₦airaland Forum

^^^

Like the op stated, different standards based on race. For starters, he allows oyinbo girls nice, tight fitted jeans that show off curves, but not ours??! Abi the size of the ikebes of our women will rip the heavenly denim? Does he think they are all fat?? That's racist (and fatist)

TBF, plenty oyinbo fanatics say similar, but compared to our numbers....

Why does black woman have to fry her hair first to look 'good' in the first place?


Random; despite all their carelessness, losing all that data, the caching on this site remains HORRIBLE. You'd think maybe they were trying to fix that then inadvertently screwed up elsewhere (unlikely, but possible). This site is very, very quick to load though. I wonder how they manage that. Of course, the caching must play a part (though note, probably cheapness, which led to the data loss, played a part as well)

Technically, eggs evolved before chickens...

^^^

Thank you, kind, noble sir, for confirming everything I said.

From morality is a strictly human concept to your being more learned than I am in these issues.

You're far too kind

PS, DS and co now tell you who are considered perverts. Fact? You're called a pervert therefore you're one, fact? And you seriously wonder why people think you an xtian...

onetrack: Yes. One that is based on empathy.

Empathy is clearly not objective

Anyways, a suggestion of sorts; don't indulge our clown in chief. "Do atheists believe?". Atheists don't have to believe whatever his silly church believes. No god is the denominator, that's all. I can add my gara and what not, give my reasons and we can disagree on why I think messrs x is atheist or not. That, for the most part, remains simply opinion. The common denominator simply remains 'no god'.

Believing this universe was created for us special humans or that we're somehow intrinsically more special than maggots (as he'll ultimately imply) is not part of the package.

This particular clown seems to think himself some sort of authority, like his pastors of yesteryears he likely still admires and aspires to someday join.

Gombs: Atheists and verbal excreta!...

I can't see where you pick this up from as well. Anyways, as usual, theists and genius reasoning

Mynd_44: No derailing

So, front page?

No, it's not obvious. I can't see how any thinking person would ask that question. Do you have any sort of mental handicaps or something?

Gombs: ^^
else?

Are you referring to me?

Forward page please

https://www.nairaland.com/1788786/man-detained-being-atheist

Thanks

Atheists and atheitesttes, this seems legit

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/mohammed-bello-adoke-free-mubarak-bala?recruiter=10155571&utm_campaign=mailto_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

What's next? Any ideas anyone?

PS: Let me add that I know of similar situations, except not related directly to atheism. But family members label one 'mad', next thing he's forcibly put into one of these institutions.

The most disturbing case I'm aware of was of some dude that received actual physical abuse, floggings etc, made to inhale smoke from burning those Islamic tablets they seem to enjoy reading. All this to free him from the demons possessing him. Note, this is a working man in his thirties. (flogging kiddies recklessly is bad enough, even if our culture doesn't seem to mind, but this.... even we frown on that) I could not confirm it though, as he later claimed they closed down the place since then, after some government inspection ie. But siblings can corroborate his experiences though (they were the ones that forced the parents to back track on that particular bit of dross)

I also know, of course, of many taken and locked up in churches for one (extremely silly) reason or the other.

How does our society function??

Now, this might be an islamic institution he was taken to (not sure, haven't checked), but regardless. And htf could a trained 'professional' say this (as Bala related it)

doctor in deed: “The biggest evidence of my mental illness was large blasphemies and denial of ‘history’ of Adam, and apostacy [sic] to which the doctor said was a personality change, that everyone needs a God, that even in Japan they have a God."

Note though, first doctor the family visited said there was nothing wrong with him. They then sought a second opinion from this calamity.

And some folk think I'm hard on clowns like daviddylan for no good reason...

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/mohammed-bello-adoke-free-mubarak-bala?recruiter=10155571&utm_campaign=mailto_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition


This seems legit. Front page please

Which kind hackers? Sounds like someone at engineering f-ed up. And they back up what, twice a year?

Also note, they still have all the 'nobody' data with them. If they didn't, the old accounts wouldn't be showing up

David Moyes is still manure manager.... yay!

9ja and Algeria, don't fail me.......

At least Algeria...

What is this? Pablum in order to build up strawmen? Like earlier's

ds: Since you hold that no morality whatsoever should exist and that all morality is strictly subjective.

Bros, how can morality not exist yet remain subjective?

