Something being legal doesn't make it right

>mfw this comment section

>mfw holocaust was lie

:)

furby is not real

Lol that picture is hilarious.

[image deleted]

people should be illegal

Actually, the Holocaust was considered a crime against humanity.

After the fact it was, not during. The S.S St. Louis full of Jews trying to escape Hitlers gas ovens was turned away from every port of entry it entered. It is a common misconception that the USA entered the war because of Hitlers atrocities against the Jews.

That's not true at all, and as a matter of fact, they showed indifference towards their suffering. The USA entered the war because of the attack on Pearl Harbor. It wasn't until much later after the fact when the war was well on it's way that allied forces and Germans realized what Hitler and the Nazis were up to.

So was beating your wife. lol :)

Apologies for wanting to get married someday.

To not ro

There use of the comma after "segregation was legal" is improper.

I strive to be grammatically improper. It drives the grammar Nazis and OCD crowd nuts. Besides, it helps separate those who are focused more on content from those focused more on the vehicle of expression by which it's delivered.

That's an interesting point of view.

Some like to say that there are laws above human laws

There are laws above human laws. If there are not objective natural and moral laws on which civil law is established, civil law becomes nothing more than a arbitrary or personal preference being no more important than one person liking vanilla ice cream while another likes chocolate.

I believe the existence of objective moral laws is a key issue often overlooked by those trying to argue in support of gay marriage and abortion.

I'm not sure I understand what your point of view on this issue is. But you can have an upvote too. :)

You clearly don't what you're talking about at all. No consequences were mentioned, and the appeal to consequences fallacy is predicated on belief, not fact.

You're simply attempting to look profound by throwing around words and concepts you have no understanding of and are hoping no one will pick up on it.

I'm guessing you're probably very young, because it's the kind of thing young people often do on these internet threads.

I see no point in addressing issues you clearly don't understand. Of course, I think it could be more of an issue of immaturity than understanding.

To clue you in would mean to deconstruct your entire post word by word, line by line with a proper explanation before I could even get to the primary subject of your post.

While I don't mind teaching people what I know, that would take more time than I'm willing to commit to at this time. I do this for entertainment. It's not a job.

Plus, if you don't even understand the most basic use of words and concepts, there's a high potential that you won't understand a further explanation. and that's if you're even open to it. Some people are actually committed to misunderstanding.

I think you might be jumping to conclusions about tekbarrier's character here (maybe based on what you've seen from other people online, which is easy enough to do).

He's just trying to say that your conclusions don't logically follow from your premises. The consequences you mentioned that he was talking about are when you said civil law would be arbitrary.

I don't know whether he's right or not to say that your statement was an appeal to consequences fallacy, since your statement didn't seem to be so much about the undesirability of the situation as about the actual coherent logical possibility of it. I'll have to think about that some more.

Either way, even if he's right, that wouldn't refute the existence of objective moral laws. It would simply mean that the reason you stated for it isn't a valid reason to accept their existence. There may be other good reasons why we should accept their existence, even if he turns out to be right that your reason above was a logical fallacy.

I'm on your side of the debate about the existence of objective moral laws, by the way. I believe the Bible. But I didn't see why you instantly dismissed the point he brought up. I hope you don't mind me saying something.

Maybe you're right about me jumping to conclusions..I guess the anonymity of the internet causes me to be the immature jerk I'm accusing him of. However, I still am not getting where you see that he brought up a legitimate gripe.

If there are no objective moral values and duties upon which civil laws are established, statements such as "rape is wrong" and "I did the right thing" are neither true nor false. Moral positions are reduced to an expression of taste/preference such as one's like or dislike of the Cleveland Browns, poodles, and chocolate ice cream. How could you argue otherwise?

You could attempt to argue that subjective societal or civil laws are not arbitrary, and in fact have a system or purpose in their creation, but without an objective standard to measure it against, you'd be espousing nothing more than personal preference.

In a post modern society adhering to subjective morals and reality being what they want, the words "right" and "wrong" become utterly trivialized as there is no such objective point of reference to judge the truth of these words relative to "moral" actions. Because of this, there is no need for one to justify poor moral decisions; right and wrong don't exist.

Imagine that your very best friend served alongside you in the military. On a morning patrol he/she suddenly pushed you out of the way, covered an Improvised Explosive Device with his/her body, and sacrificed their life for you and the patrol. That isn't heroism; it's meaningless.

