What do straight marriage and cocaine have in common?

[TheReasonWhyGuy]

Wow... I didn't even realize you made this video XD

[aemull3]

hey man, come out with a new video I miss the conversations. Anyway I think the biggest flaw here is that all fundamentalist go after it the same way & saying that you set out to disprove it. I'm sure if you go at it only looking at one angle of course youre going to find something. If you start unbiased and find points from both sides its a little more believable. I'm for gay marriage just saying listening to the first 2 minutes it sounds like your mind is set no matter what so why watch.

[truthofevolution]

@aemull3 hey man sorry Ive been really busy with school. Ill keep your criticism in mind for future videos, hopefully youll enjoy the next one coming up. Im not saying that all fundamentalists go after it the same way. Im just picking on one particular argument that ive seen lots of fundys make.

Im not trying to evaluate an argument, Im applying the logic of that argument in another situation in order to break it down. I want a fundy to watch this video in order to give me a logical argument.

[truthofevolution]

@aemull3 remember that my argument here is very focused. Im not looking at the facts behind the argument or make an objective conclusion about the argument. Im simply applying their own logic to a situation where it fails. So what you are saying about approaching it objectively doesnt even apply here because this video isnt broad enough for that.

In any case my mind is set about a lot of things, but that doesnt mean that I wont change it when the proper evidence is presented.

[frictionRx5]

you are attempting to justify your cocaine addiction aren't you?

stay off the drugs young man

[truthofevolution]

@frictionRx5 dude come on you gotta admit i made a good point!

[desigayboi]

your so cute i just want to eat you

[truthofevolution]

@desigayboi dude you say this in every video i feel like youre trolling. Can you please focus on the content of the video? THanks.

[desigayboi]

@truthofevolution Yes cause your a gay in the closet its so obvious that your not straight

[truthofevolution]

@desigayboi if you are not a troll and you are really gay then your comment makes me sad. Firstly, if you pay attention to anything i say in any of my videos, you know that I am not afraid of anything. I speak my mind. There is no reason for me to be in the closet.

Secondly, the fact that you think its "obvious" shows that you stereotype, which is sad. Is it because I have a lisp? or do I enunciate words in a gay way? What are those if not insulting stereotypes?

[truthofevolution]

@desigayboi thirdly why is it important to you if other people are gay? Do you think your methods are a dignified way of getting them to come out? because they are not. Your methods are so crude that i could have easily confused you for a troll pretending to be gay. Show some dignity man.

And if you think Im closeted, I dont know what to say, except that if stereotypes are the way you determine someone is gay and not the courage of their conviction. Its shallow.

[desigayboi]

@truthofevolution

I am not prertending to be gay lol read my profile and as you can tell by my id....I appreciate beautiful indian men like yourself.

[truthofevolution]

@desigayboi i appreciate your appreciation, but Id rather be appreciated for the arguments i make in my video rather than looks. Any idiot can get attention by looking good, I dont really care about that.

Also, Im not gay. And you of all people should know that I cant make myself gay any more than you can make yourself straight. So there is really no point in discussing this further.

In other words, I would appreciate it if you would respond to the subject of the video. Thanks.

[desigayboi]

@desigayboi just get over it i fancy u

[truthofevolution]

@desigayboi thats fine. Thanks I appreciate it. I just wasnt sure you were faking and trolling. And I wanted to let you know that Im not gay. Thats ok.

I would appreciate your view on this subject and whether you would use it in an argument, I am on your side on this.

[truthofevolution]

@desigayboi i dont know if youre really gay or just faking to troll. can you please focus on the point of my channel? Thanks.

[killpath]

I'm straight AND I love coke! Pussy + weed + coke + booze = Good times! No homo!

[truthofevolution]

@killpath lol

[DynaCatlovesme]

One of your premises is rather bizarre.  I don't know of any Christian dogma that states "sex is pleasurable, so God wants us to do it." If anything, the dogma is the opposite. All pleasurable things are highly suspect in Christian dogma, as they are seen as distractions from the service of God.

