The knife through the ribs part got me.

Not..

Its called murder and under the ten commandments I have its boldly says "Thou shall not kill".

God destroyed cities due to the impureness of (gay,adultry,murder,praising false Gods.)

As far as the same sex relationships being "natural" I strongly disagree with.

I'm not trying to dictate morality to you... I'm trying to instruct you in logic, the only way to find a common morality not founded on blind faith. :P As for knowing what goes on in your head, you've told us. You find violence acceptable to an appaling degree. You believe that two fists and a personal code of honor are better than the organized rule of law.

You say that you will not hit anyone who can't defend themselves, but that a man who can't defend himself should know better than to get into a position where he would have to defend himself from you. Are you saying you would or wouldn't attack such a man? If so, then taken withyour comments about women, your stance must be construed as, "I will not hit anyone who can't defend themselves, unless they're a man. This is especially true if they're a woman." In other words, it's still boiling down to, are they a man or are they a woman?

You raise a lot of valid points about society, but your conclusions show your barbarity. "Our bloated tort law system must be reformed... no wait, we'll just settle our disputes by fighting!"

Didn't I see you posting something about how many billions of years of evolution it took to produce you? I bet our shared single-celled ancestor would be thrilled to learn how evolved you are. :P

you cant judge people because others wont take kindly to that, so for the sake of your own safety and to ensure the survival of your bloodline, its better to just listen to the masses

Great tactic! Disregard my actual points, twist what I say around, and then declare that you're finished.

Let's watch this one play in slow motion:

I say that the degree to which you find violence acceptable is appaling, you come back by saying, "I don't go around punching people at random, like you seem to think."

Did I say, "The degree to which you find violence acceptable, that degree being the point at which you just start punching people at random, is appalling."
Have I once said that you go punching people at random?

Nope. I say you're "too willing" to resort to violence. I haven't said exactly how willing you are. I will not, because, as you're quick to point out, I cannot. Only you have that specific information. Based on information you've provided, though, I'm comfortable saying you are "too willing."

So, you have not only put words into my mouth/ideas into my head but you manage to accuse me of doing the same thing in the same breath! Astonishing! Is the people who're allowed to tell others what they think another man/woman thing, or is it just you?

As for the insults... you apparently believe you're being insulted because you don't like being called "uncivilized"... but whether or not it's an insult depends entirely on how much you value "civilization." I value civilization, and so to call me uncivilized is an insult. Based on your stances, I would say it's clear that you're railing against overcivilization... so where's the insult? If you don't agree with the "rule of law", and believe there's nothing wrong with settling a dispute with fists then why does being called "uncivilized" hurt you? That's like saying, "I'm proud of living from Germany, being born and raised there, but don't you dare call me German!"

Yes, I have called you barbaric, unevolved, and uncivilized. I stand by this.

You have stated that a flawed fistfight is an improvement over a flawed court system (Why I say flawed: Does the better person always win a fist fight? Do back alley brawls never result in a disproportionate penalty paid by one side?) Deny that such barbarism is a bad thing if you want to, but do not dare deny it is barbaric.

You have stated that society is overly complicated and should be reduced to a simpler time, a simpler state. This is the exact reverse of evolution... starting at a complex state that came about over time through trial and error, and moving backwards to a simpler one.

Now, you can argue against the value of evolution's end product if you want, but you cannot do so and at the same time become angry for having your "simpler times" viewpoint labelled "unevolved."

I'm not insulting you... I'm apply labels to your views.

If the labels "uncivilized", "barbaric", and "unevolved" bother you, ask yourself why. Perhaps you're being overly hasty in throwing out the values you profess to reject.

Take the rule of law. Yes, there are numerous high-profile examples of lawsuits that abuse the system and make a mockery of justice. Why do you know about them? Because they're high-profile. Why are they high-profile? Because there's something exceptional about these cases. Key word here: exceptional.

You acknowledge the existence of the weak, the elderly, the handicapped, etc... you know they have no option to protect themselves or exact retribution or gain satisfaction through a fist fight. Would you have the civil court system scrapped in favor of back alley brawls, even though it would disenfranchise all these people who need the courts the most?

The fact that predatory lawyers also need the courts >shouldn't be enough to disregard the needs of the people >the court system was actually designed to benefit.

The rule of law isn't perfect, but it wisely refrains from beating the hell out of the alternative.