Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Vox Day: Alpha Fail. started by Richardthughes


Posted by: Richardthughes on July 31 2008,17:11

I've been swinging by his den of bible thumping, science denying, racist, misogynistic tools - and it's great. I've not been so excited since I stumbled across uncommon descent. If they're not bashing evilution, they're banging on about the perils of naturalism, and how angels might be messing with stuff. All the time, Vox pomps and preens - very much like DaveTard. I shall be updating here from time to time, but if you're a Tardaholic like me, your boats come in..

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/ >


Ps - this is him:



Bonus: Funny thread @ Ed's.

< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....ntsArea >

Edited.
Posted by: EyeNoU on July 31 2008,17:38

Didn't Vox virtually guarantee us that Hilary would get Dem nomination? That one's not looking too good about now......
Posted by: Assassinator on July 31 2008,17:50

You're forgetting the halo and the wings on that photo Richard ;)
Anyway, good stuff, especially because it keeps amazing me how things like that can still thrive...
Posted by: deadman_932 on July 31 2008,18:16

"Vox" is Theodore Beale, a spoiled rich kid -- son of multi-millionaire Jesus Freak and Federal Inmate (tax evasion)  Robert Beale. He's also a wanna-be S-F writer and general idiot.

Lots of verbiage, damned little substance to his posts -- either on his blog or on Watta Nut Daily. I was amused, though, by < this "column" on PZ Myers > and "Crackergate" posted: July 14, 2008.

"Vox" gazes into his crystal balls and ventures that  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"what actually demonstrates the cowardly nature of this self-aggrandizing atheist [PZ Myers, natch] is the fact that there is no chance that he will follow through on his anti-cracker threats now that it is clear there may be material consequences, however minor, to his actions.

The saltines are safe, for just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there is no vow that the militant atheist will not violate if he perceives any risk to his material well-being.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, that worked out real well for you, "MENSA" boy.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 31 2008,19:28

I've always been a fan of his 'psycho with a dead animal on his head' photo:



Brags about being in Mensa? Mohawk? Sci-fi fan? Thinks women* who get raped 'asked for it'? He must be a devil with the ladies.


(*who, by the way, shouldn't vote.)
Posted by: Moorit on July 31 2008,19:52

I went over there and let's just say it's going to take a gallon or two of bleach for my brain to ever be as it was pre-exposure.

I did like the description in the comments on "Dispatches...."

"Someone, maybe Orac, issued my favorite quote about Day/Beale: How can you take anything seriously written by a guy with a merkin on his head? (or words to that effect)"
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 31 2008,21:27

anyway Rich we're still waiting.  

and waiting.

gymnastics?  rofl
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 31 2008,22:01

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 31 2008,21:27)
anyway Rich we're still waiting.  

and waiting.

gymnastics?  rofl
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


EU = Nazi Germany, obviously.

< http://www.mg.co.za/article....ism-law >
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on Aug. 01 2008,04:21

I read his book, < The Irrational Atheist. > It wasn't as bad as some people were saying it was. But I do recommend that you skip the first chapter and focus on the stuff after it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 01 2008,09:30




*excited!*
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 01 2008,10:27

Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Aug. 01 2008,04:21)
I read his book, < The Irrational Atheist. > It wasn't as bad as some people were saying it was. But I do recommend that you skip the first chapter and focus on the stuff after it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe Reciprocating Bill read it as well.  I can't remember what thread he put his review on--I think it was the Unreasonable Kansans thread, but it could have been the Ftk research thread.

IIRC, he seemed to think it missed the boat quite often: not actually making the case against each atheist's argument.  At least the bits he quoted seemed to have much better sentence structure and meaningful content than Denise O'Leary.  It's something, anyway.

You seem to have liked it somewhat better.  Perhaps I'll have  a go at it when I'm on the road this fall.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Aug. 01 2008,12:40

Vox Day = (Heddle x GoP) - Brain
Posted by: Badger3k on Aug. 02 2008,15:51

Quote (blipey @ Aug. 01 2008,10:27)
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Aug. 01 2008,04:21)
I read his book, < The Irrational Atheist. > It wasn't as bad as some people were saying it was. But I do recommend that you skip the first chapter and focus on the stuff after it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe Reciprocating Bill read it as well.  I can't remember what thread he put his review on--I think it was the Unreasonable Kansans thread, but it could have been the Ftk research thread.

IIRC, he seemed to think it missed the boat quite often: not actually making the case against each atheist's argument.  At least the bits he quoted seemed to have much better sentence structure and meaningful content than Denise O'Leary.  It's something, anyway.

You seem to have liked it somewhat better.  Perhaps I'll have  a go at it when I'm on the road this fall.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can get it for free from his site (there's a link somewhere) in pdf format.  I have it but have not read it.  

There was a blogger who took the time to read it and dissect it, and that may be in wherever the older post is, but Austin Cline has a lot of Vox, including a bit on his book (http://atheism.about.com/sitesearch.htm?terms=vox&SUName=atheism&TopNode=99).

I think it was Evangelical Realism (link to the old blog, but posts continue if I read correctly - < http://realevang.wordpress.com/) > - look for TIA tuesday.
Posted by: Steverino on Aug. 03 2008,08:41

Richardthughes:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...but if you're a Tardaholic like me, your boats come in..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's my favorite quote of the month!  Now, that's a keeper!!!

I disagree on one point, Vox while a complete tool-bag, is very intelligent.  He does, however, lack the ability to interpret information without his religious biased.

Facts make sense to him except when they are contrary to his religious, emotional beliefs.  Then they are just complete lies.

P.S.  I love this pic...What a pretentious douche bag.



I bet this pic is a huge hit with all his Dungeons and Dragons buddies
Posted by: Wolfhound on Aug. 03 2008,09:35

Quote (Steverino @ Aug. 03 2008,08:41)
P.S.  I love this pic...What a pretentious douche bag.



I bet this pic is a huge hit with all his Dungeons and Dragons buddies
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think this is the photo that FtK takes into the bathroom with her.  Wink-wink.
Posted by: Badger3k on Aug. 03 2008,20:54

Quote (Steverino @ Aug. 03 2008,08:41)
I bet this pic is a huge hit with all his Dungeons and Dragons buddies
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, I would have thought Tunnels and Trolls myself :)
Posted by: Shirley Knott on Aug. 04 2008,09:12

Quote (Badger3k @ Aug. 03 2008,20:54)
Quote (Steverino @ Aug. 03 2008,08:41)
I bet this pic is a huge hit with all his Dungeons and Dragons buddies
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, I would have thought Tunnels and Trolls myself :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, come on -- clearly he's a Bunnies and Burrows playa...

And only when he's at the absolute top of his game.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 04 2008,10:28

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/08/fight-club-anthology.html >


Fight club is gay club.


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 04 2008,10:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
there is no adrenaline rush so great as the moment when two men put one another to the physical test.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



push back god damn you!!!

that is homo-eroticism at it's um gayest.

Vox Gay still like you Rich?  hard to imagine but I am unable to wade through some of that shit to find the pearls.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 04 2008,10:47

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 04 2008,10:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
there is no adrenaline rush so great as the moment when two men put one another to the physical test.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



push back god damn you!!!

that is homo-eroticism at it's um gayest.

Vox Gay still like you Rich?  hard to imagine but I am unable to wade through some of that shit to find the pearls.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does he like me? No.
Is he like me? No
Does he lick me? Let's hope I never find out.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Aug. 04 2008,11:04

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 04 2008,10:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
there is no adrenaline rush so great as the moment when two naked and sweatymen put one another to the physical test.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



push back god damn you!!!

that is homo-eroticism at it's um gayest.

Vox Gay still like you Rich?  hard to imagine but I am unable to wade through some of that shit to find the pearls.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed post.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 04 2008,11:22

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 04 2008,10:47)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 04 2008,10:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
there is no adrenaline rush so great as the moment when two men put one another to the physical test.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



push back god damn you!!!

that is homo-eroticism at it's um gayest.

Vox Gay still like you Rich?  hard to imagine but I am unable to wade through some of that shit to find the pearls.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does he like me? No.
Is he like me? No
Does he lick me? Let's hope I never find out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


at least he would be licking you as hard as he could, to put both he and you to the ultimate physical test!!!

what an adrenaline rush!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 04 2008,11:32

HOMO ERECTUS.  :angry:
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 04 2008,12:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, all this personal combat posturing is useless in a world where atheistic scientists (Dawkins assures us they are atheists) provide nuclear weapons to every warring gang with the means.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



roflmao
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 04 2008,15:13

He's on the wireless now, bashing them thar athiest types..


< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/08/on-radio.html >

Edits - to sort of liveblog.

The fact that these books are doing so well just shows how badly them atheism is doing.
Atheism comes from the aftermath of 911... so it's about fear of islam.
He has no clue what 'agnostic' means.. but is waffling on anyway.
Host has just offered 'atheism is a religion'.
Vox sounds like he's 14 on the phone, BTW.
now and advert for "homeschool heartbeat"
He might be debating Hitchens soon - but Dawkins wont debate Vox, because he's scared obviously.
Again - Atheism is a reaction to Islam.
USA is too rich, therefore atheism.
what is wrong with atheism? It works under a delusion. it borrows its ethics and shit from religion... then some bizarre non sequitur to Stalin killing people.
the commentator tells us about caveman morality - the vox talks about the evolution of morals.
Commentator says "Vox = male man coulter". Vox says he's a 'cruelty artist'.
Vox does his philosophy like he plays his first person shooters, apparently.
Them atheists aren't free thinkers. There's lots of evidence for god, just not scientific evidence.
Geology, Evloution and Biology = crocks of shit.
Vox is part of a new Tard movement - against 'secular hedonism'..
Vox had to choose between Nihilism and Christianity, apparently.
Republicans are too leftist, also.
Posted by: slpage on Aug. 05 2008,07:34

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 31 2008,19:28)
I've always been a fan of his 'psycho with a dead animal on his head' photo:



Brags about being in Mensa? Mohawk? Sci-fi fan? Thinks women* who get raped 'asked for it'? He must be a devil with the ladies.


(*who, by the way, shouldn't vote.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


These uber-macho right-wing types usually seem ot have something to hide...  Like their wide-stance...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 06 2008,09:34

There will be some flailing around the scientific method..

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/08/hunt-for-higgs.html >

looking for Higgs Boson vs. looking for God.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 06 2008,14:44

Quote (blipey @ Aug. 01 2008,11:27)
   
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Aug. 01 2008,04:21)
I read his book, < The Irrational Atheist. > It wasn't as bad as some people were saying it was. But I do recommend that you skip the first chapter and focus on the stuff after it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe Reciprocating Bill read it as well.  I can't remember what thread he put his review on--I think it was the Unreasonable Kansans thread, but it could have been the Ftk research thread.

IIRC, he seemed to think it missed the boat quite often: not actually making the case against each atheist's argument.  At least the bits he quoted seemed to have much better sentence structure and meaningful content than Denise O'Leary.  It's something, anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I offered my thoughts in three posts. If you read the discussion following the third, you'll see that Ftk brought my critique to VD's attention. VD briefly responded - without addressing any of the major points I raised. You'll also notice that Ftk never responded to any of the points I made, and the topic died. (Dog bites man.)

My comments are < here >, < here > and < here >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 07 2008,09:10

Wowsers! Today we have a post "The useless women"
and a poll to crash:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/08/presidential-vote.html >
Posted by: Lou FCD on Aug. 07 2008,11:53

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 07 2008,10:10)
Wowsers! Today we have a post "The useless women"
and a poll to crash:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/08/presidential-vote.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Vox finds a woman thrown onto electric train tracks, burned and with a possible collar bone fracture, < "amusing" >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Third, given how I suspect the situation developed, it's a cogent illustration of the impotence of female reliance upon the law. I suspect we're going to be seeing more and more of this behavior as it becomes eminently clear to younger men that the law is becoming ever more hostile to their sex. One can just picture the woman imperiously making her righteous demand of the two young thugs in the full confidence that the law is not only on her side, but protecting her, then finding herself sailing through the air as her position and her misplaced confidence are met with a speedy and forceful rebuttal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Oink! Oink! >, by Leo Reynolds
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 07 2008,12:52

Wow this tardaholic zero has the same issues which I was pointing out on the UD thread.  Wonder where the women are that agree with VD?

FtK you sure pick some doozies to hang out with.  You are at least as big a nothing as they are, and perhaps even more.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Aug. 07 2008,14:34

Just for shits 'n giggles and sheer perversity, I posted the VoxDay poll addy in the latest Pharyngula thread.

Fly, my pretties, fly!!!


^ Bush Monkey  :D
Posted by: American Saddlebred on Aug. 07 2008,14:43


Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 08 2008,08:57

Brace for "Obama is not an American" assclownery...

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008....es.html >
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 08 2008,11:08

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 08 2008,08:57)
Brace for "Obama is not an American" assclownery...

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008....es.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looking at the bright side, Tim LaHaye, another breed of  ass-hat says Obama can't be "The Anti-Christ" because he IS American, and his Bible Tells Him that the anti-christ is not American.   So,  you pays your money, you makes your choice

- Which Asshat do you believe today?

Damn it must be tough being a Believer!  Maybe every Bible should come with a "How To Juggle For Dummies" book, so they can handle all the contradictory ideas.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 08 2008,17:58

This is some really repressed gay shit




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Chuck's Chun Kuk Do was unbelievably strong, but his flexibility has waned with the years and so the lightning-fast sokuto intended for my solar plexus only grazed my left shin. Even so, the speed of it forced me to switch from an aggressive Tiger stance to a more defensive Nekko-achi, from which I snapped a front kick that would have crushed his jaw had he not slashed down with a patented Shigawire Mustache block that severed two of my toes. Screaming in pain and fury, I leaped backward while throwing a defensive maegeri that didn't make contact, but blinded him with a spray of blood. While Chuck rubbed at his face to clear his vision, I took advantage of his momentary blindness to attack again and broke several of his ribs with a skipping left sokuto that left a bloody footprint on his white gi.

Chuck doubled over and I stepped forward to throw a right-left combination to his head that would have finished him, but the movement turned out to be a ruse. Just as I threw the right hook, he caught my wrist, twisted his body and threw me over his shoulder, slamming me into the pavement in front of my garage. I was stunned, naturally, and my shoulder was dislocated, but I managed to roll away before he drove his heel down into my throat. Still, I was in a very precarious position and had all but given up hope of keeping the hawk on Monday's front page. Fortunately for me, the disturbance of the air caused by my violent passage through it had slightly ruffled Joseph Farah's exquisitely coiffed mane, so Mr. Farah immediately called time, declared the match a draw, and told us to sort it out amongst ourselves while he flipped open his solid gold satellite phone and arranged for an emergency styling right there in the driveway.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on Aug. 08 2008,18:04

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 08 2008,09:57)
Brace for "Obama is not an American" assclownery...

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008....es.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had no idea there was a Women's Equality Day,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



shocked.  really, i am.
Posted by: American Saddlebred on Aug. 08 2008,18:06

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 08 2008,17:58)
This is some really repressed gay shit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does he masturbate to that?  Someone should ask him.
Posted by: dnmlthr on Aug. 09 2008,03:53

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 08 2008,23:58)
This is some really repressed gay shit




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Chuck's Chun Kuk Do was unbelievably strong, but his flexibility has waned with the years and so the lightning-fast sokuto intended for my solar plexus only grazed my left shin. Even so, the speed of it forced me to switch from an aggressive Tiger stance to a more defensive Nekko-achi, from which I snapped a front kick that would have crushed his jaw had he not slashed down with a patented Shigawire Mustache block that severed two of my toes. Screaming in pain and fury, I leaped backward while throwing a defensive maegeri that didn't make contact, but blinded him with a spray of blood. While Chuck rubbed at his face to clear his vision, I took advantage of his momentary blindness to attack again and broke several of his ribs with a skipping left sokuto that left a bloody footprint on his white gi.

Chuck doubled over and I stepped forward to throw a right-left combination to his head that would have finished him, but the movement turned out to be a ruse. Just as I threw the right hook, he caught my wrist, twisted his body and threw me over his shoulder, slamming me into the pavement in front of my garage. I was stunned, naturally, and my shoulder was dislocated, but I managed to roll away before he drove his heel down into my throat. Still, I was in a very precarious position and had all but given up hope of keeping the hawk on Monday's front page. Fortunately for me, the disturbance of the air caused by my violent passage through it had slightly ruffled Joseph Farah's exquisitely coiffed mane, so Mr. Farah immediately called time, declared the match a draw, and told us to sort it out amongst ourselves while he flipped open his solid gold satellite phone and arranged for an emergency styling right there in the driveway.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reads like slashfic. Makes sense, worldnutdaily is related to reality the same way fanfic is related to canon.
Posted by: Assassinator on Aug. 09 2008,05:08

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 08 2008,11:08)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 08 2008,08:57)
Brace for "Obama is not an American" assclownery...

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008....es.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looking at the bright side, Tim LaHaye, another breed of  ass-hat says Obama can't be "The Anti-Christ" because he IS American, and his Bible Tells Him that the anti-christ is not American.   So,  you pays your money, you makes your choice

- Which Asshat do you believe today?

Damn it must be tough being a Believer!  Maybe every Bible should come with a "How To Juggle For Dummies" book, so they can handle all the contradictory ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


O dear

Doom is on it's way!!!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 13 2008,16:09

Vox is busy telling his sycophants Global warming is a lie based on some temperature readings from Midway Airport this year:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/08/that-elusive-global-warming.html >

He quickly deletes any posts that might highlight his assclownery..
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 21 2008,23:00

Vox occasionally self proclaims himself an expert in AI.

Here's what players of his games think:

< http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/rebel-moon-rising/mobyrank >

and

< http://www.somethingawful.com/d/game-reviews/war-heaven.php >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...They are equipped with deadly weapons (sticks) and advanced artificial intelligence so complex that they are capable of either walking towards you OR walking away. Sometimes the enemies choose to run in place or get stuck in doorways, but this is probably just part of God's master plan (I assume). Occasionally enemies will disappear too, which is definitely an added bonus that kept me "on my toes." The game designers also opted to throw in more "difficult" versions of the same enemy. The difference between a normal badguy and its more difficult brother is their skin hue, and the fact that it takes three minutes of holding down the "attack" key to kill the difficult guy, as opposed to the normal two. After playing this game for many hours, I have discovered the optimal attack plan, which you should follow when encountering any kind of enemy in this game:

1) Approach opponent by walking towards it in a straight line. They will do the same.
2) Hold down the "attack" key.*
3) Wait until enemy dies or game crashes.
4) Repeat instructions until everything on map is dead.

* Advanced tactic (for experienced players only): try moving to the right occasionally. It doesn't really help, but you end up a little bit to the right of where you originally were.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 22 2008,08:05

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 21 2008,23:00)
* Advanced tactic (for experienced players only): try moving to the right occasionally. It doesn't really help, but you end up a little bit to the right of where you originally were.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

[/quote]
If he moves any further to the right, he's gonna wind up like this:


Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 22 2008,13:57

Sadly, on this thread:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/08/challenge.html >

Clay tells us he's about to lose his mother to sickness. If any of you wish to offer comforting words (please no snide) you can perhaps help someone when they really need support.

:(  :(  :(
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 28 2008,15:34

Vox repeatedly refers to Obama as "the Magic Negro"..
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 28 2008,15:37

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 28 2008,15:34)
Vox repeatedly refers to Obama as "the Magic Negro"..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, is he taking up a collection to move down south, or does he need some cash to finish up his time machine and move back to the 1950s?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 31 2008,21:37

We has a predictions!




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They didn't see the Palin selection coming. I did. They think it's a joke and will turn out poorly for McCain. I think it's an excellent choice that will help him trounce Obama. We'll see who is correct....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/08/journalists-are-idiots.html >

Vox is supporting a person he thinks shouldn't be allowed to vote...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 01 2008,00:48

Alpha Gay re:  whatshernames purported creationist beliefs...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To claim that a man or a woman should be disqualified from political participation for failing to genuflect before the current state of science - an intrinsically moving target - is anti-democratic, fascistic, and historically ignorant. One can make a much better case for limiting government by sex, height, or even hair color, things that are far less subjective and less given to abuse by an authoritarian oligarchy. And given the fact that scientage is a dynamic entity, the abjuring of the admittedly bad science of yesterday is no guarantee that today's scientific consensus is not tomorrow's bad science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



distilled hard tard.  i dare not link to that garbage.  i'd say, Go Look For It but it would be like looking for a dirty piss diaper in a pile of shitty ones.  rich you are a glutton for dumbfuckery.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 01 2008,02:40

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 08 2008,18:58)
This is some really repressed gay shit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We all fantasized about being Bruce Lee, and dispatching our enemies with our glorious fists of death, but sometime in your early 20's you're expected to grow out of it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 01 2008,16:06

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 01 2008,00:48)
distilled hard tard.  i dare not link to that garbage.  i'd say, Go Look For It but it would be like looking for a dirty piss diaper in a pile of shitty ones.  rich you are a glutton for dumbfuckery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*sniffle* Oh it's all true! I are tardoholic!
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 01 2008,17:14

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 01 2008,08:40)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 08 2008,18:58)
This is some really repressed gay shit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We all fantasized about being Bruce Lee, and dispatching our enemies with our glorious fists of death, but sometime in your early 20's preteen years, unless you are delusional quasi-fascist with a borderline personality disorder and a clearly tiny set of genitalia, you're expected to grow out of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for you. ;-)

Vox needs some serious professional help.

Louis
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 01 2008,18:12

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 01 2008,15:14)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 01 2008,08:40)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 08 2008,18:58)
This is some really repressed gay shit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We all fantasized about being Bruce Lee, and dispatching our enemies with our glorious fists of death, but sometime in your early 20's preteen years, unless you are delusional, misogynist quasi-fascist with a borderline personality disorder, and a clearly tiny set of genitalia, and a dead rat on your head, you're expected to grow out of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for you. ;-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed it even more.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 01 2008,18:15

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 01 2008,16:06)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 01 2008,00:48)
distilled hard tard.  i dare not link to that garbage.  i'd say, Go Look For It but it would be like looking for a dirty piss diaper in a pile of shitty ones.  rich you are a glutton for dumbfuckery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*sniffle* Oh it's all true! I are tardoholic!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and i love it so!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 01 2008,18:34

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 01 2008,16:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 01 2008,16:06)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 01 2008,00:48)
distilled hard tard.  i dare not link to that garbage.  i'd say, Go Look For It but it would be like looking for a dirty piss diaper in a pile of shitty ones.  rich you are a glutton for dumbfuckery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*sniffle* Oh it's all true! I are tardoholic!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and i love it so!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So apparently, Ras, you are both GoP AND Javison. I'll bet you're really VMartin, as well.
:angry:
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 01 2008,19:12

oh frustrated darwinist materialist from ATBC cannot discuss at great work zoologist Heikertinger and believes in mystical selectionist for to explain why herpes sore is shaped like crab nebula.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 01 2008,19:29

the who whatting how with huh? :p
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 01 2008,19:34

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 01 2008,17:12)
oh frustrated darwinist materialist from ATBC cannot discuss at great work zoologist Heikertinger and believes in mystical selectionist for to explain why herpes sore is shaped like crab nebula.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh oh.


That was, uh, a little too real.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 01 2008,19:49

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 01 2008,19:34)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 01 2008,17:12)
oh frustrated darwinist materialist from ATBC cannot discuss at great work zoologist Heikertinger and believes in mystical selectionist for to explain why herpes sore is shaped like crab nebula.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Uh oh.

That was, uh, a little too real.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, that was amazing. Are you sure you aren't Rich Little?

Congrats on your ability to channel banned Slovakian tards. With a skill like that, and a couple of bucks, you can get a cup of coffee these days...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 01 2008,21:02

wonder if it could get me guest posting privileges over at UD?  on second thought I'd rather volunteer separating corn from the beans over at the baby poop factory.  

i never did figure out who vmartin really was.  i don't buy the czechowhateverthehellhesaid bit for a minute.  someone thought he might have been GoP.  Tarden has insinuated that I am GoP.  Javison may not remember who he is.  could this be a nexus point, a crossroads of possible paths in the universe?  can i become whoever i wish, with no regards to the material (mere material) bonds bounding what I have been told is my self?  possibly i may transcend the self-ness-ness and reform matter in ways never considered by first-order bayesian type thing UPBs?  why not?  a few trillion molecules of wine is no problem, how about I just manifest what I know the universe wants me to have?

I will re-form.  I have been front-loading all of my existence, which might just span eons (you can't tell anything about the nature of the designer just because of the design of my frontloader).  Ladies and gentlemen, you have just witnessed a macroevolutionary event:  tardery is now holometabolous.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 01 2008,22:18

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 01 2008,19:02)
i never did figure out who vmartin really was.  i don't buy the czechowhateverthehellhesaid bit for a minute.  someone thought he might have been GoP.  Tarden has insinuated that I am GoP.  Javison may not remember who he is.  could this be a nexus point, a crossroads of possible paths in the universe?  can i become whoever i wish, with no regards to the material (mere material) bonds bounding what I have been told is my self?  possibly i may transcend the self-ness-ness and reform matter in ways never considered by first-order bayesian type thing UPBs?  why not?  a few trillion molecules of wine is no problem, how about I just manifest what I know the universe wants me to have?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think eventually it will be revealed that there's only ever been one person actually posting here at ATBC.

I predict it'll be Bornagain77.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 01 2008,22:20

un^likely.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 02 2008,09:34

Here's a comment snippet:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
happy working woman,
You protest too much. Home alone with the cats? And this isn't the same as an inner city female negro with child. The daughter is getting married(not too much of that with blacks) and won't be on welfare(too much of that with blacks). The daughter's child is much less likely to be a criminal or have an average IQ of 85. Fine by me...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



from here:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/09/abstaining-from-logic.html >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 02 2008,10:28

One for the diary:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm confused. You said it's off topic, and deleted my posts concerning it. Do you want to talk about it, or do you just want to pontificate with no right-of-reply? Would this mixed message be 'social autism'?

Not your fault. I'm not the only one with delete powers here. Tell you what. Sometime soon, I'll do a post on social autism and we'll discuss it then since I'm truly not interested in an echo chamber. However, I'm also not interested in permitting the thread hijacking that was once common, so let's table it for now and concentrate on abstinence and so forth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: JohnW on Sep. 02 2008,13:29

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 01 2008,19:02)
wonder if it could get me guest posting privileges over at UD?  on second thought I'd rather volunteer separating corn from the beans over at the baby poop factory.  

i never did figure out who vmartin really was.  i don't buy the czechowhateverthehellhesaid bit for a minute.  someone thought he might have been GoP.  Tarden has insinuated that I am GoP.  Javison may not remember who he is.  could this be a nexus point, a crossroads of possible paths in the universe?  can i become whoever i wish, with no regards to the material (mere material) bonds bounding what I have been told is my self?  possibly i may transcend the self-ness-ness and reform matter in ways never considered by first-order bayesian type thing UPBs?  why not?  a few trillion molecules of wine is no problem, how about I just manifest what I know the universe wants me to have?

I will re-form.  I have been front-loading all of my existence, which might just span eons (you can't tell anything about the nature of the designer just because of the design of my frontloader).  Ladies and gentlemen, you have just witnessed a macroevolutionary event:  tardery is now holometabolous.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you may have been a little too inspired by Steve's posts about mushrooms, Razzer.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 03 2008,10:21

Now we're bashing that evil technology thing, which isn't as good as religion, obviously. Stan points out most of the posters would be dead because life expectancy was low before if was helped along by medicine, sanitation, etc.

But that's a BIG LIE© Big Science.

It turns out life expectancy was low... because of slavery - source, Vox Day's terrible book.
Posted by: Badger3k on Sep. 04 2008,10:55

Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 07 2008,11:53)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 07 2008,10:10)
Wowsers! Today we have a post "The useless women"
and a poll to crash:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/08/presidential-vote.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Vox finds a woman thrown onto electric train tracks, burned and with a possible collar bone fracture, < "amusing" >

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Third, given how I suspect the situation developed, it's a cogent illustration of the impotence of female reliance upon the law. I suspect we're going to be seeing more and more of this behavior as it becomes eminently clear to younger men that the law is becoming ever more hostile to their sex. One can just picture the woman imperiously making her righteous demand of the two young thugs in the full confidence that the law is not only on her side, but protecting her, then finding herself sailing through the air as her position and her misplaced confidence are met with a speedy and forceful rebuttal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Oink! Oink! >, by Leo Reynolds
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have a confession to make.  I like...the John Norman "Gor" books.  I like them because of his hideous run-on style, some quirky humor, and the taken-from-history sci-fi/fantasy setting.  When he gets into psychology and male-female relationships, I admit my mind shuts down, my eyes glaze over, and I have to skip past.  Too many readings of "a man is a lion, a woman is a flower" and horribly funny stereotypes where women say they want to be men...but that's what Teddy thinks is true.

Sad, and scary.  Sociopaths usually are.
Posted by: Badger3k on Sep. 04 2008,10:58

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,10:21)
Now we're bashing that evil technology thing, which isn't as good as religion, obviously. Stan points out most of the posters would be dead because life expectancy was low before if was helped along by medicine, sanitation, etc.

But that's a BIG LIE© Big Science.

It turns out life expectancy was low... because of slavery - source, Vox Day's terrible book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess that someone is pointing out that in ancient times, people lived 900 years - just look at Adam and Noah! ?

Maybe someone can point out that there is evidence that life span and health was greater in ancient times, well, greater until the advent of farming, when life expectancy and health dropped.  Then it kept on down until science came along and progress was made.  His whole Biblical view was right down there in the low-and-dirty lifespan.

Someone needs to get Teddy a working brain.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 04 2008,10:59

Badger3k - are you from B3ta?
Posted by: Well Endowed Stud Muffin on Sep. 04 2008,13:28

I have to admit - watching brilliant Vox Day figuratively punch atheists in the mouth and expose them for the hypocritical, uneducated f*cktards they truly are is guilty pleasure of mine.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 04 2008,13:31

Quote (Well Endowed Stud Muffin @ Sep. 04 2008,13:28)
I have to admit - watching brilliant Vox Day figuratively punch atheists in the mouth and expose them for the hypocritical, uneducated f*cktards they truly are is guilty pleasure of mine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome WESM!

I can see we're going to have a lot of fun - probably at your expense!  ;)
Posted by: Well Endowed Stud Muffin on Sep. 04 2008,13:39

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2008,13:31)
Quote (Well Endowed Stud Muffin @ Sep. 04 2008,13:28)
I have to admit - watching brilliant Vox Day figuratively punch atheists in the mouth and expose them for the hypocritical, uneducated f*cktards they truly are is guilty pleasure of mine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome WESM!

I can see we're going to have a lot of fun - probably at your expense!  ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, buddy!

Is there a reason why I can't make posts in the "All About AntiEvolution" forums?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 04 2008,13:52

Honestly, I don't know. some may have a requirement to post I'm not aware of.

But why don't you put your stuff here to enlighten us?

We've got a few biologists / liberals / homos on staff ready to be amazed!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 04 2008,13:55

WESM, you can't make any threads here until you've been around a while, and then you have to ask one of the moderators for permission. Keeps Russian Viagra spammers out.

So I assume you now have the magical proof of God's existence that's eluded everyone else, right? Was it somewhere in the endnotes of Ted Beale's book?
Posted by: Well Endowed Stud Muffin on Sep. 04 2008,14:18

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 04 2008,13:55)
WESM, you can't make any threads here until you've been around a while, and then you have to ask one of the moderators for permission. Keeps Russian Viagra spammers out.

So I assume you now have the magical proof of God's existence that's eluded everyone else, right? Was it somewhere in the endnotes of Ted Beale's book?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's really no question that God does exist - modern science has erased all doubt. However I couldn't care less whether you believe or not. I'm just here to mock and ridicule you people for my own amusement, nothing more.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 04 2008,14:22

Doesn't god want you to spread the good news?

That + "modern science has erased all doubt" = home run!

share!
Posted by: Well Endowed Stud Muffin on Sep. 04 2008,14:28

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2008,14:22)
Doesn't god want you to spread the good news?

That + "modern science has erased all doubt" = home run!

share!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure you've already seen and heard the overwhelming evidence, so I wont bother. You're committed to atheism and no amount of evidence could ever change that. I respect your loyalty, even if you are the equivalent of a modern-day flat-Earther.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 04 2008,14:28

Quote (Well Endowed Stud Muffin @ Sep. 04 2008,15:18)
There's really no question that God does exist - modern science has erased all doubt. However I couldn't care less whether you believe or not. I'm just here to mock and ridicule you people for my own amusement, nothing more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exhausted all variations on hand lotion and the circular motion?

You've come to the right place. Whip it out.

Girl you thought he was a man
But he was a muffin
He hung around 'till you found
That he didn't know nuthin'
Girl you thought he was a man
But he only was a-puffin'
No cries is heard in the night
As a result of him stuffin'


-fz
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 04 2008,14:34

Quote (Well Endowed Stud Muffin @ Sep. 04 2008,15:28)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2008,14:22)
Doesn't god want you to spread the good news?

That + "modern science has erased all doubt" = home run!

share!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure you've already seen and heard the overwhelming evidence, so I wont bother. You're committed to atheism and no amount of evidence could ever change that. I respect your loyalty, even if you are the equivalent of a modern-day flat-Earther.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agumentum ad Pathetic Level of Detail?

Speaking of undying loyalty, that's a cute handle you got there, WES' Muffin.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 04 2008,14:34

Quote (Well Endowed Stud Muffin @ Sep. 04 2008,14:18)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 04 2008,13:55)
WESM, you can't make any threads here until you've been around a while, and then you have to ask one of the moderators for permission. Keeps Russian Viagra spammers out.

So I assume you now have the magical proof of God's existence that's eluded everyone else, right? Was it somewhere in the endnotes of Ted Beale's book?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's really no question that God does exist - modern science has erased all doubt.*  However I couldn't care less whether you believe or not. I'm just here to mock and ridicule you people for my own amusement, nothing more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's really no question that God does exist - modern science has erased all doubt.*

My friend, I don't think this means what you think it means...
Posted by: Well Endowed Stud Muffin on Sep. 04 2008,14:46

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 04 2008,14:34)
 
Quote (Well Endowed Stud Muffin @ Sep. 04 2008,15:28)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2008,14:22)
Doesn't god want you to spread the good news?

That + "modern science has erased all doubt" = home run!

share!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure you've already seen and heard the overwhelming evidence, so I wont bother. You're committed to atheism and no amount of evidence could ever change that. I respect your loyalty, even if you are the equivalent of a modern-day flat-Earther.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agumentum ad Pathetic Level of Detail?

Speaking of undying loyalty, that's a cute handle you got there, WES' Muffin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks, new friend!

By the way - is your mustache coffee stained? Or at least I hope coffee stained..... ???
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 04 2008,15:19

Quote (Well Endowed Stud Muffin @ Sep. 04 2008,12:18)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 04 2008,13:55)
WESM, you can't make any threads here until you've been around a while, and then you have to ask one of the moderators for permission. Keeps Russian Viagra spammers out.

So I assume you now have the magical proof of God's existence that's eluded everyone else, right? Was it somewhere in the endnotes of Ted Beale's book?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's really no question that God does exist - modern science has erased all doubt. However I couldn't care less whether you believe or not. I'm just here to mock and ridicule you people for my own amusement, nothing more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this really the best shtick you have?

Yeesh. Your god sure didn't make you real bright.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 04 2008,15:20

Quote (Well Endowed Stud Muffin @ Sep. 04 2008,12:28)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2008,14:22)
Doesn't god want you to spread the good news?

That + "modern science has erased all doubt" = home run!

share!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure you've already seen and heard the overwhelming evidence, so I wont bother.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Imagine our surprise.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 04 2008,15:21

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 04 2008,12:34)
Quote (Well Endowed Stud Muffin @ Sep. 04 2008,15:28)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2008,14:22)
Doesn't god want you to spread the good news?

That + "modern science has erased all doubt" = home run!

share!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure you've already seen and heard the overwhelming evidence, so I wont bother. You're committed to atheism and no amount of evidence could ever change that. I respect your loyalty, even if you are the equivalent of a modern-day flat-Earther.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agumentum ad Pathetic Level of Detail?

Speaking of undying loyalty, that's a cute handle you got there, WES' Muffin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect his handle is far, far smaller than he claims.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 04 2008,19:43

Here's a comment:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Friday I saw her picture and thought, "Man, she's kind of cute." Then I read up about her. Now I hate female prezs on principle. But I'm voting Insane this ticket on the hope he croaks.

The Magic Negro must be crapping himself. I think he's cooked. I think Palin is about to take America by storm. I wonder if God hasn't answered many a prayer for a good prez. I just hope she really is what I've been reading about.

I listen to Savage a lot and I can't figure out why he hates her. Does anyone know why? I'm curious.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Progressive!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 04 2008,21:52

ahh fresh tard. welcome.

so, muffy, whats a girl like you doing in a nice joint like this?
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 05 2008,05:28

Ahem.

Our new playmate's Delta Tau Chi name is Mud Stuffin.

Just FYI.

Louis
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 05 2008,06:34

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2008,06:28)
Ahem.

Our new playmate's Delta Tau Chi name is Mud Stuffin.

Just FYI.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...No cries is heard in the night
As a result of him stuffin'

Posted by: Shirley Knott on Sep. 05 2008,07:44

My perpetual, and perpetually unanswered question [on the amusing assumption that mud stuffin hasn't already fled the building] is:
just what the heck is this 'god' thingie that you are so convinced science has provided incontrovertible proof of the existence thereof?
In my not inconsiderable experience, 'god' is at best a meta-syntactic placeholder, or an affirmation of group membership on the 'us' side of the 'us vs them' preconceptual mentation indulged in by the likes of vox dei and others of that ilk.
But I do eagerly await a definition, description, or at least operational instructions as to how I could tell that what I had discovered was a god rather than some other thingy.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 05 2008,08:15

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 05 2008,12:34)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2008,06:28)
Ahem.

Our new playmate's Delta Tau Chi name is Mud Stuffin.

Just FYI.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...No cries is heard in the night
As a result of him stuffin'

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed!

Louis
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on Nov. 22 2008,16:45

Kid kills himself after reading God delusion. Vox Day laments:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Such a waste. It's tragic to think that after reaching the correct logical conclusion to Dawkinsian moral logic, the unfortunate young man didn't see fit to shoot the pretentious Archbishop of High Church Atheism first.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/11/ideas-have-consequences.html >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 17 2009,20:55

Science denial now with added Anti-vax

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/03/autism-and-vaccines.html >
Posted by: khan on Mar. 17 2009,21:46

crank convergence
Posted by: ERV on Mar. 18 2009,09:36

Isnt this the same person who got into a lot of hot water when he said all atheists are autistic?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 18 2009,09:51

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2009,20:55)
Science denial now with added Anti-vax

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/03/autism-and-vaccines.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's a real pity that scientists can't be bothered to study the problem using the scientific method rather than using statistical measures that are bound to be flawed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



These folks are just wasting their time?

< http://www.cdc.gov/mmWR/ >

My childhood coffee table mag.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 18 2009,09:56

Quote (ERV @ Mar. 18 2009,09:36)
Isnt this the same person who got into a lot of hot water when he said all atheists are autistic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's his own thing he made up called 'social autism'. He has a book called 'the irrational atheist' that you can download from his website where he talks about it, if you have some spare braincells you'll never get back.
Posted by: FrankH on Mar. 18 2009,10:03

Quote (Steverino @ Aug. 03 2008,08:41)
Richardthughes:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...but if you're a Tardaholic like me, your boats come in..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That's my favorite quote of the month!  Now, that's a keeper!!!

I disagree on one point, Vox while a complete tool-bag, is very intelligent.  He does, however, lack the ability to interpret information without his religious biased.

Facts make sense to him except when they are contrary to his religious, emotional beliefs.  Then they are just complete lies.

P.S.  I love this pic...What a pretentious douche bag.



I bet this pic is a huge hit with all his Dungeons and Dragons buddies
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, what's wrong with DnD?

Granted 4th Edition sucks but 3.5 is great(*)!

Still gaming, after 30 years.....

(*)  The best RPG is still C&S.....
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 18 2009,10:05

C&S?


[guilty pleasure] I always liked Traveller. [/guilty pleasure]
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 18 2009,10:08

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2009,10:05)
C&S?


[guilty pleasure] I always liked Traveller. [/guilty pleasure]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


C&S red book?

Traveller, The Fantasy Trip, Runequest (Chaosium), Empire of the Petal Throne, Rolemaster, Champions/Hero System, Boot Hill, Gamma World, Bushido, Aftermath...the list goes on and on.  

I am a geek.

But Vox Day is still a loser.
Posted by: FrankH on Mar. 18 2009,10:16

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 18 2009,10:08)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2009,10:05)
C&S?


[guilty pleasure] I always liked Traveller. [/guilty pleasure]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


C&S red book?

Traveller, The Fantasy Trip, Runequest (Chaosium), Empire of the Petal Throne, Rolemaster, Champions/Hero System, Boot Hill, Gamma World, Bushido, Aftermath...the list goes on and on.  

I am a geek.

But Vox Day is still a loser.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Chivalry & Sorcery" Red Book, 1st Edition and the three book boxed set 2nd Edition.  A great, but very difficult system.

DnD (original books), AD&D (1st), AD&D (2nd), DnD 3 & 3.5 - still gaming.

Traveller, "This is Free Trader Beowulf.  Under atteck, losing atmoshpere" love that game.  Mega-Traveller almost killed my enjoyment of gaming.

Gamma World, TFT (The Fantasy Trip), Empire of the Petal Throne, Arduin Grimoire and more.

Not to mention Ogre, GeV, Car Wars, Nuclear War, you name it.

Too many AH games.

Yes, I am a N.E.R.D. and proud of it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 18 2009,10:19

I'm pretty sure the secret success of Ebay is me buying all the things I wanted as a kid but didn't have later in life...

;)

computer based RPG games seem to be getting there, but I don't subscribe to any as they'd take time I don't have.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 18 2009,10:21


Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 18 2009,10:22

Ouch!  ???  :angry:
Posted by: FrankH on Mar. 18 2009,10:26

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2009,10:19)
I'm pretty sure the secret success of Ebay is me buying all the things I wanted as a kid but didn't have later in life...

;)

computer based RPG games seem to be getting there, but I don't subscribe to any as they'd take time I don't have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me about it.

I got a 1st Ed. AD&D book for my daughter's 18th birthday (she games with my group).  Fortunately it was only $10.

:)
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on Mar. 18 2009,10:39

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2009,20:55)
Science denial now with added Anti-vax

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/03/autism-and-vaccines.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Everytime I go to Voxday's blog I die a little inside.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 18 2009,18:15

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 18 2009,10:03)
 Hey, what's wrong with DnD?

Granted 4th Edition sucks but 3.5 is great(*)!

Still gaming, after 30 years.....

(*)  The best RPG is still C&S.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HA HA THIS IS YOU

Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 18 2009,22:20

Anybody here ever play Diplomacy?

Now there is an intense game.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 18 2009,23:31

My box of late-70s vintage AD&D books, Dragon magazines, modules, and so forth was a casualty of our latest move.

I hadn't noticed any career opportunities with options for retirement benefits for "dungeonmaster for hire"...
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 18 2009,23:40

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2009,10:19)
I'm pretty sure the secret success of Ebay is me buying all the things I wanted as a kid but didn't have later in life...

;)

computer based RPG games seem to be getting there, but I don't subscribe to any as they'd take time I don't have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've just got my PS3 turned on to continue Fallout 3.  That is uber-kewl, especially when I blow some super-mutant up and have his head splatter apart in slow motion.

Yeah, I'm sick.

(But, yeah, I spent quite a bit to buy the boxed Runequest and Troll Pack, just for the memories, but maybe I'll get a game up too.  I still have my first edition champions books, a lot of my old D&D, and many of the games I mentioned.)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 18 2009,23:52

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 18 2009,23:31)
My box of late-70s vintage AD&D books, Dragon magazines, modules, and so forth was a casualty of our latest move.

I hadn't noticed any career opportunities with options for retirement benefits for "dungeonmaster for hire"...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope you at least ebayed them, as they're probably woth a bob or two..
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 19 2009,00:20

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 18 2009,22:20)
Anybody here ever play Diplomacy?

Now there is an intense game.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd forgotten about that one.  Hadn't played that one in longer than all of my students have been alive (but not all added together, that is).

I grew up on Panzer Leader, Starship Troopers, that Minarian Legends game...got to look that up, if I could remember the name...

Never did play Cosmic Encounter, but I heard that could be a bit on the intense side.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 19 2009,00:27

10-15 years ago I used to sell high performance networked PC's to a small groups of geophysicists in oil companies for <cough> *seismic interpretation software*. Each time we put in a new system out would come the latest Quake and we would have a BLAST FEST ...erm just to test the speed of the gear you understand.

My favorite board game is

Oxford:"The Great Oxford Game of the English Language"

It's *....erm really popular....*
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 19 2009,06:01

One word: Runescape.

It's so bad, it's good. As MMPORGs go it is the shizzle IMO. Sadly I have....

{Does rough calculations, factoring in imminent baby, redecorating "office" as "nursery", working hard to get big promotion to pay for imminent baby, trying to get back to match fitness (and removing fat bastard status accumulated by combinations of injury, years of debauchery and sloth) again by handing my life over to a gym, doing extra work writing a book when I can (chemistry, don't get excited, it should be ready about 20 years after I die), fucking about on Teh Intarwebs (naughty, one of the guilty pleasures still allowed to me...although perhaps not for long) and sleeping (which I won't be doing for long either apparently)}

....minus four days a week to play it. Can we campaign for the 11 day week, 5 at work, 2 for the weekend 4 for MMPORGs? Will it fly?

And as with all these things it can get a bit repetitive and dull just clicking away and unlike real gaming, it's hardly social in the same way.

However, and I will say this, possibly to the consternation/outrage of many, the one problem I found with RPGaming is, erm, other gamers. There are a majority of utterly sad bastards out there in my experience, and gaming with morons never appealed. The few times I've found fun gamers have been great however, although it's >16 years now since I've gamed. Maybe in the USA, where it's more popular I understand, it's a better environment, but nowadays I'd rather be outdoors in the few moments I get, walking, swimming, something, ANYTHING rather than being cooped up again.

Oops diversion!

Does anyone here play MMORPGs? I've heard interesting things about WoW, but never played a game. I did have an old version of just plain Warcraft for my old Mac about...umm....some years ago (10 I think) and it was fun ish.  

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 19 2009,06:08

Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Mar. 18 2009,16:39)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2009,20:55)
Science denial now with added Anti-vax

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/03/autism-and-vaccines.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Everytime I go to Voxday's blog I die a little inside.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My advice: Don't go.

I've been avoiding the Alpha Fail, like all TARD that hasn't been at least filtered through someone else's brain, for a while.

I did read his "book" however.

I woke up in hospital having had a massive brain fart (proper medical term that). Apparently blood was gushing from my nose as I read each page and I had to be kept alive by infusions of blood and minced copies of useful philosophy books.

There comes a point when the TARD is simply too powerful for one person to encompass and they collapse into a TARDhole. This is what has happened to Vox Doofus. Dangerous to get close to. I suggest a dose of rationality, go read the Wikipedia entry on The Enlightenment. It usually brightens my day.

Louis
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Mar. 19 2009,06:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Does anyone here play MMORPGs? I've heard interesting things about WoW, but never played a game. I did have an old version of just plain Warcraft for my old Mac about...umm....some years ago (10 I think) and it was fun ish.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In the same register (although a bit under technicaly), but FREE, there is Rappelz.

I've played it for about 2 months last year, and it was aaaarrrggghh ("higlhy enjoyable", or "quick, more boiling oil", or "Your wife is a big hyppo").

I've had to put a stop to it for fear of my social life. But it's still really nice and entertaining, and one thing I liked with it is that there was a server with no PvP whatsoever, which greatly reduces one's need to buy a shotgun and get into IP-localisation lessons...
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 19 2009,08:21

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 19 2009,14:25)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Does anyone here play MMORPGs? I've heard interesting things about WoW, but never played a game. I did have an old version of just plain Warcraft for my old Mac about...umm....some years ago (10 I think) and it was fun ish.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In the same register (although a bit under technicaly), but FREE, there is Rappelz.

I've played it for about 2 months last year, and it was aaaarrrggghh ("higlhy enjoyable", or "quick, more boiling oil", or "Your wife is a big hyppo").

I've had to put a stop to it for fear of my social life. But it's still really nice and entertaining, and one thing I liked with it is that there was a server with no PvP whatsoever, which greatly reduces one's need to buy a shotgun and get into IP-localisation lessons...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




So a divorce is immenint?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Mar. 19 2009,08:25

Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 19 2009,15:21)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 19 2009,14:25)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Does anyone here play MMORPGs? I've heard interesting things about WoW, but never played a game. I did have an old version of just plain Warcraft for my old Mac about...umm....some years ago (10 I think) and it was fun ish.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In the same register (although a bit under technicaly), but FREE, there is Rappelz.

I've played it for about 2 months last year, and it was aaaarrrggghh ("higlhy enjoyable", or "quick, more boiling oil", or "Your wife is a big hyppo").

I've had to put a stop to it for fear of my social life. But it's still really nice and entertaining, and one thing I liked with it is that there was a server with no PvP whatsoever, which greatly reduces one's need to buy a shotgun and get into IP-localisation lessons...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




So a divorce is immenint?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First, your pic doesn't show.

Second, I've heard somewhere that I need a wife in order to divorce. Should someone provide one to me, I'll make sure your prediction happens*.


*Really fast.

Edit: and now it does show. blast, I feel stoopid!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 19 2009,09:35

VD sticks it to science, and he can, because of his IQ.

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/03/if-you-hand-us-hammer.html >
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 19 2009,09:50

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2009,09:35)
VD sticks it to science, and he can, because of his IQ.

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/03/if-you-hand-us-hammer.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok, now I'm bleeding out my ears.  And not just from El Primo Tard, the prophet Teddy.  The commenters are similarly idiots.  Of course, we got the anti-vax, and the "why trust science when it changes all the time" - what else is there for morons to feed on.  

I forgot that, like a bunch of others, that Vox is supposed to be highly intelligent - didn't he claim Mensa membership?  If so, I'm not surprised - most of the people who go around claiming to be in Mensa are really disconnected from reality and really egotistical and arrogantly proclaim their own superiority.  Is this common, or is it the vocal minority that gets all the attention and most Mensa members are ok?
Posted by: FrankH on Mar. 19 2009,10:15

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 19 2009,08:25)
Edit: and now it does show. blast, I feel stoopid!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome to my world!
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 19 2009,11:16

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 19 2009,15:50)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2009,09:35)
VD sticks it to science, and he can, because of his IQ.

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/03/if-you-hand-us-hammer.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok, now I'm bleeding out my ears.  And not just from El Primo Tard, the prophet Teddy.  The commenters are similarly idiots.  Of course, we got the anti-vax, and the "why trust science when it changes all the time" - what else is there for morons to feed on.  

I forgot that, like a bunch of others, that Vox is supposed to be highly intelligent - didn't he claim Mensa membership?  If so, I'm not surprised - most of the people who go around claiming to be in Mensa are really disconnected from reality and really egotistical and arrogantly proclaim their own superiority.  Is this common, or is it the vocal minority that gets all the attention and most Mensa members are ok?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I joined Mensa at 16 years old and left at 16 and a bit years old. The "bit" was all it took me to figure out that I was paying a group of people to tell me how clever I was, and thus, they were more clever than me. In hindsight I shouldn't have been bloody stupid enough to join in the first place. I'll put it down to teenage insecurity and hormones.

I've taken various proper IQ tests since then and been happy with the results, but really it's just something to keep my hand in. Logic problems can be fun.....

....Oh fuck have I just confessed to logic problems being fun and liking an MMORPG? In one day! Pig's knackers!

I think I just outed myself as an uber geeky nerdlinger super spod. I swear blind this:



isn't me.

Promise. No really. Honest.

Louis

P.S. The few Mensa people I met were okay, but then I met about a dozen or so, nearly 20 years ago, so hardly anything to form a good judgement with.

