I told you before, I don't live in America, and I am not a supporter of the American Democratic party. I would likely vote for an Independent. I also told you numerous times I do not support no restriction abortions.

Read what I said. "Nobody I have ever met agrees with abortion in all circumstances, nor with murder". That statement is completely true.

Are you actually able to read and comprehend?

What a moronic debate. You believe in fairy tales about an invisible man in the sky and you want to try to paint people who agree with abortion in certain circumstances as being short sighted.

NOBODY I have ever met agrees with abortion in all circumstances, nor with murder.

Say something meaningful, or shut up.

The time isn't coming Joe. It's been "nigh upon us" and the "end of days" for about 4,000 years now. I think it's time all you climate change denying scientifically illiterate cavemen woke up and faced the real world. Mary was an unfaithful cheat; Jesus was probably the son of a Roman soldier or some other fella who took Mary's fancy, and he spent his life being deluded into believing fairytales told to him by a woman who couldn't bear to be seen to be unfaithful; and your bible is a collection of petulant writing stitched together with less care than a cheap Chinese stuffed animal.

Religion is garbage.

Evolution is proven. Case closed.

I never said you care what other people do either. But quite clearly, you do care. Otherwise you wouldn't ramble incessantly on about how "unnatural" sticking your penis in an anus is.

Your God really is a pathetic fuckwit if that's what he has you spending time on, honestly.

Get a fuckn life.

The only extreme person here is you. I really couldn't give a flying fuck if a man wants to bone another man. It does not harm anyone.

Yes because your fairy tales have LOADS of evidence, don't they?

(Sarcasm).

Natural: this is a word which means "occurring in nature".

Nature: What exists: the physucal world.

Therefore, anything that occurs in the physical world is by definition: natural.

Homosexuality happens in nature. Therefore it is natural.

What you are trying to do is conflate the biological meaning of the word "natural", with the social/moral meaning. They are different. Homosexuality is biologically "natural". But by your reckoning it is not morally "natural".

But science deals in facts and realities. It doesn't concern itself with moral reasoning, which is by definition subjective. It concerns itself with physically manifested phenomena.

The scientific community continually changed their minds in the light of superior evidence. We proved the Earth was round and the scientific community adopted it. We proved that the Earth revolved around the sun, and the scientific community adopted it. and when the scientific community believed that life was created, Darwin proved that it was evolved, and guess what the scientific community did? That's right. Ten points. They adopted it.

We KNOW evolution happened.

Outlaw: Bronotraptor.

Your arguments are meaningless. You are meaningless. I don't care about you or what you have to say.

Actually the biggest contributors to antibiotic and antibacerial substances in oceans and rivers are antibiotics used by farmers, and the everyday use of antibacterial chemicals in the home (which inevitably end up down the drain).

Proof that Americans are bonafide psychopaths ^^ I'm glad the world hates you. Between your very public mistreatment of Iran, your withdrawal from the Paris agreement, your penchant for pissing of the Chinese and Russians at every turn, and your talent for alienating yourself from Europe in every possible capacity, it won't be long before you're a country of gun-toting, economically decimated, mentally retarded inbreds. At that point, we can seal you off at the borders in a gigantic impenetrable glass bubble and just forget about you until you disappear.

If you create something, with complete knowledge of its functions, and complete knowledge of every time, instance, and way in which it will utilize those functions, and which aims drive its acts, and all aspects of its life, from beginning, to end, then you are responsible for everything that it does. You have set the limitations on what it can and can't do, can and can't think, can and can't be. You have complete and total foresight of everything it will amount to, of every decision it will ever make, and in which direction those decisions will sway.

To create such a being, then blame it for being the way you knew it would be, the way you made it, the way you foresaw it, is an act of downright stupidity.

But more to the point: all of this is moot. There's no evidence of any of your religious tripe, anyway. God is a myth. And you are an idiot.

You're saying that recorded images on a disk have free will? Are you mad?

Did you create the movie? Do its characters have free will? Is a film analogous to human life?

What point are you trying to make here?

Stupidity.

This is oxymoronic. "God knows everything and sees everything and exists in everything and is throughout all time and space, and whatever he decides to create he knows all the outcomes of every part of it before he creates it, which means he knows what every human will be like and what decisions they make before they even make them, but we have "free will"".

