RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 75 76 77 78 79 [80] 81 82 83 84 85 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Patrick



Posts: 666
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2012,16:04   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 06 2012,16:44)
A few hits from around the world on Gordo's blog is sufficient charge to keep his tin foil hat on for weeks:
 
Quote
Let us do an empirical test, since we know that the usual anti ID sites monitor us closely, and have a very wide audience that is literally global. (I know that though the pattern of hits on my personal blog when these sites try to play rhetorical games with what I have had to say.)


Hardly. Nobody is playing rhetorical games with what you have to say. We're just taking the piss.

One of these days kairosfocus et al. may come to realize that no one except the other inmates at UD takes them seriously.  The ability to not recognize that a large group of educated, intelligent people are laughing at you is a powerful psychological defense mechanism.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2012,16:05   

KairosFlatus:
 
Quote
<snip almost 500 words>

We could go on and on.

<snip nearly 900 words.>

We DO go on and on.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2012,17:05   

Rupert Sheldrake, quoted by DeNews:
Quote
“They were aware that if they called it The Science Delusion it would be seen as a rightwing tract that was anti-evolution and anti-climate change. And I want no part of that.”


As with James Shapiro, she might suffer a change of heart about Sheldrake when she finally gets around to reading what he said, instead of assuming that any iconoclast is going to be ID friendly.

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2012,21:27   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 06 2012,17:05)
KairosFlatus:
   
Quote
<snip almost 500 words>

We could go on and on.

<snip nearly 900 words.>

We DO go on and on.

AtBC needs a "like" button.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2012,22:14   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 06 2012,21:27)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 06 2012,17:05)
KairosFlatus:
   
Quote
<snip almost 500 words>

We could go on and on.

<snip nearly 900 words.>

We DO go on and on.

AtBC needs a "like" button.

AtBC needs a code monkey. Besides me.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2012,22:45   

2.1
Elizabeth Liddle
February 6, 2012 at 8:33 am

  Since the talking point is that to point to the inherent amorality and moral absurdity of evolutionary materialism is to target atheists as always immoral and to blame such for all the worlds ills

No, this is your talking point. Nobody is making this connection except you.

What some of us are trying to point out is that your accusation that people you call “evolutionary materialists” promote an amoral and “morally absurd” worldview is false.

But you insist on reading that as saying that you are accusing atheists of being immoral. We know you are not saying that.

It’s what you are saying that we are disputing.

We do not think our “worldview” is either amoral or morally absurd. In fact, some of us think that many Christian “worldviews” are, viz the moral absurdity of William Lane Craig claiming that an act that would normally be a wrong, e.g. genocide, is not wrong if it is commanded by God.

Moral absurdities don’t come much more morally absurd than that.


From here

--------------------------------------------------------


Okay, that does it. For quite awhile I've wondered what motivates you (Elizabeth Liddle) to even bother trying to discuss/debate anything with gordon mullings (kairosfocus), and I've also wondered if you have paid any attention to what he has been saying at UD, his blog, and elsewhere on the internet, for years, and whether you have standards that you're actually willing to firmly stand up for.

How you could possibly say this is beyond me:

"But you insist on reading that as saying that you are accusing atheists of being immoral. We know you are not saying that."

What?? "We" know no such thing. gordon e mullings absolutely, positively, without ANY doubt whatsoever DOES say that all atheists are immoral, amoral, evil, dangerous, destructive, sinful, abusive, dishonest, power hungry, dictatorial, murderous, tyrannical, genocidal, and a long list of other horrible things, and has been saying that for ages! His ENTIRE agenda is against atheists, or what HE perceives as atheists.  And he DOES say that atheism IS a worldview and is responsible for all the world's ills.

If anyone doesn't worship exactly the same dogma he does, in exactly the same way he does, and worship gordo as though HE is a god, and kiss his sanctimonious, LYING, dictatorial ass, then they are an evil, amoral, immoral atheist or the equivalent thereof. ANYTHING less than total, obedient, unquestioning, eager worship of him and his imaginary god is atheism, and is evil, to gordo. All of his word games with terms like evolutionary materialists, methodological naturalists, evolutionists, "Darwinists", etc., are just his LYING, deceptive way of bashing atheists. He uses the word 'atheists' or 'atheism' less on UD than he has elsewhere because he's deceptively trying to mask his real agenda. He also deceptively alters his other words on UD to make it look as though his agenda, and ID, are based on science.

The ONLY thing that drives gordo is his massively narcissistic god complex and his obsessive hatred of anyone who doesn't worship him, and he sees all such people as atheists who should be disposed of.

When it comes right down to it, gordo's imaginary god is just an excuse for him to believe that HE is THE one and only god and to act accordingly. 'Accordingly' meaning that he believes he has the absolute right to dictate and demand whatever HE wants. By claiming that he gets the rules and authority from some imaginary god, gordo is just trying to divert attention from the fact that the rules and authority are actually what HE wants to force on everyone on Earth, except himself of course. Like the imaginary god he touts, gordo obviously believes that HE is exempt from any rules, and from anyone else's authority.  