Imagine you and your small child are shopping. He/she separates from you for a moment and gets abducted before security is able to apprehend the abductor. He/she is taken to a remote location and is starved and **ped for weeks, then murdered and dumped in a lake. Did the abductor do anything wrong? Because morality isn't a matter of truth, the answer is "no".

Proponents of moral nihilism shouldn't have a problem with the content of this post. For all they care, it's the same thing as a post on why people like color red while others like blue. It's nothing but an arbitrary preference.

BTW, If you've ever watched moral relativism debates, these are all points even most moral nihilist will concede to in debate.

To be honest, it wasn't so much for you personally (although I do count you as one of my "imgflip friends," so to speak).

But honestly, it was more the case that when someone brings up a genuine concern about whether something is a logical fallacy, it's better to answer it than dismiss it. Logic is really important as a guideline for how our thoughts and conversations should take place.

I'm still not sure whether your identification of his statement as an appeal to consequences was correct or not. I'm reading through what he wrote in the comment above and still thinking about it.

Nuh-uh, thousands of Polish Jews, Czech Jews, Ukrainian Jews and people from many other countries were deported to concentration camps and killed.

Ok, no need to be condescending, the point that i was making was that the constitution is not a perfect argument, so many people seem to think that the constitution is a perfect document that will never change. The constitution has changed 4 times, the argument that it should never change is invalid. Also, a common argument that ive seen with guns is that most gun grime is in areas with gun laws, this is true, but has nobody considered the fact that the areas with higher gun crime tend to have a higher population density. I averaged out the 5 states with the lowest gun crime; Vermont, New Hampshire, N. Dakota, Iowa and Idaho (I left out Hawaii because they are not on the mainland and are very different in many ways from every other state) and it showed that they would have a population density of 59.79/sqrmile. And the states with the highest gun crime rate Louisiana, S. Carolina, Missouri, Maryland and Michigan had a population density of 225/sqrmile, almost 4 times denser than the bottom 5. Now, i should mention that the highest gun crime rate belongs to DC, BUT, they also have a pop dense of 10298, which, had i left out Michigan which has the 6th highest rate, would have brought up the average to 2250.6/sqrmile, but that seemed a little bit much, because none of the other densities are even close to that and it wouldnt have been a fair average. Looking at the numbers enough, there is an obvious co-relation between population density and gun crime and it makes sense, gun crime is high in dense cities even outside of the us, all the cities in Canada with the highest crime rate are extremely dense

If I came off condescending, I apologize. I was more trying to comment in the spirit of the type of meme I was using, not to try to be a jerk. Although I can be a jerk sometimes, and that's something I need to work on.

Crime statistics are calculated per capita. Which means it's calculated with the population in mind. The crime is still much worse in more liberal metros such as Detroit and Chicago, and as a trucker who has traveled to these areas, I can tell you from personal experience that crime is much worse.

Not worse just because of gun laws, but because of their liberal policies coddling crime and their horrible policies undermining traditional families.

While I would agree that the Constitution can be amended. Our founders created it in way that this would be very very hard to do, and it's for good reason that they did. You can't simply change a founding document for every new fad or behavior that comes down the pipe, and that, in my opinion, is precisely what many secular progressives want to do.

Then there is this to consider. Some liberals and gun control advocates are pragmatist. Which is basically the attitude that if something works, the means or consequences are of no concern. To me, that is absurd.

Did you know you could alleviate athletes foot by cutting off your foot? You wouldn't have athletes foot anymore, but neither would you have a foot. Sounds absurd, but that is precisely what Liberals want to do in society.

I would rather sacrifice a little safety for freedom. This is life and in life things happen. To simply make draconian laws banning things every time progressives see a problem is how parents deal with children, not how governments should deal with adults.

Sure you can eliminate certain problems with draconian laws, but at what cost to freedom?

Progressives often look to Europe as a model as to how we should run the US. Why that is I have no idea. In my opinion Europe as been a disaster of epic proportions because of progressive ideals, and is currently going bankrupt and being over run by Islamic barbarians. We don't need to become more like Europe, but less like them.
European liberalism is precisely our problem.

