Well, how else are you supposed to become a dad without fucking the mother?

The guy still think that logic didn’t evolve past Aristotle and basic syllogisms, even after a couple of millenia, and argues about a supposed Socrates logic (?) that involves them (???)

They have no idea what they’re talking about other than some random information that they found online, probably. I wouldn’t expect any kind of real logical argument from there.

The funniest thing is that you showed them a perfect example of socratic reductio ad absurdum, but it completely flew over their head because they are too busy trying to argue about syllogisms…

Castrato is just Italian for castrated or neutered, even used with animals albeit mostly used referring to males. Sometimes it’s even used figuratively. It would still work perfectly with your example, I think

Stated as a fact with no emotion or judgment related to it. So that excludes mourning for it, which was the point I was making in my reply which was more than clear enough.

And I’m sorry, but I find it incredibly ironic how you’re the one saying reading comprehension isn’t that hard after failing to understand both Nietzsche and my comment.

You suggested them to read Nietzsche and from it you got he mourns the decline of religion through all of his works? Maybe you should also get a re-read.

The decline of religion is stated as a fact, killed by men’s rationality and evolution. As any evolution it has opportunities and risks, in this case the bigger risk is the loss of morality.

But the only thing he clearly advocates for is overcoming religion and God because they are not needed anymore. The new Man should make its own meaning and rules.

It’s the whole concept of the übermensch which is the single central point of his all system.

The quote is not supposed to be his opinion (not directly at least), it’s a character in a story.

It’s like taking the stance of Cephalus in the Plato’s Republic and say it’s Plato’s opinion, while it’s clearly just a tool to let Socrates speak.