Search results

That is quite debatable. Although I don't classify things as sin/not sin, I can understand what you call sin. In this case biology can go wrong in many ways, including producing a psychopath. A psychopath do not have the ability to feel empathy, so they can kill without remorse and they can't...

I don't care about religious views. Asexuality (any sexuality) by itself is not something wrong. Only actions, that are result of any particular sexuality, can be wrong. For (extreme) example, pedophilia by itself is not wrong, though a pedophile acting upon his/her desires is doing wrong. A...

Why not? I also call TV shows like "Jackass" stupid, while it has fans who think it is awesome. No amount of research will make it awesome for me, so believe me or not, the same is valid about what I've already said earlier. It is stupid, and you are by no means required to agree with my opinion.

So, in that case you always have to decide and it is impossible that you neglect something.

Still stupid thing to do. Having wealth means nothing. If you kill people from lower class you will have to do all things yourself. No one will work for you. I think they were not that stupid.

By that logic using drugs is kinda ok. After all it connects you with the needle and the stuff injected into your bloodstream, which is something outside of yourself. And thinking, which happens entirely in your head, could be a sin.. You could think about abstract things that do not exist.

Free eugenics - I agree. Mandatory eugenics - I disagree.

Lower class had no wealth worth mentioning. And sometimes upper class was also victim to witch-hunts. So, no. They truly believed some people do witchcraft. I know people who think that witchcraft works even nowadays.

If the mind is thoughts what does change them.

It depends what you define as "racist". For me, it was always connected with prohibition of some people to do something while others were able to do it. In this case (by my idea of what racism is) it will be racism only if white/latino/asians/etc. can't do the same things. I.e. if there is...

That is possible in English. In my language nouns are always different than verbs. So... The exception that English language makes is not a rule at all.

Hmm, every time where there is dead vs alive outcome (before reproduction and due to difference in genes) there is at least 1 bit new information, which is stored surprisingly on genome. How much information is stored depends on how many organisms survived and how much difference or variation is...

Nope. I don't call anything sin.

Why do you think this was an excuse? One can use "immoral" money to save life without knowing the money were "immoral". Say the husband is a criminal and sells drugs. The wife is quite gullible and does not know that, but she knows they have money. She uses some money to save someone's life, as...

And how you will prove that claim? Anyway you are talking about the law and not about science. Science is interested in generalizations, not cases. Here you have a case, very specific one.

In my country there are some limited number of payed sick days, though the employer does not pay them, rather the government pays them. As a compensation you are required to pay every month insurance payment. So, even it is called "insurance", it is a tax of a kind as the payment is mandatory...

Really? If somebody wants to harm you and the only way to stop them is to HARM them will you not do it?

Apparently you don't understand what science is. You can't use video tape to 'prove' anything. Otherwise I will say that Luke Skywalker and the Force are real.

I'm not arguing with dictionary usage of the word. Technically you can say "invisible pink unicorn" either, no dictionary will forbid that particular combination of words, though you know that "pink" and "invisible" are contradiction. In same sense I think that using the word "immoral" detached...

Yes, someone always do that. You are in no way obligated to agree with them though.