From what I got of it, he started an argument stating that if everyone abstained before marriage, stds would be eliminated completely. It wasn't really nice to push your ideals on people and criticize them for not following them
i proposed a "what if" scenario and explained how it would work. i made an aggressive entry into the thread. this apparently drew attention from my scenario. here we are.
it is a hypothetical. i was explaining how it would work. this is not pushing my ideals. this is defending its functionality. i defended its functionality in a personal manner. here we are.
After he was confronted with quotes of him doing exactly what he was condemning, he tried to justify it by basically saying eye for an eye.
i responded in kind. i am not aggressive to people who are not aggressive. this post is not aggressive because i am not responding to aggressive posts.
If your values are uneducated and baseless beliefs
they are not baseless beliefs. the hypothetical functions. it only works if people participate voluntarily. i am not forcing anyone to do this. i am explaining what would happen if people did. that this discussion has been drawn out ten pages down some rabbit hole is silly.
that you think i should do more research when my hypothesis functions is silly. i am assuming that people are entirely willing to participate. this is not the case. i never said it was. this entire purpose of this discussion was to be a "what if?" discussion, not a "everyone should" discussion. apparently it has been derailed.
you're STILL using all-caps responses because you're inCIAting your point is correct
no. there have been two lines of capital letters in the past 5 pages.
Pretty sure the ones looking in can tell who won or not. Pretty sure being in the argument has a cause for bias, which is why you're so loving stingy.
you've made it pretty obvious what your stance is. of course you think i lost.
