#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
The Christian God is the biggest supporter of rape culture ever to exist
| Add New Argument |
|
It is actually Godless braindead unbelieving liars like you, who support rape culture. Oh no, you got me. It was actually me and my gang of heathens who invented menopause so we could oppress women. What ever will I do now that I have been exposed? Listen, it's not that complicated. You said women suffering more than men is the definition of rape culture. You used women dying in childbirth and menopause as your examples. Your examples come from nature, not from "Godless braindead unbelieving liars". According to your retarded beliefs God created nature to be as it is therefor God created menopause and the possibility of death during childbirth therefore God is directly responsible for rape culture in the form of those things according to your very own beliefs. Shut up and accept the fact that you are a stupid, ignorant cunt who places emotion above reason in all things and thus is inherently wrong in all things. I will never change my mind, because I do not have, to agree with you, and I won't. i have the right, to believe whatever I want, and what I do, is none of your business. if God does not exist, moral law, does not exist either. I will literally never agree with you, so stop forcing your antichristian bigotry, on me. I will never change my mind, Ironically, you have to have changed your mind to hold your current position because it was your very own words that got you into this mess. The only logical conclusion of your very own words is that God is the father of all rape culture. I do not have, to agree with you Yes you do. Your only options are to change your definition of rape culture and provide new examples, admit that God is a rapist who created rape culture by making life harder for women, or pretend to not agree with me while sticking by your own previous statements which prove me right if they are true. Refusing to change your mind actually means admitting that nature itself (and thus God) is rape culture. You must change your mind to either believing that God doesn't exist or that your previous definition of rape culture was wrong, otherwise God is a rapist by your own logic. if God does not exist, moral law, does not exist either I wouldn't care even if that were true (which it's not) because morality and the actual origins/mechanics of reality are two separate issues. It's stupid to say that God must exist or that the universe must work a certain way because "otherwise we wouldn't have objective moral laws". Have you ever considered that reality doesn't care about things like morality and that it's up to us humans to figure stuff like that out? If you're not willing to consider that, then you simply aren't interested in unbiased truth seeking and only want to arbitrarily believe whatever makes you feel secure. -1
points
1
point
1
point
-1
points
As I'm sure many have already told you - freedom of speech has nothing to do with posting comments on other people's websites. You can post here because Andy allows you to. I'm not saying you must leave, I am saying that you should leave. You aren't interested in debating, only in sharing your feelings - what you want is a friend, and this isn't that. You should find a site designed to be a support group since that is what you are really looking for. 1
point
Yes it does apply to internet speech. Freedom of speech on the internet, is a human right, and if i do not have the right to free speech, you don't either. You really are saying that free speech is not a right, if you are saying internet people have the right, to censor and dicriminate. i have the right to do what I want, and you have no right, to tell me, what to do. Give me liberty, or give me death. 1
point
Do I have a right to come over and spray paint my speech on your door? No. Similarly you have no "right" to post messages on someone else's website. if i do not have the right to free speech, you don't either Correct - I have no "right" either. I can post here because Andy allows me to, the same as you. If you created your own website, you could decide who is allowed to post and who isn't. Give me liberty, or give me death. You probably shouldn't take a poll on that one. 1
point
I have the right, to freedom of speech, and not only will i never change my mind, i will continue to excercize my rights. You don't have the right, to censor me, and I will continue, to speak. You sound like a raging leftist, with your pro censorship veiwpoint. if I don't have the right to free speech, you don't either, and you are saying, that I don't when you say censorship, is a right. 1
point
1
point
Are you going to say she is smart? Is it better to tell someone they have something in their teeth or let them go about their day with it? Would having her find a better outlet be better for me and this site, sure, but it might not be the worst thing in the world for her either. Are you going to say she is smart? I'm going to say that your implied correlation between being smart and saying things which are of value is nonsense. Value is subjective. What I might think is gold you might put in the bin. Who are you to determine what is valuable and what is not? Is it better to tell someone they have something in their teeth or let them go about their day with it? That's a false dichotomy. You are pointing at her teeth and laughing. 1
point