Take your head out of your ass.

A list of languages with no gender for inanimate objects:

Ainu

Afrikaans

Armenian (Indo-European)

Azerbaijani (Turkic)

Bashkir (Turkic)

Bengali (Indo-European)

Burmese

Carolinian (Austronesian)

Chamoru (Austronesian)

Chinese

Chuvash (Turkic)

Crimean Tatar (Turkic)

English (Indo-European)

Estonian (Uralic)

Esperanto (Constructed)

Fijian (Austronesian)

Finnish (Uralic)

Gagauz (Turkic)

Georgian

Gilbertese (Austronesian)

Greenlandic

Haitian Creole

Hungarian (Uralic)

Ido (Constructed)

Ilokano (Austronesian)

Japanese

Javanese (Austronesian)

Karachay-Balkar (Turkic)

Karakalpak (Turkic)

Kazakh (Turkic)

Korean

Khakas (Turkic)

Konkani (Indo-European)

Khmer

Kumyk (Turkic)

Kyrgyz (Turkic)

Lao

Lojban (Constructed)

Malagasy (Austronesian)

Malay/Indonesian (Austronesian)

Maori (Austronesian)

Marshallese (Austronesian)

Mongolian

Nahuatl (Uto-Aztecan)

Nauruan (Austronesian)

Niuean (Austronesian)

Nogai (Turkic)

Palauan (Austronesian)

Persian (Indo-European)

Rapa Nui (Austronesian)

Salar (Turkic)

Samoan (Austronesian)

Shor (Turkic)

Southern Quechua

Sundanese (Austronesian)

Tagalog (Austronesian)

Tahitian (Austronesian)

Tajik

Tatar (Turkic)

Tetum (Austronesian)

Thai

Tongan (Austronesian)

Turkish (Turkic)

Turkmen (Turkic)

Tuvaluan (Austronesian)

Tuvinian (Turkic)

Uyghur (Turkic)

Uzbek (Turkic)

Vietnamese

Visayan (Austronesian)

Yakut (Turkic)

Moron.

Equity is fairness, impartiality. Thus, equity is not the same as equality.

Giving Mr Jones who owns three million-dollar companies, welfare payments of £30 a month, and giving James Bonham who works down the mines for £3 a week, welfare payments of also £30 a month: that is equality. Equity is to give to Mr Bonham a fair wage and better welfare, and to recognize that Mr Jones is rich enough he doesn't need welfare payments at all.

Equity is not the same thing as equality. Try again trollface.

I have more important things to worry about than getting one up on religious people.

Pascal's wager is pathetic.

The death penalty is more expensive per prisoner than prison is.

In the same way that Stalinism calls itself communism, modern day misandry calls itself "feminism".

Neither lives up to the definition it tries to apply to itself.

What you're saying is you have no counterargument. Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Now I understand why you feel the need to aggressively assert the superiority of your intellect all the time, Antrim.

Laughable.

I defer to the brilliant Steven Hawking on this one:

"What we normally think of as 'life' is based on chains of carbon atoms, with a few other atoms, such as nitrogen or phosphorous. One can speculate that one might have life with some other chemical basis, such as silicon, but carbon seems the most favourable case, because it has the richest chemistry. That carbon atoms should exist at all, with the properties that they have, requires a fine adjustment of physical constants, such as the QCD scale, the electric charge, and even the dimension of space-time. If these constants had significantly different values, either the nucleus of the carbon atom would not be stable, or the electrons would collapse in on the nucleus. At first sight, it seems remarkable that the universe is so finely tuned. Maybe this is evidence, that the universe was specially designed to produce the human race. However, one has to be careful about such arguments, because of what is known as the Anthropic Principle. This is based on the self-evident truth, that if the universe had not been suitable for life, we wouldn't be asking why it is so finely adjusted."

In otherwords, biochemistry naturally produces complex results, and asking "what if it didn't" is stupid. It's like asking "what if nothing was like it is?": the conclusions to which can literally be ANYTHING, which is why the theological argument from fine-tuning is total bogus.

How little sense it makes: "God must exist, because the universe is the way that it is, not some other hypothetical way that it isn't and can't be".

Drivel.