P.P.S. I *am* better than everyone else, but not because I once joined Mensa. It's because my Mummy says so. Even better, Arden's Mummy says so too. And she should know.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 19 2009,11:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And she should know.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



based on sample size or SAMPLE SIZE?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 19 2009,11:28

He's now deleting links to this study:

< http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/347/19/1477 >

which strongly suggest he's full of shit.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 19 2009,11:38

yah Loose you are a pretty good queef.  but you could lose all that body hair brain power and still do your job.  which by the way, is going undone.  back into the cage!
Posted by: khan on Mar. 19 2009,11:41

I was a member of MENSA for a decade or so.  A good way of socializing when new to an area.  Most of the folks were OK. I stopped renewing membership as I wasn't going to any events.  Now and then the send me a letter asking me to renew.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 19 2009,13:31

He's just been done with the 'juxtaposed quote':



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Vax? Nay!    3/19/09 1:20 PM
"Can you show us a single individual with an IQ +1SD that does not understand the scientific method? "

Here


"No more BS "no statistical correlation has been found", no more "no peer reviewed study has proven", no more dancing and ducking and evading the obvious solution of actually putting the scientific method to work. Interpolation and extrapolation aren't sufficient. Statistical analysis isn't enough. Peer reviewed metastudies are of zero value. Pump 1,000 kids full of toxinsvaccines according to the complete schedule and leave a control group of 1,000 completely unvaccinated. Then report on how they're doing every six months. There's no excuse not to do it, it's eminently doable."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Editz for spellink
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 19 2009,13:47

And he's deleted it already.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 26 2009,13:55

He's got new hardware comming out:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-engineers.html >
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 09 2009,13:50

Reciprocating Bill's critique is being discussed towards the end:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/04/farrago-of-fandangos.html >
Posted by: Skullboy on April 28 2009,13:27

Vox Day, quoted without comment:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Invisible Pink Unicorn: 4/28/09 10:26 AM:
Also, nice lumping together of Socrates, Russell, Dawkins, and Jesus-scorning, like they all go together, as if those four address the same intellectual problems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You clearly failed to understand the point. Jesus Christ - or whoever wrote his dialogue, if you prefer - is clearly operating at a more formidable intellectual level than Socrates, Russell, or Dawkins. Those jokers couldn't even handle me, let alone Paul or Augustine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



From < here >.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 28 2009,14:33

from same:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you think economic actions are imaginary too? Because they're equally difficult to study using the scientific matter. It's a variant of the quantum problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Errrrrr.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on April 28 2009,16:18

rich just lemme say I am glad that you are keeping this mine open.  in tough times the seams run thin at UD and TT, regulations and arbitrary mine owners keep the union guys out, 404 explosions pollute the air with the dust of oil soaked straw homos, but in those days Vox Day is like a breath of fresh tard.  i just wanted to thank you for that.  and ask you to find some more tard for me.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 28 2009,16:26

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 28 2009,16:18)
rich just lemme say I am glad that you are keeping this mine open.  in tough times the seams run thin at UD and TT, regulations and arbitrary mine owners keep the union guys out, 404 explosions pollute the air with the dust of oil soaked straw homos, but in those days Vox Day is like a breath of fresh tard.  i just wanted to thank you for that.  and ask you to find some more tard for me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The VD mine is a good one. As an attractor for unhinged science-denying right wingers, its a top top draw.

His evo posts are the best. He doesn't like that evolution one bit. Its rubbish at predicting teh future, so its not proper science. He wont actually say what his view on origins are,  presumably because teh return fire would be depleted uranium versus the peashooter he employs.

'Evolution is made up'. We dance the dance of the creationist canards, the Lucy twist, the Peppered Moth Jive. Then someone mentions ERVs, so his demented wife is put on high alert to delete any posts that mention these.
Posted by: Lou FCD on April 28 2009,18:39

I didn't really have any interest in Venereal Day. But then you mentioned the demented wife...


Posted by: Richardthughes on April 28 2009,18:48

Quote (Lou FCD @ April 28 2009,18:39)
I didn't really have any interest in Venereal Day. But then you mentioned the demented wife...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Spacebunny" - 100% humorless fundy tard.
Posted by: Skullboy on April 28 2009,23:23

That same thread keeps on giving.
VD:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look at it this way. X=designer and Y=design. We know Y exists, so it is equal to at least 1. Dawkins states that X MUST be greater than Y. I contradict and state that X may or may not be greater than Y. We don't have a value for X, but we do know that if there is no designer, then X=0, obviously. However, we know that 0 is not greater than 1, therefore Dawkins has to be incorrect.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Never argue with a Sicilian when death is on the line! >
Posted by: Badger3k on April 28 2009,23:57

Quote (Skullboy @ April 28 2009,23:23)
That same thread keeps on giving.
VD:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look at it this way. X=designer and Y=design. We know Y exists, so it is equal to at least 1. Dawkins states that X MUST be greater than Y. I contradict and state that X may or may not be greater than Y. We don't have a value for X, but we do know that if there is no designer, then X=0, obviously. However, we know that 0 is not greater than 1, therefore Dawkins has to be incorrect.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Never argue with a Sicilian when death is on the line! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WTF?  Start out with "We know that Y exists" - since when?  We have the appearance of design, but they still need to try to show that "Y = 1"

Not only that, but the writer has no clue as to what the argument is.  Completely clueless.  :O
Posted by: Henry J on April 29 2009,22:44

Should somebody mention that "design" and "designer" aren't numbers? And that they aren't even members of a well ordered series?

Henry
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 30 2009,00:27

Evo Incredulity:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/04/skeptics-justification.html >
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 30 2009,11:13

Grrr.. another sock silenced:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/05/frauds-of-science.html >
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 03 2009,08:56

Ted advocated voting BNP:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/06/ukip-in-uk.html >

this is them:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party >


I eagerly await his next post on "Roundink up ze Jewz"
Posted by: blipey on June 03 2009,09:35

Wow.  They seem like nice guys.  How again is Vox qualified to lecture the British electorate?
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 03 2009,09:36

Quote (blipey @ June 03 2009,09:35)
Wow.  They seem like nice guys.  How again is Vox qualified to lecture the British electorate?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's read the bible.
Posted by: Badger3k on June 03 2009,09:54

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 03 2009,09:36)
Quote (blipey @ June 03 2009,09:35)
Wow.  They seem like nice guys.  How again is Vox qualified to lecture the British electorate?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's read the bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And he's in MENSA.  Can't forget that.  And he carries a sword in his picture - surely that means something in a somewhat monarchy.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 28 2009,18:20

Moon Landing Denialism?

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009....es.html >
Posted by: 1of63 on June 28 2009,18:29

Quote (blipey @ June 03 2009,09:35)
Wow.  They seem like nice guys.  How again is Vox qualified to lecture the British electorate?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The standard British response to a lecture from Vox Day will be a gesture involving two fingers and a reference to the Biblical commandment to go forth and multiply.
Posted by: Badger3k on June 28 2009,19:58

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 28 2009,18:20)
Moon Landing Denialism?

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009....es.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why am I not surprised?
Posted by: Texas Teach on June 28 2009,20:19

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 28 2009,18:20)
Moon Landing Denialism?

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009....es.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But does he believe in ghosts?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 14 2009,08:47

SCIENTISTS R TEH STOOPID.


< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/07/scientists-are-stupid.html >
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 14 2009,08:51

From the thread:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Christianity: the belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove some evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because some rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Makes perfect sense.

Who will I believe? Jack Chick or science?

URL=http://www.chick.com/catalog/TractList.asp


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: dogdidit on July 14 2009,09:44

Quote (1of63 @ June 28 2009,18:29)
Quote (blipey @ June 03 2009,09:35)
Wow.  They seem like nice guys.  How again is Vox qualified to lecture the British electorate?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The standard British response to a lecture from Vox Day will be a gesture involving two fingers and a reference to the Biblical commandment to go forth and multiply.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Re the British two-fingered salute: how is it dis-ambiguated from V for Victory?
Posted by: Gunthernacus on July 14 2009,10:07

Quote (dogdidit @ July 14 2009,10:44)
Quote (1of63 @ June 28 2009,18:29)
Quote (blipey @ June 03 2009,09:35)
Wow.  They seem like nice guys.  How again is Vox qualified to lecture the British electorate?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The standard British response to a lecture from Vox Day will be a gesture involving two fingers and a reference to the Biblical commandment to go forth and multiply.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Re the British two-fingered salute: how is it dis-ambiguated from V for Victory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that the V for victory shows the palm of the hand, while the 2-fingered salute shows the back of the hand to the recipient (and a beckoning-type motion of the hand, too?).
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 14 2009,10:11

Correct. legend has it the  'swearing' V dates back to the battle of Agincourt:


< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_sign >
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 29 2009,21:38

A regular muses on evolutionary theory:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/07/mailvox-simulating-evolution.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution... Supposedly has it's beginnings in a primordial soup. (sigh)

All this evolution stuff begs the questions:

1. Supposedly everything goes back to the big bang. Where did all this matter come from?
2. If the right chemicals were present in a primordial soup and then something happens, (i.e. lightning, an aliens cigarette butt (or whatever aliens smoke) being tossed into the pot, maybe a chemical battery was formed and discharged) the right chemicals form together to form DNA on the molecular level and poof! A single cell creature is formed.

What did this little single cell creature eat? Because in order to eat, something must die. Unless they are a plant. They make food from soil and the sun. Now if this little cell is of plant type, Then how come mammals, reptiles and fish are not somewhat like plants? And how come the single cell could survive to reproduce (asexually I assume) to make up the world we live in now? How come the first little guy didn't starve to death for lack of food?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bet you "scientists" never thought of that..
Posted by: Marion Delgado on July 29 2009,22:28

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzomg!

Pwned!


D00000med!


WE GIVE UP! SORRY, JESUS!

I'm no kin to the monkey, no no no
The monkey's no kin to me, yeah yeah yeah
I don't know much about his ancestors
But mine didn't swing from a tree

This monkey business has got to stop
Because it just isn't true
The teachers who believe evolution
Would be better off in a zoo!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 03 2009,02:47

Idiot Vox gets duped:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/08/good-news-they-found-hospital.html >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 25 2009,09:42

FAILSAUCE:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/08/mailvox-five-questions.html >

anyone who thinks VD is bright should behold the reasoning in this one..
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 25 2009,10:23

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 25 2009,09:42)
FAILSAUCE:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/08/mailvox-five-questions.html >

anyone who thinks VD is bright should behold the reasoning in this one..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the link, but I could not force myself to finish reading the words he put down.  His wring makes Denyse look sane.  

ps:  I don't think VD is bright, I think VD is a dangerous disease that should be wiped out to make the world a better place to live.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 26 2009,20:20

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/08/there-is-no-marital-rape.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, there is no such thing as marital rape. Once consent is formally given in public ceremony, it cannot be revoked; the form in which marital consent is revoked is well-established. It is called divorce. ....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Religious, 'women as property' idiocy. I almost feel sorry for his idiot wife (stupidest of a litter of 12).
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 26 2009,20:59

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 26 2009,21:20)
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/08/there-is-no-marital-rape.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, there is no such thing as marital rape. Once consent is formally given in public ceremony, it cannot be revoked; the form in which marital consent is revoked is well-established. It is called divorce. ....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Religious, 'women as property' idiocy. I almost feel sorry for his idiot wife (stupidest of a litter of 12).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


thats the sort of tard on which we need to get gordon mullings tardificating

UD could stand a dope of that sort of stupid.  VD, well, rich, you know everyone expects that kinda shit there.  UD is good because while most of the tards probably agree they at least don't say it out loud.  let's make 'em
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 06 2009,12:16

Teddy moans about Penn Jillette, so my sock socks it to him:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Peter File    9/6/09 11:04 AM
VD: 9/6/09 12:35 AM:
small fish doesn't even begin to describe his insignificance.


To be clear, Penn Jillette > you.


Quote
VD    9/6/09 11:25 AM
Peter File: 9/6/09 11:04 AM:
To be clear, Penn Jillette > you.
Yes, I'm sure intellectuals, think tanks, and politicians everywhere give a damn about an American comedian's opinion on... anything. Stephanie Meyer and Britney Spears are even more famous than Mr. Jillette and I don't worry much about what they think either.

Hey, but at least he managed to write a book about playing in traffic. With help.


Quote
Peter File    9/6/09 11:46 AM
VD: 9/6/09 11:25 AM:

Peter File: 9/6/09 11:04 AM:
To be clear, Penn Jillette > you.
Yes, I'm sure intellectuals, think tanks, and politicians everywhere give a damn about an American comedian's opinion on... anything. Stephanie Meyer and Britney Spears are even more famous than Mr. Jillette and I don't worry much about what they think either.

Hey, but at least he managed to write a book about playing in traffic. With help.


Are you in intellectual circles? I Handn't noticed.


Quote
Peter File    9/6/09 12:13 PM
VD: 9/6/09 11:25 AM:
Yes, I'm sure intellectuals, think tanks, and politicians everywhere give a damn about an American comedian's opinion on... anything.


Jillette is a Fellow at the libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute.

Bwahahahahahahahhahahahaha


Fact-checking. Something the reality based community does. Another reason Penn Jillette > you.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 18 2009,16:03

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/09/fearful-hypocrites.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tomato, tomahto. PZ knows perfectly well I'd kick his ass on any subject, including his area of scientific expertise. I've got around +2SD IQ on him and I'm better educated. But he can keep running away and I'll keep laughing at him, that suits me just fine too. Dawkins is too dumb to pay attention to criticism, which is why his arguments, to the extent they even are arguments, never improve.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thank you your gorgeous sexy fundy twat!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 21 2009,11:31

Worth saving:
(sorry about the format)

[quote class="userCommentQuote"]<b>Hylomorphic: 9/20/09 12:33 PM:</b> <br><blockquote class="userCommentQuote"><b>Jason1975: 9/20/09 3:20 AM:</b>
Actually Hylomorpic, you've just made Vox's point for him.

Gould made the same point, that if evolution was reversed and allowed to run again then the outcome would be different than what we have. However lack of repeatability equals lack of predictability equals lack of status as a scientific theory.

You last point fails on exactly that point. You can't claim that the evidence for evolution is empirical if evolution doesn't predict anything you can actually empirically test.</blockquote>

A common point of confusion among those whose understanding of the philosophy of science goes no further than the first chapter of their chemistry book is that science demands the prediction of outcomes of future experiments.

While it's certainly true that the easiest and most reliable method of acquiring scientific data is by planning and running repeatable experiments, this is often impractical or impossible. Particularly for fields like archaeology, geology, and paleontology, which primarily investigate past events. It is not essential that the event discovered and added to the data set be repeatable. It is only essential that the observation of the event itself be repeatable--other scientists can come look at those dinosaur fossils, for instance.

Astrophysics is another example of a science which cannot make repeatable experiments, though it frequently does deal with the future. It is simply not possible to experimentally repeat sending a particular comet around the sun. Which is why, when an interesting celestial event occurs which is rare enough that future observations will be difficult, multiple scientific organizations try to train their telescopes on it to mitigate observer bias.



<blockquote class="userCommentQuote"><b>VD: 9/20/09 6:47 AM:</b>
Agreed.  So what?  One can't reasonably claim the credibility of scientific rigor and then complain that doing the actual science is too hard.  The fact that you CAN'T do it is conclusive evidence that you AREN'T doing it.  Most evolutionary "science" is in fact the use of proxies for science.  Not unreasonable, but not science either.</blockquote>

I was trying to make the point that a method unreliable for the social sciences may be much more reliable for the hard sciences. What did you think I was trying to say?

<blockquote class="userCommentQuote"><b>VD: 9/20/09 6:47 AM:</b>
<blockquote class="userCommentQuote"><b>Hylomorphic: 9/19/09 1:03 PM:</b>
Second, biology makes little use of backtesting in the way you describe it. Evolutionary biology, as far as I'm aware, makes none to speak of. </blockquote>Real biology doesn't.  Evolution apologists certainly do.  That's what many the citations of the fossile record are based upon.  Or look at the way the discovery of the Tiktaalik fossil is portrayed.</blockquote>

You must have revised your definition of "backtesting," and you look rather like you've fallen into the same fundamental confusion as Jason. It is not backtesting merely because it deals with past events; it only becomes backtesting when a simulated model is run. That method is not (as far as I know) used by biologists.

In fact, it would be a sign of the strength of evolutionary theory if the sort of backtesting you describe could be done (though, as I said, I think that's a wildly optimistic hope). It would verify as never before its theoretical soundness.

As it happens, Tiktaalik was discovered through logical inference from known factors in the fish-to-reptile transition. For the transition to occur in the way believed, such and such a kind of creature would have to have existed at some point, and it probably would have had to live in such and such an area at such and such a time. A prediction having been made, the scientists went out into the field to make their observations. And in this case, the observation confirmed the hypothesis.

This is a textbook example of scientific discovery. Not "backtesting."<hr />[/quote]
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 21 2009,22:37

Sounds like somebody is taking "prediction" to mean predicting every result in infinite detail. Science wouldn't work if infinite detail was necessary; the point is that some predictions can be made that can be tested.

Henry
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 23 2009,14:12

Falsification: Something else Vox Day doesn't understand:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/09/mailvox-falsification.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
R wonders what would qualify:


I'd very much appreciate it if you would elaborate on what you would consider a falsification of Christianity.


There are numerous possibilities, including:

1) The discovery of Jesus Christ's body.
2) An intact Temple in Jerusalem.
3) The end of war or poverty.
4) The elimination of the Christian Church.
5) Immortality science.
6) A demonstrated ability to avoid Biblical sin.
7) The destruction of the Jewish people.

These are all material things, easily and objectively observable. It is incorrect to claim that religion is magically beyond scientific observation. God may be, but it's readily apparent that most religions, including Christianity, are not.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



2) is the only remotely useable one.
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on Sep. 25 2009,04:30

Someone already had the name Beelzebub so I had to take the next number.

The problem with Item 1 is that a lot of believers have already stated that if Simcha Jacobovici actually did discover the tomb of Jesus it still wouldn't convince them that the Resurrection is bunk.

To the larger question of whether Vox Day has the slightest clue what "falsifiable" means.  Of course not!  Vox Day never understands what he's talking about -- and never lets that stop him.  Falsifiable means you have to be able to conceive an experiment that would show something is false, not that there are fortuitous events that may or may not transpire showing something to be false if you're very lucky.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 25 2009,08:51

Quote (Beelzebub667 @ Sep. 25 2009,04:30)
Someone already had the name Beelzebub so I had to take the next number.

The problem with Item 1 is that a lot of believers have already stated that if Simcha Jacobovici actually did discover the tomb of Jesus it still wouldn't convince them that the Resurrection is bunk.

To the larger question of whether Vox Day has the slightest clue what "falsifiable" means.  Of course not!  Vox Day never understands what he's talking about -- and never lets that stop him.  Falsifiable means you have to be able to conceive an experiment that would show something is false, not that there are fortuitous events that may or may not transpire showing something to be false if you're very lucky.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome Beelzebub!

Your posts used to shine a little ray of reality into Vox's cave and provide much needed critique. Of course that's incompatible with his ego. But I was (am) a big fan. I hope you find some of the other threads interesting - are you a logician?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 25 2009,09:11

quick to rally to any neocon cause, he's upset with global warming again:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/09/agw-biggest-science-fraud-yet.html >

Or maybe he doesn't want us delaying the rapture any longer?

edit to add this nugget from Vox:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, the main reason I'm so strongly against the AGW/CC BS is that I'm from Minnesota. You know, an area that used to be COMPLETELY COVERED WITH ICE. During the years I lived there, I happened to notice that IT IS NO LONGER COMPLETELY COVERED WITH ICE. Ergo, the rational conclusion is that the planet has been warming considerably for quite some time without any help from Man.

Also, I fail to see any significant downside to the sudden and catastrophic inundation of the East and West Coasts portrayed in the more hysterical global warming scenarios.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 25 2009,09:39

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 25 2009,10:11)
quick to rally to any neocon cause, he's upset with global warming again:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/09/agw-biggest-science-fraud-yet.html >

Or maybe he doesn't want us delaying the rapture any longer?

edit to add this nugget from Vox:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, the main reason I'm so strongly against the AGW/CC BS is that I'm from Minnesota. You know, an area that used to be COMPLETELY COVERED WITH ICE. During the years I lived there, I happened to notice that IT IS NO LONGER COMPLETELY COVERED WITH ICE. Ergo, the rational conclusion is that the planet has been warming considerably for quite some time without any help from Man.

Also, I fail to see any significant downside to the sudden and catastrophic inundation of the East and West Coasts portrayed in the more hysterical global warming scenarios.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


themmar fancy east coast and west coast librulz!  

VD thinks he is a god damned Noah
Posted by: ppb on Sep. 25 2009,09:44

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 25 2009,10:39)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 25 2009,10:11)
quick to rally to any neocon cause, he's upset with global warming again:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/09/agw-biggest-science-fraud-yet.html >

Or maybe he doesn't want us delaying the rapture any longer?

edit to add this nugget from Vox:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, the main reason I'm so strongly against the AGW/CC BS is that I'm from Minnesota. You know, an area that used to be COMPLETELY COVERED WITH ICE. During the years I lived there, I happened to notice that IT IS NO LONGER COMPLETELY COVERED WITH ICE. Ergo, the rational conclusion is that the planet has been warming considerably for quite some time without any help from Man.

Also, I fail to see any significant downside to the sudden and catastrophic inundation of the East and West Coasts portrayed in the more hysterical global warming scenarios.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


themmar fancy east coast and west coast librulz!  

VD thinks he is a god damned Noah
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He lives in that "Real" America that God and Sarah Palin love so much.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 25 2009,09:47

Quote (ppb @ Sep. 25 2009,09:44)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 25 2009,10:39)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 25 2009,10:11)
quick to rally to any neocon cause, he's upset with global warming again:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/09/agw-biggest-science-fraud-yet.html >

Or maybe he doesn't want us delaying the rapture any longer?

edit to add this nugget from Vox:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, the main reason I'm so strongly against the AGW/CC BS is that I'm from Minnesota. You know, an area that used to be COMPLETELY COVERED WITH ICE. During the years I lived there, I happened to notice that IT IS NO LONGER COMPLETELY COVERED WITH ICE. Ergo, the rational conclusion is that the planet has been warming considerably for quite some time without any help from Man.

Also, I fail to see any significant downside to the sudden and catastrophic inundation of the East and West Coasts portrayed in the more hysterical global warming scenarios.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


themmar fancy east coast and west coast librulz!  

VD thinks he is a god damned Noah
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He lives in that "Real" America that God and Sarah Palin love so much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He lives in Italy now. But tells America what's-what.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 25 2009,09:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's clear that "Hylomorph" is the previously banned commenter named Rich, for example.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hylomorph is not me, but I'm liking his posts. Nice to think I've induced paranoia. Oh wait, he already had that in abundance.


TEH_LIBRRULS_R_COMMING_WITH_THEY'RE_FASHIZUM
Posted by: ppb on Sep. 25 2009,10:21

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 25 2009,10:47)
He lives in Italy now. But tells America what's-what.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I stand corrected.

He lives in that "Real" Italy that God and Sarah Palin love so much.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But tells America what's-what.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just like Sarah Palin!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 25 2009,15:45

Vox:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do as you like. I make a habit of entertaining far more outlandish concepts on a regular basis. That's one reason why I have been able to nail price movements to a 99 percent precision 11 months in advance while all the experts were wildly off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



O_o



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow. You must be a billionaire by now!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Beelzebub667 on Sep. 26 2009,03:34

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 25 2009,08:51)
Your posts used to shine a little ray of reality into Vox's cave and provide much needed critique. Of course that's incompatible with his ego. But I was (am) a big fan. I hope you find some of the other threads interesting - are you a logician?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks.  No, not a logician, though I've done the obligatory reading of Godel, Escher, Back, and I try not to make the usual mistake of reading too much into the Godel proof -- which is becoming unfortunately fashionable.

VD has many problems beyond extreme ego inflation; many stem from his utter devotion to unexamined belief.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 26 2009,19:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
VD has many problems beyond extreme ego inflation;
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like a bad choice of name, given alternate meaning of the initials?

Henry
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on Sep. 27 2009,03:29

Oops, I mean Bach.  I was tired, so, so tired.  I felt like showing up here saying "My name is Beelzebub...and I'm a tardaholic, Ahh--huh, huh, sniffle.  It's been 3 days since I last visited Vox Popoli."

Seriously though, I'm trying to cut back.  The lunatics are now running that asylum -- and you know what?  You aren't going to change them.  They're so far gone that they're never coming back.  But the reason places like this are still important is that I feel sorry for the dupe who shows up at VP and says yeah, I'm going to read more and take this guy seriously -- and so the insanity spreads like a disease.  If there isn't at least the vague opportunity for counterpoint, that's a grave error.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 27 2009,10:08

Quote (Beelzebub667 @ Sep. 27 2009,03:29)
Oops, I mean Bach.  I was tired, so, so tired.  I felt like showing up here saying "My name is Beelzebub...and I'm a tardaholic, Ahh--huh, huh, sniffle.  It's been 3 days since I last visited Vox Popoli."

Seriously though, I'm trying to cut back.  The lunatics are now running that asylum -- and you know what?  You aren't going to change them.  They're so far gone that they're never coming back.  But the reason places like this are still important is that I feel sorry for the dupe who shows up at VP and says yeah, I'm going to read more and take this guy seriously -- and so the insanity spreads like a disease.  If there isn't at least the vague opportunity for counterpoint, that's a grave error.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Spacebunny is on high alert for any rationals that might have crossed their boarders.
Posted by: dnmlthr on Sep. 27 2009,11:04

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 27 2009,16:08)
Spacebunny is on high alert for any rationals that might have crossed their boarders.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The minutemen of tard.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 02 2009,19:54

Debate!

< http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3660 >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 03 2009,00:35

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 02 2009,19:54)
Debate!

< http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3660 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gets my vote for worst web page design of the month.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 03 2009,14:00

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009....ii.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
cshizzle: 10/3/09 11:08 AM:
At the conclusion of this discourse with Luke on why you are a Christian, would you be interested in going into a full blown debate with him about evolution?


No, let someone else take the next crack. I'm really not interested in debating evolution with anyone who doesn't have a PhD in biology. The average individual can't be expected to have any idea what I'm talking about, as we've seen already.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 03 2009,15:55

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 03 2009,14:00)
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009....ii.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
cshizzle: 10/3/09 11:08 AM:
At the conclusion of this discourse with Luke on why you are a Christian, would you be interested in going into a full blown debate with him about evolution?


No, let someone else take the next crack. I'm really not interested in debating evolution with anyone who doesn't have a PhD in biology. The average individual can't be expected to have any idea what I'm talking about, as we've seen already.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, he has part of that right, but not for the reasons he thinks.  I read a bit of the first posting of the letter/exchange with Vox and Luke, and the lack of empathy, humanity, and even basic logical thought among the Voxtards is simply incredible.  At least some of them are just naked in their belief that they are right because they are right.  I'd say it was surprising, but having seen Teddy and his echo chamber or tard, it would take a lot to surprise me about him.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 03 2009,21:43

I spy olegt over there...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 04 2009,00:35

Somebody who comments over there should give a response to the fellow saying that < "Pasteur was a creationist" >...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A pretty flexible creationist, it would seem.
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on Oct. 04 2009,03:53

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 03 2009,21:43)
I spy olegt over there...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd never seen the crackpot index, but it does nail VD pretty perfectly.  Notice his elegant sidestep at being pwnded -- it's not his theory, just one he subscribes to.  Very lame, but when you're Vox Day, lame is sufficient.
Posted by: olegt on Oct. 04 2009,08:06

Quote (Beelzebub667 @ Oct. 04 2009,03:53)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 03 2009,21:43)
I spy olegt over there...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd never seen the crackpot index, but it does nail VD pretty perfectly.  Notice his elegant sidestep at being pwnded -- it's not his theory, just one he subscribes to.  Very lame, but when you're Vox Day, lame is sufficient.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crackpots have universal features, so Baez catalogued them.  Teddy is no exception.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 04 2009,08:44

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 19 2009,05:20)
Anybody here ever play Diplomacy?

Now there is an intense game.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry for the late reply RB, but Diplo is one of my fav games. we even had a great session 3 years ago in full period costumes, just for the fun of it. Of course, we still allow spying before round resolutions :D

Definitely a great game of the mind and cunning!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 04 2009,15:08

Oleg, love your slapdown!
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 04 2009,18:50

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 04 2009,14:06)
Quote (Beelzebub667 @ Oct. 04 2009,03:53)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 03 2009,21:43)
I spy olegt over there...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd never seen the crackpot index, but it does nail VD pretty perfectly.  Notice his elegant sidestep at being pwnded -- it's not his theory, just one he subscribes to.  Very lame, but when you're Vox Day, lame is sufficient.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crackpots have universal features, so Baez catalogued them.  Teddy is no exception.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh I agree absolutely. Denialists of all species basically do things the same way. You can substitute the terms "climate change" for "evolution" or "The Holocaust" or "medicine" in denialist screeds depending on whether you are talking to/reading an AGW denier, a creationist, a Holocaust denier or a homeopath. It's the same basic shit sundae with slightly different turd sprinkles.

Louis
Posted by: khan on Oct. 04 2009,18:55

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 04 2009,19:50)
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 04 2009,14:06)
Quote (Beelzebub667 @ Oct. 04 2009,03:53)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 03 2009,21:43)
I spy olegt over there...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd never seen the crackpot index, but it does nail VD pretty perfectly.  Notice his elegant sidestep at being pwnded -- it's not his theory, just one he subscribes to.  Very lame, but when you're Vox Day, lame is sufficient.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crackpots have universal features, so Baez catalogued them.  Teddy is no exception.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh I agree absolutely. Denialists of all species basically do things the same way. You can substitute the terms "climate change" for "evolution" or "The Holocaust" or "medicine" in denialist screeds depending on whether you are talking to/reading an AGW denier, a creationist, a Holocaust denier or a homeopath. It's the same basic shit sundae with slightly different turd sprinkles.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So true on the denialists.
Impervious to reality.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 04 2009,19:09

Quote (khan @ Oct. 05 2009,00:55)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 04 2009,19:50)
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 04 2009,14:06)
 
Quote (Beelzebub667 @ Oct. 04 2009,03:53)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 03 2009,21:43)
I spy olegt over there...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd never seen the crackpot index, but it does nail VD pretty perfectly.  Notice his elegant sidestep at being pwnded -- it's not his theory, just one he subscribes to.  Very lame, but when you're Vox Day, lame is sufficient.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crackpots have universal features, so Baez catalogued them.  Teddy is no exception.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh I agree absolutely. Denialists of all species basically do things the same way. You can substitute the terms "climate change" for "evolution" or "The Holocaust" or "medicine" in denialist screeds depending on whether you are talking to/reading an AGW denier, a creationist, a Holocaust denier or a homeopath. It's the same basic shit sundae with slightly different turd sprinkles.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So true on the denialists.
Impervious to reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's an attitude I've never understood. I simply don't get the mentality that runs "I have this idea, I like this idea, I'll compare it as accurately as I can to reality, what do you mean it doesn't match? Reality must be wrong!". It beggars belief.....literally.

Louis
Posted by: olegt on Oct. 04 2009,20:53

Alas, economics was declared off-topic on that thread, presumably to enable people to discuss Satan, the Magi, and other relevant subjects.  I decided to play nice and am staying away from the echo chamber.  It gets boring after a while.  

But I thought that TARD watchers would be amused by the Ted's reaction to a quick comment "calculation? can we see the math?"



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're kidding, right? You come here to mock, and that's fine. It comes with the territory. But I have no interest in handing over successful models to people whose intention isn't merely to criticize, but denigrate. If you genuinely find my critics to be more perspicacious, then you would be better served by asking for their superior tools.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's again straight from the < Crackpot Index >: 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 04 2009,21:29

Rich - is that you commenting on this thread (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3660)?

I love the strength of the arguments - you had a believer in Plantiga's BS.  There's the guy who thinks that religion exists, and this proves...god?...I'm not sure.  People believe that Kunoiki footpads, and coffee enemas, work.  And that since a belief in gods is old, then atheists (a "new" theory) have to prove that they are wrong, completely ignoring the fact that these religions have yet to prove that they are right in the first place.  I think he's also the evolution denier, but as one of Teddy's drones, I'm sure there is a lot of denialism going on.  Then you have the postmodernist.  Nice collection.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 04 2009,22:45

Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 04 2009,21:29)
Rich - is that you commenting on this thread (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3660)?

I love the strength of the arguments - you had a believer in Plantiga's BS.  There's the guy who thinks that religion exists, and this proves...god?...I'm not sure.  People believe that Kunoiki footpads, and coffee enemas, work.  And that since a belief in gods is old, then atheists (a "new" theory) have to prove that they are wrong, completely ignoring the fact that these religions have yet to prove that they are right in the first place.  I think he's also the evolution denier, but as one of Teddy's drones, I'm sure there is a lot of denialism going on.  Then you have the postmodernist.  Nice collection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aye, that's me.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 04 2009,22:51

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 04 2009,20:53)
Alas, economics was declared off-topic on that thread, presumably to enable people to discuss Satan, the Magi, and other relevant subjects.  I decided to play nice and am staying away from the echo chamber.  It gets boring after a while.  

But I thought that TARD watchers would be amused by the Ted's reaction to a quick comment "calculation? can we see the math?"

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're kidding, right? You come here to mock, and that's fine. It comes with the territory. But I have no interest in handing over successful models to people whose intention isn't merely to criticize, but denigrate. If you genuinely find my critics to be more perspicacious, then you would be better served by asking for their superior tools.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's again straight from the < Crackpot Index >: 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I bet the quick commenter is both handsome and not gay at all.
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on Oct. 05 2009,03:20

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 04 2009,20:53)
That's again straight from the < Crackpot Index >: 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I once took a college credit class where I was the only person in the room except for a guy who showed up without any preparation at all.  Somehow he thought he would pass anyway.  He spent four hours scribbling odd answers and essays on a math exam.  Crackpot in training.

I think the crackpot is someone who's ambition to be recognized outstrips both their talent and willingness to work.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 05 2009,08:27

Beale's problem is that he thinks he's a leading light, when in actuality he's an irrelevant crackpot with a handful of like-minded loonies. The classic contrarian, mainstream X must be wrong, and he gloms onto whatever denialism is doing the rounds and promotes it. I agree he's not that bright, (2 standard deviations...!) but he does work hard..at being wrong.
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on Oct. 06 2009,02:51

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 05 2009,08:27)
but he does work hard..at being wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suppose that's true.  He does seem to crank out his fiction and absurd economic stuff, with the absolute sureness that he has a clearer vision than Nobel prize winners.  In terms of genuine creative insight, I've never gotten the impression that he's any brighter than a Mickey Mouse night light.  But he thinks he's a damn genius.
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on Oct. 06 2009,05:48

My latest comment on VP, soon to be deleted:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, but


The reason Christianity is rationally justified even though the ontological argument, cosmological argument, teleological argument, the magical resurrection of Jesus, and the existence of evil do not entail the complete truth of Christianity – which, according to 1 Corinthians 13:11, every Christian knows we cannot know – but they still suffice to establish the Bible as the most credible authority regarding that which is unknown.


is still not a sentence. Before embarking on grammatical complexity, better check that you have the brainpower to do it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is one of my peeves with Vox Day.  His writing is atrocious.  He apparently thinks that if he constructs a sentence that he personally can't parse, that it's some kind of testament to his intelligence.  Unfortunately grammar is grammar, and if you can't even write a grammatically correct sentence, you're not that smart.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 06 2009,07:39

You should just roll your username and IP address and have some fun. The resulting paranoia would be great.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 07 2009,12:55

Vox Tard:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, I'm not sure about the linguistic unification thing anymore. I probably had too much of Eco's In Search of the Perfect Language in mind when I wrote that; it wouldn't falsify Christianity so much as some esoteric Renaissance notions of pre-Babel history. As far as the alien recording goes, obviously if we had a video recording which showed there were no Roman crucifixions in Jerusalem from 10 BC to 10 AD, that would falsify Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 13 2009,07:20

Thus Spake Beale:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/10/letter-to-vox-day-iii.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You may quite reasonably find it annoying that I don't bother to prove the documentary support for what I am saying. What you don't appear to have grasped is that in addition to feeling it is often unnecessary, this is also a form of showing mercy. Those who demand for detailed and conclusive proof from me often find they much preferred it when I was simply telling them that they were ignoramuses, because at least then they could pretend it was merely a matter of my opinion. Just remember that Luke asked for it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: olegt on Oct. 13 2009,08:31

Vox's comment posted at 4:44 am is a TARD gem:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It boils down to one thing: scientists tend to be very bad at logic. So, they are not a credible authority on anything that relies upon logic rather than science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sledgehammer on Oct. 13 2009,14:56

< tz, on that same thread: >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Which is why Evolutionists don't debate. The science - actual science, not the rituals by people in lab-coats - is NOT on their side. Someone else gave an example above of PZ talking about complexity "just being there". It isn't. They can't explain things like the Burgess Shale and the Cambrian Explosion. Science would say it was seeded. Evolutionists say it just all popped into existence via some unexplained and unidentified magical process.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow.
Just Wow.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 13 2009,16:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow.
Just Wow.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why just Wow? Looks like Wow Wow Wow Wow Wow ... to me.
Posted by: RDK on Oct. 16 2009,11:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The science - actual science, not the rituals by people in lab-coats
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm sorry....is there another type of science that I don't now about?

After seeing that quote I literally laughed so hard I hurt myself.  And then I wept.  I wept for humanity, even though there's a little voice inside of me that wants me to believe nobody can be so stupid.

Edit: was that choice nugget from Vox or one of his goons?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 16 2009,17:08

IQ - YOUR DOIN IT RONG.

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/10/occams-razor-is-correct-here.html >





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
0_o    10/16/09 5:02 PM
"There is an absolute ceiling on his IQ of 130" - Hmm - you can show this mathematically then? You got your knickers in a twist about Lukeprog's arbitrary percentages, care to show him how a 'super-intelligence' gets it's 'absolute ceiling'?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Edited.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 16 2009,18:22

HAR HAR:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


0_o    10/16/09 6:17 PM



VD: 10/16/09 6:13 PM:
Yes. And no, I'm sure you can work it out for yourself. It's not exactly difficult and all of the necessary information is readily available to you.




You're really not understanding 'IQ as a sampling exercise' are you? Let me hold your hand:

Do people always test to the same score?
If not, why not?
How many questions would you need to ask to know how smart someone is?
Do people with the same IQ get the same questions right?

I await your epiphany.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: MichaelJ on Oct. 16 2009,22:46

I saw Vox's 'Irrational Atheist' book in our library. It surprised me that this drivel would find it's way into a small Australian regional library.
It was right next to "The God Delusion"
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 18 2009,10:21

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/10/practice-makes-perfect.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not a fan of Fox News, but the thing that is so ridiculous about this is that Fox is more balanced - and has been objectively confirmed to be more balanced - than the other cable news networks and the mainstream media in general. Even liberals who doubted this couldn't credibly do so any longer once CNN took it upon itself to fact-check an SNL skit for the crime of being insufficiently reverential.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 27 2009,08:50

Woo Woo just in time for Halloween:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/10/mailvox-materialists-dilemma.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've seen too many "impossible" things come to pass to be foolish enough to rely purely on logic when dealing with what is or is not possible. That's precisely the same mistake that the materialists are making. We have real living clones these days, for crying out loud. They're even talking about breaking the speed of light, and you want to strike a pose about what is and is not possible based on logic? I think that's crazy.

I find most "classic Christian arguments" to be irrelevant and counterproductive because they rely upon supporting their own assumptions rather than dealing effectively with the assumptions of the other side. Which, of course, is why I am considering the matter of the material from the perspective of a division between natural and supernatural in the first place.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: J-Dog on Oct. 27 2009,08:54

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 18 2009,10:21)
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/10/practice-makes-perfect.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not a fan of Fox News, but the thing that is so ridiculous about this is that Fox is more balanced - and has been objectively confirmed to be more balanced - than the other cable news networks and the mainstream media in general. Even liberals who doubted this couldn't credibly do so any longer once CNN took it upon itself to fact-check an SNL skit for the crime of being insufficiently reverential.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rich - If you want to make Vox give it all up, and eat some crow, send him this link:

< Why Fox News Isn't News >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 30 2009,15:47

Why Shulz (Peanuts Cartoon) > Popper (Problem of Induction)

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009....ll.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Popper's work doesn't have much to do with humanity or even attempting to describe truth, he's as akin to a mathematician as to a philosopher. Because science is merely one of the minor aspects of human existence, a philosopher of science will obviously rank lower as a philosopher than a philosopher of humanity like Schulz, whose work concerned the more central problems of existence and human nature
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sledgehammer on Oct. 31 2009,17:55

Wow.  I just listened to VD's radio interview < here >  It's the first time I've ever heard him speak.

 I actually felt embarrassment for the arrogant little prick.  He sounds like a frikken squeaky-voiced teenager.  His dialog was filled with errs, umms, likes, y'knows, and the other verbal tics of someone who can't think "on his feet".
The most embarrassing moment came when he was talking about his predictions for the upcoming Great Depression [tm]
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can expect to see lots of umm, economic stuff, like, y'know, defaults and things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cracked me up.  He certainly didn't sound anything like a self-described "Internet Superintelligence" to me.  I wonder who his ghost writer is. Maybe spacebunny?
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 31 2009,22:48

Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 31 2009,17:55)
Wow.  I just listened to VD's radio interview < here >  It's the first time I've ever heard him speak.

 I actually felt embarrassment for the arrogant little prick.  He sounds like a frikken squeaky-voiced teenager.  His dialog was filled with errs, umms, likes, y'knows, and the other verbal tics of someone who can't think "on his feet".
The most embarrassing moment came when he was talking about his predictions for the upcoming Great Depression [tm]
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can expect to see lots of umm, economic stuff, like, y'know, defaults and things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cracked me up.  He certainly didn't sound anything like a self-described "Internet Superintelligence" to me.  I wonder who his ghost writer is. Maybe spacebunny?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DaveTard?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 02 2009,10:44

Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 31 2009,17:55)
Wow.  I just listened to VD's radio interview < here >  It's the first time I've ever heard him speak.

 I actually felt embarrassment for the arrogant little prick.  He sounds like a frikken squeaky-voiced teenager.  His dialog was filled with errs, umms, likes, y'knows, and the other verbal tics of someone who can't think "on his feet".
The most embarrassing moment came when he was talking about his predictions for the upcoming Great Depression [tm]
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can expect to see lots of umm, economic stuff, like, y'know, defaults and things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cracked me up.  He certainly didn't sound anything like a self-described "Internet Superintelligence" to me.  I wonder who his ghost writer is. Maybe spacebunny?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This was linked to, but the post got deleted. A few folks are making fun of Vox's squeaky, poorly constructed thoughts. That's a shame. He speaks very highly of them.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 11 2009,14:05

NOT.A. P A R O D Y

This is what Vox has been working on:

< http://warmouse.com/ >

Needs more buttons.
Posted by: J-Dog on Nov. 11 2009,14:52

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 11 2009,14:05)
NOT.A. P A R O D Y

This is what Vox has been working on:

< http://warmouse.com/ >

Needs more buttons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WTF???!!!

After Vox added a button for whining, one for screeching, and one for The Usual Stupid, what's he need all those other buttons for?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 12 2009,19:37

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 11 2009,15:05)
NOT.A. P A R O D Y

This is what Vox has been working on:

< http://warmouse.com/ >

Needs more buttons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dudes! That's a vibrator.
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Nov. 13 2009,06:34

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2009,20:37)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 11 2009,15:05)
NOT.A. P A R O D Y

This is what Vox has been working on:

< http://warmouse.com/ >

Needs more buttons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dudes! That's a vibrator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean it's not a mouse, but a gerbil?
Posted by: Badger3k on Nov. 13 2009,10:36

Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 11 2009,14:52)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 11 2009,14:05)
NOT.A. P A R O D Y

This is what Vox has been working on:

< http://warmouse.com/ >

Needs more buttons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WTF???!!!

After Vox added a button for whining, one for screeching, and one for The Usual Stupid, what's he need all those other buttons for?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who cares.  This is a mouse for a man with penis issues.  If you're a teeny weenie guy, the more buttons the merrier.  The fact that they don't do anything doesn't matter.
Posted by: Badger3k on Nov. 13 2009,22:35

Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 13 2009,10:36)
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 11 2009,14:52)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 11 2009,14:05)
NOT.A. P A R O D Y

This is what Vox has been working on:

< http://warmouse.com/ >

Needs more buttons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WTF???!!!

After Vox added a button for whining, one for screeching, and one for The Usual Stupid, what's he need all those other buttons for?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who cares.  This is a mouse for a man with penis issues.  If you're a teeny weenie guy, the more buttons the merrier.  The fact that they don't do anything doesn't matter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After much thinking about it - this is also the mouse for a man who does his wanking to the internet.  Just program a button, for, say "sweater" or "frilly shirt", and who knows how many hours of fun you could have.  Never have to take your hand off your mouse.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 18 2009,13:51

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/11/al-gore-commits-igon-error.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, BTW:

"So, it should come as no surprise that the leading AGW/CC salesman should demonstrate that he has very little grasp of temperature as his numbers are off by an order of magnitude:"

The quote:

"several million degrees" 10^6 vs 10^3

Math. Learn it.

That's THREE orders of magnitude. Thus me must conclude; 'Needless to say, this suffices to show that no intelligent individual should pay any attention whatsoever to Vox's statements about math, past, present, or future. Everyone makes mistakes, but in this particular case, as with Gladwell's infamous Igon Value, the nature of the error indicates the degree of the ignorance.'

Paging glass house repairman for the day residence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: RDK on Nov. 18 2009,15:39

Sweet mother of Christ.  Vox's blog must be one of the worst seething cesspools of tard on the face of the Earth.  I've literally never seen so much tard.  These guys give UD and EFT a run for their money.  Every time I find an impossibly stupid quote in that thread, I mentally mark the place where the post is so I can go back and quote it, but I end up finding an even dumber one a few posts down.  This process is repeated almost ad-nauseam.

Here's a particularly juicy one that does a good job of representing the average Vox Day underling blog post:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
SteveKay, pedantry will not get you very far in this. The phrase "an order of magnitude" is used enough colloquially to convey one or several orders of magnitude. Your literal reading of the phrase is just being snippy. The point still stands that AG was utterly and completely wrong in his "millions of degrees".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bible much?

These people are so morally selective it's not even funny.  Actually, it is funny; it's outrageously funny.  My favorite part is the constant brown-nosing going on, as if Vox were some sort of demi-god.  Their heads are so far up Vox's ass they might as well be wearing him as a hat.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 18 2009,15:49

The Bible may say Gore was off by three orders of magnitide, but I know for a fact it's 3.141592... orders of magnitude. :angry:
Posted by: dnmlthr on Nov. 18 2009,16:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Featuring Vox Day, Internet Superintelligence, AWCA
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No hubris at all, no siree.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 18 2009,16:41

Will a mathematician please go and poke them with the clue stick?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 19 2009,15:51

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/11/overselling-swine-flue.html >

A comment:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Verlch    11/19/09 3:25 PM
I heard a rumor that there is RFID technology, or nano technology in the swine flu vaccine. If their goal is world domination, what better way than to implant a chip to track man's every movement. We know a lot of things will be forced on us. The nano technology will be easily picked up by the readers I'm sure, in stores, and wherever else they are installed to track our every movement.

World Government might want to know where those pesky Christians, atheists and God fearing Jews are, so they can round them up and reeducate them to serve the godless system. Well there will be one mini god, the anti christ who will demand worship. (Anybody seen Obowma lately? Is he worshiping these leaders?)

Recently a movie on You Tube talked about how verichip now admits they want to tie in the implant to the banking system. They even bought a company like "life (suckers) lock" to safe guard against fraud. Well we figured as much, that the buying and selling aspect of the chip was coming. Just not this fast.

Anyways wake up folks, keep your ears to the tracks and lets share information so that this day doesn't sneak up on us like a thief in the night.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



HMMM.
Posted by: khan on Nov. 19 2009,16:09

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2009,16:51)
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/11/overselling-swine-flue.html >

A comment:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Verlch    11/19/09 3:25 PM
I heard a rumor that there is RFID technology, or nano technology in the swine flu vaccine. If their goal is world domination, what better way than to implant a chip to track man's every movement. We know a lot of things will be forced on us. The nano technology will be easily picked up by the readers I'm sure, in stores, and wherever else they are installed to track our every movement.

World Government might want to know where those pesky Christians, atheists and God fearing Jews are, so they can round them up and reeducate them to serve the godless system. Well there will be one mini god, the anti christ who will demand worship. (Anybody seen Obowma lately? Is he worshiping these leaders?)

Recently a movie on You Tube talked about how verichip now admits they want to tie in the implant to the banking system. They even bought a company like "life (suckers) lock" to safe guard against fraud. Well we figured as much, that the buying and selling aspect of the chip was coming. Just not this fast.

Anyways wake up folks, keep your ears to the tracks and lets share information so that this day doesn't sneak up on us like a thief in the night.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



HMMM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is some serious fucking stupid shit. Has this stupid one ever seen the size of a tracking chip? And how will this chip be administered via the inhaled version?
Posted by: Texas Teach on Nov. 19 2009,17:41

Quote (khan @ Nov. 19 2009,16:09)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2009,16:51)
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/11/overselling-swine-flue.html >

A comment:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Verlch    11/19/09 3:25 PM
I heard a rumor that there is RFID technology, or nano technology in the swine flu vaccine. If their goal is world domination, what better way than to implant a chip to track man's every movement. We know a lot of things will be forced on us. The nano technology will be easily picked up by the readers I'm sure, in stores, and wherever else they are installed to track our every movement.

World Government might want to know where those pesky Christians, atheists and God fearing Jews are, so they can round them up and reeducate them to serve the godless system. Well there will be one mini god, the anti christ who will demand worship. (Anybody seen Obowma lately? Is he worshiping these leaders?)

Recently a movie on You Tube talked about how verichip now admits they want to tie in the implant to the banking system. They even bought a company like "life (suckers) lock" to safe guard against fraud. Well we figured as much, that the buying and selling aspect of the chip was coming. Just not this fast.

Anyways wake up folks, keep your ears to the tracks and lets share information so that this day doesn't sneak up on us like a thief in the night.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



HMMM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is some serious fucking stupid shit. Has this stupid one ever seen the size of a tracking chip? And how will this chip be administered via the inhaled version?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Painfully?
Posted by: sledgehammer on Nov. 19 2009,20:57

Quote (Texas Teach @ Nov. 19 2009,15:41)
Quote (khan @ Nov. 19 2009,16:09)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2009,16:51)
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/11/overselling-swine-flue.html >

A comment:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Verlch    11/19/09 3:25 PM
I heard a rumor that there is RFID technology, or nano technology in the swine flu vaccine. If their goal is world domination, what better way than to implant a chip to track man's every movement. We know a lot of things will be forced on us. The nano technology will be easily picked up by the readers I'm sure, in stores, and wherever else they are installed to track our every movement.

World Government might want to know where those pesky Christians, atheists and God fearing Jews are, so they can round them up and reeducate them to serve the godless system. Well there will be one mini god, the anti christ who will demand worship. (Anybody seen Obowma lately? Is he worshiping these leaders?)

Recently a movie on You Tube talked about how verichip now admits they want to tie in the implant to the banking system. They even bought a company like "life (suckers) lock" to safe guard against fraud. Well we figured as much, that the buying and selling aspect of the chip was coming. Just not this fast.

Anyways wake up folks, keep your ears to the tracks and lets share information so that this day doesn't sneak up on us like a thief in the night.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



HMMM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is some serious fucking stupid shit. Has this stupid one ever seen the size of a tracking chip? And how will this chip be administered via the inhaled version?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Painfully?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You just shove it down the swine's flue.

(overselling-swine-flue.html)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 22 2009,12:47

Here's his latest business 'idea'



< http://www.engadget.com/2009....-pretty >

Sun (owners of open office) have told him not to use the logo any more...
Posted by: RDK on Dec. 22 2009,13:00

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 22 2009,12:47)
Here's his latest business 'idea'



< http://www.engadget.com/2009....-pretty >

Sun (owners of open office) have told him not to use the logo any more...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG, it's The Incredible Vox Controller!  The mouse for people with incredibly small penises.

Has he explained what all those fancy buttons do yet?  Or are they just for show?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 22 2009,13:08

< http://warmouse.com/ >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The features of the WarMouse Meta include:

18 programmable mouse buttons with double-click functionality
High-resolution laser sensor with adjustable resolution from 100 to 5,600 DPI/CPI
Five assignable button modes: Key, Keypress, Macro, Mouse, and Mouse-Key Combo
Analog Xbox 360-style joystick with five analog and digital modes
Clickable scroll wheel
512k of flash memory
63 on-mouse application modes with hardware, software, and autoswitching capability
1024-character macro support
Meta Modeware for creating, managing, and customizing game and application modes
Import and export of custom modes in XML format
Optional audio notification of mode switching with customizable wave files
Taskbar display of active application mode
PDF export of application mode button assignments
Graphical pop-up map of application mode button assignments
25 default modes for popular games and applications, including Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird, Microsoft Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, OpenOffice.org Writer, Calc, and Impress, 3D Studio Max, Autodesk AutoCAD, Adobe Photoshop, the Gnu Image Manipulation Program, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, and the Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 22 2009,13:16

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 22 2009,13:08)
< http://warmouse.com/ >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The features of the WarMouse Meta include:

18 programmable mouse buttons with double-click functionality
High-resolution laser sensor with adjustable resolution from 100 to 5,600 DPI/CPI
Five assignable button modes: Key, Keypress, Macro, Mouse, and Mouse-Key Combo
Analog Xbox 360-style joystick with five analog and digital modes
Clickable scroll wheel
512k of flash memory
63 on-mouse application modes with hardware, software, and autoswitching capability
1024-character macro support
Meta Modeware for creating, managing, and customizing game and application modes
Import and export of custom modes in XML format
Optional audio notification of mode switching with customizable wave files
Taskbar display of active application mode
PDF export of application mode button assignments
Graphical pop-up map of application mode button assignments
25 default modes for popular games and applications, including Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird, Microsoft Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, OpenOffice.org Writer, Calc, and Impress, 3D Studio Max, Autodesk AutoCAD, Adobe Photoshop, the Gnu Image Manipulation Program, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, and the Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obviously, to get the full use of this mouse, you have to be a member of Mensa.