"Value is subjective." In the subjective sense - a debate site values intelligence. Someone who can form a question and understand its answer. "You are pointing at her teeth and laughing." Not in that post, but definitely in the past. Still, is it better that I laugh now and she fixes it, or everyone on the site laughs for the rest of her life? I earnestly believe that it would be better for her to direct her efforts in a more supportive environment. In the subjective sense Value is subjective in the subjective sense? Righteo. a debate site values intelligence. There you go again making up your own false dichotomies (i.e. because intelligence can have value, nothing else can therefore have value). I might log on after a really bad day and Dana might say some kind words which lift my spirits. How is that not more valuable (or at least as valuable as) arguing with people whose mind I am never going to change in a million years? In fact, let's take that concept a bit further. Someone who is very intelligent might use that intelligence to belittle me. They might challenge my preconceptions about life and/or the world and cause me distress (because, let's face it: nobody has ever changed anybody else's mind here). Intelligence can therefore have an inverse square relationship to value. 1
point
Does a debate site value the ability to debate - um, yes. If you or she just want moral support, cool, use the message section, create a separate site for that, or join one that exists, or any of the million other ways people support each other. "They might challenge my preconceptions about life and/or the world and cause me distress (because, let's face it: nobody has ever changed anybody else's mind here). Intelligence can therefore have an inverse square relationship to value." If what you value is less stress, then, yes, ignorance is bliss. If what you value is debate, then the ability to debate is valued. People subjectively choose what they are valuing, if it is mindlessness, check out instagram, if it is debate, um, apparently they should go anywhere but here. 1
point
0
points
1
point
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ 1
point
Now related that to what I posted:- As I'm sure many have already told you - freedom of speech has nothing to do with posting comments on other people's websites. Show us where she said freedom of speech is specifically about posting comments on other people's websites. If she didn't say that then she's right: it's a straw man. 1
point
Dana:I don't have to leave, because I have the right to freedom of speech, and to do what I want Me: freedom of speech has nothing to do with posting comments on other people's websites Dana: You are a liar, and that is a strawman. ....................................... ----- She thinks whether she should leave is related to freedom of speech - it is not. I don't have to leave, because I have the right to freedom of speech, and to do what I want Right, so you told her to/suggested she should leave and she objected to it because you don't have the right to tell her what to do. That's a straw man. She isn't arguing with Andy. She's arguing with you. You've changed her argument to suggest she is addressing Andy when in fact she is addressing you. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I'm probably the only person left who isn't using alts. One and only account for over 10 years. I don't use alts. I switch accounts every now and then but I don't use multiple accounts simultaneously. Well, occasionally if someone is being a complete asshat I'll use alts to downvote them in an attempt to shut them up, but those are very very rare occasions. Last time was with FoamWithin, whose vitriol consists of nothing except pure unadulterated hatred. In fact, the only two people here who regularly use alts are FM and Bronto. FM because Andy keeps banning him and Bronto because... Well, I don't even know why Bronto does it. Probably in an effort to fool people that his ridiculous fascist propaganda doesn't all link back to the same source. 1
point
"I don't use alts. I switch accounts every now and then" You know what an alt is, right? If you "switch accounts", then you have alts. May or may not have been intentional, but you switched accounts just last night in the middle of our debate. I understand the inclination, I just don't care enough about gaming the points to do it myself. You know what an alt is, right? Don't patronise me please. If you "switch accounts", then you have alts. I didn't say I don't have alts. I said I don't use alts. As in, I don't use more than one account at a time. Learn to interpret English please. At least learn to ask for clarification if you are confused rather than jump to your own arbitrary conclusions to score cheap semantic points. That's just sad. 1
point
Why even create a post that says you don't use alts Why create a post which says why create a post that says you don't use alts? only to then say you do have alts Well that's fairly obvious, isn't it? The verb "have" does not mean the same thing as the verb "use". Your words were:- I'm probably the only person left who isn't using alts. Use. Not have. Learn to keep up dear. 1
point
1
point
You post under multiple accounts I know this must be very difficult for you, but try to understand that you are not the person who gets to decide what "using alts" means. The way I interpret "using alts" is to use multiple identities simultaneously, otherwise you aren't "using alts", you're essentially just changing your username. 1