You are a laughable individual. Democratic, majority atheist societies are safer, cleaner, and better educated than religious ones.

Religion demands you to carry out black and white instructions out of fear of burning for eternity. Without religion, you say morality is completey meaningless. Thus, without religion, you would behave without morals. But speak for yourself!

Not everybody is as mentally bankrupt as you!

I think you just had a brain fart. Mental diapers on aisle 14.

"You represent the Progressive ideology that has ushered in this exploding welfare state we are seeing today".

The exploding welfare state happens to align with the exploding population, and the exploding wealth inequality, and the relative depreciation of the purchase power of currency.

"You are probably not old enough to know how it was 50 years ago when we actually had a majority of mothers and fathers raising our children."

Nostalgia for the good old days is not a solution for the problems of the present.

"It's called a FAMILY! A sound family helps it's own. We had no need for bloated social programs supporting drug addicts. THE PARENTS SUPPORTED THEIR OWN CHILDREN."

Parents still do attempt to support their own children. The percentage of welfare taken by drug addicts is far less significant than you imply here. The drug problem however, is much more a result of poverty and class warfare itself, than poverty is a result of drug addiction. Watch your causations.

"We had no need for social progrms supporting unwed mothers beause the parents helped those pregnant women."

Many, I imagine, still do. But these are also the days in which men quite commonly beat their wive and oppressive Christian dogma ruled politics. Regressive.

"Family has since the beginning of time been the bedrock of society."

Society, since the beginning of time, has been the bedrock of society. Early human cultures, before the advent of stationary living and land ownership, were communal; people shared responsibility for children among the entire society.

"It's family that helps family. There were Churches to help those with no famiies."

Churches are not the solution.

"We have always had a safety net for the helpless but Democrats have made welfare a career!"

I balk at your stupidity. Welfare is an insignificant expenditure by comparison to the money that is lost by failing to tax corporations.

"NEWSFLASH... case workers make terrible parents."

I agree. It is much better for any child to have two loving and determined parents.

"People like you refuse to address morality because you are bigots against our Christian heritage."

Christians do not have a monopoly on morality. If you cannot prove that God exists, and the universe functions the same whether we suppose he does or doesn't, then your claim to a monopoly on morality may be entirely discarded. As can your idea of objective moral rights and wrongs. Morality is much simpler than that anyway. It is a matter of social convention between distinctions of right and wrong, purposed for the cohesion and thus survival of the society. A divided society fails, and a united society flourishes. It strikes me, herein, as significant to note that democratic societies whose participants are mostly atheists, have much higher average quality of life than those whose participants are mainly religious. America being the extreme example of a "democratic" society mainly made up of religious people. The highest gun murder rate in the developed world; the highest violent crime rate in the developed world; the lowest high school graduation rate in the developed world; and which parts of America have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy? You guessed it: the Bible Belt. By comparison, democratic socialist countries like Finland or Iceland, have extremely low violent crime, low teenage pregnancy, low STD rates, and high levels of education.

"So therefore your only answer to poverty is bigger bloated social programs that are never implemented to solve the problem of poverty."

No. Poverty is a much more complex problem. Cheaper, or free, education (like you got in the 50s, I might add) is a significant factor; as is a higher minimum wage; homegrown industry, and better employment rights, augmented by more robust and efficient welfare systems, of course.

"All you ever do is try to redistribute more and more money from the working man to enable many lazy irresponsible people who for the most part have created their own problems."

This is nonsense. I do no such thing.

"I'm all for a safety net to help those who can not help themsleves. I want to address the broken families that is the CORE REASON for poverty."

The core reason for poverty is a political choice to allow poverty, and the many manifestations thereof. Poverty can't be overcome by making people marry and taking away the safety net to force people into low paid employment or extreme educational debt.

"I've lived long enough to see America before Progressives ruined it. Let me educate you on a few things.

Tell me who forced all these unwed mothers to have sex with these selfish irresponisible men who never gave one thought of supporting any child they might create."

Nobody did. Should we force them to abort their bastard kids or only have sex when they are married?

"Tell how the Rich man or the middle class forced those two people to hook up with no committment to each other."

They didn't. I haven't stated that they did. Straw man

"It's called selfish promiscuous irresponsibility. Thats the core reason for broken families. TAKING MORE MONEY FROM THE WORKERS DOES NOT FIX THE PROBLEM!"