Ok, after reading your arguments, I can agree there needs to be some way to allow people to get firearms, but, does it not bother you at all that in so many places anybody can just walk in and buy a gun? I remember after digging around for a while i read the regulations on gun sale, I think it was new Hampshire, there is no gun license required, no registration and no limit to magazine capacity. I can imagine this is the same in other places as well, but i was wondering, why does anyone need a large magazine for any of these things, im sure many people could do the job without absolutely filling their target with lead. On top of this, if somebody is buying from a gun show, there is no background check required, which means anyone could walk up and buy a gun.

All in all, after researching a LOT, id say that gun laws probably aren't necessary, but there has be be a little bit more restriction, considering that that would mostly end things like catastrophic mass shootings and accidental deaths. I think that we can both agree that we wouldn't want a criminal or a schizophrenic walking around with an assault rifle. So yeah, im hoping this would be a good middle ground, I personally wouldnt want to live in a society full of armed strangers, but if i did, it want them to be trained and sane.

I'm talking about abortion and so called " gay marriage " Not the 2nd amendment. I'm a pro gun conservative.

You put Gay Marriage in quotes like it isn't a thing in 21 countries, in every continent but 1. Havent you considered that with those arguments that there will never be a right answer, and like many other countries, just let people have it and move on?

"Those arguments"? Is popular opinion/endorsement really the way to base your ethics and morality? Jeremiah 17:9- "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Don't base what you think is good on your own judging. The only solid base is God's Word.

I personally dont want to base my ethics on a 2000 year old book written in the middle east that uses scare tactics... I dont hate Christians though, you do you, I wont stop you

How come? None of the factors you mentioned (age, region of origin, or that it sounds like "scare tactics") are a valid reason to reject something if it's true.

I choose this because I dont know if its true, and I dont want my morals bent for things that I dont beleive in.

Ok, thanks! :) No hard feelings here. God made you with an independent mind to make your own choice. Just remember that eternity is an awfully long time to be wrong

Everyone's heart is.

The basis of Christians' reasoning is not their own hearts, but rather the objective self-revelation of God as found in the Bible.

Unlike our hearts, the Bible is never deceitful.

That's a really good question to be asking, though. Not only of Christians, but of everyone in general.

I also found this little guy when I googled "Jeremiah 17:9"

:)

HAHA!! Oh, the internet.....

That's actually a pretty hard argument to counter. I don't know of an easy answer to that basic epistemological problem on how we can test the reliability of our own knowledge. If you do think of an answer, please let me know :)

I guess the only thing I can think of in my cause to "defend" the Christian faith (as much as a slob like me can be said to 'defend' something so beautiful, powerful, and magnificent), is that the problem you're bringing up isn't unique to Christianity. While it is something we have to account for in our thinking, it can't really be used to reject Christianity specifically, since any other worldview will have that same problem also, as far as I can tell. In fact I would say some other worldviews would fare even worse.

The whole point of his meme is that popular opinion doesn't determine truth.

The point is that Gay marriage wasnt popular opinion for a long, long time. Slavery was popular opinion, so was segragation, and so was the opposition of Gay marriage. And just like these horrible things, people are waking up and realizing that opposition of gay marriage shouldnt be popular opinion, they are trying to make change. After a while slavery wasnt popular opinion, and now opposition of gay marriage isnt popular opinion. Slavery isnt a fair comparison because it has been popular for less than a decade, while slavery was popular for centuries

The point of the meme was to express CentralNYGuy's view on the subject.

You asked him why he doesn't just move on and accept that gay marriage has been passed in many countries. The intention of my reply was to point out that if he accepted gay marriage just because it's popular now, he'd be going against the view he described in his meme.

I understand that, but the counterargument I have is that marriage, if we were to look at the stretch of history, isnt popular opinion. In each of these situations, there was a large revolution of sorts overcoming popular opinion, but when it came to gay marriage, it was gay marriage that overcame popular opinion. That is the reason why i think the meme doesnt have a fair argument because slavery being abolished is not the same as prople trying to fight gay marriage

Ok. If I understand you right, you're saying that the point about truth not being determined by popular opinion is valid, but that it's a bad analogy to use for an argument about gay marriage.

Yes, because Gay Marriage is not popular opinion in the same way slavery was popular opinion

Actually I think I misspoke. His meme wasn't about "popular opinion." It was about not using the state as the measure for what is ethical. His point was that the things mentioned in the meme (slavery, holocaust) were endorsed by the state that practiced them. So I think his point about gay marriage would be that saying "you should accept it, because the government voted on it" is not a good argument.