point
"you are not the person who gets to decide what "using alts" means" Um, the dictionary does. Did you create an alternate account from your initial account? yes Have you posted and voted with that alternate account? yes Then you use an alternate account. Simultaneity is not a requirement for "using". 1
point
deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result; employ. https://www.google.com/ Did the alternate account facilitate you accomplishing the result of making a post and/or down-voting? then you used an alt. 1
point
Why would you create and have an alt that you never use? What possible relevance does that have? Why would you keep a car in your garage that you don't use? No answer? Oh, well then obviously you must use the car then. Stupid. If you must know I keep them for insurance in case I get banned. It's happened before. 1
point
But you're saying you don't use the garage, well except that occasionally you stores cars or stuff in there. "If you must know I keep them for insurance in case I get banned." as I said, I understand the inclinations, but don't care enough about it to use alts. If I get banned, I generally figure the next unbiased observer will see that as a sign of the weakness of the argument of the person that banned me. But you're saying you don't use the garage Wtf? No, the car is what I don't use. The car is in the garage. I made no claims about whether I use the garage. Seriously, I'm not even trolling you now, but do you understand how to interpret English? as I said, I understand the inclinations, but don't care enough about it to use alts I'm not using them. I've explained that to you five times. If you take out an insurance policy you don't use it before you've had the accident do you? 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Have you ever been harmed? Yes. Then there is no god that wants to keep you from harm and has the power to prevent it. This logic could not be any poorer. Being harmed doesn't disprove my existence, yet I could attempt to prevent you from harm. Your Socialism arguments are better than your philosophical arguments, and your Socialist arguments really suck. 1
point
1
point
Are you a god now? As far as you know. The logic is the same. I don't prevent you from harm. I still exist. If you wanted your children to be protected from harm and had complete power to prevent such harm, would your children ever be harmed? Yes, especially if I had the power over eternal life. Because negatives prove positives. Satan and God both agree. https://biblehub.com/job/1-8.htm https://biblehub.com/job/1-9.htm https://biblehub.com/job/1-10.htm https://biblehub.com/job/1-11.htm Tell me which part confuses you, if any. 1
point
1
point
"I don't prevent you from harm. I still exist." You are still missing the required elements - you don't care that I don't get harmed, nor do you have the power to prevent all harms that may befall me. As I said: "There is room for some type of creator to exist, just not one that loves you and can protect you." Job God cared about showing Satan that Job loved Him, not about preventing the harm to Job. 1
point
As I said: "There is room for some type of creator to exist, just not one that loves you and can protect you." I've never stated that God loves everyone or protects people from all harms, nor does the Bible. Point of fact, I would argue the opposite. If my position is correct, and it is, your logic is illogical. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I've never stated that God loves everyone or protects people from all harms, nor does the Bible. Must be imagining this then. 1
point
Excellent. You try to prove God loves everyone, then share with me a link that literally says this. I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me. And this: So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
If we are only thoughts of a creator, then either that creator can't control those thoughts, or he doesn't care about eliminating the perceived harms to the entities in those thoughts (us, animals, etc.) Same limitations. Could a god could create entities directly into heaven or a similar state? If not, they are limited in power, if so, they are limited in desire to prevent harm. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
If life is infinatnly complex, and life exists, why can't an infinant Creator God, exist? Hi sugar puff. It is possible that a creator exists, but it is not necessary. Life itself is not infinitely complex because that would imply there is no room for improvement. One thing I will say is that life is unexplainable given our current (lack of) understanding. Nobody knows what it is, why it is in the universe or what started it. 1
point
Cool. So is the Democratic Party establishment. As usual, the complete polar opposite of the truth:- Years after women first came forward to accuse then-presidential candidate Donald Trump of sexual assault or harassment, the issue is once again at the forefront of political discourse after another 26 incidents of "unwanted sexual contact" and 43 instances of inappropriate behaviour were detailed in a new book. Donald Trump has more sexual assault/harassment/rape allegations against him than the entire Democratic Party combined. 1
point
Nope, it's Islam. Their "perfect" man pioneered the concept of "thighing" kids and consummated a relationship with a 9 year old girl. Furthermore, women are chattel in the muslim communities. |
