In article <474af5b3$1@news.povray.org>, rli### [at] speakeasynet says...
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:47422be6@news.povray.org...
> > Ross <rli### [at] speakeasynet> wrote:
> > > Warp hates the mocking and has yet to offer a viable option to it oth
er
> than
> > > "Continue to try to convince by presenting the facts." Yet this has
> failed,
> > > and failed, and failed. Rather than continue the insanity loop, what
> should
> > > one do?
> >
> >   Are you saying that making fun of other people is a viable and
> acceptable
> > solution?
> >   Well, that's exactly what I don't understand. In my opinion making fu
n
> > of people is not civilized nor acceptable. I'm not exactly sure how sho
uld
> > I think of people who disagree with this. It just doesn't make sense.
> >
> > -- 
> >                                                           - Warp
> 
> No, not at all. You are reading too much into it. I was seriously asking,
 to
> break the deadlock of "explain with facts, reject facts, explain with fac
ts,
> reject facts, etc..." what is a viable alternative?
> 
Besides.. I have to wonder, what possible response can you make to 
something like this:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/26/thorns.jpg

Unless its either a) laughing your ass off, or b) having an brain 
aneurysm? Keeping in mind that the "logic" part of the sign is *their* 
addition, not something that got added by someone else. I mean, at least 
they are being honest, but I somehow don't think that they *intended* to 
be *that* honest about their own logic. lol That is kind of the problem 
with the current movement. Confronted by a world in which reason is 
entirely a purview of the other side of the argument, all they can 
manage is to make themselves look even more absurd with every action. 
Some people at PZ's site have lamented that its not even worth it to 
make up idiotic BS to mock them, since its impossible to come up with 
anything more insane, irrational, fantasy based and delusional than they 
do themselves, or write anything sufficiently self contradictory to mock 
them, without being committed. All you have to do is look at 
conservapedia, recognize that probably 80% of everything on there is 
***known*** to be posted as a joke by non-conservatives as a joke, and 
that neither any of the people reading it, nor its owner can tell the 
difference, which is why the articles are **still** there.

When you can't tell the difference between satire and what your 
opposition actually believes, its about time to have a good laugh at it 
all, or you might be driven to a depth of despair sufficient to throw 
yourself in front of a church bus. I really can't comprehend how you can 
be considered sane and actually think most of the stuff on 
conservapedia, let alone any place else these people post their stuff. 
Mind you, one thing Warp completely doesn't get is that these people are 
not interested in debate, valid arguments or the search for truth. If 
you post *anything* on one of their sites, and I have tried at several, 
while others have tried at many more, you will find that they either a) 
hold all comments for review, then simply don't allow contrary points to 
be seen at all, b) delete anything that they do allow to be posted, if 
it contradicts their position, and/or c) ban the people that dare to 
confront them with actual facts. The owners and their ass kissers then 
all sit around whining about how, if science where true, someone would 
show up to debate with them about the subject, but that the fact that no 
one ever does means they are right.

Their public "debates" are the same. They are formatted so that only the 
most shallow version is allowed, they usually go to lengths to have them 
in places where they are 90% sure that 95% of the people attending will 
be on their side, and then they limit the amount of time for questions, 
and stock the front rows with people that will ask the right wrong 
questions, so that no real questions or comments can be addressed, and 
so that the questions that are asked are ones based on incorrect 
perceptions, so that it would take 20 times as long to explain *why* the 
question was a bad one as it would for the creationist to give a 
standard BS answer (which of course makes the scientist look like an 
idiot, since they can't answer it in 30 seconds).

On the net they stack things 100% in their favor and ban anyone with a 
different view. In the real world they stage 90% of everything and try 
damn hard to make sure its as close to 100% on their side as possible, 
then set the whole system up in a format where its impossible to explain 
how wrong the 30+ points they babble about are, within the time frame 
allowed. And, whenever someone suggests a format that isn't stacked 
almost entirely in their favor, they refuse to be involved in it, on the 
grounds that its somehow "unfair". They refuse to play by any rules but 
their own, and get damn irritated when anyone suggests to them that the 
rules don't work, are not truly fair, or that its too complicated to 
explain why they are wrong in the time frame they allow. And that is 
entirely the point. They *intentially* frame things in Dr. Phil format, 
where everything must be solved in the 40 minutes, not including the 
commercial breaks, given, even if its so damn shallow that *real* issues 
can't be address in it. Its the equivalent of arguing that fortune 
cookies are the single most important method of future predictions ever 
invented, and telling statisticians to shut up, because no one wants to 
hear their complicated explanations. Only, since they argue that science 
it just a different kind of religion, they would probably insert 
"astrologer" in the place of statistician.

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message