I do agree with the last comment I read - "Needs more cowbell."
Posted by: Chayanov on Dec. 22 2009,15:57

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 22 2009,13:08)
< http://warmouse.com/ >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The features of the WarMouse Meta include:

18 programmable mouse buttons with double-click functionality
High-resolution laser sensor with adjustable resolution from 100 to 5,600 DPI/CPI
Five assignable button modes: Key, Keypress, Macro, Mouse, and Mouse-Key Combo
Analog Xbox 360-style joystick with five analog and digital modes
Clickable scroll wheel
512k of flash memory
63 on-mouse application modes with hardware, software, and autoswitching capability
1024-character macro support
Meta Modeware for creating, managing, and customizing game and application modes
Import and export of custom modes in XML format
Optional audio notification of mode switching with customizable wave files
Taskbar display of active application mode
PDF export of application mode button assignments
Graphical pop-up map of application mode button assignments
25 default modes for popular games and applications, including Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird, Microsoft Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, OpenOffice.org Writer, Calc, and Impress, 3D Studio Max, Autodesk AutoCAD, Adobe Photoshop, the Gnu Image Manipulation Program, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, and the Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even the "good" reviews there are rather back-handed.

Godawful color scheme. It looks like it was designed about 15 years ago and languished on a shelf somewhere. There's a joystick right under your thumb -- unless you use a mouse left-handed, then the joystick is right under your pinky finger. I can't even imagine how awkward that monstrosity would be to use.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 22 2009,17:29

Whenever this thread pops back up to the top of the front page, I invariably think to myself, "Holy shit, is that idiot still remembering to breathe?"
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 22 2009,20:00

Quote (RDK @ Dec. 22 2009,13:00)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 22 2009,12:47)
Here's his latest business 'idea'



< http://www.engadget.com/2009....-pretty >

Sun (owners of open office) have told him not to use the logo any more...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG, it's The Incredible Vox Controller!  The mouse for people with incredibly small penises.

Has he explained what all those fancy buttons do yet?  Or are they just for show?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can't remember who it is now, but there's a guitar demo on youtube where the guy's pointing at all his controls and says stuff like "This one controls the temperature of the sun / how many people die in a day..."
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 22 2009,20:09

John Petrucci.

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKMYeXkYcgs >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 05 2010,11:05

Vox is now bringing his unique tard to sociology:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/01/roissy-and-limits-of-game.html >

His new male hierarchy is in all his recent posts, he must be very proud.
Posted by: RDK on Feb. 05 2010,11:16

That article makes me wonder whether or not our boy Vox has ever seen a female IRL.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 05 2010,11:18

Quote (RDK @ Feb. 05 2010,11:16)
That article makes me wonder whether or not our boy Vox has ever seen a female IRL.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's married to the dumbest of a litter of 12.

Vox explained in 2:24

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKmUsVeKp1o >
Posted by: khan on Feb. 05 2010,12:28

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2010,12:05)
Vox is now bringing his unique tard to sociology:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/01/roissy-and-limits-of-game.html >

His new male hierarchy is in all his recent posts, he must be very proud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a loathsome POS.
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 05 2010,18:51

Quote (khan @ Feb. 05 2010,12:28)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2010,12:05)
Vox is now bringing his unique tard to sociology:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/01/roissy-and-limits-of-game.html >

His new male hierarchy is in all his recent posts, he must be very proud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a loathsome POS.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder which one old Teddy thinks he is....

And I can't wait to see him do one for women.  That'll be...interesting.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Feb. 05 2010,20:30

Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 05 2010,16:51)
Quote (khan @ Feb. 05 2010,12:28)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2010,12:05)
Vox is now bringing his unique tard to sociology:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/01/roissy-and-limits-of-game.html >

His new male hierarchy is in all his recent posts, he must be very proud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a loathsome POS.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder which one old Teddy thinks he is....

And I can't wait to see him do one for women.  That'll be...interesting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alpha Fail, of course.
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 06 2010,19:18

Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 05 2010,18:30)
Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 05 2010,16:51)
 
Quote (khan @ Feb. 05 2010,12:28)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2010,12:05)
Vox is now bringing his unique tard to sociology:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/01/roissy-and-limits-of-game.html >

His new male hierarchy is in all his recent posts, he must be very proud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a loathsome POS.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder which one old Teddy thinks he is....

And I can't wait to see him do one for women.  That'll be...interesting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alpha Fail, of course.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only difference between this guy and Dice is that Dice gets the joke.  

Not funny, either way.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 10 2010,10:43

John sock Locke is having fun:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-atheism-is-revised.html >
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 10 2010,13:25

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 10 2010,10:43)
John sock Locke is having fun:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-atheism-is-revised.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holeeeee Feces, what a load of Tard.  If I could get to Demotivational Posters from work, I'd post the Three Stooges Triple Facepalm.  

This quote shows how ignorant Vox is of actual science (I think this is the fallacy of equivocation, correct me if I'm wrong) - this is VD (Teddy) responding to Locke:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   John Locke: 2/10/10 10:21 AM:
   The plural of anecdote is not data.

You're completely incorrect. Data is = "individual facts, statistics, or items of information". Two or more anecdotes are obviously data. You should know better than to try to use pseudo-intellectual sayings here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(from a comment 2/10 at 10:53, I can't get a direct link)

No wonder he's ...ummm...well, what's good for the goose and all...retarded.  It does make me wonder whether Teddy qualifies under Aspergers or is his just a more general sociopathy?
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on Feb. 10 2010,13:34

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 10 2010,10:43)
John sock Locke is having fun:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-atheism-is-revised.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


VD:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Third, if you're not a Christian, don't quote Scripture. If one doesn't believe in it, one has no right to call upon it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hehe. Those divine copyrights sure are tricky.
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 10 2010,19:43

Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Feb. 10 2010,13:34)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 10 2010,10:43)
John sock Locke is having fun:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-atheism-is-revised.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


VD:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Third, if you're not a Christian, don't quote Scripture. If one doesn't believe in it, one has no right to call upon it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hehe. Those divine copyrights sure are tricky.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, does that apply to the, ahem, pious forgeries - the fake epistles of Paul, for instance?  Surely that was copyright infringement?

I wonder (somewhat, I expect I know the answer) if Vox thinks it is ok to quote scripture to a non-Christian and expect them to take it seriously?
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 10 2010,22:46



How's this?
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on Feb. 17 2010,07:58

Amy Bishop's carnage in the University of Alabama?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No worries, it's just evolution in action:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's right!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Since we've been informed so many times that scientists are trained to be rational and objective, and that science is what scientists do, it is clear that Prof. Bishop's actions should be considered an experiment in natural selection rather than a crime. For as we know from the regrettable slanders stemming from Hackergate, no scientist would ever do something terrible like invent data, much less shoot anyone, in the tawdry, unscientific pursuit of filthy lucre.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/02/science-self-corrects.html >

Vox Day is a gift that keeps on giving. And by gift I mean "rectum."
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 17 2010,08:13

Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Feb. 17 2010,07:58)
Vox Day is a gift that keeps on giving. And by gift I mean "rectum."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Vox seems to be another member of the sewer goblin baramin that also includes Slime Cordova and Granny Tard...
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 17 2010,09:08

In nearly 20 years of observing and interacting with people like Sal and Vox I have to say this amazed me. It's a new low as far as I can see.

Louis
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 24 2010,16:11

More evo-tard:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/02/idol-crumbles.html >
Posted by: Steverino on Feb. 24 2010,21:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quite simply, an object's function is what it was intended to do by the one who designed it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, VoxTard makes a leap of faith. Similar to the one he need to make when believing in the mythical sky fairy

The assume that something is designed and then use that assumption as support for you explanation is a logical fallacy.

Where is the proof that something is designed?  Even Demski, try as he might, can't come up with the science or math for that one.
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on Feb. 27 2010,04:56

Everything you need to know about Vox Day is explained by the Dunning-Kruger effect, except that normally people eventually realize the real status of their ability and knowledge.  There's a word for people who don't.  Idiot, I think.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 27 2010,15:55

< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....omments >


Lulzfest.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 01 2010,12:45

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 27 2010,15:55)
< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....omments >


Lulzfest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cool, & nice plug BTW...

I still say that the "18 button mouse" = overcompensation for a miniscule penis and and even smaller brain.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 01 2010,17:33

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 01 2010,10:45)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 27 2010,15:55)
< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....omments >


Lulzfest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cool, & nice plug BTW...

I still say that the "18 button mouse" = overcompensation for a miniscule penis and and even smaller brain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My digitizer tablet has a 16 button mouse. So, 18 buttons are clearly assage.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 04 2010,16:12

Enjoy the whole thing:

< http://www.bandchitickets.com/SANFL/mrbad.htm >
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 04 2010,17:00

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2010,16:12)
Enjoy the whole thing:

< http://www.bandchitickets.com/SANFL/mrbad.htm >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Beautiful Link - It explains a lot...

I'm just not sure if this will wind up as People's Exhibit #1 in the People vs Vox Day Trial, or evidence for the Insanity Plea Defense in the same trial.

We Report - You Deride!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 04 2010,17:30

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2010,17:12)
Enjoy the whole thing:

< http://www.bandchitickets.com/SANFL/mrbad.htm >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wotta dickhead.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 05 2010,01:15

FtK sighting:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/03/turnabout-is-fair-play.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FtK    3/4/10 4:43 PM
Here's a question for Vox...

Do you *ever* tire of blathering on about your intellect? I have a brother who has a *very* high IQ, and he has accomplished quite a bit, but I've never ~once~ heard him boast or brag about it. Neither have I heard him put others down who many not be as gifted as he is.

Humility...it's an art.

Just sayin'.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Suprise gift: She's talking sense!
Posted by: Skullboy on Mar. 05 2010,02:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Vox Day: By the time I was five, I was fairly convinced that most people were idiots. I probably lost the conventional faith in credentials when my kindergarten teacher asked me about my triceratops-shaped name tag.  The problem was that it was actually in the shape of an allosaurus. How could anyone with even half a brain possibly confuse the two?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is he making fun of himself here? Is this a Poe? I'm lost. I mean, all this talk about IQ and how he's so remarkable that he can barely relate to people of normal intelligence...is this for real or is he just some elaborate con? It just seems so high school. Isn't this guy in his forties?
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on Mar. 05 2010,04:29

Quote (Skullboy @ Mar. 05 2010,02:36)
Is he making fun of himself here? Is this a Poe? I'm lost. I mean, all this talk about IQ and how he's so remarkable that he can barely relate to people of normal intelligence...is this for real or is he just some elaborate con? It just seems so high school. Isn't this guy in his forties?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, he is in his forties, and no, he's not joking; he's dead serious.  Welcome to the world of Vox Day.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 05 2010,07:01

Quote (Beelzebub667 @ Mar. 05 2010,04:29)
Quote (Skullboy @ Mar. 05 2010,02:36)
Is he making fun of himself here? Is this a Poe? I'm lost. I mean, all this talk about IQ and how he's so remarkable that he can barely relate to people of normal intelligence...is this for real or is he just some elaborate con? It just seems so high school. Isn't this guy in his forties?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, he is in his forties, and no, he's not joking; he's dead serious.  Welcome to the world of Vox Day.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd love to get him in the same room as John Kwok.

And then lock the door from the outside as I effected my escape.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 05 2010,07:56

Quote (Beelzebub667 @ Mar. 05 2010,04:29)
Quote (Skullboy @ Mar. 05 2010,02:36)
Is he making fun of himself here? Is this a Poe? I'm lost. I mean, all this talk about IQ and how he's so remarkable that he can barely relate to people of normal intelligence...is this for real or is he just some elaborate con? It just seems so high school. Isn't this guy in his forties?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, he is in his forties, and no, he's not joking; he's dead serious.  Welcome to the world of Vox Day.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anybody else notice the similarities with DaveTard?  
Twin sons of different mothers?  One's a dick, and the other's an autodick... although unlike Vox,  DaveTard did occassionally make some sort of sense.
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 05 2010,09:31

Quote (Skullboy @ Mar. 05 2010,00:36)
Is he making fun of himself here? Is this a Poe? I'm lost. I mean, all this talk about IQ and how he's so remarkable that he can barely relate to people of normal intelligence...is this for real or is he just some elaborate con? It just seems so high school. Isn't this guy in his forties?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-kHB2fWUS8 >
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 05 2010,09:31

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 05 2010,01:15)
FtK sighting:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/03/turnabout-is-fair-play.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FtK    3/4/10 4:43 PM
Here's a question for Vox...

Do you *ever* tire of blathering on about your intellect? I have a brother who has a *very* high IQ, and he has accomplished quite a bit, but I've never ~once~ heard him boast or brag about it. Neither have I heard him put others down who many not be as gifted as he is.

Humility...it's an art.

Just sayin'.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Suprise gift: She's talking sense!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, bless her heart!
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 05 2010,09:37

Quote (Skullboy @ Mar. 05 2010,02:36)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Vox Day: By the time I was five, I was fairly convinced that most people were idiots. I probably lost the conventional faith in credentials when my kindergarten teacher asked me about my triceratops-shaped name tag.  The problem was that it was actually in the shape of an allosaurus. How could anyone with even half a brain possibly confuse the two?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is he making fun of himself here? Is this a Poe? I'm lost. I mean, all this talk about IQ and how he's so remarkable that he can barely relate to people of normal intelligence...is this for real or is he just some elaborate con? It just seems so high school. Isn't this guy in his forties?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Considering he's confusing "knowledge" with "intelligence" - and apparently still does, from his example (he hasn't learned anything since then?) - I'd say that it wasn't even a high school level.  Middle School tops, maybe, and I'd say that is pushing it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 09 2010,10:59

Progressive:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/03/womans-place.html >
Posted by: Robin on Mar. 09 2010,12:40

I. Am. Just. Dumb. Founded!

How can anyone who thinks the way this Vox guy does interact in actual society? How is it possible for someone like that to actually survive? How is it he is not constantly moving from community to community as he's run out of them by everyone he encounters?

I am just in...shock.

That is a whole new level of Tard I could never have fathomed...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 09 2010,15:54

Some crackerjack commentary:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God naturally intended the men e.i. husbands to earn a living for their families. God is still all about the family being one man and one women, in marriage. Parenthood, specificially motherhood is a high noble honor that is spat upon in this country. In the workplace I see good men underpaid and discounted. Even the pink hand of gayness is exulted. But I will love God and love His version of living b/c its the only one worth living.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thankyou, lindapolver999.

IF ANY WOMANDS IS READING THIS, WHY ARE THEY NOT IN THE KITCHEN AND WHY CAN THEY READ? WHAT A WASITE.

ALSO, LOUIS' PINK HAND GETS MENTIONED!
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on Mar. 10 2010,02:36

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010....ts.html >

In which Vox blames feminism for something that feminism is the first to condemn.  Superintellicalifragilisticexpialitard
Posted by: Robin on Mar. 10 2010,08:30

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 09 2010,15:54)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God naturally intended the men e.i. husbands...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



e.i.?
Posted by: khan on Mar. 10 2010,09:36

Quote (Robin @ Mar. 10 2010,09:30)
[quote=Richardthughes,Mar. 09 2010,15:54][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God naturally intended the men e.i. husbands...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



e.i.?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who are you to question a genius?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 10 2010,09:55

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 09 2010,10:59)
Progressive:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/03/womans-place.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey has even put his thoughts on tape.  < See here. >
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 10 2010,10:40

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 09 2010,15:54)
Some crackerjack commentary:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God naturally intended the men e.i. husbands to earn a living for their families. God is still all about the family being one man and one women, in marriage. Parenthood, specificially motherhood is a high noble honor that is spat upon in this country. In the workplace I see good men underpaid and discounted. Even the pink hand of gayness is exulted. But I will love God and love His version of living b/c its the only one worth living.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thankyou, lindapolver999.

IF ANY WOMANDS IS READING THIS, WHY ARE THEY NOT IN THE KITCHEN AND WHY CAN THEY READ? WHAT A WASITE.

ALSO, LOUIS' PINK HAND GETS MENTIONED!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I assume that "londapolver" is the commenter, and it sure sounds like that is a woman's name.  How dare she learn how to read!  And speaking up before men...verboten according to some passages in the bible.  Of course, maybe some man wrote it for her, which would excuse her complete misunderstanding of marriage in the bible, which was one man, many women - even if some were concubines or slaves.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 10 2010,11:13

Quote (khan @ Mar. 10 2010,14:36)
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 10 2010,09:30)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 09 2010,15:54)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God naturally intended the men e.i. husbands...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



e.i.?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who are you to question a genius?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, speaking purely for myself: a genius with a higher IQ than Vox's.*

Natch.

Louis

*Good gravy, even though this may or may not be true (what is Vox's IQ anyway? I struggle to believe it is higher than "houseplant" he must have snuck into Mensa via the tradesman's entrance), I hope everyone realises I am frigging joking!
Posted by: keiths on Mar. 10 2010,12:10

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 10 2010,09:13)
Well, speaking purely for myself: a genius with a higher IQ than Vox's.*

*Good gravy, even though this may or may not be true (what is Vox's IQ anyway? I struggle to believe it is higher than "houseplant"...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your IQ may or may not be higher than that of a houseplant?  Whence the sudden modesty, Louis?
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 10 2010,14:07

Quote (keiths @ Mar. 10 2010,17:10)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 10 2010,09:13)
Well, speaking purely for myself: a genius with a higher IQ than Vox's.*

*Good gravy, even though this may or may not be true (what is Vox's IQ anyway? I struggle to believe it is higher than "houseplant"...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your IQ may or may not be higher than that of a houseplant?  Whence the sudden modesty, Louis?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not a big houseplant. I don't want to get above my station.

Louis
Posted by: nmgirl on Mar. 10 2010,15:27

Quote (Beelzebub667 @ Mar. 10 2010,02:36)
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010....ts.html >

In which Vox blames feminism for something that feminism is the first to condemn.  Superintellicalifragilisticexpialitard
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


omg, i have never been to this guy's blog and now I may never recover. "Internet Superintelligence" at the top of the page (WTF?).  

And his babbling against women?  I have heard that kind of crap since I left the heart of the bible belt in the 70s.  Obviously his mother did not show him enough girl power.l
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 11 2010,14:19

< http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6267#more-6267 >
Posted by: MichaelJ on Mar. 11 2010,14:40

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 11 2010,01:40)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 09 2010,15:54)
Some crackerjack commentary:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God naturally intended the men e.i. husbands to earn a living for their families. God is still all about the family being one man and one women, in marriage. Parenthood, specificially motherhood is a high noble honor that is spat upon in this country. In the workplace I see good men underpaid and discounted. Even the pink hand of gayness is exulted. But I will love God and love His version of living b/c its the only one worth living.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thankyou, lindapolver999.

IF ANY WOMANDS IS READING THIS, WHY ARE THEY NOT IN THE KITCHEN AND WHY CAN THEY READ? WHAT A WASITE.

ALSO, LOUIS' PINK HAND GETS MENTIONED!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I assume that "londapolver" is the commenter, and it sure sounds like that is a woman's name.  How dare she learn how to read!  And speaking up before men...verboten according to some passages in the bible.  Of course, maybe some man wrote it for her, which would excuse her complete misunderstanding of marriage in the bible, which was one man, many women - even if some were concubines or slaves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, women CAN comment after getting permission from their husbands. The big problem is that her internet handle should be her husbands name. So Leanne's handle would be mrsMichaelJ or wifeofMichaelJ and of course each post will need my prior approval.

Hang on I'll just shoot upstairs to tell my wife these rules, I'm sure she will be impressed
Posted by: MichaelJ on Mar. 11 2010,14:44

I would just like to retract my last comment. I'm going to take a little break from posting now as it is hard to type with two broken thumbs

husbandofLeanneJ
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 11 2010,17:52

Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 11 2010,12:44)
I would just like to retract my last comment. I'm going to take a little break from posting now as it is hard to type with two broken thumbs

husbandofLeanneJ
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is even harder to get sex when sleeping alone in the basement (unless Joe the ID Guy digs a tunnel from his mom's house).
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 19 2010,13:38

< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....hp#more >

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/03/mailvox-book-for-suckers.html >

Enjoy!
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 19 2010,20:16

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2010,13:38)
< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....hp#more >

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/03/mailvox-book-for-suckers.html >

Enjoy!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow - I love it when Teddy comes on and tries to puff up his chest and brag about how majestic he is.  Is he cruising?  Anyone who goes by the initials "VD" should know better than to do that.  :D
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on May 12 2010,11:13

Vox preaches to the choir at < WhirledNutsDully. >

Shorter Vox - Mexicans are trying to take over the parts of the country that used to be Mexico and need to be expelled (along with expelling Arabs from Detroit and Somalis from Minneapolis). Otherwise white Americans will migrate back from Phoenix to Peoria.

Or sump'n like that. Read the whole thing; it's a marvelous insight into the Douchepocalypse world view.
Posted by: Louis on May 13 2010,06:38

I have said it before and I'll say it again: the man is a gigantic douchenozzle.

Yeah, ok, I just wanted to use the word douchenozzle.

I even read his presentation (snicker, giggle) about those evil New Atheists. I LOLed. Point, thoroughly missed. Bravo!

Louis
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2010,11:21

Quote (Louis @ May 13 2010,06:38)
I have said it before and I'll say it again: the man is a gigantic douchenozzle.

Yeah, ok, I just wanted to use the word douchenozzle.

I even read his presentation (snicker, giggle) about those evil New Atheists. I LOLed. Point, thoroughly missed. Bravo!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I actually started a rebutal - there's falsehoods and misrepresentations on most slides.

PM me if you want the current version.
Posted by: Badger3k on May 13 2010,20:33

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 12 2010,11:13)
Vox preaches to the choir at < WhirledNutsDully. >

Shorter Vox - Mexicans are trying to take over the parts of the country that used to be Mexico and need to be expelled (along with expelling Arabs from Detroit and Somalis from Minneapolis). Otherwise white Americans will migrate back from Phoenix to Peoria.

Or sump'n like that. Read the whole thing; it's a marvelous insight into the Douchepocalypse world view.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jesus' General wrote up a nice reply (can't link from work), and he wanted to know what Mr Farrah would do when Vox deported him.  The Joseph Farrah/biker from the village people comparison was almost worth it by itself.
Posted by: fnxtr on May 14 2010,10:07

Quote (Louis @ May 13 2010,04:38)
I have said it before and I'll say it again: the man is a gigantic douchenozzle.

Yeah, ok, I just wanted to use the word douchenozzle.

I even read his presentation (snicker, giggle) about those evil New Atheists. I LOLed. Point, thoroughly missed. Bravo!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's right up there with "fuck-knuckles", Louis.

Heh-heh. Douchenozzle. It's even fun to type. Heh-heh.
Posted by: Louis on May 14 2010,10:49

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2010,16:21)
Quote (Louis @ May 13 2010,06:38)
I have said it before and I'll say it again: the man is a gigantic douchenozzle.

Yeah, ok, I just wanted to use the word douchenozzle.

I even read his presentation (snicker, giggle) about those evil New Atheists. I LOLed. Point, thoroughly missed. Bravo!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I actually started a rebutal - there's falsehoods and misrepresentations on most slides.

PM me if you want the current version.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You, sir, shock me. Are you suggesting that in addition to stretching arguments to the point of strawman, deliberately missing the point, and generally oversimplifying things to the point of absurdity, VD has actually put falsehoods on those slides?

Where now may my moral compass point? Without the lodestone of Theodore my navigation in morality is adrift. My north, my south, my east, my west; all are confused. Without Theodore to guide me, gently and kindly like a master, my life has been cut free and flaps on the mast, wasted, useless. Woe, calamity and disaster must surely befall us now Theodore is not the wellspring of all things factual.

Louis
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 14 2010,11:10

Quote (fnxtr @ May 14 2010,10:07)
Quote (Louis @ May 13 2010,04:38)
I have said it before and I'll say it again: the man is a gigantic douchenozzle.

Yeah, ok, I just wanted to use the word douchenozzle.

I even read his presentation (snicker, giggle) about those evil New Atheists. I LOLed. Point, thoroughly missed. Bravo!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's right up there with "fuck-knuckles", Louis.

Heh-heh. Douchenozzle. It's even fun to type. Heh-heh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mr DoucheNozzle:

< http://www.atom.com/funny_videos/super_special_dog_turkey/ >

Edited to give right episode.
Posted by: fnxtr on May 14 2010,11:27

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 14 2010,09:10)
Quote (fnxtr @ May 14 2010,10:07)
 
Quote (Louis @ May 13 2010,04:38)
I have said it before and I'll say it again: the man is a gigantic douchenozzle.

Yeah, ok, I just wanted to use the word douchenozzle.

I even read his presentation (snicker, giggle) about those evil New Atheists. I LOLed. Point, thoroughly missed. Bravo!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's right up there with "fuck-knuckles", Louis.

Heh-heh. Douchenozzle. It's even fun to type. Heh-heh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mr DoucheNozzle:

< http://www.atom.com/funny_videos/super_special_dog_turkey/ >

Edited to give right episode.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, that's just weird. Thank you.
Posted by: Steverino on May 14 2010,16:07

mmmmmm.....I think it was missing the fart noises.   Yeah!...that's the ticket!
Posted by: Texas Teach on May 14 2010,17:28

Quote (Louis @ May 14 2010,10:49)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2010,16:21)
Quote (Louis @ May 13 2010,06:38)
I have said it before and I'll say it again: the man is a gigantic douchenozzle.

Yeah, ok, I just wanted to use the word douchenozzle.

I even read his presentation (snicker, giggle) about those evil New Atheists. I LOLed. Point, thoroughly missed. Bravo!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I actually started a rebutal - there's falsehoods and misrepresentations on most slides.

PM me if you want the current version.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You, sir, shock me. Are you suggesting that in addition to stretching arguments to the point of strawman, deliberately missing the point, and generally oversimplifying things to the point of absurdity, VD has actually put falsehoods on those slides?

Where now may my moral compass point? Without the lodestone of Theodore my navigation in morality is adrift. My north, my south, my east, my west; all are confused. Without Theodore to guide me, gently and kindly like a master, my life has been cut free and flaps on the mast, wasted, useless. Woe, calamity and disaster must surely befall us now Theodore is not the wellspring of all things factual.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Try Theobald over Theodore.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 07 2010,07:47

Google thinks this thread is a good choice:


(well, better than his first book)
Posted by: J-Dog on June 07 2010,08:10

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 07 2010,07:47)
Google thinks this thread is a good choice:


(well, better than his first book)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My Google turns up:

vox day Greatly Depressing*




*ok, I made it up, but that doesn't mean it's not true...
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 07 2010,08:11

I'm hoping we jump above "Vox Day Idiot" but he's working hard to reinforce that position.
Posted by: sledgehammer on June 07 2010,09:44

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 07 2010,05:47)
Google thinks this thread is a good choice:


(well, better than his first book)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But lesser than "vox day idiot", I see.

ETA not fast enough. Never mind.
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on June 25 2010,05:50

My comments are deleted from his site, but I'll duplicate some here, along with a link to the the post, if Rich doesn't mind (?)  It's kind of inspiring that Googlebot ranks this commentary so highly.

< When the punchline writes itself >

Oh, I don't know, Einstein was quite the ladies man, as was James Watson. And when you're a ladies man and look like James Watson, you have to be doing something right. Come to think of it, scientists score pretty well with the opposite sex.

btw - There's nothing in "libertarian gun nut" that exactly spells "babe magnet."
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 25 2010,08:38

Chief, it's a free for all here. Post away!
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on June 26 2010,05:18

< Hypergamy trumps ideology >

Be honest, is SB hypergamotic?

(Note: To be fair, I guess in VD-world, the fact that Spacebunny is a gold-digger isn't much of a sin, since she's not a feminist.  It is a little ironic, th'o, that the man is lambasting other women for a characteristic his own wife shows.)
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on June 28 2010,05:15

< Winning the War Against Men >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is of course so much lunacy here that one hesitates at the array of options, but I'll just focus on the 11 year old's testimony. The thing that immediately jumped out at me is that there are no 11 year olds who can have properly assess the global warming theory to have progressed far enough to label it collectively as "wacko" without having been prompted to do so. This makes his story suspect right off the bat, but even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, that his teacher is actually "misandrist" (again, not exactly 11 yr old typical), his complaint is pure anecdote. Nearly anyone, if questioned, will recount a disgruntled female grade school teacher, and a whole string of overbearingly aggressive male gym teachers. I'm willing to admit that it is distinctly possible that, in the rush to aid mid-20th century girls, boys have been neglected, but I don't agree that this amounts to a "war" on boys. Whether men have been lined up in the sights is strictly dependent on what you think your role is versus women, and the brand of Christianity you subscribe to, where women are submissive, absolutely colors your perspective on their status, and your supposed oppression.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on June 28 2010,08:16

Quote (Beelzebub667 @ June 28 2010,05:15)
< Winning the War Against Men >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is of course so much lunacy here that one hesitates at the array of options, but I'll just focus on the 11 year old's testimony. The thing that immediately jumped out at me is that there are no 11 year olds who can have properly assess the global warming theory to have progressed far enough to label it collectively as "wacko" without having been prompted to do so. This makes his story suspect right off the bat, but even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, that his teacher is actually "misandrist" (again, not exactly 11 yr old typical), his complaint is pure anecdote. Nearly anyone, if questioned, will recount a disgruntled female grade school teacher, and a whole string of overbearingly aggressive male gym teachers. I'm willing to admit that it is distinctly possible that, in the rush to aid mid-20th century girls, boys have been neglected, but I don't agree that this amounts to a "war" on boys. Whether men have been lined up in the sights is strictly dependent on what you think your role is versus women, and the brand of Christianity you subscribe to, where women are submissive, absolutely colors your perspective on their status, and your supposed oppression.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From his wing-nut-daily article:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...they have demonstrated quite the opposite in illustrating how the male concepts of logic, honor, justice and self-sacrifice are almost entirely alien to the female mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, like when have mothers ever sacrificed anything for anyone? Misogynistic tool.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 28 2010,08:20

Bonus bogus:

< http://www.americanthinker.com/2010....su.html >

Ghostwritten or indoctrinated?

Should have home-schooled the little urchin if they were worries about exposure to facts.
Posted by: J-Dog on June 28 2010,08:55

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 28 2010,08:20)
Bonus bogus:

< http://www.americanthinker.com/2010....su.html >

Ghostwritten or indoctrinated?

Should have home-schooled the little urchin if they were worries about exposure to facts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a great link!!!

From the "article"



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, the girls loved the book and most of the boys hated it, except for a few who liked it and also wanted to become mothers some day.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It could have been written by Gil, Barry or any usual ud poster.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 29 2010,13:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
VD [snip]...When I give up something for something else that I want, that is usually described as a trade, not a sacrifice.

To claim that a woman sacrifices in order to become a mother intrinsically implies that her children are less valuable to her than whatever it was she gave up.



Torben...By this 'reasoning' any self sacrifice that is not unintentional isn't self sacrifice at all, because you wanted to do it. Is this how the phrase is commonly understood and deployed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/06/mailvox-and-yet-they-wonder.html >

Torben should have said 'employed' rather than 'deployed'. Too much bizniz speak, Torben!

Edited.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 29 2010,14:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

VD: 6/29/10 1:59 PM:
No, what is this "opportunity cost" of which you speak?



I see. You'll get arsey over scare quotes but then instantly resort to sarcasm.

I'll take you at face value. It's a pretty basic yet fundamental economic concept that is key to seeing how folks maximize their utility. Have a google - I'm sure there are lots of good articles.



VD: 6/29/10 1:59 PM:
It sounds very complicated, especially if it only applies to women who are mothers.



No one even remotely suggested that, drama queen.


VD: 6/29/10 1:59 PM:
Regardless, you haven't answered the question. Specifically what are all mothers who are doing it correctly sacrificing?



Explicitly opportunity, implicitly lots of things.

VD: 6/29/10 1:59 PM:
The assertion was that female self-sacrifice is greater than male self-sacrifice



Not by me.


VD: 6/29/10 1:59 PM:
Naturally, as an astute and advanced economist,



I am not nor claimed to be


VD: 6/29/10 1:59 PM:
you will understand that it is necessary to specify the value of the former before you can compare it to the latter.



That's someone else's issue. Mine was that the way you use self-sacrifice is not the way others use it or understand it and so you might be a disengeniuos queef
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Edited for format
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on June 29 2010,15:56

Hilarity alert: Courtesy e-referrer VD's site now has a link to this site in the left margin.
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on June 29 2010,16:00

In fact I think I'll add another link to seal the deal.

< Los Links! Los Links! >
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on June 29 2010,16:10

Wow it updates in real time, so keep clicking those links.  I could do this all day.  In fact, I may.  I might not be satisfied until we're at the top.

< Do it for your mother. >
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 29 2010,16:13

Quote (Beelzebub667 @ June 29 2010,16:00)
In fact I think I'll add another link to seal the deal.

< Los Links! Los Links! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Richardthughes on June 29 2010,16:22

Gah.. he's pulled it.


Posted by: Beelzebub667 on June 29 2010,16:35

Ah well, it was fun while it lasted.  Nice that you recorded it for posterity.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 29 2010,16:38

Quote (Beelzebub667 @ June 29 2010,16:35)
Ah well, it was fun while it lasted.  Nice that you recorded it for posterity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His little world can't have too much reality in it..
Posted by: fnxtr on June 29 2010,19:31

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 29 2010,14:38)
   
Quote (Beelzebub667 @ June 29 2010,16:35)
Ah well, it was fun while it lasted.  Nice that you recorded it for posterity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His little world can't have too much any reality in it..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTFY
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on July 08 2010,00:35

Initial release of the "WarMouse" seems to have some problems:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So let's see...the WarMouse is the size of a rat and it's partially dead.  I know, you should change its name to Warfarin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Beelzebub667 on July 08 2010,05:34

It now looks like the "Warfarin" shipments have been suspended until further research is conducted on this dead rat.
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on July 08 2010,05:39

I love it when Nazi's fail.  I'd hate to hear talk in the bunker today.

Do I feel guilt over wishing ill of Vox's business venture?  No, perhaps guilty pleasure, but God help me, I feel GRRRRReat!!!
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 08 2010,09:08

This is going to be fun:

< http://www.i-newswire.com/warmouse-meta-the-king-of-all-computer/47327 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hands-on reviews of the mouse from various technology sites have been uniformly positive:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, I bet that wont hold up!
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 08 2010,09:27

Quote (Beelzebub667 @ July 08 2010,00:35)
Initial release of the "WarMouse" seems to have some problems:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So let's see...the WarMouse is the size of a rat and it's partially dead.  I know, you should change its name to Warfarin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've got to provide links, chief!
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 08 2010,10:04

Haha - from their Dev. blog

< http://warmouse.com/blog/?p=361#comments >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A few things:

1. We’re putting a hold on shipping out any more mice until we can sort out this L1/R1 problem. It APPEARS to be a hardware problem that affects all mice but is one that people with longer fingers or a grip that orients towards the front do not notice. Alberto’s remapping test would appear to confirm my suspicions about the problem.

2. We are going to fix the scroll wheel problem while we’re fixing the L1/R1 problem. Two birds, one stone, etc.

3. I don’t know if we’re going to handle this by fixing the problem mice or by sending out new mice that are confirmed to be fixed to everyone who is experiencing the L1/R1 problem. Either way, it’s going to take some time to figure out the correct resolution to the problem, so please bear with us in the confidence that we will sort this out to your satisfaction. If you are experiencing the L1/R1 problem, we recommend assigning L1 to A5 and R1 to B7 in the meantime to stay operational during this time.

4. Brian, we may need you to send your mouse back since there are no other reports of joystick tightness. So, we have to figure out if you got a flawed joystick or simply have very weak thumbs…. We’ll be in touch.

5. We’re very sorry for these hardware problems, but we are getting them sorted out. We are committed to producing the best mouse available, and we know we have not yet reached that point.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------







---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Michael said on July 8th, 2010 , 5:36 am
when are you guys gonna send out the 2nd batch?

my order number is #160 and was told it was gonna shipped on Tuesday or Wednesday so not sure if im was in the first batch or in the 2nd?

i also tried emailing you guys too ask if the payment and stuff went ok but i guess it did sense the money got tooking out .

thanks:)

Carl said on July 8th, 2010 , 7:37 am
I have order number 25, Michael, and still haven’t received mine either. It looks like they are prioritizing in some way or simply that they are swamped with the first reports back. Honestly, I’d rather take a 2nd batch delivery to avoid having the scroll wheel bug.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow - they may ship... Hundreds.
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on July 08 2010,15:08

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 08 2010,09:27)
Quote (Beelzebub667 @ July 08 2010,00:35)
Initial release of the "WarMouse" seems to have some problems:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So let's see...the WarMouse is the size of a rat and it's partially dead.  I know, you should change its name to Warfarin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've got to provide links, chief!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My apologies, it was an off topic discussion on one of his latest posts.

signed, Sitting Bull
Posted by: didymos on July 08 2010,19:42

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 08 2010,08:04)
Wow - they may ship... Hundreds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Googling this monstrosity turned up this thread :

< http://www.overclock.net/hardwar....ng.html >


My favorite comment (despite the grammar) was < this one >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Should of bedazzled it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm sensing a distinct lack of future popularity.
Posted by: Robin on July 09 2010,09:23

Just curious, but what has this warvarmint...thing...have to do with Vox Day?
Posted by: khan on July 09 2010,09:27

Quote (Robin @ July 09 2010,10:23)
Just curious, but what has this warvarmint...thing...have to do with Vox Day?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he invented it.
Posted by: Robin on July 09 2010,10:09

Quote (khan @ July 09 2010,09:27)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Robin @ July 09 2010,10:23)
Just curious, but what has this warvarmint...thing...have to do with Vox Day?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he invented it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ahhh...I thought it might be something like that, but I couldn't find a reference to him on the sites. Thanks!

Ok...as you were...continue the flogging!
Posted by: Badger3k on July 09 2010,11:16

Quote (Robin @ July 09 2010,10:09)
[quote=khan,July 09 2010,09:27][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Robin @ July 09 2010,10:23)
Just curious, but what has this warvarmint...thing...have to do with Vox Day?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he invented it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ahhh...I thought it might be something like that, but I couldn't find a reference to him on the sites. Thanks!

Ok...as you were...continue the flogging!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This was the first post on this thread that I found mentioning this: < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y159827 >

(sorry, for some reason I can't format it)
Posted by: fnxtr on July 09 2010,15:43

Quote (khan @ July 09 2010,07:27)
Quote (Robin @ July 09 2010,10:23)
Just curious, but what has this warvarmint...thing...have to do with Vox Day?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he invented it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... in one of the most peculiar expressions of overcompensation ever.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 09 2010,16:02

Sweeeeeeeet!


Posted by: Richardthughes on July 19 2010,09:01

Vox decides to pit science against religion:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/07/science-vs-religion.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PTQ claimed that science has a vast track record of correct predictions while religion has none. "Science has produced zillions of correct predictions. Religion has produced none. A bigger winner-loser gulf does not exist." Very well, then let's place a bet on the matter:

Religion: The poor will be with you always.
Science: Global poverty will be ended by 2025.

From The End of Poverty by economist Jeffrey Sachs: "This book declares, at the core, that steadfast, science-based approaches can end extreme poverty on the planet. The benefits of modern science and technology which have reached Bulgaria and most of the rest of the world can work for the poorest of the poor as well.... the great challenge and possibility of our time: to end extreme poverty on the planet by the year 2025."

...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So my socks had some fun.

First - its a horrible strawman. Jeffrey Sachs is not the spokesman for 'science' nor is ".... the great challenge and possibility of our time: to end extreme poverty on the planet by the year 2025" a prediction, more like a call to arms.

The quote "The poor will be with you always." is from Mark 14. But Mark 16 has BETTER predictions:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Funny how he didn't choose these ones.

Of course all the comments my sock made pointing this out to him were deleted, because the intellectual midget can have reality raining on his TARDrade.
Posted by: dheddle on July 19 2010,10:35

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 19 2010,09:01)
Vox decides to pit science against religion:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/07/science-vs-religion.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PTQ claimed that science has a vast track record of correct predictions while religion has none. "Science has produced zillions of correct predictions. Religion has produced none. A bigger winner-loser gulf does not exist." Very well, then let's place a bet on the matter:

Religion: The poor will be with you always.
Science: Global poverty will be ended by 2025.

From The End of Poverty by economist Jeffrey Sachs: "This book declares, at the core, that steadfast, science-based approaches can end extreme poverty on the planet. The benefits of modern science and technology which have reached Bulgaria and most of the rest of the world can work for the poorest of the poor as well.... the great challenge and possibility of our time: to end extreme poverty on the planet by the year 2025."

...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So my socks had some fun.

First - its a horrible strawman. Jeffrey Sachs is not the spokesman for 'science' nor is ".... the great challenge and possibility of our time: to end extreme poverty on the planet by the year 2025" a prediction, more like a call to arms.

The quote "The poor will be with you always." is from Mark 14. But Mark 16 has BETTER predictions:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Funny how he didn't choose these ones.

Of course all the comments my sock made pointing this out to him were deleted, because the intellectual midget can have reality raining on his TARDrade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now Richard, to be fair you should pick something else. That passage, know as the < Markan Appendix > is not in many of the oldest extant manuscripts. Most view it as an addition--and most bible translations will indicate that Mark 16:8 is probably the last verse in the chapter.

For example, the NIV inserts this comment after verse 9:

The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 19 2010,10:38

Quote (dheddle @ July 19 2010,10:35)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 19 2010,09:01)
Vox decides to pit science against religion:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/07/science-vs-religion.html >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PTQ claimed that science has a vast track record of correct predictions while religion has none. "Science has produced zillions of correct predictions. Religion has produced none. A bigger winner-loser gulf does not exist." Very well, then let's place a bet on the matter:

Religion: The poor will be with you always.
Science: Global poverty will be ended by 2025.

From The End of Poverty by economist Jeffrey Sachs: "This book declares, at the core, that steadfast, science-based approaches can end extreme poverty on the planet. The benefits of modern science and technology which have reached Bulgaria and most of the rest of the world can work for the poorest of the poor as well.... the great challenge and possibility of our time: to end extreme poverty on the planet by the year 2025."

...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So my socks had some fun.

First - its a horrible strawman. Jeffrey Sachs is not the spokesman for 'science' nor is ".... the great challenge and possibility of our time: to end extreme poverty on the planet by the year 2025" a prediction, more like a call to arms.

The quote "The poor will be with you always." is from Mark 14. But Mark 16 has BETTER predictions:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Funny how he didn't choose these ones.

Of course all the comments my sock made pointing this out to him were deleted, because the intellectual midget can have reality raining on his TARDrade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now Richard, to be fair you should pick something else. That passage, know as the < Markan Appendix > is not in many of the oldest extant manuscripts. Most view it as an addition--and most bible translations will indicate that Mark 16:8 is probably the last verse in the chapter.

For example, the NIV inserts this comment after verse 9:

The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fair enough. But the The Codex Sinaiticus has no resurrection. Are you willing to toss that one out?
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 19 2010,10:42

Fascinating link, David. How does in-errancy square with these obvious doubts over provenance?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 19 2010,10:48

Inerrancy by committee!  ???
Posted by: dheddle on July 19 2010,10:54

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 19 2010,10:42)
Fascinating link, David. How does in-errancy square with these obvious doubts over provenance?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's tricky. Technically the definition from < Wiki: >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal  position that the Bible is considered accurate and totally free of error.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is not correct. Inerrancy claims that scripture is innerant. It doesn't claim the ability to determine what is scripture. It doesn't rule out that, say, Revelation is only included in the bible by mistake. The reliability of the canon is an entirely separate issue. (So Rich it is not innerancy by committee--it is "what is scripture" by committee.)
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 19 2010,11:00

And everything I say is true apart from the lies...

From a practical standpoint, 'usability' if you will, it renders the bible errant.
Posted by: dheddle on July 19 2010,11:04

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 19 2010,11:00)
And everything I say is true apart from the lies...

From a practical standpoint, 'usability' if you will, it renders the bible errant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't make me refudiate you!
Posted by: k.e.. on July 19 2010,11:57

Quote (dheddle @ July 19 2010,19:04)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 19 2010,11:00)
And everything I say is true apart from the lies...

From a practical standpoint, 'usability' if you will, it renders the bible errant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't make me refudiate you!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


talking snakes again Heddle?
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 19 2010,12:03

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 19 2010,09:01)
Of course all the comments my sock made pointing this out to him were deleted, because the intellectual midget can have reality raining on his TARDrade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'd think someone with a flaming sword wouldn't be such a chicken shit.


Posted by: dheddle on July 19 2010,12:07

Quote (k.e.. @ July 19 2010,11:57)
 
Quote (dheddle @ July 19 2010,19:04)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 19 2010,11:00)
And everything I say is true apart from the lies...

From a practical standpoint, 'usability' if you will, it renders the bible errant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't make me refudiate you!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


talking snakes again Heddle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually k.e. there is no indication he spoke after he became a snake in Gen 3:14. Before that he might have looked like anything--for example like < Joe Torre >, but with big bosoms. Who knows these imponderables?
Posted by: k.e.. on July 19 2010,13:28

Quote (dheddle @ July 19 2010,20:07)
Quote (k.e.. @ July 19 2010,11:57)
 
Quote (dheddle @ July 19 2010,19:04)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 19 2010,11:00)
And everything I say is true apart from the lies...

From a practical standpoint, 'usability' if you will, it renders the bible errant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't make me refudiate you!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


talking snakes again Heddle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually k.e. there is no indication he spoke after he became a snake in Gen 3:14. Before that he might have looked like anything--for example like < Joe Torre >, but with big bosoms. Who knows these imponderables?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah the whole thing is certainly open to individual interpretation especially the bossoms part.
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on July 28 2010,06:19

That image reminds me of one suspicion I've always had about VD.  Beyond the first impression of developed biceps, you start to realize due to the proportion of head and body to arm, you're looking at a very, very small man.  I've seen guys like this in the gym and they're always about 5'1''.  VD fits the Napoleon complex to a t.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on July 28 2010,06:21

VD: the acronyme fits the man, no doubts about it...
Posted by: Louis on July 28 2010,07:16

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ July 28 2010,12:21)
VD: the acronyme fits the man, no doubts about it...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you are insinuating that Theodore is an infected pustule on the anus of humanity who, like really virulent herpes, simply will not just go away, then I have to say one thing:

I agree wholeheartedly. Carry on.

Louis
Posted by: Gunthernacus on July 28 2010,10:44

Quote (Beelzebub667 @ July 28 2010,07:19)
That image reminds me of one suspicion I've always had about VD.  Beyond the first impression of developed biceps, you start to realize due to the proportion of head and body to arm, you're looking at a very, very small man.  I've seen guys like this in the gym and they're always about 5'1''.  VD fits the Napoleon complex to a t.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That and the fact that he's wielding a LotR movie promotional letter opener.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 28 2010,11:42

Quote (Beelzebub667 @ July 28 2010,06:19)
That image reminds me of one suspicion I've always had about VD.  Beyond the first impression of developed biceps, you start to realize due to the proportion of head and body to arm, you're looking at a very, very small man.  I've seen guys like this in the gym and they're always about 5'1''.  VD fits the Napoleon complex to a t.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He hates women because they're taller than him.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 30 2010,09:16

Don't worry if you baught a FAILmouse. You can get a new FAILmouse that might work in 4 weeks.

< http://warmouse.com/blog/?p=383 >
Posted by: Gunthernacus on July 30 2010,13:08

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 30 2010,10:16)
Don't worry if you baught a FAILmouse. You can get a new FAILmouse that might work in 4 weeks.

< http://warmouse.com/blog/?p=383 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL.  What a bunch of hucksters.  Multiple problems with the mouse, probably not repairable, so - as a favor to their suckers - they are going to replace them.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You will have the option of either sending your current mouse back to either our American or our UK address after the replacement mouse arrives or keeping your old mouse for $25.  If, as we anticipate, you prefer to send your old mouse back to us, you will have 30 days from the receipt of your replacement mouse to send it back.  If we don’t receive it, we will charge your credit card $30.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can keep the broken mouse for $25, but if you don't send it back - it's $30.

You have 30 days to send it back before you get charged the $35.  After 30 days it's $40, plus freight makes it $45 for an even $50.  If you haven't canceled your credit card account in 2 months time, we will bill an additional $60 plus a $65 it's-cheaper-to-just-pay-it-than-hire-a-lawyer fee.  Any credit card accounts that are still valid after 3 months, we will assume that your hands are too crippled from trying to learn our wearymouse to use the phone (that and simply just unwilling to push any more buttons) and a new round of charges will begin.
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on Aug. 01 2010,17:55

Typical small-time shady operation.  Look, they know their mice are unusably flawed, but instead of doing the truly honorable thing and sending everyone who has already wasted their time and effort with it a new, fixed mouse, hassle free, they want to recoup the losses of their incompetence.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Aug. 01 2010,19:00

Quote (Beelzebub667 @ Aug. 02 2010,08:55)
Typical small-time shady operation.  Look, they know their mice are unusably flawed, but instead of doing the truly honorable thing and sending everyone who has already wasted their time and effort with it a new, fixed mouse, hassle free, they want to recoup the losses of their incompetence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No so much shady but incompentant. You think that you would at least spend some time testing the production mice before shipping.
These sound like pretty major flaws
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 03 2010,09:47

"Propper Popper" seems to be having fun with over there, he's called him out on Tiktaalik and his very poor PowerPoint.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 03 2010,10:16

This is pathetic


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In order to improve our quality testing, we will select two or three customers and ask them to confirm the fixes as well before we pull the trigger on the production run.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um, they could quite easily check themselves if the buttons work but no, for some reason customers will decide that...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 03 2010,10:20

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 03 2010,10:16)
This is pathetic


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In order to improve our quality testing, we will select two or three customers and ask them to confirm the fixes as well before we pull the trigger on the production run.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um, they could quite easily check themselves if the buttons work but no, for some reason customers will decide that...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because statistically having three people test something on three units is all you need for very high confidence in mass produced electronic goods.

We call it .006 Sigma.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 03 2010,12:21

That's not a mouse.

THIS is a mouse.


Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 03 2010,13:18

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 03 2010,08:20)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 03 2010,10:16)
This is pathetic
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In order to improve our quality testing, we will select two or three customers and ask them to confirm the fixes as well before we pull the trigger on the production run.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um, they could quite easily check themselves if the buttons work but no, for some reason customers will decide that...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because statistically having three people test something on three units is all you need for very high confidence in mass produced electronic goods.

We call it .006 Sigma.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True, but three is probably a decent-size sample of their total sales.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 03 2010,14:20

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 03 2010,12:21)
That's not a mouse.

THIS is a mouse.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Make / model?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 03 2010,14:25

< http://videogames.barnesandnoble.com/search....2DMouse >

< http://gizmodo.com/5441659....ichrist >
Posted by: carlsonjok on Aug. 04 2010,09:09

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 03 2010,10:20)
Because statistically having three people test something on three units is all you need for very high confidence in mass produced electronic goods.

We call it .006 Sigma.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL. I am spending my week in Guadalajara listening to a strategic supplier prattle on about Lean - 6 Sigma.  I may be the only one here at ATBC that laughed at that, but I did, you magnificent bastard.
Posted by: Robin on Aug. 04 2010,09:32

Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 04 2010,09:09)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 03 2010,10:20)
Because statistically having three people test something on three units is all you need for very high confidence in mass produced electronic goods.

We call it .006 Sigma.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL. I am spending my week in Guadalajara listening to a strategic supplier prattle on about Lean - 6 Sigma.  I may be the only one here at ATBC that laughed at that, but I did, you magnificent bastard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, I did too. I had the fun-packed job of getting the company I work for to understand and adopt a "process Improvement Methodology" (a la CMMI, for those familiar) to achieve the proper "actualization" for two separate ratings. Yeah...gotta love that stuff!  ;)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 05 2010,09:16

Here we go:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/08/darwinianism-and-evolution.html >

Vox Day = Corny.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Aug. 05 2010,18:40

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 06 2010,00:16)
Here we go:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/08/darwinianism-and-evolution.html >

Vox Day = Corny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is it about these rightwing nut jobs? They paint themselves as rugged individuals who think for themselves but they all have exactly the same bag of beliefs
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 09 2010,17:02

Moar_fun with voxtard

he states:




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"all of the evolution-based models of genetics were wrong,"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and gets aked:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
- which ones are those, then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He replies:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"What part of "all" do you not understand. All of them."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So the follow up is:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Coudl you name a few, so I could research them and your claim? Thanks in adavance."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course he can't list any, and so rapidly starts deleting comments. What a coward!

here:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/08/science-gets-it-wrong-again.html >
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on Aug. 09 2010,18:12

I see that Vox is tilting at windmills again.  Funny how Venter is kinda sorta "okay" in his book, only because Venter's was a private business.  What really gets VD's goat is that the HGP was TAX FUNDED by the gubmint.  And that, of course, is unforgivable.