Deep Sight: ^^^ You try. But I have told you not to waste your time. You are speaking to folk whose filth is as incomprehensible as eternity. Again, let me emphasize that I speak only for the rights of the unspoken for infant who is up for adoption. These horrifying recidivist maggots will conjure any argument to abuse such children. You have already seen one of the most perverse souls on earth up there, wiegraf, suggest that it must be traumatic for a h.omose.xual child to grow up in a home where heterose.xual affection is expressed between the parents. Don't waste your time buddy. I could very well have bothered myself with academic arguments on this issue.... but I know the discussants and their dispositions too well. That is why I am content to spit on them and move on. Because I know very well by experience that not even the greatest schorlarship or most reasoned points will dissuade them. One of them even contended in a previous thread that he will not discipline his child for stealing because all morality is subjective. Seriously. Very seriously. Now tell me what lenghts such a person will not go to justify the absurd. Arguing anything on morality with such a person rather makes us the f.ools.

Over here we're seeking to abuse children despite advocating for children being raised in loving homes? You whine because of a trivial ~~icky~~ of yours? You may need some perspective. (this is ignoring those who have their own biological children, mind you. You'd separate those families because??)

Also, correction, though I can see what you're trying to do here, I said murder, not theft. But I'd do so for theft as well, tbf. And I really don't need any help besmirching my good name amongst the sheeple populace, I manage that just fine on my own, but thanks again. And lol at 'perverse soul'

NativeBoy: I do believe I've made final point and I'm content to let this thread end.
As the saying goes, "When there is no God, everything is permissible". This is the point that many serious atheists cannot help but recognize. That ultimately there is no moral standard without an objective source. If man gets to define what his good or evil, what happens when another man disagrees? If one society sees something as good or evil, what happens when another society disagrees?
Even Richard Dawkins (hero to many atheists) had to concede that when you have a true atheist mindset, there is no such thing as good and evil. Here's an excerpt from his book, "River Out of Eden"
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.

Even if your god existed, morality remains subjective. You would simply be calling his own subjective code objective. Same way people call whatever society's code they live in 'objectively' good. False, it simply is that society's code.

This applies to all living things, any type of god included, let alone yahweh that has people stoned to death for wearing different fabrics and punishes children for the sins of the ancestors....

Like I already said, marriage has already been redefined in the west, women are no longer property, so exactly what is the problem here?

https://i.imgur.com/EyvOoR6.jpg

Goot times yeah!

Deep Sight: ^^^ Lol. Enjoy your sleep. I can't be bothered with the nonsense up there, none of which is news to me. Fart away, hideous sickening man-ars.e-hole-craving perv.

No, bros. You have no case, but enjoy your delusions. In most ways it's a free world after all

Deep Sight: ^^^ Leave it. FYI, he holds that all morality is subjective. His cohort, the atheist wiegraf, argues with substantial support from other atheists that even mass murder is not instrinsically evil or wrong. With that, think twice before wasting your energy arguing on something as little as ho.mose.xuality.

Lol. The worldwide atheist super conspiracy to rule the world....

Deep Sight: You are despicably more concerned about the right of a h.omose.xual couple to pervert all notion of home and family than you are about the rights of the unspoken for infant who will have no say in being thrust into such an upbringing in circumstances markedly unnatural and perverse of a normal mother - father home with the unspeakable psycological and social damage attendant thereto, not to speak of damage to se.xual psycology. People as morally bankrupt and hypocritical as you will condemn heterose.xual parents for something like exposing their na.kedness to their yound children, and argue feverishly that same young children suffer no damage from seeing Daddy and Daddy kissing around the house during their impressionable years.

Let me fix that for you

ds: You are despicably more concerned about the right of a h.omose.xual couple to pervert all YOUR notion of home and family than you are about the rights of the unspoken for infant who will have no say in being thrust into such an upbringing in circumstances markedly (TO YOU) unnatural and perverse of a normal mother - father home with the unspeakable psycological and social damage attendant thereto, not to speak of damage to se.xual psycology. (<- Evidence of this, where??)

But of course, what is right for ds is 'natural' and the rest of us must comply. Because SHIKENA!!!

