The whole truth
Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
|
| Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 12 2012,12:40) | | Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2012,14:08) | Upright: | Quote | | By the way, you can see the practical benefits (of maintaining this enforced separation) in the comments coming from TSZ. Keith is literally in a full blown tantrum, rocking back and forth in his seat and kicking his feet. He and Onlooker act as if I myself invented biosemiosis, which is an incoherent argument with absolutely no basis in material fact. It simply cannot be allowed. You’ll also notice how the frontline scientists and researchers I have approached (i.e. Moran, Matzke, etc) have refused to get into a debate with me about it. It’s a no winner for them, and they have something to protect. They sure as hell are not going to engage in a public argument over the meaning of words like “arbitrary” and “information”. That’s beneath them. They will leave that to the internet’s bottom feeders like Patrick and Keith, who are unencumbered by the thought of appearing completely irrational. |
No, really.
And, whatever you do, read the comment before that one then re-read the above.
So what's Upright scoring on the scale now anyway, as we've got to the "they are afraid to debate me" state now.
We can't be that far away from a YouTube video? Or photocopied A4 sheet he'll give away on street corners?
And Upright, debate comes after you've published a definitive version of your claim. Tard. |
I got a mention even though I don't even read UD anymore?
I must have really hurt Upright BiPed's feelings over at The Skeptical Zone. I should meditate on the need to extend compassion even to screaming fuckwits those unable or unwilling to see the flaws in their deliberately evasive and nonsensical arguments.
Hmm, I seem to recall having an apology already written for a similar occasion . . .
| Quote | I was raised to be polite, which forces me to consider apologizing to the denizens of Uncommon Descent. However, with the exception of Mrs. O'Leary, who was unfailingly charming in our email exchanges, and Atom, who had not been involved in the discussions but chose to publicly distance himself from vjtorley's actions, there isn't a person there I'd be interested in even having a beer with. Given that, I have to ask myself, to whom should I apologize? Those who claim to be practicing science but refuse to support their claims? Those who continue to lie in the face of clear evidence of their mendacity? Those who quote mine and try to defend their dishonesty? Those who support pseudonymity "for me but not for thee"? Those who are trying so desperately to misappropriate the respect earned by science for their own undeserving religious beliefs? Those who are all too ready to clutch their pearls at some imagined etiquette transgression while hypocritically behaving unbelievably rudely themselves? Those who arrogantly mock what they clearly don't understand? Those willing to censor their opponents rather than address their arguments? Those misogynists who ignore arguments, replying instead "Go away, little girl"? Those who remain willfully ignorant despite the myriad educational resources available to them? Those who deliberately build an insular community to support these behaviors?
No, these people do not deserve an apology. While most supporters of Intelligent Design Creationism are simply parroting what they hear while sitting in their pews, the IDC proponents at Uncommon Descent have chosen to actively proselytize. Despite the disingenuous ways in which they engage with people knowledgeable about science, they can't help but be exposed to the deep flaws in their own arguments. They cannot claim ignorance. That leaves stupidity, insanity, or wickedness. I find that the evidence supports a combination of all three.
|
Yeah, I need to work on the compassion. |
In that thread, arrington barfed:
"UD Editors: No one has come close to refuting UB’s thesis after 129 comments. We are moving this post to the top of the page to give the materialists another chance."
129+ comments but how many are from "materialists"? Most "materialists" don't even know (or don't care) that UD or uptightbiped exist, and most "materialists" (one of arrington's labels for sane people) are blocked or have their posts deleted by arrington, or were banned long ago.
joey confirms that UD isn't interested in open and honest discussion:
"And Allan, seeing that you don’t have any evidence to support your position, what would you debate if you could post here?" (my bold)
And speaking of joey, he said:
"As I said we can determine designed or not without having to know how."
The IDiots ("we") can determine design without knowing how. Yeah, all science so far. And that statement admits that all the assertions the IDiots come up with about how to determine design are ineffective and useless.
joey also demonstrates what drinking hydrogen peroxide has done to his pea brain:
"The terms are clearly understood by anyone who A) knows how to use a dictionary (or the English language)..."
That, from an illiterate bumpkin.
And from the safety of the UD sanctuary, joey blustered:
"But that is because you guys are the big C, as in Cowards."
"How we are perceived by a bunch of equivocating intellectual cowards is of no consequence."
"Obviously you don’t care how you are perceived…"
Obviously joey is unable to perceive himself and his IDiot comrades.
--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
|
