3 ms·

Ah, what a cheap way trying to sneak your way out: “So your claim that I would restrict the liberties of others is not correct.” The crux here was your intentio

Ah, what a cheap way trying to sneak your way out: “So your claim that I would restrict the liberties of others is not correct.” The crux here was your intention, and willingness, also you don’t even get to live your “because I say so” tendencies, because, as you wrote previously, it’s not being done in a repressive Puritan country anyway. “ there's a completely non-arbitrary reason: to cover up private parts of a body.” and there you go again. You’re so entrenched in your “because I say so” mindset that you cannot even see how arbitrary this is. Finally, you seem to have some major misconceptions about what science is. You demand to have absolute truth from the beginning, and that’s simply not how science works.

nautilius 5y ago
Ah, downvotes, the last resort of the wannabe authoritarian who doesn’t feel respected enough, even though they are “clearly right” and “deserve the respect”, because they “say so”.
- ghoward 5y ago
  Ah, complaining about downvotes when the person debating you cannot even downvote the comment. And now I know you are arguing in bad faith when you give me a label that you know does not apply. No, I don't deserve respect, but I never said I did, nor did I say that I am "clearly right", nor did I "say so". Thus, you are creating those quotes out of thin air, which means they are straight up lies.
ghoward 5y ago
> The crux here was your intention, and willingness, also you don’t even get to live your “because I say so” tendencies, because, as you wrote previously, it’s not being done in a repressive Puritan country anyway. Again, you are accusing without basis. I simply stated an opinion. I would not stop people from doing something that was allowed. Yes, I would not want to see it, but I would not stop people. So your claim is incorrect, no matter how you would like to spin your narrative. > and there you go again. You’re so entrenched in your “because I say so” mindset that you cannot even see how arbitrary this is. Is it arbitrary if the vast majority of societies the world over and throughout history had that as a reason? No, it's not an arbitrary reason, no matter how much sexual revolutionists would like to pretend it is. It's like Chesterton's Fence: if you don't understand the reason for it, then don't remove it. When you do, then maybe you can. But understanding the reason for it means that you must understand why societies, by and large, set that as a social contract. Beyond that reason, a line must be drawn somewhere. If not there, then where? Why would your line not be any more "arbitrary"? > Finally, you seem to have some major misconceptions about what science is. You demand to have absolute truth from the beginning, and that’s simply not how science works. Again, what appears to be a deliberate misreading of what I said. Science is a process, yes, no doubt about that. But science is not about lies, which we know were told. Science is not about agenda, which we know is being pushed. Science is about evidence now, or otherwise do nothing. That principle is called the Precautionary Principle. It basically says that, without clear evidence that an action will not be harmful, requiring people to do something out of the ordinary should not happen. In other words, we should not throw caution to the wind. That's why I ask for numbers. I want the evidence before I throw caution to the wind. No, I don't need to know absolute truth. But I do require evidence. Isn't that what science is about?

nautilius 5y ago

Ah, downvotes, the last resort of the wannabe authoritarian who doesn’t feel respected enough, even though they are “clearly right” and “deserve the respect”, because they “say so”.

ghoward 5y ago
Ah, complaining about downvotes when the person debating you cannot even downvote the comment. And now I know you are arguing in bad faith when you give me a label that you know does not apply. No, I don't deserve respect, but I never said I did, nor did I say that I am "clearly right", nor did I "say so". Thus, you are creating those quotes out of thin air, which means they are straight up lies.

ghoward 5y ago

> The crux here was your intention, and willingness, also you don’t even get to live your “because I say so” tendencies, because, as you wrote previously, it’s not being done in a repressive Puritan country anyway. Again, you are accusing without basis. I simply stated an opinion. I would not stop people from doing something that was allowed. Yes, I would not want to see it, but I would not stop people. So your claim is incorrect, no matter how you would like to spin your narrative. > and there you go again. You’re so entrenched in your “because I say so” mindset that you cannot even see how arbitrary this is. Is it arbitrary if the vast majority of societies the world over and throughout history had that as a reason? No, it's not an arbitrary reason, no matter how much sexual revolutionists would like to pretend it is. It's like Chesterton's Fence: if you don't understand the reason for it, then don't remove it. When you do, then maybe you can. But understanding the reason for it means that you must understand why societies, by and large, set that as a social contract. Beyond that reason, a line must be drawn somewhere. If not there, then where? Why would your line not be any more "arbitrary"? > Finally, you seem to have some major misconceptions about what science is. You demand to have absolute truth from the beginning, and that’s simply not how science works. Again, what appears to be a deliberate misreading of what I said. Science is a process, yes, no doubt about that. But science is not about lies, which we know were told. Science is not about agenda, which we know is being pushed. Science is about evidence now, or otherwise do nothing. That principle is called the Precautionary Principle. It basically says that, without clear evidence that an action will not be harmful, requiring people to do something out of the ordinary should not happen. In other words, we should not throw caution to the wind. That's why I ask for numbers. I want the evidence before I throw caution to the wind. No, I don't need to know absolute truth. But I do require evidence. Isn't that what science is about?