Also enjoyed the comment about Chris Reeve: "Still waiting for Christopher Reeves (sic) to rise up again and walk."  Hmmm, could have something to do with the fact that he's DEAD.  Then again, we're all awaiting the resurrection, aren't we?
Posted by: Tom Ames on Aug. 09 2010,18:37

I am SO enjoying the spectacle of War Mouse's crashing-and-burning!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 09 2010,18:39

I thought it was supposed to be...

"You call *that* a mouse? *This* is a mouse!"
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on Aug. 09 2010,20:33

From their :

< "Development Blog" >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After some spirited discussions about the question of whether we will pay for all of the shipping costs required for the mouse replacement program, we have decided to revise our policy with regards to the return of the first-run mice. We concluded that it is no more our goal to provide average customer service than to make an average computer mouse, and therefore we have decided to pay the cost of shipping the first-run mice back to us. If you elect to return your first mouse, we will send you a pre-paid mailing label along with the replacement mouse if that is possible or else we will arrange to refund your credit card in the amount of the shipping costs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Note to WarMouse: that would be de rigour for anyone but fly-by-night operations.  You don't charge people to ship your piece of shit back to you.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 10 2010,08:45

The replacement form is good - they did well keeping it down to one page...


< http://warmouse.com/branding/docs/Mouse_Replacement_Form.doc >
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 10 2010,08:59

Quote (Beelzebub667 @ Aug. 09 2010,18:33)
From their :

< "Development Blog" >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After some spirited discussions about the question of whether we will pay for all of the shipping costs required for the mouse replacement program, we have decided to revise our policy with regards to the return of the first-run mice. We concluded that it is no more our goal to provide average customer service than to make an average computer mouse, and therefore we have decided to pay the cost of shipping the first-run mice back to us. If you elect to return your first mouse, we will send you a pre-paid mailing label along with the replacement mouse if that is possible or else we will arrange to refund your credit card in the amount of the shipping costs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Note to WarMouse: that would be de rigour for anyone but fly-by-night operations.  You don't charge people to ship your piece of shit back to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(snort)

(snicker)

"Intelligent Design"

Bwahahahahahahahaha!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 10 2010,09:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thomas M said on August 9th, 2010 , 3:52 pm
Are there changes in the Altstick/Joystick in the new revision?

As I mentioned before – I had to remove the plastic cover to be able to use it for and it still sometimes fails to send the right keypress.

admin said on August 9th, 2010 , 5:43 pm
No, the joystick tested out fine. Either there is something mechanically wrong with your component, the cover was installed backwards, or you are using it incorrectly. You should be able to tell which of the three is applicable when your replacement mouse arrives. In the meantime, we would recommend making sure you have the cover on the right way. The thicker part of the receptacle should be towards the back of the mouse. We have had two confirmed cases of the cover being assembled backwards.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 12 2010,15:08

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/08/anklebiters-anonymous.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Actually, it has really made me wish that we could do an Ilk Homeschool recommendation list. Since so many of you are very intelligent and educated I would love to hear your recommendations on books and such for my littles.

I would love to have little "Ilks" running around having wondeful debates one day (Of course, with a concentration on the Gospel first :).


Spacebunny     8/12/10 2:58 PM
Ace - I'll ask Vox to post on it and I'll link to it on the homeschooling group.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Mindrover on Aug. 12 2010,15:48

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 12 2010,15:08)
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/08/anklebiters-anonymous.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Actually, it has really made me wish that we could do an Ilk Homeschool recommendation list. Since so many of you are very intelligent and educated I would love to hear your recommendations on books and such for my littles.

I would love to have little "Ilks" running around having wondeful debates one day (Of course, with a concentration on the Gospel first :).


Spacebunny     8/12/10 2:58 PM
Ace - I'll ask Vox to post on it and I'll link to it on the homeschooling group.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the one hand, I weep for those children.
On the other hand, I'm glad my kids won't have as much competition for college admissions.
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on Aug. 13 2010,05:04

The kind of interesting thing is that children are the one thing that can blast idiots like this out of their delusion.  Unfortunately, most children succumb to the mind tricks and programming, but every so often that one child comes along who is headstrong enough not to take it.  They're either cast out as the black sheep of the family, or they take the whole family with them onto a more rational plan.  It happens.  Dan Barker is one example, though it took him a while to do it.  They can ignore the outsider, in fact their entire belief system is designed to keep them on the alert.  But they can't easily dismiss dissidence from within the family.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Aug. 13 2010,05:29

Quote (Beelzebub667 @ Aug. 13 2010,11:04)
The kind of interesting thing is that children are the one thing that can blast idiots like this out of their delusion.  Unfortunately, most children succumb to the mind tricks and programming, but every so often that one child comes along who is headstrong enough not to take it.  They're either cast out as the black sheep of the family, or they take the whole family with them onto a more rational plan.  It happens.  Dan Barker is one example, though it took him a while to do it.  They can ignore the outsider, in fact their entire belief system is designed to keep them on the alert.  But they can't easily dismiss dissidence from within the family.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A bit like the Matrix, then...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 19 2010,11:50

Vox takes an English writer to task for critiquing the '911 mosque' based on his location.

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/08/illustrating-mpai_19.html >

Vox now lives in Italy.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 09 2010,22:57

Another prediction:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010....ll.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Vikes will win tonight. The reason is simple. The Vikings reliably beat the team that most recently dealt them a big loss.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 10 2010,09:36

GrRRRRRrrr athiems pt 212753

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/09/amoral-essence-of-atheism.html >
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 10 2010,10:37

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 10 2010,09:36)
GrRRRRRrrr athiems pt 212753

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/09/amoral-essence-of-atheism.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The posters at that site should be at UD - they fit in perfectly!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 12 2010,19:23

Over the past 20 years, gays killed broadway!

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/09/mailvox-decline-of-broadway.html >

Thank goodness it wasn't TV or new media!
Posted by: Badger3k on Sep. 12 2010,20:20

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 12 2010,19:23)
Over the past 20 years, gays killed broadway!

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/09/mailvox-decline-of-broadway.html >

Thank goodness it wasn't TV or new media!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I liked the "homo-esoteric" bit.  I learn something new every day!

I also like the way he admits there are other factors, although he doesn't name them.  I wonder if the fact that prices are a bit...uh...high has anything to do with it?  I took a quick look and found out that two tickets to Wicked range from $67 to $300.  Given the economy, maybe that might be a factor?  I rarely go to movies because the prices are outrageous, so what do the non-rich do when confronted by prices like that?  Especially when later on the show will probably be on tv or dvd?

I also liked how he points to the increase in the population of the US, but how does that matter to Broadway?  From what I can tell of the site, it seems to indicate the physical Broadway, in NYC.  How does an increase in, say, the middle of Texas, lead to more people who can see a Broadway show?  I've never been to NY, and probably never will.  Surely Teddy Beale, Super-Genius, has considered that into his Deep Thoughts?

;)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 12 2010,21:17

Quote (Badger3k @ Sep. 12 2010,20:20)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 12 2010,19:23)
Over the past 20 years, gays killed broadway!

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/09/mailvox-decline-of-broadway.html >

Thank goodness it wasn't TV or new media!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I liked the "homo-esoteric" bit.  I learn something new every day!

I also like the way he admits there are other factors, although he doesn't name them.  I wonder if the fact that prices are a bit...uh...high has anything to do with it?  I took a quick look and found out that two tickets to Wicked range from $67 to $300.  Given the economy, maybe that might be a factor?  I rarely go to movies because the prices are outrageous, so what do the non-rich do when confronted by prices like that?  Especially when later on the show will probably be on tv or dvd?

I also liked how he points to the increase in the population of the US, but how does that matter to Broadway?  From what I can tell of the site, it seems to indicate the physical Broadway, in NYC.  How does an increase in, say, the middle of Texas, lead to more people who can see a Broadway show?  I've never been to NY, and probably never will.  Surely Teddy Beale, Super-Genius, has considered that into his Deep Thoughts?

;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Plus, they're supposed to make a loss.. >
Posted by: MichaelJ on Sep. 12 2010,21:24

Manly he-men like Rock Hudson would be shocked about the way broadway carries on now.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Sep. 13 2010,03:47

Germany is doomed - our Minister of Foreign Affairs is gay, and so is the Lord Mayor of Berlin.
Posted by: didymos on Sep. 13 2010,05:49

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 12 2010,17:23)
Over the past 20 years, gays killed broadway!

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/09/mailvox-decline-of-broadway.html >

Thank goodness it wasn't TV or new media!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The most bizarre thing is ChickenVox apparently has this notion  that, somehow, Broadway was largely free of "teh ghey" 20 years ago. Yep, it all started with Angels In America.  

Before that?  PURE UNADULTERATED HETERONORMATIVE-MANLINESS!!!!!

Well, except for stuff like Cabaret, A Chorus Line, Bent, La Cage aux Folles, and probably about eleventy-billion others that I wasn't able to find in the roughly 2 seconds I spent on Wikipedia.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 13 2010,09:06

Wow - last night someone (not me) had posted 'correlation is not causation' or words to that effect. He's deleted it.

Vox, they're all tards there, don't bother trying to save face.
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 13 2010,09:34

Vox dispenses his wisdom:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The popularity [of gay-friendly shows] isn't extreme. It's just successful in a much smaller niche market that only women and gay men watch. Look at the Nielsen shares.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Only women" make about what, 50% of the TV audience?
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 13 2010,09:43

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 13 2010,09:06)
Wow - last night someone (not me) had posted 'correlation is not causation' or words to that effect. He's deleted it.

Vox, they're all tards there, don't bother trying to save face.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's just a matter of time before somebody posts about the link between The Need for Bigger Mice and /or over-compensation and Teh Gay.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 13 2010,09:50

More FAILMOUSE schadenfreude..

< http://warmouse.com/blog/?p=413 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The replacement program is progressing slower than we would like because for some reason that presently remains inexplicable, the first sample from the second production run did not match the prototype. The joystick was not mounted horizontally, but angled upward in a manner that would have caused problems. So, we had to tell the factory to fix the newly introduced hardware bug, which is why we haven’t sent any replacements out yet. We will provide you all with a ship date as soon as we have one. We completely understand everyone is eager to get a fixed mouse, but after sending you mice of a quality we consider unsatisfactory, we don’t believe we would be serving either you or ourselves well by sending out mice that we know are flawed. So, please hold tight, keep using your current Metas, and rest assured that you will receive the fixed mice as soon as they are available.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And the one Amazon review (obviously not a fanboy)

< http://www.amazon.co.uk/WarMous....&sr=8-1 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
build quality not good enough, 13 July 2010
By  Giacomo Lacava (Manchester, United Kingdom) - See all my reviews

This review is from: WarMouse Meta Laser Joystick Gaming Mouse 5600 DPI
It's an interesting concept, obviously it will take a while to get used to it and customize it to my needs.
Unfortunately, build quality is not good. The wheel feels half-broken, and the larger keys don't "click" on the entire surface -- common issues on low-end mice, but this is not supposed to be low-end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 13 2010,13:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's just a matter of time before somebody posts about the link between The Need for Bigger Mice
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or gerbils?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 26 2010,17:14

must be a wingnut thang:

< http://gribbitonline.com/gribbitisms/ >

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/03/lexicology.html >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 26 2010,17:55

Quote (Beelzebub667 @ July 28 2010,06:19)
That image reminds me of one suspicion I've always had about VD.  Beyond the first impression of developed biceps, you start to realize due to the proportion of head and body to arm, you're looking at a very, very small man.  I've seen guys like this in the gym and they're always about 5'1''.  VD fits the Napoleon complex to a t.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://rantingroom.blogspot.com/2007/09/vox-day-and-me-part-12.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So after all of this build up, then, we're back to the original question: what is Vox Day really like?

Short.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 26 2010,20:07

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2010,17:55)
Quote (Beelzebub667 @ July 28 2010,06:19)
That image reminds me of one suspicion I've always had about VD.  Beyond the first impression of developed biceps, you start to realize due to the proportion of head and body to arm, you're looking at a very, very small man.  I've seen guys like this in the gym and they're always about 5'1''.  VD fits the Napoleon complex to a t.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://rantingroom.blogspot.com/2007/09/vox-day-and-me-part-12.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So after all of this build up, then, we're back to the original question: what is Vox Day really like?

Short.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Enlightening blog post.  I've been trying to figure Vox out for years.  From post to post, I either want to hug him or freaking punch his lights out.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Sep. 27 2010,01:10

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2010,18:55)
Quote (Beelzebub667 @ July 28 2010,06:19)
That image reminds me of one suspicion I've always had about VD.  Beyond the first impression of developed biceps, you start to realize due to the proportion of head and body to arm, you're looking at a very, very small man.  I've seen guys like this in the gym and they're always about 5'1''.  VD fits the Napoleon complex to a t.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://rantingroom.blogspot.com/2007/09/vox-day-and-me-part-12.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So after all of this build up, then, we're back to the original question: what is Vox Day really like?

Short.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that would explain why he hates women so much.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 27 2010,03:27

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 26 2010,20:07)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2010,17:55)
Quote (Beelzebub667 @ July 28 2010,06:19)
That image reminds me of one suspicion I've always had about VD.  Beyond the first impression of developed biceps, you start to realize due to the proportion of head and body to arm, you're looking at a very, very small man.  I've seen guys like this in the gym and they're always about 5'1''.  VD fits the Napoleon complex to a t.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://rantingroom.blogspot.com/2007/09/vox-day-and-me-part-12.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So after all of this build up, then, we're back to the original question: what is Vox Day really like?

Short.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Enlightening blog post.  I've been trying to figure Vox out for years.  From post to post, I either want to hug him or freaking punch his lights out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Vox Day - Alpha Midget! :-)
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 27 2010,14:08

Quote (Wolfhound @ Sep. 27 2010,01:10)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2010,18:55)
Quote (Beelzebub667 @ July 28 2010,06:19)
That image reminds me of one suspicion I've always had about VD.  Beyond the first impression of developed biceps, you start to realize due to the proportion of head and body to arm, you're looking at a very, very small man.  I've seen guys like this in the gym and they're always about 5'1''.  VD fits the Napoleon complex to a t.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://rantingroom.blogspot.com/2007/09/vox-day-and-me-part-12.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So after all of this build up, then, we're back to the original question: what is Vox Day really like?

Short.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that would explain why he hates women so much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Short guys generally hate women?
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 01 2010,00:35

Quote (Robin @ Sep. 27 2010,14:08)
[quote=Wolfhound,Sep. 27 2010,01:10][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2010,18:55)
 
Quote (Beelzebub667 @ July 28 2010,06:19)
That image reminds me of one suspicion I've always had about VD.  Beyond the first impression of developed biceps, you start to realize due to the proportion of head and body to arm, you're looking at a very, very small man.  I've seen guys like this in the gym and they're always about 5'1''.  VD fits the Napoleon complex to a t.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://rantingroom.blogspot.com/2007/09/vox-day-and-me-part-12.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So after all of this build up, then, we're back to the original question: what is Vox Day really like?

Short.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that would explain why he hates women so much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Short guys generally hate women?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They probably have a bigger penis than Teddy.  

Have you seen his latest blame-the-victim post?

< Gay Rights Killed Clementi >.

It wasn't the roommate that caused his suicide, it was gay rights.

Gah - I actually read part of that crap.  Holy shit, he's even more fucked up than I thought.  Colleges are too tolerant, and Clementi couldn't stand the thought of people seeing him submit to his "evil desires".  

Teddy, stick to broken mice, and leave the deep thinking to those with actual working brains.  Please.
Posted by: fnxtr on Oct. 01 2010,01:17

Quote (Badger3k @ Sep. 30 2010,22:35)
Have you seen his latest blame-the-victim post?

< Gay Rights Killed Clementi >.

It wasn't the roommate that caused his suicide, it was gay rights.

Gah - I actually read part of that crap.  Holy shit, he's even more fucked up than I thought.  Colleges are too tolerant, and Clementi couldn't stand the thought of people seeing him submit to his "evil desires".  

Teddy, stick to broken mice, and leave the deep thinking to those with actual working brains.  Please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Couldn't possibly be homo-in-denial self-loathing, now, could it.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 01 2010,03:08

Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 01 2010,01:17)
Quote (Badger3k @ Sep. 30 2010,22:35)
Have you seen his latest blame-the-victim post?

< Gay Rights Killed Clementi >.

It wasn't the roommate that caused his suicide, it was gay rights.

Gah - I actually read part of that crap.  Holy shit, he's even more fucked up than I thought.  Colleges are too tolerant, and Clementi couldn't stand the thought of people seeing him submit to his "evil desires".  

Teddy, stick to broken mice, and leave the deep thinking to those with actual working brains.  Please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Couldn't possibly be homo-in-denial self-loathing, now, could it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps worse then the post itself are the comments....
Posted by: fnxtr on Oct. 01 2010,08:59

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 01 2010,01:08)
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 01 2010,01:17)
Quote (Badger3k @ Sep. 30 2010,22:35)
Have you seen his latest blame-the-victim post?

< Gay Rights Killed Clementi >.

It wasn't the roommate that caused his suicide, it was gay rights.

Gah - I actually read part of that crap.  Holy shit, he's even more fucked up than I thought.  Colleges are too tolerant, and Clementi couldn't stand the thought of people seeing him submit to his "evil desires".  

Teddy, stick to broken mice, and leave the deep thinking to those with actual working brains.  Please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Couldn't possibly be homo-in-denial self-loathing, now, could it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps worse then the post itself are the comments....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just sayin'. Anyone with that big a chip has got some issues.  Sorry if the expression was out of line.
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on Oct. 25 2010,07:16

Announcing my new blog, < Anti-Voxination >.

Check it out.  And, no, I'm not obsessing.  There is no need for intervention.  There is no need to adjust your television.  Catch it before it becomes a collector's item, because it's only going to last as long as it doesn't bore me, which will probably be about a month.

PS I'll soon post an endorsement and link to here too.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 25 2010,09:01

Quote (Beelzebub667 @ Oct. 25 2010,07:16)
Announcing my new blog, < Anti-Voxination >.

Check it out.  And, no, I'm not obsessing.  There is no need for intervention.  There is no need to adjust your television.  Catch it before it becomes a collector's item, because it's only going to last as long as it doesn't bore me, which will probably be about a month.

PS I'll soon post an endorsement and link to here too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Popped in and left comments - didn't show up. Don't tell me you've got moderation on..
Posted by: Beelzebub667 on Oct. 25 2010,16:59

Oops.  I'll fix that.  I have on the WordPress defaults, whatever they are.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Oct. 25 2010,18:12

Mine went through (in the "design" topic), but you have to open the topic (click on the header) to see the comments.  It looks like the underline on the "leave comments" goes away if a comment has been left.  Pretty clunky, but IANABlogger.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 20 2010,22:34

Congratulations, Vox. You (barely) made the top 100:
< http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2010/11/99-vox-day-and-his-dad.html >
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 21 2010,16:50

You make that sound like an achievement...which it is, perhaps, in the same sense as being a common courtesan in the House of Lycus.

Did a funny thing happen on the way to the online forum?

:D

The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: the_ignored on Dec. 29 2010,06:18

Wow.  < This > is coming from the guy who defends maritial and date rape?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In case you're still not convinced of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of atheism, consider this list of what atheists believe to be "the big guns" of the best atheist quotes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Now, some holy spirit-inspired < modesty >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, if I only limited myself to those of my intellectual weight class, I'd have to ignore nearly everyone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 29 2010,09:32

Maybe it's only immoral if someone who doesn't worship his imaginary friend does it.

(eyeroll)

I bet he pulled that list (whatever it is--I'M not gonna risk brain cells reading this punk's vomit) out of his favorite clergyman's gastrointestinal tract with his teeth.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Dec. 29 2010,10:44

Quote (the_ignored @ Dec. 29 2010,06:18)
Wow.  < This > is coming from the guy who defends maritial and date rape?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In case you're still not convinced of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of atheism, consider this list of what atheists believe to be "the big guns" of the best atheist quotes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Now, some holy spirit-inspired < modesty >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, if I only limited myself to those of my intellectual weight class, I'd have to ignore nearly everyone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True, most people and bags of hammers are smarter than Vox day.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 29 2010,11:01

Meanwhile, in other Vox Day news:

< Warmouse still sucks. > (Read the comments.)
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 29 2010,11:22

Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 29 2010,11:01)
Meanwhile, in other Vox Day news:

< Warmouse still sucks. > (Read the comments.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps a puppet could report that their mouse is totally slow, and because of bad design, will not process correct evolutionary information. :)
Posted by: the_ignored on Dec. 30 2010,11:01

What the hell?  Shouldn't < this > tell you something?

Check his comment at 12/30/10 5:38 AM


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The whole reason I have not presented many public arguments for theism or Christianity is that I am not satisfied with their soundness yet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 30 2010,12:19

(spit-take)

(laugh)

Oh, that's beautiful!  He can't find a sound argument to support his own One Chosen Truth (tm pat pend)?  And yet people who disagree with him, including those to state that the arguments for his side lack soundness, are idiots and fools?

What a maroon.  Get in the sack, boyo!


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: the_ignored on Jan. 03 2011,07:05

Gotta love that xian "morality" < on display >.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As I have repeatedly explained to the sort of maleducated overestimator of his own intelligence that actually believes that there is a genuine dilemma to be found in Euthyphro, the essence of morality is, and has always been, God's Game, God's Rules. Therefore, no God = no Rules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep, he's confirmed once again, that for xian, nothing counts as a reson to be moral (not the pain and suffering of others, the consequences for society in general, etc) nothing but that sky-daddy watching over them.

All "no god" means, is that we're left to devise our own rules.

And to think, that his post is entitled the "amoral essence of atheism"?

Man, I hope people like him never deconvert.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 03 2011,08:20

Vox and I are having fun: < Religious fitness and science education >. Starting at 1/1/11 11:58 AM.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Jan. 03 2011,18:49

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 03 2011,06:20)
Vox and I are having fun: < Religious fitness and science education >. Starting at 1/1/11 11:58 AM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What happened to the comments?  I was reading them at lunch, and when I got home, they all disappeared. Is it operator error, or did they just dis-apparate?  If the latter, somebody must have said something unretractable?
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 04 2011,06:51

Apparently, < coComment > is down. See < this >.
Posted by: the_ignored on Jan. 04 2011,09:55

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 03 2011,08:20)
Vox and I are having fun: < Religious fitness and science education >. Starting at 1/1/11 11:58 AM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like how the man's wife (spacebunny) is sticking up for him, even though he's such a misogynistic little prick.  

Can anyone here explain that?
Posted by: the_ignored on Jan. 04 2011,10:09

Wow, the man accuses olegt of "reading comprehension problems"?

He should remember the trouble he had with < this >, from his blog entry< here >?

(forgive the crosspost)
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 04 2011,10:52

Quote (the_ignored @ Jan. 04 2011,15:55)
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 03 2011,08:20)
Vox and I are having fun: < Religious fitness and science education >. Starting at 1/1/11 11:58 AM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like how the man's wife (spacebunny) is sticking up for him, even though he's such a misogynistic little prick.  

Can anyone here explain that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stockholm Syndrome? Love blinds us to many flaws? The fallacy of prior investment?

Louis
Posted by: khan on Jan. 04 2011,11:02

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 04 2011,11:52)
Quote (the_ignored @ Jan. 04 2011,15:55)
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 03 2011,08:20)
Vox and I are having fun: < Religious fitness and science education >. Starting at 1/1/11 11:58 AM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like how the man's wife (spacebunny) is sticking up for him, even though he's such a misogynistic little prick.  

Can anyone here explain that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stockholm Syndrome? Love blinds us to many flaws? The fallacy of prior investment?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AKA: "Throwing good money after bad"?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Jan. 04 2011,14:22

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 04 2011,06:51)
Apparently, < coComment > is down. See < this >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that website hosted by a PC with the Warmouse?
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 04 2011,22:50

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 04 2011,10:52)
Quote (the_ignored @ Jan. 04 2011,15:55)
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 03 2011,08:20)
Vox and I are having fun: < Religious fitness and science education >. Starting at 1/1/11 11:58 AM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like how the man's wife (spacebunny) is sticking up for him, even though he's such a misogynistic little prick.  

Can anyone here explain that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stockholm Syndrome? Love blinds us to many flaws? The fallacy of prior investment?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it's more related to either the "battered wife" syndrome (or the related "If I love him enough he will change" variant, maybe it's the same) or the "I was raised in an authoritarian household and learned to support my husband (my better) since he is Always Right as the God-Ordained Master of the House and of Women.

(makes me sick to think like that...)

Delusions and indoctrination can run deep.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 04 2011,23:32

Quote (the_ignored @ Jan. 04 2011,07:55)
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 03 2011,08:20)
Vox and I are having fun: < Religious fitness and science education >. Starting at 1/1/11 11:58 AM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like how the man's wife (spacebunny) is sticking up for him, even though he's such a misogynistic little prick.  

Can anyone here explain that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Listening to too much Tammy Wynette.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 05 2011,04:27

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 04 2011,23:32)
Quote (the_ignored @ Jan. 04 2011,07:55)
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 03 2011,08:20)
Vox and I are having fun: < Religious fitness and science education >. Starting at 1/1/11 11:58 AM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like how the man's wife (spacebunny) is sticking up for him, even though he's such a misogynistic little prick.  

Can anyone here explain that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Listening to too much Tammy Wynette.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And not enough Loretta Lynn.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 05 2011,05:19

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 05 2011,04:50)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 04 2011,10:52)
Quote (the_ignored @ Jan. 04 2011,15:55)
 
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 03 2011,08:20)
Vox and I are having fun: < Religious fitness and science education >. Starting at 1/1/11 11:58 AM.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like how the man's wife (spacebunny) is sticking up for him, even though he's such a misogynistic little prick.  

Can anyone here explain that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stockholm Syndrome? Love blinds us to many flaws? The fallacy of prior investment?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it's more related to either the "battered wife" syndrome (or the related "If I love him enough he will change" variant, maybe it's the same) or the "I was raised in an authoritarian household and learned to support my husband (my better) since he is Always Right as the God-Ordained Master of the House and of Women.

(makes me sick to think like that...)

Delusions and indoctrination can run deep.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree with everything you said, especially the part about it making one feel sick.

But then it's okay, the sickness goes away when you realise that women aren't really proper people delicate flowers and don't have thoughts or feelings like those of men, and thus can be abused and exploited protected and asked to do things obediently (but respectfully) whenever one feels like it because God says so.

Did I get that right? Can any of the more frothing Jesus freaks tell me?

Louis
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 10 2011,09:04

"Spacebunny" is now deleting Oleg's posts. I'm surprised Vox gave her moderation privellages - she's not exactly a shining light over there, and she has a vajayjay! On the 'puter and not in the kitchen? Gordon E Mullings would never stand for that!

Perhaps it's a defense mechanism? -
If Vox doesn't like how things are going he dispatches Spacebunny to slow things down with pointless questions that must be answered on pain of deletion. You can tell she was getting arsey, she started calling Oleg "Dear". And clutching her pearls, probably.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 10 2011,09:16

Yes, on the < thread dedicated to your humble servant >, Spacebunny went into a temper tantrum, demanded that I define the terms science and scientist (scroll down for her 1/10/11 7:54 AM comment), and promised to delete my further comments until I do so (8:07 AM and 8:08 AM).

I have < previously told her > (1/1/11 6:46 PM) that I am not interested in having any serious conversations with her because her comments are heavy on insults and devoid of interesting thoughts. I see no reason to change that assessment and so I told her. The comment was deleted and subsequent comments are not even showing up.

So, it's safe to say that I have been banned by a space bunny. That's a first for me.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 10 2011,09:46

I tolds Spacebunny you don't want to interact with her:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, he doesn't actually get to decide that (not to mention that he has when it suits him, but when confronted he runs - pathetic). And if he can't follow the rules of this blog that is his choice. I have absolutely zero respect for him from his earlier inanity - after all, he didn't win this particular award for his brilliance.
Last edited by Spacebunny at 1/10/11 9:42 AMQuote

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 10 2011,10:59

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 10 2011,04:46)
I tolds Spacebunny you don't want to interact with her:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, he doesn't actually get to decide that (not to mention that he has when it suits him, but when confronted he runs - pathetic). And if he can't follow the rules of this blog that is his choice. I have absolutely zero respect for him from his earlier inanity - after all, he didn't win this particular award for his brilliance.
Last edited by Spacebunny at 1/10/11 9:42 AMQuote

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jesus there are some crazy folks out there! I admire your forbearance, Rich, in the face of so much wilful (sic) ignorance. Oleg, too! But does this guy VD have any credibility beyond his personal blog?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 10 2011,11:01

Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 10 2011,10:59)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 10 2011,04:46)
I tolds Spacebunny you don't want to interact with her:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, he doesn't actually get to decide that (not to mention that he has when it suits him, but when confronted he runs - pathetic). And if he can't follow the rules of this blog that is his choice. I have absolutely zero respect for him from his earlier inanity - after all, he didn't win this particular award for his brilliance.
Last edited by Spacebunny at 1/10/11 9:42 AMQuote

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jesus there are some crazy folks out there! I admire your forbearance, Rich, in the face of so much wilful (sic) ignorance. Oleg, too! But does this guy VD have any credibility beyond his personal blog?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That depends on which reality you subscribe to, Alan. (Happy New year BTW, my friend). He's certainly got a devoted but small following of very right wing christian types.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 10 2011,11:04

Teh bunneh attempts to justify teh ban and teh name calling:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, because on a previous thread he was called on the carpet for being an idiot. It's not ad hom if it's backed up and it was. He is unable (not unwilling as he claims) to defend his position. I have absolutely zero regard for someone's claim of superiority who not only can not express himself with out several errors in logic, but proudly proclaims that logic and reason are not necessary to science (small wonder he would claim this since he is incapable of recognizing it much less utilizing it as has been demonstrated repeatedly on this blog).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How cute!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 10 2011,11:04

Apparently Oleg, it's your fault for engaging her some of the time.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 10 2011,11:06

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 10 2011,11:04)
Apparently Oleg, it's your fault for engaging her some of the time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was no engaging, Rich. Just gentle poking.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 10 2011,11:32

"Longstreet" is a fan of yours, Oleg:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's too bad. I'd seen olegt's arrogant assholery before, at Telic Thoughts. But he was never as funny there as he has been here. Still, nobody's fault but his own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: the_ignored on Jan. 10 2011,15:04

HuH?  Olegt's "arrogant assholery"?  Do they not bloody read what Vox < puts out >?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, if I only limited myself to those of my intellectual weight class, I'd have to ignore nearly everyone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dont' his syophants realize that he's zinging them as well?  Or do they all consider themselves to be in his "intellectual weight class"?

Then there's the man's posts about rape, that we all know about.

WTF is wrong with them?
Posted by: khan on Jan. 10 2011,15:21

Quote (the_ignored @ Jan. 10 2011,16:04)
HuH?  Olegt's "arrogant assholery"?  Do they not bloody read what Vox < puts out >?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, if I only limited myself to those of my intellectual weight class, I'd have to ignore nearly everyone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dont' his syophants realize that he's zinging them as well?  Or do they all consider themselves to be in his "intellectual weight class"?

Then there's the man's posts about rape, that we all know about.

WTF is wrong with them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


~Twould be a long list.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 10 2011,18:02

Quote (the_ignored @ Jan. 10 2011,15:04)
HuH?  Olegt's "arrogant assholery"?  Do they not bloody read what Vox < puts out >?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, if I only limited myself to those of my intellectual weight class, I'd have to ignore nearly everyone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dont' his syophants realize that he's zinging them as well?  Or do they all consider themselves to be in his "intellectual weight class"?

Then there's the man's posts about rape, that we all know about.

WTF is wrong with them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They are in his "intellectual weight class" - it's just that it isn't as high as they like to think.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 10 2011,18:08

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 10 2011,18:02)
Quote (the_ignored @ Jan. 10 2011,15:04)
HuH?  Olegt's "arrogant assholery"?  Do they not bloody read what Vox < puts out >?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, if I only limited myself to those of my intellectual weight class, I'd have to ignore nearly everyone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dont' his syophants realize that he's zinging them as well?  Or do they all consider themselves to be in his "intellectual weight class"?

Then there's the man's posts about rape, that we all know about.

WTF is wrong with them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They are in his "intellectual weight class" - it's just that it isn't as high as they like to think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's it exactly, Blackadder!

Remember: it's only arrogant and immoral if it's done by people who don't worship VD's imaginary friend.  (I leave the obvious jokes concerning the initials of this poor lad's handle to the more sadistic members of our community.)


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 10 2011,18:20

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 10 2011,18:08)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 10 2011,18:02)
Quote (the_ignored @ Jan. 10 2011,15:04)
HuH?  Olegt's "arrogant assholery"?  Do they not bloody read what Vox < puts out >?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, if I only limited myself to those of my intellectual weight class, I'd have to ignore nearly everyone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dont' his syophants realize that he's zinging them as well?  Or do they all consider themselves to be in his "intellectual weight class"?

Then there's the man's posts about rape, that we all know about.

WTF is wrong with them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They are in his "intellectual weight class" - it's just that it isn't as high as they like to think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's it exactly, Blackadder!

Remember: it's only arrogant and immoral if it's done by people who don't worship VD's imaginary friend.  (I leave the obvious jokes concerning the initials of this poor lad's handle to the more sadistic members of our community.)


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've heard that VD causes itching and a rash...is that what happens when you read him?

Yeah, I know, about as lame as VD himself, but it's the best I could come up with.

Although I tried to come up with the "cunning as a fox" bit of Baldrick, the best I can make is a comment asking if his followers like Turnips?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 12 2011,12:06

Vox Day cites Telic Thoughts:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/01/science-reason-in-action.html >
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 12 2011,12:28

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 10 2011,18:20)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 10 2011,18:08)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 10 2011,18:02)
 
Quote (the_ignored @ Jan. 10 2011,15:04)
HuH?  Olegt's "arrogant assholery"?  Do they not bloody read what Vox < puts out >?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, if I only limited myself to those of my intellectual weight class, I'd have to ignore nearly everyone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dont' his syophants realize that he's zinging them as well?  Or do they all consider themselves to be in his "intellectual weight class"?

Then there's the man's posts about rape, that we all know about.

WTF is wrong with them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They are in his "intellectual weight class" - it's just that it isn't as high as they like to think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's it exactly, Blackadder!

Remember: it's only arrogant and immoral if it's done by people who don't worship VD's imaginary friend.  (I leave the obvious jokes concerning the initials of this poor lad's handle to the more sadistic members of our community.)


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've heard that VD causes itching and a rash...is that what happens when you read him?

Yeah, I know, about as lame as VD himself, but it's the best I could come up with.

Although I tried to come up with the "cunning as a fox" bit of Baldrick, the best I can make is a comment asking if his followers like Turnips?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd have referenced Baldrick, but let's face it: Baldrick is at least a magnitude above VD when it comes to essential likability and decency.  Like George, he's simply incapable of being wicked, evil, or nasty...whatever the provocation.

If I must compare real people to the various incarnations of the Black Adder, I prefer to think of VD as Captain Darling, who (when all was said and done) turned out to be a rather prissy stuffed-shirt of a coward.

VD probably thinks of himself as Lord Flashheart.


The MadPanda, FCD


(Apologies to Mr. McInnery, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Mayall, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Laurie, Mr. Fry...)
Posted by: paragwinn on Jan. 12 2011,12:53

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 12 2011,12:06)
Vox Day cites Telic Thoughts:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/01/science-reason-in-action.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean he actually relies on someone else's first-approximation analysis without going to the source himself?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 12 2011,13:30

Quote (paragwinn @ Jan. 12 2011,12:53)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 12 2011,12:06)
Vox Day cites Telic Thoughts:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/01/science-reason-in-action.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean he actually relies on someone else's first-approximation analysis without going to the source himself?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's had a bee in his bonnet about PZ for a while now.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Jan. 12 2011,17:21

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 12 2011,11:30)
 
Quote (paragwinn @ Jan. 12 2011,12:53)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 12 2011,12:06)
Vox Day cites Telic Thoughts:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/01/science-reason-in-action.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean he actually relies on someone else's first-approximation analysis without going to the source himself?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's had a bee in his bonnet about PZ for a while now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's not to hate?  PZ's an atheist, PZ's blog is much more popular than Beale's, and PZ's sycophants are much more entertaining than Teddy's.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 13 2011,16:05

science champion wanted:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/01/science-champion-wanted.html >
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 14 2011,07:41

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 13 2011,16:05)
science champion wanted:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/01/science-champion-wanted.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< UPDATE >: We have several volunteers, two of whom stand out in particular. Matt is a Scienceblogger and PhD candidate for a degree in Physics, while 445supermag is a Senior Research Scientist with 15 published papers ranging from biophysics to quantum chemistry. Matt has suggested that the dialogue include both of them, seeing as they represent different disciplines within science, and I tend to agree with him. I think they will both make for excellent Speakers for Science, but feel free to share your opinon on the matter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's Matt Springer, a grad student in physics at Texas A&M and the author of Scienceblog < Built on Facts >.

We'll cheer you on, Matt.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 15 2011,12:44

The post opening the discussion does not look promising:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Whether science is self-correcting >

It is said that science is self-correcting.  For to be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny, according to the Cosmologist.  And yet, it is also said that life itself is an error-correcting process, as well as an error-making one.  Since science is not entirely unrelated to life, this raises the obvious question of what the material differences distinguishing science from life and scientific self-correction from life's intrinsic error-correcting process might happen to be.

But let us be patient and attempt to limit ourselves to one issue at a time.  What is science and what distinguishes it from life?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So that's the starting question. What distinguishes science from life?
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Jan. 15 2011,12:49

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 15 2011,12:44)
So that's the starting question. What distinguishes science from life?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not much of a philosopher, but I think it's pretty much the same thing that distinguishes science from double-hung windows and my sister's blue car.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 15 2011,13:36

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 15 2011,12:44)
The post opening the discussion does not look promising:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Whether science is self-correcting >

It is said that science is self-correcting.  For to be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny, according to the Cosmologist.  And yet, it is also said that life itself is an error-correcting process, as well as an error-making one.  Since science is not entirely unrelated to life, this raises the obvious question of what the material differences distinguishing science from life and scientific self-correction from life's intrinsic error-correcting process might happen to be.

But let us be patient and attempt to limit ourselves to one issue at a time.  What is science and what distinguishes it from life?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So that's the starting question. What distinguishes science from life?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


42?

Science isn't alive?

Fine Corinthian Leather?

Vox has life, but not science, and has no understanding of either?
Posted by: the_ignored on Jan. 15 2011,17:09

I gave him an email warning him to be careful of Vox's tricks:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I understand that you're going to be taking part in a debate on Vox Day's blog (http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/01/science-champion-wanted.html)?




I'd be careful. He is not above twisting people's words just to take a shot at science or anything else that he doesn't like.




One such example was discussed here:

(http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=60057#p60057), in reference to Vox's post here:

(http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/07/science-vs-religion.html).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He thanked me in his reply and said that he'd be careful.  So far though, it's been clean over there he says.
Posted by: the_ignored on Jan. 16 2011,21:35

Hoo boy.  Here we go again.  When Beale isn't bragging about how smart he is, he's going on about < how stupid atheists are >.

Does that asshole not know the meaning of the words ad hom?

Even funnier, for that little bit of theistic social autism, he links to < an "unbiased" outside source >.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 21 2011,14:54

PZ should write a poem about butchering baby fetuses...< I'm sure he'd be great at it >.  

<shudders>  

???
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 21 2011,15:09

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,12:54)
PZ should write a poem about butchering baby fetuses...< I'm sure he'd be great at it >.  

<shudders>  

???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Baby fetuses?  As opposed to what?  Fully-grown fetuses?  Elderly ones?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 21 2011,15:09

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,14:54)
PZ should write a poem about butchering baby fetuses...< I'm sure he'd be great at it >.  

<shudders>  

???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go tell him at Pharyngula.
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 21 2011,15:40

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,12:54)
PZ should write a poem about butchering baby fetuses
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There was a baby fetus named Fred
Who was butchered by naughty P.Zed
Vox Day said "The fiend!"
FTK said "He's teh mean!"
But he ate it with butter and bread.


Edited for speakers of American.  And because I like editing.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 21 2011,15:54

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 21 2011,15:40)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,12:54)
PZ should write a poem about butchering baby fetuses
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There was a baby fetus named Fred
Who was butchered by naughty P.Zed
Vox Day said "The fiend!"
FTK said "He's teh mean!"
But he ate it with butter and bread.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There oughta be a law against that kinda thing!  

Babies are high enough in cholesterol by themselves. Slathering them in butter is just inviting a heart attack.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 21 2011,16:01

lol...u people are nuts.  

I can't go tell PZ, Rich, he banned my ass years ago.  He doesn't allow dissent.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 21 2011,16:10

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,16:01)
lol...u people are nuts.  

I can't go tell PZ, Rich, he banned my ass years ago.  He doesn't allow dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For anyone new to the world of FtK, "dissent" translates into English as < "Overwhelming creepiness" >
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 21 2011,16:13

Rich writes over at Vox's blog:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"If an organism is capable of independent existence, it is alive. (This is why abortion of a fetus is not killing, it is not alive)"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Gawd.....are u serious?  Hell, a 3 yr old can't even exist independently.  Leave them alone and unless they are *very* lucky, they'll perish without support of adults.  What about the handicapped, elderly, etc., etc..  You did hear about the Philadelphia abortionist in the news the other day?  He killed serveral after delivery by putting a scissors in their necks.  Now, PZ would have no problem with this, but I HOPE that you would Rich.  You need to think, boy.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 21 2011,16:26

Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 21 2011,16:10)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,16:01)
lol...u people are nuts.  

I can't go tell PZ, Rich, he banned my ass years ago.  He doesn't allow dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For anyone new to the world of FtK, "dissent" translates into English as < "Overwhelming creepiness" >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol..and that is a complement coming from PZ.  His description of creepy is anyone elses description of normal, moral human being.  I think it's great being on his shit list.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 21 2011,16:28

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,16:13)
Rich writes over at Vox's blog:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"If an organism is capable of independent existence, it is alive. (This is why abortion of a fetus is not killing, it is not alive)"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Gawd.....are u serious?  Hell, a 3 yr old can't even exist independently.  Leave them alone and unless they are *very* lucky, they'll perish without support of adults.  What about the handicapped, elderly, etc., etc..  You did hear about the Philadelphia abortionist in the news the other day?  He killed serveral after delivery by putting a scissors in their necks.  Now, PZ would have no problem with this, but I HOPE that you would Rich.  You need to think, boy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1.. that's a bit of a quote mine
2.. they're not my words, I was quoting someone else.


Old habbits die hard, eh FtK?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 21 2011,16:44

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,16:13)
Leave them alone and unless they are *very* lucky, they'll perish without support of adults.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What level of luck is that?

Tornado in a junkyard luck?

Searching for proteins and finding one at random luck?

Coming up with a complex entity all at once all at random level of luck?

Global flood not killing everything level of luck?

Pah.
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 21 2011,16:47

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,14:13)
You need to think, boy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow.  Told to think by FTK.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 21 2011,16:50

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 21 2011,16:47)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,14:13)
You need to think, boy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow.  Told to think by FTK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 21 2011,16:51

Aaahh!!!

After Mabuse, JoeG, IBIG and all, FTK is like a brease of fresh sewer-scented air!

I almost missed her...
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 21 2011,16:57

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 21 2011,16:51)
Aaahh!!!

After Mabuse, JoeG, IBIG and all, FTK is like a brease of fresh sewer-scented air!

I almost missed her...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to worry.  She'll flounce out again before long and you can try to start missing her all over again.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 21 2011,17:53

At < Weasel Zippers >

I gotta believe PZ posts this kind of shit for attention...I can't believe anyone can actually be as vile as he is.  But, then even posting it for attention is sick beyond belief.

"meat".....good Lord, he needs his head examined.  On the bright side though, from what I've read, Skatje has somewhat changed her stance on abortion. From hard core leftist thinking to actually having a heart about the issue.  Yeah for Skatje!  Maybe she should have left the nest a long time ago.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 21 2011,18:26

Ahh the dog returneth to its vomit eh?

How have you been FTK?

Louis
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 21 2011,18:27

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,17:53)
But, then even posting it for attention is sick beyond belief.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you say it was more or less sick then him being sent the images in the first place?
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 21 2011,18:29

Ah, a flounce is needed!

You're welcome.

1.  Is it okay for ID proponents to post personal information of the internet?   < NO >

2.  Do you think that Wes and/or steve would not remove your personal information from the board if someone posted it?   <
No, I believe they would....that is why I was giving them the warning that someone may be listing personal information about me.
>

3.  Do you think that the Baylor curators and other officials post their home addresses and phone numbers to the internet?  < I have not checked into that so I do not know.  I would assume that most do not. >

4.  Why re you back posting here at AtBC?  < I believe I answered that on this page or the last page. >  checking the previous 3 pages, there is no answer from Ftk as regards this question.  There are however, many complaints about having to answer questions and the ridiculous expectations of such. –blipey

5.  How does Behe know what is in a group of books without ever having read the books?  < !!! This question is ridiculous.  Obviously, he wouldn't, and I'd have to ask Behe if he was every allowed to go through every book and article one by one and make two separate piles of what he had and had not read.  But, I tried desperately to explain in an earlier discussion that just because we have theories about how something *may have* occurred, that does not mean that all the questions have been answered nor should they be regarded as "fact". > I’m counting this one as answered because of the first sentence “obviously, he wouldn’t”.  That being said, the commentary after that phrase proves that she’ll never be able to answer question 6.  perhaps this is why she stopped answering questions. –blipey

6.  What is the point of the Behe/unread books discussion?

7.  According to ID Theory, how did the immune system develop?

8.  What is gained by jettisoning ToE and saying God did it?

9.  In the light of a science teacher teaching that the study of beetles is not a scientific effort and possibly that spiders evolved from insects (if evolution were true), how is ID theory driving kids toward science?

10. Why don't IDers pursue RESEARCH GRANTS, from the Templeton Foundation, for example?

11. Are you afraid to examine the sequence evidence for ToE?

11A.  Added.  Do you understand what sequence evidence is?

12. Where did Albatrossity2 claim that his students were religious freaks?

12A.  Added.  Where did blipey claim that his nephew's teacher was "a source of evil"?

13. Why don't IDers publish in PCID?

14. Why hasn't PCID been published in over two years?

15. Do you believe that Darwinists have kept PCID from being published?

16. How?

17. Can ID be called a theory when it hasn't made even one prediction?

18. Yes or no: ID wouldn't benefit from publishing any articles, anywhere.

19. Yes or no: Your children should be taught the historical insights of the Bhagavad Gita?

20. What sort of Waterloo can we look forward to on February 8, 2008? Nebraska banned the electric chair as the sole method of execution.  Did anything else happen?

Interesting side note. Just came across this comment back on page 102 where you berate people for not having read the pertinent books.  Which begs several more questions I'll put here.  Why is reading material important?  Do you think it might have been important for Behe to read some books before commenting on them?  Have you read the textbook that Albatrossity2 sent you?  Have you got that list of peer reviewed articles you've read ready to go?  Are you seriously arguing that we should read books and that IDers don't have to?

21. What are IDers doing to garner respect?

22. Given that you believe ID is science because of "design inference", why is ToE not science because all it has is inference?

23. Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read the book?

24. If everyone died in the Flood, who wrote all the different stories down?

25. What year was the Flood over? 2300 BC, answer provided for Ftk by blipey

26. What year was the height of the Egyptian Empire? 2030 BC, answer provided by blipey

27. What was the population of the world in that year? 30,000,000, answer provided by blipey

28. How did 8 people (6 really) make that many people?


29. Is Dembski a creationist?

30. How would monogamous gays destroy heterosexual marriage?

31. How did Koalas get from Ararat to Australia?

32. Do you believe that the FLOOD is a scientifically tenable idea?  yes

33. Are the people who run Baylor Darwin Police?

34. Are those same people Baptist?

35. What does this mean?

36. Given that HIV cannot have evolved (Behe), which of the 8 (6 really) people on the ark were carrying HIV?

37. There are at least 40 distinct STDs. Were they distributed evenly among the passengers on Noah's ark, or was there like one Ultra-skank who had all 40?

38. Do you think that gravity is “just a theory” and therefore should be “taught critically” (to use the ID phrase)?

39. If not, what makes the details we don’t know about gravity different from the details we don’t know about evolution?

40. Do you believe Common Descent = Common Design?

41. Do you believe that Macroevolution = (not observed so did not happen)?

42. Despite the documented evidence, do you believe that macroevolution is based solely on historical inference?

43. Can you define macroevolution (in your own words)?

44. What evidence would confirm this?

45. Did God just make it look like the horse evolved, but in fact tinkered with the design along the way?

46.  Is the horse the only thing that evolved, but everything else is designed?

47. Given your statement that the idea of the Geologic Column was introduced by Darwinists after 1860, FtK, were the "periods" and "eras" added after 1860 "to fit the evolutionary theory"?

48. Or, since the early 19th century work by Smith, Cuvier, et al. led to the identification of the Geological Column in the 1820’s, were they (periods and eras) devised by creationists before 1860 to fit the evidence?

49.  Why is the Cambrian Explosion a problem for the Theory of Evolution?

50.  Did the Cambrian Explosion occur?

51.  If yes, can Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory still be valid?

edited for the grammars
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 21 2011,18:39

Quote (blipey @ Jan. 21 2011,16:29)
14. Why hasn't PCID been published in over twofive years?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for you.
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 21 2011,16:29)
21. What are IDers doing to garner respect?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See 14.
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 21 2011,18:43

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 21 2011,18:39)
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 21 2011,16:29)
14. Why hasn't PCID been published in over twofive years?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for you.
 
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 21 2011,16:29)
21. What are IDers doing to garner respect?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See 14.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was contemplating that change, but thought I'd let it ride.  It subtly raises the point that not only could FTK not answer the questions when originally posed, but that over the next 3 years, this guardian of education hasn't bothered to learn anything.  Or even research anything.  Or be curious about anything.  Education indeed.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 21 2011,18:48

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,16:01)
I can't go tell PZ, Rich, he banned my ass years ago.  He doesn't allow dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first sentence is true.  The second sentence is so obviously false that anyone with a working conscience must blush to see the accusation made: the troll was invited to leave for being trollish, not merely for dissenting.  (Hint: there are practicing Xians who have earned the OM designation, some of whom have been known to tell Dr. Myers that he's full of it.  Funny how they haven't been hit with the banhammer yet.)

So, FTK, since you seem to think that abortion is a bad thing, what mandatory minimum sentence would you embrace for women seeking to terminate problematic pregnancies?

You, Biggy, what's the difference?


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 21 2011,18:56

Quote (blipey @ Jan. 21 2011,16:43)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 21 2011,18:39)
 
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 21 2011,16:29)
14. Why hasn't PCID been published in over twofive years?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for you.
   
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 21 2011,16:29)
21. What are IDers doing to garner respect?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See 14.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was contemplating that change, but thought I'd let it ride.  It subtly raises the point that not only could FTK not answer the questions when originally posed, but that over the next 3 years, this guardian of education hasn't bothered to learn anything.  Or even research anything.  Or be curious about anything.  Education indeed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought it was worth pointing out for relative newcomers who may not know the back-story of FTK and/or PCID.  I did it for the kids.
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 21 2011,19:01

Well played, sir; well played.
Posted by: the_ignored on Jan. 22 2011,10:17

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,17:53)
At < Weasel Zippers >

I gotta believe PZ posts this kind of shit for attention...I can't believe anyone can actually be as vile as he is.  But, then even posting it for attention is sick beyond belief.

"meat".....good Lord, he needs his head examined.  On the bright side though, from what I've read, Skatje has somewhat changed her stance on abortion. From hard core leftist thinking to actually having a heart about the issue.  Yeah for Skatje!  Maybe she should have left the nest a long time ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me guess:  You're one of those evangelicals who has no problem with the killing of pregnant women and babies as ordered by your god in the OT, nor with any spontaneous abortions that happen now, right?

Even Myers, as "vile" as you say he is, would not ever do anything like that.

Yet you still call yourself "pro-life"?

If I'm wrong about the above please let me know so that I may apologize.
Posted by: the_ignored on Jan. 22 2011,10:29

Looks like voxyboy is jumping onto that same so-called "< pro-life" bandwagon >.

My reply: at 1/22/11 10:24 AM


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Vox said:
It's probably a good thing he is an atheist without any moral standards, otherwise he might demonstrate at least a modicum of conscience for the bloody acts in which he appears to take such pride.
Right, coming from one of those who worships the same god who, in the OT, repeatedly had pregnant women and babies killed...

Yep. It's us atheists who have no moral standards.

Here's a tip, Theodore:  follow your own holy book's advice about taking the log out of your own eye before attending to the splinter in someone else's.


Gotta love that good ol' fashined xian moral absolutism!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: the_ignored on Jan. 23 2011,13:32

Well, I tried one long post, only to have it f**d up by "coo-coo comment" so I posted the following right after that in three small posts.  Totally kills the effect though, damnit!

