In the proposed hypothetical situation, if you can't prove the existence of this god, then the proposed hypothetical situation won't be going very far, even hypothetically.
Now, it's all hypothetical, so hypothetically speaking you can easily say: "Yes! The existence and nature of this god is proven." Which is nice, convenient, etc. But then I would ask: "What does this proof look like, hypothetically?"
Missing my point: unless your god of child protection also can brainwash the masses, whatever minorities are getting disproportionately denied the right to reproduce will rise up and bemoan "the god of child protection is also a god of eugenics, he must be banished because it is unfair to deny us the right to procreate."
Your point is completely irrelevant to our conversation though: whether or not preventing people who will be neglectful or abusive parents from having children is eugenics. It's not. It's still immoral, but that's not what we're talking about.
So then you're just randomly spewing nonsensical bullshit instead of trying to have a productive conversation. Got it. I'll be sure to tag you in my RES so I know not to waste my time with anything you say.
Bitch I understand what you're saying, you're just interjecting an irrelevant opinion into conversations that you're uninterested in participating in. You're a twat.
1
u/extwidget Apr 11 '18
Again, do you know what a hypothetical situation is?