[truthofevolution]

@DynaCatlovesme Ive heard that before from youtubers. Basically, what ive heard them say is that sex for procreation is right and the pleasure achieved from that sort of sex is further incentive to spread our seed. These christians have told me that they are not against pleasure but pleasure achieved without that purpose in mind, i.e. sex for the sake of sex.

[DynaCatlovesme]

@truthofevolution Ok, so that invalidates your argument. The "parts fitting," by itself, is not the Christian criterion, nor is pleasure. Procreation MUST be included. Sexual pleasure is seen as a temptation to do evil, as is the pleasure derived from drugs. Christianity sees most things as a "test" of one's free will. One can serve God or not.

[truthofevolution]

@DynaCatlovesme no thats not the argument. The parts fitting is a very important part of the argument, because that means god intended it. God intends a man and woman to have sex because their parts fit. So God must intend drug use because parts fit. Procreation is the natural result of sex. Therefore sex has purpose in the eyes of god. What is the natural result of drug use? Addiction. Then addiction must be the purpose of drug use in the eyes of God.

[DynaCatlovesme]

@truthofevolution " The parts fitting is a very important part of the argument"

It often is, but it's not the whole argument. If put to it, a Christian would say that both sex for pleasure and drug use for pleasure are the will of Satan. For your argument, you have only two of the three parts--"the parts fit" and "it feels good." You are missing the possiblilty of procreation or something else that would serve God's will.

[truthofevolution]

@DynaCatlovesme right, but i dont think im missing it. the part fitting argument alone shows that drug use has SOME intended purpose, and by this argument alone we dont know what that purpose is. But I find that the purpose is the natural result of teh action. The natural result of sex is procreation. All we need to do is find the natural result of drug use, and we should be allowed to use it for that purpose.

So what is the natural result of drug use?

[DynaCatlovesme]

@DynaCatlovesme The Christians have had two thousand years to develop these arguments, and they are not as simplistic as you may think. You actually left out a fourth element of the argument: marriage. Since sex with a stranger of the opposite sex is covered by "the parts fit," "it feels good," and it "can lead to procreation." Without marriage, it's a sin.

[truthofevolution]

@DynaCatlovesme i didnt say they were simplistic, infact i think they are overly convoluted. As for marriage, htas the whole point. I am trying to make gay marriage legal and they are saying it should remain illegal because the parts dont fit etc.

[DynaCatlovesme]

@truthofevolution Yes, that's one reason they often come up with, but there's a set of criteria, like a check list, in Christian dogma. Every element has to be checked off, or it's sinful. Your analogy with drugs is missing some of those elements, so you can't argue that under the Chistian dogma, drug use should be encouraged. In fact, following the Christian logic leads to the conclusion that drugs are evil.

[truthofevolution]

@DynaCatlovesme but im not missing those elements. The natural purpose of sex is procreation. The natural purpose of drug use is addiction.

Regardless of what the checklist is, the fact remains that god wants us to smoke cocaine in some aspect of our lives, otherwise he would not have made those receptors match. What those criteria are is another issue, but the presence of those receptors shows that he wants us to smoke weed.

[DynaCatlovesme]

@truthofevolution "but the presence of those receptors shows that he wants us to smoke weed." That doesn't follow. A big part of Christian belief involves temptation. The Christian view would be that God made those receptors for the purposes they serve without drug use and that the Devil made drugs match those receptors to tempt man away from God's plan.

[truthofevolution]

@DynaCatlovesme i dont think they will go there. Every good fundy knows that god created every living creature in its present form. That is, God created an opium plant as an opium plant. Since christians believe god doesnt tempt for evil, opium must have a purpose in our lives.

I dont think I overcomplicated the argument. as ive said, the purpose that god would have for opium would be the natural result of its use, just as it is with sex. Addiction is the natural result of drug use.

