 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
wow, you covered all logical options and I have nowhere to run. Time to hide
under my pillow again, ignorant and stupid as I am...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.47e6c828bd0847b440c8c0cc0@news.povray.org>,
nam### [at] gmail com says...
> wow, you covered all logical options and I have nowhere to run. Time to
hide
> under my pillow again, ignorant and stupid as I am...
>
Oh, get over your self. I am sick and tired of people like you thinking
that, "You don't know enough about this subject to make a proper
examination of it.", is automatically the same thing as, "You are
stupid!" Its not. Being ignorant is often not the fault of the person in
that state, unless they choice to remain so. If you plan to tell me that
you don't want to learn anything, and just repeat the same BS,
meaningless, irrelevant, and often unrelated arguments over and over
(and this is the tactic the true hard core creationists use), ***then***
I will call you any damn thing that is appropriate, and willfully stupid
is one of them.
NOTHING you said yourself implies to me in the least that you fall into
that category, nor that you would use arguments buried decades (or even
centuries) ago. You are not one of the people I am referring to when
talking about how creationists act or think. However, I strongly suggest
you climb down off the cross and stop whining about persecution that
isn't taking place, before someone else mistakes you for one of the
willfully ignorant, blind, faith drowned fools we where ***both***
describing with regard to creationists and ID.
Someone explain to me why belief leads some people to to reading
comprehension problems and an automatic assumption that any negative
statements *must* be directed at them specifically?!? I just don't get
it...
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <47e69cb7$1@news.povray.org>, ben### [at] pacificwebguycom says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > All of which is a lie.
>
> How do you know? Were you there? Or did you read it among all those
> hate-mongering comments you pointed us to originally?
>
Snort. Try doing the same searches on domain name registration they did,
for one. Then there are the emails they sent, etc. As for hate
mongering... Try @#$@#$#@$ reading the shit posting on anti-evolution
sites before you call the places I linked to hate mongering. Places like
Uncommon descent and done everything from claim racism, totalitarianism,
conspiracy, devil worship, plans of atheists to build concentration
camps, and damn near every other piece of hate filled bullshit you can
imagine about scientists. All we have ever done is say, "These people
are wrong, they get the science wrong, they make things up and when none
of that works, they sometimes lie, and here are the ****actual****
books, chapters, lines, etc. they copied the stuff they quoted from to
prove it." How the hell hard is it to get that the people filled with
hate are the ones that will, have, and continue, to quote entire
chapters that say things like, "Fossil evidence is not sufficient to
establish ancestry, but dozens of other methods, including...", then
chop it up into something that says, "Fossil evidence is not
sufficient...". ID proponents pull that all the time. They get called
heroes. We point out that they cut out the entire rest of the sentence,
or in some cases, **pages**, in between the place where the ellipses was
placed, and that everything in between says the exact opposite, and get
called, "hateful people that want to suppress the Truth(tm)."
Well, you know, when one side pulls this BS, doesn't let you comment
even single sentences, never mind clear explanations, on their web
sites, calls you liars and conspirators at every opertunity, and can't
so much as describe their supposed alternate theory, never mind provide
some way to test it, and tries to claim that everything from chicken
soup to the big bang somehow disproves evolution, when they themselves
have *accepted* the version of it (minus what ever the hell macro
evolution is), that scientists actually study, you can imagine why
people might get damn pissed off, and spend a bit of time laughing at
their enemies.
Hate mongering.. What a laugh. If we are hate mongering then you should
be damn happy someone doesn't come along that is also militant. Oh
wait... been accused of that too, never mind that we are not the ones a)
throwing people out of our sites, throwing people out of conventions,
throwing people out of our movies... Wait, who is militant and Nazi like
again? I am afraid the abject refusal to allow anyone to refute you, and
the tendency to shut out, silence, forcefully expel and then slander
everyone that doesn't agree with you kind of makes the picture look a
bit skewed.
Ok, don't believe me. Go to just about *any* website run by one of these
pro-ID groups. Make a new user name, pick some topic they are ranting
about with regard to evolution, then post something relevant to it, that
comes from the scientists side of things. Watch how fast you post, on
most of them, gets deleted. I have done this many times, most of the
time it was something simple, like saying, in one case, "Actually
evolution doesn't imply completely random chance. While the mutation may
be, the environment and the body itself prevent most mutations from
doing anything. That is why its descent with modification, or natural
selection, *not* random chance." That is all I said. I didn't rant,
didn't call anyone an idiot, nothing. The post *never* appeared on the
site.
Just try it. I don't care if you post your own comment, based on piecing
together details from some place like talkorigins, or you copy 1-2
sentences from there, without mentioning that you got it from that site.
90% of creationist/ID sites will delete the comment, 50% of those won't
even allow it to pass moderation, and about 20% of them will ban you, so
you can't try to post anything again.
You people keep whining about level playing fields. The truth is, you
don't want any such thing. You want a playing field where everything is
stacked in your favor, you don't have to listen to opposition, you can
shout down anyone that drops in to say something, and you can then claim
that no one shows up at all, to rebut any of your arguments.
Why the hell shouldn't people hate those that pull this kind of crap?
