The separation of religion and government was to keep them from saying you have to be a baptist not a quaker ect. however. they ALL believed that Jesus existed. Get right down to it and all the freedoms YOU enjoy are biblical. not so in other countries. We are a free country because we ARE a christian country. try and find our freedoms in a country that isn't. Oh and the British common law.. Where do you think that came from? Yep. The Church.
@777Dogsofwar I hope you realize that half of the people who came here to escape religious persecution were either deists or atheists that constantly threatened by the Church of England. i also hope you realize that half of our founding fathers were also deists, for example, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin
@TheVonClarkAgenda Ok to start with. They were not atheists. The were protestants who were trying to get away from the Church of England. Baptists, Quakers, Lutherans, Methodists, and yes deists. But, deists of that day were different from the modern deist. Even Benjamin Franklin stated in his own biography that he believed in one God that created the world. The Christian God that created the world. Why don't you actually go read what they wrote. Not what your biased history book told you.
@777Dogsofwar I'm pretty sure Benjamin Franklin's "Christian God" wouldn't have approved of the several French prostitutes that Franklin had. And there is no way you could say that Thomas Paine wasn't a deist because he was imprisoned in France for preaching his deistic beliefs.
@TheVonClarkAgenda He acknowledged this mistake in his autobiography, again, read what they actually wrote. Also Thomas Paine never signed the Declaration. He played a completely different role. This is another time where you really need to study the history.
@777Dogsofwar Either way, the personal religion of the founding fathers had nothing to do with how they founded this nation. It even states in the Constitution that a church can not be built in our government. It also states in the Treaty of Tripoli, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense found on the Christian religion".
@TheVonClarkAgenda The nation is founded on Christian principals. As I said before. You will not find the freedoms of our country in any other country not founded on Christianity. Plain and simple. The reason they put that there could be no state church in the constitution was to keep people from being forced to be a Roman Catholic or a British style protestant.
@TheVonClarkAgenda The Treaty of Tripoli was written to assure that the government wouldn't make a repeat of something like the Crusades of the Middle Age's against the Muslims. If any of the founding fathers were here, they would plainly tell you this is not what they meant by that. Once again. Study history.
@StevenCrowder Corrections: Satanists do believe in the christian mythology, that's their whole point. Secondly, there is not "Satanist's" bible in reality, it was created like the Scientology texts, as just one person's fictional story, the difference is that Satanists do not use such a thing.
Yeah, I studied that religion like all others before settling on making up my own. So before the flamers hit this, at least I had an open mind.
@KittenKoder "as just one person's fictional story" Funny, many people say exactly that about the bible, koran, baghavad gita, torah...
and there is a difference between lavey satanists and devil worshippers. devil worshippers are morons, laveyan satanists are atheists with a particular mindset regarding self empowerment gained through the works of anton lavey anyone who professes a belief in the bible by worshipping, the obviously, losing side is a moron.
@hipstermi. Homosexuality is immoral and wrong simply because it goes against human nature. If you didn't know that, just take a biology book and read the part where it explains the human anatomy and the purpose of each gender reproductive organs. That's how the human body was created. If you want to go against that, then you're going against what's NATURAL.
@Stevencrowder instead of doing what will make us happy, why don't we do what will make others happy without wanting something in return. Which is why marriages seem to end in divorce now because the couple stops doing things for the partner and instead it turns into me me me
Quick question on your last tid bit here, "divorce LOWEST in Lutherans...tied with Agnostics and Atheists", what is the marriage rate among atheist? Obviously their divorce rate will be lower due to the small number of atheist (relatively) compounded with what percentage of them actually get married (I would ASSUME this is small as well).
"Obviously their divorce rate will be lower due to the small number of atheist"
You seem ignorant how a "divorce rate" works. It's a PERCENTAGE. This completely defeats your point and you were wrong. Let me explain a percentage- if I said "50% of Group A and B divorced" and there was 1,000 people in groupA...that means about 500. If Group B had 60 people...then 30 divorced from that group.
"You seem ignorant how a "divorce rate" works. It's a PERCENTAGE."
Correct, it is a percentage based on what, of the entire group how many were divorced (atheist in this case). In order to be divorced one has to first be married. What is the marriage rate of the entire group? It's probably less than the marriage rate of Christians and thus the divorce rate would also be lower. It's simple math, hipster, keep up.
I know this scripted conservative "talking point". Can you explain how two gay adults, who have legal rights, can vote, pay taxes, and all the things you and I do...are in your conservative mind "the same" as a human and animal?
Did you just compare gay people to animals?
I'll say it again- conservatives never seem able to give a logical or legal based argument against gay marriage. it's usually:
@hipstermi "Did you just compare gay people to animals?"
Try to follow, I know it's hard b/c liberals have no logic. You believe that no one should be persecuted/discriminated on the basis of their sexual orientation. Yet many homos have no problems persecuting polygamy, incest, and beastiality. My point is that they are all immoral things. You and homos are just picking and choosing to be pro-homo. That is your, and those like you, agenda. Which makes you all hypocrites.
"Try to follow, I know it's hard b/c liberals have no logic. "
Uh huh... you are a Crowder fan and his views on gays are shaped by the magical bible. Yeah, that's sooo logical.
"You believe that no one should be persecuted/discriminated on the basis of their sexual orientation. Yet many homos have no problems persecuting polygamy, incest, and beastiality"
So yes, you did illogically compare gay people to animals.
and in typical conservative fashion you have yet to explain WHY homosexuality is "immoral". Not everyone believes in magical Bible. and given it's "author" is supposed to be invisible and silent.... and the fact we have religious freedom...
The conservative "compare this to other unrelated thing" is childish. Two gay guys- US citizens, have rights. Not so much on an animal.
"You and homos are just picking and choosing to be pro-homo"
Being conservative you seem to have no problem picking and choosing. Gay is "immoral" because of magical Bible...said Bible also prhoibits divorce (with a few loopholes) but you guys never want to pass laws against them. You dont decree the likes of McCain, Reagan, Newt, Rush for leaving wives/families.
you have yet to present one argument why gay is "immoral". Is your answer "just because"?
@hipstermi Immoral or not it's aginest nature whens the last time you see a gay dogs fucking eachother in the butt huh .Thats right humans are the only animal that is born gay lol yea born gay what a joke.By the way stupid if you are in a religion that says it is then thats your choice to believe and more people are on my side and thats why the law hasent changed
@KittenKoder No it's not there are not gay animals so theres your facts being gay is aginest nature.When it comes down to it if you cant make babys it's aginest nature.Iam not saying that they should not have civil unions,Which i put in to law they have every right to have all the rights to a married couple.Like makeing medical choices,end of life stuff, all of it,Except haveing them being called married in the eyes of god,so only court marages.Is that not a bad thing.
"Ill try one more time there are no gay animals it natures way to only fuck for repoduceing"
You're Christian, right?
Nature doesn't support celibacy.
Then again, very few Christians really support that...but Crowder >snicker< says he does! Cause that's who you conservatives need thinking for you- a celibate kids in his 20s who is sexually frustrated!
"it's aginest nature whens the last time you see a gay dogs fucking eachother in the butt huh"
No legal ecision on rights were based on "dogs" I would haveto ask if you are some junior high school kid since you must have found "butt" jokes so funny.
But to prove you wrong... watch?v=CE31CXjtsng
Oh...when was the last time you say "two dogs " even get married?
"By the way stupid if you are in a religion that says it is then thats your choice to believe and more people are on my side and thats why the law hasent changed"
Rights are not determined by "more people". You are giving the SAME bullshit conservative Christian "reasons" that was given against interracial marriage: 1. popular opinion, 2. god 3. not natural
And if you want to argue both "nature" and "religion"...nature doesnt support Christian celibacy.
"'s probably less than the marriage rate of Christians and thus the divorce rate would also be lower. It's simple math, hipster, keep up."
If it's "simple math" then why didnt YOU look up the numbers to make your argument. You keep saying "probably". I provided the divorce rate which proved my point. You just made some assumptions.
If you dont know how to do research, ask magical Jesus to help.
"If you "assumed" wrong...then you just bore false witness and sinned against magical Jesus."
Not really, If I had assumed and boasted it as fact, then perhaps. The "ASSUME" was placed there because I wanted you to know that i haven't yet looked it up. It was there for admittance purposes. Therefore I award you no points.
