Do you have experience in occultism? Do you conduct research projects on occultism? Have you read books on occultism?
Does he need to? Your claims about the historical causality of pagan ostracism are blatantly false and completely devoid of any supporting evidence.
I do and have. So who is better suited to speak of occultism (and it's groups), myself or you?
Great. Why not share this knowledge by making an occultism thread?
My side and perspective has clearly changed multiple times throughout the topic. Please don't confuse my older posts with my newer ones because they've changed. If I did say something incorrect I have admitted to it.
That in itself is fine. Accusing others of whipping a dead horse
before they are aware that you've dropped that argument is not. Asserting that you never made the claims that you withdrew after admitting they were false is not.
Cannibalism is illegal (in modern societies) because consuming human corpses and/or severed limbs is illegal because it is considered medical waste [...]
If someone needs surgery to remove a large piece of nacho chip stuck in their trachea, that piece of nacho is medical waste as soon as it's removed. Therefore, eating nacho chips is illegal, right?
Currently Pakistan's congress (correct me if I'm wrong) is passing a bill to make cannibalism illegal which may be the first nation to make cannibalism itself illegal, however I have read something about Britain already having a law against it (again correct me if I'm wrong).
So, Pakistan is (or will soon be) a modern society, but U.S., Canada, Germany, Swizerland, Poland, Belgium, Spain, France, Russia, China, Japan, and Australia aren't?
The leading reason for legalizing cannibalism is due to cultural beliefs (which are not necessarily religious beliefs) and some people would feel bad for hindering another persons culture.
No, it isn't. The whole point is that we should not impinge upon the freedoms of others in order to satisfy our emotional biases toward their choice of action. Doing so would be a violation of their human rights.
In the first link provided from Debate.org you will notice that the defenders of cannibalism defend it as a "sexual right" (lack of better term) which should not be infringed on if both parties consent.
Because people commenting on an unofficial online poll accurately represent the entirety of human society, right? Strange how their opinions need to be conveniently paraphrased for use in this discussion. It's
almost as though they wouldn't support your claim at all if not distorted by your own personal interpretation.
Seriously, just give me several sources or names of events that is positive about cannibalism. I have given you sources and links, dozens if not more. Why don't I deserve the same response?
Because you're demanding that we prove something that was never even suggested. You're creating a false dichotomy here by treating a neutral thing as an assortment of good and evil parts. If you try doing the same with any of my counterexamples, you will find that it is impossible to have the "
ositive events" associated with any of those things outweigh the negative, yet liquor, bureaucracy, homosexuality, organized religion, sporting events, stoneflies, and erosion are not illegal or immoral, at least in the eyes of the majority.
Go ahead question it all you want, it's not incorrect until you've proven it's incorrect (specifically talking about the wiki), [...]
It isn't about it being incorrect. It's about it having no relevance to whether or not cannibalism is acceptible.
Have you proven wikipedia to not hold a large portion of recorded cannibalism?
Have you proven that these events are benevolent?
Can you medically prove that these acts were psychologically sane and healthy in nature?
In response to all of them: Can you prove that any one of those questions has any bearing upon the discussion, and/or that answering them will in any way resolve any dispute, disagreement, or misunderstanding at all related to it?
Also I have ALREADY called it a PARAPHILIA https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/paraphilias or more SPECIFICALLY VOREPHILIA http://www.yourdictionary.com/vorarephilia,[...]
And you admitted (albeit belatedly) that you were wrong in calling it that.
[...] which IS AN ICD.
No. Vorarephilia [bombast]
IS NOT AN ICD[/bombast].
That ‘would’ be true if there were ‘many’ groups. There is only a select few (from what I can tell only 2 or 3 tribes primarily) that execute this act.
So, popularity is what makes the difference between moral and immoral? You know, those Tibetan monks don't really have much social life, either. Obviously their devotion to meditation and pacifism is not as good as they claim.
Prove that these groups are respect worthy.
What does respect have to do with morality? If we don't respect garbage-truck drivers, does this make them immoral, uncivilized, defective, or undeserving of human rights?
It’s okay to put down Nazis. No one really cares, let’s be honest, it’s the truth. I don’t care if you make fun of a Nazi and honestly really no one does.
I'm fairly certain a lot of people care. Particularly German people who are tired of being associated with that regime in the minds of others and vilified because of something they either had no involvement in, had no control over, and/or had no awareness of.
Should we help them? Yes.
Why? How? What does it matter if someone endorses a dead facist regime?
Yep, that sums it up. All you’ve done is question after question. Literally all you’ve done is discuss and throw out questions, the reason why it’s difficult to tackle your statements is because you barely have any and they aren’t consistent.
Because most of your arguments have no recognizeable connection to each other, or even to the topic. I've explained how they fail to support your argument in any way. I've noted their many logical fallacies and even linked to articles about them. If you want more from me, you're going to need to provide some concrete justification for your stance; preferably without diverting the discussion into unrelated tangents, reasserting points that have already been invalidated, or devolving into baseless speculation.
What culture? The culture some pages back.
That can't be right. I'm sure I would remember if I voiced any support for any culture in existence for the first time ever.
Attempt to prove they are social constructs with biology, sociology, and evolution.
I don't need to. You failed to even
demonstrate that they might be anything but.
Not that it matters, anyway.You will also find that social constructs at their core are rooted in our animal instincts which contradicts the term social construct.
The instinctive formation of social groups (hence "social"
, which gives rise to artificial modes of thought (hence "construct"
, does not in any way conflict with the meaning of the term.
“...ICD claim until you started this charade of ad nauseam”
No because it still stands and was not defeated.
Seeing as you cannot logically be referring to the ICD claim you've already withdrawn, and as everyone can see that your admission was after the fact, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you've realized your mistake.
Did you know you in the AG forums you can right click a misspelled word and a menu (or whatever it's called) and it will show up and give you a list of words you can replace it with.
That's probably a browser-specific feature.