Snort.. Why do I bother. Nothing I say is likely to get you to try what
I suggest, take anything we say with enough respect to try to verify any
of it, and the default argument, when ever someone tries to point out an
error is to either ignore it, claim that your version of evolution is
the right one (never mind that it fits **no** definition of it ever
published, other than your own), or claim that the sites containing the
information are some sort of vast propaganda campaign invented in the
last few years to discredit ID. You will never look at PubMed for the
original material, never mind verify how old much of it is. And while
everyone else in the world considers the ability of science to recognize
a mistake and correct it, and it has done so, even going so far as to
reject *huge* amounts of what Darwin himself originally said, to you
this is a sign of weakness, not strength. Fine. Wallow in ignorance. I
don't give a #$@$@#. Just don't insist that everyone else join you in
the damn mud.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Ok, don't believe me. Go to just about *any* website run by one of these
> pro-ID groups.
You seem to have visited quite a few of them. What do you honestly hope
to gain from doing so?
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
oh, come on! You were calling all believers stupid and ignorant, no matter how
open they are to the scientific method. "Oh, you have all this evidence of how
things work and still believes in a almight being behind all?! Loser!"
Basically, unless someone drops to your side of the fence because of all
scientific evidence says so, they are stupid and ignorant and don't know any
better. I don't agree with that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Man, calm down and stop snorting. I think the scientific way of argumenting
should be by providing some concise math formulae rather than writing long,
boring rants about ranting people...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Allow me one other observation about another film with a link to WWII.
Here in the Netherlands we are constantly living under the threat that a
person by the name of Wilders is going to release a film about the
Islam. From what we know about the way he thinks and from what he
himself announced, the message is more or less that the Islam is a
fascistoid religion. Even though it 'should' have been released months
ago, he is postponing the date everytime. Either because the film does
not exist or because he knows that threatening to release it is more
effective than actually releasing.
Although his right to offend Muslims falls under the freedom of
expression, many people think that it is unwise because of the expected
violent reaction in Islamic countries. Indeed some muslim
fundamentalists abroad have already made sure that their followers are
reminded of the Danish cartoons and reinstated the old habit of burning
Danish and now also Dutch flags.
Moral of this story: religious people are better organized than
atheists. So, what's new?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Although his right to offend Muslims falls under the freedom of
> expression, many people think that it is unwise because of the expected
> violent reaction in Islamic countries.
Some people say that freedom of expression does not give the right to
insult people based on things like their religion.
My answer to that is that if people are allowed to publish documentaries
about extreme christianity with impunity (as is certainly the case), they
should be allowed to publish documentaries about extreme forms of *any*
religion, regardless of what that religion is. No religion should be
considered above any other religion in this respect (and, more specifically,
islam must not be considered more protected against criticism than
christianity).
If the argument against publishing criticism of islam is that you should
not do it if you value your life then there's something horribly wrong.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> Why the hell shouldn't people hate those that pull this kind of crap?
>
....um ...because hate blunts reason and diminishes the dignity and humanity of
those who proffer it?
> Snort.. Why do I bother.
OK, maybe there IS such a thing as telepathy.
(You seem to have read my mind.)
Evidence is not made more compelling by shouting it louder, repeating it more
often or intermixing it with vulgar diatribe. You have no more chance of
convincing a fundamentalist true-believer to reassess a conviction based on
reason and evidence than I have of explaining the finer points of M Theory to
my cat. (... and I'm taking into account the fact that my cat died several
years ago.)
What you ARE doing is helping the "Christianity-is-under-attack" people make
THEIR case by acting out the role of the atheist stereotype they put forth.
People become locked into irrational belief systems precisely because their
decision making processes are dominated by fear, suspicion and hatred.
Liberating the victims of superstition from their psychological prisons is
accomplished by healing the damage caused by hate and fear mongering.
Escalating the sense of enmity and conflict is wholly counterproductive.
> ...Wallow in ignorance.
> I don't give a #$@$@#. Just don't insist that everyone else join you in
> the damn mud.
This was undignified and inappropriate. An apology to the community would not
be out of order. If you feel that you have a positive contribution to make to
civil discourse on the ID issue, take the time to put your thoughts into essay
form (minus the colorful vernacular), post it to an appropriate location and
LINK to it in this and other forums not specifically dedicated to the topic.
You have a very basic decision to make. Will you choose to deal in reason or
invective?
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Although his right to offend Muslims falls under the freedom of
>> expression, many people think that it is unwise because of the expected
>> violent reaction in Islamic countries.
>
> Some people say that freedom of expression does not give the right to
> insult people based on things like their religion.
>
> My answer to that is that if people are allowed to publish documentaries
> about extreme christianity with impunity (as is certainly the case), they
> should be allowed to publish documentaries about extreme forms of *any*
> religion, regardless of what that religion is. No religion should be
> considered above any other religion in this respect (and, more specifically,
> islam must not be considered more protected against criticism than
> christianity).
>
> If the argument against publishing criticism of islam is that you should
> not do it if you value your life then there's something horribly wrong.
>
Well, we do have the example of Theo van Gogh
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29 ) , but
the argument is more that it would put other people in danger, like
people working in the diplomatic service, the doctors and nurses working
abroad and especially our soldiers in Afghanistan. It is also a
discussion not so much about criticism but about deliberately offending
while knowing that what you say is at best only partially true. Which
would, in an interesting twist, be allowed if he had been a columnist or
a cartoonist, but may be a different matter for a politician.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