As someone who studies the brain, and mental illnesses, I'm surprised that you deal with gordo in the way you do. At times you stand up to him (sort of) but at other times you either tolerate his shit or downright cave in to him and his maniacal bullshit. You don't seem to understand much about men, and especially men who believe that they are a god, or are authorized agents of a god. To self-appointed gods (like gordo) you are just a weak, evil play toy, and an easy target for their chauvinistic, malignant narcissism. I see your weaknesses so I'm sure that they do. They are predators and, like lions, they are just waiting for their prey to show the slightest limp. When they see that limp they pounce, but unlike lions they do it because of their massive arrogance and desire to control everyone and everything.

Recently you said this to gordo:

"kf, first of all please don’t feel you have to apologise for anything :)"

When I saw that I was stunned, and I wrote up a comment about it and was going to post it either here and/or on my site, but I decided to let it sit for awhile. After seeing what you said in your comment above, I just had to say something. Ya see, I stand up against tyrannical monsters like gordon mullings and I make no apologies for it. I'm not afraid to take a firm stance on important matters, and it's an important matter to keep lunatics like gordo and the rest of the IDiots from destroying science and imposing their Dominionist agenda on the world. Trying to deal with narcissistic Dominionists (like gordon elliott mullings) with anything other than complete resistance, mockery, and exposure of their lies and insanity, is simply caving in to their arrogantly predatory and dictatorial behavior and agenda.

I strongly suggest that you read a lot more of what mullings has said on the internet over the years. Some of it is on my site. I also suggest that you make up your mind about what you stand for, and against, if anything.  

And speaking of things that gordo has said, here's an example:

"We must therefore pause to say that we have a Dominical warning to those who would put up such misleading that can deceive the innocent and naive: ’twere better that a millstone be put around their necks and that they would then fall into the deepest sea."

Want to guess at which people he would like to do that to?

--------------
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

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,05:51   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 07 2012,06:14)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 06 2012,21:27)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 06 2012,17:05)
KairosFlatus:
     
Quote
<snip almost 500 words>

We could go on and on.

<snip nearly 900 words.>

We DO go on and on.

AtBC needs a "like" button.

AtBC needs a code monkey. Besides me.

According to ID 10,000 Shakespeares couldn't make one code monkey.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,06:49   

Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 06 2012,22:45)
2.1
Elizabeth Liddle
February 6, 2012 at 8:33 am

[...]

From here

[...]


Twt:

I think the problem, such as it may be, is that Elizabeth is fundamentally good-natured. As such, I think she stands head and shoulders above the sanctimonious knobshiners that characterise much of the 'opposition' - the KFs and the BA77's and the UBs and - the latest contender vying for a place in the Top 5 contentious UD ass stakes - the Axels. The people who claim submission to a higher standard and then proceed to debase that standard by their attitude to fellow human beings. There are honourable exceptions.

She sticks up for herself, by her own lights. I too was amazed when she offered an apology to KF after the inexcusable 'derail'/Mr Leathers rant, but ... it's different for girls. I hope that isn't patronising. I would eat my own gonads rather than apologise to any of the many dipshits who have chosen to denigrate my intellect or motivation rather than address my arguments. My wife would just laugh.

Liz enjoys the argument. She's aware that banning is ever-present, and - whatever her reasons for posting, in what is really a matter for individual choice - calling KF would lead to it in fairly short order.

Everyone could perhaps just leave UD to shrivel in a succession of 1-or-2-comment bits of 'News'. It's only the 'materialists' that stir up any real interest in a thread - and that very interest makes the denizens think their movement is a significant force - they don't realise it is simply individuals arguing against bad philosophy and bad science, mostly for fun.

I can't even be arsed reading threads that KF is participating in. Life is too short to penetrate that god-awful prose. But if Elizabeth is prepared to dissect his arguments ... she will naver make him see what he is, but it serves to bring it to the attention of others.

I do wonder how the 'moderates' feel about the way their case is pursued.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,06:50   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 06 2012,23:14)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 06 2012,21:27)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 06 2012,17:05)
KairosFlatus:
     
Quote
<snip almost 500 words>

We could go on and on.

<snip nearly 900 words.>

We DO go on and on.

AtBC needs a "like" button.

AtBC needs a code monkey. Besides me.

If we had a like button, I would have liked this comment.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,06:57   

Quote
.....Recently you said this to gordo:

"kf, first of all please don’t feel you have to apologise for anything :)"
.....


? Bizzaro world

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....DZNbOs0

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Patrick



Posts: 666
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,07:42   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 07 2012,07:49)
Everyone could perhaps just leave UD to shrivel in a succession of 1-or-2-comment bits of 'News'. It's only the 'materialists' that stir up any real interest in a thread - and that very interest makes the denizens think their movement is a significant force - they don't realise it is simply individuals arguing against bad philosophy and bad science, mostly for fun.