Doesn't matter if you "award me no points" its clear you were making a false implication. You have no proof atheists don't get married.
Funny how the divorce rate is high among Pentecostals...uber conservative, and what happens? Sexual repressed people get married JUST to have sex. Then divorced. Thats your bullshit religion at work.
Still waiting for you to answer if YOU waited till marriage...
I raised a point several times and got no reply from you. I'll try again:
Some people think heterosexual adults having anal or oral sex is immoral. But...liberals & conservatives today seem to mostly agree that's the choice for the couple in question. Yes or no.
If you say no- why? If you say yes, that defeats most your points about gay people.
Doesnt matter if you think it immoral, wrong, sin, icky, etc- you shouldnt pass laws and restrict freedom if no one is getting hurt
morality has ALWAYS been subjective. morals are nothing more than opinions.
Some people that two people of the same gender in love is immoral, some claim that one legally consenting adult loving another is about as moral as it gets.
love you crowder, but that fact will never change.
By your reasoning, incest (between consenting adults), beastiality (sp) (between person and property), and polygamy (between multiple consenting adults) is all moral. Do you think this way?
this is a lie on your part and magical Jesus says you sin.
"incest (between consenting adults), beastiality (sp) (between person and property), and polygamy (between multiple consenting adults) is all moral. Do you think this way?"
Show me anything I said that would remotely imply this.
It doesnt matter if I think gay marriage is moral/immoral. It doesnt matter if I think heteros aving anal sex is moral or not. People are FREE to do those or NOT
"Unlike many conservatives, this is my only marriage "
Good for you, have a cookie.
I've never been to prison, I've never cheated on a woman, I've never cheated my taxes, I've never set a bomb off on a government building, never snorted cocaine, or smoked marijuana. I must be better than most liberals Clinton, Geithner, Ayres, Obama.
I asked a question like twice now and just silence from you.
But if you want to play those games: I never left my disfigured wife for a younger woman (McCain) I never did business with Nazis (Prescott Bush) or was arrested for drugs (Rush) or tried to fuck a boy (Foley) I never left my wife/kids (Reagan) never served divorce papers to a woman recovering for a tumor (Newt) or solicited a male prostitute in the bathroom (Craig)
@04192006eagle What does sex with an animal that has no way of showing consent have to do with anything? As for incest and polygamy, you said it yourself... consenting adults. I personally don't care what ANY person above the age of consent does with another person as long as its consensual and with a legal adult.
And I personally don't give a damn what YOUR moral views say about it, MORALITY is OPINION.. there is no Right or Wrong.
@antipryzm If morality is only an opinion. then you pretty much just said it's ok for someone to kill you if they want. and it be ok. there has to be morality.
@777Dogsofwar Of course it would be ok, in their mind. In their own morality and ethical set. And there's places where murder is OK morally and ethically. Look at "honor" killings today among certain muslims, look at ancient rome, the spanish inquisition, christian and muslim expansions.
Laws are -based- on the morals of the people in the area, but they're both still opinions. Laws say "IF you do this, this will happen to you."
@antipryzm Ok and the morals of this area are that people don't like homosexuals. pretty simple isn't it? why do you think when it's put up for the people to vote about it gets banned -_-
i'm trying to understand what "it" you're referring to is. as for anything being voted upon.. the morals of an area may be against "it", but if those morals go against the unalienable rights that ALL u.s. citizens have, then those morals don't mean a damn. fundamentalist crazies need to stop using their religious morals as a means to deny the same rights and privileges to their fellow citizens that they enjoy.
@antipryzm First of all. when the constitution was wrote that was not what they had intended. Had the founding fathers had any idea of this happening they would have put it in the constitution. those morals are actually what this very country was founded on. go study up on your history.
@777Dogsofwar You should try doing it yourself. There is not a single christian moral found within the founding documents. Treaty of Tripoli, voted on by founding fathers in Congress and signed by a founding father president specifically says the US was not founded on the christian religion. The 10 commandments fly in the face of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.." ALL.. every single one.
@antipryzm "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" you forgot something.. by their Creator. And i'm pretty sure that won't Obama :P therefore. it would be a Christian thing. seeing as how that is what they all believe.
@777Dogsofwar I didn't add the whole thing because I ran out of characters. It says "their Creator", not God, not Jesus, not Yahew, not Jehovah, not Krishna, not the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Meaning YOUR personal Creator. To you that's the trinity, to me that's evolution.
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classified with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
@antipryzm Considering that the ONLY Creator that was considered then was Jesus. Um yea dude they meant Him. Considering that almost everyone that came to America was a Puritan or Protestant... They meant Jesus. You can deny the facts and refuse to believe. but... like they say... there is no cure for stupid.
@777Dogsofwar Which Jesus? Some of the founding fathers were religious, some were agnostic, some were deists. all, however, were Secularists. You think there's no real difference between protestant, puritan, lutheran, anglican, baptist, quaker, calvinist. Back then people fought over those differences, which is WHY the FFs did not mention any god in the constitution, which is why the very first amendment says it is against the law to endorse any religion by the government.
@777Dogsofwar We are a secularist nation, based on secularist ideals. Plain and simple. Name a signer of the Constitution and almost certainly you can google a quote from that name in favor of the separation of religion and government.
Any religious nut wishing to argue differently using the very founding fathers/documents as proof is ridiculous as using Darwin, Hawking, Einstein, and Dawkins to prove intelligent design.
@777Dogsofwar The fact of the matter is, the laws the US was founded on was taken from British common law, common law that came about before christianity was even introduced to the isles. Don't take my word for it, ask Thomas Jefferson: "But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century.... Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."
Woot, woot, amen! I love Stephen Crowder so much! Not afraid to say it like it is, throw it back in the liberals' and/or athiests' faces, and still make you laugh. We need a few more conservatives like this! (Crowder and Klavan should get their own shows, for realz!)
"Not afraid to say it like it is, throw it back in the liberals' and/or athiests' faces, and still make you laugh."
Actually, Crowder has been proven factually wrong on a number of occasions...he usually goes into "silent running".
Then he cries like a little bitch because John Stewart didn't have him on his show...yet Crowder never has a liberal on his show outside hidden cameras or "man on the street" stuff.
I agree Steve. I will tell you that I watched the trial, and as a Paralegal, I will say that Casey probably did do it; however, the Prosecution did not make their case. They went for the Death Penalty and when you do that, better have motive, a body, and how it happened. They had the body, no motive, and no how.
@Eaglesfaninca I THINK I also heard him compare yoga to filicide.
Religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for being a good person. Atheism is neither necessary nor sufficient for valuating actions, let alone rationalizing anti-social behavior (nor is it used that way in practice, as today's largely irreligious countries show). I think what the creator of this video fails to understand is that no amount of religiosity or doubt can make one, or prevent one from being, a psychopath.
Wow Mr. Crowder, I wish YOU had been my therapist 25 years ago. Instead my hubbie and I went in for marrriage counselling with some "Be happy" bimbo psycho-therapist who strongly encouraged me to go and "find myself" and "personal growth" in my "own reality". She also encouraged my husband-who was ten yrs older- to just "release the old ideas of marriage". So we divorced, which was the stupidest thing I've ever done becuz I lost everything and everyone and my kids had a wicked step-mother. :(
moral principals HAVE become subjective. almost totally subjective. in a society where moral relativism is the ruling force everything becomes the same, and therefore meaningless.
@IamaRifle she already got offerred a photo shoot with hustler and a job from some porn company. If she has no problem slaughtering her child and throwing it's corpse in the woods, I'm sure she wouldn't mind getting naked.
@IamaRifle The interview is going to sell for hundreds of thousands, not to mention the eventual book deal. She is going to be rich from this and will meet someone. No other celeb has lived out there days alone because of the wrong they did, no reason to think shell be the first.
@2007regis Very well said. I'm always amazed by people who insist that morals are objective when in the same breath they claim those objective morals came from a supernatural entity!
This is just me, but I think Casey Anthony is narcisistic. I believe the killing was accidental that she had put her child multiple times in the trunk and this time she over drugged the child and she died. And her partying was probably her denying that her child even passed and just hoping it would all just go away. But that's just me I'm not here to spark a debate, just throwing in my 2 cents.
Not saying it was right. I'm saying that the woman is crazy.
