Sort:  

You didn't.

When you say "A is the cause of B", that implies that if we want to stop B, we have to stop A.

I say, "C is a much more significant cause of B", to which you reply, "no, it's C+A that causes B".

I say, "C+A is a subset of C and all C causes B. Also, C+A is just a subset of A. Ergo we should eliminate all of C, not all A"

Is that clear?

NO. Define the fucking terms if you're going to speak in mumbo jumbo.

Larken says "religion isn't the problem, the cult of government is" to which you said:

So far the most horrific dids in human history, the greatest genocides, the most cruel enslavements, the harshest tyrannies were not really related to religions. So I don't know if religion is the thing we must worry about most.

So it doesn't mean anything if you excused religious atrocities by claiming religion had nothing to do with past atrocities when it clearly and most certainly did, just as it doesn't mean anything when you made your very first comment saying that nonsense and alluding that the article made a case about religion being bad, but now you can allude that you're not guilty of blaming human nature. LMAO.

Har Har, next you're going to say that you were blaming the cult of government, because if you weren't excusing the previous atrocities of religion by saying religion had nothing to do with it, you were indeed agreeing that religion isn't what you should be worried about.. HAR HAR

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.18
TRX 0.13
JST 0.028
BTC 63003.41
ETH 3122.79
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.52