What effect does growing up with gay parents have on kids?

wiki: Scientific research has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[2][3][4] According to scientific literature reviews published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals and statements of mainstream professional associations, there is no evidence to the contrary.[5][6][7][8][9] The American Psychological Association reports that some studies suggest parenting skills of gays and lesbians might be "superior." [10] Biblarz and Stacey state that while research has found that families headed by (at least) two parents are generally best for children, outcomes of more than two parents (as in some cooperative stepfamilies, intergenerational families, and coparenting alliances among lesbians and gay men) have not yet been studied.[7]

And

wiki: Consensus

[b]
The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been generally consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[3][4][5] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[4] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union.[5][6][22][23] Statistics show that home and childcare activities in homosexual households are more evenly split between the two rather than having specific gender roles,[24] and that there were no differences in the interests and hobbies of children with homosexual or heterosexual parents.[25][/b]

Here, in case looking up the sources is problematic for you

http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20%281%29.pdf

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/AP_06_pre.PDF

http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/advocacy/brief.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/full

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

So, good ser, exactly what are you on about? But everyone else is wrong, and you are right, because you say so. You get to decide for all what is natural, what marriage is, and who's happy and who's not. All those very happy kids that grew up/are growing up in homosexual families aren't happy, because you know better.

Your bigoted fairy tale land.... na wa....

ds: People as morally bankrupt and hypocritical as you will condemn heterose.xual parents for something like exposing their na.kedness to their yound children, and argue feverishly that same young children suffer no damage from seeing Daddy and Daddy kissing around the house during their impressionable years.

Wow, how inane. (What do I personally think of that? Nothing. So long as it wasn't predatory or sexual, obviously)

Anyways, the irony of someone claiming hypocrisy here is well.....

Here, let's play a game. Tell me which of these are anti-gay and which are anti-racial marriage

GO!!:
1. "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage.

2. This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

3. State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.

4. “It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

5. This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

6. This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7. This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8. "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."

9. "A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."

10. "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."

And lemme guess, you're pro interracial marriages? Amirite?

Not to mention, the myriad little things one would object to which another would find repulsive. MYRIAD. Eg, some insist their kids call them dad, others could care less about blind respect to superiority. Some would never feed their kids meat, others ask "why not?". Some would never hit their kids, others will claim it's a necessity. Some will drag their kids to church, insisting they become xtian or satanist, others consider that abuse. Some won't let their kids play with barbie dolls, others could care less. Blah blha blah blah blah......

That's how it works, as see, morality is subjective. In fact, not so very long ago, marriage more or else meant women were the property of the husband. Actually, one could argue it's still so (or at least partially so) in many societies, eg Islamic. So, what exactly happened to this notion in the west? I mean, you think those who held this view did not go around bandying it as objective and natural? After all, men are naturally stronger than women, can defend the household and can bring home the meat, not so? Women are also more naturally attuned to staying in the kitchen and gossip, no?

And by the way, it's a kids right to be 'offended', and even as adults remain so, and it happens all the time. Hetero, gay, poly and what not, all the time. Many kids grow up receiving something they would consider as abusive, physically or emotionally, from one or both of their parents. With many kids even wondering if they were adopted because for a variety of reasons, and assuming their parents love them not (and that adopted parents necessarily do not love their kids as much as natural parents. Well, kids are kids, see?). And guess what, said behavior need in no way be regarded as abuse by mainstream society, eg, all I list above (vegetarianism, discipline, prudes etc). Then again, you're not here whining about 'damage' from these during their impressionable years, why not? I mean, what of the gay children that have to watch their hetero parents kiss, or even just the prudish ones, etc etc? ~~Icky~~

ds: What do you want me to say to you? I have zilch against g.ay rights... I fully support the notion that they must be treated fairly and are free to engage their de.viant lusts.

Deviant? Anyways, you obviously don't know the meaning of 'fair'....

ds: In fact, for me they are free to live together, have thwir relationahips and all. I draw the line at marriage only because of its legal implications on the matter of adoption. And anybody, like you, and the hideous pervert and moral slime wiegraf, who cannot fathom the grave evil done to an infant by entrenching him, choiceless, into such a forced perverse upbringing, is and remains the most despicable low and filthy.

Thanks for this. Imagine how proud you'd be if a slaver called you a "hideous pervert and moral slime"

Thank you......


And btw, the answers to the above quizz

bigots sundry: 1. ANTI-INTERRACIAL State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883): "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

2. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Scott v. Georgia (1869): "The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."

3. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924: The law's stated purpose was to prevent "abominable mixture and spurious issue." It "forbade miscegenation on the grounds that racial mixing was scientifically unsound and would 'pollute' America with mixed-blood offspring."

4. ANTI-GAY Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), 2011: “It not only is a complete undermining of the principles of family and marriage and the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down to the extent that that foundational unit of the family that is the hope of survival of this country is diminished to the extent that it literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

5. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863: "By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

6. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney: "Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Lonas v. State (1871): Attorneys argued that intermarriage was "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce the human race in any of the types in which it was created." Tennessee's court agreed, saying that "any effort to intermerge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Bob Jones University, (1998!!!): "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man."

