Nace wrote:So, you have no morals right?
You think it's okay to lie? to steal? to kill? all for no reason?
That's what I thought. Morals don't just apply to sex, it applies to everything, whether you know it or not.
AGAIN, HUGE MISTAKE. My morals regarding one thing do not change my morals regarding another.
YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT MORALS = YOUR IDEALS. They are NOT.
Morals apply to every single thing you do, if you've got them, but they do NOT mean that one person's morals is the same as someone else is the same as another's. Again, saying that everyone with morals says such-and-such a thing is bad is as false as saying that everyone in the clergy molests little boys. It's simply *not true*, it is *not* what the majority believe, it was what a very few specific minds think.
I never said self-control doesn't make you an animal. I said humans can go prolonged periods, if any, without sex. Animals are driven to mate, we can choose.
Who's to say animals can't chose as well? Not *wanting* to refrain from something doesn't mean you can't. I *could* stop watching television, but it's not bad for me, so why would I?
There is *no* good reason to artificially inhibit yourself, except by misguided beliefs.
Sure, anyone could say animals have a social structure too, but our social structure is far more complex than theirs.
You don't know much at all about biology, do you? Have you ever seen the types of social interactions even *insects* have? Dogs? Chickens? Our social structure is no more complicated than theirs. There are plenty of tribes all over the planet that still live in fairly small groups, with little or no contact with the outside world. Yes, more modern places had governments, but that is a matter of managing a very large society, which animals don't tend to do.
Do we operate on the same levels as animals? No, we rule over them. Does that put us on the same level?
Ah, egomaniacs and religious beliefs. I suppose you also believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that there's no life on other planets, as well? There's no scientific way to put humans above animals. Stop making unfounded claims based on your fairytale books, and make a real argument.
We can destroy them if we want to.
I suppose you've never been face to face with a bobcat, or a wolf, or a lion
From first hand experience, I can safely say that animals are NOT to be farked with. We have no more ability to destroy animals than we do the Earth. Yes, we can kill bits and pieces here and there, but not only would it be impossible to do real damage, but we'd screw ourselves over in the process.
We 'train' them not to through discipline. They bark, we put on one of those electric collars, and they learn through that. Humans have intuition, we can tell just by looking, learn just by hearing. We don't need discipline because our mind works differently.
And you're telling me animals can't do the same? I can almost certainly promise you that antelopes don't learn to run away from lions by trial and error. "Oh, I wonder what happens when that thing chases me down. Oh, I died! Shucks."
Children are trained for society. Be it peer pressure, media, discipline, or indoctrination, children are taught how to do what is considered good, and not do what is considered bad. Considering that any different than training your pup by giving him treats, smacking him with a newspaper, or having him raised by your more mature dog is just being ignorant.
The most basic points of biology can show we are animals, yeah that's true, if you mean basic to the point where we're all made of cells and we breathe, eat, shit, and mate. But what else do we do besides that. We go to work, we can have conversations. I can go on, and on.
Your point? Again, you seem to be vastly over estimating how advanced society is. Insects do the exact same things you're discussing. Sure, they do it on a more basic level, but they still do it. Given how many many times more complex our bodies are, we aren't very far beyond them at all.
Don't just use one part of biology for your defense, but leave out the other part.
What part am I leaving out, the research that was paid for by the Vatican?
What I don't get is, if this conversation is between you and me, why do you like to slander my religion?
Simply put, because you act like it's right in the face of overwhelming, provable evidence otherwise. Your entire argument is founded on religion. The belief that humans are above animals, that humans have a right to the planet, that anyone with morals would agree with you is based on your little bedtime stories. Quite frankly, I'm happy to live and let live, as long as people aren't being retarded about it. My families are Seventh Day Adventist and Jehovah's Witnesses, believe me I've dealt with much worse than you-- and on the flip side, I'm perfectly happy to never bring it up to people that do the same. If you intend to talk about things as if they were fact though, be prepared to get shot down.
Is your argument or thinking process so weak, that the only way you can feel like you've won some points is to start making fun of what I believe?
Is your argument so weak that you have to make an ad hominem attack to try to regain yourself?
In every single one of your posts so far, it has to contain some sort of slander about my religion. Leave that out of it,
Again, if you can make a post that is based in fact instead of your beloved fiction, I won't have a need to comment on it.
you're the one assuming that when I refer to something, I'm referring to Christian morals or what not.
Because
YOU DO. Saying that you'll think something is wrong "if you have morals" IS REFERRING TO YOUR OWN BELIEFS. I think you could ask most of the people here if they have morals, and they'd say yes-- and if they think morals had to agree with a certain viewpoint, and they'd say no.
Nace wrote:Nace wrote:
I have Christian values, and I'm not afraid to admit it.
That means I'm still a virgin, and it's basically no sex till after marriage.
Quit automatically assuming that everything after that has to do with Christianity. Obviously I've noticed that you, yourself am not a Christian, so I've stopped using things from religion that I know you wouldn't understand.
Excuse me? I, like most people who aren't religious, understand more about it than most of the people that practice it. I'd like to know what I "wouldn't understand" that would help prove your case-- except bible quotations that would clearly show that you have no basis for what you're saying except a book of fables.
Now you're just having a one-on-one conversation with me, leave my beliefs out of it. Stop using my religion to try to win some points. Argue with me, without my religion.
Again, this is impossible, when all your arguments are from a religious base. This is like "tell me how to make a cake, without naming any ingredients."- it's ludicrous to think that's even possible.
XemnasXD, ever look up the definition to your word, 'nymphomania'?
Definition; abnormally excessive and uncontrollable sexual desire in women.
You're seriously going to use that as your defense? So we all have abnormally excessive and uncontrollabe sexual desires right? Oh, and we're all women.
And speaking on his behalf, his point was that not all humans CAN control sexual urges like you claim we can, not that we all can't.
*More will be added as they appear or change*
i would enjoy talking whit you 