I personally would love to see what would happen at UD if all reality-based commenters would take a two month sabbatical.  It will never happen, unfortunately, for the reason famously summarized by xkcd:



Quote
I can't even be arsed reading threads that KF is participating in. Life is too short to penetrate that god-awful prose. But if Elizabeth is prepared to dissect his arguments ... she will naver make him see what he is, but it serves to bring it to the attention of others.

I do wonder how the 'moderates' feel about the way their case is pursued.

This would be an interesting question for a suicidal sock to raise.

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,08:02   

Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 07 2012,07:42)




:D :D

I used to cheerfully pass by wrong people in the street, and never even knew. Damn you, internet!

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,08:15   

I personally like the weeks when UD devolves into culture war. It highlights the fact that religion is what motivates them. It assures the outcome of any Dover II.

It is boring, though.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,08:44   

Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 06 2012,22:45)
Okay, that does it. For quite awhile I've wondered what motivates you (Elizabeth Liddle) to even bother trying to discuss/debate anything with gordon mullings (kairosfocus), and I've also wondered if you have paid any attention to what he has been saying at UD, his blog, and elsewhere on the internet, for years, and whether you have standards that you're actually willing to firmly stand up for.

How you could possibly say this is beyond me:

"But you insist on reading that as saying that you are accusing atheists of being immoral. We know you are not saying that."

I should not have used "we" and I apologise.  But it seemed to me that he had, repeatedly, made the point that he thinks we all have consciences, and are therefore capable of behaving morally, and that the is not therefore accusing atheists of being immoral, or amoral.

I'm prepared to accept that.

But he keeps on avoiding the real charge by erecting the straw man that I am accusing him of accusing atheists of being amoral.

I'm not.  I'm accusing him of accusing atheists of promoting an amoral worldview, which he is.

As for telling him he doesn't need to apologise: he doesn't.  he keeps starting his posts with things like "pardon" or "this will be painful but..."

It's totally unnecessary.  Indeed, it's quite insulting.  He is not hurting me by saying these things, because he has no authority over me, and, in any case, he is simply wrong.

So I'd far rather he dropped the apology.

If he wants to apologise for repeatedly accusing atheists of promoting an amoral worldview, that's fine.  I should have been more specific.

I simply meant it in regard to what he had actually apologised for, which I  assumed the context made clear, but in retrospect, does not.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,09:05   

My brief and hypocritical experiments in sock-puppetry during the latter part of 2011 have only reinforced my conviction that any participation at UD, whether it be for fun or profit, is ultimately counter-productive.

My long standing desire to watch the place wither and die remains true, and so one of my new years resolutions is to never disturb their site-counters again. I've cracked a few times when someone has posted something so ball crushingly dumb that I simply had to look. But, like any bad habit you keep on trying.

And so, much like the good old days, my only evidence that UD still exists will be the fragmentary, exasperated dispatches from those brave, reckless souls who can mine the TARD seemingly without injury.

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,09:10   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 07 2012,06:50)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 06 2012,23:14)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 06 2012,21:27)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 06 2012,17:05)
KairosFlatus:
       
Quote
<snip almost 500 words>

We could go on and on.

<snip nearly 900 words.>

We DO go on and on.

AtBC needs a "like" button.

AtBC needs a code monkey. Besides me.

If we had a like button, I would have liked this comment.

Wish I could monkey around in a way that Wes would like.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,09:18   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 07 2012,04:49)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 06 2012,22:45)
2.1
Elizabeth Liddle
February 6, 2012 at 8:33 am

[...]

From here

[...]


Twt:

I think the problem, such as it may be, is that Elizabeth is fundamentally good-natured. As such, I think she stands head and shoulders above the sanctimonious knobshiners that characterise much of the 'opposition' - the KFs and the BA77's and the UBs and - the latest contender vying for a place in the Top 5 contentious UD ass stakes - the Axels. The people who claim submission to a higher standard and then proceed to debase that standard by their attitude to fellow human beings. There are honourable exceptions.

She sticks up for herself, by her own lights. I too was amazed when she offered an apology to KF after the inexcusable 'derail'/Mr Leathers rant, but ... it's different for girls. I hope that isn't patronising. I would eat my own gonads rather than apologise to any of the many dipshits who have chosen to denigrate my intellect or motivation rather than address my arguments. My wife would just laugh.

Liz enjoys the argument. She's aware that banning is ever-present, and - whatever her reasons for posting, in what is really a matter for individual choice - calling KF would lead to it in fairly short order.

Everyone could perhaps just leave UD to shrivel in a succession of 1-or-2-comment bits of 'News'. It's only the 'materialists' that stir up any real interest in a thread - and that very interest makes the denizens think their movement is a significant force - they don't realise it is simply individuals arguing against bad philosophy and bad science, mostly for fun.