To whom it may concern, captwasabi is an attention whore who doesn't understand the difference between a gamete and a zygote. Just ignore him, he's just an attention-seeking moron.
What a fucking pathetic little troll you are. You get spanked on every bullshit, theistic argument you can toss up. You get spanked from fabricating my arguments into straw men. You continually insist that I'm all sorts of wrong and then you follow me all around you tube and now this?
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
You're fucking pathetic. But do keep posturing. You're only proving me right.
@captwasabi "theistic argument" I never once made any "theistic argument" during our interaction. You're embarrassingly confused, as usual. Too bad your brain isn't as vigorous as your vile, contempt-spewing mouth.
@kmsoileau Awww....you still here troll? What's the matter? It's not enough to create my arguments fro me? Now you've got to lie in front of everyone?
@kmsoileau That's hysterical. I address your repeated bullshit claims about the zygote and gamete and you simply ignore it and yet you have the audacity to post the above bullshit?
Dude, if you want to be treated like an adult you should act like one.
Otherwise I'll continue to treat you as the childish, simplistic moron that you are.
@captwasabi You made a claim, I asked for a citation to verify your claim, and you refused. You're a liar and a coward. You dare to complain to others about "dishonesty." You're a bad joke.
@kmsoileau QQ much? You know, you've done nothing but call me an attention whore and a bad joke and yet for the past week you've done nothing but fixate on me.
This only begs the question....how pathetic is your life?
As I said, I've addressed your claim that I don't know the difference between the zygote and gamete. In typical douchebag fashion you simply chose to ignore my comments and continue to strawman.
@captwasabi Still waiting for you to point out even one theistic argument I made with you. Of course, you can't, there isn't one, and everyone can see that you're a liar. Busted!
@kmsoileau Yawn. Booooring. What's evern more pathetic is that you actually think "everyone" is paying attention to you much less gives a shit about anything that you say.
@captwasabi Offhand, I'd say a lot less sad and pathetic than yours. You've spent who knows how many hours babbling on this page while I've been enjoying life, stopping by occasionally to get a chuckle at your manic stupidity.
@kmsoileau Here's one last reply so I can fully explain to you just how pathetic I think you are. Our discussion was over. You went on your silly little rant and made your silly little strawmen resulting in my admitting that I was beaten by your stupidity. It was over.
And then you had to go and post that stupidity in the obvious hope that I would see it and we would start up all over again.
So really dude, lol, but you're a pathetic fucking joke.
@LiekABaus I was forced to this conclusion of "morality" because (actually relating to abortion) I was forced to consider that I was killing to eat meat. The word "spectrum" comes to mind and the thought occurs that eating carrots and tofu is killing in a sense too. We kill to survive. We shouldn't extend that to killing for power, for laziness, for race, age, beliefs... Only to protect innocent life and eat. That's my belief and I'm sticking to it.
@LiekABaus Thanks, good sir. Yes I eat meat. The butcher does not need to eat the meat for it to be "justified" under my logic. If the animal will be eaten, it's good enough. One must recognize that these morals are highly subjective. Killing dogs in this society is "wrong" because we don't eat dogs here, where the same animal could be served as Bosintang in Korea and be "right". This does not justify all things we eat. Merely points out a clear distinction between these commonly linked things.
Neither "index, middle, ring" for the number three, nor the "rapper's way" are internationally recognized. "Thumb, index, middle" is definitely the most popular around the world.
@USAGymnast I wish I could disagree. If I were a real atheist, I suppose now would be the time to bring up the crusades or the holocaust, the twin towers or something of the like. The truth is, religion or lack thereof can be used as the weapon. A knife can be used to prepare meals or kill innocents, but it is the people weilding the knife that should go on trial, not the knife.
You know, logically, what is the difference between abortion and killing a young baby? They are both killing a baby. I mean, almost all abortions are caused due to discomfort of the mother's life. Rarely is abortion committed due to rape, or serious detriment of the mother's life. Even many atheists are against abortion since they believe that there is no afterlife, why should anyone destroy the only life that a human being has.
@LiekABaus Well its funny how your trying to use a logical premise to prove your point. "What's the difference between killing a cow and a fetus? Logically nothing." If there is no difference between So how do you make decisions? On what basis would you argue for or against abortion? How you feel? Logic is supposed to use rational objective approach to understand an issue.
@jpzxcvbnm I dont strictly adhere to logic either. Im biased as crap. I know alot of my viewpoints are skewed.
To put my actual beliefs to paper with proper reasoning would take more characters than im allowed. But in general i think im less biased than most political ideologies, as i can understand the reasoning for both abortion and the death penalty.
Which if you believe in the nonsensical sanctity of human life, are polarizing issues... but often have differing viewpoints from both parties
@LiekABaus I never said it was right. I was simply asking which one we eat. If it's better to eat cows than be cannibalistic, than it is better to kill cows than humans. If eating meat is as bad as eating human, then your conclusion would be correct. Personally, I think it's wrong to kill anything you're not going to eat. Here is the difference between us and animals. How many women eat their aborted fetuses? Gross, but true.
@LiekABaus I've never been for the death penalty. Even the lives of criminals are worth protecting. Life has value and if we murder murderers, we are no better than them. Also, it goes against my "only kill to eat" theory.
i mean im trying to pick you apart, but you are still incredibly more consistent than well... everyone else.
There will always be flaws, i would consider you probably one of the most logically consistent, probably even moreso than myself.
Because i eat tons of burgers, and i turn a blind eye. So you win over me. I know there are better smarter people than myself out there, would hate if i was the smartest person alive.. so im glad you exist
@USAGymnast Do you honestly believe that getting an abortion is getting off scott free? Even if it was, why should every teen who makes a mistake pay the highest possible consequences?
@john42t Dependency does not determine personhood. Diabetics are entirely dependent on insulin, this has absolutely no bearing on their personhood. Who or what someone depends on cannot change who or what the dependent being is.
@staum607 True. Didn't mean to say anything like that. But say an adult person A's life depends not on insulin but an organ trasplant from person B, the latter would have no moral obligation to sacrifice a part of his health to person A need. That's what I wanted to say.
@john42t lets check out that reasoning. If Person B had already donated the organ to Person A; would it be murder for person B to take the organ back? In the same way the mother has already "donated", already given life. Once this transaction occurs (fertilized egg), it would be murder to take it away.
@staum607 To "give life" is a metaphor. It's not actually real, so nothing can be taken back. The mother sustains the childs life continuously and of course she's free to stop doing that in the same sense that a rescue swimmer can chose to abandon the drowning man who needs help or a search team that conducted a search for an injured person in a deserted territory can chose to abort the search. To argue that having begun a rescue or a search somehow makes it murder to quit is absurd.
@john42t I dont think that is an accurate analogy. For it to be like abortion, the rescue swimmer would not abandon the drowning man, he would actively drown him. Abortion is not just abandoning the child (which is illeagal after they are born and may constitute manslaughter), it is actively killing the child in order to facillitate abandonment.
@staum607 Abandoning a child after birth is murder because it could be supported by others if only left at a hospital or a police station. To leave it to starve is therefore not merely a refusal of support but murder. If there was no one else to support the child, I wouldn't call it murder even in that case (but that's very theoretical). The reason why I think it's not murder in the case of an unborn child is that the woman "pays" for the childbearing: It's a health risk, it's a social [...]
@staum607 [...] liability, it's an impairment to her career, etc. This is a payment she shouldn't be obliged to give to someone else against her will. That's the only reason why I'm holding this view - I'm very anti-feminist otherwise. But let me give you credit for remaining polite so far - this is a topic where even Christians usually get very ugly (who are on average the better behaved creed on YouTube).
@USAGymnast Only an idiot would believe that sex is solely for the act of reproduction. So really it's just more of you forcing your narrow-minded religion based stupidity on others. Now you're advocating abstinence when all evidence shows that abstinence simply does not work.
Here's an idea. You keep your antiquated belief system to yourself and try not force it on the reproductive rights of anyone else, mkay?
And stop lying. There is nothing irresponsible about using contraception.
So then, your reason that abstinence is ineffective is due to scientists at in vitro clinics. I don't think that condoms, birth control pills, and the lot are affective from preventing scientists from artificially fertilizing eggs, usually at the consent of 2 adults mind you, or for embryonic stem-cell research.
