Message from @Doomy
Discord ID: 784401474620620800
sup
the guy probably muted me lol. Either way, his premise is entirely meritless when he has not given me a chance to explain my position. not sure who hurt him, but if i want to have my faith, i am willing to defend it to the end. I never once advocated for legislation of something BECAUSE of my faith and my subjective opinions regarding it. Which is why I said immoral acts like pornography, prostitution, and gambling should remain legal
a person has faith in the spaghetti monster, in their holy book [inspired by the SM] it says prostitution is bad. when confronted by someone who asks "why do you believe that prostitution is bad?" and they respond with "cos SM sed so" ad infinitium they *are* defending their position but doesn't their ability to defend it make their defence or the core belief logical.
maybe because selling your body for money is not a good thing to do? I value sexual purity unlike sexual deviants
do you agree or disagree with my given statement? yes or no?
it depends on how defensible their faith is. logic and faith are not mutually exclusive
so the logical coherence of a belief isn't measured by the validity of it but instead by how a person can defend it? amazin'
if a faith is defensible, it must mean that there is certain validity to it. it also comes down to how a person defends it. I consider Christianity to be valid and defensible, you do not.
lmao
you don't understand logic
enlighten and illuminate me
a person can defend the spaghetti monster
doesn't mean the spaghetti monster exists
correct
then you're being inconsistent
how?
people often defend false or wrong arguments
why else do criminals get attorneys to defend their case in a court of law?
their position is illogical, but they are still defensible, technically speaking
"certain validity", not absolute validity
theres certain moral stances that i agree with in islam with which I agree, but not the entire faith
zionism 101
susquehanna, manayunk, schuylkill, punxsutawney
