Not demonstrably wrong
sure, the disease gets passed around by those means, but it wouldn't exist to BE passed around if people weren't sexually promiscuous. More than that, the disease would die out or drop to an extremely low number of infectees if people weren't sexually promiscuous.
It would drop, I don't disagree. It would also drop if as certain sect of people weren't trying to convince everyone that sex is some sort of heathenish action and banning protection. Abstinence education doesn't work: the most religious parts of the US have the highest rates of teen pregnancy by far, even when you factor in abortions.
[Src.]The only safe sex is when it's with one partner over your lifetime. Condoms break
There's these cool things called STD tests. Guess what they do? Condoms do break, and there are backup methods. Many safe people choose to double-protect with some sort of pill or UID in addition to condoms.
The jump was from sexual promiscuity to immorality, which isn't a jump at all. And let's not get into morals here, your morals are based on evolution and mine...aren't.
... what? My morals are based generally on egalitarianism, evolution has nothing to do with morality. Your morals are based on a 2000 year old book that you only listen to selectively. When's the last time you stoned someone, and how are your slaves doing? Quite the moral code those guys had, wouldn't you agree?
We never said we wanted to police it. We want you to change your ways.
People accept the risks of their actions by making them, safe or not. As long as they don't infringe on unwilling people, it tends to be allowed. This is how free countries work.
For the most part, I came up with my arguments myself. I didn't google anything for the majority of them. As for thinking for yourself, I daresay none of your arguments were first thought up by yourself, yet whenever I use an argument which has been used by others you shoot me down for not thinking for myself. Hypocrisy is generally looked down upon in both debates and life in general.
Half of what you say is copypasta absolute standard conservative talking point reply, and the other half is factually untrue. Whether you google it or not you're just repeating what you've heard without regard for factual accuracy. On the other hand, as I said earlier: "A simple 5 minute research session on virtually any one of the original pro-religion points in this thread will render it flagrantly untrue and generally demonstrates a vast ignorance on any of the topics cited. Re: fossils, vestigial organs, recapitulation theory, carbon dating, neanderthals, dinosaurs, trees under water, etc. Blatantly false and easily fact checked things spouted authoritatively (and inevitably without reference) as true." If you want to cite a source as an argument, awesome. Two things: understand it yourself, and make it a source by someone with reason to be trusted, like a professional in the field in question.
What arguments have I used from anyone else that don't follow those basics? I "daresay" there have been none.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 21 2011, 7:19 pm by FaZ-.
None.