@04192006eagle No. You asked when two people can reproduce without having actual physical intercourse. I supplied an answer.
Abstinence does not work because sex feels good and because humans are social creatures.
Also, I think that you, and everyone else, who feels that they have a right to make demands on how two consenting adults behave in the privacy of their own bedroom need to go enjoy a nice tall glass of shut the fuck up. Nothing that they do directly harms you so just zip it.
@04192006eagle In most unwanted pregnancies, the couple didn't use condoms.
People just need to realize that sex is an invitation. It's like inviting two best friends to your house, and hoping only one comes. They both come, and you are allowed to shoot one as soon as they step in your house because they are in your property. Would the courts allow this? If you are raped, you invite neither, but they both come, it is okay to shoot one and not the other?
Please forgive me @fizzingwhizbeee , I seem to have gotten lost in your metaphor and have missed it's meaning. Are you speaking out against contraception?
@04192006eagle against abortion. And people that don't even try to prevent pregnancy than require abortion. The majority don't even make an effort to avoid it in the first place. It's not necessary to be abstinent, but wearing a rubber is a good place to start! We just don't seem to understand risk and concequences in this society. Abstinence is for sure the only way not to invite anyone in your body though.
@04192006eagle Just playing devils advocate here but #3 is wrong. If the man loses his testicles or if either partner is sterile then they can fuck like overzealous rabbits without any fear of pregnancy.
@04192006eagle No I'm not. You said "I'm insinuating that abstinence is the only 100% full proof way to not get pregnant." That is not true. Sterility, whether occurring naturally or via surgery is also a manner in which to not get pregnant.
Don't get mad because you didn't think your comment through sufficiently.
She should have gone to Crazy Pete's Abortion Barn.
ziggyboi1995 1 week ago
The separation of religion and government was to keep them from saying you have to be a baptist not a quaker ect. however. they ALL believed that Jesus existed. Get right down to it and all the freedoms YOU enjoy are biblical. not so in other countries. We are a free country because we ARE a christian country. try and find our freedoms in a country that isn't. Oh and the British common law.. Where do you think that came from? Yep. The Church.
777Dogsofwar 1 month ago
@777Dogsofwar I hope you realize that half of the people who came here to escape religious persecution were either deists or atheists that constantly threatened by the Church of England. i also hope you realize that half of our founding fathers were also deists, for example, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin
TheVonClarkAgenda 2 weeks ago
@TheVonClarkAgenda Ok to start with. They were not atheists. The were protestants who were trying to get away from the Church of England. Baptists, Quakers, Lutherans, Methodists, and yes deists. But, deists of that day were different from the modern deist. Even Benjamin Franklin stated in his own biography that he believed in one God that created the world. The Christian God that created the world. Why don't you actually go read what they wrote. Not what your biased history book told you.
777Dogsofwar 2 weeks ago
@777Dogsofwar I'm pretty sure Benjamin Franklin's "Christian God" wouldn't have approved of the several French prostitutes that Franklin had. And there is no way you could say that Thomas Paine wasn't a deist because he was imprisoned in France for preaching his deistic beliefs.
TheVonClarkAgenda 1 week ago
@TheVonClarkAgenda He acknowledged this mistake in his autobiography, again, read what they actually wrote. Also Thomas Paine never signed the Declaration. He played a completely different role. This is another time where you really need to study the history.
777Dogsofwar 1 week ago
@777Dogsofwar Either way, the personal religion of the founding fathers had nothing to do with how they founded this nation. It even states in the Constitution that a church can not be built in our government. It also states in the Treaty of Tripoli, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense found on the Christian religion".
TheVonClarkAgenda 1 week ago
@TheVonClarkAgenda The nation is founded on Christian principals. As I said before. You will not find the freedoms of our country in any other country not founded on Christianity. Plain and simple. The reason they put that there could be no state church in the constitution was to keep people from being forced to be a Roman Catholic or a British style protestant.
777Dogsofwar 1 week ago
@TheVonClarkAgenda The Treaty of Tripoli was written to assure that the government wouldn't make a repeat of something like the Crusades of the Middle Age's against the Muslims. If any of the founding fathers were here, they would plainly tell you this is not what they meant by that. Once again. Study history.
777Dogsofwar 1 week ago
@StevenCrowder Corrections: Satanists do believe in the christian mythology, that's their whole point. Secondly, there is not "Satanist's" bible in reality, it was created like the Scientology texts, as just one person's fictional story, the difference is that Satanists do not use such a thing.
Yeah, I studied that religion like all others before settling on making up my own. So before the flamers hit this, at least I had an open mind.
KittenKoder 1 month ago
@KittenKoder There is a book of satan' biblie do you reserch
ugotcatfish 1 month ago
@KittenKoder "as just one person's fictional story" Funny, many people say exactly that about the bible, koran, baghavad gita, torah...
and there is a difference between lavey satanists and devil worshippers. devil worshippers are morons, laveyan satanists are atheists with a particular mindset regarding self empowerment gained through the works of anton lavey anyone who professes a belief in the bible by worshipping, the obviously, losing side is a moron.
antipryzm 1 month ago
To compare CA to abortion is ignorance! It's soo not the same thing and you are an idiot!
badazzbeth 1 month ago
@hipstermi. Homosexuality is immoral and wrong simply because it goes against human nature. If you didn't know that, just take a biology book and read the part where it explains the human anatomy and the purpose of each gender reproductive organs. That's how the human body was created. If you want to go against that, then you're going against what's NATURAL.
migykris 2 months ago
@migykris considering all the other human nature that people force themselves to ignore, whats wrong with homosexuality?
antipryzm 1 month ago
@migykris you are right it's just hard for the gays to see them selfs as someone that made a choice instead of that i was born gay bullshit
ugotcatfish 1 month ago
Crowder makes a most excellent point here. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
And people are probably going to pause the video anyway and make hipster horrible snappy puns to make themselves feel good anyway.
Scotish223332 2 months ago
@Scotish223332 Thats right my socotish brother
ugotcatfish 1 month ago
Welcome to the "dictatorship of relativism." Where we shall be "like God."
fdpgeorgia 3 months ago
satanic bible quote?!? WIN
wizenhiemr 3 months ago in playlist More videos from StevenCrowder
@VoiceOfModeration
"let me guess, you assume the pro-lifers are the indoctrinated ones?"
If they go to church...sure. After all, churches teach DOCTRINE. Get it... inDOCTRINate?
And they tell you what to think...i mean EXACTLY what to think out of fear from invisible beings with magical powers.
hipstermi 3 months ago
@Stevencrowder instead of doing what will make us happy, why don't we do what will make others happy without wanting something in return. Which is why marriages seem to end in divorce now because the couple stops doing things for the partner and instead it turns into me me me
darkma1ice 3 months ago
Hmmm... so if Mothers who "find themselves" are bad what about men who leave their families?
Ronald Reagan, John McCain, Bob Dole, Newt Gingritch... and these are the type of people conservatives seem to vote for.
And how about hte serial divorcers? Limbaugh, Barr...
Oddly enough The Christian Evangelical "Barna Group" found divorce LOWEST in Lutherans...tied with Agnostics and Atheists.
hipstermi 3 months ago
@hipstermi
Quick question on your last tid bit here, "divorce LOWEST in Lutherans...tied with Agnostics and Atheists", what is the marriage rate among atheist? Obviously their divorce rate will be lower due to the small number of atheist (relatively) compounded with what percentage of them actually get married (I would ASSUME this is small as well).
04192006eagle 3 months ago
@04192006eagle
"Obviously their divorce rate will be lower due to the small number of atheist"
You seem ignorant how a "divorce rate" works. It's a PERCENTAGE. This completely defeats your point and you were wrong. Let me explain a percentage- if I said "50% of Group A and B divorced" and there was 1,000 people in groupA...that means about 500. If Group B had 60 people...then 30 divorced from that group.
How is it you don't know this common knowledge?
hipstermi 3 months ago
@hipstermi
"You seem ignorant how a "divorce rate" works. It's a PERCENTAGE."
Correct, it is a percentage based on what, of the entire group how many were divorced (atheist in this case). In order to be divorced one has to first be married. What is the marriage rate of the entire group? It's probably less than the marriage rate of Christians and thus the divorce rate would also be lower. It's simple math, hipster, keep up.