I can't even be arsed reading threads that KF is participating in. Life is too short to penetrate that god-awful prose. But if Elizabeth is prepared to dissect his arguments ... she will naver make him see what he is, but it serves to bring it to the attention of others.

I do wonder how the 'moderates' feel about the way their case is pursued.

Hi Sam, I'm not quite sure how to put this into written words that will accurately convey my thoughts but I'll try. I have considered what you said about EL, and I have put a lot of thought into trying to understand her motives and the way she deals with the IDiots at UD. While it does appear (at UD) that she is fundamentally good-natured, I get a different impression after looking at some of the things she has said on other sites, at least to the point where I have a hard time believing that her approach at UD is just because of good natured-ness, or naivety, or because she's a she. And when it comes to the ever present specter of banning at UD, well, I don't see that as any excuse for anyone to tolerate or cave into their malicious false accusations, massive hypocrisy, lies, distortions, dictatorial demands, or any of their other bullshit.

Being a woman is no excuse either. For decades women have been shoving it in men's faces that they are equal, don't need a man, can take care of themselves, and so on, plus EL is a well educated, accomplished person, and is a specialist in mental disorders, and is married to a psychiatrist, and is very experienced at internet debating, and seems to be able to be quite blunt on other sites.

I'm pretty sure that I've thought of all the reasons that could motivate her to post at UD at all, and also the possible reasons for the way in which she responds to mullings and the other IDiots, and frankly, I can't think of any good reason for her to tolerate or cave into mullings or any of the other IDiots.  Unless she wants to be an enabler, or a masochist, there's no good reason to take the shit that mullings and the other IDiots dish out. She has been insulted, ridiculed, accused of being a liar and other derogatory thing many times, and many of those things were thrown at her by mullings, yet she said that he has nothing to apologize for?? That isn't being good-natured, it's being submissive and enabling.

For awhile I thought like many others have. I thought that she was doing pretty well at showing that the IDiots don't have a clue and that they are the ones who don't live up to their alleged morals and other claims of being the 'good guys', but lately I've realized that she isn't accomplishing anything worthwhile there anymore and is just making herself an easy target and a doormat for those predatory assholes. Of course she can do whatever she likes and I can't stop her but I wish that she would rethink the way that she deals with the IDiots at UD, or just stop posting there at all. She could be more effective by posting elsewhere, like her own blog, where the dipshits at UD have no control.  

I have jumped on mullings and the other IDiots for the way they have treated her, many times, mostly on my site, but I'm having a hard time feeling that way anymore. The knight in shining armor in me wants to defend her but I'm also feeling that she is willingly putting herself in their clutches, and especially when she caves into them. I will continue to jump on the IDiots for their intolerable behavior but I will resist defending her personally, and will not defend her just because she's a woman. I want to add that I also wouldn't pick on anyone just because they're a woman.

I have a hard time standing up for someone who isn't willing to stand up for themselves, unless they're unable to for some reason, but I really don't think that EL is unable to. I would think that she should realize that showing any weakness to those arrogant god-wannabes is not going to do any good. Like you said, she will never make mullings (or any other IDiot) see what he is, and especially when she caters to his dictatorial insanity in any way. I also think that gordo and the other IDiots will do just fine at showing how fucked up they are without her dissecting their arguments at UD. If they were left to themselves at UD, the site would go back to being as dead as it used to be, and if no one were responding to them at UD the IDiots would have to step out of their echo-chamber sanctuary if they want to argue their bullshit with anyone other than the handful of other IDiots there. Like you also said, it's only the 'materialists' that stir up any real interest in a thread.

I realize that not everyone will agree with me (maybe no one will) but I have to speak up when something really bugs me.

--------------
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

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,09:46   

Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 07 2012,09:18)
I have a hard time standing up for someone who isn't willing to stand up for themselves, unless they're unable to for some reason, but I really don't think that EL is unable to. I would think that she should realize that showing any weakness to those arrogant god-wannabes is not going to do any good. Like you said, she will never make mullings (or any other IDiot) see what he is, and especially when she caters to his dictatorial insanity in any way. I also think that gordo and the other IDiots will do just fine at showing how fucked up they are without her dissecting their arguments at UD. .

I believe you have made two fatal errors here. First, you are assuming she is being submissive. Second, you are assuming she is arguing with them in order to convince them that they are wrong.

On the first count, I see EL's debating style as a form of jujitsu.  They (and apparently you) expect a frontal assault. But, rather than giving them what they want (an excuse to ban her), she kills them with kindness.  She is able to effectively eviscerate them without even their knowing it.  Their continued outrage and insults only make them look the worse, while her calm tone adds more weight behind what she is saying.

To the second point, I am pretty sure she knows that she will never convince them of anything.  However, her comments will stand as a testament to reason for future onlookers (!) to see as long as UD stands.  All they have is sciency sounding arguments that, when left by themselves, are convincing to the incredulous.  Her comments, and the vile responses they receive, lay bear the ignorance and mean-spiritedness at the core of UD. So, it is far better to have her there, pulling apart their "arguments" than it is to leave them alone for future websurfers to find convincing in the absence of any counterpoint.

