the slippery slope of that logic. Choose your words carefully man.

Btw a "real" family is having a mother and father. . Originally Posted by Mgm84

It takes a Village!

Biology does not care about the by product of social matters leading some to not want to procreate as they almost ALWAYS end in parenthood. Parenthood is not often planned but seems to happen a large majority of the time. Why? Because hormones ultimately sway us into the necessary act for REPRODUCTION.

Btw a "real" family is having a mother and father. If you disagree and think that only the number of parents and not the gender and sexuality matters, then wouldn't 3 or 4 parents be better than 2. Think about the slippery slope of that logic. Choose your words carefully man. Originally Posted by Mgm84

Biology does not care about social matters but I do, as do most people with a moral compass.

A slippery slope argument is a fallacy. U can take any logical argument to a ridiculous extreme.

Biology does not care about social matters but I do, as do most people with a moral compass.

A slippery slope argument is a fallacy. U can take any logical argument to a ridiculous extreme. Originally Posted by southtown4488

Listen to what you are saying. Whether or not someone wants to concieve has no bearing on morality. You were so busy attempting to make a point, when you made your point it had no correlation to the topic at had. Secondly, while you and I may value a moral compass to some extent, the reality of the situation is that our moral compass played no role in a system or laws that we are governed by and have been governed by since the beginning.

So with that understanding why would you feel that you are entitled to insert some significant element to the rules that dictate the objectives of life (moral compass)? This is the arrogance and pompous tendencies I spoke of earlier.

So long story short.....We cannot use our figurative alchemy to reason and legitimize our warped view of reality.

Btw, it would be easier if you SUPPORT your claims as opposed to just CONFESSING your claims. I presented several slippery slope explanations that have not been rebutted.

. I presented several slippery slope explanations that have not been rebutted. Originally Posted by Mgm84

Of course they have.

Of course they have. Originally Posted by WTF

Please direct me to the time this happened? There is a difference between addressing a claim and rebutting it. A rebut requires evidence that disproves the opposing view. A simple "no it isn't" or "I disagree" does not support the disagreement. It only states your outlook but fails to legitimize it beyond being anything more than a BASELESS claim.

Listen to what you are saying. Whether or not someone wants to concieve has no bearing on morality. You were so busy attempting to make a point, when you made your point it had no correlation to the topic at had. Secondly, while you and I may value a moral compass to some extent, the reality of the situation is that our moral compass played no role in a system or laws that we are governed by and have been governed by since the beginning.

So with that understanding why would you feel that you are entitled to insert some significant element to the rules that dictate the objectives of life (moral compass)? This is the arrogance and pompous tendencies I spoke of earlier.

So long story short.....We cannot use our figurative alchemy to reason and legitimize our warped view of reality.

Btw, it would be easier if you SUPPORT your claims as opposed to just CONFESSING your claims. I presented several slippery slope explanations that have not been rebutted. Originally Posted by Mgm84

ur blurring the lines between stubborn republican and ranting lunatic.
anyway, ur against gay marriage. . .good for u. I don't have the patience to further debate the possibly insane. good day sir.

I, along with most americans and the supreme court support gay marriage, we'll have to do without ur approval.

Please direct me to the time this happened? There is a difference between addressing a claim and rebutting it. A rebut requires evidence that disproves the opposing view. A simple "no it isn't" or "I disagree" does not support the disagreement. It only states your outlook but fails to legitimize it beyond being anything more than a BASELESS claim. Originally Posted by Mgm84

A baseless claim refuted by a baseless claim is a refutation of said baseless claims. I should not have to point that out to your arrogant ass.