@Feder4l1stJosh

That's a mouthful of fallacies. Let's examine them. "spout this utter bull." That's begging the question because the notion that it is utter bull has not yet been logically established, indeed that's the very point in question. "You assume the intention gay people as if you understand them in the slightest." Well, you're also kind of assuming the intention of conservatives by smearing them as bigots motivated by prejudice, when, in fact, they are realists motivated by a desire for the truth to be known and virtue to be encouraged. So appealing to…  Read more my alleged ( but totally non-existent ) ignorance isn't all too persuasive following your fallacy-loaded opening. Then you lapsed into another Question Begging Fallacy, saying all the want is to live happily, when, in fact, that's one of the points in question, and I have established very well that their stated intent is to come after my children, and the children of countless other conservative parents throughout this country. "Your bigotry is revolting" What kind of an argument do you think you're making there? It's certainly not logical. In fact, it's called an Ad Hominem, or "To the man" fallacy, attacking my personal character because you've discovered attacking my argument head-on isn't going to cut it. And that's fine and good that you've realised that, but just admit defeat and leave this debate if you can't come up with anything instead of spewing logical fallacies as if they're proving anything. It's deceptive to other users who may be persuaded by faulty logic. Why are you asking me to find a "non-religious" reason homosexuals shouldn't be granted tax benefits and celebrated on par with genuinely married men and women? That's like me asking you to find a "non-liberal" reason homosexuals SHOULD be granted tax benefits and celebrated, etc. IN an argument over worldviews, it's stupid to ask one person to toss his worldview into the dumpster to debate in a way that's comfortable for you, rather than contributing to an argument it destroys its point and very essence. Oh, and I never recall making any "pedophilla would be okay by that logic" and even if I did, then can you logically established that is an "excuse" instead of a valid point, rather than fallaciously assuming as much? I don't know how age limits on this abominable sin would remain a solid case for its legalisation anymore so than age limits on smoking is a solid case to smoke, or age limits on drinking is a solid case to get drunk, but if you'd care to explain, (without fallacies) please do.

Don't worry, feeling embarrassed is totally normal after someone schools you and mops the floor with your argument's bloody carcass. Yes, unborn children living off their mothers and us living off other people are very comparable, and you've provided no evidence they aren't. This entire argument was an emotional unload totally devoid of all logic.

An interesting perspective on this might be to consider how our education system could be restructured to prioritize mental health. For instance, in countries like Finland, where schools have full-time mental health professionals and regularly incorporate social-emotional learning into their curriculum, instances of violence are significantly lower. This approach emphasizes preventive measures rather than reactive ones. How do you feel about adopting such a model? Would it be more effective than increasing gun control measures?

I don't give a d@mn if how murderers "feel" about their decision to murder someone, or how they justified it, what I care about is how the FLAMING VICTIM "felt" about having his right to life blatantly and violently denied in the must inhuman and abominable way. That's the problem with the issue of Life – people's emotions are convoluting the discussion and distorting rational thought and consideration of fundamental moral laws like THOU SHALT NOT MURDER. Abortionists emotions have no place in an issue that means life or death to six million children worldwide per year. The only emotion we should experience is righteous anger at the blood of these innocent children, slaughtered in cold blood, their bodies, torn limb from limb, crying out to God for vengeance.

It isn't up to me. But People will suffer because of this. That's one way we're similar in. I'm in no way implying you're not entitled to your sovereignty. I am implying that this law is a calm before shit storm. It won't affect you personally, but it will affect some of yours

I don't care if exploiting women and children is legal or not. It's irrelevant. If any exploitation is going on, ban it, and punish the exploiters. And no, video games do not have nearly the same cognitive effects as that does.

This conversation is useless and boring. You're contributing nothing to it

You've lost the argument. You have no argument. I'm glad you realise you're wrong.

That doesn’t change what happened in the name of your economic and political system, the same way as it doesn’t for socialism, the deaths overall tallied do lean STRONGLY towards capitalism being the greater killer, from the Indian genocides, to the colonization and forced warfare of the entire planet, the brutal attacks against other capitalist countries, the numbers stack dramatically overtime, if the government actions in capitalism don’t apply to the statistics in my argument, then what happens outside of government interference doesn’t pertain to it either. Since,…  Read more according to every account you’ve given so far, socialism = big government and no liberty. Take out what happens without direct order of government, and the death toll drops by nearly half, since much of those issues came from war, and were largely influenced by natural conflicts. The Soviet citizens grew dramatically in their standard of living as the Soviet Union developed, though it was authoritarian, death didn’t lie solely with government, and was heavily caused by foreign nations screwing with them all the time. For Africa, little of their population actually transitioned to socialism, if at all, and decolonization didn’t change their economic system in the slightest. The metrics used for the 100 million deaths were in reference to preventable deaths under that economic system, so I’m just using the same logic as your claim, while adhering to your logic on government vs market (though socialism isn’t inherently Keynesian, I’m only following the same logic as you.)

Actually it does nothing of the sort

Experience that I share, but I don’t view the problem to be their own laziness, I view the problem to be what perpetuates it in the first place, and the far back roots of this issue.