In short: Elizabeth is a fucking ninja.



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,09:50   

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 07 2012,08:44)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 06 2012,22:45)
Okay, that does it. For quite awhile I've wondered what motivates you (Elizabeth Liddle) to even bother trying to discuss/debate anything with gordon mullings (kairosfocus), and I've also wondered if you have paid any attention to what he has been saying at UD, his blog, and elsewhere on the internet, for years, and whether you have standards that you're actually willing to firmly stand up for.

How you could possibly say this is beyond me:

"But you insist on reading that as saying that you are accusing atheists of being immoral. We know you are not saying that."

I should not have used "we" and I apologise.  But it seemed to me that he had, repeatedly, made the point that he thinks we all have consciences, and are therefore capable of behaving morally, and that the is not therefore accusing atheists of being immoral, or amoral.

I'm prepared to accept that.

But he keeps on avoiding the real charge by erecting the straw man that I am accusing him of accusing atheists of being amoral.

I'm not.  I'm accusing him of accusing atheists of promoting an amoral worldview, which he is.

As for telling him he doesn't need to apologise: he doesn't.  he keeps starting his posts with things like "pardon" or "this will be painful but..."

It's totally unnecessary.  Indeed, it's quite insulting.  He is not hurting me by saying these things, because he has no authority over me, and, in any case, he is simply wrong.

So I'd far rather he dropped the apology.

If he wants to apologise for repeatedly accusing atheists of promoting an amoral worldview, that's fine.  I should have been more specific.

I simply meant it in regard to what he had actually apologised for, which I  assumed the context made clear, but in retrospect, does not.

Just my own two drachmas, Lizzie, but you might consider posting what you just wrote here. This seems much clearer and to the point to me.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,10:09   

Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 07 2012,09:18)
Hi Sam, I'm not quite sure how to put this into written words that will accurately convey my thoughts but I'll try. I have considered what you said about EL, and I have put a lot of thought into trying to understand her motives and the way she deals with the IDiots at UD. While it does appear (at UD) that she is fundamentally good-natured, I get a different impression after looking at some of the things she has said on other sites, at least to the point where I have a hard time believing that her approach at UD is just because of good natured-ness, or naivety, or because she's a she. And when it comes to the ever present specter of banning at UD, well, I don't see that as any excuse for anyone to tolerate or cave into their malicious false accusations, massive hypocrisy, lies, distortions, dictatorial demands, or any of their other bullshit.

Being a woman is no excuse either. For decades women have been shoving it in men's faces that they are equal, don't need a man, can take care of themselves, and so on, plus EL is a well educated, accomplished person, and is a specialist in mental disorders, and is married to a psychiatrist, and is very experienced at internet debating, and seems to be able to be quite blunt on other sites.

I'm pretty sure that I've thought of all the reasons that could motivate her to post at UD at all, and also the possible reasons for the way in which she responds to mullings and the other IDiots, and frankly, I can't think of any good reason for her to tolerate or cave into mullings or any of the other IDiots.  Unless she wants to be an enabler, or a masochist, there's no good reason to take the shit that mullings and the other IDiots dish out. She has been insulted, ridiculed, accused of being a liar and other derogatory thing many times, and many of those things were thrown at her by mullings, yet she said that he has nothing to apologize for?? That isn't being good-natured, it's being submissive and enabling.

For awhile I thought like many others have. I thought that she was doing pretty well at showing that the IDiots don't have a clue and that they are the ones who don't live up to their alleged morals and other claims of being the 'good guys', but lately I've realized that she isn't accomplishing anything worthwhile there anymore and is just making herself an easy target and a doormat for those predatory assholes. Of course she can do whatever she likes and I can't stop her but I wish that she would rethink the way that she deals with the IDiots at UD, or just stop posting there at all. She could be more effective by posting elsewhere, like her own blog, where the dipshits at UD have no control.  

I have jumped on mullings and the other IDiots for the way they have treated her, many times, mostly on my site, but I'm having a hard time feeling that way anymore. The knight in shining armor in me wants to defend her but I'm also feeling that she is willingly putting herself in their clutches, and especially when she caves into them. I will continue to jump on the IDiots for their intolerable behavior but I will resist defending her personally, and will not defend her just because she's a woman. I want to add that I also wouldn't pick on anyone just because they're a woman.

I have a hard time standing up for someone who isn't willing to stand up for themselves, unless they're unable to for some reason, but I really don't think that EL is unable to. I would think that she should realize that showing any weakness to those arrogant god-wannabes is not going to do any good. Like you said, she will never make mullings (or any other IDiot) see what he is, and especially when she caters to his dictatorial insanity in any way. I also think that gordo and the other IDiots will do just fine at showing how fucked up they are without her dissecting their arguments at UD. If they were left to themselves at UD, the site would go back to being as dead as it used to be, and if no one were responding to them at UD the IDiots would have to step out of their echo-chamber sanctuary if they want to argue their bullshit with anyone other than the handful of other IDiots there. Like you also said, it's only the 'materialists' that stir up any real interest in a thread.

