Who started the last 50 wars on earth??? Christians.

There is clarity around what these percentages mean, around the likelihood vis-a-vis excessive use whereby the potential damage could occur, the risks to the brain if taken for a lengthy period of time etc. How you read the statistics is your problem, but it is not actually a problem.
— TimeLine — TimeLine

Alcohol, fat, sugar, tobacco, and many other common substances have the same risks when you ignore the importance of saying how much and for how long exactly.

On the matter of Chromosome damage.

`When the government asks for evidence of the harm of something, it is the easiest target to shoe damage. Put sugar in a test tube, or salt, or chocolate or just about anything other than water, and you can damage chromosomes.

You are trying to convince me that we can only carry on if we tell our children fairy stories?

Was this man someone who exerted some influence over the women's' careers and they felt they couldn't leave without jeopardizing their careers, ? — Hanover

Is there evidence of this?

I cannot accept justice by allegation regardless of the situation or the "scum" involved. "... all allegations must be examined and pursued..." Corbyn is right. — Cavacava

Do you accept innocent until proven guilty? Then why the sacking?
Do you accept that a person has a right to know the details of the accusation and the names of their accusers? Because he was not informed buy summarily sacked from post and suspended from the party.

That someone committed suicide doesn't suddenly make them the victim of an injustice. — Baden

And yet he did not have the benefit of natural justice.
He was suspended from the party on an accusation and did not even know the name of his accusers.

This is contrary to basic justice, and there is all too much of it in the Labour party whose right wing is desperate to suppress the rise of the left. Iain McNichol the chair of the NEC has suspended thousands of party members and they wait, some for over a year to have their case heard.
There is a witch hunt against the followers of Corbyn.

We invent Father Christmas, the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, the Boogey man, *God, *Jesus, (*apologies to people who still believe) and it’s really important that our children believe in these fictions. — Kim

Excuse me???
I think not!
Care to justify that absurdity?

Sometimes "why" is utterly misguided.
Why me?
Why is the sky blue?
Why something and not nothing?

Before you ask 'why', you need to consider if your question is best framed with 'how". Such is the key to the Enlightenment.

Sometimes men think what they do is harmless, but they are too insensitive to see the harm they do.

Sometimes "banter" is not harmless and is a subtle way to dominate the situation by making other's look small.

Sometimes it is a fully conscious effort to put another person down.

Do you believe that the addiction to sweets is caused by sugar? If so, why don't you turn your rant toward a real problem sugar addiction, rather than a pseudo problem, THC addiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

THC is not physically addictive, like some drugs which have serious withdrawal symptoms in which illness can follow abstinence.
But as with some other things such as nice things, be that Star Wars films, Mars Bars, or comfy chairs, they can have psychological addiction, which makes you disappointed if you don't get them.

Please tell me where in the Christian Scripture that murdering and torturing are encouraged. — Lone Wolf

You shall not suffer a witch to live.
Aside from that the Bible is basically a litany of smiting, war and conquest.

Neither of your responses are relevant. It is simply a case in point that Christians do not follow scripture and I prefer to judge them by their deeds and not their words.

How about this one, next time you cast your eye over a woman? How many 'christians' are going to take this advice?

5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

I'm not subject to anything when it comes to the thread question, no.

Christian "scripture" has bugger all to do with what Christians do; never has, never will.
How many Christians would follow THIS advice from Matthew?
5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
None!

You are talking rubbish.
You are talking about what is "GOOD". My utility to others is not relevant to that.

This is a very odd question. Happiness is a state of being, a feeling. Feelings do not stem from reason. The question does not make any sense whatever.
There are things which engender the feeling of happiness, but you do not use that as a reason to be happy. Happiness is the a non rational inherent reaction to such things.
For example. Eating Lemon Meringue Pie can make you happy. But you do not eat the pie then use that as a reason to be happy and then decide that is your best response.

You might do well to wake-up and try thinking rather than sleeping.

For example, when I see a tree while wide awake using my eyes, am I conscious of a mental tree, or the tree itself? — Marchesk

Perceiving is the continual construction of objects represented by our mentality. All perception is mental.

