Is morality objective or subjective?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 753
#361
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
God is presenting Moses with an if/then choice for Moses to consider, if Moses will intercede for his people, full knowing what Moses' response will be then He will change His mind. Moses does what God required, thus God did not bring judgment.
If a human did the exact same thing, it would be called a lie.

If I told a kid they'd have to eat worms, and I expected them to protest, and then I "changed my mind" when they calmly explained that they'd prefer ice-cream (as I had predicted beforehand) then my initial statement would quite clearly and obviously qualify as a LIE.
#362
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
When I finish building my case, it will reveal itself
Okay! Now is this case against me?
#363
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
We now have our first point:
God (OT and NT God are the same) is a perfect moral being whose unchanging Word not only forms the basis of morality, but whose commands are always moral. Those who disagree/go against his word are immoral.
I will set this to the side for the time being. In the meantime, let me ask you an unrelated question:

Is rape bad? If so, why?


#364
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
Okay! Now is this case against me?
No. It's not personal in the slightest.


#365
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
God is presenting Moses with an if/then choice for Moses to consider, if Moses will intercede for his people, full knowing what Moses' response will be then He will change His mind. Moses does what God required, thus God did not bring judgment.
If a human did the exact same thing, it would be called a lie.

If I told a kid they'd have to eat worms, and I expected them to protest, and then I "changed my mind" when they calmly explained that they'd prefer ice-cream (as I had predicted beforehand) then my initial statement would quite clearly and obviously qualify as a LIE.

Israel had wronged God. They had broken their covenant promise (Exodus 24:3, 7). God told Moses He would bring judgment upon them fully knowing that Moses would intercede for His people. The lesson is that Moses' intercession appeared to change God's mind, although the intercession is what God was after in the first place. God did not change His mind. He already knew what Moses would do, yet to Moses, it seemed that way. It is a lesson to us and those OT people. Humility (confessing the sinful actions), and asking (prayer) for God's mercy by seeking Him out will at times change our circumstances because of God's grace. Once our sins have reached their measure of God's tolerance He will bring judgment. In the NT the Christian witnesses this by God's discipline. I notice this all the time in my life when I am sinful. There are areas that I battle against and have weaknesses that God works upon as He does with all Christians. It is training towards holiness (being sanctified by the Holy Spirit) and living in love with God. I witness undesirable circumstances when I sin that tend to compound until I confess and change my behaviour. It is not God who changes but it is me. I turn back to Him and His ways when I stray from His paths/ways. 
#366
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
God told Moses He would bring judgment upon them fully knowing that Moses would intercede for His people.
This is called a lie.  If I threaten someone with something I know they will protest and then pretend they convinced me not to do it, then my initial statement is a lie.
#367
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
We now have our first point:
God (OT and NT God are the same) is a perfect moral being whose unchanging Word not only forms the basis of morality, but whose commands are always moral. Those who disagree/go against his word are immoral.
I will set this to the side for the time being. In the meantime, let me ask you an unrelated question:

Is rape bad? If so, why?

Yes, it treats a person created in God's image and likeness with more than disrespect. Sexual union is not consensual. It is a brutal act of selfishness that forces another person (the woman or victim) to do what they do not want to do to fulfill an unhealthy desire. The outcome causes problems and scars both lives, the perpetrator and the victim. The perpetrator does not honour another human being but treats her (or him) as an object in which nothing else matters but the perps desires. He, in the case of a male perp, does not have a healthy outlook about the woman and women in general but a disorder. 
#368
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
Okay! Now is this case against me?
No. It's not personal in the slightest.
Just wondering since I have no clue what it is about yet. 
#369
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
Would you say that the woman losing the ability to control her own body is a major reason why rape is a bad thing?
#370
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
Just wondering since I have no clue what it is about yet. 
Yup, I’ll get there


#371
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
God told Moses He would bring judgment upon them fully knowing that Moses would intercede for His people.
This is called a lie.  If I threaten someone with something I know they will protest and then pretend they convinced me not to do it, then my initial statement is a lie.
It is a test. God wants to illustrate what Moses does as a lesson for others. The covenant God made with Israel in which they agreed to follow and did not stipulates that curses would follow from disobedience. But God is teaching that there is a way that sometimes changes the situation. That gamechanger is the intercession of a righteous person. It shows loving concern for others and puts their best interests before the person's own interests. 