04192006eagle 3 months ago
@04192006eagle
Wow...you are grasping at straws. I proved you were so ignorant you didnt know what "divorce rate" meant and now you try to hide and grasp at straws.
If your argument is "atheist marriage rate" YOU should look it up. If you are that lazy maybe magical Jesus can give you the answers you seek.
So why make an arguement when you didnt even spend the time looking up the info?
hipstermi 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@04192006eagle
"It's probably less than the marriage rate of Christians and thus the divorce rate would also be lower. It's simple math, hipster, keep up."
It's not "math" since you have no proof to your bullshit claim. You asked ME to prove/disprove your idea. Do you not know how to use Google?
hipstermi 3 months ago
@04192006eagle
"beastiality"
I know this scripted conservative "talking point". Can you explain how two gay adults, who have legal rights, can vote, pay taxes, and all the things you and I do...are in your conservative mind "the same" as a human and animal?
Did you just compare gay people to animals?
I'll say it again- conservatives never seem able to give a logical or legal based argument against gay marriage. it's usually:
a. magical Jesus
b. it's icky
hipstermi 3 months ago
@hipstermi "Did you just compare gay people to animals?"
Try to follow, I know it's hard b/c liberals have no logic. You believe that no one should be persecuted/discriminated on the basis of their sexual orientation. Yet many homos have no problems persecuting polygamy, incest, and beastiality. My point is that they are all immoral things. You and homos are just picking and choosing to be pro-homo. That is your, and those like you, agenda. Which makes you all hypocrites.
04192006eagle 3 months ago
@04192006eagle
"Did you just compare gay people to animals?"
"Try to follow, I know it's hard b/c liberals have no logic. "
Uh huh... you are a Crowder fan and his views on gays are shaped by the magical bible. Yeah, that's sooo logical.
"You believe that no one should be persecuted/discriminated on the basis of their sexual orientation. Yet many homos have no problems persecuting polygamy, incest, and beastiality"
So yes, you did illogically compare gay people to animals.
hipstermi 3 months ago
@04192006eagle
"My point is that they are all immoral things"
and in typical conservative fashion you have yet to explain WHY homosexuality is "immoral". Not everyone believes in magical Bible. and given it's "author" is supposed to be invisible and silent.... and the fact we have religious freedom...
The conservative "compare this to other unrelated thing" is childish. Two gay guys- US citizens, have rights. Not so much on an animal.
hipstermi 3 months ago
@04192006eagle
"You and homos are just picking and choosing to be pro-homo"
Being conservative you seem to have no problem picking and choosing. Gay is "immoral" because of magical Bible...said Bible also prhoibits divorce (with a few loopholes) but you guys never want to pass laws against them. You dont decree the likes of McCain, Reagan, Newt, Rush for leaving wives/families.
you have yet to present one argument why gay is "immoral". Is your answer "just because"?
hipstermi 3 months ago
@hipstermi Immoral or not it's aginest nature whens the last time you see a gay dogs fucking eachother in the butt huh .Thats right humans are the only animal that is born gay lol yea born gay what a joke.By the way stupid if you are in a religion that says it is then thats your choice to believe and more people are on my side and thats why the law hasent changed
ugotcatfish 1 month ago
@ugotcatfish Dude, dogs will "fuck" anything .... literally anything. Bad analogy is bad.
KittenKoder 1 month ago
@KittenKoder No it's not there are not gay animals so theres your facts being gay is aginest nature.When it comes down to it if you cant make babys it's aginest nature.Iam not saying that they should not have civil unions,Which i put in to law they have every right to have all the rights to a married couple.Like makeing medical choices,end of life stuff, all of it,Except haveing them being called married in the eyes of god,so only court marages.Is that not a bad thing.
ugotcatfish 1 month ago
@ugotcatfish DOGS WILL SCREW ANYTHING!
KittenKoder 1 month ago
@KittenKoder I guess you are to stupid to understand. Ill try one more time there are no gay animals it natures way to only fuck for repoduceing
ugotcatfish 1 month ago
@ugotcatfish More than half of all life reproduces without sex at all.
KittenKoder 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ugotcatfish
"Ill try one more time there are no gay animals it natures way to only fuck for repoduceing"
You're Christian, right?
Nature doesn't support celibacy.
Then again, very few Christians really support that...but Crowder >snicker< says he does! Cause that's who you conservatives need thinking for you- a celibate kids in his 20s who is sexually frustrated!
hipstermi 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ugotcatfish
"When it comes down to it if you cant make babys it's aginest nature"
answer all please:
1. what law states you must "have babies" to be married?
2. by your logic- should infertile couples not be married? I have a friend who had testicular cancer in his 20s
3. my brother and his wife chose not to have kids. should they have been barred from marriage?
4. Rush Limbaugh and wife #4 (which is pathetic) are too old to have kids. ban them as well?
hipstermi 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ugotcatfish
"it's aginest nature whens the last time you see a gay dogs fucking eachother in the butt huh"
No legal ecision on rights were based on "dogs" I would haveto ask if you are some junior high school kid since you must have found "butt" jokes so funny.
But to prove you wrong... watch?v=CE31CXjtsng
Oh...when was the last time you say "two dogs " even get married?
Admit your non point and move on, kid.
hipstermi 1 month ago
@ugotcatfish
"By the way stupid if you are in a religion that says it is then thats your choice to believe and more people are on my side and thats why the law hasent changed"
Rights are not determined by "more people". You are giving the SAME bullshit conservative Christian "reasons" that was given against interracial marriage: 1. popular opinion, 2. god 3. not natural
And if you want to argue both "nature" and "religion"...nature doesnt support Christian celibacy.
hipstermi 1 month ago
@04192006eagle
"'s probably less than the marriage rate of Christians and thus the divorce rate would also be lower. It's simple math, hipster, keep up."
If it's "simple math" then why didnt YOU look up the numbers to make your argument. You keep saying "probably". I provided the divorce rate which proved my point. You just made some assumptions.
If you dont know how to do research, ask magical Jesus to help.
hipstermi 3 months ago
Comment removed
04192006eagle 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hipstermi Semantics are absolutely lost on you aren't they. Probably why you have poor logic.
04192006eagle 3 months ago
@04192006eagle
"h what percentage of them actually get married (I would ASSUME this is small as well)."
I dont have that info...and you "assume"ing doesn't mean shit.
If it's so important why didnt YOU look it up? I looked up the info I wanted.
You lazy conservatives seem to want everyone to do your work.
If you "assumed" wrong...then you just bore false witness and sinned against magical Jesus.
hipstermi 3 months ago
@hipstermi
"If you "assumed" wrong...then you just bore false witness and sinned against magical Jesus."
Not really, If I had assumed and boasted it as fact, then perhaps. The "ASSUME" was placed there because I wanted you to know that i haven't yet looked it up. It was there for admittance purposes. Therefore I award you no points.
04192006eagle 3 months ago
@04192006eagle
Doesn't matter if you "award me no points" its clear you were making a false implication. You have no proof atheists don't get married.
Funny how the divorce rate is high among Pentecostals...uber conservative, and what happens? Sexual repressed people get married JUST to have sex. Then divorced. Thats your bullshit religion at work.
Still waiting for you to answer if YOU waited till marriage...
hipstermi 3 months ago
@04192006eagle
I raised a point several times and got no reply from you. I'll try again:
Some people think heterosexual adults having anal or oral sex is immoral. But...liberals & conservatives today seem to mostly agree that's the choice for the couple in question. Yes or no.
If you say no- why? If you say yes, that defeats most your points about gay people.
Doesnt matter if you think it immoral, wrong, sin, icky, etc- you shouldnt pass laws and restrict freedom if no one is getting hurt
hipstermi 3 months ago
morality has ALWAYS been subjective. morals are nothing more than opinions.
Some people that two people of the same gender in love is immoral, some claim that one legally consenting adult loving another is about as moral as it gets.
love you crowder, but that fact will never change.
antipryzm 4 months ago
@antipryzm
By your reasoning, incest (between consenting adults), beastiality (sp) (between person and property), and polygamy (between multiple consenting adults) is all moral. Do you think this way?
04192006eagle 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@04192006eagle
"By your reasoning"
this is a lie on your part and magical Jesus says you sin.
"incest (between consenting adults), beastiality (sp) (between person and property), and polygamy (between multiple consenting adults) is all moral. Do you think this way?"