Oh well.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Vox:
Easily. God's game, God's rules. The Creator sets the moral standard, He does not abide by it.
If so, then how can one make any judgements as to god's "morality" one way or the other?  If he does something that we consider evil, that isn't allowed to count, but when he does something we consider good, that's used as evidence that he's "holy" (whatever the hell that means!) or "good".  

You can't have it both ways.  What you describe is a fundamentally hypocritical being who refuses to follow the rules he sets for others.

What moral standard does he follow then, and how could you tell that he does?

Not being the Creator or the referee, you have no more standing to criticize who is or is not killed than a cornerback has to decide whether a flag is thrown for pass interference or not.
Well, one thing:  In sports one can see the action that one is arguing about whether it took place or not.  While we're talking about (supposed) physical actions, we're arguing about the morality of them.  

Analogy fail.


You'll notice that NFL coaches often stand on the field during a play, and yet no flags are ever thrown for 12 men on the field.
Usually those coaches aren't killing people though, unlike your god.  Get a better analogy.

Do you understand why there is no contradiction or hypocrisy there?
No, because there is.  It's a plain double-standard.

This isn't rocket science;...
No, it's religious apologetic gerrymandering, which is more twisted by far than any branch or application of the physical sciences.

...even an atheist should be able to grasp the analogy. And it is both ironic and ignorant for you to accuse a religious individual of being self-righteous; it is the atheist who actually claims to be self-righteous.
Wrong.  We just don't advocate mass genocide like your god does, and then run around pretending to be "pro-life".

If protesting genocide makes one self-righteous in your eyes, so be it.  Given your "moral" stances, especially on certain women's issues (later below) your opinion of me means less to me than used toilet paper.  Though like a certain poster here from another forum, it is fun to come in here every once in a while...

The Christian theological position is that no one is self-righteous, in fact, no one is even capable of being self-righteous, since they can only justified through Jesus Christ.
Actually, the Christian position is that no one is righteous, not "no one is self-righeous".  Self-righteous just describes an attitude.


By the way, what do you think Christ's opinions on rape would be, Theo?

Remember?
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/08/there-is-no-marital-rape.html >
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2005/11/rape-myth.html >

I somehow doubt that your friend PZ Myers would share your views on rape, so I guess that means that he's less "moral" than you?


So go ahead; demonize Myers and athiests in general for being "pro-choice" (even though not all of us are), and in your minds committing the murders of babies which your own god repeatedly does, and keep calling yourselves "moral".  That voxytoad, is true self-righteousness.


If what you say here (http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/09/amoral-essence-of-atheism.html), where if there is no God then there are no Rules, I have news for you:  It's xians like you who have no morals, not us.  Societies devise rules, gods or no gods.



Did your father's insanity get passed on to you or something?
< http://scienceblogs.com/deniali....s_j.php >

I'd feel sorry for you, being raised by that nutcase, but you're just as much of, if not worse, of a jackass then he ever was.  

Too bad you have an ego that's too big for your head.  All that talk about how smart you are, yet you have trouble designing a simple computer mouse?  Christ would be proud of your modesty, I'm sure!



To Spacebunny
Let's see:  Myers is cowardly is he?  He publishes a blog under his real name, with a picture and contact details.

What's your name, picture, and contact information, hmmm?  Remember:  You called him a coward.  Put your money where your mouth is, honey.

He also, despite your husband's prediction, publically desecrated a Koran, a cracker, and a copy of one of Dawkin's books. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php)

Vox's "prediction":  (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=69524)

But the ecumenicality of Myers's willingness to commit sacrilege entirely beside the point, as what actually demonstrates the cowardly nature of this self-aggrandizing atheist is the fact that there is no chance that he will follow through on his anti-cracker threats now that it is clear there may be material consequences, however minor, to his actions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,14:03

the ignored:

Hi...hey, I have an interesting book for you to read if you get the time.  I just started it recently, and I think you might get a kick out of it.  Something else you can rail about at least.  

It's titled "If God is Good...Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil".   Author is Randy Alcorn

It provides a different perspective...always good to consider both sides of any argument.

Pick it up at the library so you don't have to support the author by paying for it.  

Enjoy.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,14:06

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 21 2011,18:26)
Ahh the dog returneth to its vomit eh?

How have you been FTK?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Louis,

I've been well thanks...hope you and your little one are doing the same.  

Certainly looking forward to spring...cabin fever big time.  We had 9" of snow last week, and there are flurries again today.  Tired of it.  Wanna feel the sand in my toes...don't like boots...;)

Peace
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,14:20

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,17:53)
At < Weasel Zippers >

I gotta believe PZ posts this kind of shit for attention...I can't believe anyone can actually be as vile as he is.  But, then even posting it for attention is sick beyond belief.

"meat".....good Lord, he needs his head examined.  On the bright side though, from what I've read, Skatje has somewhat changed her stance on abortion. From hard core leftist thinking to actually having a heart about the issue.  Yeah for Skatje!  Maybe she should have left the nest a long time ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This, coming from someone who, along with Salvador Cordova, libeled Skatje by claiming she was promoting beastiality on her blog, when she was merely making a legal argument about why it should not be illegal. Having been libeled by a troll called Kris for similar reasons, I have absolutely no respect for your attitude, FTK. Your thinking the worst of people who have different values from you is just blind bigotry.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 23 2011,14:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We had 9" of snow last week, and there are flurries again today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nine inches, eh?

(Sorry, Louis, it's just too obvious!  I just can't bring myself to do it.  Not on Wes' birfday!)

(That's what she said.)
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,14:31

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 21 2011,18:48)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,16:01)
I can't go tell PZ, Rich, he banned my ass years ago.  He doesn't allow dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first sentence is true.  The second sentence is so obviously false that anyone with a working conscience must blush to see the accusation made: the troll was invited to leave for being trollish, not merely for dissenting.  (Hint: there are practicing Xians who have earned the OM designation, some of whom have been known to tell Dr. Myers that he's full of it.  Funny how they haven't been hit with the banhammer yet.)

So, FTK, since you seem to think that abortion is a bad thing, what mandatory minimum sentence would you embrace for women seeking to terminate problematic pregnancies?

You, Biggy, what's the difference?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that the issue for anti-abortion fanatics is that they see premarital sex as a sin and thus things like pregnancy and STDs for unmarried girls and women are a punishment for those who sin.

That, in my opinion, degrades the value of children as much as abortion does.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,15:24

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,14:31)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 21 2011,18:48)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,16:01)
I can't go tell PZ, Rich, he banned my ass years ago.  He doesn't allow dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first sentence is true.  The second sentence is so obviously false that anyone with a working conscience must blush to see the accusation made: the troll was invited to leave for being trollish, not merely for dissenting.  (Hint: there are practicing Xians who have earned the OM designation, some of whom have been known to tell Dr. Myers that he's full of it.  Funny how they haven't been hit with the banhammer yet.)

So, FTK, since you seem to think that abortion is a bad thing, what mandatory minimum sentence would you embrace for women seeking to terminate problematic pregnancies?

You, Biggy, what's the difference?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that the issue for anti-abortion fanatics is that they see premarital sex as a sin and thus things like pregnancy and STDs for unmarried girls and women are a punishment for those who sin.

That, in my opinion, degrades the value of children as much as abortion does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I would disagree that anti-abortion "fanatics" are *against abortion* because they know that premarital sex is a sin.  Nor, do I look at STD's as punishment.  Also, I might add that I, myself, was not a virgin when I married and looking back, I can see the value of being abstinent until marriage. Although, I'd agree that this is a very difficult thing to do, but not impossible.  

Abortion should not be considered birth control, and that is how I see people using it.  There are plenty of options out there for birth control.  I don't have any opinion about whether abortion should be legalized or not.  Every woman has to make this choice, I would just hope that they make it wisely.  Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in the issue at all.  

There is a reason why God advises one man/one woman.  He is the creator....he knows how we were created to live so that we can live life to the fullest.  Promiscuity leads to endless problems as well as disease.  It's not how we were created to live.  It also tends to make marriage to one person more difficult if people have become accustomed to sleeping with whomever makes us feel good at present.  God didn't make rules to make us miserable, but to help us live healthier life styles.  There are endless stories in the Bible that show what happens when biblical figures had multiple wives or cheated on their spouses.  Good never came of it.   So, it's not God looking down at us and not permitting us to enjoy life by being promiscuous or punishing us for doing so, but rather he is providing us with the forumla for happy healthy relationships.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 23 2011,15:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I, myself, was not a virgin when I married and looking back, I can see the value of being abstinent until marriage
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FTK, would you mind elaborating on the value of abstinence until marriage?

ETA: This is a serious question, I am curious about this value.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,15:52

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,15:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I, myself, was not a virgin when I married and looking back, I can see the value of being abstinent until marriage
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FTK, would you mind elaborating on the value of abstinence until marriage?

ETA: This is a serious question, I am curious about this value.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I covered that....healthier, happier relationships usually transpire.  

When I look back at all my friends and their relationships growing up and their realtionships now, what I find is that those who were not as promiscuous in their youth are better able to keep a marriage together.  As for abortion, no woman is ever left unscared by a decision like that...it is with her for life.

I can't give you statistics, I'm just going by what I've seen.  Take it or leave it.  It just makes sense to me that if you look at sex as something special rather than a biological urge, you're going to be better able to form healthy relationships that work and sustain for a lifetime.  

And, please don't ever look at me as some hypocritical creature trying to enforce my values on others.  I'm anything but perfect, and the first to say so.  But, when I look at the big picture and listen to God's word about marriage and sex, it just really seems to me that he gave us instructions on how to best make relationship within marriage and a family work for the best.  It's like a self help guide to follow before you screw up.  Not a God making unfair laws and then looking down ready to punish us for messing up by not abiding by his suggestions.  And, although it may be a daiily struggle to keep to His word, I believe we're truly better off in the end by living according to it.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 23 2011,16:05

Well, FTK, God's words not withstanding (I am an atheist, remember?), I think there are many interesting points to argue regarding this issue.

The main one would be that every person is different from the next, and experiences his/her sexual life in a whole range of different ways. I know couples that have been together since almost childhood, knowing just one lover, and are now curious about what sexuality as a whole entails.

I don't think we see sexuality as just a fonction, but also as a very important social and emotional bond. Plus it's huuuge fun.

My best friend (a girl) used to be very promiscuous, and yet now that she's in love and has found the "right guy", she is happier than ever, with the added perk of knowing one or two or five extra stuff about sexual intercourse. There is positive sides to all situations.

As long as you don't impose your viewpoint as the only true and rightous one, it's fine by my book. Each to his/her own.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 23 2011,16:13

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,16:52)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,15:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I, myself, was not a virgin when I married and looking back, I can see the value of being abstinent until marriage
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FTK, would you mind elaborating on the value of abstinence until marriage?

ETA: This is a serious question, I am curious about this value.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I covered that....healthier, happier relationships usually transpire.  

When I look back at all my friends and their relationships growing up and their realtionships now, what I find is that those who were not as promiscuous in their youth are better able to keep a marriage together.  As for abortion, no woman is ever left unscared by a decision like that...it is with her for life.

I can't give you statistics, I'm just going by what I've seen.  Take it or leave it.  It just makes sense to me that if you look at sex as something special rather than a biological urge, you're going to be better able to form healthy relationships that work and sustain for a lifetime.  

And, please don't ever look at me as some hypocritical creature trying to enforce my values on others.  I'm anything but perfect, and the first to say so.  But, when I look at the big picture and listen to God's word about marriage and sex, it just really seems to me that he gave us instructions on how to best make relationship within marriage and a family work for the best.  It's like a self help guide to follow before you screw up.  Not a God making unfair laws and then looking down ready to punish us for messing up by not abiding by his suggestions.  And, although it may be a daiily struggle to keep to His word, I believe we're truly better off in the end by living according to it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What are the degrees/levels of promiscuity?
Frequency of sex?
Number of partners?
Age of transgression?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,16:19

Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,16:13)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,16:52)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,15:26)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I, myself, was not a virgin when I married and looking back, I can see the value of being abstinent until marriage
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FTK, would you mind elaborating on the value of abstinence until marriage?

ETA: This is a serious question, I am curious about this value.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I covered that....healthier, happier relationships usually transpire.  

When I look back at all my friends and their relationships growing up and their realtionships now, what I find is that those who were not as promiscuous in their youth are better able to keep a marriage together.  As for abortion, no woman is ever left unscared by a decision like that...it is with her for life.

I can't give you statistics, I'm just going by what I've seen.  Take it or leave it.  It just makes sense to me that if you look at sex as something special rather than a biological urge, you're going to be better able to form healthy relationships that work and sustain for a lifetime.  

And, please don't ever look at me as some hypocritical creature trying to enforce my values on others.  I'm anything but perfect, and the first to say so.  But, when I look at the big picture and listen to God's word about marriage and sex, it just really seems to me that he gave us instructions on how to best make relationship within marriage and a family work for the best.  It's like a self help guide to follow before you screw up.  Not a God making unfair laws and then looking down ready to punish us for messing up by not abiding by his suggestions.  And, although it may be a daiily struggle to keep to His word, I believe we're truly better off in the end by living according to it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What are the degrees/levels of promiscuity?
Frequency of sex?
Number of partners?
Age of transgression?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


huh?
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 23 2011,16:33

I think it's not unusual for anyone who did not wait until marriage and who is inclined to believe in that ideal to wish that they had... the grass is always greener emotionally, but I also think our society still puts too much emphasis on the pure/impure duality. (Example, a line from Shakespeare in Love: "A word of warning, she hath been plucked ere since. Takes a woman to know it." What utter rot. It does not "show!")

This is not a new idea, but the modern form of innocence/purity seems to be a lack of knowledge of tenderness. Certainly I wish that young people would exercise thought and planning (emotional as well as contraceptual) so that they can go into marriage, if that's what they wish, without already having children. I would settle for that.

If one's first time sucked, then I think the person is still a "virgin" in a way, and it is not a question of a great glass globe shattering with one act. I think the first time sucks anyway - I won't go TMI but some women have physical difficulties the first several times. The first time that it is special is your First Time, at least for me.

Of course, this is coming from me, who is faithful as a brick but with a roving eye (it really got crazy once I hit 40) and now a new member of the American Lovers Association!  :D
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 23 2011,16:35

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,16:19)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,16:13)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,16:52)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,15:26)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I, myself, was not a virgin when I married and looking back, I can see the value of being abstinent until marriage
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FTK, would you mind elaborating on the value of abstinence until marriage?

ETA: This is a serious question, I am curious about this value.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I covered that....healthier, happier relationships usually transpire.  

When I look back at all my friends and their relationships growing up and their realtionships now, what I find is that those who were not as promiscuous in their youth are better able to keep a marriage together.  As for abortion, no woman is ever left unscared by a decision like that...it is with her for life.

I can't give you statistics, I'm just going by what I've seen.  Take it or leave it.  It just makes sense to me that if you look at sex as something special rather than a biological urge, you're going to be better able to form healthy relationships that work and sustain for a lifetime.  

And, please don't ever look at me as some hypocritical creature trying to enforce my values on others.  I'm anything but perfect, and the first to say so.  But, when I look at the big picture and listen to God's word about marriage and sex, it just really seems to me that he gave us instructions on how to best make relationship within marriage and a family work for the best.  It's like a self help guide to follow before you screw up.  Not a God making unfair laws and then looking down ready to punish us for messing up by not abiding by his suggestions.  And, although it may be a daiily struggle to keep to His word, I believe we're truly better off in the end by living according to it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What are the degrees/levels of promiscuity?
Frequency of sex?
Number of partners?
Age of transgression?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


huh?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, you're just being a cad, Schroedinger!  :D

"And then what did they do?"  :p
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,16:40

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,16:05)
Well, FTK, God's words not withstanding (I am an atheist, remember?), I think there are many interesting points to argue regarding this issue.

The main one would be that every person is different from the next, and experiences his/her sexual life in a whole range of different ways. I know couples that have been together since almost childhood, knowing just one lover, and are now curious about what sexuality as a whole entails.

I don't think we see sexuality as just a fonction, but also as a very important social and emotional bond. Plus it's huuuge fun.

My best friend (a girl) used to be very promiscuous, and yet now that she's in love and has found the "right guy", she is happier than ever, with the added perk of knowing one or two or five extra stuff about sexual intercourse. There is positive sides to all situations.

As long as you don't impose your viewpoint as the only true and rightous one, it's fine by my book. Each to his/her own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just a quick thought.  I don't personally think it's important at all to have years of previous sexual encounters to be able to enjoy your sex life to the fullest with just one person.  Sex is not a difficult thing to figure out or enjoy, and it doesn't take years of experience to cum up with a multitude of ways of enjoying it.  Just sayin'....;P
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 23 2011,16:43

Hey Kristine! Wasn't me, was Khan!

I was just pointing out that I love teh kinky in all its forms, as long as it's done with respect and mutual agreement...
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 23 2011,16:46

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,16:43)
Hey Kristine! Wasn't me, was Khan!

I was just pointing out that I love teh kinky in all its forms, as long as it's done with respect and mutual agreement...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oops, sorry. Nesting comments got teh better of me! (That, and the vodka...)

I insulted you on your birthday! Can you ever forgive me?  :)
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 23 2011,16:50

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:40)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,16:05)
Well, FTK, God's words not withstanding (I am an atheist, remember?), I think there are many interesting points to argue regarding this issue.

The main one would be that every person is different from the next, and experiences his/her sexual life in a whole range of different ways. I know couples that have been together since almost childhood, knowing just one lover, and are now curious about what sexuality as a whole entails.

I don't think we see sexuality as just a fonction, but also as a very important social and emotional bond. Plus it's huuuge fun.

My best friend (a girl) used to be very promiscuous, and yet now that she's in love and has found the "right guy", she is happier than ever, with the added perk of knowing one or two or five extra stuff about sexual intercourse. There is positive sides to all situations.

As long as you don't impose your viewpoint as the only true and rightous one, it's fine by my book. Each to his/her own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just a quick thought.  I don't personally think it's important at all to have years of previous sexual encounters to be able to enjoy your sex life to the fullest with just one person.  Sex is not a difficult thing to figure out or enjoy, and it doesn't take years of experience to cum up with a multitude of ways of enjoying it.  Just sayin'....;P
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like the "cum" pun. :p

Besides that, sex comes in so many flavors, including multiple partners, sex toys, simple arousing, full intercourse, anal, oral, nuru massages, exhibition, BDSM, spitting, snowballing..etc

All these things are, in a way, enjoyable to someone, and don't have anything to do with marriage in the way they are basically enjoyed.

I know I enjoy making love to the woman I love, whatever the way and however kinky it is. But some people find arousal in having different partners, doing borderline stuff...

In the end it's just a matter of taste, and I think marriage has little to do with it.

In a way, even you could probably say you may have a marriage fetish ;)
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 23 2011,16:50

FtK wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sex is not a difficult thing to figure out or enjoy, and it doesn't take years of experience to cum up with a multitude of ways of enjoying it.  Just sayin'....;P
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sister, you said a mouthful!
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,16:53

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 23 2011,16:33)
I think it's not unusual for anyone who did not wait until marriage and who is inclined to believe in that ideal to wish that they had... the grass is always greener emotionally, but I also think our society still puts too much emphasis on the pure/impure duality. (Example, a line from Shakespeare in Love: "A word of warning, she hath been plucked ere since. Takes a woman to know it." What utter rot. It does not "show!")

This is not a new idea, but the modern form of innocence/purity seems to be a lack of knowledge of tenderness. Certainly I wish that young people would exercise thought and planning (emotional as well as contraceptual) so that they can go into marriage, if that's what they wish, without already having children. I would settle for that.

If one's first time sucked, then I think the person is still a "virgin" in a way, and it is not a question of a great glass globe shattering with one act. I think the first time sucks anyway - I won't go TMI but some women have physical difficulties the first several times. The first time that it is special is your First Time, at least for me.

Of course, this is coming from me, who is faithful as a brick but with a roving eye (it really got crazy once I hit 40) and now a new member of the American Lovers Association!  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hehe.."it really got crazy when I hit 40"....too funny.  My husband's oft response.."Good God girl, where were you when I was 18"....lmao.  Darm those mismatched sexual peeks!  Course, probably for the best, otherwise nothing else in life would get accomplished...;P
Posted by: khan on Jan. 23 2011,16:55

She said:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
not as promiscuous in their youth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To me, the 'as' implied some sort of scale.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 23 2011,16:58

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,15:24)
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,14:31)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 21 2011,18:48)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,16:01)
I can't go tell PZ, Rich, he banned my ass years ago.  He doesn't allow dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first sentence is true.  The second sentence is so obviously false that anyone with a working conscience must blush to see the accusation made: the troll was invited to leave for being trollish, not merely for dissenting.  (Hint: there are practicing Xians who have earned the OM designation, some of whom have been known to tell Dr. Myers that he's full of it.  Funny how they haven't been hit with the banhammer yet.)

So, FTK, since you seem to think that abortion is a bad thing, what mandatory minimum sentence would you embrace for women seeking to terminate problematic pregnancies?

You, Biggy, what's the difference?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that the issue for anti-abortion fanatics is that they see premarital sex as a sin and thus things like pregnancy and STDs for unmarried girls and women are a punishment for those who sin.

That, in my opinion, degrades the value of children as much as abortion does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I would disagree that anti-abortion "fanatics" are *against abortion* because they know that premarital sex is a sin.  Nor, do I look at STD's as punishment.  Also, I might add that I, myself, was not a virgin when I married and looking back, I can see the value of being abstinent until marriage. Although, I'd agree that this is a very difficult thing to do, but not impossible.  

Abortion should not be considered birth control, and that is how I see people using it (1).  There are plenty of options out there for birth control.  I don't have any opinion about whether abortion should be legalized or not.  Every woman has to make this choice, I would just hope that they make it wisely.  Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in the issue at all.  

There is a reason why God advises one man/one woman (2).  He is the creator....he knows how we were created to live so that we can live life to the fullest.  Promiscuity leads to endless problems as well as disease.  It's not how we were created to live.  It also tends to make marriage to one person more difficult if people have become accustomed to sleeping with whomever makes us feel good at present.  God didn't make rules to make us miserable, but to help us live healthier life styles.  There are endless stories in the Bible that show what happens when biblical figures had multiple wives or cheated on their spouses.  Good never came of it.   So, it's not God looking down at us and not permitting us to enjoy life by being promiscuous or punishing us for doing so, but rather he is providing us with the forumla for happy healthy relationships.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bolding mine.

(1) This is the problem.  You think this is how people are using it, but in 43 years of life, I've never met, seen, or heard of anyone who actually sees it like this, short of anti-choice fanatics.  It's a talking point, a way of reducing the person making the choice to someone you can spit on and feel superior to.  It completely ignores reality, even though you seem to realize it on one level.  I do find it odd that you have no opinion whether it should be legalized or not, yet you say that every woman has to make that choice and that the government should not be involved.  Sounds pro-choice to me.

(2) Except for all that Old Testament polygamy thing.  And the forced "marriages" of captured virgins to the people who killed their families.  Marriage to rapists.  Yeah, God must have changed his mind, then.  Like so much else in the Big Book of Multiple Excuses...
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,17:04

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,16:50)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:40)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,16:05)
Well, FTK, God's words not withstanding (I am an atheist, remember?), I think there are many interesting points to argue regarding this issue.

The main one would be that every person is different from the next, and experiences his/her sexual life in a whole range of different ways. I know couples that have been together since almost childhood, knowing just one lover, and are now curious about what sexuality as a whole entails.

I don't think we see sexuality as just a fonction, but also as a very important social and emotional bond. Plus it's huuuge fun.

My best friend (a girl) used to be very promiscuous, and yet now that she's in love and has found the "right guy", she is happier than ever, with the added perk of knowing one or two or five extra stuff about sexual intercourse. There is positive sides to all situations.

As long as you don't impose your viewpoint as the only true and rightous one, it's fine by my book. Each to his/her own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just a quick thought.  I don't personally think it's important at all to have years of previous sexual encounters to be able to enjoy your sex life to the fullest with just one person.  Sex is not a difficult thing to figure out or enjoy, and it doesn't take years of experience to cum up with a multitude of ways of enjoying it.  Just sayin'....;P
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like the "cum" pun. :p

Besides that, sex comes in so many flavors, including multiple partners, sex toys, simple arousing, full intercourse, anal, oral, nuru massages, exhibition, BDSM, spitting, snowballing..etc

All these things are, in a way, enjoyable to someone, and don't have anything to do with marriage in the way they are basically enjoyed.

I know I enjoy making love to the woman I love, whatever the way and however kinky it is. But some people find arousal in having different partners, doing borderline stuff...

In the end it's just a matter of taste, and I think marriage has little to do with it.

In a way, even you could probably say you may have a marriage fetish ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, here I disagree of course.  This kind of description makes sex too much of a game or group game.  This is what I believe (granted I don't know much...just sayin') leads kids into meaningless "hook-ups".... how much sex can I get...with how many people....just for gratification.  This is what we see all over the media.  It is what leads to relationship problems, STDS, unwanted pregnancy, etc., etc.,.

I'm not saying that we can't enjoy sex in a multitude of ways with that special person (preferably spouse), I'm just saying it should be kept as a special encounter..not one for kicks.  Safer and healthier that way.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,17:06

Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,16:55)
She said:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
not as promiscuous in their youth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To me, the 'as' implied some sort of scale.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wasn't meant to be.....I meant sex previous to marriage.  Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 23 2011,17:12

Well, FTK, we have totaly different views on this topic, and I think it's not one we can find middle ground about.

But all the same, it was nice to finally have a human, civil, and interesting talk with you. Keep it up on other subjects discussed in these pages!

Good evening (midnight here, had my birthday diner, feel full, getting a massage, 3 hot girls waiting for me...)








ETA: By the way, sex IS a game! reproduction is the final goal, but you do have to practice. And as with boxing, dancing... you need to try multiple sparing partners in order to get full potential...
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 23 2011,17:20

What I've seen for a long time is that virtually all of the anti-abortion proponents I've encountered neither understand nor care that the primary reasons for abortions are for medical/therapeutic reasons, and not for birth control.

From what I've seen, all they want is for Jesus to have yet another boot-licking minion to boss and kick around; the babies' literally suffering mother be literally damned for all they care.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,17:25

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,16:58)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,15:24)
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,14:31)
 
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 21 2011,18:48)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,16:01)
I can't go tell PZ, Rich, he banned my ass years ago.  He doesn't allow dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first sentence is true.  The second sentence is so obviously false that anyone with a working conscience must blush to see the accusation made: the troll was invited to leave for being trollish, not merely for dissenting.  (Hint: there are practicing Xians who have earned the OM designation, some of whom have been known to tell Dr. Myers that he's full of it.  Funny how they haven't been hit with the banhammer yet.)

So, FTK, since you seem to think that abortion is a bad thing, what mandatory minimum sentence would you embrace for women seeking to terminate problematic pregnancies?

You, Biggy, what's the difference?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that the issue for anti-abortion fanatics is that they see premarital sex as a sin and thus things like pregnancy and STDs for unmarried girls and women are a punishment for those who sin.

That, in my opinion, degrades the value of children as much as abortion does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I would disagree that anti-abortion "fanatics" are *against abortion* because they know that premarital sex is a sin.  Nor, do I look at STD's as punishment.  Also, I might add that I, myself, was not a virgin when I married and looking back, I can see the value of being abstinent until marriage. Although, I'd agree that this is a very difficult thing to do, but not impossible.  

Abortion should not be considered birth control, and that is how I see people using it (1).  There are plenty of options out there for birth control.  I don't have any opinion about whether abortion should be legalized or not.  Every woman has to make this choice, I would just hope that they make it wisely.  Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in the issue at all.  

There is a reason why God advises one man/one woman (2).  He is the creator....he knows how we were created to live so that we can live life to the fullest.  Promiscuity leads to endless problems as well as disease.  It's not how we were created to live.  It also tends to make marriage to one person more difficult if people have become accustomed to sleeping with whomever makes us feel good at present.  God didn't make rules to make us miserable, but to help us live healthier life styles.  There are endless stories in the Bible that show what happens when biblical figures had multiple wives or cheated on their spouses.  Good never came of it.   So, it's not God looking down at us and not permitting us to enjoy life by being promiscuous or punishing us for doing so, but rather he is providing us with the forumla for happy healthy relationships.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bolding mine.

(1) This is the problem.  You think this is how people are using it, but in 43 years of life, I've never met, seen, or heard of anyone who actually sees it like this, short of anti-choice fanatics.  It's a talking point, a way of reducing the person making the choice to someone you can spit on and feel superior to.  It completely ignores reality, even though you seem to realize it on one level.  I do find it odd that you have no opinion whether it should be legalized or not, yet you say that every woman has to make that choice and that the government should not be involved.  Sounds pro-choice to me.

(2) Except for all that Old Testament polygamy thing.  And the forced "marriages" of captured virgins to the people who killed their families.  Marriage to rapists.  Yeah, God must have changed his mind, then.  Like so much else in the Big Book of Multiple Excuses...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mhmm...okay, just my opinion again...

Let me clarify just a bit regarding using abortion as birth control.  I don't believe that a woman, when she is making love with someone without protection, is thinking "oh, what the hell, if anything happens, I'll have an abortion".  

But, I think that with the rate of abortions we see today, subconsciously, we know there is a way to rid of an unwanted pregnancy if all else fails.  

Let me just add, that this is something that comes to anyone's mind regardless of religion if you are in the that position.  Since it has been legalized by the government, there is ample opportunity to get abortions and I'd bet that abortion numbers are WAY up in comparision to before abortions were legal.  Im sure promiscuity is way up as well.  There is always a way out of it.  And, even people who have been brought up knowing that abortion is wrong may take this avenue because it appears initially as the easy way out.  It's something many regret.  I remember thinking about it myself several months ago, when I thought I might be pregnant.  Im 45...that would not be cool.  All kinds of things crossed my mind.  I think by making abortion so readily available, we kill millions of children every year, when much, much better options are out there.

As for OT polygamy, God did not advise this as a way to live.  It was what was going on at the time.  Many, many wrong or evil things occured historically in the Bible that were not dictated by God.  Yes, there are those *very* few incidences in the OT where God commands something that seems to go against the grain. I cannot answer for God....I don't know all the circumstances, and I cannot know His mind. Overall, the Bible is *very consistent* in God's commands.  There are endless arguments as to how one can justify God's actions in these few circumstances, but in the end, I'll have lots of questions for Him when I hit the pearly gates.   Creation 101 is on the top of my list.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,17:29

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,17:20)
What I've seen for a long time is that virtually all of the anti-abortion proponents I've encountered neither understand nor care that the primary reasons for abortions are for medical/therapeutic reasons, and not for birth control.

From what I've seen, all they want is for Jesus to have yet another boot-licking minion to boss and kick around; the babies' literally suffering mother be literally damned for all they care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've read the statistics many times.  You're wrong, and if you believe your justified in your response, please provided statistics.  Maybe I've missed something.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 23 2011,17:34

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:20)
What I've seen for a long time is that virtually all of the anti-abortion proponents I've encountered neither understand nor care that the primary reasons for abortions are for medical/therapeutic reasons, and not for birth control.

From what I've seen, all they want is for Jesus to have yet another boot-licking minion to boss and kick around; the babies' literally suffering mother be literally damned for all they care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It doesn't matter the reason, she must be made to suffer.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 23 2011,17:39

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:25)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,16:58)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,15:24)
 
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,14:31)
 
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 21 2011,18:48)
     
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,16:01)
I can't go tell PZ, Rich, he banned my ass years ago.  He doesn't allow dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first sentence is true.  The second sentence is so obviously false that anyone with a working conscience must blush to see the accusation made: the troll was invited to leave for being trollish, not merely for dissenting.  (Hint: there are practicing Xians who have earned the OM designation, some of whom have been known to tell Dr. Myers that he's full of it.  Funny how they haven't been hit with the banhammer yet.)

So, FTK, since you seem to think that abortion is a bad thing, what mandatory minimum sentence would you embrace for women seeking to terminate problematic pregnancies?

You, Biggy, what's the difference?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that the issue for anti-abortion fanatics is that they see premarital sex as a sin and thus things like pregnancy and STDs for unmarried girls and women are a punishment for those who sin.

That, in my opinion, degrades the value of children as much as abortion does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I would disagree that anti-abortion "fanatics" are *against abortion* because they know that premarital sex is a sin.  Nor, do I look at STD's as punishment.  Also, I might add that I, myself, was not a virgin when I married and looking back, I can see the value of being abstinent until marriage. Although, I'd agree that this is a very difficult thing to do, but not impossible.  

Abortion should not be considered birth control, and that is how I see people using it (1).  There are plenty of options out there for birth control.  I don't have any opinion about whether abortion should be legalized or not.  Every woman has to make this choice, I would just hope that they make it wisely.  Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in the issue at all.  

There is a reason why God advises one man/one woman (2).  He is the creator....he knows how we were created to live so that we can live life to the fullest.  Promiscuity leads to endless problems as well as disease.  It's not how we were created to live.  It also tends to make marriage to one person more difficult if people have become accustomed to sleeping with whomever makes us feel good at present.  God didn't make rules to make us miserable, but to help us live healthier life styles.  There are endless stories in the Bible that show what happens when biblical figures had multiple wives or cheated on their spouses.  Good never came of it.   So, it's not God looking down at us and not permitting us to enjoy life by being promiscuous or punishing us for doing so, but rather he is providing us with the forumla for happy healthy relationships.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bolding mine.

(1) This is the problem.  You think this is how people are using it, but in 43 years of life, I've never met, seen, or heard of anyone who actually sees it like this, short of anti-choice fanatics.  It's a talking point, a way of reducing the person making the choice to someone you can spit on and feel superior to.  It completely ignores reality, even though you seem to realize it on one level.  I do find it odd that you have no opinion whether it should be legalized or not, yet you say that every woman has to make that choice and that the government should not be involved.  Sounds pro-choice to me.

(2) Except for all that Old Testament polygamy thing.  And the forced "marriages" of captured virgins to the people who killed their families.  Marriage to rapists.  Yeah, God must have changed his mind, then.  Like so much else in the Big Book of Multiple Excuses...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mhmm...okay, just my opinion again...

Let me clarify just a bit regarding using abortion as birth control.  I don't believe that a woman, when she is making love with someone without protection, is thinking "oh, what the hell, if anything happens, I'll have an abortion".  

But, I think that with the rate of abortions we see today, subconsciously, we know there is a way to rid of an unwanted pregnancy if all else fails.  

Let me just add, that this is something that comes to anyone's mind regardless of religion if you are in the that position.  Since it has been legalized by the government, there is ample opportunity to get abortions and I'd bet that abortion numbers are WAY up in comparision to before abortions were legal.  Im sure promiscuity is way up as well.  There is always a way out of it.  And, even people who have been brought up knowing that abortion is wrong may take this avenue because it appears initially as the easy way out.  It's something many regret.  I remember thinking about it myself several months ago, when I thought I might be pregnant.  Im 45...that would not be cool.  All kinds of things crossed my mind.  I think by making abortion so readily available, we kill millions of children every year, when much, much better options are out there.

As for OT polygamy, God did not advise this as a way to live.  It was what was going on at the time.  Many, many wrong or evil things occured historically in the Bible that were not dictated by God.  Yes, there are those *very* few incidences in the OT where God commands something that seems to go against the grain. I cannot answer for God....I don't know all the circumstances, and I cannot know His mind. Overall, the Bible is *very consistent* in God's commands.  There are endless arguments as to how one can justify God's actions in these few circumstances, but in the end, I'll have lots of questions for Him when I hit the pearly gates.   Creation 101 is on the top of my list.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My mother told me that her mother had several abortions back in the 1930s (something about the Depression). She was married. Was she a promiscuous slut? Or just as woman trying to survive?
Posted by: khan on Jan. 23 2011,17:41

delete duplicate
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,17:41

You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 23 2011,17:43

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,17:43

Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:41)
delete duplicate
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Khan, I can't answer that.  It's not my place to judge...that is God's job, and he is a very forgiving God.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,17:46

Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 23 2011,17:47

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:46)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh shit!
A forced-birther spotted in the wild.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,17:49

Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:47)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:46)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh shit!
A forced-birther spotted in the wild.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's an option.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,17:49

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:46)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee, your idiocy and lack of empathy for pregnant women, especially rape and incest victims, just becomes all the more obvious.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 23 2011,18:03

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:29)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,17:20)
What I've seen for a long time is that virtually all of the anti-abortion proponents I've encountered neither understand nor care that the primary reasons for abortions are for medical/therapeutic reasons, and not for birth control.

From what I've seen, all they want is for Jesus to have yet another boot-licking minion to boss and kick around; the babies' literally suffering mother be literally damned for all they care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've read the statistics many times.  You're wrong, and if you believe your justified in your response, please provided statistics.  Maybe I've missed something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like you'd honestly bother to look at any statistic I provided.  As for the statistics you're providing: did you check and find out what reasons those women had for having abortions, or did you just automatically assume that the sole reason was they hate Jesus?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,18:05

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,17:49)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:46)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee, your idiocy and lack of empathy for pregnant women, especially rape and incest victims, just becomes all the more obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You now what?  My aunt (actually my cousin) was the result of what occured due to rape.  My grandmother raised my aunt's daughter as her own.  

She is a wonderful person...is always helping others.  She lives by Mayo hospital and before my Dad passed away, she let us use her home for whatever we needed on our trips back and forth to Mayo.  She does that for many people since she lives so close to the hospital.  

I can't say enough good things about this woman.  I think about all the people who would not have received her love and kindness if her mother had opted to abort her due to a horrible incident such as rape.  Rape doesn't make the child a horrible person by any means, and it didn't ruin my aunt's life to have her.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 23 2011,18:05

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,18:49)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:46)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee, your idiocy and lack of empathy for pregnant women, especially rape and incest victims, just becomes all the more obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How many of those hundreds of thousands of precious ones in foster care has she adopted?
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 23 2011,18:06

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, where did you find out that all of these abortions were done specifically to spite Jesus?  One of those websites that orders fellow Christians go out and murder abortion clinic doctors, their co-workers and their families?
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 23 2011,18:10

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:46)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, is that what you'd suggest for, say, a 9 year old rape victim?  Even though her doctors said that she would probably literally die by the 7th month because her body is just not big or developed to bear children?  That she should just have counseling?

Or, what about a woman whose pregnancy is causing her lungs to fill up with fluid?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,18:12

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:03)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:29)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,17:20)
What I've seen for a long time is that virtually all of the anti-abortion proponents I've encountered neither understand nor care that the primary reasons for abortions are for medical/therapeutic reasons, and not for birth control.

From what I've seen, all they want is for Jesus to have yet another boot-licking minion to boss and kick around; the babies' literally suffering mother be literally damned for all they care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've read the statistics many times.  You're wrong, and if you believe your justified in your response, please provided statistics.  Maybe I've missed something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like you'd honestly bother to look at any statistic I provided.  As for the statistics you're providing: did you check and find out what reasons those women had for having abortions, or did you just automatically assume that the sole reason was they hate Jesus?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None of this has anything to do with hating Jesus.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 23 2011,18:13

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:05)
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,17:49)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:46)
   
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee, your idiocy and lack of empathy for pregnant women, especially rape and incest victims, just becomes all the more obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You now what?  My aunt (actually my cousin) was the result of what occured due to rape.  My grandmother raised my aunt's daughter as her own.  

She is a wonderful person...is always helping others.  She lives by Mayo hospital and before my Dad passed away, she let us use her home for whatever we needed on our trips back and forth to Mayo.  She does that for many people since she lives so close to the hospital.  

I can't say enough good things about this woman.  I think about all the people who would not have received her love and kindness if her mother had opted to abort her due to a horrible incident such as rape.  Rape doesn't make the child a horrible person by any means, and it didn't ruin my aunt's life to have her.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you're saying we should deny rape victims from having any abortion or other forms of post-sex contraception?  That, there is the off-chance that the baby conceived of this woman's violation of her very being might be a wonderful person?
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 23 2011,18:16

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:12)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:03)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:29)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,17:20)
What I've seen for a long time is that virtually all of the anti-abortion proponents I've encountered neither understand nor care that the primary reasons for abortions are for medical/therapeutic reasons, and not for birth control.

From what I've seen, all they want is for Jesus to have yet another boot-licking minion to boss and kick around; the babies' literally suffering mother be literally damned for all they care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've read the statistics many times.  You're wrong, and if you believe your justified in your response, please provided statistics.  Maybe I've missed something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like you'd honestly bother to look at any statistic I provided.  As for the statistics you're providing: did you check and find out what reasons those women had for having abortions, or did you just automatically assume that the sole reason was they hate Jesus?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None of this has anything to do with hating Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then how come all other anti-abortion proponents say otherwise?  Why is it that pro-lifers always talk about how their God-hating enemies want to abort every single pregnancy in order to spite Jesus?
Posted by: khan on Jan. 23 2011,18:19

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:46)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clitoral tearing, 4 way episiotomies, preeclampsia, dystocia, hyperemesis gravidarum ...
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 23 2011,18:19

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:12)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:03)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:29)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,17:20)
What I've seen for a long time is that virtually all of the anti-abortion proponents I've encountered neither understand nor care that the primary reasons for abortions are for medical/therapeutic reasons, and not for birth control.

From what I've seen, all they want is for Jesus to have yet another boot-licking minion to boss and kick around; the babies' literally suffering mother be literally damned for all they care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've read the statistics many times.  You're wrong, and if you believe your justified in your response, please provided statistics.  Maybe I've missed something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like you'd honestly bother to look at any statistic I provided.  As for the statistics you're providing: did you check and find out what reasons those women had for having abortions, or did you just automatically assume that the sole reason was they hate Jesus?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None of this has anything to do with hating Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, do you know what the reasons for these 9,500 abortions were for Kansas of 2009, or are you trying to imply it was done solely for birth control and hating Jesus?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,18:23

Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,18:05)
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,18:49)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:46)
   
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee, your idiocy and lack of empathy for pregnant women, especially rape and incest victims, just becomes all the more obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How many of those hundreds of thousands of precious ones in foster care has she adopted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In this day and age, there no reason whatsoever that there should be hundreds and thousands of children to be adopted.  

Stop abortion, practise birth control.  It's simple.  

All this to do about abortion should just be silenced on both sides.  Birth control should be taught as well as abstinence.  Preferably, parents should get their act together and talk to their children...keep an eye out for them and what they are involved in.  And, schools should teach birth control, and they do.  Abstinence should be #1 on the list, imho.  But, by all means teach the rest of it.  That doesn't mean we need to bring out teh bananas and pass out the condoms or give out birth control pills.  

Children shouldn't be having sex...if they are mature enough to have it, they should be mature enough to go get the protection they need, not have it given to them like candy.  We need to teach our kids responsibility early on.  I've told both mine everything about sex, and I've told them the best is to abstain, but for goodness sakes, if you're getting into situations that you can't control.....GET BIRTH CONTROL.

The media certainly doesn't help, and attitudes like SD are harmful as well, because it makes kids feel that, to be the stud muffin, they have to have years of practise and multiple partners to enjoy sex.  Ridiculous and unhealthy.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,18:25

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:06)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, where did you find out that all of these abortions were done specifically to spite Jesus?  One of those websites that orders fellow Christians go out and murder abortion clinic doctors, their co-workers and their families?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good grief, where do you come up with these statements?  This has nothing to do with Jesus.  God can forgive any sin.  This is about life...the life of a child.  There are better options...
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,18:31

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:10)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:46)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, is that what you'd suggest for, say, a 9 year old rape victim?  Even though her doctors said that she would probably literally die by the 7th month because her body is just not big or developed to bear children?  That she should just have counseling?

Or, what about a woman whose pregnancy is causing her lungs to fill up with fluid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stanton,

These are very unusual predictaments.  This is not the norm.  I firmly believe that if a mother is at the point of having to chose life over death due to childbirth, I think God would be forgiving of letting the child come back to Him.  That does not mean that I would suggest terminating the pregnancy at the start.  I've seen very small women give birth with little complications.  Aborting the child might leave more emotional scars than the physical scars of actually having it.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,18:38

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:16)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:12)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:03)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:29)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,17:20)
What I've seen for a long time is that virtually all of the anti-abortion proponents I've encountered neither understand nor care that the primary reasons for abortions are for medical/therapeutic reasons, and not for birth control.

From what I've seen, all they want is for Jesus to have yet another boot-licking minion to boss and kick around; the babies' literally suffering mother be literally damned for all they care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've read the statistics many times.  You're wrong, and if you believe your justified in your response, please provided statistics.  Maybe I've missed something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like you'd honestly bother to look at any statistic I provided.  As for the statistics you're providing: did you check and find out what reasons those women had for having abortions, or did you just automatically assume that the sole reason was they hate Jesus?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None of this has anything to do with hating Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then how come all other anti-abortion proponents say otherwise?  Why is it that pro-lifers always talk about how their God-hating enemies want to abort every single pregnancy in order to spite Jesus?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm...I think these type of people are a minority.  This sounds more like hatred for people who are not Christian or who have made choices you disagree with.  That is not what biblical Christianity is about, and it is NOT our place to judge...that is God's job.  But, it is our right to hold our Christian values and share them with others.  It's not intolerance, it's sharing a perspective that we believe is of benefit to others.  We aren't the only ones who share are perspectives....people of all creeds do that regardless of whether they are Christian or not.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 23 2011,18:38

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:25)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:06)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, where did you find out that all of these abortions were done specifically to spite Jesus?  One of those websites that orders fellow Christians go out and murder abortion clinic doctors, their co-workers and their families?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good grief, where do you come up with these statements?  This has nothing to do with Jesus.  God can forgive any sin.  This is about life...the life of a child.  There are better options...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find them coming out of the mouths of pro-lifers, the Roman Catholic Church and fundamentalist demagogues.

From what I've seen of them, they don't care about the benefit or the condition of the mother at all: if it meant denying an abortion, they'd let her die in agony.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,18:41

Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,18:19)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:46)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clitoral tearing, 4 way episiotomies, preeclampsia, dystocia, hyperemesis gravidarum ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's all worth it for the life of a child....and most women won't have to deal with all that.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,18:44

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:38)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:25)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:06)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, where did you find out that all of these abortions were done specifically to spite Jesus?  One of those websites that orders fellow Christians go out and murder abortion clinic doctors, their co-workers and their families?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good grief, where do you come up with these statements?  This has nothing to do with Jesus.  God can forgive any sin.  This is about life...the life of a child.  There are better options...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find them coming out of the mouths of pro-lifers, the Roman Catholic Church and fundamentalist demagogues.

From what I've seen of them, they don't care about the benefit or the condition of the mother at all: if it meant denying an abortion, they'd let her die in agony.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, shame on them then.  That is not how Christ would respond.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 23 2011,18:44

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,19:31)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:10)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:46)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, is that what you'd suggest for, say, a 9 year old rape victim?  Even though her doctors said that she would probably literally die by the 7th month because her body is just not big or developed to bear children?  That she should just have counseling?

Or, what about a woman whose pregnancy is causing her lungs to fill up with fluid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stanton,

These are very unusual predictaments.  This is not the norm.  I firmly believe that if a mother is at the point of having to chose life over death due to childbirth, [b}I think God would be forgiving of letting the child come back to Him.  That does not mean that I would suggest terminating the pregnancy at the start.  I've seen very small women give birth with little complications.  Aborting the child might leave more emotional scars than the physical scars of actually having it.[/b]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who are you to decide what I (or any other woman) should do with her uterus?

I assure you that your gods have nothing to do with fertilization.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 23 2011,18:48

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,19:25)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:06)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, where did you find out that all of these abortions were done specifically to spite Jesus?  One of those websites that orders fellow Christians go out and murder abortion clinic doctors, their co-workers and their families?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good grief, where do you come up with these statements?  This has nothing to do with Jesus.  God can forgive any sin.  This is about life...the life of a child.  There are better options...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So are your gods smart enough to not implant 'souls' into fertilized eggs that he/she/it/one of them knew wouldn't make it to birth?
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 23 2011,18:48

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:31)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:10)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:46)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, is that what you'd suggest for, say, a 9 year old rape victim?  Even though her doctors said that she would probably literally die by the 7th month because her body is just not big or developed to bear children?  That she should just have counseling?

Or, what about a woman whose pregnancy is causing her lungs to fill up with fluid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stanton,

These are very unusual predictaments.  This is not the norm.  I firmly believe that if a mother is at the point of having to chose life over death due to childbirth, I think God would be forgiving of letting the child come back to Him.  That does not mean that I would suggest terminating the pregnancy at the start.  I've seen very small women give birth with little complications.  Aborting the child might leave more emotional scars than the physical scars of actually having it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not what the Roman Catholic Church, or any of the churches in the US say.

When this one 9 year old girl was pregnant with twins due to her stepfather repeatedly raping her, her doctors stated that, if she were to attempt to carry her twins to term, she would undoubtedly die because her body was not fully developed to handle pregnancy: and the off chance that she wouldn't die, she would still be rendered totally sterile, and either way, the twins would never survive.  When the girl was given an abortion, the Cardinal of Brazil excommunicated her mother and her doctors for doing that.  The Vatican still considers her stepfather a good, upstanding member of the Church, though, because he's never performed any abortions.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,18:53

Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,18:44)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,19:31)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:10)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:46)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, is that what you'd suggest for, say, a 9 year old rape victim?  Even though her doctors said that she would probably literally die by the 7th month because her body is just not big or developed to bear children?  That she should just have counseling?

Or, what about a woman whose pregnancy is causing her lungs to fill up with fluid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stanton,

These are very unusual predictaments.  This is not the norm.  I firmly believe that if a mother is at the point of having to chose life over death due to childbirth, [b}I think God would be forgiving of letting the child come back to Him.  That does not mean that I would suggest terminating the pregnancy at the start.  I've seen very small women give birth with little complications.  Aborting the child might leave more emotional scars than the physical scars of actually having it.[/b]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who are you to decide what I (or any other woman) should do with her uterus?

I assure you that your gods have nothing to do with fertilization.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Khan, I think I stated early on that I'm not going to "decide" what you or any woman does "with her uterus".  I can't force anyone to do anything.  I wouldn't vote either way on an abortion bill.  It's a tricky subject obviously, and all I can do is give my opinion.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 23 2011,18:56

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:38)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:16)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:12)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:03)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:29)
   
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,17:20)
What I've seen for a long time is that virtually all of the anti-abortion proponents I've encountered neither understand nor care that the primary reasons for abortions are for medical/therapeutic reasons, and not for birth control.

From what I've seen, all they want is for Jesus to have yet another boot-licking minion to boss and kick around; the babies' literally suffering mother be literally damned for all they care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've read the statistics many times.  You're wrong, and if you believe your justified in your response, please provided statistics.  Maybe I've missed something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like you'd honestly bother to look at any statistic I provided.  As for the statistics you're providing: did you check and find out what reasons those women had for having abortions, or did you just automatically assume that the sole reason was they hate Jesus?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None of this has anything to do with hating Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then how come all other anti-abortion proponents say otherwise?  Why is it that pro-lifers always talk about how their God-hating enemies want to abort every single pregnancy in order to spite Jesus?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm...I think these type of people are a minority.  This sounds more like hatred for people who are not Christian or who have made choices you disagree with.  That is not what biblical Christianity is about, and it is NOT our place to judge...that is God's job.  But, it is our right to hold our Christian values and share them with others.  It's not intolerance, it's sharing a perspective that we believe is of benefit to others.  We aren't the only ones who share are perspectives....people of all creeds do that regardless of whether they are Christian or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bullshit.

If they're a minority, then why do you have people like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh and other sacred prophets of Conservative Christians, constantly harping about how abortion is the most sacred sacrament of their enemies?  If these people are a minority, then why do you let them speak for you?  If they are a minority, then why do you condone the murder and vandalism and all the other crimes and misdeeds they perpetrate?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,18:56

Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,18:48)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,19:25)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:06)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, where did you find out that all of these abortions were done specifically to spite Jesus?  One of those websites that orders fellow Christians go out and murder abortion clinic doctors, their co-workers and their families?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good grief, where do you come up with these statements?  This has nothing to do with Jesus.  God can forgive any sin.  This is about life...the life of a child.  There are better options...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So are your gods smart enough to not implant 'souls' into fertilized eggs that he/she/it/one of them knew wouldn't make it to birth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


huh?
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 23 2011,19:01

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:44)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:38)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:25)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:06)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, where did you find out that all of these abortions were done specifically to spite Jesus?  One of those websites that orders fellow Christians go out and murder abortion clinic doctors, their co-workers and their families?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good grief, where do you come up with these statements?  This has nothing to do with Jesus.  God can forgive any sin.  This is about life...the life of a child.  There are better options...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find them coming out of the mouths of pro-lifers, the Roman Catholic Church and fundamentalist demagogues.

From what I've seen of them, they don't care about the benefit or the condition of the mother at all: if it meant denying an abortion, they'd let her die in agony.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, shame on them then.  That is not how Christ would respond.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Far too late for people like Dr George Tiller, who was gunned down in his church in 2009, after he had his clinic vandalized and being threatened nonstop by good Christians who practically applauded upon hearing of his murder.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 23 2011,19:04

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:56)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,18:48)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,19:25)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:06)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, where did you find out that all of these abortions were done specifically to spite Jesus?  One of those websites that orders fellow Christians go out and murder abortion clinic doctors, their co-workers and their families?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good grief, where do you come up with these statements?  This has nothing to do with Jesus.  God can forgive any sin.  This is about life...the life of a child.  There are better options...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So are your gods smart enough to not implant 'souls' into fertilized eggs that he/she/it/one of them knew wouldn't make it to birth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


huh?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the main arguments against abortion is that souls are implanted at the moment of fertilization.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,19:07

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:05)
You know what?  My aunt (actually my cousin) was the result of what occured due to rape.  My grandmother raised my aunt's daughter as her own.  