Proverbs 10:11-13 (NASB)
11 The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life,
But the mouth of the wicked conceals violence.
12 Hatred stirs up strife,
But love covers all transgressions.
13 On the lips of the discerning, wisdom is found,
But a rod is for the back of him who lacks understanding.

#372
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
Would you say that the woman losing the ability to control her own body is a major reason why rape is a bad thing?
A married woman can willingly yield or submit the control of her body to that of her husband during sex. It is wrong for a man to forcefully take control of a woman's body against her will. The Bible also makes it clear that it is wrong to have sex outside of marriage.

Sometimes lustful feelings are promoted by what the woman wears, thus the Bible discloses inappropriate clothing is wrong because it creates these desires. Yet it is still not right for a man to forcefully control her body for his pleasures/desires without her consent.   

#373
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
It is a test. God wants to illustrate what Moses does as a lesson for others.
If you know exactly what the person is going to say, then it isn't a "test", it's manipulation and it's also still a lie.
#374
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
The Bible also makes it clear that it is wrong to have sex outside of marriage.
Interesting side-note,

The Bible permits divorce and remarriage ONLY when a spouse has been unfaithful before marriage, and it’s not revealed until afterwards. There are no scriptures that permit divorce for adultery—only fornication. [LINK]
#375
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
It is a test. God wants to illustrate what Moses does as a lesson for others.
If you know exactly what the person is going to say, then it isn't a "test", it's manipulation and it's also still a lie.

God does know exactly what a person is going to say and do, but the person does not. He wants the person to show his faith or lack of it. There are consequences to which path we take. 
#376
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
The Bible also makes it clear that it is wrong to have sex outside of marriage.
Interesting side-note,

The Bible permits divorce and remarriage ONLY when a spouse has been unfaithful before marriage, and it’s not revealed until afterwards. There are no scriptures that permit divorce for adultery—only fornication. [LINK]



Okay, I read your link. Let me give you my view. I was/am not aware of this "before" bit. 

Matthew 19:8-9
8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Thus, God gives one exception for remarriage, immorality. Sexual immorality/adultery.

Marriage has spiritual significance for the Christian and a lesson for all of us. Those two points are God's intent in Eden in which God says a man shall leave his parents and be united with his wife and the two will become one flesh. God gives us an example of a physical union that points to a greater truth, a spiritual truth. God gives the example of Adam and Eve as an teaching of far greater significance, our spiritual union with Him. So marriage is a sacred union - a covenant. It is an intimate union between two people and also a lifetime commitment/covenant, until death. 

Adultery is being unfaithful to that union or covenant. 

God, in the OT, compares Himself to a husband under a covenant. Yet, when Israel (the northern kingdom) commits adultery He divorces her. And Judah also commits adultery and God continually warns her of her promiscuity and warns of the consequences. Finally, in the NT God divorces her too, and takes for Himself a new wife (the Bride of Christ) as He promised He would in the OT. The destruction of Jerusalem and the judgment of Israel in AD 70 is God's letter of divorce against them for adultery. That covenant with OT Israel came to an end in AD 70. After that point in time, Israel (as a whole, not specifically speaking of the Northern Kingdom which had previously been divorced) was no longer able to keep the covenant in the manner they had agreed to do. They could no longer meet the atonement of sin in the prescribed manner after that point in time. They no longer had the representation of the High Priest as their mediator after that point. There was no longer offered animal sacrifices for sin after that point. The feast days could not be met in a specifically prescribed manner as laid out by the Law of Moses.

Thus Jesus could say, 

Matthew 5:17-18 (NASB)
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 

In AD 70 their heaven and earth passed away, everything they lived under and experienced under the covenant came to an end. Now, the letters of the law could no longer be met for the very reason that there was now a better covenant that God had established with humanity, the "new Israel of God," the new Bride, a covenant for NT believers, whether Jew or Gentile. 

***

So, even God divorces and remarriage for adultery. He is our example. 
#377
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
So if something is done to a woman’s body that is against her wishes, the perpetrator is immoral. Correct?
#378
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
So if something is done to a woman’s body that is against her wishes, the perpetrator is immoral. Correct?
It depends if that something is intentional and malicious by another person.

If this is going where I think it is going regarding the unborn, the unborn is not guilty but innocent of any wrongdoing. 