Show me anything I said that would remotely imply this.
It doesnt matter if I think gay marriage is moral/immoral. It doesnt matter if I think heteros aving anal sex is moral or not. People are FREE to do those or NOT
hipstermi 3 months ago
@04192006eagle
You also didnt answer my question- I didnt get married till I was 39. Should I have waited till then?
Unlike many conservatives, this is my only marriage (Limbaugh, Dole, Reagan, McCain, Barr, Newt)
hipstermi 3 months ago
@hipstermi
"Unlike many conservatives, this is my only marriage "
Good for you, have a cookie.
I've never been to prison, I've never cheated on a woman, I've never cheated my taxes, I've never set a bomb off on a government building, never snorted cocaine, or smoked marijuana. I must be better than most liberals Clinton, Geithner, Ayres, Obama.
04192006eagle 3 months ago
@04192006eagle
I asked a question like twice now and just silence from you.
But if you want to play those games: I never left my disfigured wife for a younger woman (McCain) I never did business with Nazis (Prescott Bush) or was arrested for drugs (Rush) or tried to fuck a boy (Foley) I never left my wife/kids (Reagan) never served divorce papers to a woman recovering for a tumor (Newt) or solicited a male prostitute in the bathroom (Craig)
hipstermi 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hipstermi Pat yourself on the back all you want hippie, no one cares that you did things that you are supposed to do.
04192006eagle 3 months ago
@04192006eagle What does sex with an animal that has no way of showing consent have to do with anything? As for incest and polygamy, you said it yourself... consenting adults. I personally don't care what ANY person above the age of consent does with another person as long as its consensual and with a legal adult.
And I personally don't give a damn what YOUR moral views say about it, MORALITY is OPINION.. there is no Right or Wrong.
antipryzm 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@antipryzm If you don't care then why comment.
04192006eagle 3 months ago
@antipryzm If morality is only an opinion. then you pretty much just said it's ok for someone to kill you if they want. and it be ok. there has to be morality.
777Dogsofwar 1 month ago
@777Dogsofwar Of course it would be ok, in their mind. In their own morality and ethical set. And there's places where murder is OK morally and ethically. Look at "honor" killings today among certain muslims, look at ancient rome, the spanish inquisition, christian and muslim expansions.
Laws are -based- on the morals of the people in the area, but they're both still opinions. Laws say "IF you do this, this will happen to you."
antipryzm 1 month ago
@antipryzm Ok and the morals of this area are that people don't like homosexuals. pretty simple isn't it? why do you think when it's put up for the people to vote about it gets banned -_-
777Dogsofwar 1 month ago
@777Dogsofwar
i'm trying to understand what "it" you're referring to is. as for anything being voted upon.. the morals of an area may be against "it", but if those morals go against the unalienable rights that ALL u.s. citizens have, then those morals don't mean a damn. fundamentalist crazies need to stop using their religious morals as a means to deny the same rights and privileges to their fellow citizens that they enjoy.
antipryzm 1 month ago
@antipryzm First of all. when the constitution was wrote that was not what they had intended. Had the founding fathers had any idea of this happening they would have put it in the constitution. those morals are actually what this very country was founded on. go study up on your history.
777Dogsofwar 1 month ago
@777Dogsofwar You should try doing it yourself. There is not a single christian moral found within the founding documents. Treaty of Tripoli, voted on by founding fathers in Congress and signed by a founding father president specifically says the US was not founded on the christian religion. The 10 commandments fly in the face of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.." ALL.. every single one.
antipryzm 1 month ago
@antipryzm "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" you forgot something.. by their Creator. And i'm pretty sure that won't Obama :P therefore. it would be a Christian thing. seeing as how that is what they all believe.
777Dogsofwar 1 month ago
@777Dogsofwar I didn't add the whole thing because I ran out of characters. It says "their Creator", not God, not Jesus, not Yahew, not Jehovah, not Krishna, not the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Meaning YOUR personal Creator. To you that's the trinity, to me that's evolution.
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classified with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
antipryzm 1 month ago
@antipryzm Considering that the ONLY Creator that was considered then was Jesus. Um yea dude they meant Him. Considering that almost everyone that came to America was a Puritan or Protestant... They meant Jesus. You can deny the facts and refuse to believe. but... like they say... there is no cure for stupid.
777Dogsofwar 1 month ago
@777Dogsofwar Which Jesus? Some of the founding fathers were religious, some were agnostic, some were deists. all, however, were Secularists. You think there's no real difference between protestant, puritan, lutheran, anglican, baptist, quaker, calvinist. Back then people fought over those differences, which is WHY the FFs did not mention any god in the constitution, which is why the very first amendment says it is against the law to endorse any religion by the government.
antipryzm 1 month ago
@777Dogsofwar We are a secularist nation, based on secularist ideals. Plain and simple. Name a signer of the Constitution and almost certainly you can google a quote from that name in favor of the separation of religion and government.
Any religious nut wishing to argue differently using the very founding fathers/documents as proof is ridiculous as using Darwin, Hawking, Einstein, and Dawkins to prove intelligent design.
antipryzm 1 month ago
@777Dogsofwar The fact of the matter is, the laws the US was founded on was taken from British common law, common law that came about before christianity was even introduced to the isles. Don't take my word for it, ask Thomas Jefferson: "But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century.... Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."
antipryzm 1 month ago
His best video yet... haha
juannyface 4 months ago
Woot, woot, amen! I love Stephen Crowder so much! Not afraid to say it like it is, throw it back in the liberals' and/or athiests' faces, and still make you laugh. We need a few more conservatives like this! (Crowder and Klavan should get their own shows, for realz!)
DiJohnny18 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DiJohnny18
"Not afraid to say it like it is, throw it back in the liberals' and/or athiests' faces, and still make you laugh."
Actually, Crowder has been proven factually wrong on a number of occasions...he usually goes into "silent running".
Then he cries like a little bitch because John Stewart didn't have him on his show...yet Crowder never has a liberal on his show outside hidden cameras or "man on the street" stuff.
Kind of chicken shit, don't you think?
hipstermi 3 months ago
You need your own show. :|
N1CKF3D 5 months ago
I agree Steve. I will tell you that I watched the trial, and as a Paralegal, I will say that Casey probably did do it; however, the Prosecution did not make their case. They went for the Death Penalty and when you do that, better have motive, a body, and how it happened. They had the body, no motive, and no how.
AviationguyAlex 5 months ago
Dang it Crowder! will you stop making so much sense?
ManOfTheTombs 5 months ago 2
Okay... Did he just compare abortion to the murder of a 2 year old kid? Really? Did I actually hear that?
Eaglesfaninca 6 months ago
@Eaglesfaninca I THINK I also heard him compare yoga to filicide.
Religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for being a good person. Atheism is neither necessary nor sufficient for valuating actions, let alone rationalizing anti-social behavior (nor is it used that way in practice, as today's largely irreligious countries show). I think what the creator of this video fails to understand is that no amount of religiosity or doubt can make one, or prevent one from being, a psychopath.
PerilocutionAZ09 6 months ago
@PerilocutionAZ09 I can't believe people are actually agreeing with what he is saying.
Eaglesfaninca 6 months ago
@Eaglesfaninca Some people just desperately need an "other" to blame for everything that they perceive as being wrong with society.
PerilocutionAZ09 6 months ago
God damn you... STOP SAYING CORRECT THINGS!!!
And mothers and fathers walk out on their families evenly.
DukeofUSA 6 months ago
I think that fathers walk out a lot more than mothers
ginad17 6 months ago
I'm sure you know why the rappers use the "ok" sign to show three.
scrateshooter 6 months ago
@scrateshooter I thought because they thought it looked cooler. Whats your guess?
Culture261 6 months ago
Wow Mr. Crowder, I wish YOU had been my therapist 25 years ago. Instead my hubbie and I went in for marrriage counselling with some "Be happy" bimbo psycho-therapist who strongly encouraged me to go and "find myself" and "personal growth" in my "own reality". She also encouraged my husband-who was ten yrs older- to just "release the old ideas of marriage". So we divorced, which was the stupidest thing I've ever done becuz I lost everything and everyone and my kids had a wicked step-mother. :(
talitakoomi 6 months ago
i love this video
jenny1972ish 6 months ago
actually the way you did three was the way it is done in a nationally recognized sign language form of the word three..........
fataxe1 6 months ago
moral principals HAVE become subjective. almost totally subjective. in a society where moral relativism is the ruling force everything becomes the same, and therefore meaningless.
lacrosseguy556 7 months ago 13
She is already imprisoned. She will never find a job or a kind soul as everyone in the free world thinks she is guilty.