She is a wonderful person...is always helping others.  She lives by Mayo hospital and before my Dad passed away, she let us use her home for whatever we needed on our trips back and forth to Mayo.  She does that for many people since she lives so close to the hospital.  

I can't say enough good things about this woman.  I think about all the people who would not have received her love and kindness if her mother had opted to abort her due to a horrible incident such as rape.  Rape doesn't make the child a horrible person by any means, and it didn't ruin my aunt's life to have her.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So on the basis of that one example, you assume that all rape victims who get pregnant can have their babies and then live happily ever after?

If you aunt had a choice, and choose to have the baby, that was her right. It is not for you or some government to tell her she can't have an abortion if she feels she can't deal with the emotional trauma of a pregnancy. That's violating the dignity of the woman TWICE! It is the height of absurdity to put the supposed right to life of a fetus above the right to bodily autonomy of someone who is already born and able to make decisions for herself.

And stop the Godbotting! This isn't about what God would want (no one knows that) or what he would forgive. This is about what federal law, including the U S Constitution itself, allows. It says that "All persons BORN or naturalized....", not conceived in the United States, are citizens. And it is citizens whose rights are protected, not those who are not yet citizens.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,19:10

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:48)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:31)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:10)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:46)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, is that what you'd suggest for, say, a 9 year old rape victim?  Even though her doctors said that she would probably literally die by the 7th month because her body is just not big or developed to bear children?  That she should just have counseling?

Or, what about a woman whose pregnancy is causing her lungs to fill up with fluid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stanton,

These are very unusual predictaments.  This is not the norm.  I firmly believe that if a mother is at the point of having to chose life over death due to childbirth, I think God would be forgiving of letting the child come back to Him.  That does not mean that I would suggest terminating the pregnancy at the start.  I've seen very small women give birth with little complications.  Aborting the child might leave more emotional scars than the physical scars of actually having it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not what the Roman Catholic Church, or any of the churches in the US say.

When this one 9 year old girl was pregnant with twins due to her stepfather repeatedly raping her, her doctors stated that, if she were to attempt to carry her twins to term, she would undoubtedly die because her body was not fully developed to handle pregnancy: and the off chance that she wouldn't die, she would still be rendered totally sterile, and either way, the twins would never survive.  When the girl was given an abortion, the Cardinal of Brazil excommunicated her mother and her doctors for doing that.  The Vatican still considers her stepfather a good, upstanding member of the Church, though, because he's never performed any abortions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I frankly don't care what the Vatican has to say about the matter.  Like I said, personally, I wouldn't suggest terminating any pregnancy regardless of rape, age, fears, whatever.  If the pregnancy comes to the point where the mother is in dire danger of losing her life, then terminate at that point, and sustain the life of the Mother.  If the church excommunicates ya, find another.   I can't speak for God, so I don't know if He would support my beliefs on the subject or not, but as I said, He is a forgiving God, thankfully.

My sister is a social worker and works in a lot of homes with various communicable diseases.  When she was pregnant, she picked up something (and forgive me, but I forget exactly what it was called), and there was a chance that her child could have severe deformities.  Her doctor talked to her about the option of abortion.  My sister had the child, and my nephew is as healthy as a horse.  I know personally, that if I had a severely handicapped child, it would certainly be difficult for me, but I think it would be impossible for my husband.  So, I do empathize with people having to make such heart wrenching decisions, but I would have the child, and deal with whatever is thrown my way.  If I was ultimately unable to handle the situation, there are other who can.  Most of these children, if brought up in a loving, caring environment, bring a lot of joy to their family and friends.  There are things that can be learned through suffering.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,19:16

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,19:01)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:44)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:38)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:25)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:06)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, where did you find out that all of these abortions were done specifically to spite Jesus?  One of those websites that orders fellow Christians go out and murder abortion clinic doctors, their co-workers and their families?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good grief, where do you come up with these statements?  This has nothing to do with Jesus.  God can forgive any sin.  This is about life...the life of a child.  There are better options...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find them coming out of the mouths of pro-lifers, the Roman Catholic Church and fundamentalist demagogues.

From what I've seen of them, they don't care about the benefit or the condition of the mother at all: if it meant denying an abortion, they'd let her die in agony.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, shame on them then.  That is not how Christ would respond.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Far too late for people like Dr George Tiller, who was gunned down in his church in 2009, after he had his clinic vandalized and being threatened nonstop by good Christians who practically applauded upon hearing of his murder.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not one of those who applauded Tiller's murder.  

But, it is difficult reading about the number of abortions Tiller carried out...many late term abortions as well.
Found a couple sites on the statistics of his abortions once....earth shatteringly depressing for me.  Others may not feel the same of course.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,19:19

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,19:07)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:05)
You know what?  My aunt (actually my cousin) was the result of what occured due to rape.  My grandmother raised my aunt's daughter as her own.  

She is a wonderful person...is always helping others.  She lives by Mayo hospital and before my Dad passed away, she let us use her home for whatever we needed on our trips back and forth to Mayo.  She does that for many people since she lives so close to the hospital.  

I can't say enough good things about this woman.  I think about all the people who would not have received her love and kindness if her mother had opted to abort her due to a horrible incident such as rape.  Rape doesn't make the child a horrible person by any means, and it didn't ruin my aunt's life to have her.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So on the basis of that one example, you assume that all rape victims who get pregnant can have their babies and then live happily ever after?

If you aunt had a choice, and choose to have the baby, that was her right. It is not for you or some government to tell her she can't have an abortion if she feels she can't deal with the emotional trauma of a pregnancy. That's violating the dignity of the woman TWICE! It is the height of absurdity to put the supposed right to life of a fetus above the right to bodily autonomy of someone who is already born and able to make decisions for herself.

And stop the Godbotting! This isn't about what God would want (no one knows that) or what he would forgive. This is about what federal law, including the U S Constitution itself, allows. It says that "All persons BORN or naturalized....", not conceived in the United States, are citizens. And it is citizens whose rights are protected, not those who are not yet citizens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sigh....Im not making the choice for anyone.  I'm merely sharing my views.  And, no, I won't stop the "Godbotting"...it's who I am.  Just like you share your viewpoints from your perspective or worldview.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,19:37

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:56)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:38)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:16)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:12)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:03)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:29)
   
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,17:20)
What I've seen for a long time is that virtually all of the anti-abortion proponents I've encountered neither understand nor care that the primary reasons for abortions are for medical/therapeutic reasons, and not for birth control.

From what I've seen, all they want is for Jesus to have yet another boot-licking minion to boss and kick around; the babies' literally suffering mother be literally damned for all they care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've read the statistics many times.  You're wrong, and if you believe your justified in your response, please provided statistics.  Maybe I've missed something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like you'd honestly bother to look at any statistic I provided.  As for the statistics you're providing: did you check and find out what reasons those women had for having abortions, or did you just automatically assume that the sole reason was they hate Jesus?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None of this has anything to do with hating Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then how come all other anti-abortion proponents say otherwise?  Why is it that pro-lifers always talk about how their God-hating enemies want to abort every single pregnancy in order to spite Jesus?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm...I think these type of people are a minority.  This sounds more like hatred for people who are not Christian or who have made choices you disagree with.  That is not what biblical Christianity is about, and it is NOT our place to judge...that is God's job.  But, it is our right to hold our Christian values and share them with others.  It's not intolerance, it's sharing a perspective that we believe is of benefit to others.  We aren't the only ones who share are perspectives....people of all creeds do that regardless of whether they are Christian or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bullshit.

If they're a minority, then why do you have people like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh and other sacred prophets of Conservative Christians, constantly harping about how abortion is the most sacred sacrament of their enemies?  If these people are a minority, then why do you let them speak for you?  If they are a minority, then why do you condone the murder and vandalism and all the other crimes and misdeeds they perpetrate?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm...I don't know exactly how Limbaugh or Coulter phrase what you're attesting that they have said, nor do I really care.  They can both be very divisive figures.  Although, I don't follow either of them regularly, I've heard them from time to time due to article follow ups from various Internet sources.  I agree with some of the things they say, but disagree with the way they present a lot of it.

#1, no one speaks for me but me.  Freedom of speech applies to all people.  People from the right and the left are going to give their viewpoint.  I'm certainly not going to stop them.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 23 2011,19:41

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,16:52)
As for abortion, no woman is ever left unscared by a decision like that...it is with her for life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, FtK, I had abortion 4 years ago.  I got pregnant on purpose, because my partner of nearly nine years had been wheedling for half a decade about wanting children.  So, I finally relented, even though I had misgivings about him as both a father and a lifetime mate due to his insane jealousy, control freak nature, and steady decline toward Right Wing retardation over the years.

Two weeks into the pregnancy, before I knew for certain that I even WAS in such a condition, Psycho Boy decided that my willingness to have a baby MUST have been because I had cheated on him, gotten pregnant, and was trying to cuckold him, making him believe the child was his when it was actaully my lover's.  He screamed at me, called me a slut, told me that I'd better hope I wasn't pregnant because as soon as it was born he wanted a DNA test and if it wasn't his he was "going to punch [my] fucking face in".

So, I told him to go screw himself six ways from Sunday, told him not to let the door hit him in the ass on the way out, took a pregnancy test, found out I WAS pregnant, had to wait an extra week before I could get the chemical abortion, went back, took my pills, had a heavy period, and was MUCH better, thank you very much.

I have NEVER for one second regretted my decision.  I escaped a bad situation with a dangerous man and spared a kid (if I had even been able to carry to term) a miserable existence as an emotional weapon to be used by its mentally unbalanced father who would have NEVER surrendered his parental rights so would have, by law, been involved.

There's a whole website for women with stories like mine.  All who had abortions, and all who don't regret it.  I know that sick people like you rub your hands together with glee at the thought that "one day" we'll be sick with guilt and regret and be "judged".  Don't hold your breath, sister.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 23 2011,19:45

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:25)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,16:58)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,15:24)
 
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,14:31)
 
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 21 2011,18:48)
     
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,16:01)
I can't go tell PZ, Rich, he banned my ass years ago.  He doesn't allow dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first sentence is true.  The second sentence is so obviously false that anyone with a working conscience must blush to see the accusation made: the troll was invited to leave for being trollish, not merely for dissenting.  (Hint: there are practicing Xians who have earned the OM designation, some of whom have been known to tell Dr. Myers that he's full of it.  Funny how they haven't been hit with the banhammer yet.)

So, FTK, since you seem to think that abortion is a bad thing, what mandatory minimum sentence would you embrace for women seeking to terminate problematic pregnancies?

You, Biggy, what's the difference?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that the issue for anti-abortion fanatics is that they see premarital sex as a sin and thus things like pregnancy and STDs for unmarried girls and women are a punishment for those who sin.

That, in my opinion, degrades the value of children as much as abortion does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I would disagree that anti-abortion "fanatics" are *against abortion* because they know that premarital sex is a sin.  Nor, do I look at STD's as punishment.  Also, I might add that I, myself, was not a virgin when I married and looking back, I can see the value of being abstinent until marriage. Although, I'd agree that this is a very difficult thing to do, but not impossible.  

Abortion should not be considered birth control, and that is how I see people using it (1).  There are plenty of options out there for birth control.  I don't have any opinion about whether abortion should be legalized or not.  Every woman has to make this choice, I would just hope that they make it wisely.  Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in the issue at all.  

There is a reason why God advises one man/one woman (2).  He is the creator....he knows how we were created to live so that we can live life to the fullest.  Promiscuity leads to endless problems as well as disease.  It's not how we were created to live.  It also tends to make marriage to one person more difficult if people have become accustomed to sleeping with whomever makes us feel good at present.  God didn't make rules to make us miserable, but to help us live healthier life styles.  There are endless stories in the Bible that show what happens when biblical figures had multiple wives or cheated on their spouses.  Good never came of it.   So, it's not God looking down at us and not permitting us to enjoy life by being promiscuous or punishing us for doing so, but rather he is providing us with the forumla for happy healthy relationships.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bolding mine.

(1) This is the problem.  You think this is how people are using it, but in 43 years of life, I've never met, seen, or heard of anyone who actually sees it like this, short of anti-choice fanatics.  It's a talking point, a way of reducing the person making the choice to someone you can spit on and feel superior to.  It completely ignores reality, even though you seem to realize it on one level.  I do find it odd that you have no opinion whether it should be legalized or not, yet you say that every woman has to make that choice and that the government should not be involved.  Sounds pro-choice to me.

(2) Except for all that Old Testament polygamy thing.  And the forced "marriages" of captured virgins to the people who killed their families.  Marriage to rapists.  Yeah, God must have changed his mind, then.  Like so much else in the Big Book of Multiple Excuses...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mhmm...okay, just my opinion again...

Let me clarify just a bit regarding using abortion as birth control.  I don't believe that a woman, when she is making love with someone without protection, is thinking "oh, what the hell, if anything happens, I'll have an abortion".  

But, I think that with the rate of abortions we see today, subconsciously, we know there is a way to rid of an unwanted pregnancy if all else fails.  

Let me just add, that this is something that comes to anyone's mind regardless of religion if you are in the that position.  Since it has been legalized by the government, there is ample opportunity to get abortions and I'd bet that abortion numbers are WAY up in comparision to before abortions were legal.  Im sure promiscuity is way up as well.  There is always a way out of it.  And, even people who have been brought up knowing that abortion is wrong may take this avenue because it appears initially as the easy way out.  It's something many regret.  I remember thinking about it myself several months ago, when I thought I might be pregnant.  Im 45...that would not be cool.  All kinds of things crossed my mind.  I think by making abortion so readily available, we kill millions of children every year, when much, much better options are out there.

As for OT polygamy, God did not advise this as a way to live.  It was what was going on at the time.  Many, many wrong or evil things occured historically in the Bible that were not dictated by God.  Yes, there are those *very* few incidences in the OT where God commands something that seems to go against the grain. I cannot answer for God....I don't know all the circumstances, and I cannot know His mind. Overall, the Bible is *very consistent* in God's commands.  There are endless arguments as to how one can justify God's actions in these few circumstances, but in the end, I'll have lots of questions for Him when I hit the pearly gates.   Creation 101 is on the top of my list.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect that any statistics on abortions before they were legal would be a bit understated.  Probably about the same way rape statistics are understated since there are a lot that go unreported.  I did think that abortions were actually down, but don't have any statistics on hand.  I am curious about other cultures as well, since we here in America are often outliers and a little....confused.

We have approx 80 out of 1600 high school kids pregnant right now where I work.  As far as I know, none have considered abortion, and it's not my place or decision to suggest it.  It would have been better if they had learned proper birth control rather than have kids, then have to suffer the economic and educational burden that they didn't need to have.  Kids have never waited, abstinence does not work, but this is straying a bit from the original point, but I use this as a counter-example.

The "it wasn't God's command" apologetics doesn't work.  I was trying to find specific verses, but here's  a quick list from the Skeptics Annotaited Bible (< polygamy >) - all these verses and yet God never said - "stop"?  You're correct in that it was the custom of the time, and as the customs changed, so did the writings found in the Bible.  It is funny to see how YHVH kept changing in time with society, and if it wasn't for Christianity freezing the bible in time, we'd probably have new books detailing new customs and morals instead of people just saying "you need to interpret this in this way...".  The bible is only consistent when looked at through apologetics glasses.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,19:48

Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 23 2011,19:41)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,16:52)
As for abortion, no woman is ever left unscared by a decision like that...it is with her for life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, FtK, I had abortion 4 years ago.  I got pregnant on purpose, because my partner of nearly nine years had been wheedling for half a decade about wanting children.  So, I finally relented, even though I had misgivings about him as both a father and a lifetime mate due to his insane jealousy, control freak nature, and steady decline toward Right Wing retardation over the years.

Two weeks into the pregnancy, before I knew for certain that I even WAS in such a condition, Psycho Boy decided that my willingness to have a baby MUST have been because I had cheated on him, gotten pregnant, and was trying to cuckold him, making him believe the child was his when it was actaully my lover's.  He screamed at me, called me a slut, told me that I'd better hope I wasn't pregnant because as soon as it was born he wanted a DNA test and if it wasn't his he was "going to punch [my] fucking face in".

So, I told him to go screw himself six ways from Sunday, told him not to let the door hit him in the ass on the way out, took a pregnancy test, found out I WAS pregnant, had to wait an extra week before I could get the chemical abortion, went back, took my pills, had a heavy period, and was MUCH better, thank you very much.

I have NEVER for one second regretted my decision.  I escaped a bad situation with a dangerous man and spared a kid (if I had even been able to carry to term) a miserable existence as an emotional weapon to be used by its mentally unbalanced father who would have NEVER surrendered his parental rights so would have, by law, been involved.

There's a whole website for women with stories like mine.  All who had abortions, and all who don't regret it.  I know that sick people like you rub your hands together with glee at the thought that "one day" we'll be sick with guilt and regret and be "judged".  Don't hold your breath, sister.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm glad it worked out for you.  Sorry about all the shit you went through.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,19:53

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,19:45)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:25)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,16:58)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,15:24)
 
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,14:31)
   
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 21 2011,18:48)
     
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,16:01)
I can't go tell PZ, Rich, he banned my ass years ago.  He doesn't allow dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first sentence is true.  The second sentence is so obviously false that anyone with a working conscience must blush to see the accusation made: the troll was invited to leave for being trollish, not merely for dissenting.  (Hint: there are practicing Xians who have earned the OM designation, some of whom have been known to tell Dr. Myers that he's full of it.  Funny how they haven't been hit with the banhammer yet.)

So, FTK, since you seem to think that abortion is a bad thing, what mandatory minimum sentence would you embrace for women seeking to terminate problematic pregnancies?

You, Biggy, what's the difference?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that the issue for anti-abortion fanatics is that they see premarital sex as a sin and thus things like pregnancy and STDs for unmarried girls and women are a punishment for those who sin.

That, in my opinion, degrades the value of children as much as abortion does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I would disagree that anti-abortion "fanatics" are *against abortion* because they know that premarital sex is a sin.  Nor, do I look at STD's as punishment.  Also, I might add that I, myself, was not a virgin when I married and looking back, I can see the value of being abstinent until marriage. Although, I'd agree that this is a very difficult thing to do, but not impossible.  

Abortion should not be considered birth control, and that is how I see people using it (1).  There are plenty of options out there for birth control.  I don't have any opinion about whether abortion should be legalized or not.  Every woman has to make this choice, I would just hope that they make it wisely.  Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in the issue at all.  

There is a reason why God advises one man/one woman (2).  He is the creator....he knows how we were created to live so that we can live life to the fullest.  Promiscuity leads to endless problems as well as disease.  It's not how we were created to live.  It also tends to make marriage to one person more difficult if people have become accustomed to sleeping with whomever makes us feel good at present.  God didn't make rules to make us miserable, but to help us live healthier life styles.  There are endless stories in the Bible that show what happens when biblical figures had multiple wives or cheated on their spouses.  Good never came of it.   So, it's not God looking down at us and not permitting us to enjoy life by being promiscuous or punishing us for doing so, but rather he is providing us with the forumla for happy healthy relationships.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bolding mine.

(1) This is the problem.  You think this is how people are using it, but in 43 years of life, I've never met, seen, or heard of anyone who actually sees it like this, short of anti-choice fanatics.  It's a talking point, a way of reducing the person making the choice to someone you can spit on and feel superior to.  It completely ignores reality, even though you seem to realize it on one level.  I do find it odd that you have no opinion whether it should be legalized or not, yet you say that every woman has to make that choice and that the government should not be involved.  Sounds pro-choice to me.

(2) Except for all that Old Testament polygamy thing.  And the forced "marriages" of captured virgins to the people who killed their families.  Marriage to rapists.  Yeah, God must have changed his mind, then.  Like so much else in the Big Book of Multiple Excuses...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mhmm...okay, just my opinion again...

Let me clarify just a bit regarding using abortion as birth control.  I don't believe that a woman, when she is making love with someone without protection, is thinking "oh, what the hell, if anything happens, I'll have an abortion".  

But, I think that with the rate of abortions we see today, subconsciously, we know there is a way to rid of an unwanted pregnancy if all else fails.  

Let me just add, that this is something that comes to anyone's mind regardless of religion if you are in the that position.  Since it has been legalized by the government, there is ample opportunity to get abortions and I'd bet that abortion numbers are WAY up in comparision to before abortions were legal.  Im sure promiscuity is way up as well.  There is always a way out of it.  And, even people who have been brought up knowing that abortion is wrong may take this avenue because it appears initially as the easy way out.  It's something many regret.  I remember thinking about it myself several months ago, when I thought I might be pregnant.  Im 45...that would not be cool.  All kinds of things crossed my mind.  I think by making abortion so readily available, we kill millions of children every year, when much, much better options are out there.

As for OT polygamy, God did not advise this as a way to live.  It was what was going on at the time.  Many, many wrong or evil things occured historically in the Bible that were not dictated by God.  Yes, there are those *very* few incidences in the OT where God commands something that seems to go against the grain. I cannot answer for God....I don't know all the circumstances, and I cannot know His mind. Overall, the Bible is *very consistent* in God's commands.  There are endless arguments as to how one can justify God's actions in these few circumstances, but in the end, I'll have lots of questions for Him when I hit the pearly gates.   Creation 101 is on the top of my list.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect that any statistics on abortions before they were legal would be a bit understated.  Probably about the same way rape statistics are understated since there are a lot that go unreported.  I did think that abortions were actually down, but don't have any statistics on hand.  I am curious about other cultures as well, since we here in America are often outliers and a little....confused.

We have approx 80 out of 1600 high school kids pregnant right now where I work.  As far as I know, none have considered abortion, and it's not my place or decision to suggest it.  It would have been better if they had learned proper birth control rather than have kids, then have to suffer the economic and educational burden that they didn't need to have.  Kids have never waited, abstinence does not work, but this is straying a bit from the original point, but I use this as a counter-example.

The "it wasn't God's command" apologetics doesn't work.  I was trying to find specific verses, but here's  a quick list from the Skeptics Annotaited Bible (< polygamy >) - all these verses and yet God never said - "stop"?  You're correct in that it was the custom of the time, and as the customs changed, so did the writings found in the Bible.  It is funny to see how YHVH kept changing in time with society, and if it wasn't for Christianity freezing the bible in time, we'd probably have new books detailing new customs and morals instead of people just saying "you need to interpret this in this way...".  The bible is only consistent when looked at through apologetics glasses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Free will Badger....seeing how people respond today to God's will, I don't think telling them to 'stop' would have accomplished a thing.  He doesn't change His laws...we do.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 23 2011,19:54

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:49)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:47)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:46)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh shit!
A forced-birther spotted in the wild.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's an option.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"forced birth" is an option?  Srsly?   Of course, if you are saying that a woman can give the child up - that's always been an option.  Just as abortion is.

But, you're willing to foot the bill for the medical necessities, the problems that may arise with work or school, the food and care of the mother - nutrition is important, as well as pay her for the time and any suffering she may undergo, plus pay for the adoption agency, the upkeep of the child, as well as ensure that the child will be adopted?  I wonder what the adoption rate is for children of all colors and social backgrounds...not to mention the problems that children who are adopted have later in life, the lack of medical history, the sense of being different or wondering who your real parents are (I'm not, but I know some who are, so this is anecdotal).

You're munificence in offering to take care of these women is astounding.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,19:59

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,19:54)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:49)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:47)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:46)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh shit!
A forced-birther spotted in the wild.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's an option.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"forced birth" is an option?  Srsly?   Of course, if you are saying that a woman can give the child up - that's always been an option.  Just as abortion is.

But, you're willing to foot the bill for the medical necessities, the problems that may arise with work or school, the food and care of the mother - nutrition is important, as well as pay her for the time and any suffering she may undergo, plus pay for the adoption agency, the upkeep of the child, as well as ensure that the child will be adopted?  I wonder what the adoption rate is for children of all colors and social backgrounds...not to mention the problems that children who are adopted have later in life, the lack of medical history, the sense of being different or wondering who your real parents are (I'm not, but I know some who are, so this is anecdotal).

You're munificence in offering to take care of these women is astounding.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are an endless number of people willing to adopt these children and foot the bills.  As for adopted children wondering about their past.  You know what?  We all have issues to deal with.  This won't be the only difficult issue in their lives.  I'd bet all my marbles that, if nothing else, they are glad they are alive rather than never given the chance to live.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 23 2011,20:06

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:23)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,18:05)
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,18:49)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:46)
   
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
     
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee, your idiocy and lack of empathy for pregnant women, especially rape and incest victims, just becomes all the more obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How many of those hundreds of thousands of precious ones in foster care has she adopted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In this day and age, there no reason whatsoever that there should be hundreds and thousands of children to be adopted.  

Stop abortion, practise birth control.  It's simple.  

All this to do about abortion should just be silenced on both sides.  Birth control should be taught as well as abstinence.  Preferably, parents should get their act together and talk to their children...keep an eye out for them and what they are involved in.  And, schools should teach birth control, and they do.  Abstinence should be #1 on the list, imho.  But, by all means teach the rest of it.  That doesn't mean we need to bring out teh bananas and pass out the condoms or give out birth control pills.  

Children shouldn't be having sex...if they are mature enough to have it, they should be mature enough to go get the protection they need, not have it given to them like candy.  We need to teach our kids responsibility early on.  I've told both mine everything about sex, and I've told them the best is to abstain, but for goodness sakes, if you're getting into situations that you can't control.....GET BIRTH CONTROL.

The media certainly doesn't help, and attitudes like SD are harmful as well, because it makes kids feel that, to be the stud muffin, they have to have years of practise and multiple partners to enjoy sex.  Ridiculous and unhealthy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This I can actually agree with - but abortion needs to stay an option.  I'm glad you disagree with the Republicans and the Abstinence-Only crowd and agree with reality on this - studies have shown that by teaching safe, effective birth control, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and STDs are all reduced.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 23 2011,20:29

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:48)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:31)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:10)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:46)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, is that what you'd suggest for, say, a 9 year old rape victim?  Even though her doctors said that she would probably literally die by the 7th month because her body is just not big or developed to bear children?  That she should just have counseling?

Or, what about a woman whose pregnancy is causing her lungs to fill up with fluid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stanton,

These are very unusual predictaments.  This is not the norm.  I firmly believe that if a mother is at the point of having to chose life over death due to childbirth, I think God would be forgiving of letting the child come back to Him.  That does not mean that I would suggest terminating the pregnancy at the start.  I've seen very small women give birth with little complications.  Aborting the child might leave more emotional scars than the physical scars of actually having it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not what the Roman Catholic Church, or any of the churches in the US say.

When this one 9 year old girl was pregnant with twins due to her stepfather repeatedly raping her, her doctors stated that, if she were to attempt to carry her twins to term, she would undoubtedly die because her body was not fully developed to handle pregnancy: and the off chance that she wouldn't die, she would still be rendered totally sterile, and either way, the twins would never survive.  When the girl was given an abortion, the Cardinal of Brazil excommunicated her mother and her doctors for doing that.  The Vatican still considers her stepfather a good, upstanding member of the Church, though, because he's never performed any abortions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look at what the Bishop of Pheonix said (< regardless of the cost >).

Besides, if you make abortions illegal, even with regards to rape of children, then priests can be celibate and still have kids!
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 23 2011,20:42

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,19:53)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,19:45)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:25)
 
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,16:58)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,15:24)
   
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,14:31)
   
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 21 2011,18:48)
       
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,16:01)
I can't go tell PZ, Rich, he banned my ass years ago.  He doesn't allow dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first sentence is true.  The second sentence is so obviously false that anyone with a working conscience must blush to see the accusation made: the troll was invited to leave for being trollish, not merely for dissenting.  (Hint: there are practicing Xians who have earned the OM designation, some of whom have been known to tell Dr. Myers that he's full of it.  Funny how they haven't been hit with the banhammer yet.)

So, FTK, since you seem to think that abortion is a bad thing, what mandatory minimum sentence would you embrace for women seeking to terminate problematic pregnancies?

You, Biggy, what's the difference?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that the issue for anti-abortion fanatics is that they see premarital sex as a sin and thus things like pregnancy and STDs for unmarried girls and women are a punishment for those who sin.

That, in my opinion, degrades the value of children as much as abortion does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I would disagree that anti-abortion "fanatics" are *against abortion* because they know that premarital sex is a sin.  Nor, do I look at STD's as punishment.  Also, I might add that I, myself, was not a virgin when I married and looking back, I can see the value of being abstinent until marriage. Although, I'd agree that this is a very difficult thing to do, but not impossible.  

Abortion should not be considered birth control, and that is how I see people using it (1).  There are plenty of options out there for birth control.  I don't have any opinion about whether abortion should be legalized or not.  Every woman has to make this choice, I would just hope that they make it wisely.  Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in the issue at all.  

There is a reason why God advises one man/one woman (2).  He is the creator....he knows how we were created to live so that we can live life to the fullest.  Promiscuity leads to endless problems as well as disease.  It's not how we were created to live.  It also tends to make marriage to one person more difficult if people have become accustomed to sleeping with whomever makes us feel good at present.  God didn't make rules to make us miserable, but to help us live healthier life styles.  There are endless stories in the Bible that show what happens when biblical figures had multiple wives or cheated on their spouses.  Good never came of it.   So, it's not God looking down at us and not permitting us to enjoy life by being promiscuous or punishing us for doing so, but rather he is providing us with the forumla for happy healthy relationships.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bolding mine.

(1) This is the problem.  You think this is how people are using it, but in 43 years of life, I've never met, seen, or heard of anyone who actually sees it like this, short of anti-choice fanatics.  It's a talking point, a way of reducing the person making the choice to someone you can spit on and feel superior to.  It completely ignores reality, even though you seem to realize it on one level.  I do find it odd that you have no opinion whether it should be legalized or not, yet you say that every woman has to make that choice and that the government should not be involved.  Sounds pro-choice to me.

(2) Except for all that Old Testament polygamy thing.  And the forced "marriages" of captured virgins to the people who killed their families.  Marriage to rapists.  Yeah, God must have changed his mind, then.  Like so much else in the Big Book of Multiple Excuses...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mhmm...okay, just my opinion again...

Let me clarify just a bit regarding using abortion as birth control.  I don't believe that a woman, when she is making love with someone without protection, is thinking "oh, what the hell, if anything happens, I'll have an abortion".  

But, I think that with the rate of abortions we see today, subconsciously, we know there is a way to rid of an unwanted pregnancy if all else fails.  

Let me just add, that this is something that comes to anyone's mind regardless of religion if you are in the that position.  Since it has been legalized by the government, there is ample opportunity to get abortions and I'd bet that abortion numbers are WAY up in comparision to before abortions were legal.  Im sure promiscuity is way up as well.  There is always a way out of it.  And, even people who have been brought up knowing that abortion is wrong may take this avenue because it appears initially as the easy way out.  It's something many regret.  I remember thinking about it myself several months ago, when I thought I might be pregnant.  Im 45...that would not be cool.  All kinds of things crossed my mind.  I think by making abortion so readily available, we kill millions of children every year, when much, much better options are out there.

As for OT polygamy, God did not advise this as a way to live.  It was what was going on at the time.  Many, many wrong or evil things occured historically in the Bible that were not dictated by God.  Yes, there are those *very* few incidences in the OT where God commands something that seems to go against the grain. I cannot answer for God....I don't know all the circumstances, and I cannot know His mind. Overall, the Bible is *very consistent* in God's commands.  There are endless arguments as to how one can justify God's actions in these few circumstances, but in the end, I'll have lots of questions for Him when I hit the pearly gates.   Creation 101 is on the top of my list.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect that any statistics on abortions before they were legal would be a bit understated.  Probably about the same way rape statistics are understated since there are a lot that go unreported.  I did think that abortions were actually down, but don't have any statistics on hand.  I am curious about other cultures as well, since we here in America are often outliers and a little....confused.

We have approx 80 out of 1600 high school kids pregnant right now where I work.  As far as I know, none have considered abortion, and it's not my place or decision to suggest it.  It would have been better if they had learned proper birth control rather than have kids, then have to suffer the economic and educational burden that they didn't need to have.  Kids have never waited, abstinence does not work, but this is straying a bit from the original point, but I use this as a counter-example.

The "it wasn't God's command" apologetics doesn't work.  I was trying to find specific verses, but here's  a quick list from the Skeptics Annotaited Bible (< polygamy >) - all these verses and yet God never said - "stop"?  You're correct in that it was the custom of the time, and as the customs changed, so did the writings found in the Bible.  It is funny to see how YHVH kept changing in time with society, and if it wasn't for Christianity freezing the bible in time, we'd probably have new books detailing new customs and morals instead of people just saying "you need to interpret this in this way...".  The bible is only consistent when looked at through apologetics glasses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Free will Badger....seeing how people respond today to God's will, I don't think telling them to 'stop' would have accomplished a thing.  He doesn't change His laws...we do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you believe that God knows everything, then there is no free will.  If you believe that God has a plan for everyone, or there is such a thing as destiny...no free will.

The Free Will Defense is a standard apologetic for the problem of evil, and it fails there.  It fails with what I was saying anyway since the Bible itself shows changing cultural mores (and morality) over time.  If you consider the bible to be divine or inspired in any way, then you are left with the argument that God has indeed changed his laws, or else he has let others change them, and put his seal of approval on those changes.  Which is it?

Plus, read up in neuroscience - there is a lot there that strongly implies that what used to be called free will isn't really any such thing.  Although to be fair, we'd have to start out with a definition of free will and go from there.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,20:51

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,20:29)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:48)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:31)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:10)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:46)
   
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, is that what you'd suggest for, say, a 9 year old rape victim?  Even though her doctors said that she would probably literally die by the 7th month because her body is just not big or developed to bear children?  That she should just have counseling?

Or, what about a woman whose pregnancy is causing her lungs to fill up with fluid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stanton,

These are very unusual predictaments.  This is not the norm.  I firmly believe that if a mother is at the point of having to chose life over death due to childbirth, I think God would be forgiving of letting the child come back to Him.  That does not mean that I would suggest terminating the pregnancy at the start.  I've seen very small women give birth with little complications.  Aborting the child might leave more emotional scars than the physical scars of actually having it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not what the Roman Catholic Church, or any of the churches in the US say.

When this one 9 year old girl was pregnant with twins due to her stepfather repeatedly raping her, her doctors stated that, if she were to attempt to carry her twins to term, she would undoubtedly die because her body was not fully developed to handle pregnancy: and the off chance that she wouldn't die, she would still be rendered totally sterile, and either way, the twins would never survive.  When the girl was given an abortion, the Cardinal of Brazil excommunicated her mother and her doctors for doing that.  The Vatican still considers her stepfather a good, upstanding member of the Church, though, because he's never performed any abortions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look at what the Bishop of Pheonix said (< regardless of the cost >).

Besides, if you make abortions illegal, even with regards to rape of children, then priests can be celibate and still have kids!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm....difficult situation to say the least.  I'd have to check scripture more closely, but as far as I know, there aren't any detailed suggestions or laws about situations like this.  

I've given my viewpoint about upholding the life of the mother over the child if it comes to that.  But, I don't think pregnancy should be terminated until it is medically certain that the Mother is going to lose her life.  This may put the Mother at some risk waiting, but it's the best option, imho.  No, I'm not demanding anyone to take my point of view, so hush.  I'm stating my opinion.

There are whispers and their are shouts in the Bible.  We're better off abiding by the shouts and not arguing so vehemently about the whispers....if that makes sense.  Some Christians need to step back and take a breath before they judge so harshly.  It's not their job.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 23 2011,20:58

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,19:59)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,19:54)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:49)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:47)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:46)
   
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh shit!
A forced-birther spotted in the wild.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's an option.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"forced birth" is an option?  Srsly?   Of course, if you are saying that a woman can give the child up - that's always been an option.  Just as abortion is.

But, you're willing to foot the bill for the medical necessities, the problems that may arise with work or school, the food and care of the mother - nutrition is important, as well as pay her for the time and any suffering she may undergo, plus pay for the adoption agency, the upkeep of the child, as well as ensure that the child will be adopted?  I wonder what the adoption rate is for children of all colors and social backgrounds...not to mention the problems that children who are adopted have later in life, the lack of medical history, the sense of being different or wondering who your real parents are (I'm not, but I know some who are, so this is anecdotal).

You're munificence in offering to take care of these women is astounding.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are an endless number of people willing to adopt these children and foot the bills.  As for adopted children wondering about their past.  You know what?  We all have issues to deal with.  This won't be the only difficult issue in their lives.  I'd bet all my marbles that, if nothing else, they are glad they are alive rather than never given the chance to live.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An endless number of people willing to take in children, which is why adoption agencies and the foster care system is overflowing with children, many of whom are repeats - I guess they come with a warranty?  Oddly enough, these "endless number of people" seem to prefer a certain type of child, and if you are not one of them, usually white, then...well, the numbers drop big time.  Same with those religious nutjobs who want to prevent gays from adopting children and giving them a loving home.  Apparently there are enough people that we can afford to refuse placing children with healthy, stable families.

As for the "glad they are alive" - seriously?  That's like the "how would you feel if you had been aborted" argument - if I had been aborted, then there never would have been any me, and therefore no one to feel anything - what a stupid question!  Adopted and foster kids have many problems that non-A&F kids don't have - that's a fact.  Whether they are glad to be alive or not is irreelevant to that fact.  There are people who run "adoption farms", where there are more kids than the Duggars, and there are families who adopt/foster just for the money, so it's not all a bed of roses.  This is a side argument, though, and not central to the choice argument.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,20:58

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,20:42)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,19:53)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,19:45)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:25)
 
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,16:58)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,15:24)
   
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,14:31)
     
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 21 2011,18:48)
       
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,16:01)
I can't go tell PZ, Rich, he banned my ass years ago.  He doesn't allow dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first sentence is true.  The second sentence is so obviously false that anyone with a working conscience must blush to see the accusation made: the troll was invited to leave for being trollish, not merely for dissenting.  (Hint: there are practicing Xians who have earned the OM designation, some of whom have been known to tell Dr. Myers that he's full of it.  Funny how they haven't been hit with the banhammer yet.)

So, FTK, since you seem to think that abortion is a bad thing, what mandatory minimum sentence would you embrace for women seeking to terminate problematic pregnancies?

You, Biggy, what's the difference?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that the issue for anti-abortion fanatics is that they see premarital sex as a sin and thus things like pregnancy and STDs for unmarried girls and women are a punishment for those who sin.

That, in my opinion, degrades the value of children as much as abortion does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I would disagree that anti-abortion "fanatics" are *against abortion* because they know that premarital sex is a sin.  Nor, do I look at STD's as punishment.  Also, I might add that I, myself, was not a virgin when I married and looking back, I can see the value of being abstinent until marriage. Although, I'd agree that this is a very difficult thing to do, but not impossible.  

Abortion should not be considered birth control, and that is how I see people using it (1).  There are plenty of options out there for birth control.  I don't have any opinion about whether abortion should be legalized or not.  Every woman has to make this choice, I would just hope that they make it wisely.  Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in the issue at all.  

There is a reason why God advises one man/one woman (2).  He is the creator....he knows how we were created to live so that we can live life to the fullest.  Promiscuity leads to endless problems as well as disease.  It's not how we were created to live.  It also tends to make marriage to one person more difficult if people have become accustomed to sleeping with whomever makes us feel good at present.  God didn't make rules to make us miserable, but to help us live healthier life styles.  There are endless stories in the Bible that show what happens when biblical figures had multiple wives or cheated on their spouses.  Good never came of it.   So, it's not God looking down at us and not permitting us to enjoy life by being promiscuous or punishing us for doing so, but rather he is providing us with the forumla for happy healthy relationships.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bolding mine.

(1) This is the problem.  You think this is how people are using it, but in 43 years of life, I've never met, seen, or heard of anyone who actually sees it like this, short of anti-choice fanatics.  It's a talking point, a way of reducing the person making the choice to someone you can spit on and feel superior to.  It completely ignores reality, even though you seem to realize it on one level.  I do find it odd that you have no opinion whether it should be legalized or not, yet you say that every woman has to make that choice and that the government should not be involved.  Sounds pro-choice to me.

(2) Except for all that Old Testament polygamy thing.  And the forced "marriages" of captured virgins to the people who killed their families.  Marriage to rapists.  Yeah, God must have changed his mind, then.  Like so much else in the Big Book of Multiple Excuses...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mhmm...okay, just my opinion again...

Let me clarify just a bit regarding using abortion as birth control.  I don't believe that a woman, when she is making love with someone without protection, is thinking "oh, what the hell, if anything happens, I'll have an abortion".  

But, I think that with the rate of abortions we see today, subconsciously, we know there is a way to rid of an unwanted pregnancy if all else fails.  

Let me just add, that this is something that comes to anyone's mind regardless of religion if you are in the that position.  Since it has been legalized by the government, there is ample opportunity to get abortions and I'd bet that abortion numbers are WAY up in comparision to before abortions were legal.  Im sure promiscuity is way up as well.  There is always a way out of it.  And, even people who have been brought up knowing that abortion is wrong may take this avenue because it appears initially as the easy way out.  It's something many regret.  I remember thinking about it myself several months ago, when I thought I might be pregnant.  Im 45...that would not be cool.  All kinds of things crossed my mind.  I think by making abortion so readily available, we kill millions of children every year, when much, much better options are out there.

As for OT polygamy, God did not advise this as a way to live.  It was what was going on at the time.  Many, many wrong or evil things occured historically in the Bible that were not dictated by God.  Yes, there are those *very* few incidences in the OT where God commands something that seems to go against the grain. I cannot answer for God....I don't know all the circumstances, and I cannot know His mind. Overall, the Bible is *very consistent* in God's commands.  There are endless arguments as to how one can justify God's actions in these few circumstances, but in the end, I'll have lots of questions for Him when I hit the pearly gates.   Creation 101 is on the top of my list.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect that any statistics on abortions before they were legal would be a bit understated.  Probably about the same way rape statistics are understated since there are a lot that go unreported.  I did think that abortions were actually down, but don't have any statistics on hand.  I am curious about other cultures as well, since we here in America are often outliers and a little....confused.

We have approx 80 out of 1600 high school kids pregnant right now where I work.  As far as I know, none have considered abortion, and it's not my place or decision to suggest it.  It would have been better if they had learned proper birth control rather than have kids, then have to suffer the economic and educational burden that they didn't need to have.  Kids have never waited, abstinence does not work, but this is straying a bit from the original point, but I use this as a counter-example.

The "it wasn't God's command" apologetics doesn't work.  I was trying to find specific verses, but here's  a quick list from the Skeptics Annotaited Bible (< polygamy >) - all these verses and yet God never said - "stop"?  You're correct in that it was the custom of the time, and as the customs changed, so did the writings found in the Bible.  It is funny to see how YHVH kept changing in time with society, and if it wasn't for Christianity freezing the bible in time, we'd probably have new books detailing new customs and morals instead of people just saying "you need to interpret this in this way...".  The bible is only consistent when looked at through apologetics glasses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Free will Badger....seeing how people respond today to God's will, I don't think telling them to 'stop' would have accomplished a thing.  He doesn't change His laws...we do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you believe that God knows everything, then there is no free will.  If you believe that God has a plan for everyone, or there is such a thing as destiny...no free will.

The Free Will Defense is a standard apologetic for the problem of evil, and it fails there.  It fails with what I was saying anyway since the Bible itself shows changing cultural mores (and morality) over time.  If you consider the bible to be divine or inspired in any way, then you are left with the argument that God has indeed changed his laws, or else he has let others change them, and put his seal of approval on those changes.  Which is it?

Plus, read up in neuroscience - there is a lot there that strongly implies that what used to be called free will isn't really any such thing.  Although to be fair, we'd have to start out with a definition of free will and go from there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have no interest in getting into a debate over free will.  There are so many arguments for and against.  In the end, we believe God allows us to make choices aside from his will or we don't.  Doesn't matter what we think, God is God....He's the Creator...He'll do what's best for us in the end, and all He asks in return is that we try our best to follow Him.  He's not asking for perfection.

I know that is complete nonsense to you, and that's fine.  No sense in arguing over it.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 23 2011,21:17

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,20:58)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,20:42)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,19:53)
 
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,19:45)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:25)
   
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,16:58)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,15:24)
     
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,14:31)
     
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 21 2011,18:48)
         
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,16:01)
I can't go tell PZ, Rich, he banned my ass years ago.  He doesn't allow dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first sentence is true.  The second sentence is so obviously false that anyone with a working conscience must blush to see the accusation made: the troll was invited to leave for being trollish, not merely for dissenting.  (Hint: there are practicing Xians who have earned the OM designation, some of whom have been known to tell Dr. Myers that he's full of it.  Funny how they haven't been hit with the banhammer yet.)

So, FTK, since you seem to think that abortion is a bad thing, what mandatory minimum sentence would you embrace for women seeking to terminate problematic pregnancies?

You, Biggy, what's the difference?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that the issue for anti-abortion fanatics is that they see premarital sex as a sin and thus things like pregnancy and STDs for unmarried girls and women are a punishment for those who sin.

That, in my opinion, degrades the value of children as much as abortion does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I would disagree that anti-abortion "fanatics" are *against abortion* because they know that premarital sex is a sin.  Nor, do I look at STD's as punishment.  Also, I might add that I, myself, was not a virgin when I married and looking back, I can see the value of being abstinent until marriage. Although, I'd agree that this is a very difficult thing to do, but not impossible.  

Abortion should not be considered birth control, and that is how I see people using it (1).  There are plenty of options out there for birth control.  I don't have any opinion about whether abortion should be legalized or not.  Every woman has to make this choice, I would just hope that they make it wisely.  Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in the issue at all.  

There is a reason why God advises one man/one woman (2).  He is the creator....he knows how we were created to live so that we can live life to the fullest.  Promiscuity leads to endless problems as well as disease.  It's not how we were created to live.  It also tends to make marriage to one person more difficult if people have become accustomed to sleeping with whomever makes us feel good at present.  God didn't make rules to make us miserable, but to help us live healthier life styles.  There are endless stories in the Bible that show what happens when biblical figures had multiple wives or cheated on their spouses.  Good never came of it.   So, it's not God looking down at us and not permitting us to enjoy life by being promiscuous or punishing us for doing so, but rather he is providing us with the forumla for happy healthy relationships.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bolding mine.

(1) This is the problem.  You think this is how people are using it, but in 43 years of life, I've never met, seen, or heard of anyone who actually sees it like this, short of anti-choice fanatics.  It's a talking point, a way of reducing the person making the choice to someone you can spit on and feel superior to.  It completely ignores reality, even though you seem to realize it on one level.  I do find it odd that you have no opinion whether it should be legalized or not, yet you say that every woman has to make that choice and that the government should not be involved.  Sounds pro-choice to me.

(2) Except for all that Old Testament polygamy thing.  And the forced "marriages" of captured virgins to the people who killed their families.  Marriage to rapists.  Yeah, God must have changed his mind, then.  Like so much else in the Big Book of Multiple Excuses...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mhmm...okay, just my opinion again...

Let me clarify just a bit regarding using abortion as birth control.  I don't believe that a woman, when she is making love with someone without protection, is thinking "oh, what the hell, if anything happens, I'll have an abortion".  

But, I think that with the rate of abortions we see today, subconsciously, we know there is a way to rid of an unwanted pregnancy if all else fails.  

Let me just add, that this is something that comes to anyone's mind regardless of religion if you are in the that position.  Since it has been legalized by the government, there is ample opportunity to get abortions and I'd bet that abortion numbers are WAY up in comparision to before abortions were legal.  Im sure promiscuity is way up as well.  There is always a way out of it.  And, even people who have been brought up knowing that abortion is wrong may take this avenue because it appears initially as the easy way out.  It's something many regret.  I remember thinking about it myself several months ago, when I thought I might be pregnant.  Im 45...that would not be cool.  All kinds of things crossed my mind.  I think by making abortion so readily available, we kill millions of children every year, when much, much better options are out there.

As for OT polygamy, God did not advise this as a way to live.  It was what was going on at the time.  Many, many wrong or evil things occured historically in the Bible that were not dictated by God.  Yes, there are those *very* few incidences in the OT where God commands something that seems to go against the grain. I cannot answer for God....I don't know all the circumstances, and I cannot know His mind. Overall, the Bible is *very consistent* in God's commands.  There are endless arguments as to how one can justify God's actions in these few circumstances, but in the end, I'll have lots of questions for Him when I hit the pearly gates.   Creation 101 is on the top of my list.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect that any statistics on abortions before they were legal would be a bit understated.  Probably about the same way rape statistics are understated since there are a lot that go unreported.  I did think that abortions were actually down, but don't have any statistics on hand.  I am curious about other cultures as well, since we here in America are often outliers and a little....confused.

We have approx 80 out of 1600 high school kids pregnant right now where I work.  As far as I know, none have considered abortion, and it's not my place or decision to suggest it.  It would have been better if they had learned proper birth control rather than have kids, then have to suffer the economic and educational burden that they didn't need to have.  Kids have never waited, abstinence does not work, but this is straying a bit from the original point, but I use this as a counter-example.

The "it wasn't God's command" apologetics doesn't work.  I was trying to find specific verses, but here's  a quick list from the Skeptics Annotaited Bible (< polygamy >) - all these verses and yet God never said - "stop"?  You're correct in that it was the custom of the time, and as the customs changed, so did the writings found in the Bible.  It is funny to see how YHVH kept changing in time with society, and if it wasn't for Christianity freezing the bible in time, we'd probably have new books detailing new customs and morals instead of people just saying "you need to interpret this in this way...".  The bible is only consistent when looked at through apologetics glasses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Free will Badger....seeing how people respond today to God's will, I don't think telling them to 'stop' would have accomplished a thing.  He doesn't change His laws...we do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you believe that God knows everything, then there is no free will.  If you believe that God has a plan for everyone, or there is such a thing as destiny...no free will.

The Free Will Defense is a standard apologetic for the problem of evil, and it fails there.  It fails with what I was saying anyway since the Bible itself shows changing cultural mores (and morality) over time.  If you consider the bible to be divine or inspired in any way, then you are left with the argument that God has indeed changed his laws, or else he has let others change them, and put his seal of approval on those changes.  Which is it?

Plus, read up in neuroscience - there is a lot there that strongly implies that what used to be called free will isn't really any such thing.  Although to be fair, we'd have to start out with a definition of free will and go from there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have no interest in getting into a debate over free will.  There are so many arguments for and against.  In the end, we believe God allows us to make choices aside from his will or we don't.  Doesn't matter what we think, God is God....He's the Creator...He'll do what's best for us in the end, and all He asks in return is that we try our best to follow Him.  He's not asking for perfection.

I know that is complete nonsense to you, and that's fine.  No sense in arguing over it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, we can skip the free will bit - not the place for it anyway, and, yes, it makes no sense to me since it is all mythology anyway, but if you believe God is going to do what's best for you, then why do anything at all?  If your choices make no difference, and God will take care of you, then why bother with it?  Sorry, for me, while it may not make much sense, discussing/debating/arguing these things do many things - you can understand someone better (maybe), see viewpoints other than your own and hear arguments for them, which can cause you to adjust your own views, and such discussions can get your mind going, especially going into areas that you normally don't go.  Questioning and introspection are important, especially when regarding your own ideas.

But if that's not your cup of tea, no problem - I won't have much time through the week to do more than read and make quick comments - the only reason I had time today is the two playoff games - Yeah Steelers and Packers - I went to school in Wisconsin, married a cheesehead, my brother is a Steelers fan married to another cheesehead, and I favor the Jags - on the same side as the Steelers.  Gonna be a fun Superbowl this year.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,21:17

Nice way of being slippery. I don't argue for abortion rights because of nontheism, but on the basis of secular Constitutional law. Why can't you argue against abortion rights based on secular Constitutional law, instead of throwing the Bible and Christianity at us? And don't repeat that BIG LIE that the United States was founded on Biblical or Christian values. It wasn't, or we would still be under a king who would be considered to rule by Divine Right, instead of under a republican government by the consent of the people.

Besides, you cannot use the Bible to promote anti-abortion views, when there is at least one passage in it that actually calls for the killing of babies. This one:

< http://bible.cc/psalms/137-9.htm >

Psalm 137:9

"Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"

And it doesn't matter the context in which that vile passage was written, because if you really objected to the termination of pregnancies by choice, you'd object to that too. But do you?

The claim that the Bible condemns the modern issue of abortion is one of the biggest lies the Religious Right has told, period.

   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,19:19)
   
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,19:07)

So on the basis of that one example, you assume that all rape victims who get pregnant can have their babies and then live happily ever after?

If you aunt had a choice, and choose to have the baby, that was her right. It is not for you or some government to tell her she can't have an abortion if she feels she can't deal with the emotional trauma of a pregnancy. That's violating the dignity of the woman TWICE! It is the height of absurdity to put the supposed right to life of a fetus above the right to bodily autonomy of someone who is already born and able to make decisions for herself.