Well, ok, i wouldnt say thats a great argument, i mean, i use that argument because Gay marriage isnt going to collapse your country, but your economy can, so just stop worrying about it when there are bigger fish to fry. The other argument is that being Gay, scientifically isnt a choice. Nobody can choose what arouses them women can be attracted to other women because of genes from their father, and visa versa for guys. If Gay was a choice, i dont think people would have chosen it thousands of years ago when it was punishable by death nearly everywhere, and yet, people were Gay back then because there is no choice associated with it. Which is why i think it is ridiculous to demonize them, its like a hair colour, no choice, it just happens.

It very well may be a " thing " in 21 countries,but it's not reality. Regardless of how many countries endorse it. Truth, morality, and biological reality are not predicated on majority opinion or popularity.

As a person who cares about the world we're living in. No, I can't just " let people have it and move on " That's what spineless cowards do, not those who are committed to living for God and care about the future of a healthy and stable society.

Why should a person living for God, as I do, care for the future's health and society?

Why wouldn't you, since Jesus' entire ministry was based on love for people, not apathy?

It's kind of weird that the father would make so many rules to increase the quality of life on Earth, being so that this life is short less meaningful then one of the afterlives.

*and

Sorry, it wouldn't let me answer your other comment because the thread was too long! lol Matthew 6:19-21 says to store treasures up in heaven, because there are the type of treasures that will last forever. Now how do we get treasure to heaven? Invest in something going to heaven! The only thing going to heaven that I know of are men's souls: so love people (Matt 22:39), share the Gospel and minister to people and you will build treasure in this life and the next :)

I don't remember what I was confused about :D

But if anybody accepts Jesus as having kept all the rules for him/her, admitting that they can't keep them all, God forgives all his/her sins (sin=breaking God's rules), and he/she is FREE in this life AND the afterlife from the guilt and the punishment of sin :) Jesus took the punishment for us! What do we get out of the deal? Eternal security, a relationship with Someone Who will never let you down, disappoint you or leave you, peace, a guide for what is morally good and bad (the Bible and the Spirit) + so much more I can't even write it all!! What's not to love?

i agree with you, but it doesn't really solve my confusion.

What's your confusion?

Do i store my treasures in heaven or in earth

What if God is concerned about both? I mean, about the afterlife, and about this life. It doesn't have to be just one or the other, right?

Because that's why God commands?

when you said "why" did you mean what?

Yes, I did.

Truth and morality cannot be used in the argument, as not everyone involved believes in god. As for biological reality, you do know that wild animals can be homosexual, there is a statistic on what animals have the highest rate of homosexuality. I dont think one can get more natural than wild animals

The statement that "truth and morality cannot be used in the argument" is confusing to me. If you take out "truth," what's left that's worth talking about? Isn't trying to understand truth and morality the whole point of discussing things?

The truth threw me off because we dont know if its true. Lets say you have 2 history textbooks, one was ran through a 4000 year game of telephone and 2000 years of translations. The other has no knowledge of what happened at the time, but it uses relics and document from that era as well as what we know in our mordern historical era as a result, which textbook would you trust more?

In the analogy of the two textbooks, I would trust the second one more, but I wouldn't trust it absolutely. I would still test its claims.

Would you be willing to revise your original phrase "Truth and morality can't be used in the argument" by qualifying it in some way, or being more specific? In other words, do you see that it's wrong to throw out "truth" from discussions?

Of course we would question it, where would science be without questions. I would revise my statement truth cannot be used in an argument if it cannot be completely proven. We cabt say something is true unless we have proof, that goes for both sides of the argument, the Big Bang cannot be proven, so i try to avoid using it to prove anything

The problem with that view is that it doesn't stand up to examination.

Can you completely prove the statement "truth cannot be used in an argument if it cannot be completely proven"?

I would suggest instead that any kind of truth is admissible in an argument, and that empirical proof is not the only standard for testing what truth is.

Thanks for considering what I wrote in my comment, by the way. I appreciate that.

It is a tricky argument, there really is no right answer to anything unless we know for sure, thats why things get so much more difficult when religion is part of an agrument, because people can say, I think X because Y, you cant disprove Y, and you cant prove Z, so X.

People have no way of saying what morals are true. My opinion is that anyone can decide their morals, but the final say goes to the gouvernment to look at what everyone has to say, for and against each moral and decide, I wouldnt do anything against my morals if it is legal, I wouldnt do anything for my morals if it is illegal, if there is an injustice that many people agree with, we would protest, but i dont think morals go above the law, because we dont know who made these morals, and law is made of morals, and because we live in a democracy, if we can get enough people with us, we can purpose change.

