Firmado , Jess Maraa , alias el tibio . Me aburren estos supuestos periodistas de izquierdas , siempre con el qu dirn por bandera , y con el rollo de poner la otra mejilla aunque te estn partiendo la cara a dos manos . Me aburren y me cabrean a estas alturas de la pelcula . Como dira LabordetaAnda a la mierda <| sep |> Mod Purple is designing them no wonder <| sep |> Yeah . Lions are always on Thanksgiving , so l always root for them . l never root for Dallas , tho <| sep |> Right , so you are now admitting that there are possibly nonreligious worldviews that can work to justify heinous acts . Huh ? I never said there weren ' t . My thesis was nothing more than that there are certain classes of heinous acts that can only be justified religiously . There is a world of difference between that and the absurd idea that only religion can be used to justify heinous acts at all . One of the reasons I keep harping on sexuality is that the ideas of moral purity that drive certain religions to restrict normal and healthy sexual behavior seem to be unique to religious worldviews , in large part because outside of a religious context , moral purity is not itself a coherent concept . So do you give up now your thesis that there are some heinous acts that can only be justified by religion ? Clearly not . There are also some heinous acts that can only be justified within the context of Stalinism . Perhaps it would help if we examined the logical structure of the argument P Q iff P then Q or if and only if P then Q . So one might say , if and only if Catholicism or a similarly sexualityrestricting religion is true , then there are moral prescriptions against the kinds of human sexuality that science indicates are normal and healthy . The thing about P Q arguments is that the truth of either condition requires the truth of the other . You should be able to remove the and only if and reverse them If Catholicism or a similarly sexualityrestricting religion is true , then there are moral prescriptions against the kinds of human sexuality that science indicates are normal and healthy . This reverses to . If there are moral prescriptions against the kinds of human sexuality that science indicates are normal and healthy , then Catholicism or a similarly sexualityrestricting religion is true . Whether the latter is true or not largely hinges on whether or not there is the possibility of a nonreligious worldview that logically entails the stigmatization of normal human sexuality for moral reasons . I emphasized logically for a reason Any worldview can certainly include the stigmatization of anything for illogical reasons , but they won ' t logically entail it . I can ' t stop anyone from engaging in a non sequitur to get from whatever their overall framework for dealing with the world is to therefore , don ' t play with Mr . Winky , but it is a non sequitur unless the worldview logically entails it . And I ' m aware of no coherent steps one could take from a nonreligious viewpoint to get to the idea that masturbating morally harms people and they should be made to stop .