Neither does Christianity.

"It's truy sad how brainwashed you have become from all the Liberal professors in College and the constant drumbeat of Liberal conditioning from our biased media and Hollywood.

What's so laughble is that all these Rich Hollywood elites never give their billions to poor people. No, they want to resdistribute the middle class wages to pay for these able bodied low income people."

Well that's a shame. But "Hollywood elite" and "socialist principles" aren't interchangeable terms. If I were a billionaire, I would be happy to pay 50% of my corporate taxes to help needy people. What the hell would I need billions of dollars for?

"We have seen many times how these Rich Democrat Politicians fight for all their might to use every loop hole in our tax code to save themselves taxes. THEY DON'T EVEN WANT TO GIVE THEIR FAIR SHARE TO THESE SUPPOSEDLY HELPLESS PEOPLE."

Well they should.

"Socialism has proved many times not to work,"

As opposed to globalized capitalism? We have more impoverished people in the world now than we have ever had.

"and Obama's short time of enabling irresponsibility, and pushing socialistic tenants on our businesses, has done nothing more than creating swollen welfare roles and hideous increases in fatherless homes."

I highly doubt Obama is to blame for the increases in fatherless homes. I blame extreme neofeminist ideology and the biased custody system for that.

"Your ideiology has failed misserably and here you are still doubling down on failed socialistic politics."

My ideology? My ideology has never been implemented in America.

"When you reward irresponsibility and punish responsibility, you are destroying the fabric of our nation's work ethic."

Work ethic is a matter of effort:reward ratio. Comparatively, your generation were far better rewarded for their work.

"Live and learn please! We have a moral problem in this nation and until you admit it and address it, there is not enough money in the universe to support all the broken families."

I freely admit there is a moral problem. I just disagree with your ideas on what it actually is, and how it can be solved.

Money is a necessary item for anything nowadays, which means that the pursuit of it is assumed by many to be an integral and inalienable part of human society, failure at which is a sentence to inferiority in more ways than are just or indeed fair. Money also brings with it power and influence. Perhaps if those with plenty of money, power, and influence, used that money, power and influence to greater effect, there wouldn't be a poverty problem to begin with.

But therein is succinctly the problem: it is impossible, in a neocapitalist society, run as they are, not to have poor people who live off handouts; since it is not in the interests of the powerful, to defer that power back into the hands of the average citizen. The word capitalist, by its very definition, demands a capitalising class, and a capitalised-upon class. And since the end-result of a successful capitaliser is the exertion of power -- intended or not -- via the economic subjugation of others, those with money have significantly larger say in the ways in which a society is run, particularly economically.

This is know as an oligarchy. It is not democracy. In fact, it is dictatorship through financial enslavement. True democracy hands power to the masses, and not just in bipartisan elections, but in all areas of everyday life, from economic systems and educational policies, right down to mundanities like which buildings are to be built, or not built, in one's own area code.

Read any book detailing the Athenian experiment, and you will see what democracy truly looks like. Look briefly upon any country which has adopted it in its true form, and you will see a level of power granted to people which your average American can only dream of.

If someone who is acutely aware of this deception protests a filthy rich, highly privelaged, powerful businessman attempting to curtail the rights of the poor, destroy the planet further (out of ignorance), scapegoat a race for financial problems, and scapegoat a religion for social problems, then their protest is justifiable, and ought to be so in the eyes of anyone who retains the faculties necessary to sense injustice and to desire rectification. (It makes a significant difference from people protesting the election of a black President).

There is also absolutely nothing charitable about the necessity to support citizens who might otherwise starve, as since it is entirely impossible for a society which relies heavily on the idea of capitalisation, to provide stable and well paying jobs for every citizen, it is a necessity -- and I would argue a duty -- of the government to provide financially for those whom cannot, for whatever reason, undertake a profession.

To say that a necessary payout is charity -- in the dirtiest sense of the word -- just shows how fundamentally uncompassionate the capitalist ideal is.

You, my silly fellow human, have been endowed with a poor capacity for rational analysis, and it would seem, a deficiency of heart. But that's okay, because it's not really your fault. Nobody is born without altruism and a sense of justice, some people simply have it beaten out of them.