9. ANTI-GAY Family Research Council publication, 2002: "A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households."

10. ANTI-INTERRACIAL From a submitted briefing to the Court on Loving v. Virginia: "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist said. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."

Deep Sight: O, talking about asinine, I'm not the one pleading for asinine s.ex here, or marriages built on asinine se.xual practices.

As usual, excellent language skills in some respects. Terrible reasoning on most other levels though, the inability to grasp the simplest of things, and some willful blindness. In other words; a fancier version of the average @josh post

googlod: asinine
ˈasɪnʌɪn/
adjective
adjective: asinine

1. extremely stupid or foolish.

Something disgusting you doesn't make said deed asinine (it could possibly make you a prude, bigot, etc though, depending). On the other hand, something foo.lish, like your post or "natural order" nonsense, = asinine

^^^^

This time you aren't even going to sugarcoat your $hit?

What was that nonsense eediocy of natural orders again?

Some of the most asinine $hit on parade here.....

Dohohohohoho

Oh manure!

Deep Sight: Yawn. Delete all your opinions on subjects you don't have a degree in, then.
Happy new year.
Let's start afresh, you annoying fella.

And where did I say your opinions are useless, or at least completely so? (to me they are, but that's besides the point, see?) I am saying they are definitely NOT as valuable as informed opinions. So when the pros come out and say they will find solutions (or even that they've found them already), I'd be more inclined to take their word for it over yours.

Doesn't mean they can't be challenged, doesn't mean they can't be wrong, but you definitely don't know what you're on about. And again, you proved that when you claimed there was no 'impetus' for the development of se.xes even after reading an article you yourself recommended to kay which has several good ones. In fact, from that article, it would seem that given the right conditions, it is not a question of 'will' they develop, it's one of 'when'. It would seem division of labor is advantageous in many situations out in the wild, as expected...

You're at best a dilettante. Nothing wrong with that, in fact curiosity should always encouraged (so long as it doesn't control your life ie), but you are definitely not as informed as a professional who's spent years dealing with these complexities, let alone a whole community of these folk that have been providing successful solutions for some time now. Division of labor, and they are the pros.

And btw, I speak not of opinions per se, I speak mostly of facts...

As for the new year, my resolution is to graduate from annoying to full a.rse, so f you. But happy new year.

Deep Sight: THIS is nonsense. You can actually ignore my posts and read the work of scientists which I posted. I hope you understand that your post renders that non-scientists cannot and should not have an opinion on any scientific matter. You know, all learning is nothing but an application of logic and as such, any keen and studious person can discuss matters outside his specific academic training, so long as he applies himself to reading and understanding. As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer by training, but I know many non-lawyers who have and who do argue very soundly on legal issues just by the application of simple logic - because at the end of the day - legal issues are simply based on logic. Same with science.
*In MFM booming voice* - "I hereby banish every spirit of olodoishness posessing you and following you into 2014!!!"
AMEN!

No, this is nonsense. People spend years training for these, and you think you're immediately as qualified as they are? I know various fats can clog up arteries and cause a heart attack, I've read quite a few articles on the procedure, now allow me to perform hearts surgery on you. Am I not qualified enough?

Good thing with science, anyone can confirm any theory provided you put in the effort, but the investment required clearly isn't always as simple just reading a few articles. It is relative. Many would read articles about say QM or GR for months and still not grasp even their most basic premises. Evolution is built around simple principles, but the details aren't always as simple as that, obviously. Even people regarded as rather intelligent, eg Popper, think evolution unscientific until they actually pore through the details.

Programming likely has even more self taught professionals than law, I'm more or else self-taught myself, but don't pretend these situations are as black and white as you portray it. While I might know the concepts of how so and so language may work, I certainly cannot know the details without (sometimes considerable) investment. You think you can declare their efforts futile just because you've read a few articles? You already claim there is no 'impetus' for generating gender despite reading the same article @kay did, so quite clearly, you're already lost.

What to do depends on your moms personality mostly, and we don't know that.

Err, anyone know what exactly is happening with lb et al? Even ihedinobi is off.

That was a wonderful post. Not so many work so hard to prove me right. Thank you.

Addressing the folly in there would be...well.. So I'll just focus on these and take my leave

TV01: And single fathers are extolling the virtues of raising children sans mothers?

Yes. Your values are not their values. Sorry. That's the fact.