#379
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
If this is going where I think it is going regarding the unborn, the unborn is not guilty but innocent of any wrongdoing. 
The blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus has the exact same legal status as a tumor and or a parasite.

What is done to any tumor and or parasite that resides INSIDE my body is my business and my business alone.

If I want to keep it, I can keep it.

If I want to have it removed surgically, that is my right.

It is not a CITIZEN.

Yes, it is "alive" in exactly the same way a tumor is alive and a parasite is alive.

HoWEver, it is not a CITIZEN.
#380
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
If this is going where I think it is going regarding the unborn, the unborn is not guilty but innocent of any wrongdoing. 
The blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus has the exact same legal status as a tumor and or a parasite.
It should not. This is systematic discrimination by making it something it is not.



What is done to any tumor and or parasite that resides INSIDE my body is my business and my business alone.
Once you dehumanize the unborn to nothing more than a parasite or tumour you have the licence to do with it as you please.  This is the tactic used by Hitler during WWII regarding the Jews and was copied by Margret Sanger regarding Planned Parenthood in demonizing the unborn. Many have made note of the similarities. 

"So how do you get a country to allow humans to be treated worse than animals? You use euphemisms to convince people that these actions are justifiable, or even beneficial."

 "The Jews were described as a “parasitic race” by Hitler, while the unwanted child is described “a mere parasite” by Planned Parenthood." 

I have done some research on Planned Parenthood by reading as much as I could that was free on the Net about her. Her thoughts on the unborn have been confirmed time and time again and there are many comparisons between her thinking of the unborn and Hitler's thinking about the Jew. I also did some research on Hitler, including reading Mein Kampf. I have read some of the literature available on the Nurenburg trials and also read some of the laws and propaganda disseminated by the Nazis before and during the war. I have understood how people discriminate against other people by dehumanizing them and discriminating against them. This is exactly the kind of thing Pro-choicer's do with the parasitic and tumour language. 

"The bodies of the murdered Auschwitz inmates were referred to as “garbage.” Jews were repeatedly referred to as a “disease,” for which extermination was the “cure” or “final solution.”"

"In America’s death camps the victim is usually called a “fetus,” but they have also been called “unseen infections,” “a sexually transmitted disease” and “a cancerous growth”. Abortion supporters have stated that abortion is the “preferred treatment” for “unwanted pregnancy: the number two sexually transmitted disease” and “an aborted baby is just garbage.”"

"In 1943, Himmler referred to the killing of Jews as having “exterminated a germ,” and abortion advocate Natalie Shainess justifies abortion by claiming that the unwanted pregnancy is merely “an alien germ.”

" Hitler actively promoted the destruction of the crippled, poor and unemployed classes, as did Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Abortion led to forced sterilization, which led to “euthanasia,” which led to Auschwitz."

“Eugenics is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood




If I want to keep it, I can keep it.

If I want to have it removed surgically, that is my right.

It is not a CITIZEN.

Yes, it is "alive" in exactly the same way a tumor is alive and a parasite is alive.

HoWEver, it is not a CITIZEN.


It is not recognized as a citizen because of the propaganda machine and a liberal view that does not recognize all human beings as a personal being or does not even recognize some human beings as human beings. 

Roe v. Wade changed the way we thought about the unborn as a personal being. Its reasoning has been demonstrated as unwarranted because Justice Blackmun misinterpreted the nineteenth century laws and what they thought of the unborn. 
#381
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
It depends if that something is intentional and malicious by another person.

If this is going where I think it is going regarding the unborn, the unborn is not guilty but innocent of any wrongdoing. 
So, your moral argument is that the unborn is a human being and that wanting to terminate it is inherently immoral. This is a perfectly valid stance.

However, some other people argue that forcing a woman to keep a baby that she does not want is immoral. You clearly have some contentions with this, but would you agree that it is at least possible to argue from this moral stance?
#382
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@PressF4Respect
Morality is whatever anyone chooses it to be. There is no way to objectively get to a moral good. Please see the is and ought distinction if you are not sure on this. 

If the distinction isn't clear do ask and I'll hopefully help you understand. 
#383
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@PGA2.0
PGA,, please stop your virtual raping of pregnant women. Stop sticking your nose into a pregnant womans bodily business without her consent.

