Translation - your unwillingness to roll over and agree with me is disturbing.
I see your point but you don't see mine. You think that the belief that individuals should have rights, such as the right to life, is univeral, immutable, and no matter what else we deny or allow we will never lose this.
I think you have very little imagination and very little knowledge of history. You don't know what a monumental change in human thinking it was to put individual human rights in such high regard regardless of the perceived worth of the human being (a concept already shreaded by the abortion laws in this country). That is a particularly Judeo-Christian concept based on the religious conviction that every human being is an image bearer of G-d. For some reason, you think atheists are beholden to this concept despite thousands of years of human history proving it was not so.
I happen to believe that channeling our sexual appetites is as fundamentally important as protecting our rights. But I can't argue that point with you if you're simply going to conclude that anyone who doesn't agree with you is disturbed.
I disagree with you and I can state my reasons. Face it. It's not only allowed, but it is good for the Republic.
Shalom.
My comments speak for themself. I don't need your translation, thanks.
I think you have very little imagination and very little knowledge of history.
Don't patronize me like some little pissant. I'm not some kid in his first year at Berkley.
I disagree with you and I can state my reasons.
Likewise, I disagree with you and I've stated my reasons why. Your reasons are highly subjective, not clearly defined, and amount to "might makes right". I don't think that's very logical.