Then, and again, you do think the universe is built just for you.

TV01: Race is an immutable characteristic that does not predicate behaviour. Sodomy is simply an immoral practice. The sane and wise (let alone the God fearing) will never elevate it to be moral, or deem a homosexual couple the equivalent of a mixed sex couple or worthy of the marriage institution.

The arrogance, selfishness of religious folk always leaves me puzzled. This is one of the most foolish statements I've come across. It's just a wee bit too long else it'd be my new sig. Not just the silly proclamations, eg "homosexuality is simply an immoral practice" and implying sexuality is a choice, you also seem to be saying it's fine to discriminate so long as the xteristic is 'mutable' and you and your 'sane and wise (let alone dog fearing)' bigots disapprove.

To be fair, a positive here is your acknowledging amidst all your rabble that your opposition is simply a moral issue, so you recognize all that nonsense about procreation is just that; nonsense. There is nothing objective about your opposition, gay people can raise kids for instance, simply not in a fashion that fits your moral views

Goot. That's a start, but like I said earlier, I'm afraid I'm not paid to educate you.

Kudos

Ds, is calling a grown man a girl an insult in your village, as I don't get it? Girls are people too you know?

Ah, the usual 'no one has addressed this', when many, MANY have, it just isn't the answer that confirms his bias. It is work in progress, simple. Like many more aspects of science, like many other theories. But the head village clown thinks he knows better than the scientific community and figures he knows that evolution will never solve this. When its pointed he's speaking out of his as5, he whines.

In other words, nothing new to see hear. God of the gaps with bigger english. Ds and his posse already have ready made answers.

Deep Sight: Ol boy forget it. You will never be worth my typing time again in this lifetime. Never.

And this is a reply as well

See you guys feeling important with yourselves lol

Is this your boycott as permanent as the last one, when you claimed you'll never post on NL again, or even the one just now when you claimed youd be ignoring me?

Deep Sight: Sickening thoughtless rubbish. Was tempted to dignify you with a thorough response, but then I remembered that you are wiegraf. The speaker and thinker of d.aft nonsense. As such, responding will be a waste of my time. Bye.

This is a reply.

And don't worry, I'll make it even jucier once I get a proper PC. And you can continue to pretend you are offended and therefore won't respond, when the simple truth is you cannot address it. You've been told time and again your antics work only on sheeple, yet here you are....

TV01: And you are a shameless reprobate. We can do this all day, or you can simply back up your asinine assertion.
You made the claim. And contrary to thousands of years of history and all critically reviewed research. You prove it and stop gnashing your teeth in frustration !
Please tell the board how two men "provide the necessary condition" and as good as or better (your desperate claim) care, than a biological mother and father?
You can start by telling us which one seeds and which one gestates, then move on to explaining which one' body undergoes tremendous physiological & psychological change in preparation for the new arrival. Then perhaps, which one the baby naturally bonds with immediately after birth and suckles - having already formed a relationship with from the womb.
How about how the child will appreciate your tearing him/her away from the biological mother who you have reduced to a mere "breeder". Willfully denying the child the continued association, heritage, love care and nurture of the natural mother. How will you replace the vital developmental triggers that only a mother can provide, or the balance and adjustment from having two opposite sex parents. Misogynist child abuser .
Clown? The fool says in his heart "there is no God" ! You lack understanding.
My son is the result of loving procreation and benefits from ongoing nurture by loving biological parents. Not something the "sodomites" next door can grasp or emulate. At best, they procure children like products - for their vanity projects - in an attempt to be what they are not, family.
Not for procreation. And for child rearing, like I said, wolves have been known to raise children, so what's your point? Gay homosexuals will always be second best. Although I admit, slightly preferable to wolves !
I'm the Daddy !
TV

Sadly, no PC availability. Can't deal with folly on phone. Not frustration bros, just plain old disgust like I mentioned earlier.

Yes captain obvious, I made the assertion, which in your foolishness you fail to note I was careful to state was implied, then you confirmed it. So, exactly what are you on about?

And you call my assertions asinine right before you compared human beings to wolves..... Well done. Please, what was it again?

Good clown, what years of research are you speaking of? You do realize babies cry because, well, that's what they do? I carried that baby from the mama and gave her to another mama of the same race etc, you think the baby will.....notice?

