Recent content by king_nothing_

You mean infanticide.

If you don't want to "waste your time" to type a rational argument, then don't reply at all. You obviously do think pure vitriol is a useful substitute to some degree for a rational argument, otherwise you wouldn't have taken the time to type it out in the first place.

By the way, at least one of the horrible things I listed previously is not exclusively from the Old Testament. For example: Ephesians 6:5-9 (5) Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. (6) Obey them not only to win...

No, I didn't. There's not one thing of substance in your whole post, but for some reason you're under the assumption that vitriol is an adequate substitute for an actual argument. Personal experience. Are you really going to pretend that Christians don't predominantly point to Leviticus when...

Bullshit. People cite Leviticus 18:22 more than anything else by far to support their anti-gay views. It proves you're just picking and choosing what you want to believe and follow, and what you don't. You say you derive your moral views from the Bible, but if that were the case, you wouldn't...

Don't 99%+ of anti-gay Christians derive their stance on homosexuality from Old Testament passages, and usually all cite the same one passage from the Old Testament to support their stance?

LOL. By that logic... If you mix cotton and linen in your clothes, you are a non-Christian. If you don't put to death a child who curses at or strikes his or her parents, you are a non-Christian. If you don't kill people for working on the Sabbath, you are a non-Christian. If you don't put to...

Hint: "collage" is an actual word, but it's not a place people go to learn stuff after high school. Tip: Dictionaries give you the definitions of words.

What does the kid being a collage artist have to do with anything? D:

I wonder what ridiculous misconception about the NAP elicited this comment. I'm sure it's a hilarious one.

If you don't think that's ad hominem, then you don't understand what ad hominem is.

Ad hominem.

I'm not addressing it because it's totally irrelevant to the discussion. You're moving the goalposts after your argument was shown to be incorrect. First you argued there was an "exception" existing in property theory. I explained why it isn't an exception. You didn't rebut. Yes, you lose...

What the hell does that have to do with anything we're talking about? You made an argument which was categorically incorrect, I pointed out why it was so, you didn't even attempt to rebut it, and you instead respond by asking questions completely unrelated to the point I made. What time does it...

It's not an "exception" to absolute property rights, though. The beginning premise of propertarianism is self-ownership. It's not an "exception" to assert that a baby isn't your property even though you created it with your "labor". As I already said, self-ownership trumps the labor theory of...