achilles return

Pure Football
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


achilles return last won the day on January 19

achilles return had the most liked content!


About achilles return

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    deus ego est
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

9,699 profile views
  1. i didn’t ask you to define anything. i asked you why we should listen to you, and pointed out that your answer to that question was hilariously insufficient. i even gave you some pretty good follow-up questions! whining about bad faith is just a sad excuse for you to flee a conversation you find challenging.
  2. it’s pretty obvious that worzone’s definition of “bad faith argument” is “asks difficult questions i don’t have good answers to”
  3. lmao tell me more about my ethics dude
  4. an explanation isn't a justification. i don't see anything in the above that suggests why we should listen to you on matters of marriage equality and relationships. your weird beliefs certainly don't at all logically follow from some generic "humans are unique and have intrinsic value". like, as far as i can tell, you're telling us we should trust your moral authority because you believe in a god that values human life. ok, cool? who gives a sh*t? it's neither unique to your religion nor to even religion itself. there are a whole lot of human belief systems that profess to value human life, and i don't see any reason to give special consideration to yours. oh, because your claim it's 'objective'? what does that functionally mean? it's not like your religion is any less scattered and fractured than any other. as far as i can tell, it doesn't seem to produce better societies, or more human happiness. the absurdity here is that you think this is a "my objective belief vs your subjective belief" thing, but it's more "my individual claim of objective ethics vs the thousands of religions and philosophies that make the same claim". i'm not wooed by this attempt of unearned moral authority. unless they're on death row, am i right?
  5. what? no you didn't. you stopped talking about ethics and started talking about your belief in a god. it's a red herring. i don't care about your belief in a god. i'm asking you why we should entertain your personal depictions of right and wrong. why should we listen to you? stop avoiding the question.
  6. answer the question
  7. yeah i don't care, dude. you've literally invented a question no one asked you to answer instead of answering the actual question i asked of you.
  8. and i've never asked you to so please go back and explain to us why we should entertain your code of ethics.
  9. excuse me but how can you know that we all know? do you have an special insight into another person's mind? how do you know that you can trust your own senses or even the concept of causality itself? i'm going to require an entire diatribe about metaphysics and epistemology before we move on.
  10. ten minutes ago you had no problem preaching to us about what is and isn't immoral, according to you. as soon as i ask you to justify your imagined moral authority, you're demanding that the rest of us justify the existence of society itself to you before you'll answer. this garbage attempt at christian apologetics isn't actually great cover for avoiding the question.
  11. don't change the subject, and answer the question why should we listen to what you say about morality? do you have evidence that your code of ethics produces better societies?
  12. yes keep telling us there's a lot of evidence for adam and eve this will definitely work
  13. why should we entertain at all what you think is good morality?
  14. it's amazing that you show more skepticism for and demand greater evidence of trump's inappropriate sexual behavior than a literal creation myth.
  15. i'm not seeing the problem? sounds like people are making appropriate decisions about when relationships should become life-long partnerships.