Lol

So, exactly who will the baby form bonds with then? You do know there are many adopted kids that well know they are adopted but have absolutely no desire to meet their biological parents, no? Let alone those that don't even know they're adopted. Steve jobs was one of the former for the most part. But no, all those adopted kids are not in families because they do not meet your standards. I'd ask how dare you, then again you're religious. You already assume this universe was created just for you

Perhaps you aren't aware of single fathers raising kids? Maybe they don't exist. Should the children be seized because they're mysigonists? They are not letting the women take care of them, and thats definitely their job. I mean the only thing women are good for is child rearing and cooking. Perhaps gossip as well. Men? Bringing home the bacon. Strictly strong, macho bs only, the good stuff. All those single parents aren't taking care of their children........because you say so

Do you even know what misogyny is? Don't use big words if you don't understand them. And it works both ways, see misandry...


Btw , many many gay parents around, with their families researched etc. Guess what? No different than your average family. No ojuju anywhere. Can't be bothered linking cause of phone, but I'll be back with that. And last I checked, it wasn't even a case of adoption, it was their own children, most use their own DNA, so even by your warped nonsensical logic, what's the problem? Unlike adopted kids, at least one of the parents is the biological 'natural' one, so what are you on about?

And not, I would even argue it's the worse option, as if they're willing to invest into nurturing children there are many (abandoned by your good and proper straight folk mostly) in less than condusive environments, eg homes. And a child is a child, all of them deserving of love and proper care. This obsession with rearing your own child escapes me.

So no, bros. You don't have a sliver of a case. You don't het to decide for the rest what a family is. That's pure nonsense....

Your fellow religionist is the one that points out just how prejudiced your position is, the exact same thing with racism, yet here you are....

Now, imagine back in the day a black family wanting to raise an oyinbo kid...

But noooo, pls proceed with your nonsense

And as for evolutiondidit, Lol, no. That's really silly. Evidence for the theory is gargantuan, across many fields its been tested and its predictions confirmed, etc. Yet they should fold their arms and just Godidit when they approach a snag. Err, which skydaddy and exactly how did it come about? It didn't evolve? It just is? And is hiding somewhere? Really

Going with the evidence. A plethora of that for evolution. It exists, it is real. Skydaddy? No. Not so much

For off, why does life need to replicate? Well, wouldnt that be obvious? This question reeks of shortsightedness with regards to the implications of evolution/abiogenesis, or evem the fact that matter is in a constant flux. And it actually is a poser to ID proponents, not the other way round...

Two lights are beamed, one makes I through a hole un a wall, the other does not. N
ow, let
's grant the light beam consciousness mid flight. When it starts to ponder on reality, it might look back and say wow, just who is responsible for this? Incredible, it happened to have the correct trajectory to scale through the wall. It just about had the correct frequency to remain whole as well! As it gains emotions etc it begins to focus on the rewards, eg; it just missed an asteroid by a second, that was close, it had just the right length to avoid the right speed needed to escape that. Excellent, now I'm happy, something must be rooting for me, something wants me to feel joy, designing me for this purpose. To live and experience.

No, it was just a beam of light emitted by a star that got lucky (well, not like the other particles care, as they aren't conscious, but the particle wouldn't note that). In its bias though it wouldnt notice myriad issues, eg, why was the wall there in the first place? If it were designed purposely, should it not have been granted the ability to change speed, or switch direction, why van it exist only within a very short, exacting frequency, etc etc. Same way ds focuses only what confirms his bias bit ignored obvious flaws. Eg, gender put about intelligently and purposely, yet the reproductive system is so badly put together it is responsible for the more human deaths than any other factor. Are there really not amy much, MUCH more efficient designs for that? Or exactly why the need for gender in the first place, why can't we pick? There are species that are asexual, no? We walk around assuming it has to be so, or its best because our brains are wired to think so, in other words, simply because of our bias...

And of course we now come to why the need to live. Obvious. The particles wired with the need to live, live. They are the ones that go on to survive as clearly the other particles arent alive. And those alive that do not have the 'will' to live obviously, and again, die out.

Evolution is very, very simple at its core. Now, note here ds will miss issues with immortality. Most beings I know of would lobe to be able to live indeterminably, to decide on when to kick the bucket themselves, should they even choose to. And there ate species that are note or else immortal, it is far from impossible. Indeed many see this as a great measly humans will achieve before the turn of the next century, so, why did these intelligences not bother with that?

In fact, just what exactly was their purpose, as they've done a real terrible job if we were the purpose. Egregious. And why the mystery, why the hiding?

Questions like these are what id proponents should be answering when the claim am intelligent will is behind this

Edits later. This phone is horrid as far as posting is concerned.