And stop the Godbotting! This isn't about what God would want (no one knows that) or what he would forgive. This is about what federal law, including the U S Constitution itself, allows. It says that "All persons BORN or naturalized....", not conceived in the United States, are citizens. And it is citizens whose rights are protected, not those who are not yet citizens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



sigh....Im not making the choice for anyone.  I'm merely sharing my views.  And, no, I won't stop the "Godbotting"...it's who I am.  Just like you share your viewpoints from your perspective or worldview.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,21:25

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,20:58)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,19:59)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,19:54)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:49)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:47)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:46)
   
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
     
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh shit!
A forced-birther spotted in the wild.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's an option.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"forced birth" is an option?  Srsly?   Of course, if you are saying that a woman can give the child up - that's always been an option.  Just as abortion is.

But, you're willing to foot the bill for the medical necessities, the problems that may arise with work or school, the food and care of the mother - nutrition is important, as well as pay her for the time and any suffering she may undergo, plus pay for the adoption agency, the upkeep of the child, as well as ensure that the child will be adopted?  I wonder what the adoption rate is for children of all colors and social backgrounds...not to mention the problems that children who are adopted have later in life, the lack of medical history, the sense of being different or wondering who your real parents are (I'm not, but I know some who are, so this is anecdotal).

You're munificence in offering to take care of these women is astounding.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are an endless number of people willing to adopt these children and foot the bills.  As for adopted children wondering about their past.  You know what?  We all have issues to deal with.  This won't be the only difficult issue in their lives.  I'd bet all my marbles that, if nothing else, they are glad they are alive rather than never given the chance to live.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An endless number of people willing to take in children, which is why adoption agencies and the foster care system is overflowing with children, many of whom are repeats - I guess they come with a warranty?  Oddly enough, these "endless number of people" seem to prefer a certain type of child, and if you are not one of them, usually white, then...well, the numbers drop big time.  Same with those religious nutjobs who want to prevent gays from adopting children and giving them a loving home.  Apparently there are enough people that we can afford to refuse placing children with healthy, stable families.

As for the "glad they are alive" - seriously?  That's like the "how would you feel if you had been aborted" argument - if I had been aborted, then there never would have been any me, and therefore no one to feel anything - what a stupid question!  Adopted and foster kids have many problems that non-A&F kids don't have - that's a fact.  Whether they are glad to be alive or not is irreelevant to that fact.  There are people who run "adoption farms", where there are more kids than the Duggars, and there are families who adopt/foster just for the money, so it's not all a bed of roses.  This is a side argument, though, and not central to the choice argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The reason for the abundance of children in the foster care system has nothing to do with abortion.  Most of those parents wouldn't have chosen abortion anyway.  It has more to do with education and support systems for families with various issues.  So, yes, by the time the child is finally taken from the family at a later age, it is obviously more difficult to find permanent homes for them.  

And, yes, there are foster horror stories, and there are also heart warming stories.  I've cared for several children who have been adopted over the past several years.  Two were adopted at birth and have a great families.  

One of my families ended up adopting 6 children after fostering them for years.  It is a white family, and they adopted 4 black children and 2 white.  Their Dad teaches math at the high school.  They live in a small home, but it seems to really work for them.  

Another family I cared for adopted 2 children due to their parents both being in jail and unfit to care for the children, and although she thought she couldn't get pregnant, she ended up having a child of her own within the same year as adopting the second child.  About 2 years after she had her child, this same couple who had be in jail had a 3rd child and the family I cared for adopted him as well.  So, all 3 siblings were together and they had one of their own as well.  I still keep up with this family, and it's tons of fun to watch them all grow.  They are truly blessed and loved.

My own parents were foster parents for a few years when I was young, and we kids loved it, but I think it was hard on my Mom because she wanted so badly to help them and make a difference, but it was a struggle sometimes.  

[explaining my "cared for several children"....I've kept my profession to myself over the years because I've never cared to deal with the grief of the comments I'd get over my career choice.  I'm a daycare provider...I care for up to 12 children each day.  Yes, I have a college degree, and yes, I sometimes talk like a sailor in here which doesn't seem quite right for someone who takes care of children.  But, I do love my job.  After having my two boys, I quit my job as a buying analyst for a retail corporation and decided to stay home and care for them.  I ended up loving what I do, and never went back to the office.]  

Make of it what you will.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,21:30

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,21:17)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,20:58)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,20:42)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,19:53)
 
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,19:45)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:25)
   
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 23 2011,16:58)
     
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,15:24)
     
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,14:31)
       
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 21 2011,18:48)
         
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,16:01)
I can't go tell PZ, Rich, he banned my ass years ago.  He doesn't allow dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first sentence is true.  The second sentence is so obviously false that anyone with a working conscience must blush to see the accusation made: the troll was invited to leave for being trollish, not merely for dissenting.  (Hint: there are practicing Xians who have earned the OM designation, some of whom have been known to tell Dr. Myers that he's full of it.  Funny how they haven't been hit with the banhammer yet.)

So, FTK, since you seem to think that abortion is a bad thing, what mandatory minimum sentence would you embrace for women seeking to terminate problematic pregnancies?

You, Biggy, what's the difference?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that the issue for anti-abortion fanatics is that they see premarital sex as a sin and thus things like pregnancy and STDs for unmarried girls and women are a punishment for those who sin.

That, in my opinion, degrades the value of children as much as abortion does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I would disagree that anti-abortion "fanatics" are *against abortion* because they know that premarital sex is a sin.  Nor, do I look at STD's as punishment.  Also, I might add that I, myself, was not a virgin when I married and looking back, I can see the value of being abstinent until marriage. Although, I'd agree that this is a very difficult thing to do, but not impossible.  

Abortion should not be considered birth control, and that is how I see people using it (1).  There are plenty of options out there for birth control.  I don't have any opinion about whether abortion should be legalized or not.  Every woman has to make this choice, I would just hope that they make it wisely.  Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in the issue at all.  

There is a reason why God advises one man/one woman (2).  He is the creator....he knows how we were created to live so that we can live life to the fullest.  Promiscuity leads to endless problems as well as disease.  It's not how we were created to live.  It also tends to make marriage to one person more difficult if people have become accustomed to sleeping with whomever makes us feel good at present.  God didn't make rules to make us miserable, but to help us live healthier life styles.  There are endless stories in the Bible that show what happens when biblical figures had multiple wives or cheated on their spouses.  Good never came of it.   So, it's not God looking down at us and not permitting us to enjoy life by being promiscuous or punishing us for doing so, but rather he is providing us with the forumla for happy healthy relationships.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bolding mine.

(1) This is the problem.  You think this is how people are using it, but in 43 years of life, I've never met, seen, or heard of anyone who actually sees it like this, short of anti-choice fanatics.  It's a talking point, a way of reducing the person making the choice to someone you can spit on and feel superior to.  It completely ignores reality, even though you seem to realize it on one level.  I do find it odd that you have no opinion whether it should be legalized or not, yet you say that every woman has to make that choice and that the government should not be involved.  Sounds pro-choice to me.

(2) Except for all that Old Testament polygamy thing.  And the forced "marriages" of captured virgins to the people who killed their families.  Marriage to rapists.  Yeah, God must have changed his mind, then.  Like so much else in the Big Book of Multiple Excuses...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mhmm...okay, just my opinion again...

Let me clarify just a bit regarding using abortion as birth control.  I don't believe that a woman, when she is making love with someone without protection, is thinking "oh, what the hell, if anything happens, I'll have an abortion".  

But, I think that with the rate of abortions we see today, subconsciously, we know there is a way to rid of an unwanted pregnancy if all else fails.  

Let me just add, that this is something that comes to anyone's mind regardless of religion if you are in the that position.  Since it has been legalized by the government, there is ample opportunity to get abortions and I'd bet that abortion numbers are WAY up in comparision to before abortions were legal.  Im sure promiscuity is way up as well.  There is always a way out of it.  And, even people who have been brought up knowing that abortion is wrong may take this avenue because it appears initially as the easy way out.  It's something many regret.  I remember thinking about it myself several months ago, when I thought I might be pregnant.  Im 45...that would not be cool.  All kinds of things crossed my mind.  I think by making abortion so readily available, we kill millions of children every year, when much, much better options are out there.

As for OT polygamy, God did not advise this as a way to live.  It was what was going on at the time.  Many, many wrong or evil things occured historically in the Bible that were not dictated by God.  Yes, there are those *very* few incidences in the OT where God commands something that seems to go against the grain. I cannot answer for God....I don't know all the circumstances, and I cannot know His mind. Overall, the Bible is *very consistent* in God's commands.  There are endless arguments as to how one can justify God's actions in these few circumstances, but in the end, I'll have lots of questions for Him when I hit the pearly gates.   Creation 101 is on the top of my list.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect that any statistics on abortions before they were legal would be a bit understated.  Probably about the same way rape statistics are understated since there are a lot that go unreported.  I did think that abortions were actually down, but don't have any statistics on hand.  I am curious about other cultures as well, since we here in America are often outliers and a little....confused.

We have approx 80 out of 1600 high school kids pregnant right now where I work.  As far as I know, none have considered abortion, and it's not my place or decision to suggest it.  It would have been better if they had learned proper birth control rather than have kids, then have to suffer the economic and educational burden that they didn't need to have.  Kids have never waited, abstinence does not work, but this is straying a bit from the original point, but I use this as a counter-example.

The "it wasn't God's command" apologetics doesn't work.  I was trying to find specific verses, but here's  a quick list from the Skeptics Annotaited Bible (< polygamy >) - all these verses and yet God never said - "stop"?  You're correct in that it was the custom of the time, and as the customs changed, so did the writings found in the Bible.  It is funny to see how YHVH kept changing in time with society, and if it wasn't for Christianity freezing the bible in time, we'd probably have new books detailing new customs and morals instead of people just saying "you need to interpret this in this way...".  The bible is only consistent when looked at through apologetics glasses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Free will Badger....seeing how people respond today to God's will, I don't think telling them to 'stop' would have accomplished a thing.  He doesn't change His laws...we do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you believe that God knows everything, then there is no free will.  If you believe that God has a plan for everyone, or there is such a thing as destiny...no free will.

The Free Will Defense is a standard apologetic for the problem of evil, and it fails there.  It fails with what I was saying anyway since the Bible itself shows changing cultural mores (and morality) over time.  If you consider the bible to be divine or inspired in any way, then you are left with the argument that God has indeed changed his laws, or else he has let others change them, and put his seal of approval on those changes.  Which is it?

Plus, read up in neuroscience - there is a lot there that strongly implies that what used to be called free will isn't really any such thing.  Although to be fair, we'd have to start out with a definition of free will and go from there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have no interest in getting into a debate over free will.  There are so many arguments for and against.  In the end, we believe God allows us to make choices aside from his will or we don't.  Doesn't matter what we think, God is God....He's the Creator...He'll do what's best for us in the end, and all He asks in return is that we try our best to follow Him.  He's not asking for perfection.

I know that is complete nonsense to you, and that's fine.  No sense in arguing over it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, we can skip the free will bit - not the place for it anyway, and, yes, it makes no sense to me since it is all mythology anyway, but if you believe God is going to do what's best for you, then why do anything at all?  If your choices make no difference, and God will take care of you, then why bother with it?  Sorry, for me, while it may not make much sense, discussing/debating/arguing these things do many things - you can understand someone better (maybe), see viewpoints other than your own and hear arguments for them, which can cause you to adjust your own views, and such discussions can get your mind going, especially going into areas that you normally don't go.  Questioning and introspection are important, especially when regarding your own ideas.

But if that's not your cup of tea, no problem - I won't have much time through the week to do more than read and make quick comments - the only reason I had time today is the two playoff games - Yeah Steelers and Packers - I went to school in Wisconsin, married a cheesehead, my brother is a Steelers fan married to another cheesehead, and I favor the Jags - on the same side as the Steelers.  Gonna be a fun Superbowl this year.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just for future reference, I've spent a lifetime listening to arguments that go against my biblical POV.  In the past 10 years alone, I believe I've probably heard them all.  But, feel free to further enlighten me, just as I'll throw the ball right back at ya...:)
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,21:49

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,21:30)
Just for future reference, I've spent a lifetime listening to arguments that go against my biblical POV.  In the past 10 years alone, I believe I've probably heard them all.  But, feel free to further enlighten me, just as I'll throw the ball right back at ya...:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Closed minded bigots like yourself, FL, and IBeleiveInGod constantly judge issues in religion by a double standard; those who say what you already beleive must be right, while those who contradict those beliefs must be wrong. Have you ever heard of judging issues in ANY subject by objective reality? That's the ONLY way to discover consistent truth. If there is a God and he created the universe, then the only way to know him is to study his creation. NOT read some man-made book that is called the Word of God. There is no such thing, because critical analysis has debunked the notions about such a thing. But phony Biblical apologists keep lying to their flock about the issues and idiots like you keep lapping up their baseless crap.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,22:01

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,21:49)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,21:30)
Just for future reference, I've spent a lifetime listening to arguments that go against my biblical POV.  In the past 10 years alone, I believe I've probably heard them all.  But, feel free to further enlighten me, just as I'll throw the ball right back at ya...:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Closed minded bigots like yourself, FL, and IBeleiveInGod constantly judge issues in religion by a double standard; those who say what you already beleive must be right, while those who contradict those beliefs must be wrong. Have you ever heard of judging issues in ANY subject by objective reality? That's the ONLY way to discover consistent truth. If there is a God and he created the universe, then the only way to know him is to study his creation. NOT read some man-made book that is called the Word of God. There is no such thing, because critical analysis has debunked the notions about such a thing. But phony Biblical apologists keep lying to their flock about the issues and idiots like you keep lapping up their baseless crap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dale,

Don't you think that statements like you just made are exactly the kind of statements that you deem bigoted and judgemental coming from myself, FL, etc.?  Can't u see that?  You, yourself, are telling me the "ONLY" way to discover objective truth.  

Think about that for a little bit.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 23 2011,22:05

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,15:12)
ETA: By the way, sex IS a game! reproduction is the final goal, but you do have to practice. And as with boxing, dancing... you need to try multiple sparing partners in order to get full potential...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... or to fully appreciate the right partner when you finally do find them.

Anecdote: I have an acquaintance who was seriously considering sexual therapy because she and her husband both thought she was frigid. Of course they were both virgins when they married. He eventually bailed out, and she later learned there was nothing wrong with her, he was just a lousy lover.

By your standars, ftk, she would have lived the rest of her life in ignorance and misery. I can't believe any True Christian™ would wish that on another (she was married to a Lutheran minister).
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,22:18

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:01)
 
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,21:49)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,21:30)
Just for future reference, I've spent a lifetime listening to arguments that go against my biblical POV.  In the past 10 years alone, I believe I've probably heard them all.  But, feel free to further enlighten me, just as I'll throw the ball right back at ya...:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Closed minded bigots like yourself, FL, and IBeleiveInGod constantly judge issues in religion by a double standard; those who say what you already beleive must be right, while those who contradict those beliefs must be wrong. Have you ever heard of judging issues in ANY subject by objective reality? That's the ONLY way to discover consistent truth. If there is a God and he created the universe, then the only way to know him is to study his creation. NOT read some man-made book that is called the Word of God. There is no such thing, because critical analysis has debunked the notions about such a thing. But phony Biblical apologists keep lying to their flock about the issues and idiots like you keep lapping up their baseless crap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dale,

Don't you think that statements like you just made are exactly the kind of statements that you deem bigoted and judgemental coming from myself, FL, etc.?  Can't u see that?  You, yourself, are telling me the "ONLY" way to discover objective truth.  

Think about that for a little bit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, of course not. If you are saying that there is no objective truth, then why push the Bible on anyone at all? It's just another book, right? No, you think it's the Word of God, so you are claiming a source of absolute truth. Except in my case, I know that man made all the Bibles in the world, while man could not possibly have made the universe itself we live in. That's the difference between science and extremist religion like yours.

It's that sort of dishonest "you too" bull$#it that cuts off rational discussion and makes you look stupid. You and Kris the Krazy need to get a room together.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,22:23

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 23 2011,22:05)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,15:12)
ETA: By the way, sex IS a game! reproduction is the final goal, but you do have to practice. And as with boxing, dancing... you need to try multiple sparing partners in order to get full potential...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... or to fully appreciate the right partner when you finally do find them.

Anecdote: I have an acquaintance who was seriously considering sexual therapy because she and her husband both thought she was frigid. Of course they were both virgins when they married. He eventually bailed out, and she later learned there was nothing wrong with her, he was just a lousy lover.

By your standars, ftk, she would have lived the rest of her life in ignorance and misery. I can't believe any True Christian™ would wish that on another (she was married to a Lutheran minister).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, how many partners do you think is required before you find the perfect lover and make a commitment?  10, 20, 30?  And, can you ever really be sure that you didn't miss out on that perfect fuck?  Maybe she's still out there, but now you're stuck with what you have.  

And, do you think that everyone who has tested the water innumerable times will end up with the perfect sex life?  Do you really?

I read an article with statistics about this very subject a while back, and the conclusion was that the less partners a person has the happier they are with their sex life and their marriage as well.  No, I can't remember where I saw it so it's fine to call me a liar.  I'll try to dig it up if I can.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,22:29

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,22:18)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:01)
   
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,21:49)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,21:30)
Just for future reference, I've spent a lifetime listening to arguments that go against my biblical POV.  In the past 10 years alone, I believe I've probably heard them all.  But, feel free to further enlighten me, just as I'll throw the ball right back at ya...:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Closed minded bigots like yourself, FL, and IBeleiveInGod constantly judge issues in religion by a double standard; those who say what you already beleive must be right, while those who contradict those beliefs must be wrong. Have you ever heard of judging issues in ANY subject by objective reality? That's the ONLY way to discover consistent truth. If there is a God and he created the universe, then the only way to know him is to study his creation. NOT read some man-made book that is called the Word of God. There is no such thing, because critical analysis has debunked the notions about such a thing. But phony Biblical apologists keep lying to their flock about the issues and idiots like you keep lapping up their baseless crap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dale,

Don't you think that statements like you just made are exactly the kind of statements that you deem bigoted and judgemental coming from myself, FL, etc.?  Can't u see that?  You, yourself, are telling me the "ONLY" way to discover objective truth.  

Think about that for a little bit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, of course not. If you are saying that there is no objective truth, then why push the Bible on anyone at all? It's just another book, right? No, you think it's the Word of God, so you are claiming a source of absolute truth. Except in my case, I know that man made all the Bibles in the world, while man could not possibly have made the universe itself we live in. That's the difference between science and extremist religion like yours.

It's that sort of dishonest "you too" bull$#it that cuts off rational discussion and makes you look stupid. You and Kris the Krazy need to get a room together.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dale you just told me that there is only ONE WAY to discover consistent truth.  Then you turn around and tell me that I cannot believe that I have found truth in God and His word.  

So, why the double standard?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 23 2011,22:31

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:41)
delete duplicate
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Khan, I can't answer that.  It's not my place to judge...that is God's job, and he is a very forgiving God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Objection!  Assertion assumes facts not in evidence and is (in light of a review of the literature) counterfactual.

And I still haven't gotten an answer--what sentence do you consider appropriate for these horrid slatterns who dare seek the MURDER of their innocent fetuses?

Your assumption and extrapolation from an undetermined sample size is noted.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 23 2011,22:34

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:44)
Well, shame on them then.  That is not how Christ would respond.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Objection!  Assumes facts not in evidence.  Also No True Scotsman fallacy...


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,22:38

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 23 2011,22:31)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:41)
delete duplicate
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Khan, I can't answer that.  It's not my place to judge...that is God's job, and he is a very forgiving God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Objection!  Assertion assumes facts not in evidence and is (in light of a review of the literature) counterfactual.

And I still haven't gotten an answer--what sentence do you consider appropriate for these horrid slatterns who dare seek the MURDER of their innocent fetuses?

Your assumption and extrapolation from an undetermined sample size is noted.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What sentence?  Umm....none?  I think I've stated several times that I have no opinion as to the legality of abortion.  I prefer to keep government out of it.  Education, counseling and support should be a priority here, not a sentence of some sort for those who chose abortion.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 23 2011,22:39

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,19:53)
Free will Badger....seeing how people respond today to God's will, I don't think telling them to 'stop' would have accomplished a thing.  He doesn't change His laws...we do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Objection, assumes facts not in evidence...

You have read the Old Testament, perhaps?  In that very work of fiction your imaginary friend does not come across as particularly kind, nor forgiving, nor loving except perhaps in the same way as an abusive spouse.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,22:39

[quote=Ftk,Jan. 23 2011,22:29][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dale you just told me that there is only ONE WAY to discover consistent truth.  Then you turn around and tell me that I cannot believe that I have found truth in God and His word.  

So, why the double standard?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why are you lying outright about me having a double standard? You are so full of it it's not even funny! If your only response to me is to lie about what I said and meant, no wonder P Z Myers banned you from Pharyngula! I would have too!
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,22:41

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 23 2011,22:34)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:44)
Well, shame on them then.  That is not how Christ would respond.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Objection!  Assumes facts not in evidence.  Also No True Scotsman fallacy...


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can call it what you will.  It's the truth.  Christ showed compasion and love for those in need.  He was more apt to judge those who claimed to be of God than those who weren't.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,22:43

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:38)
What sentence?  Umm....none?  I think I've stated several times that I have no opinion as to the legality of abortion.  I prefer to keep government out of it.  Education, counseling and support should be a priority here, not a sentence of some sort for those who chose abortion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you saying you are actually pro-choice?! Then your whole argument falls apart. If you really thought abortion was an objective moral issue, you would seek to get the government involved in enforcing your values. If not.....
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,22:44

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,22:39)
[quote=Ftk,Jan. 23 2011,22:29][/quote]
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dale you just told me that there is only ONE WAY to discover consistent truth.  Then you turn around and tell me that I cannot believe that I have found truth in God and His word.  

So, why the double standard?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why are you lying outright about me having a double standard? You are so full of it it's not even funny! If your only response to me is to lie about what I said and meant, no wonder P Z Myers banned you from Pharyngula! I would have too!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm....maybe you're not understanding what I'm getting at.  I'll try to think of another way to phrase it.  If anyone else gets what I'm saying, maybe you can help me explain it to Dale.  If none of you get it...lol...I guess Im screwed.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 23 2011,22:47

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:38)
What sentence?  Umm....none?  I think I've stated several times that I have no opinion as to the legality of abortion.  I prefer to keep government out of it.  Education, counseling and support should be a priority here, not a sentence of some sort for those who chose abortion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for answering my question.  That'll do nicely, in fact.

Too bad so many of your fellow True BeLIEvers (tm pat pend) don't agree with you on that score.  Funny thing is, they'll say that you're the one in the wrong...and you have nothing to clearly demonstrate why your interpretation of the magic book is more accurate.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 23 2011,22:50

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:41)
You can call it what you will.  It's the truth.  Christ showed compasion and love for those in need.  He was more apt to judge those who claimed to be of God than those who weren't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry, but what part of "assumes facts not in evidence" did you not understand?  You are parroting mythology, not speaking truth.  There's a big difference.

Your imaginary friend is in your head, nowhere else.  If you have evidence to the contrary, show it.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 23 2011,22:52

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,20:23)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 23 2011,22:05)
   
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,15:12)
ETA: By the way, sex IS a game! reproduction is the final goal, but you do have to practice. And as with boxing, dancing... you need to try multiple sparing partners in order to get full potential...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... or to fully appreciate the right partner when you finally do find them.

Anecdote: I have an acquaintance who was seriously considering sexual therapy because she and her husband both thought she was frigid. Of course they were both virgins when they married. He eventually bailed out, and she later learned there was nothing wrong with her, he was just a lousy lover.

By your standars, ftk, she would have lived the rest of her life in ignorance and misery. I can't believe any True Christian™ would wish that on another (she was married to a Lutheran minister).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, how many partners do you think is required before you find the perfect lover and make a commitment?  10, 20, 30?  And, can you ever really be sure that you didn't miss out on that perfect fuck?  Maybe she's still out there, but now you're stuck with what you have.  

And, do you think that everyone who has tested the water innumerable times will end up with the perfect sex life?  Do you really?

(snip)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



O FFS, ftk. Really? That's how you argue?  Making shit up, adding bizarre -- no, insane -- extrapolations, and throwing in boneheaded hyperbolic questions?

How should I know what makes other people happy? I know I got the right one now, but it took some searching. My step-daughter, OTOH, will probably marry the guy she's with now, her first.  Could be perfectly happy for the rest of her life. Not for me to say. Different strokes. (shrug)

Of course people should look before they leap. But horny teenagers aren't going to listen to me any more than they are to... oh, say, you, for instance.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,22:54

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:44)
 
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,22:39)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:29)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dale you just told me that there is only ONE WAY to discover consistent truth.  Then you turn around and tell me that I cannot believe that I have found truth in God and His word.  

So, why the double standard?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why are you lying outright about me having a double standard? You are so full of it it's not even funny! If your only response to me is to lie about what I said and meant, no wonder P Z Myers banned you from Pharyngula! I would have too!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm....maybe you're not understanding what I'm getting at.  I'll try to think of another way to phrase it.  If anyone else gets what I'm saying, maybe you can help me explain it to Dale.  If none of you get it...lol...I guess Im screwed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, I get exactly what you were saying, FTK. You  beleive that your faith in the Bible (a man-made book) should be put on the same level as a scientist's trust in the results of modern science (which involves studying the universe, things within it, and the physical and chemical laws that govern them, which only God could have made).

No, you are wrong. Indeed, you are an idiot! If reality contradicts the Bible, a true beleiver in God would conclude that the Bible is NOT the Word of God and seek knowledge of God from science alone. Do you? Appearantly not! Putting your religious faith in something man-made, and calling that thing God-made instead, is idolatry and blasphemy.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,22:58

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,22:43)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:38)
What sentence?  Umm....none?  I think I've stated several times that I have no opinion as to the legality of abortion.  I prefer to keep government out of it.  Education, counseling and support should be a priority here, not a sentence of some sort for those who chose abortion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you saying you are actually pro-choice?! Then your whole argument falls apart. If you really thought abortion was an objective moral issue, you would seek to get the government involved in enforcing your values. If not.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's."  

Christ never said anything about a worldly government take over.  His ministry was ultimately about truth, love and eternal life.  That means that a "Christian nation" is not a necessity for me.  My beliefs that lead me to vote according to God's will is NOT because I want to shove my views down someone elses throat or make them live a particular way.  I'll vote the way for what I think is best accordingly to my worldview just as you will for yours.  It's dangerous having a particular religion having ultimate control....I have no problem with separation of Church and State unless it's taken so far from context that the Church doesn't have the same rights as everyone else.  Furthermore, if a "Christian Nation" was established, what form of "Christianity" would that be???  

I can state my opinions and vote according to my biblical beliefs.  But, if the majority vote is against my POV, so be it.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,23:00

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 23 2011,22:47)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:38)
What sentence?  Umm....none?  I think I've stated several times that I have no opinion as to the legality of abortion.  I prefer to keep government out of it.  Education, counseling and support should be a priority here, not a sentence of some sort for those who chose abortion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for answering my question.  That'll do nicely, in fact.

Too bad so many of your fellow True BeLIEvers (tm pat pend) don't agree with you on that score.  Funny thing is, they'll say that you're the one in the wrong...and you have nothing to clearly demonstrate why your interpretation of the magic book is more accurate.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps, but neither do they.  "Shouts and whispers"....as I said earlier.  People need to just shut up and help each other the best they can instead of cut each other apart for their choices.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 23 2011,23:09

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,23:00)
People need to just shut up and help each other the best they can instead of cut each other apart for their choices.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There, at least, we are in full agreement.

Unfortunately, honesty demands that I point out quite firmly that the majority of people who see fit to tear others apart for their choices is on the 'believer' side of the line...and they justify it by appeal to the magic book about their imaginary friend.  So you do yourself no good to forward mythology and treat it as indisputable fact.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,23:10

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 23 2011,22:50)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:41)
You can call it what you will.  It's the truth.  Christ showed compasion and love for those in need.  He was more apt to judge those who claimed to be of God than those who weren't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry, but what part of "assumes facts not in evidence" did you not understand?  You are parroting mythology, not speaking truth.  There's a big difference.

Your imaginary friend is in your head, nowhere else.  If you have evidence to the contrary, show it.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure you've been given an abundant amount of evidence and rejected it all.  I honestly don't understand how people can be so divided on the subject.  The only thing I can come up with is what appears more and more all the time to be correct.  You either have the holy spirit in your heart or you don't.  You either see or you don't.  It's the only explantion I can find to understand how what I know to be true (and proven with little doubt) is so completely rejected and misunderstood by some.  

Yes, call me delusional, conceited, bigoted, etc., etc.,.  I really don't mind anymore.  I know there is a God...it's abundantly clear and why some don't see that.....it's a mystery. I know I don't have everything right, but there is a God and there is a reason for us being where and who we are.  And, I won't apologize for the sermon.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,23:21

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 23 2011,23:09)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,23:00)
People need to just shut up and help each other the best they can instead of cut each other apart for their choices.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There, at least, we are in full agreement.

Unfortunately, honesty demands that I point out quite firmly that the majority of people who see fit to tear others apart for their choices is on the 'believer' side of the line...and they justify it by appeal to the magic book about their imaginary friend.  So you do yourself no good to forward mythology and treat it as indisputable fact.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There you are doing the same thing as Dale.  If it was only the 'believer's' side of the line that was claiming their way is the only way, and that they are the only ones "tearing others apart" we wouldn't have any arguments, would we?  Do none of you get that?  Can't you see that both sides are pushing for their own beliefs and, agendas and worldview?  *Both* sides tear at each other.  We need to all stop with the anger, quit being so defensive and try to understand each other rather than play the blame game.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,23:25

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:58)
"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's."  

Christ never said anything about a worldly government take over.  His ministry was ultimately about truth, love and eternal life.  That means that a "Christian nation" is not a necessity for me.  My beliefs that lead me to vote according to God's will is NOT because I want to shove my views down someone elses throat or make them live a particular way.  I'll vote the way for what I think is best accordingly to my worldview just as you will for yours.  It's dangerous having a particular religion having ultimate control....I have no problem with separation of Church and State unless it's taken so far from context that the Church doesn't have the same rights as everyone else.  Furthermore, if a "Christian Nation" was established, what form of "Christianity" would that be???  

I can state my opinions and vote according to my biblical beliefs.  But, if the majority vote is against my POV, so be it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here are a couple of things I have written about abortion. See what you think:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/627284 >

Anti-abortion arguments that are RATIONAL

There are several reasons why abortion should be outlawed, or at least severely restricted:

1. It is an act of violence.  Many people oppose war and the death penalty because they destroy human life, and oppose hunting for sport because it destroys animal life wantonly. How can humans unborn be given less consideration than animals?

1. It encourages a throw-away attitude.  If we are opposed to littering and want more people to recycle bottles and paper, why throw away unborn children?
3. It leaves many couples who can't have children with fewer opportunities to adopt.    Experience indicates that people who are parents, whether by birth or adoption, tend to be more disciplined themselves, because they have to teach their own children how to behave.

4. It would force people to be more disciplined in their sex lives.  Knowing that abortion would not be an option would make many people think twice about having sex without using protection.

5. My wife has disabilities from birth.  If she had been aborted, I probably wouldn't be married now.

We need to get RELIGION out of the abortion debate. To oppose birth control and insist on abstinence is hypocrisy and reason enough to shut down the Catholic Church. The sex drive in some organisms, and perhaps in some people, is even stronger than the instinct for self-preservation. Natural selection made sure of that!

To lessen the number of abortions we need to do the following:

1. More sex education in the schools.   Those who claim that such education encourages more sexual activity put the cart before the horse. I know from experience that abstinence pledges simply do not work. Period!

2. Better and more readily available birth control methods.   Even condoms often fail, so they should be deemphasized in favor of the pill or even sterilization. And sterilization should be offered for FREE at most hospitals.

3. STOP ALL ABSTINENCE PROGRAMS!  Discredit them publicly with the facts.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See why I demanded you stop the Godbotting? It doesn't work, except to show and spread irrational prejudice instead of promoting objective reason.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/967727 >

Abortion rights and fetal personhood


This blog is made to address the question of: "When can the personhood of a developing embryo or fetus be legally defined?"

And before we can do that, we must also define what a "person" is.

What makes a person, as opposed to a mere ball of cells or even a fully developed animal? Of course, if you are an animal rights activist, you will also claim that even most animals have a natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but since animals in nature constantly kill and eat each other, and since we are talking about a legal matter applicable only to humans, let's assume that argument does not apply and that we are only talking about humans and what makes them different from all other animals.

Certainly, if we judge personhood by genetics, we'd have to conceed the point that a human being is a unique individual from conception onward. But that does not define personhood, because skin cells or blood shed from a human also have unique genetic characteristics, which is what makes DNA testing possible. Yet they are in most cases no longer even alive. A person is the totality of his body, not just its individual cells.

Having disposed of the animals rights issue and the genetics issue, let us focus on the one thing that truly separates humans from other animals: their brains.

Of course, whales and elephants have brains far bigger than humans, but they also have larger bodies. Indeed, human brain to body proportions are much greater than any other animals species.

But what really makes human brains special is not just their size, but their cerebral cortexes. So it would be reasonable to conclude than when the cerebral cortex has reached a certain level of development in the human fetus, then we can say that fetus has reached a level of personhood and should now be legally protected.

When is this? Let's look at the actual data:

< http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/dev.html >

It would appear that the brain of an embryo/fetus starts to develop its cerebral cortex at 11 weeks and the process is nearly complete at 8 months, long after the fetus has reached the physical level of viability (able to survive outside the womb).

But appearances can be misleading. For the next step in our research, we should look into brain wave patterns in embryos or fetuses.

< http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm >

26 weeks or 6 months: The fetus 14" long and almost two pounds. The lungs' bronchioles develop. Interlinking of the brain's neurons begins. The higher functions of the fetal brain turn on for the first time. Some rudimentary brain waves can be detected. The fetus will be able to feel pain for the first time. It has become conscious of its surroundings. The fetus has become a sentient human life for the first time.

That's it! From a strictly scientific and logical perspective, fetal personhood may be legally defined as starting at 26 weeks. However,

22 weeks or 5 months: 12" long and weighing about a pound, the fetus has hair on its head. Its movements can be felt. An abortion is usually unavailable at this gestational age because of state and province medical society regulations, except under very unusual circumstances. Half-way through the 22nd week, the fetus' lungs may be developed to the point where it would have a miniscule chance to live on its own. State laws and medical association regulations generally outlaw almost all abortions beyond 20 or 21 weeks gestation. "A baby born during the 22nd week has a 14.8 percent chance of survival. And about half of these survivors are brain-damaged, either by lack of oxygen (from poor initial respiration) or too much oxygen (from the ventilator). Neonatologists predict that no baby will ever be viable before the 22nd week, because before then the lungs are not fully formed." 4 Of course, if someone develops an artificial womb, then this limit could change suddenly.


So we might play it safe and push back a legal definition of personhood to 22 weeks, to avoid the possibility of aborting a viable fetus. Ban abortion after that, but allow it before that.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is a perfect example of using science and reason to address a hot issue, not religion!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 23 2011,23:26

OH HAI



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We need to all stop with the anger, quit being so defensive and try to understand each other rather than play the blame game.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



sure thing.  just.as.soon. as they stop trying to teach bullshit in science class.

and besides i think all you white people are crazy don't know what this "both sides" stuff is.  lol
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 23 2011,23:28

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,23:10)
I'm sure you've been given an abundant amount of evidence and rejected it all.  I honestly don't understand how people can be so divided on the subject.  The only thing I can come up with is what appears more and more all the time to be correct.  You either have the holy spirit in your heart or you don't.  You either see or you don't.  It's the only explantion I can find to understand how what I know to be true (and proven with little doubt) is so completely rejected and misunderstood by some.  

Yes, call me delusional, conceited, bigoted, etc., etc.,.  I really don't mind anymore.  I know there is a God...it's abundantly clear and why some don't see that.....it's a mystery. I know I don't have everything right, but there is a God and there is a reason for us being where and who we are.  And, I won't apologize for the sermon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope: not a speck.  I have heard testimony, anecdote, assertion after assertion, and hours and hours of religious instruction.  I have seen and read more than you would be likely to guess, and listened for a long time to more voices than you might be willing to believe.  No actual evidence of any deity claimed to be, or to have been, has ever been presented, period.

That you believe is not in dispute.  That you have your reasons is also not in dispute.  The content of your beliefs...ah, that's another matter.

You are indeed delusional*--you have an imaginary friend, which at any age over twelve ought to be a source of profound embarrassment instead of a culturally coddled construct.  Further, you hold this imaginary friend to be more important than the very real people and relationships around you...possibly to the detriment of some, or worse than detriment.  You lift an ancient anthology of questionable accuracy and dubious scholarship up onto a pedestal and treat it as the guide to life, regardless of the actual contents.  (I give you credit for not going so far as some other delusional persons, who quote it as if it were indisputably authoritative.)  

You even have this pat little excuse for people who don't accept your interpretation--they're not full of the Holy Spirit, or led astray by Teh Debbil, or Not True Scotsmen, or they hate Baby Jeebus and Gawd, or whatever.  How very convenient!  It isn't possible, simply isn't possible, that you might be wrong...

You need not apologize for the sermon: you can't help it.

Here is an exercise for you: replace the word 'God' with the word 'Zeus'.  See if your protestations and declarations don't sound a little silly with the imaginary friend switched out.  Alternately, explain to me why you don't believe in Odin the All-Father...


The MadPanda, FCD


* Delusional is not the same thing as unsane.  We all have our little opinions that are not necessarily supported by objective evidence.  Ask any sports fan or dog lover or, dare I say it, sci fi fan...
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 23 2011,23:37

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,23:21)
There you are doing the same thing as Dale.  If it was only the 'believer's' side of the line that was claiming their way is the only way, and that they are the only ones "tearing others apart" we wouldn't have any arguments, would we?  Do none of you get that?  Can't you see that both sides are pushing for their own beliefs and, agendas and worldview?  *Both* sides tear at each other.  We need to all stop with the anger, quit being so defensive and try to understand each other rather than play the blame game.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a false equivalence, at best.  Even if I were to grant you the NOMA, which I don't, only one side actually has practical support.

There is this thing called reality.  It does not go away when you decide to stop believing in it.  It is also a harsh mistress and a firm taskmaster (if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor).

If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to present evidence.  Not anecdote, not testimony, not quote scripture, not assertions...evidence.

What part of that are you not willing to understand?


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,23:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm sure you've been given an abundant amount of evidence and rejected it all.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What evidence? That's a cop-out.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I honestly don't understand how people can be so divided on the subject.  The only thing I can come up with is what appears more and more all the time to be correct.  You either have the holy spirit in your heart or you don't.  You either see or you don't.  It's the only explantion I can find to understand how what I know to be true (and proven with little doubt) is so completely rejected and misunderstood by some.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your assertions, like those of the Bible, are not evidence for anything.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, call me delusional, conceited, bigoted, etc., etc.,.  I really don't mind anymore.  I know there is a God...it's abundantly clear and why some don't see that.....it's a mystery. I know I don't have everything right, but there is a God and there is a reason for us being where and who we are.  And, I won't apologize for the sermon.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are delusional, not merely for beleiving in a God, but for claiming that you "know" there is one! The sheer arrogance you have is incredible.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There you are doing the same thing as Dale.  If it was only the 'believer's' side of the line that was claiming their way is the only way, and that they are the only ones "tearing others apart" we wouldn't have any arguments, would we?  Do none of you get that?  Can't you see that both sides are pushing for their own beliefs and, agendas and worldview?  *Both* sides tear at each other.  We need to all stop with the anger, quit being so defensive and try to understand each other rather than play the blame game.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uh, since we are pro-CHOICE, not insisting that people have an abortion because we want them to, you just lied again!
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,23:43

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,23:25)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:58)
"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's."  

Christ never said anything about a worldly government take over.  His ministry was ultimately about truth, love and eternal life.  That means that a "Christian nation" is not a necessity for me.  My beliefs that lead me to vote according to God's will is NOT because I want to shove my views down someone elses throat or make them live a particular way.  I'll vote the way for what I think is best accordingly to my worldview just as you will for yours.  It's dangerous having a particular religion having ultimate control....I have no problem with separation of Church and State unless it's taken so far from context that the Church doesn't have the same rights as everyone else.  Furthermore, if a "Christian Nation" was established, what form of "Christianity" would that be???  

I can state my opinions and vote according to my biblical beliefs.  But, if the majority vote is against my POV, so be it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here are a couple of things I have written about abortion. See what you think:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/627284 >

Anti-abortion arguments that are RATIONAL

There are several reasons why abortion should be outlawed, or at least severely restricted:

1. It is an act of violence.  Many people oppose war and the death penalty because they destroy human life, and oppose hunting for sport because it destroys animal life wantonly. How can humans unborn be given less consideration than animals?

1. It encourages a throw-away attitude.  If we are opposed to littering and want more people to recycle bottles and paper, why throw away unborn children?
3. It leaves many couples who can't have children with fewer opportunities to adopt.    Experience indicates that people who are parents, whether by birth or adoption, tend to be more disciplined themselves, because they have to teach their own children how to behave.

4. It would force people to be more disciplined in their sex lives.  Knowing that abortion would not be an option would make many people think twice about having sex without using protection.

5. My wife has disabilities from birth.  If she had been aborted, I probably wouldn't be married now.

We need to get RELIGION out of the abortion debate. To oppose birth control and insist on abstinence is hypocrisy and reason enough to shut down the Catholic Church. The sex drive in some organisms, and perhaps in some people, is even stronger than the instinct for self-preservation. Natural selection made sure of that!

To lessen the number of abortions we need to do the following:

1. More sex education in the schools.   Those who claim that such education encourages more sexual activity put the cart before the horse. I know from experience that abstinence pledges simply do not work. Period!

2. Better and more readily available birth control methods.   Even condoms often fail, so they should be deemphasized in favor of the pill or even sterilization. And sterilization should be offered for FREE at most hospitals.

3. STOP ALL ABSTINENCE PROGRAMS!  Discredit them publicly with the facts.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See why I demanded you stop the Godbotting? It doesn't work, except to show and spread irrational prejudice instead of promoting objective reason.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/967727 >

Abortion rights and fetal personhood


This blog is made to address the question of: "When can the personhood of a developing embryo or fetus be legally defined?"

And before we can do that, we must also define what a "person" is.

What makes a person, as opposed to a mere ball of cells or even a fully developed animal? Of course, if you are an animal rights activist, you will also claim that even most animals have a natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but since animals in nature constantly kill and eat each other, and since we are talking about a legal matter applicable only to humans, let's assume that argument does not apply and that we are only talking about humans and what makes them different from all other animals.

Certainly, if we judge personhood by genetics, we'd have to conceed the point that a human being is a unique individual from conception onward. But that does not define personhood, because skin cells or blood shed from a human also have unique genetic characteristics, which is what makes DNA testing possible. Yet they are in most cases no longer even alive. A person is the totality of his body, not just its individual cells.

Having disposed of the animals rights issue and the genetics issue, let us focus on the one thing that truly separates humans from other animals: their brains.

Of course, whales and elephants have brains far bigger than humans, but they also have larger bodies. Indeed, human brain to body proportions are much greater than any other animals species.

But what really makes human brains special is not just their size, but their cerebral cortexes. So it would be reasonable to conclude than when the cerebral cortex has reached a certain level of development in the human fetus, then we can say that fetus has reached a level of personhood and should now be legally protected.

When is this? Let's look at the actual data:

< http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/dev.html >

It would appear that the brain of an embryo/fetus starts to develop its cerebral cortex at 11 weeks and the process is nearly complete at 8 months, long after the fetus has reached the physical level of viability (able to survive outside the womb).

But appearances can be misleading. For the next step in our research, we should look into brain wave patterns in embryos or fetuses.

< http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm >

26 weeks or 6 months: The fetus 14" long and almost two pounds. The lungs' bronchioles develop. Interlinking of the brain's neurons begins. The higher functions of the fetal brain turn on for the first time. Some rudimentary brain waves can be detected. The fetus will be able to feel pain for the first time. It has become conscious of its surroundings. The fetus has become a sentient human life for the first time.

That's it! From a strictly scientific and logical perspective, fetal personhood may be legally defined as starting at 26 weeks. However,

22 weeks or 5 months: 12" long and weighing about a pound, the fetus has hair on its head. Its movements can be felt. An abortion is usually unavailable at this gestational age because of state and province medical society regulations, except under very unusual circumstances. Half-way through the 22nd week, the fetus' lungs may be developed to the point where it would have a miniscule chance to live on its own. State laws and medical association regulations generally outlaw almost all abortions beyond 20 or 21 weeks gestation. "A baby born during the 22nd week has a 14.8 percent chance of survival. And about half of these survivors are brain-damaged, either by lack of oxygen (from poor initial respiration) or too much oxygen (from the ventilator). Neonatologists predict that no baby will ever be viable before the 22nd week, because before then the lungs are not fully formed." 4 Of course, if someone develops an artificial womb, then this limit could change suddenly.


So we might play it safe and push back a legal definition of personhood to 22 weeks, to avoid the possibility of aborting a viable fetus. Ban abortion after that, but allow it before that.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is a perfect example of using science and reason to address a hot issue, not religion!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dale,

I believe I made almost all those same points in our previous discussions-no God botting necessary.  You were the one that brought up crimes against Jesus or whatever it was you said, and I told you that Jesus had nothing to do with it.  

Ultimately, you believe the same things the I do as well as what the Bible teaches.  That sucks, eh?  You're arguing with me for no reason other than you can't stand the thought of holding to anything biblical.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,23:45

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 23 2011,23:37)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,23:21)
There you are doing the same thing as Dale.  If it was only the 'believer's' side of the line that was claiming their way is the only way, and that they are the only ones "tearing others apart" we wouldn't have any arguments, would we?  Do none of you get that?  Can't you see that both sides are pushing for their own beliefs and, agendas and worldview?  *Both* sides tear at each other.  We need to all stop with the anger, quit being so defensive and try to understand each other rather than play the blame game.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a false equivalence, at best.  Even if I were to grant you the NOMA, which I don't, only one side actually has practical support.

There is this thing called reality.  It does not go away when you decide to stop believing in it.  It is also a harsh mistress and a firm taskmaster (if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor).

If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to present evidence.  Not anecdote, not testimony, not quote scripture, not assertions...evidence.

What part of that are you not willing to understand?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right, and not that book full of crap titled "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by professional con-artist and all around idiot Josh McDowell. REAL evidence, FTK! Something that cannot be debunked by reality!
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,23:45

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 23 2011,23:26)
OH HAI



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We need to all stop with the anger, quit being so defensive and try to understand each other rather than play the blame game.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



sure thing.  just.as.soon. as they stop trying to teach bullshit in science class.

and besides i think all you white people are crazy don't know what this "both sides" stuff is.  lol
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OH HAI Erasmus...it's been a while....kisses & hugs...;P
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 23 2011,23:50

Night folks...past my bedtime.  Thanks for the convos..interesting way to spend a cold, boring day.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,23:52

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,23:43)
Dale,

I believe I made almost all those same points in our previous discussions-no God botting necessary.  You were the one that brought up crimes against Jesus or whatever it was you said, and I told you that Jesus had nothing to do with it.  

Ultimately, you believe the same things the I do as well as what the Bible teaches.  That sucks, eh?  You're arguing with me for no reason other than you can't stand the thought of holding to anything biblical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you not see the quote I gave from Psalms about killing babies? Go back and read that!

What I can't stand is dishonesty and stupidity, period.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 24 2011,00:02

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,23:52)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,23:43)
Dale,

I believe I made almost all those same points in our previous discussions-no God botting necessary.  You were the one that brought up crimes against Jesus or whatever it was you said, and I told you that Jesus had nothing to do with it.  

Ultimately, you believe the same things the I do as well as what the Bible teaches.  That sucks, eh?  You're arguing with me for no reason other than you can't stand the thought of holding to anything biblical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you not see the quote I gave from Psalms about killing babies? Go back and read that!

What I can't stand is dishonesty and stupidity, period.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She may not be dishonest so much as cognitively dissonant.  She has certainly mistaken truthiness for truth.

But we're so angry.  And defensive.  And obviously the only reason we don't accept her Trooth (tm pat pend) is that we aren't filled with a figment of her imagination, which is somehow subordinate to and yet part of her imaginary friend*.  (eyeroll)  I sense a bit of projection, here, but that may be my confirmation bias acting up.


The MadPanda, FCD

(* The doctrine of the Trinity is rather amusing, or would be if not for all the blood spilled over it across the years.)
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 24 2011,00:16

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 24 2011,00:02)
(* The doctrine of the Trinity is rather amusing, or would be if not for all the blood spilled over it across the years.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm a Unitarian Universalist. That means I don't beleive in the Trinity, I don't believe in eternal hell, and I insist on judging all religious claims by reason. Most of them don't pass the test. If there is a God, he cannot be seen, so assuming he must exist and calling that a fact is as delusional as it gets. But to be fair, I do not deny God's existence and thus would not call God anyone's imaginary friend. The Biblical vision of God is certainly bogus, though!
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 24 2011,00:37

Yes, Dale, I know you're a UU, but that's immaterial to the point I was making about the doctrine of the Trinity.

God counts as an imaginary friend whether you'd say so or not...unless you can provide evidence otherwise.   :)   If I am not going to allow Odin, Thor, Zeus, Cthulhu, Amaterasu, Shiva, Ganesh (regrettably), Hanuman (also regrettably), Inanna, or any of the other multitude of purported deities to pass for given, I'm certainly not going to do it for any prospective, undefined, unevidenced entity.  That would be disrespectful in the extreme, to make an exception for something more familiar simply because I'd grown up hearing about it.  (I am not agnostic about leprechauns, nor about unicorns, dragons, qiling, or flying monkeys.  Why should I blindly accept Bigfoot without plenty of evidence?)

Frankly, I'd settle for someone making a sincere effort to prove the supremacy of Ganesh.  He's supposed to be laid back and fond of parties, so if we must have a deity we could do worst.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 24 2011,02:59

FTK,
Should abortion be make illegal, what punishment would you deem appropriate for those who have illegal abortions?
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Jan. 24 2011,04:35

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 24 2011,03:59)
FTK,
Should abortion be make illegal, what punishment would you deem appropriate for those who have illegal abortions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Based on the "abortion is murder" reasoning, it should be a capital crime in death penalty states (like Kansas), right?  Premeditated murder of the tiny human being in her womb, right?  Ftk, should it be electric chair, lethal injection, hanging, or the firing squad?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 24 2011,05:11

Quite surprisingly, I find myself comming in defense of FTK.

In this particular conversation, she has clearly stated that she personnaly doesn't want a legislation promoting or condemning abortion. She stated her own personal opinion on the subject, laced with god-stuff because she has a system of belief and keeps to it. We don't care much about the god-stuff, and I would say that she is totaly free to believe as fervently as she does, if it helps her with her life. Because most loonies on her side of the religious spectrum are trying to impose their views and morals through legislation (on the issue of abortion, I mean) doesn't mean she does. For this one, I will not bag her with the other nutjobs.

On this particular issue, I find FTK to be reasonable (i.e in contrast to her past stance regarding ID in schools). I do not agree with what she's saying, but she's not forcing her views on anyone. So for now I am inclined to make concessions and discuss the issues without attacking her faith.

AFAIK, she could be an atheist and still have the same opinion about abortion. She's a mother, and I can totaly understand her view, even if I don't share it.

Exact same thing for sex and promiscuity. She didn't tell us that we were all evil sinners and where going to burn in hell. She stated her opinion based on her own experiences and those of people around her (not counting the unreferenced paper, which I find a bit dubious). We have had different experiences and know people that also had different experiences. And the bible has nothing to do with FTK's or anyone else's position on this subject.

So if FTK is ok to stop the god-stuff altogether, and we agree not to bring it on the table, this could be a very interesting discussion.

But I'm obviously stating the obvious...
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 24 2011,06:48

SD,

This presumes that FTK is telling the truth, and accurately representing it, when she says she is not trying to "force" her abortion views onto others.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's."  

Christ never said anything about a worldly government take over.  His ministry was ultimately about truth, love and eternal life.  That means that a "Christian nation" is not a necessity for me.  My beliefs that lead me to vote according to God's will is NOT because I want to shove my views down someone elses throat or make them live a particular way.  I'll vote the way for what I think is best accordingly to my worldview just as you will for yours.  It's dangerous having a particular religion having ultimate control....I have no problem with separation of Church and State unless it's taken so far from context that the Church doesn't have the same rights as everyone else.  Furthermore, if a "Christian Nation" was established, what form of "Christianity" would that be???  

I can state my opinions and vote according to my biblical beliefs.  But, if the majority vote is against my POV, so be it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I will take a reasonable amount of convincing that this is not faux reasonableness from FTK. But then I am truly a nasty bastard, and am probably doing her a disservice.

Things like this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can't you see that both sides are pushing for their own beliefs and, agendas and worldview?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Point me towards the opinion that little has changed and disingenuity is occuring. FTK loves a false equivalence, and loves an assertion about her invisible friend in the sky. All derives neatly from there for her.