[truthofevolution]

@DynaCatlovesme even if you disagree that I have not found the purpose for opium use, you must see that a fundy would still be forced to acknowledge that god has SOME purpose for opium use in our lives, or he would not have created those plants. Just getting them to acknowledge that is enough for me. I will leave them to figure out for what projects opium use is sanctified by god and let them make up their rules for it.

[DynaCatlovesme]

@truthofevolution I'm not concerned with whether you've found the "purpose" for opium use, only with if you made a logical argument. You have internal consistency, but by trying to make an analogy, you opened up the field, and I believe you strawmaned the Christian argument.

[truthofevolution]

@DynaCatlovesme i disagree with that. I dont think i strawmanned the christian argument and Im confident that the argument is logical.

[truthofevolution]

@DynaCatlovesme you have to be more specific, how am i strawmanning the argument? That I havent included all the parts for sex to be unsinful? Well its sufficient that god having purpose for sex makes sex good and not siinful. Drug use has to meet the same criteria, but that puts the christian in the embarrassing position of trying to find the appropriate purpose for drug use.

It is sufficient for my argument that a christian aknowledges that SOME drug use is good, just like SOME sex is good.

[truthofevolution]

@DynaCatlovesme also no fundamentalist would argue that the devil made opium. That is internally inconsistent with their previous beliefs which means my argument is sound.

[DynaCatlovesme]

@truthofevolution Let's leave it at this: if I didn't agree with the fundamental argument you are trying to make (and, in fact, I do agree with you if that isn't clear) this argument would not change my mind a bit.

[truthofevolution]

@DynaCatlovesme well thats the challenge isnt it? The point isnt to change their minds immediately. Its to get them to think a bit. They use logic to convince themselves of something. Noone can convince them that logic is wrong, so I am trying to use that same logic in an absurd situation. lets see what arguments they make. I know they wont make hte one you made about the devil making opium. I doubt they have any other rebuttal. 

[truthofevolution]

@DynaCatlovesme also just because Im not able to convince someone does not mean that my argument is not logical or that it is strawmanning.

[truthofevolution]

@DynaCatlovesme so god wants us to have sex with one woman in marriage. Thats fine, but the "fitting parts" make it clear that god wants us to have sex with women.

So god may want us to smoke coke on full moons on saturdays. Whatever. Regardless, there MUST be some moral situations where smoking cocaine is encouraaged by god or he wouldnt give us fitting parts.

[DynaCatlovesme]

@truthofevolution Well, you've overcomplicated your argument, in my opinion. If you want to refute the "fitting parts" argument only, then fine--it's not really a Christian argument anyway, just one that many ignorant Christians come up with. But you took on a more nuanced argument of which "fitting parts" was only a component.

[truthofevolution]

@DynaCatlovesme in most of those two thousand years, we didnt know what the molecular cascade of heroine use was.

[truthofevolution]

@DynaCatlovesme procreation indicates that the method must be used for its intended purpose, but parts fitting indicates that the method should be used at all.

Therefore drug use must be used. The part fitting argument is sufficient. WHAT drug use should be used for is based on what natural purpose drug use has. I argue that its purpose is addiction, you can argue something else, but it doesnt matter, God wants us to snort cocaine.

[bleunt]

Good points. Not to mention, a human child does not really fit a woman's vagina. Women often break, and sometimes even die giving birth. And giving birth is not at all a pleasant experiance for the women.

God does not want women to give birth.

Or... evolution might tells us the female anatomy has not kept up with the growing of our brains.

[truthofevolution]

@bleunt thats a very good point as well. 

[truthofevolution]

@bleunt id like to add your point to the description box if you dont mind. You will cite you ofcourse.

[bleunt]

@truthofevolution Sure, go ahead. :)

[bleunt]

@truthofevolution Just don't forget to correct my spelling of experience. ;)