Inherently nonsensical.
"You are only as good as your utility"
I can tell you that I am as good as I want to be, and have no interest in being utilised by anyone, as that is not how I validate myself.
When I am useful it is on my own terms, and my worth is based on my control of my time to utilise as I wish.

So - you are asking Agustino, if he can back-up a mythical idea ?

Exactly , what?

Not real Christians, as it is prohibited in Scripture — Lone Wolf

No True Scotsman FALLACY.

But the second amendment was intended to enable the citizenry to protect against both foreign governments and domestic, should the latter descend into tyranny. — Thorongil

Was it? Where does it say single-shot muskets were to attack the government? Nowhere. The 2nd amendment was to enable the "militia" to be armed and ready against Indians, French, and British.
We have moved on since then and that amendment is hopelessly out-of-date.

So - let's imagine that other people's thoughts and feelings are part of your external world. let me take your point.
So what? What's the point of thinking that way? How does it advance any argument?
Do tell!
Is everything objective? What's the point of having the words objective and subjective if they don't mean anything?

So I've heard humans torture and murder their fellows, even christians.
But we are not exhausted by love or hate, but have those aspects in us. Reptiles don't have much, but it's likely that the feeling emerges from an evolutionary need to protect the young, as that is on the cutting edge of natural selection. I do not see humans are different in kind, but different in degree.
Can you explain this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCmtiYtiW6Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTHsyIQI2L0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr8B0yb9y8Y

If you think love is only hormones in animals, why not humans too?

It's like you can't read.

Do you have a point here? If so, why not make it?

They'd leave you if someone else provided such in most circumstances. — Lone Wolf

Love is not possession. Such is foolishness of our peri-christian world of chattel/marriage.

Did neither of you understand what I said? From each of our perspectives, our feelings are external to the other. So, if your feelings are external to me, and mine to you, then how is it again that feelings are not part of the external world? Do you agree that you and I are part of the world, and to talk about each other and each other's feelings, would be to talk objectively about the world? — Harry Hindu

I understood perfectly what you said.
Feelings are internal. Though it is clear that others may have them, you do not have access to feeling of others. You only have access to evidence of the feelings of others; in their claims, in their behaviour and in your observations. Feelings are part of their internal world, not in your external world, they are hidden behind a veil of material.

It's not only that you can be fooled by another, but that no matter how hard you try to understand another's feelings, you cannot feel their feeling, only your own.

Your theory is just another cracked pot, leaking and dripping with wishful thinking and hopelessness.
What has this to say about Pascal's Wager? Nothing at all. Either address the thread or don't. But please do not try to proselytise.

and not noticed love (at least not what is said to be experienced from human to human) from the animal's part. — Lone Wolf

Then you are not paying attention. Love is the glue that has given mammals a major advantage and is the feeling that encourages a mother to give her substance over to others. These are most often her own offspring but can even include young of species that can predate the mother.
If you have never seen a troop of elephants risking their own lives to save a calf, or many other cats of mammal bravery then open your eyes.
Examples are numerous.
Love exhorts co-operation and fellow feeling, and is common to all mammals, from rats to cats to bats.

WTF?

What are you talking about. Nothing you say seems to follow.

It seems to be an entire system of virtues, so in a sense, it doesn't exist by itself; but rather is a mere collection of virtues. — Lone Wolf

This is cart before the horse. "IT" is not a collection of virtues, but the concepts of those virtues are imposed on those feelings to hope to describe it.
It is what precedes all concepts. This is why it is so hard to explain.

The feelings are various. you can nominate as many words to describe them, but love seems to cover it. I'd argue that such a feeling is part of what it means to be a mammal.

No feelings are not part of outer reality - obviously!
You can talk about feelings - other people's inner reality, but you can't ask the painting if it is beautiful - that way lies madness.
And whilst we can agree that we "share" a love of the Mona Lisa, it is impossible that that love is equal, or that ANY "shared" feeling is felt in the same way.
Even if it was the case, that feelings were so dull and one dimensional in humans, we would only have an intersubjective agreement - the beauty of a painting is never a property of the painting.

Please refer to the most I made some moments ago.

Your last post contains two contradictions and one diversion.
Either have a discussion or don't. But make up your mind.

It's how my dog and I feel about one another.