@The Big Oof

>Trying to argue in <#463779195114225685>

In short, race realism has no legitimate evidence to back it up, as a myriad of other systemic factors explain the differences

Even if there actually were the differences you claim, they would be only minute, not terribly statistically significant let alone a SD or some major amount away, and thus,it'd kinda pointless to discriminate based on them

And, uh... I found the conversation

I never claimed you were untrustworthy

""The amount of times I have heard (and made this argument myself back when I was into social justice and that sort of bullshit) this response.
There's a huge flaw in this style of thinking, because it assumes your opponent doesn't think it will affect other people, when they almost always do.
Even those so called "bigoted Christians," the "yerrr goin to hell" types lefties rant on and on about believe it affects others for religious reasons. I don't believe in God myself, but it's not hard to figure out why they think it will (they think it will cause them to lose favor with God, and that God will punish their society or w/e)."
So more or less, you're saying that other people have sensibilities, and that because it might offend them, it should be banned. You can apply this to literally anything. Hell, you could literally apply this the other way around - some view the proliferation of Christianity as bad due to some beliefs endemic to it, and thus, call for it to be outlawed (of course, nobody, sans an significant minority which has no real political power, actually believes this)."

I guess your simple rural mind couldn't handleit

It's okay. I understand.

But what I was getting at...

Is that rural regions tend to have less interactions with a variety of backgrounds, and thus, be more conservative

It's environmental, not some innate birth trait

chutup liberal

@SilverLining

""So more or less, you're saying that other people have sensibilities, and that because it might offend them, it should be banned.""

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I never said that at all nor did I imply it, and I have no clue how you got that out of my response.

Let's get one thing out of the way first: I wasn't making an argument against homosexuality from religious grounds. I was pointing out that even the very religious, who are supposed to be irrational or something in the eyes of someone like you, have their reasons for the things they think as well, and don't hate people just for the fuck of it.

"You shouldn't ban homosexuality based on religious beliefs"
This is an argument you're having with yourself. I'm not religious anyway, but regardless. Do you even read what other people type before giving your response? I mean, given that you don't even read your sources before proudly citing them, it's a logical conclusion for me to make.

I'm an atheist anyway. I'm not anti-Christian, but I don't think laws should solely be based on religious text or, in your words "because of their sensibilities" (regardless of whatever this meant, it wouldn't apply to what I said). And I'd love for you to explain how you gathered that out of what I said.

And also, that wasn't the conversation I was referring to, the one in question was back when I was still an admin and you had that drawing as an avatar.

Nice essays faggots

What the fuck is this shit yo?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S10WMvjcmM

@Levi You're witnessing someone getting destroyed with the utter might of my autism.

<:Monkas:459545654029713408>

@Khat Emperor Begone Dutch cuck

Help me crush the urbanite

Shutup libtard aztec

What urbanite ?

Even dumber

<:GWfroggyBeaned:398569153713143858>

This trap needs to be dealt with once and for all! Join me keyboard warriors!

ignore my labourwave shitpost

@SilverLining Still waiting on you to explain why you thought I was arguing in favor of banning something on religious grounds when I never said that.

I'll be here to own you with facts and logic when you finally do

<:GWcmeisterPeepoEZ:403295289688981534>

@The Big Oof