Thread:Aramirtheranger/@comment-26084195-20161108221055/@comment-26347028-20161109223258

Again, I'll summarise that; "Humanism is deplorable because of x,y,z", "I disagree with the statement that we're any more sentient than animals although I have no problem with killing them", "I think no one in Britain can use guns (for the record, I have…), and I'd obviously beat you with whatever weapon you chose", "feminism is bad because everyone in it is either extremist, or leaving the movement" (not true… although I believe in the term humanist here as well.), "you're cruel and arrogant".

The things you mentioned about Humanism are true. We created gods, and so we are the only true people that should be "worshipped" to any extent. The word is used more mockingly than anything, although some people are serious about that. We value ourselves more than other life on this planet not because we're more central to life, or anything like that, but because we're sentient. And yes, we discriminate because of that - which means that since it changes on a species to species basis, we're "specist" to an extent. On the other hand, if we met aliens, they'd be sentient too, so we probably wouldn't be the most valuable life anymore, and for simplicity's sake we'd probably say the two races are equal.

People in Britain can own and use guns, you just need a license, and a range to use them on. I've used them before, but I find no joy in it. As for the duel itself, you'd find it surprising I'm sure that I can wield a nice long claymore with some precision and efficiency. I would not, however, use armour, as that, whatever you'd like to claim, encumbers you.

Feminism has not achieved its goal, as that is ever changing. Feminism's goal was to make the sexes equal. To an extent they've covered the gap so the two are kind of equal, but now the aim is to reduce the amount of harm in each side. If you don't recognise the need for both sides being helped, you're not a Feminist, because you're not going off of the basic mission statement of "making the sexes equal" by unbalancing them. That's not a fallacy - that's a fact. You can't say people going against the very idea of it are truly feminists. I'd agree, they exist, but look beyond your nose and see the reality for once perhaps.

Anyone who's wildly religious enough to mention it first is ignorant to an extent. The way you choose a religion is what you are brought up to believe, generally speaking, and then you follow that through, and claim it's true, leading you to follow it. Since I was brought up with a good few voices of reason around me, I trusted neither the Bible nor its critics, but my own interpretation of them, as we all do if we're skeptics. What I discovered is the scientific method, and to not think rationally is to not accept that as the only way of discovering truths. Now, my beliefs have nothing really to do with any more than the fact that you can't prove anything except what we can through science, and that means that inferences into reasonable doubt are made. It's reasonable to doubt the existence of God to say the least, and it's rational to say he likely doesn't. It's irrational to say he does.

Now, if you want to call me cruel and arrogant, go ahead, but please at least try and use reason for it when you do.