Search results

If it's just about truth, that's the idea that's (supposed to be) behind redpill. Truths that go against commonly held ideas in the culture. Ie, the truth that our modern society and legal system in Western countries is biased against men and in favor of women in a lot of ways. Blackpill goes...

The "black pill" is the logical conclusion of godless, libertarian self-centeredness. A kind of nihilism. It's poison.

The 25th Amendment is a thing that exists.

One, saying Moses had two wives simultaneously because of the reference to him having a Cushite as a wife is a reach. There is never a reference to Moses having multiple wives. The Cushite wife may not have been Zipporah, his Midianite wife, but Zipporah may have passed away and Moses could have...

@King Arts brought it up randomly in the other thread too. He seems to have a weird fixation on the idea that polygamy is not forbidden in the Bible.

I'm not watching that. And no, not everyone is an overseer, but you're avoiding my actual point and arguing in bad faith. The Bible identifies having more than one wife as something that brings reproach. Yes or no?

You acting like polygamy isn't prohibited anywhere in the Bible is itself bad faith and false, on its face. We've had this discussion before.

We know from Biblical teaching that polygamy is not ok. We don't need tradition outside of the Bible to know this. We've been over this before. You haven't defeated anything.

I'm not sure you comprehend what you think you're agreeing with.

My point stands. If you include your daughter's relationship with a woman when you talk about "marriage", you aren't talking about the same thing I'm talking about.

You're not talking about marriage as I was talking about in the OP, then.

The question that evolutionary biology can't answer. About anything. Sure, it can try to explain why people have cared, historically. But just because people have cared in the past doesn't mean an individual ought to care in the present. Evolutionary biology can't present a reason for anyone...

My attitude isn't actually that nothing matters. Colorles made the claim that having children is all about continuing your lineage; my point is to challenge him to actually give a meaningful reason why that is true. To show that there is some ultimate difference if he "continues his lineage". If...

It doesn't matter how similar you are to your children. Your existence, as a person, is not their existence. They are not you. You are a mix of your parents' DNA, but who you are is not merely your DNA. And none of this will matter once you're dead and gone. You can keep saying it matters, but...

I actually do have an idea of what the afterlife holds, and it's exactly because of it that I said this idea of "continuing your line" is a worldly and selfish motivation. If you have no idea what the afterlife holds, or if indeed you have no real reason to think there even is an "afterlife"...

You are not your ancestors. They are dead. Six feet under. And your descendants will not be you. In 100 years you will be dead, too. None of this will make any difference to you once you're dead. None of it matters.

I do have standards, and I can explain them to you if you're interested. It's not arbitrary to expect someone to be able to define their terms.

It's silly for you to ask for people not to be "bad people" when you have no actual standard for what "bad" or "good" actually mean.

It was silly of you to ask for people to behave in a certain way.

That's kind of an incoherent answer. "Living conditions have nothing to do with what makes a good person", but "good people make good environments"? Sounds like good environments (living conditions) do have something to do with what makes a good person. And that answer just raises the question...