IamaRifle 7 months ago
@IamaRifle she already got offerred a photo shoot with hustler and a job from some porn company. If she has no problem slaughtering her child and throwing it's corpse in the woods, I'm sure she wouldn't mind getting naked.
Protege385 7 months ago
@IamaRifle The interview is going to sell for hundreds of thousands, not to mention the eventual book deal. She is going to be rich from this and will meet someone. No other celeb has lived out there days alone because of the wrong they did, no reason to think shell be the first.
Culture261 6 months ago
Great message Steven. Of course any lib that might actually watch this will swear you were speaking Swahili after viewing it.
frogsoda 7 months ago
@frogsoda As if Crowder has the brain power to learn Swahili...
691015005 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@691015005 hahaha Thanks for proving my point....
frogsoda 6 months ago
I really wish more people heard you stephen.
andlee71694 7 months ago 16
Haha, This guy is so funny!
Armornone 7 months ago
Man, you need to run this every week...ok, not really because no one would subscribe anymore but still...
kingttx 7 months ago
Amen! Thanks for opening my eyes wider....I will be more giving.
shanana000 7 months ago
All morality is already completely subjective - go from culture to culture and say it ain't so.
2007regis 7 months ago
@2007regis Very well said. I'm always amazed by people who insist that morals are objective when in the same breath they claim those objective morals came from a supernatural entity!
o.O
captwasabi 7 months ago
Can you PLEASE teach at my school! You're actually making sense when explaining ethics and modern views.
IlovemycatMaria 7 months ago
She probably should've got an abortion.
poopster102 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please show your support for Casey by joining her OFFICIAL fan club!
CaseyAnthonyFanClub 7 months ago
Do. What. Is. Right. Novel Idea!
DeizeMae 7 months ago
This is just me, but I think Casey Anthony is narcisistic. I believe the killing was accidental that she had put her child multiple times in the trunk and this time she over drugged the child and she died. And her partying was probably her denying that her child even passed and just hoping it would all just go away. But that's just me I'm not here to spark a debate, just throwing in my 2 cents.
Not saying it was right. I'm saying that the woman is crazy.
1RedshirtXLG 7 months ago
ONE OF THE BEST OF YOUR VIDS
LM1viola 7 months ago
I was watching this and then I realized it wasn't making me happy....
RELStuart 7 months ago
To whom it may concern, captwasabi is an attention whore who doesn't understand the difference between a gamete and a zygote. Just ignore him, he's just an attention-seeking moron.
kmsoileau 7 months ago
@kmsoileau ROFL.
What a fucking pathetic little troll you are. You get spanked on every bullshit, theistic argument you can toss up. You get spanked from fabricating my arguments into straw men. You continually insist that I'm all sorts of wrong and then you follow me all around you tube and now this?
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
You're fucking pathetic. But do keep posturing. You're only proving me right.
captwasabi 7 months ago
@captwasabi "theistic argument" I never once made any "theistic argument" during our interaction. You're embarrassingly confused, as usual. Too bad your brain isn't as vigorous as your vile, contempt-spewing mouth.
kmsoileau 7 months ago
@kmsoileau Awww....you still here troll? What's the matter? It's not enough to create my arguments fro me? Now you've got to lie in front of everyone?
captwasabi 7 months ago
@captwasabi "lie in front of everyone" Too lazy to identify where I made a theistic argument? Looks like you're the liar.
kmsoileau 7 months ago
@kmsoileau That's hysterical. I address your repeated bullshit claims about the zygote and gamete and you simply ignore it and yet you have the audacity to post the above bullshit?
Dude, if you want to be treated like an adult you should act like one.
Otherwise I'll continue to treat you as the childish, simplistic moron that you are.
captwasabi 7 months ago
@captwasabi You made a claim, I asked for a citation to verify your claim, and you refused. You're a liar and a coward. You dare to complain to others about "dishonesty." You're a bad joke.
kmsoileau 7 months ago
@kmsoileau QQ much? You know, you've done nothing but call me an attention whore and a bad joke and yet for the past week you've done nothing but fixate on me.
This only begs the question....how pathetic is your life?
As I said, I've addressed your claim that I don't know the difference between the zygote and gamete. In typical douchebag fashion you simply chose to ignore my comments and continue to strawman.
Grow up little boy.
captwasabi 7 months ago
@captwasabi Still waiting for you to point out even one theistic argument I made with you. Of course, you can't, there isn't one, and everyone can see that you're a liar. Busted!
kmsoileau 7 months ago
@kmsoileau Yawn. Booooring. What's evern more pathetic is that you actually think "everyone" is paying attention to you much less gives a shit about anything that you say.
Again, just how sad and pathetic is your life?
lol.
captwasabi 7 months ago
@captwasabi Offhand, I'd say a lot less sad and pathetic than yours. You've spent who knows how many hours babbling on this page while I've been enjoying life, stopping by occasionally to get a chuckle at your manic stupidity.
kmsoileau 7 months ago
@kmsoileau Here's one last reply so I can fully explain to you just how pathetic I think you are. Our discussion was over. You went on your silly little rant and made your silly little strawmen resulting in my admitting that I was beaten by your stupidity. It was over.
And then you had to go and post that stupidity in the obvious hope that I would see it and we would start up all over again.
So really dude, lol, but you're a pathetic fucking joke.
captwasabi 7 months ago
@captwasabi "how pathetic I think you are." Oh no. I'm sure I'll be up all night, tossing and turning over that. LOL
kmsoileau 7 months ago
You should live for your own happiness. The key difference is, you can't violate someone else's ability to do the same.
Warmonger910 7 months ago
You should live for your own happiness. The key difference is, you can't violate someone else's ability to do the same.
Warmonger910 7 months ago
Comment removed
Falconerdudicus 7 months ago
@LiekABaus I was forced to this conclusion of "morality" because (actually relating to abortion) I was forced to consider that I was killing to eat meat. The word "spectrum" comes to mind and the thought occurs that eating carrots and tofu is killing in a sense too. We kill to survive. We shouldn't extend that to killing for power, for laziness, for race, age, beliefs... Only to protect innocent life and eat. That's my belief and I'm sticking to it.
fizzingwhizbeee 7 months ago
@LiekABaus Thanks, good sir. Yes I eat meat. The butcher does not need to eat the meat for it to be "justified" under my logic. If the animal will be eaten, it's good enough. One must recognize that these morals are highly subjective. Killing dogs in this society is "wrong" because we don't eat dogs here, where the same animal could be served as Bosintang in Korea and be "right". This does not justify all things we eat. Merely points out a clear distinction between these commonly linked things.
fizzingwhizbeee 7 months ago
Neither "index, middle, ring" for the number three, nor the "rapper's way" are internationally recognized. "Thumb, index, middle" is definitely the most popular around the world.
jcrwatch 7 months ago
STEVEN!!! OMG! Once again, you hit the nail on the head!!! YOU ARE AWESOME! THANKS, AND KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK...HOPE YOU HAD A HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!
hishotbox 7 months ago 11
@USAGymnast I wish I could disagree. If I were a real atheist, I suppose now would be the time to bring up the crusades or the holocaust, the twin towers or something of the like. The truth is, religion or lack thereof can be used as the weapon. A knife can be used to prepare meals or kill innocents, but it is the people weilding the knife that should go on trial, not the knife.
fizzingwhizbeee 7 months ago
You know, logically, what is the difference between abortion and killing a young baby? They are both killing a baby. I mean, almost all abortions are caused due to discomfort of the mother's life. Rarely is abortion committed due to rape, or serious detriment of the mother's life. Even many atheists are against abortion since they believe that there is no afterlife, why should anyone destroy the only life that a human being has.
jpzxcvbnm 7 months ago 5
@jpzxcvbnm dont bring logic into it. Otherwise whats the difference between killing a cow and a fetus? Logically nothing.
Its only baseless religion that makes logic free accusations like the existence of a soul.
LiekABaus 7 months ago
@LiekABaus Which one do we eat?
fizzingwhizbeee 7 months ago
@fizzingwhizbeee we eat cows.... as a culture. Some cultures dont eat cows or pigs. Some cultures are cannibalistic. Whats your point?
