Do so

The only possible situation this could arise in is in a failed tribe

which is obvious

a situation that is not only uncommon (because the only "way to survive is rape")

but it's pretty common to see your objective morality go right out the fucking window when you realize things are going to end

A tribe with some form of objective morality wouldn't hold up well either in this scenario

Anyways, that last point is a lot less hard hitting than the others

The other criticisms I have would not be my go-to ones

This would be my main one, to be quite honest

the answer would have to be "yes" or "God wouldn't do that" (which is the same as me saying "This would never happen")

Argue with him claiming that BECAUSE God wouldn't do that he has a moral stand now, just to cover it all

even if he claims God wouldn't do that, what's the difference between that claim and my claim of "This is an unrealistic scenario"?

Because with God it's a definitive

Pretty sure your only option to survive is going to definitively not be to rape the nearest tribe....

you'd have to be in an extremely isolated area

there'd have to be some reason you have a shortage of women

Food being the most likely cause

At that point, a lack of women isn't your real problem

Chemicals in the water the turn the womb gay

lol

anyway

it can be easily reasoned his situation is not possible

Don't attack that one scenario, the thing about unrealistic scenarios is that they can be put above each other ad infinitum until they're of relevant size

The best response is just to not respond to it at all

which is what I did

I waited until he left

^

Well, then you won the discussion but lost the war of ideas

though, he winded up giving himself a response and arguing for me, and I did respond to that, which I shouldn't have done either

In other words

You're gay

You are gay

Thou art a faggot

I think pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of the question would have served me well

but that obviously wasn't what was wanted

the economic theory on the left is the theory that governs bitcoin, we can see it's validity be proven

while the latter is just bolshevised nonsense

How is the one on the right bolshevism?

You know that all the profit you get from Bitcoin is from others trying to join, right?

I'm not good at debating economic viability