I realize that not everyone will agree with me (maybe no one will) but I have to speak up when something really bugs me.

I think you're overlooking the simple, but elegant answer, Truth. I think that the way Lizzie responds is how Lizzie has chosen to respond in that venue. I don't think her reason for how she responds need be any more complex than that.

As for why she responds, I think she's been very upfront about that - she enjoys thinking about and engaging in such discussions (arguments, lambastings, feeding frenzies, troll fests, call-it-what-you-will) because she finds thinking about and writing about such subjects and inquiries enjoyable. It's no different than the enjoyment some folks get from Sudoku, mahjong, video games, or sex. Your mileage may vary as for as enjoyment goes, but for Lizzie, it's something she can do between work activities that doesn't require setting a timer or taking a shower.

The fact is Lizzie is smart...far more clever than I think most give her credit. Her methods may have something to do with her being female, but I really doubt it. I think it has a heck of lot more to do with her overall personality and her professional training. The subject and discussion engage her mind. And since, as she's noted, she's developed a rather thick skin over the years from her work world, I take her at her word when she says that the tone - for the most part - doesn't much bother her. So far, the only thing I've seen her rise at was repeatedly being called a liar. Beyond that, I've not seen much that even got a twitch.

I'll tell you, I for one really appreciate her behavior. Personally, I could really use a does of that kind of patience and personality.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,10:17   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 07 2012,09:46)
I believe you have made two fatal errors here. First, you are assuming she is being submissive. Second, you are assuming she is arguing with them in order to convince them that they are wrong.

On the first count, I see EL's debating style as a form of jujitsu.  They (and apparently you) expect a frontal assault. But, rather than giving them what they want (an excuse to ban her), she kills them with kindness.  She is able to effectively eviscerate them without even their knowing it.  Their continued outrage and insults only make them look the worse, while her calm tone adds more weight behind what she is saying.

To the second point, I am pretty sure she knows that she will never convince them of anything.  However, her comments will stand as a testament to reason for future onlookers (!) to see as long as UD stands.  All they have is sciency sounding arguments that, when left by themselves, are convincing to the incredulous.  Her comments, and the vile responses they receive, lay bear the ignorance and mean-spiritedness at the core of UD. So, it is far better to have her there, pulling apart their "arguments" than it is to leave them alone for future websurfers to find convincing in the absence of any counterpoint.

In short: Elizabeth is a fucking ninja.

You know what's really scary (in an ironic kind of way)? Her actions are really a duplicate of how Jesus treated the Pharisees and Sadducees. Maybe she's a Messiah Ninja?

I will be selling all my possessions and going into hiding if I see her use the phrase, "you've heard it said (or written)...but I say..." That will be it for it for me.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,10:26   

I could do, but it's old news now, and I've got better things to do.

FWIW, I don't think I'm "submissive " at all - I think that's a wrong reading completely.  It might be to do with being female, but not because females are doormats, but because on the whole (I'd say) we don't do that dick-measuring thing.

tbh, I honestly don't notice half the time if someone is playing power games, because I am genuinely not interested in power games, especially virtual power games. Why should I care if someone else thinks they are superior to me?  It's their problem, not mine.   The only thing that seems to really get my goat, personally, is being accused of lying, and that's because it undermines the entire discourse.

I'm interested in why people think what they do, and why they come to different conclusions from the ones I come to.  If I see a fallacious argument, I want to expose the fallacy.  If someone points out a fallacy in my own argument, I'm grateful to have it pointed out.

If someone says something that I think is immoral, or dangerous, I say so.  I use blunter language on some sites than others, but tbh, I'm bluntest with people I basically like, which is very unfair I guess, but I guess I trust them not to be offended.

But that doesn't stop me saying what I think when someone attempts to defend the indefensible.  I'm still truly shocked by the defense of William Lane Craig at UD.  I was shocked enough to read his essay when Dawkins linked to it on the Guardian, but naively thought: wow, this will disabuse anyone of the notion that his is a "Reasonable Faith".

Yet, it was Dawkins who got it in the neck.  

Mind you, it was pretty stupid of Dawkins to tie it to his refusal to debate Craig.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,10:40   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 07 2012,06:15)
I personally like the weeks when UD devolves into culture war.

There are other weeks?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,10:54   

Gordo explains how to be *sure* it's really god telling you to eat that baby:

 
Quote
I would suggest that the real answer is that one discerns the voice of God, from self, from delusion, by reason of long term growth in relationship, so that one has a rational intuition that this is the real deal.

And what does god say to you Gordo?
 
Quote
That is going to require a long term growth in virtue and building a confidence based on experience that shows this is not delusion but he real deal.

Not sure I follow you there Gordo. The problem is that people with delusions, are, well, delusional. That's the problem.
 
