I called Remedy a whack job because that's exactly what he is. Ostensibly, he posts these cut-n-pastes as some kind of public information service (bless him), but anyone who's been in one debate with him knows his real motive is to provoke shock and disgust.
Finally, since this is breaking down into juvenile petulance, I didn't call you disturbed. I called your position and lack of discernment disturbing. But then, why should I expect you'd read me correctly now when you haven't seemed to comprehend anything I've said so far no matter how clearly I spell it out.
We always like our own arguments better than others until we are convinced we are wrong. There are plenty on this thread who think I have done a good job. That doesn't make me right, but it should cause you to take another look.
I try very hard not to have any personal strictures that are not moral absolutes. I don't have any reason for them. Why should I categorically avoid something enjoyable that is not wrong? Likewise, I try very hard to differentiate between things that are bad for me but not wrong in general. Having an alcoholic mother and maternal grandfather suggests to me that it is not worthwhile to tempt fate and drink. But I don't make teetotaling a moral absolute because there is no evidence that it is one.
Get with the program. This is a debate. I clearly pointed out that there was a lot of human history wherein the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was not universally recognized and declared it to come specifically from Judeo-Christian faith. In my opinion, that is a huge stumbling block to your argument of "obvious differences." Either counter my position with an argument of your own or explain how it is not a stumbling block to your argument.
Complaining that I am condescending because you appear to be having a bad morning and started name-calling is not debate.
As for Remedy, I disagree with you on his motives, but that is between you and him. That you degenerate into calling him names is between you and me.
Shalom.