The "this is right because this is what i think" approach isnt logic based. Its actually ignorance based.
LiekABaus 7 months ago
@LiekABaus Well its funny how your trying to use a logical premise to prove your point. "What's the difference between killing a cow and a fetus? Logically nothing." If there is no difference between So how do you make decisions? On what basis would you argue for or against abortion? How you feel? Logic is supposed to use rational objective approach to understand an issue.
jpzxcvbnm 7 months ago
@jpzxcvbnm I dont strictly adhere to logic either. Im biased as crap. I know alot of my viewpoints are skewed.
To put my actual beliefs to paper with proper reasoning would take more characters than im allowed. But in general i think im less biased than most political ideologies, as i can understand the reasoning for both abortion and the death penalty.
Which if you believe in the nonsensical sanctity of human life, are polarizing issues... but often have differing viewpoints from both parties
LiekABaus 7 months ago
@LiekABaus I never said it was right. I was simply asking which one we eat. If it's better to eat cows than be cannibalistic, than it is better to kill cows than humans. If eating meat is as bad as eating human, then your conclusion would be correct. Personally, I think it's wrong to kill anything you're not going to eat. Here is the difference between us and animals. How many women eat their aborted fetuses? Gross, but true.
fizzingwhizbeee 7 months ago
@fizzingwhizbeee Are you for the death penalty? do you eat the meat of the prisoner's your state executes?
its a pretty outlandish suggestion on my part, but just as outlandish as asking a woman to eat a fetus.
LiekABaus 7 months ago
@LiekABaus I've never been for the death penalty. Even the lives of criminals are worth protecting. Life has value and if we murder murderers, we are no better than them. Also, it goes against my "only kill to eat" theory.
fizzingwhizbeee 7 months ago
@fizzingwhizbeee Do you eat meat others have killed?
i mean im trying to pick you apart, but you are still incredibly more consistent than well... everyone else.
There will always be flaws, i would consider you probably one of the most logically consistent, probably even moreso than myself.
Because i eat tons of burgers, and i turn a blind eye. So you win over me. I know there are better smarter people than myself out there, would hate if i was the smartest person alive.. so im glad you exist
LiekABaus 7 months ago
@USAGymnast I guess you're just perfect and never made a mistake or bad judgement call in your life?
christo930 7 months ago
@USAGymnast Do you honestly believe that getting an abortion is getting off scott free? Even if it was, why should every teen who makes a mistake pay the highest possible consequences?
christo930 7 months ago
@john42t Dependency does not determine personhood. Diabetics are entirely dependent on insulin, this has absolutely no bearing on their personhood. Who or what someone depends on cannot change who or what the dependent being is.
staum607 7 months ago
@staum607 True. Didn't mean to say anything like that. But say an adult person A's life depends not on insulin but an organ trasplant from person B, the latter would have no moral obligation to sacrifice a part of his health to person A need. That's what I wanted to say.
john42t 7 months ago
@john42t lets check out that reasoning. If Person B had already donated the organ to Person A; would it be murder for person B to take the organ back? In the same way the mother has already "donated", already given life. Once this transaction occurs (fertilized egg), it would be murder to take it away.
staum607 7 months ago
@staum607 To "give life" is a metaphor. It's not actually real, so nothing can be taken back. The mother sustains the childs life continuously and of course she's free to stop doing that in the same sense that a rescue swimmer can chose to abandon the drowning man who needs help or a search team that conducted a search for an injured person in a deserted territory can chose to abort the search. To argue that having begun a rescue or a search somehow makes it murder to quit is absurd.
john42t 7 months ago
@john42t I dont think that is an accurate analogy. For it to be like abortion, the rescue swimmer would not abandon the drowning man, he would actively drown him. Abortion is not just abandoning the child (which is illeagal after they are born and may constitute manslaughter), it is actively killing the child in order to facillitate abandonment.
staum607 7 months ago
@staum607 Abandoning a child after birth is murder because it could be supported by others if only left at a hospital or a police station. To leave it to starve is therefore not merely a refusal of support but murder. If there was no one else to support the child, I wouldn't call it murder even in that case (but that's very theoretical). The reason why I think it's not murder in the case of an unborn child is that the woman "pays" for the childbearing: It's a health risk, it's a social [...]
john42t 7 months ago
@staum607 [...] liability, it's an impairment to her career, etc. This is a payment she shouldn't be obliged to give to someone else against her will. That's the only reason why I'm holding this view - I'm very anti-feminist otherwise. But let me give you credit for remaining polite so far - this is a topic where even Christians usually get very ugly (who are on average the better behaved creed on YouTube).
john42t 7 months ago
@csbair red-herring. A unborn baby needing the unbilical cord to live makes the unborn baby not a person? What kind of logic is that??
staum607 7 months ago
@guyman117 Are you implying that it's horrible to harm an unborn children by smoking while pregnant but perfectly okay to kill them?
04192006eagle 7 months ago
@USAGymnast Only an idiot would believe that sex is solely for the act of reproduction. So really it's just more of you forcing your narrow-minded religion based stupidity on others. Now you're advocating abstinence when all evidence shows that abstinence simply does not work.
Here's an idea. You keep your antiquated belief system to yourself and try not force it on the reproductive rights of anyone else, mkay?
And stop lying. There is nothing irresponsible about using contraception.
captwasabi 7 months ago
@captwasabi
So in your opinion and in reality, when has it been the case that 2 people not having sex result in those 2 procreating a baby?
04192006eagle 7 months ago
@04192006eagle Hrmm.....2 scientists working in the in vitrio clinic?
captwasabi 7 months ago
@captwasabi
So then, your reason that abstinence is ineffective is due to scientists at in vitro clinics. I don't think that condoms, birth control pills, and the lot are affective from preventing scientists from artificially fertilizing eggs, usually at the consent of 2 adults mind you, or for embryonic stem-cell research.
04192006eagle 7 months ago
@04192006eagle No. You asked when two people can reproduce without having actual physical intercourse. I supplied an answer.
Abstinence does not work because sex feels good and because humans are social creatures.
Also, I think that you, and everyone else, who feels that they have a right to make demands on how two consenting adults behave in the privacy of their own bedroom need to go enjoy a nice tall glass of shut the fuck up. Nothing that they do directly harms you so just zip it.
captwasabi 7 months ago
@captwasabi
1.Obviously 2 people that are having sex aren't practicing abstinence.
2. We are humans, we don't have to have sex to be "social".
3. I'm not saying that 2 consenting adults can't have sex. I'm insinuating that abstinence is the only 100% full proof way to not get pregnant.
4. For the record I believe that a woman's choice is whether or not to consent to sex, not the choice to kill her child.
04192006eagle 7 months ago
@04192006eagle In most unwanted pregnancies, the couple didn't use condoms.
People just need to realize that sex is an invitation. It's like inviting two best friends to your house, and hoping only one comes. They both come, and you are allowed to shoot one as soon as they step in your house because they are in your property. Would the courts allow this? If you are raped, you invite neither, but they both come, it is okay to shoot one and not the other?
fizzingwhizbeee 7 months ago
Please forgive me @fizzingwhizbeee , I seem to have gotten lost in your metaphor and have missed it's meaning. Are you speaking out against contraception?
04192006eagle 7 months ago
@04192006eagle against abortion. And people that don't even try to prevent pregnancy than require abortion. The majority don't even make an effort to avoid it in the first place. It's not necessary to be abstinent, but wearing a rubber is a good place to start! We just don't seem to understand risk and concequences in this society. Abstinence is for sure the only way not to invite anyone in your body though.
fizzingwhizbeee 7 months ago
@04192006eagle Just playing devils advocate here but #3 is wrong. If the man loses his testicles or if either partner is sterile then they can fuck like overzealous rabbits without any fear of pregnancy.
captwasabi 7 months ago
@captwasabi That's not playing devils advocate, you're just grasping at straws.
04192006eagle 7 months ago
@04192006eagle No I'm not. You said "I'm insinuating that abstinence is the only 100% full proof way to not get pregnant." That is not true. Sterility, whether occurring naturally or via surgery is also a manner in which to not get pregnant.
Don't get mad because you didn't think your comment through sufficiently.
captwasabi 7 months ago