Your actions appear to me to be a sick in the head pervert who does not have the courage but --dumb enough--- to stick their nose in the middle of a street fight where again, it has no business being placed.

Please go stick your nose into a street fight where it has no business being and see what happens to your nose.

We await the results with anticipation of your education and learning processes.
#384
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
It depends if that something is intentional and malicious by another person.

If this is going where I think it is going regarding the unborn, the unborn is not guilty but innocent of any wrongdoing. 
So, your moral argument is that the unborn is a human being and that wanting to terminate it is inherently immoral. This is a perfectly valid stance.

However, some other people argue that forcing a woman to keep a baby that she does not want is immoral. You clearly have some contentions with this, but would you agree that it is at least possible to argue from this moral stance?

No, I would not agree. Again, it comes down to what is being killed (a human being) and whether all human beings are to be treated equally (either justice or no justice). An inconvenience of nine months is a hardship but killing another innocent human being is murder. What the woman is essentially doing, whether she knows it or not, is killing an innocent human being that has done nothing wrong as yet. Once you go down the road of killing innocent human beings it opens up a Pandora's Box as witnessed throughout human history where a group or class of humanity is unjustly singled out, discriminated against, demonized, dehumanized, and in many cases classed as sub-human or "parasites." Not only is it wrong but the media, gatekeepers of society, Hollywood, education, arts and entertainment, and public opinion is swayed by propaganda to view such groups of classes in an unfavourable manner.  
#385
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@PGA2.0
PGA, please stop murdering morality and decency.  Humanity does not need any more perverts sticking their noses where it has no business being. Sad :--(

PGA,, please stop your virtual raping of pregnant women. Stop sticking your nose into a pregnant womans bodily business without her consent.

PGA, your actions appear to me to be a sick in the head pervert who does not have the courage ---yet dumb enough--- to stick their nose in the middle of a street fight where again, it has no business being placed.

PGA, please go stick your nose into a street fight where it has no business being and see what happens to your nose.

We await the results with anticipation of your education and learning processes from your nose engagement in the nearest street fight in you locality. 

#386
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Morality is whatever anyone chooses it to be. There is no way to objectively get to a moral good. Please see the is and ought distinction if you are not sure on this. 
Thus, the case for an objective, absolute, universal, unchanging, omniscient (or else how would one arrive at the good) standard or measure for moral values to be justified as anything more than preference or feelings. If you can't identify such a standard your argument is diminished to your tastes versus the tastes of others and forcing others to adhere to your tastes (i.e., might makes right, or the fallacy of appeal to force). 

 
And any worldview that cannot define or justify the moral good as anything more than relative, subjective feelings or preference (i.e., a like or dislike) is not in a position to preach to others on morality. It brings up the question of 'why should I believe your subjective opinion?' 'What makes it any better than mine.' 'How do I justify better if there is no fixed measure?'


If the distinction isn't clear do ask and I'll hopefully help you understand. 


#387
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ebuc
PGA,, please stop your virtual raping of pregnant women. Stop sticking your nose into a pregnant womans bodily business without her consent.

Your actions appear to me to be a sick in the head pervert who does not have the courage but --dumb enough--- to stick their nose in the middle of a street fight where again, it has no business being placed.

Please go stick your nose into a street fight where it has no business being and see what happens to your nose.

We await the results with anticipation of your education and learning processes.

Please do not misrepresent what I am doing. I mean no harm against the woman. I am sticking up for the rights of an innocent human being who has no rights but should if you consider 1) all humans equal or 2) should be equal under the law. If you do not apply the law equally, then what is wrong with whatever one human being does to another since there is no such thing as justice. Justice applies equal fairness to everyone or there is none. 

If you can't apply an argument against my position but instead attack me you are operating via logical fallacy since your argument is irrelevant to the points I brought up.



If you have nothing but to attack my character unjustly with insults you need to reexamine your position. 

Personal attacks will not be tolerated. The policy prohibiting personal attacks applies site-wide--in debates, forums, private messages, and everywhere else on the site. If you are having a dispute with another site member, the appropriate response is to inform moderation. It is not appropriate to respond with invective or misconduct.