You're right. Everyone doesn't believe in God, but that no less negates the reality of his existence, or his need to justify a moral position,

You're also right that animals engage in homosexual behavior. A couple points in response to this.

First, Contrary to popular belief. Humans are not animals.

Second, Animals also eat their own feces and drink their own urine. Should we follow their model on that as well?

So that we observe homosexual behavior in animals is expected, because they're animals, and it also says nothing about the behavior of human beings.

So, when I say " biological reality " I'm talking about humans, not animals.

It's not an observed fact, it's an arbitrary classification made by scientists.

There isn't one shred of observational evidence that humans share a common ancestor with apes, not one. Micro-evolution occurs, and that can be clearly observed by variations within the species, but that one kind of animal can produce an entirely different kind has never been observed in the history of science or mankind. That's a fact. It's an often denied fact, but a fact none the less.

The bread and butter for evolution supporters is that small micro changes within species over long periods of time lead to a macro-evolutionary change. That's fine if you want to hypothesize and guess about it, which is what science is, but to validate that guess with actual observational evidence has never been demonstrated.

This can also be considered a response to your response to my comment about animals sharing human qualities.

Evolution will never be observable, ever. It is a change so small that you wouldnt notice unless you jump millions of years at a time. But lets think about other things that arent observable, gravity, magnetism, atoms, etc. there are a lot of things that we cant see that we know. And before you say that it is just like religious faith, it is not, scientific information we cant see has facts behind it, Christianity has a 2000 year old book.

I beleive evolution because there is at least some evidence of both of them, or at least scientific theory backed up by the laws of physics. The fact is that biologically, the 1 difference that we have more advanced brains, different races existing is a result of human migration and as im sure you know, all animals have genders. Fossils prove more than what the bible has to offer, abstract thought is all that separates us from animals, everything else is the same

OK I understand what you mean. But the fact that it's arbitrary is more than a technicality. The context of the discussion is about whether humans and animals are in the same category or not, so to appeal to the authority of biology classifications isn't legitimate (since they are arbitrary, and don't necessarily have any value beyond just being a useful way to classify and talk about them in the context of biology).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against scientists naming things however they want, and then using those classifications for the sake of convenience. But there are different contexts, and in the context we're talking about, the fact that biologists find it useful and convenient to classify humans with animals because of certain characteristics doesn't really settle the issues we're talking about. Does that make sense?

It's one or the other. If you grant that it's a technically arbitrary classification by scientists, you can no longer speak of it as a naturally observed fact.

The data that scientists are referring to when they considered that classification are observable facts and should be treated as such, but the classification itself isn't.

No, it's not " a fact of biology " it a hypothesis, and it's one the most brilliant scientists who ever lived, reject.

You put more trust in a book passed from mouth to ear for 4000 years and translated for 2000 years than you trust modern science?

I don't believe that's an accurate depiction of the reality about how the Bible was transmitted.

But also, the transmission isn't the key issue. What makes the Bible ultimately more reliable than modern science is the fact that it was inspired by God (I know you don't believe the Bible is inspired by God, but I do).

Science by definition is never 100% certain, because it must always allow room for new information. God is omniscient and infallible, and will never "learn" anything new, so he does not have that imperfection that science naturally has.

So, if a person believes the Bible is actually inspired by God, there's nothing unusual about that person believing that the words of the Bible are more reliable than modern science.

It still doesnt change the fact that gay isnt a choice, nobody can choose arousal, its exactly the reason not everybody is attracted to the same body type, the brain can function differently person to person, and, much like some are skilled at math and some at biology, sexual attraction is not hard wired, it varies

Whoa. Talk about "arbitrary" facts....

What makes humans not animals? We have all the qualities of animals, digestive and nervous systems, we can form memories, we have emotions, we can communicate, we have genes like animals, we give birth much like other primates, we are make of cells and tissue just like animals, why arent we?

Bears are aloud to kill for food and we arent? As for enslave, there are regulations for how you can treat animals that assist you with work, so they probably dont see it as slavery, as long as the owners of said animals are treating it with respect

No, I meant why do you think it's wrong to enslave or kill PEOPLE, just like the bear and work animals you mentioned? (if they're just more animals, why can't you kill people like you would a deer or a rat? And why can't you own them like you would an old workhorse or a cow?)