Quote
As a specifically Bible-believing Christian, I think it was well said that when God speaks, he speaks truth, which will correspond to reality, and will open eyes to the right; as opposed to the easy way. If you are hearing a voice from your head, or on the radio, or a pulpit, or a lecturer’s podium or a political platform, or wherever, that is tickling you ear with what you want to hear as opposed to calling you to the difficult path of the right, that is NOT the voice of God.

The reality is that to the Nazis the Jews were sub-human. Therefore god telling Nazis to massacre Jews would have been truth, corresponding to reality.

Hmm, let's try that again.
 
Quote
I think we can all easily enough recognise the voice of God in scripture, and in conscience aligned with the right, and in circumstances. if we are willing to humble ourselves and yield to the correction implied in that.

Yes, Gordo, because we know that you believe that homosexuals are immoral. The people that don't think that are obviously in need of correction.
 
Quote
Consistently, the pull is going to be to the right, not the easy path. The rule I learned long ago now was look for alignment of well tested and warranted trustworthy Scripture, circumstances and whatever personal, subjective sense of leading or voice — inner, outer, pulpit, lecturer’s podium, politician’s platform — one hears.

So, to Gordo, god is a voice that tells him what he already knows.

Thank fuck this idiot will never be in a position of power over anybody except his own children (poor bastards).
Tard.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,11:00   

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 07 2012,10:26)
Mind you, it was pretty stupid of Dawkins to tie it to his refusal to debate Craig.

Quite so. I wish Dawkins had just said he doesn't have any interest in debating self-appointed celebrities/authorities. Dawkins could easily have noted that such is a waste of his and those interested in actual science's time, noting that that if he agreed to debate Craig, on what grounds could he refuse to debate Tom Cruise on Scientology or Abu Qatada on Islam or any other celebrity who wanted attention for some pet cause. He should have said something to that effect and been done.

Personally, I'd love to know why anyone on the side of legitimate science ever bothers to engage in such debates. What are they suppose to accomplish? The two or so debate transcripts I've read seem to me to offer nothing compelling by either side and two in particular that come to mind demonstrate that the participants are merely talking about two completely separate subjects and that neither rebutted or countered anything the other had to say.

I say if creationists/apologists/ID proponents/etc want to debate the merits of their views and claims with scientists, they need to do so in a court of law where the outcome has real consequences for those who put forth stupid, illogical, and/or dishonest points.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Patrick



Posts: 666
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,11:12   

Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 07 2012,10:05)
My long standing desire to watch the place wither and die remains true, and so one of my new years resolutions is to never disturb their site-counters again. I've cracked a few times when someone has posted something so ball crushingly dumb that I simply had to look. But, like any bad habit you keep on trying.

I had hoped that Google's Sidewiki would provide a widely used alternative mechanism for commenting on UD posts.  Sadly, it has been discontinued.  I do think it is still the right approach; the compulsion to respond to the brazen idiocy, hypocrisy, ignorance, and outright dishonesty at UD ensures a small but steady stream of non-delusional participants.

It would be interesting to set up a site specifically for discussing UD posts and comments, with links back to the original material.  This would meet the needs of those who can't resist the urge to correct the UD denizens and preserve the very interesting and valuable content they produce while denying UD both the traffic and the ability to censor the discussion.

If anyone else thinks this could work, uncensoreddescent.org is available.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,11:16   

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 07 2012,06:44)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 06 2012,22:45)
Okay, that does it. For quite awhile I've wondered what motivates you (Elizabeth Liddle) to even bother trying to discuss/debate anything with gordon mullings (kairosfocus), and I've also wondered if you have paid any attention to what he has been saying at UD, his blog, and elsewhere on the internet, for years, and whether you have standards that you're actually willing to firmly stand up for.

How you could possibly say this is beyond me:

"But you insist on reading that as saying that you are accusing atheists of being immoral. We know you are not saying that."

I should not have used "we" and I apologise.  But it seemed to me that he had, repeatedly, made the point that he thinks we all have consciences, and are therefore capable of behaving morally, and that the is not therefore accusing atheists of being immoral, or amoral.

I'm prepared to accept that.

But he keeps on avoiding the real charge by erecting the straw man that I am accusing him of accusing atheists of being amoral.

I'm not.  I'm accusing him of accusing atheists of promoting an amoral worldview, which he is.

As for telling him he doesn't need to apologise: he doesn't.  he keeps starting his posts with things like "pardon" or "this will be painful but..."

It's totally unnecessary.  Indeed, it's quite insulting.  He is not hurting me by saying these things, because he has no authority over me, and, in any case, he is simply wrong.

So I'd far rather he dropped the apology.

If he wants to apologise for repeatedly accusing atheists of promoting an amoral worldview, that's fine.  I should have been more specific.

I simply meant it in regard to what he had actually apologised for, which I  assumed the context made clear, but in retrospect, does not.