1. Definition of a Personal Attack
A personal attack is not "anything directed at a person that they find to be unfavorable. Such a definition would stifle exchange and debate. Rather, a personal attack is any abusive or derogatory remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse. A personal attack may take any of several common forms, including but not limited to the following examples.

a. Generalized Attack
A generalized attack a comment in which a user makes a remark aimed at other users in general, rather than any specific user (e.g. posting "you're all idiots" on a thread).

b. Direct Attack
A direct attack is when a user posts something negative about a specific member. Direct attacks may take place within a thread or may constitute the thread itself. Call-out threads (threads in which a purpose of the thread is to attack another users) are severe examples of direct attacks. Generalized complaints about generalized behaviors are not direct attacks.

c. Hate Speech
Slurs or invective against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, transphobic, ageist, and ableist slurs, or slurs against religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are prohibited when aimed against other users. Whether aimed against other users or not, hate speech is treated as aggravating factor in weighing moderation responses to other violations of the COC. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., is not a legitimate excuse for hate speech.

d. Cross-Thread Contamination
Cross-thread contamination is when a user brings up disputes elsewhere on the site up in an unrelated thread for the purpose of harassing, mocking, or insulting another member. Treat every new exchange with a member with as much of a "clean slate" as possible.

e. Threats
Threats are, for the purposes of this policy, personal attacks. They are not tolerated. Threats include (but are not limited to):
  • Threats of legal action.
  • Threats of violence (even oblique ones).
  • Threats of "Doxxing" someone, particularly if the threat implies exposing the user to political, religious or other persecution.
  • Threats of reporting conduct to a mod or of moderation action.
f. Fighting Words
Fighting words are posts intended solely to provoke or incite another user into taking prohibited actions. Fighting words are considered personal attacks, even if they themselves might not meet the abovementioned criteria.

2. The Just Kidding Excuse
The abusive, insulting, or derogatory nature of a comment will be judged based on how a reasonable individual would interpret it. It is not based upon the intentions of speaker, unless those intentions were stated clearly and explicitly prior to the offending remark. Reasonableness is interpreted solely by the mods. The "just kidding" argument is not a valid excuse for actions which can reasonably be interpreted as personal attacks.


#388
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@PGA2.0
'What makes it any better than mine.' 'How do I justify better if there is no fixed measure?'
We await the results with anticipation of your education and learning processes from your nose engagement where it has no business being,  in the nearest street fight in you locality.

PGA, please stop murdering morality and decency.  Humanity does not need any more perverts sticking their noses where it has no business being. Sad :--(

PGA,, please stop your virtual raping of pregnant women. Stop sticking your nose into a pregnant womans bodily business without her consent.

PGA, your actions appear to me to be a sick in the head pervert who does not have the courage ---yet dumb enough--- to stick their nose in the middle of a street fight where again, it has no business being placed.

PGA, please go stick your nose into a street fight where it has no business being and see what happens to your nose.

 




#389
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@PGA2.0
1) all humans equal
More evidence of your missing a few screws in the attic.  Please get real before you decide to respond to me wit irrational, illogical lack of common sense.

We await the results with anticipation of your education and learning processes from your nose engagement where it has no business being,  in the nearest street fight in you locality.

PGA, please stop murdering morality and decency.  Humanity does not need any more perverts sticking their noses where it has no business being. Sad :--(

PGA,, please stop your virtual raping of pregnant women. Stop sticking your nose into a pregnant womans bodily business without her consent.

PGA, your actions appear to me to be a sick in the head pervert who does not have the courage ---yet dumb enough--- to stick their nose in the middle of a street fight where again, it has no business being placed.

PGA, please go stick your nose into a street fight where it has no business being and see what happens to your nose.

#390
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ebuc
PGA, please stop murdering morality and decency.  Humanity does not need any more perverts sticking their noses where it has no business being. Sad :--(

PGA,, please stop your virtual raping of pregnant women. Stop sticking your nose into a pregnant womans bodily business without her consent.

PGA, your actions appear to me to be a sick in the head pervert who does not have the courage ---yet dumb enough--- to stick their nose in the middle of a street fight where again, it has no business being placed.

PGA, please go stick your nose into a street fight where it has no business being and see what happens to your nose.

We await the results with anticipation of your education and learning processes from your nose engagement in the nearest street fight in you locality. 


Look, my intent is not to offend a woman but to argue as to why killing an innocent unborn human being is unjust. If you want an argument on these grounds I have no objection. If not, I have nothing further to say to you on this topic.