Because we are the same species and because we have more evolved brains, we can co-operate better. Other animals are nowhere near as intelligent as us, we know how to sort out conflict better, so we have no excuse for barbaric things like that in the modern day

You're right. Humans are nothing like animals. Take apes for example.

Like humans, apes have well formed rational faculties. Their ability to develop an argument, follow a line of logic, draw conclusions and frame hypotheses is quite remarkable.

Also like humans, apes have a marked faculty for language. (This, of course, is intertwined with their powers of reason.) Their vocabulary is enormous, their grammar complex, and their conversations deep and meaningful.

The apes ability to codify language in writing is further proof of their close relationship to humans. In this respect, it was most gratifying to see the number of apes who commented in response to the comments on this image flip meme in regards to the similarities they share with humans.. I was particularly interested to follow the line of reasoning of the monkey who argued that apes had evolved from humans, not vice versa.

Like humans, apes also have a strong spirit of inquiry. Their research in the fields of astronomy, mathematics, medicine and physics is noteworthy.

Apes also (again, like humans) yearn for meaning in life. This is why they devote so much of their time to philosophy, theology and ethics. The religious sentiments and practices of all apes can be traced back to their intense and endless quest for meaning.

Apes are concerned about questions not only of origin but also of destiny. The best proof I can offer for this claim is the maxim by one famous ape philosopher who said, 'Whether my life leads ultimately to the dirt or to the Judgment, either way, I've got a problem.'

Apes also have, like humans, a refined aesthetic sense. They admire beauty and long to surround themselves with it. When an ape cultivates a garden, puts flowers in a vase, or hangs up a painting, what is it doing if not expressing a love of beauty?

Again like humans, apes have a strong creative impulse. This is seen in their poetry, painting, dance, drama and music. To a lesser extent their creativity is also evident in the way they gather in weekly craft groups to weave baskets, spin wool, knit shawls, and cover photo albums.

The sense of humor shared by all apes is another proof of their close kinship to humans. Their delight in the ridiculous and their love of a good laugh is plain from the popular ape jokes they tell.

After all this reflection upon our similarities, I feel almost foolish for having brought up the subject

There are vast differences between us and animals.

So you ignore the giant list of similarities just because we have more developed brains.

The system of language is irrelavent, as i said, dolphins for example have been proven to communicate, even give names to eachother.

And another thing i should mention, why dont we look at humpback whales. They sing and when one whale hears a song that they like, they start singing it too. Songs have been recorded to travel halfway across the world. Souns like they have a strong musical culture to me.

Oh and also, if we look at the bengal finch, they have a well developed sense of grammar in the wild. Scientists played 2 versions of one of their songs, one proper and one with a slight error, but the same meaning. When they played the one with the error to the birds that were raised in the wild they went apeshit, when they played it to birds raised in captivity, no reaction, when they left a captivated bird with the wild ones for a while, then played the song, they went crazy again. Sounds to me like mothers teach their young proper grammar and spelling when singing to me.

And finally, Monkeys have been showed to understand currency, they were given discs, and when they gave the discs to the trainers they got treats. The monkeys, with no prompts, began trading, and even demonstrated prostitution.

What you are doing is like me saying a banana isnt a fruit because it is so different from an apple. You cant ignore all the similarities and just look at the fact that our brains are far more developed

Not at all, I didn't ignore the giant list of similarities of all the animals you'v listed, anymore than I ignore the giant list of similarities between a Chevy dump truck and a Chevy car. That they have similarities proves they have a common designer and creator, not that they evolved from a motorcycle.

Your fruit example is a bit of false dichotomy. Fruits are a distinct category among plant life with many varying kinds. Animals are a distinct category with many varying kinds, and humans are a distinct category with many varying races and genders, but none the less a separate category from plant and animals.

Sure, what would you like to know about them?

You can do whatever you like, This is a free internet thread. However, I wouldn't recommend you determining your positions by what others do. Such behavior is not very wise.

I really like that meme comment about sarcasm shields. Funny!

I'm pro gun too. Why did you think I wasn't?

No, I was talking about the acts, not the person committing the acts. It would have been " they're " if I were referencing a person. I wasn't. But it was still the wrong phraseology.

I think it relates more to abortion, due to the fact all of these examples have to do with murder and torture, not being allowed to own a gun for your protection from a rogue government.