Dr. Liddle, please go to my site and read the two 'Hey gordo, FOR RECORD' posts on the front page. Then come back and try to convince me that mullings doesn't accuse atheists of being immoral or amoral, and that he isn't as phony as a three dollar bill. And if those two posts aren't enough, read all the other posts about mullings. And if those aren't enough, I'll point you to some sites where you can read a lot more of his accusatory, dishonest, two-faced, dictatorial insanity.

Playing games with words, like "atheists of being amoral" vs "atheists of promoting an amoral worldview" or any of the other ways of saying the SAME thing is ridiculous. It's one thing when gordo does it, since he's a dishonest, deranged, word twisting lunatic with delusions of god-hood, but for you to play along with that game or let him get away with it is just plain wrong.

I don't care how many ways mullings twists his words into whatever dishonest bullshit he thinks he can get away with. ALL that matters is that he OBVIOUSLY believes that atheists are exactly the same as evolutionary materialists and methodological naturalists and evolutionists and "Darwinists" and nihilists and Marxists and nazis and communists and  evidentialists and democrats and many others (including many other religious people), and that all of them are equally evil evil evil and should be disposed of. He uses lots of labels but his underlying agenda is to rid the world of ANYONE who doesn't worship him as the all-knowing god that he thinks he is. What REALLY bothers gordo is that he is not all-powerful, but he sure does want to be and sure is trying to be.

Regardless of all the labels he applies to people, it all boils down to: atheism, or at least what he perceives as atheism, and the amorality/immorality that he applies to it. The same thing goes for the rest of the IDiots.

I am astounded that you would think that his "pardon" and "this will be painful but..." are actual apologies. They are part of his GAME. They are FALSE. They are condescending, dishonest, insincere, mopey, deceptive, pompous, self-serving CRAP. I don't believe for a nanosecond that mullings has even the slightest bit of a conscience. He doesn't care one iota whether he hurts anyone who doesn't agree with every stinking word he spews, and I really don't believe that he cares about anyone other than himself AT ALL, even if they do agree with him. Anything he says that might indicate that he cares about anyone other than himself is a facade. The negative, accusatory, malicious things he says FAR outweigh everything else. I have read hundreds of thousands of his words and it's practically impossible to find anything positive and especially anything positive that he actually means.

He would say anything, and play any game, no matter how phony it is, especially at UD, to make it look as though he is a moral, upstanding person who just wants to cure all the world's problems, but he's NOT a moral, upstanding person. I doubt that I've ever encountered anyone who is more amoral/immoral, fake, and downright despicable than gordon e mullings, and I've encountered some really rotten people during my 60 year life.

--------------
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

   
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,11:20   

I agree that they are not apologies.  That's why I said he didn't need to make them.  I should have been clearer.

I apologise.

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,11:38   

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 07 2012,11:20)
I agree that they are not apologies.  That's why I said he didn't need to make them.  I should have been clearer.

I apologise.

http://www.flixya.com/video....Much-13

 :p

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2012,13:05   

Weikert:
Quote
Though they are self-identified evangelicals, their book, published by a division of Harvard University Press, mercilessly pillories many leading American evangelicals of more conservative stripe for their “anti-intellectualism” and opposition to secular knowledge. Ironically, one accusation against their more conservative evangelical foes is that the conservatives are combative and prone to divisiveness. These evangelicals, whom they sometimes tar with the term fundamentalist, allegedly thrive by creating “out-groups” as enemies. This seems to me a rather hypocritical stance, since The Anointed is one of the most polemical, combative books I have read in quite a while.


Shorter Weikert: "Thinking bad!  Fundamentalist something made up to tar nonthinkers!  Book combative because criticize nonthinker!"

Quote
If Stephens and Giberson had written their book a century earlier, they could have blasted conservative evangelicals for rejecting the eugenics movement and compulsory sterilization for the disabled, which many secular intellectuals considered progressive and scientific. Secular intellectuals do not agree among themselves on many issues, especially moral issues, so why are we required to embrace whatever is the majority view of the secular elite at any given time?


Shorter Weikert:"Accept assertion - me historian! Why listen to thinkers?"

Quote
Fourth, even the greatest intellectuals should have enough humility to admit that they could be mistaken, especially when they are using data to extrapolate into the past or future, or when they are taking moral stances. I do not see why the doomsday scenarios of some scientists who are feted by the secular world should be taken any more seriously than the doomsday scenarios of end-time enthusiasts lampooned by Stephens and Giberson. Nor do I see why moral statements by secular intellectuals (about homosexuality or child-training) should be swallowed unquestioned by evangelicals. Do Stephens and Giberson think we should follow most secular intellectuals in their rejection of objective morality altogether? Why or why not?


Shorter Weikert:"Thinking may be wrong - don't take chance!  Thinking bad! Bad scenario based on make believe as good as reason!  Ask why, but not mean it!"

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < ... 75 76 77 78 79 [80] 81 82 83 84 85 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]