"I'll just use my vote as my conscience dictates, just like you" is her cry. How reasonable! How democratically unobjectionable! Of course on this we can all agree, surely? And surely we can.

But this is not the sum of her claims now is it? Her opinion, which is rightly hers and I'll defend her right to have it and vote on it to the death, is equal to anyone else's, right? Wrong. Different opinions on how a situation should be managed out there in the real world have different consequences. Even if FTK and any pro-choice advocate can agree on a set of shared principles on an issue like abortion (bon chance!), getting her past the hurdle of enormous denial and cognitive dissonance to an acknowledgement that her cherished, voted on opinions have greater, measurable negative consequences than the cherished, voted on opinions of someone else out there in the real world is going to be unlikely. Getting her to acknowledge that this is something that matters is probably even harder.

FTK is in the glorious position of KNOWING what is right before she approaches the problem. Any problem. She has a little book of answers and all she has to do is follow god's word. God's word says abortion is wrong, well abortion is wrong. Oh she'll cherry pick a study here or there to "support" her position but she won't consider the consilient, wider data for a variety of reasons. Not least of which being that it is hard work and leads to conflicts with her preconceived notions. Note this is the point at which the FTKs of this world project this attitude back outwards. THEY reason from unexamined, unquestionable preconceived notions therefore EVERYONE reasons from unexamined, unquestionable preconceived notions in exactly the same way. She doesn't THINK god exists, she KNOWS. She doesn't THINK about her religious beliefs, she KNOWS them. She equally KNOWS that everybody else must be doing things the same way she is, anything else in inconceivable!

This is absolutely anti-knowledge, anti-reason, anti-intellectual. The idea that there might be a way to test ideas that doesn't rely on mythical authority has yet to occur to her, I'd imagine it frightens her. But then, as I've observed before, who'd have thought that the post-modernist, relativist Left would ally so neatly with the religious, authoritarian Right? They both hate the idea that there might be a way to test their ideas beyond reference to some authority (god's or their own). What these people think is pretty irrelevant, and usually mutually contradictory. HOW they think is important. Tragically I must scrub out that "they" and put in a "we", for there truly is no "them", there is only "us" and constant intellectual honesty and vigilance the price of admission.

By "telling the truth" above I don't mean to insinuate that the only possible alternative is that FTK is lying (i.e. deliberately, knowingly distorting a truth she is consciously aware of), there are many other possibilites. Personally, I favour "bullshitting" in the Harry Frankfurt sense. I think this is a massively underused term. "Bullshitting" in this sense refers to the user's intent with regards to something else, not the user's intent with regard to the truth. A liar know what the truth is and cares enough about it to deliberately deceive someone about it. A bullshitter is not interested in, and may not even know, what the truth is, they have another intent, another set of motives. A salesman is most likely a bullshitter, they want to sell. Their motivation is making the sale, making money. It doesn't actually matter to them if the widget is the greatest widget in the world or actually does what is claimed, what matters is that it sells. Sell the sizzle and whatever the sausage actually is will follow surely. This is not intended to impugn the honour and integrity of salesmen or FTK, and perhaps I've expressed it badly, but bullshitting is vastly more common than lying. Lying is the nasty one, bullshitting can be a forgivable vice by comparison.

FTK already knows what she needs to know about abortion, at least in her mind. Her prepackaged set of ideas tells her that it's wrong, she'll spin yarns, pick anecdotes and cherry pick data to minimise her own sense of cognitive dissonance. She is, after all, human, and that is what we, you and I included, do best in the face of cognitive dissonance. The trick is to be aware of it, and it's not an easy trick. Acknowledging that her claimed experience is not normative, and therefore inapplicable as a means of deciding what X to put where on what ballot paper regarding an issue like abortion, is something she simply is not capable of doing in my experience. As per usual, I will be simply overjoyed to be proven wrong and when this occurs I will shout it from the treetops. Forgive me if I find this unlikely.

Louis
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 24 2011,07:09

Louis, I never implied it was going to be a discussion prone to change her mind on the subject. I just said it would be an interesting discussion. And that if we could all debate in calm, polite, religion-free manners for a while, it would probably be quite nice.

I think that your definitions of bullshiting and lying are spot-on. Past experiences with FTK would point to bullshiting, but I feel inclined to give her the benefice of the doubt and see her arguments through. She says she will vote the way her heart and beliefs tell her to, but she also points out that she is against pro or anti abortion laws. This is the bit I am interested in. When you remember how adamant she was of ID being taught in science classes, I find her stance on the issue of abortion to be quite more reasonable: "I'm against it, but I won't force my views onto others by means of a law". She thinks abortion is bad, and who could blame her? She is, after all, a mother. But she didn't say (here at least) "abortion is bad, I want it outlawed and perpetrators prosecuted, condemned, executed".

This is where I think the debate would be interesting, as for once FTK is relatively reasonable and seems willing to see the other's POV (well, at least I hope so, else you can erase all I've said in my last two posts for the court transcript).

Again, I might be totaly mistaken and she might have a hidden agenda, but I'm willing to see where this is going. We'll never sway her, but maybe she'll kinda understand the opposite view a bit better, even if she still disagrees with it.

Yet again, the birthday dinner, subsequent massage and sexy time were lovely, so I think I might be blinded by the pink veil of happiness today...
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 24 2011,07:17

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 24 2011,13:09)
Louis, I never implied it was going to be a discussion prone to change her mind on the subject. I just said it would be an interesting discussion. And that if we could all debate in calm, polite, religion-free manners for a while, it would probably be quite nice.

I think that your definitions of bullshiting and lying are spot-on. Past experiences with FTK would point to bullshiting, but I feel inclined to give her the benefice of the doubt and see her arguments through. She says she will vote the way her heart and beliefs tell her to, but she also points out that she is against pro or anti abortion laws. This is the bit I am interested in. When you remember how adamant she was of ID being taught in science classes, I find her stance on the issue of abortion to be quite more reasonable: "I'm against it, but I won't force my views onto others by means of a law". She thinks abortion is bad, and who could blame her? She is, after all, a mother. But she didn't say (here at least) "abortion is bad, I want it outlawed and perpetrators prosecuted, condemned, executed".

This is where I think the debate would be interesting, as for once FTK is relatively reasonable and seems willing to see the other's POV (well, at least I hope so, else you can erase all I've said in my last two posts for the court transcript).

Again, I might be totaly mistaken and she might have a hidden agenda, but I'm willing to see where this is going. We'll never sway her, but maybe she'll kinda understand the opposite view a bit better, even if she still disagrees with it.

Yet again, the birthday dinner, subsequent massage and sexy time were lovely, so I think I might be blinded by the pink veil of happiness today...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh it would be quiet nice, I agree. I just didn't get a birthday dinner so I am clouded by the grey bastarding fog of scepticism. ;-)

Louis
Posted by: khan on Jan. 24 2011,11:01

Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 23 2011,20:41)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,16:52)
As for abortion, no woman is ever left unscared by a decision like that...it is with her for life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, FtK, I had abortion 4 years ago.  I got pregnant on purpose, because my partner of nearly nine years had been wheedling for half a decade about wanting children.  So, I finally relented, even though I had misgivings about him as both a father and a lifetime mate due to his insane jealousy, control freak nature, and steady decline toward Right Wing retardation over the years.

Two weeks into the pregnancy, before I knew for certain that I even WAS in such a condition, Psycho Boy decided that my willingness to have a baby MUST have been because I had cheated on him, gotten pregnant, and was trying to cuckold him, making him believe the child was his when it was actaully my lover's.  He screamed at me, called me a slut, told me that I'd better hope I wasn't pregnant because as soon as it was born he wanted a DNA test and if it wasn't his he was "going to punch [my] fucking face in".

So, I told him to go screw himself six ways from Sunday, told him not to let the door hit him in the ass on the way out, took a pregnancy test, found out I WAS pregnant, had to wait an extra week before I could get the chemical abortion, went back, took my pills, had a heavy period, and was MUCH better, thank you very much.

I have NEVER for one second regretted my decision.  I escaped a bad situation with a dangerous man and spared a kid (if I had even been able to carry to term) a miserable existence as an emotional weapon to be used by its mentally unbalanced father who would have NEVER surrendered his parental rights so would have, by law, been involved.

There's a whole website for women with stories like mine.  All who had abortions, and all who don't regret it.  I know that sick people like you rub your hands together with glee at the thought that "one day" we'll be sick with guilt and regret and be "judged".  Don't hold your breath, sister.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had an abortion in 1991 when I was 41 because I decided when I was ~10 that I would never give birth.
Posted by: the_ignored on Jan. 24 2011,12:24

Forgive me, but doesn't it seem that arguing with "Ftk" over abortion has gone slightly off the thread topic?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 24 2011,12:29

Quote (the_ignored @ Jan. 24 2011,18:24)
Forgive me, but doesn't it seem that arguing with "Ftk" over abortion has gone slightly off the thread topic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It clearly has, and maybe some mod (Wes, Lou, Kristine...) would be so kind as to split the topic?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 24 2011,13:09

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 24 2011,04:35)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 24 2011,03:59)
FTK,
Should abortion be make illegal, what punishment would you deem appropriate for those who have illegal abortions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Based on the "abortion is murder" reasoning, it should be a capital crime in death penalty states (like Kansas), right?  Premeditated murder of the tiny human being in her womb, right?  Ftk, should it be electric chair, lethal injection, hanging, or the firing squad?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, this is the thing for me. I've yet to hear anybody who supports removing the right to legal abortions say that the punishment for having one should be the death penalty.

Which is odd to me as it shows that there's an inconsistency in those peoples claims that they are either not aware of or don't want to face.

Anyway, sure, this is OT, but it's always OT when FTK is around  :p
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 24 2011,13:15

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 24 2011,19:09)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 24 2011,04:35)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 24 2011,03:59)
FTK,
Should abortion be make illegal, what punishment would you deem appropriate for those who have illegal abortions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Based on the "abortion is murder" reasoning, it should be a capital crime in death penalty states (like Kansas), right?  Premeditated murder of the tiny human being in her womb, right?  Ftk, should it be electric chair, lethal injection, hanging, or the firing squad?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, this is the thing for me. I've yet to hear anybody who supports removing the right to legal abortions say that the punishment for having one should be the death penalty.

Which is odd to me as it shows that there's an inconsistency in those peoples claims that they are either not aware of or don't want to face.

Anyway, sure, this is OT, but it's always OT when FTK is around  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In her defense (woot???) FTK never clearly proposed to remove anyone's right to abortion. She just stated her opinion.

But I admit it would be fun* to see a pro-life moron, screaming "death to the abortionists!!!".

Talk about logic...





*up to a point.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 24 2011,13:24

oh consistency is a cruel mistress and you can't expect everyone to continue to pay her way into the movies.

BUT at least FtK is playing well with others this time for now.  For fuck's sake this recent round of trollbotting makes everyone else look fantastic.  FtK please chime in and tell Kris all about it.  the hubby, walt brown, hon, herons, noah and the boys, whatev.  he needs a good dose of your domesticated whatever it is.  glad you are still kicking!
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 24 2011,13:29

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 24 2011,19:24)
oh consistency is a cruel mistress and you can't expect everyone to continue to pay her way into the movies.

BUT at least FtK is playing well with others this time for now.  For fuck's sake this recent round of trollbotting makes everyone else look fantastic.  FtK please chime in and tell Kris all about it.  the hubby, walt brown, hon, herons, noah and the boys, whatev.  he needs a good dose of your domesticated whatever it is.  glad you are still kicking!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
whatev.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did you actualy save typing time by removing 2 letters from a perfectly writable word?

Way to go Ras! great exemple for our (yet to be born) children!!!


:D
Posted by: the_ignored on Jan. 24 2011,13:53

This is great:  On that < post about abortion and PZ Myers > it seems that "Spacebunny" has decided that her hubby needs help.

Little twit just doesn't know when to leave well enough alone.  Though the same could be said of me.  :p
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 24 2011,15:47

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 24 2011,13:15)
In her defense (woot???) FTK never clearly proposed to remove anyone's right to abortion. She just stated her opinion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know. I'm not "attacking" FTK, all that was so, well, long time go. Just asking a question I'd like FTK in particular to answer as I assume that all things being equal FTK would in fact like to see abortion made illegal. And so I'm interested in her answer.

Correct me if I'm wrong in my assumptions, please, FTK.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 24 2011,17:16

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 24 2011,15:47)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 24 2011,13:15)
In her defense (woot???) FTK never clearly proposed to remove anyone's right to abortion. She just stated her opinion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know. I'm not "attacking" FTK, all that was so, well, long time go. Just asking a question I'd like FTK in particular to answer as I assume that all things being equal FTK would in fact like to see abortion made illegal. And so I'm interested in her answer.

Correct me if I'm wrong in my assumptions, please, FTK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< addressed already >

And, I suppose you're waiting for your hello hug and kiss too...~*muah*~
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 24 2011,19:02

Quote (the_ignored @ Jan. 24 2011,13:53)
This is great:  On that < post about abortion and PZ Myers > it seems that "Spacebunny" has decided that her hubby needs help.

Little twit just doesn't know when to leave well enough alone.  Though the same could be said of me.  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I haven't been traveling in the usual jaunts--that's the first I read of PZ's comments about meat. And probably the first time I ever thought: PZ is really stupid. I always thought he was self-absorbed--and everything had to be about him or he lost his patience--but still I had some begrudging respect for him. But that meat comment was dumb. It would be hard to imagine any other marquee atheist attempting—so blatantly—to draw attention to himself. See, I’m the PZ. I can always ratchet up my outrageousness just so people will talk about me.

I don’t think I ever agreed with this Vox Day creature before—but he was spot on when he wrote

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The awful thing is not that the pictures do not frighten him; they do not frighten me either. The awful thing is that he does not find them revolting like any normal human being with even a minimal amount of empathy would.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This was PZ, already the Tom Green of atheism, jumping the shark.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 24 2011,19:36

Should have known fetus fetishist heddle would show up
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 24 2011,19:49

Quote (khan @ Jan. 24 2011,19:36)
Should have known fetus fetishist heddle would show up
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And why should you "know" that? My views on abortion are mostly private. I almost never comment on abortion threads. I bet you could go through the abortion threads on AtBC and not find comments from me.

Can you provide any evidence that I am a "fetus fetishist?" (I'll answer for you: no you can't; you're making shit up.)

The point of commenting here is that I would like to think that even if I were pro-choice I would readily admit that PZ's comments were repulsive.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 24 2011,20:31

pearl clutching FTW.  for fucks sake have these dooshes never used the interwebz
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 24 2011,21:09

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 24 2011,20:31)
pearl clutching FTW.  for fucks sake have these dooshes never used the interwebz
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Notice also how heddle has, in complaining about PZ trying to make it all about himself, set in motion making it all about heddle?
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 24 2011,21:16

Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 24 2011,21:09)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 24 2011,20:31)
pearl clutching FTW.  for fucks sake have these dooshes never used the interwebz
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Notice also how heddle has, in complaining about PZ trying to make it all about himself, set in motion making it all about heddle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes I did notice that. Because it is well known that posting a comment about someone making all about himself is to make it all about one's self. Still, I was hoping that would slip through--but no fooling you! I'm so busted.

And I'm dheddle, dammit.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 24 2011,21:43

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 24 2011,20:49)
The point of commenting here is that I would like to think that even if I were pro-choice I would readily admit that PZ's comments were repulsive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But, you clearly AREN'T pro-choice so projecting your own squik threshold on those who don't share your particular bias is rather pointless.

I happen to agree with PZ and you and other religiously motivated knicker twisters can get the vapours all you want. Just stay the fuck off of my fainting couch, you wankers.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 24 2011,21:44

Heddle can't help it.  He's a Calvinist.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 25 2011,03:02

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 24 2011,17:16)
And, I suppose you're waiting for your hello hug and kiss too...~*muah*~
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I'm waiting for you to address my last PM to you, of several years standing, which you said was "interesting" but nothing else. Coward.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 25 2011,03:10

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:38)
 Education, counseling and support should be a priority here, not a sentence of some sort for those who chose abortion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Answered, but not the actual question I asked.

If abortion was illegal, you could not "choose" it in the same way you would choose other options.

If it was illegal then unless there was a punishment it's not really illegal is it? I can't think of anything else that's illegal but has no punishment attached.

And would you want education, counseling and support for somebody who killed a 1 month old baby? I guess not.

So why the double standard?
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 25 2011,03:11

Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 24 2011,21:43)
   
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 24 2011,20:49)
The point of commenting here is that I would like to think that even if I were pro-choice I would readily admit that PZ's comments were repulsive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But, you clearly AREN'T pro-choice so projecting your own squik threshold on those who don't share your particular bias is rather pointless.

I happen to agree with PZ and you and other religiously motivated knicker twisters can get the vapours all you want. Just stay the fuck off of my fainting couch, you wankers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You agree with him that pictures of mangled aborted fetuses inspire  no thoughts other than "it's just meat?".

For crying out loud, when I see a dead unborn bird (the egg fell) it makes me feel sad.  And that has nothing to do with religion.

Not you. Regardless of your stand on abortion, you can truly look at aborted fetuses with no metaphysical connection, even if only to the potential human whose parts are clearly recognizable, lying in a bloody heap? Even without ascribing any moral culpability to anyone, or even acknowledging that that there is any moral issue, even if the abortion was most straightforward inarguable case, (say, saving the life of a woman who was incestuously gang-raped) even then it would be the equivalent of looking at meat?  

Then, like PZ, you are also a cold-hearted scumbag with no empathy.

But none of that was my point, which was the speculation none of the other big-name atheists would be stupid enough to write what PZ wrote. They make names for themselves by their writing with style and class. PZ by does it by shocking.

Of course you didn't grasp what I was saying. All you did was the reflexive: religious person speaking--must disagree. Everything is good-guy/bad-guy.

So you know what? You can bite me, jackass.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,04:09

dheddle, I'd rather argue that you are a bit over-sensitive.

Yes, a fœtus is a potential human being. So is an ovum or a spermatozoid.

Sorry, but I don't feel sad every time I throw away the equivalent of the population of Netherlands after a good wanking. Also, I don't see my girlfriend as a mass murdering cannibal.

I hope you don't cry every month when your partner gets her period.

Until a baby is born and starts getting functional cognitive developpment, it is not, per say, a human being. A potential one, yes, but just as an ovum or a spermatozoid.

Which doesn't mean I, or ayone else here, don't understand your point of view, but please don't judge the morality of others based solely on your own feelings. Would you say a mortician or a forensic doctor are heartless because they do their job without feeling sad for the person they're working on?
Posted by: the_ignored on Jan. 25 2011,04:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
dheddle
Then, like PZ, you are also a cold-hearted scumbag with no empathy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If that was the case, then he would not give a rat's ass about all the child sexual abuse cases the catholic church is responsible for.  Those victims you see, were unambigiously human, already having developed enough to be born and live.

With a few week old fetus, which doesn't even have a nervous system that can feel pain, or have any kind of consciousness, it's not quite so clear.

Some people regard it as "fully human" (the faux pro-lifers of religious bent) and some atheist pro-lifers like myself, even if they're not fully developed yet.

Think of it this way:  Do you have the same feelings when you open up an egg to cook it as when you see that unborn bird fall?
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 25 2011,05:22

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,04:09)
dheddle, I'd rather argue that you are a bit over-sensitive.

Yes, a fœtus is a potential human being. So is an ovum or a spermatozoid.

Sorry, but I don't feel sad every time I throw away the equivalent of the population of Netherlands after a good wanking. Also, I don't see my girlfriend as a mass murdering cannibal.

I hope you don't cry every month when your partner gets her period.

Until a baby is born and starts getting functional cognitive developpment, it is not, per say, a human being. A potential one, yes, but just as an ovum or a spermatozoid.

Which doesn't mean I, or ayone else here, don't understand your point of view, but please don't judge the morality of others based solely on your own feelings. Would you say a mortician or a forensic doctor are heartless because they do their job without feeling sad for the person they're working on?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you that clinical about it? Because, let's grant for the sake of argument, that a sperm and a fetus are both merely potential humans --you have exactly the same [emotionless] response?

I certainly don't. If I see a fetus in a bloody mess with recognizable body parts, I have a different emotional response than if I think of sperm being flushed down the toilet. And I was the same way before I was a Christian. One is much sadder/harder to look at/more poignant--I don't exactly how to describe it--but certainly evokes a different, stronger, more unpleasant emotion.

I'm actually surprised to realize that may not be a universal trait. So maybe PZ is rather commonplace in this regard. If so, my bad.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,05:32

Page turn bug...
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 25 2011,05:32

Quote (the_ignored @ Jan. 25 2011,04:13)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
dheddle
Then, like PZ, you are also a cold-hearted scumbag with no empathy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If that was the case, then he would not give a rat's ass about all the child sexual abuse cases the catholic church is responsible for.  Those victims you see, were unambigiously human, already having developed enough to be born and live.

With a few week old fetus, which doesn't even have a nervous system that can feel pain, or have any kind of consciousness, it's not quite so clear.

Some people regard it as "fully human" (the faux pro-lifers of religious bent) and some atheist pro-lifers like myself, even if they're not fully developed yet.

Think of it this way:  Do you have the same feelings when you open up an egg to cook it as when you see that unborn bird fall?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are missing the boat. I am not arguing about the pain the fetus may or may not feel. I am arguing from (it would appear, a false assumption) that no normal person, independent of their religious views, could examine pictures of aborted fetuses and not experience some kind of emotional response beyond "it is just meat."

As for the egg vice the recognizable unborn bird drying out in my driveway whose egg feel from the tree, I do not think of them the same way. That's the point. Do you think of them the same way?  Does the latter not generate a response different from the former?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,05:34

The feeling I have is more of repulsion and disgust, but that's just because I don't really like seeing blood. But it will never be a feeling of sadness, that's for sure...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,05:50

for shits sake a pile of hotdogs and fava beans is also a potential human being.  but i bet you don't get all weepy eyed when your freezer takes a crap.

"rate my emotional response" is tres passe

pharyngula is a fanboi cesspool.  and if the SHTF PZ will be eaten first.  look at him, he's a doughy wanker.  and he probably doesn't know a banjo from a double headed dildo

other than that, who cares?  there is nothing rational about this meat faggery.  and no fucko that doesn't make anyone a monster just because they don't share your hallmark sentiments.  

nearly everyone has some sort of emotions, most people can't [or don't give a fuck about it enough to] share them as a universal common denominator.  it's not like you can yank that shit out and look at it in the light, so who cares?  only people who want to be reeeeeeeeal concerned.  dheddle that's what you are doing aint it?  sure as hell is what everyone else crying about PZ is doing.
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 25 2011,06:04

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,05:50)
for shits sake a pile of hotdogs and fava beans is also a potential human being.  but i bet you don't get all weepy eyed when your freezer takes a crap.

"rate my emotional response" is tres passe

pharyngula is a fanboi cesspool.  and if the SHTF PZ will be eaten first.  look at him, he's a doughy wanker.  and he probably doesn't know a banjo from a double headed dildo

other than that, who cares?  there is nothing rational about this meat faggery.  and no fucko that doesn't make anyone a monster just because they don't share your hallmark sentiments.  

nearly everyone has some sort of emotions, most people can't [or don't give a fuck about it enough to] share them as a universal common denominator.  it's not like you can yank that shit out and look at it in the light, so who cares?  only people who want to be reeeeeeeeal concerned.  dheddle that's what you are doing aint it?  sure as hell is what everyone else crying about PZ is doing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe that's what I'm doing. But I prefer to think that I am lashing out at a stupid comment. Isn't that the lingua franca of AtBC?

Are you sure about that "nobody cares about emotions" argument? Are you sure I couldn't search the archives of AtBC and find comments about the emotions--comments on someone getting "weepy", etc.--of the UD commenters?

And of course the gist of my original comment on PZ was that his meat comment made me think of him as stupid. In a way that someone who is impolitic sometimes appears to be stupid--when it is gratuitous.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,06:10

the commenters on his blag are what demean my perceptions of the man lol

oh i am sure that there is all sorts of emotional tripe on here.  the difference is that you Dave seem to be are judging his response relative to your own as some sort of standard.  And we all have one and they all stink, and that's a wasted exercise I think.  

for all we know PZ could have been playing "street theatre".  all i can tell you is that i can't really be arsed to give a damn enough to form an opinion about his opinions about things that don't have opinions.  

especially when this clown in the other thread is in hilariously high dudgeon
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,08:02

dheddle, they are just yanking your chain hoping for an emotional response.  They have to stick to the script due to their own lifestyles.  

No one, and I mean no one, can look at pictures of human fetuses being killed and removed from their Mothers without feeling revoltion, empathy and remorse.  

Unless, of course, they have the mentality of a Jeffrey Dahmer.

March for Life took place at the White House yesterday.  Good for them.  If we sit back and let these travesties occur without response, they will only increase substantially.
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 25 2011,08:09

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,08:02)
dheddle, they are just yanking your chain hoping for an emotional response.  They have to stick to the script due to their own lifestyles.  

No one, and I mean no one, can look at pictures of human fetuses being killed and removed from their Mothers without feeling revoltion, empathy and remorse.  

Unless, of course, they have the mentality of a Jeffrey Dahmer.

March for Life took place at the White House yesterday.  Good for them.  If we sit back and let these travesties occur without response, they will only increase substantially.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
March for Life took place at the White House yesterday.  Good for them.  If we sit back and let these travesties occur without response, they will only increase substantially.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




FTK - I do not think this means what you think it means...You just posted that the March For Life is a travesty.  Subliminal truth - or did The Baby Jesus make you post it?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,08:13

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,14:02)
dheddle, they are just yanking your chain hoping for an emotional response.  They have to stick to the script due to their own lifestyles.  

No one, and I mean no one, can look at pictures of human fetuses being killed and removed from their Mothers without feeling revoltion, empathy and remorse.  

Unless, of course, they have the mentality of a Jeffrey Dahmer.

March for Life took place at the White House yesterday.  Good for them.  If we sit back and let these travesties occur without response, they will only increase substantially.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Way to demonise anyone who disagrees with your emotional, visceral complaints and claims that fall downstream.

"Why those pro-choice people only do it because of their lifestyles, if pictures of dead foetuses don't make them feel exactly the way I do then they must be like a gay serial killer."

Brava! A truly monumental display of ignorance and prejudice. I could have asked for no better from you FTK, thank you.

Louis
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,08:18

<shrugs> What I said is true....unless you're subhuman.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,08:32

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,14:18)
<shrugs> What I said is true....unless you're subhuman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can we be Nazis too?

Louis
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 25 2011,08:35

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,08:02)
They have to stick to the script due to their own lifestyles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fuck you.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,08:40

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,08:35)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,08:02)
They have to stick to the script due to their own lifestyles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fuck you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<shrugs again>  It's true.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 25 2011,08:48

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,08:40)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,08:35)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,08:02)
They have to stick to the script due to their own lifestyles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fuck you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<shrugs again>  It's true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one, and I mean no one, can look at pictures of human fetuses being killed and removed from their Mothers without feeling revoltion, empathy and remorse.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What about if you do it (perform abortions) day after day after day after year. Tens of thousands of times. Do really think the 1000th would be the same as the first?

What about if you spend all day cutting up human fetuses for medical research? Would you not become even slightly immune to your initial feelings of "revoltion, empathy and remorse"?

"just another day at the office"?

EDITED for clarity.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,08:49

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,14:40)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,08:35)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,08:02)
They have to stick to the script due to their own lifestyles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fuck you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<shrugs again>  It's true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? What specific aspects of our lifestyles are you referring to? What evidence have you got?

Do you know what the "argumentum ad hominem" is and why it is a logical fallacy?

You're claiming things are true but providing neither detail nor support. Is it possible you are, as before and as ever, merely asserting things as true because you believe them to be the case?

Louis
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 25 2011,08:50

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,04:11)
You agree with him that pictures of mangled aborted fetuses inspire  no thoughts other than "it's just meat?".

For crying out loud, when I see a dead unborn bird (the egg fell) it makes me feel sad.  And that has nothing to do with religion.

Not you. Regardless of your stand on abortion, you can truly look at aborted fetuses with no metaphysical connection, even if only to the potential human whose parts are clearly recognizable, lying in a bloody heap? Even without ascribing any moral culpability to anyone, or even acknowledging that that there is any moral issue, even if the abortion was most straightforward inarguable case, (say, saving the life of a woman who was incestuously gang-raped) even then it would be the equivalent of looking at meat?  

Then, like PZ, you are also a cold-hearted scumbag with no empathy.
Of course you didn't grasp what I was saying. All you did was the reflexive: religious person speaking--must disagree. Everything is good-guy/bad-guy.

So you know what? You can bite me, jackass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, perfesser, you are truly a frothing nutbag and/or are extremely oversensitive.  Talk about me being "reflexive".  Good gumbo!

Either way, you're pretty rabid and, like PZ, I really don't give a flying fig about your opinion one way or another.  If you came here looking for your outrage to be affirmed by others, you clearly picked the wrong venue.  

And you cane bite me in return, jackass.

Wow!  Isn't this fun?   :)
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,08:57

Hmmmm, I wonder:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
dheddle, they are just yanking your chain hoping for an emotional response.  They have to stick to the script due to their own lifestyles.  

No one, and I mean no one, can look at pictures of, and statisics about, the harm women suffer under conditions where abortions are outlawed or restricted without feeling revoltion, empathy and remorse.  

Unless, of course, they have the mentality of a Jeffrey Dahmer.

March for Choice took place at the White House yesterday.  Good for them.  If we sit back and let these travesties occur without response, they will only increase substantially.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh look! I can play "Rhetorical Demonisation Without Basis In Fact" too. I can haz cookie nao?

Louis
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 25 2011,08:58

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,09:18)
<shrugs> What I said is true....unless you're subhuman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Annnnnnnd she drops her kissy-poo, sweetness n' light, "can't we all just along" pretense and returns to her roots by pulling the (reverse) Nazi card.

See, to me and prolly most of the folks here at AtBC, you and Heddle are merely religiously deluded morons for a variety of reasons that have little if anything to do with your stance and/or feelings regarding abortion.  Both of you, however, classify anybody who doesn't have your opinion/response to abortion as less than human.

I find this very telling.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 25 2011,08:59

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,06:34)
The feeling I have is more of repulsion and disgust, but that's just because I don't really like seeing blood. But it will never be a feeling of sadness, that's for sure...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This.  With strobe lights.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,09:11

Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 25 2011,14:58)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,09:18)
<shrugs> What I said is true....unless you're subhuman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Annnnnnnd she drops her kissy-poo, sweetness n' light, "can't we all just along" pretense and returns to her roots by pulling the (reverse) Nazi card.

See, to me and prolly most of the folks here at AtBC, you and Heddle are merely religiously deluded morons for a variety of reasons that have little if anything to do with your stance and/or feelings regarding abortion.  Both of you, however, classify anybody who doesn't have your opinion/response to abortion as less than human.

I find this very telling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't put Heddle and FTK in the same box....as far as I put anyone in boxes at all.

Heddle is more than capable of reasoned and reasonable discourse about anything that does not impinge on his religion (which is of course NASCAR) and is probably worth Having a Beer With, no matter how much we disagree about some important things. Hell, if nothing else, at least he could teach me some physics. (Although I will say his current foray into demonising anyone who doesn't elevate his (or their own) visceral reactions to pictures of dismembered foetuses to "important and intellectually meaningful" makes me question this...and not for the first time)

FTK is....how shall I put this...not.

Louis
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 25 2011,09:17

Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 25 2011,08:50)
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,04:11)
You agree with him that pictures of mangled aborted fetuses inspire  no thoughts other than "it's just meat?".

For crying out loud, when I see a dead unborn bird (the egg fell) it makes me feel sad.  And that has nothing to do with religion.

Not you. Regardless of your stand on abortion, you can truly look at aborted fetuses with no metaphysical connection, even if only to the potential human whose parts are clearly recognizable, lying in a bloody heap? Even without ascribing any moral culpability to anyone, or even acknowledging that that there is any moral issue, even if the abortion was most straightforward inarguable case, (say, saving the life of a woman who was incestuously gang-raped) even then it would be the equivalent of looking at meat?  

Then, like PZ, you are also a cold-hearted scumbag with no empathy.
Of course you didn't grasp what I was saying. All you did was the reflexive: religious person speaking--must disagree. Everything is good-guy/bad-guy.

So you know what? You can bite me, jackass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, perfesser, you are truly a frothing nutbag and/or are extremely oversensitive.  Talk about me being "reflexive".  Good gumbo!

Either way, you're pretty rabid and, like PZ, I really don't give a flying fig about your opinion one way or another.  If you came here looking for your outrage to be affirmed by others, you clearly picked the wrong venue.  

And you cane bite me in return, jackass.

Wow!  Isn't this fun?   :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heddle is a good guy, Wolfie. You and he might not agree on this emotionally charged subject but there is no need to start a flame war.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 25 2011,09:18

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 25 2011,09:17)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 25 2011,08:50)
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,04:11)
You agree with him that pictures of mangled aborted fetuses inspire  no thoughts other than "it's just meat?".

For crying out loud, when I see a dead unborn bird (the egg fell) it makes me feel sad.  And that has nothing to do with religion.

Not you. Regardless of your stand on abortion, you can truly look at aborted fetuses with no metaphysical connection, even if only to the potential human whose parts are clearly recognizable, lying in a bloody heap? Even without ascribing any moral culpability to anyone, or even acknowledging that that there is any moral issue, even if the abortion was most straightforward inarguable case, (say, saving the life of a woman who was incestuously gang-raped) even then it would be the equivalent of looking at meat?  

Then, like PZ, you are also a cold-hearted scumbag with no empathy.
Of course you didn't grasp what I was saying. All you did was the reflexive: religious person speaking--must disagree. Everything is good-guy/bad-guy.

So you know what? You can bite me, jackass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, perfesser, you are truly a frothing nutbag and/or are extremely oversensitive.  Talk about me being "reflexive".  Good gumbo!

Either way, you're pretty rabid and, like PZ, I really don't give a flying fig about your opinion one way or another.  If you came here looking for your outrage to be affirmed by others, you clearly picked the wrong venue.  

And you cane bite me in return, jackass.

Wow!  Isn't this fun?   :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heddle is a good guy, Wolfie. You and he might not agree on this emotionally charged subject but there is no need to start a flame war.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I'll vouch for Heddle's character. *squints*. I don't think he always gets it right, but I've always found him to be honest.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,09:19

Please disregard all my previous posts in support of FTK, I was wrong.

Maybe I should replace them with select passages from Anton Lavey's Satanic Bible...

Or LoLcats...

Or pics of dead fœtuses...

Too many choices!!!
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,09:22

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 25 2011,15:17)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 25 2011,08:50)
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,04:11)
You agree with him that pictures of mangled aborted fetuses inspire  no thoughts other than "it's just meat?".

For crying out loud, when I see a dead unborn bird (the egg fell) it makes me feel sad.  And that has nothing to do with religion.

Not you. Regardless of your stand on abortion, you can truly look at aborted fetuses with no metaphysical connection, even if only to the potential human whose parts are clearly recognizable, lying in a bloody heap? Even without ascribing any moral culpability to anyone, or even acknowledging that that there is any moral issue, even if the abortion was most straightforward inarguable case, (say, saving the life of a woman who was incestuously gang-raped) even then it would be the equivalent of looking at meat?  

Then, like PZ, you are also a cold-hearted scumbag with no empathy.
Of course you didn't grasp what I was saying. All you did was the reflexive: religious person speaking--must disagree. Everything is good-guy/bad-guy.

So you know what? You can bite me, jackass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, perfesser, you are truly a frothing nutbag and/or are extremely oversensitive.  Talk about me being "reflexive".  Good gumbo!

Either way, you're pretty rabid and, like PZ, I really don't give a flying fig about your opinion one way or another.  If you came here looking for your outrage to be affirmed by others, you clearly picked the wrong venue.  

And you cane bite me in return, jackass.

Wow!  Isn't this fun?   :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heddle is a good guy, Wolfie. You and he might not agree on this emotionally charged subject but there is no need to start a flame war.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In Wolfie's defense she definitely did not start it. Heddle and FTK need to tone the {ahem} rhetoric down a notch or two I think...and that's coming from a gigantically mean, foul mouthed fucker like me.

Louis
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 25 2011,09:22

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,10:11)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 25 2011,14:58)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,09:18)
<shrugs> What I said is true....unless you're subhuman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Annnnnnnd she drops her kissy-poo, sweetness n' light, "can't we all just along" pretense and returns to her roots by pulling the (reverse) Nazi card.

See, to me and prolly most of the folks here at AtBC, you and Heddle are merely religiously deluded morons for a variety of reasons that have little if anything to do with your stance and/or feelings regarding abortion.  Both of you, however, classify anybody who doesn't have your opinion/response to abortion as less than human.

I find this very telling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't put Heddle and FTK in the same box....as far as I put anyone in boxes at all.

Heddle is more than capable of reasoned and reasonable discourse about anything that does not impinge on his religion (which is of course NASCAR) and is probably worth Having a Beer With, no matter how much we disagree about some important things. Hell, if nothing else, at least he could teach me some physics. (Although I will say his current foray into demonising anyone who doesn't elevate his (or their own) visceral reactions to pictures of dismembered foetuses to "important and intellectually meaningful" makes me question this...and not for the first time)

FTK is....how shall I put this...not.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that's good to know.  I haven't seen enough of him, evidently, so his rather violent reaction to the fact that when I look at pictures of aborted fetuses (something I prefer not to do, just as I prefer not to watch video of eye surgery) and say, "Icky.  Blood and meat" as opposed to, "OH!  Poor little Bobby will NEVER ride a bike now" put him in FtK territory.  It would appear he's only a silly-billy like FtK on this particular subject.

So, I apologize to Heddle, although it's doubtful he'd accept since I'm an unfeeling monster or somesuch.  *sob*  But YOU love me, don't you, Louis?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,09:24

Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 25 2011,15:22)
[SNIP]

But YOU love me, don't you, Louis?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unreservedly and without question. And further more: RAWR, but we can talk about THAT another time.

;-)

Louis
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 25 2011,09:34

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,10:22)
In Wolfie's defense she definitely did not start it. Heddle and FTK need to tone the {ahem} rhetoric down a notch or two I think...and that's coming from a gigantically mean, foul mouthed fucker like me.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I WAS a bit (okay, a LOT) taken aback that the response to my calling him a religiously motivated knicker twister was his calling me a "cold-hearted scumbag", a "jackass", and instructing me to "bite [him]".  Okay, so I said he was a wanker, but that just makes him one of the guys.  I will admit I was already het-up by Koncern Troll Kris so saw Heddle's post as more concern trolling.

So, anyway, I'll tone it down.  Because I'm nice.  And cuddly.  

No, really, I am.  Some of the regulars here can attest to that!
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,09:36

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,04:11)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 24 2011,21:43)
     
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 24 2011,20:49)
The point of commenting here is that I would like to think that even if I were pro-choice I would readily admit that PZ's comments were repulsive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But, you clearly AREN'T pro-choice so projecting your own squik threshold on those who don't share your particular bias is rather pointless.

I happen to agree with PZ and you and other religiously motivated knicker twisters can get the vapours all you want. Just stay the fuck off of my fainting couch, you wankers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You agree with him that pictures of mangled aborted fetuses inspire  no thoughts other than "it's just meat?".

For crying out loud, when I see a dead unborn bird (the egg fell) it makes me feel sad.  And that has nothing to do with religion.

Not you. Regardless of your stand on abortion, you can truly look at aborted fetuses with no metaphysical connection, even if only to the potential human whose parts are clearly recognizable, lying in a bloody heap? Even without ascribing any moral culpability to anyone, or even acknowledging that that there is any moral issue, even if the abortion was most straightforward inarguable case, (say, saving the life of a woman who was incestuously gang-raped) even then it would be the equivalent of looking at meat?  

Then, like PZ, you are also a cold-hearted scumbag with no empathy.

But none of that was my point, which was the speculation none of the other big-name atheists would be stupid enough to write what PZ wrote. They make names for themselves by their writing with style and class. PZ by does it by shocking.

Of course you didn't grasp what I was saying. All you did was the reflexive: religious person speaking--must disagree. Everything is good-guy/bad-guy.

So you know what? You can bite me, jackass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.abortionaccess.info/abortionpictures.htm >
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,09:44

Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,15:36)
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,04:11)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 24 2011,21:43)
     
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 24 2011,20:49)
The point of commenting here is that I would like to think that even if I were pro-choice I would readily admit that PZ's comments were repulsive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But, you clearly AREN'T pro-choice so projecting your own squik threshold on those who don't share your particular bias is rather pointless.

I happen to agree with PZ and you and other religiously motivated knicker twisters can get the vapours all you want. Just stay the fuck off of my fainting couch, you wankers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You agree with him that pictures of mangled aborted fetuses inspire  no thoughts other than "it's just meat?".

For crying out loud, when I see a dead unborn bird (the egg fell) it makes me feel sad.  And that has nothing to do with religion.

Not you. Regardless of your stand on abortion, you can truly look at aborted fetuses with no metaphysical connection, even if only to the potential human whose parts are clearly recognizable, lying in a bloody heap? Even without ascribing any moral culpability to anyone, or even acknowledging that that there is any moral issue, even if the abortion was most straightforward inarguable case, (say, saving the life of a woman who was incestuously gang-raped) even then it would be the equivalent of looking at meat?  

Then, like PZ, you are also a cold-hearted scumbag with no empathy.

But none of that was my point, which was the speculation none of the other big-name atheists would be stupid enough to write what PZ wrote. They make names for themselves by their writing with style and class. PZ by does it by shocking.

Of course you didn't grasp what I was saying. All you did was the reflexive: religious person speaking--must disagree. Everything is good-guy/bad-guy.

So you know what? You can bite me, jackass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.abortionaccess.info/abortionpictures.htm >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG Claudia!!! IT MAKES ME SOOO SAAAADD!!!

WHY, OH WHY DID YOU POST THAT HERE????????


Ahem, sorry 'bout that, please continue...
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 25 2011,09:57

Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 25 2011,06:59)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,06:34)
The feeling I have is more of repulsion and disgust, but that's just because I don't really like seeing blood. But it will never be a feeling of sadness, that's for sure...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This.  With strobe lights.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In 1984 my s.o. at the time miscarried at about 5 months. I was nearby and saw the doctor carry out a pan with something red in it.  There was definitely an emotional factor.  Even though I knew I wasn't ready to be a dad, it was still sad.  

I know it's a different situation than choosing not to carry to term. Sometimes Bad Things happen, people make hard decisions, but I really don't think anyone just shrugs off these things.  Maybe they do.  Maybe one person's heartbreak is another person's equivalent of a stubbed toe.

For my part I'm pissed off at the deliberate attempt at emotional manipulation by people who put up anti-choice billboards.  I can see how one response would be to deny that any such emotion exists.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,10:06

Page turn bug. Again...
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,10:18

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,09:44)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,15:36)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,04:11)
   
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 24 2011,21:43)
         
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 24 2011,20:49)
The point of commenting here is that I would like to think that even if I were pro-choice I would readily admit that PZ's comments were repulsive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But, you clearly AREN'T pro-choice so projecting your own squik threshold on those who don't share your particular bias is rather pointless.

I happen to agree with PZ and you and other religiously motivated knicker twisters can get the vapours all you want. Just stay the fuck off of my fainting couch, you wankers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You agree with him that pictures of mangled aborted fetuses inspire  no thoughts other than "it's just meat?".

For crying out loud, when I see a dead unborn bird (the egg fell) it makes me feel sad.  And that has nothing to do with religion.

Not you. Regardless of your stand on abortion, you can truly look at aborted fetuses with no metaphysical connection, even if only to the potential human whose parts are clearly recognizable, lying in a bloody heap? Even without ascribing any moral culpability to anyone, or even acknowledging that that there is any moral issue, even if the abortion was most straightforward inarguable case, (say, saving the life of a woman who was incestuously gang-raped) even then it would be the equivalent of looking at meat?  

Then, like PZ, you are also a cold-hearted scumbag with no empathy.

But none of that was my point, which was the speculation none of the other big-name atheists would be stupid enough to write what PZ wrote. They make names for themselves by their writing with style and class. PZ by does it by shocking.

Of course you didn't grasp what I was saying. All you did was the reflexive: religious person speaking--must disagree. Everything is good-guy/bad-guy.

So you know what? You can bite me, jackass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.abortionaccess.info/abortionpictures.htm >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG Claudia!!! IT MAKES ME SOOO SAAAADD!!!

WHY, OH WHY DID YOU POST THAT HERE????????


Ahem, sorry 'bout that, please continue...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think we want to start < posting pictures....only a little over half of women have abortions before week 9. >
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 25 2011,10:22

Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 25 2011,09:22)
   
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,10:11)
     
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 25 2011,14:58)
     
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,09:18)
<shrugs> What I said is true....unless you're subhuman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Annnnnnnd she drops her kissy-poo, sweetness n' light, "can't we all just along" pretense and returns to her roots by pulling the (reverse) Nazi card.

See, to me and prolly most of the folks here at AtBC, you and Heddle are merely religiously deluded morons for a variety of reasons that have little if anything to do with your stance and/or feelings regarding abortion.  Both of you, however, classify anybody who doesn't have your opinion/response to abortion as less than human.

I find this very telling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't put Heddle and FTK in the same box....as far as I put anyone in boxes at all.

Heddle is more than capable of reasoned and reasonable discourse about anything that does not impinge on his religion (which is of course NASCAR) and is probably worth Having a Beer With, no matter how much we disagree about some important things. Hell, if nothing else, at least he could teach me some physics. (Although I will say his current foray into demonising anyone who doesn't elevate his (or their own) visceral reactions to pictures of dismembered foetuses to "important and intellectually meaningful" makes me question this...and not for the first time)

FTK is....how shall I put this...not.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that's good to know.  I haven't seen enough of him, evidently, so his rather violent reaction to the fact that when I look at pictures of aborted fetuses (something I prefer not to do, just as I prefer not to watch video of eye surgery) and say, "Icky.  Blood and meat" as opposed to, "OH!  Poor little Bobby will NEVER ride a bike now" put him in FtK territory.  It would appear he's only a silly-billy like FtK on this particular subject.

So, I apologize to Heddle, although it's doubtful he'd accept since I'm an unfeeling monster or somesuch.  *sob*  But YOU love me, don't you, Louis?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Regarding "Both of you, however, classify anybody who doesn't have your opinion/response to abortion as less than human." I'll let FtK defend herself,  but that's not true for me. I have many dear friends who are pro-choice and have had abortions. I don't consider any of them monsters. If, however, they told me they had no visceral response to images of mangled, bloody fetuses--then I would reconsider.

As for the apology--not needed. I don't mind rough and tumble language--in fact it suits my personality and background much better that proper, civilized dialog. (It's Richard who has that kind of Formula-One/tea and crumpets mentality.)
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,10:22

< fixed link >
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,10:26

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,10:22)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 25 2011,09:22)
     
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,10:11)
     
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 25 2011,14:58)
       
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,09:18)
<shrugs> What I said is true....unless you're subhuman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Annnnnnnd she drops her kissy-poo, sweetness n' light, "can't we all just along" pretense and returns to her roots by pulling the (reverse) Nazi card.

See, to me and prolly most of the folks here at AtBC, you and Heddle are merely religiously deluded morons for a variety of reasons that have little if anything to do with your stance and/or feelings regarding abortion.  Both of you, however, classify anybody who doesn't have your opinion/response to abortion as less than human.

I find this very telling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't put Heddle and FTK in the same box....as far as I put anyone in boxes at all.

Heddle is more than capable of reasoned and reasonable discourse about anything that does not impinge on his religion (which is of course NASCAR) and is probably worth Having a Beer With, no matter how much we disagree about some important things. Hell, if nothing else, at least he could teach me some physics. (Although I will say his current foray into demonising anyone who doesn't elevate his (or their own) visceral reactions to pictures of dismembered foetuses to "important and intellectually meaningful" makes me question this...and not for the first time)

FTK is....how shall I put this...not.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that's good to know.  I haven't seen enough of him, evidently, so his rather violent reaction to the fact that when I look at pictures of aborted fetuses (something I prefer not to do, just as I prefer not to watch video of eye surgery) and say, "Icky.  Blood and meat" as opposed to, "OH!  Poor little Bobby will NEVER ride a bike now" put him in FtK territory.  It would appear he's only a silly-billy like FtK on this particular subject.

So, I apologize to Heddle, although it's doubtful he'd accept since I'm an unfeeling monster or somesuch.  *sob*  But YOU love me, don't you, Louis?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Regarding "Both of you, however, classify anybody who doesn't have your opinion/response to abortion as less than human." I'll let FtK defend herself,  but that's not true for me. I have many dear friends who are pro-choice and have had abortions. I don't consider any of them monsters. If, however, they told me they had no visceral response to images of mangled, bloody fetuses--then I would reconsider.

As for the apology--not needed. I don't mind rough and tumble language--in fact it suits my personality and background much better that proper, civilized dialog. (It's Richard who has that kind of Formula-One/tea and crumpets mentality.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree dheddle....two of my very closest friends have both had abortions.   I certainly am not going to disolve our friendship because of it...sheesh.  We're talking about photos and having no empathy for them.  We all do...it's a human response.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 25 2011,10:26

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 25 2011,10:57)
In 1984 my s.o. at the time miscarried at about 5 months. I was nearby and saw the doctor carry out a pan with something red in it.  There was definitely an emotional factor.  Even though I knew I wasn't ready to be a dad, it was still sad.  

I know it's a different situation than choosing not to carry to term. Sometimes Bad Things happen, people make hard decisions, but I really don't think anyone just shrugs off these things.  Maybe they do.  Maybe one person's heartbreak is another person's equivalent of a stubbed toe.

For my part I'm pissed off at the deliberate attempt at emotional manipulation by people who put up anti-choice billboards.  I can see how one response would be to deny that any such emotion exists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see a big difference between a generic Pro-Forced-Maternity propaganda picket sign photo and your own personal experience.  And I'm so sorry you had to go through that.  :(

The whole billboard campaign (when I think of how many living, breathing, already born people those assholes could be helping with the money they spend on the adverts it makes my blood boil) is, of course, designed to make people think of their own child and say, "How could anybody kill Sally?"  Then send them money to "save Sally".  Of course, it ISN'T Sally, and once its born that's pretty obvious so to heck with the Not-Sally.

But, I digress.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,10:28

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,11:18)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,09:44)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,15:36)
   
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,04:11)
   
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 24 2011,21:43)
         
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 24 2011,20:49)
The point of commenting here is that I would like to think that even if I were pro-choice I would readily admit that PZ's comments were repulsive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But, you clearly AREN'T pro-choice so projecting your own squik threshold on those who don't share your particular bias is rather pointless.

I happen to agree with PZ and you and other religiously motivated knicker twisters can get the vapours all you want. Just stay the fuck off of my fainting couch, you wankers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You agree with him that pictures of mangled aborted fetuses inspire  no thoughts other than "it's just meat?".

For crying out loud, when I see a dead unborn bird (the egg fell) it makes me feel sad.  And that has nothing to do with religion.

Not you. Regardless of your stand on abortion, you can truly look at aborted fetuses with no metaphysical connection, even if only to the potential human whose parts are clearly recognizable, lying in a bloody heap? Even without ascribing any moral culpability to anyone, or even acknowledging that that there is any moral issue, even if the abortion was most straightforward inarguable case, (say, saving the life of a woman who was incestuously gang-raped) even then it would be the equivalent of looking at meat?  

Then, like PZ, you are also a cold-hearted scumbag with no empathy.

But none of that was my point, which was the speculation none of the other big-name atheists would be stupid enough to write what PZ wrote. They make names for themselves by their writing with style and class. PZ by does it by shocking.

Of course you didn't grasp what I was saying. All you did was the reflexive: religious person speaking--must disagree. Everything is good-guy/bad-guy.

So you know what? You can bite me, jackass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.abortionaccess.info/abortionpictures.htm >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG Claudia!!! IT MAKES ME SOOO SAAAADD!!!

WHY, OH WHY DID YOU POST THAT HERE????????


Ahem, sorry 'bout that, please continue...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think we want to start < posting pictures....only a little over half of women have abortions before week 9. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.abortionaccess.info/abortionpictures.htm >

So tell me FTK, what should be my punishment?
Stoning?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,10:29

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:26)
I agree dheddle....two of my very closest friends have both had abortions.   I certainly am not going to disolve our friendship because of it...sheesh.  We're talking about photos and having no empathy for them.  We all do...it's a human response.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet not moments ago people who did not share your precise response to a photo were sub-human Dahmer-esque monsters who only said these things to justify their lifestyle.

Does your lack of intellectual integrity ever bother you, FTK? It should you know.

Oh and I notice that no detail or evidence about these lifestyles and other slanders has come forth, so we'll assume, as always, you are merely making things up to be unpleasant.

Louis
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,10:31

there's the old FtK

jesus if I come out and say "you fucks that look at an aborted fetus and DON'T see just a pile of meat are subhuman" will you take your tu quoques and run away?  

holy hell, I mean, Louis IS a big gay Nazi but it's not because of that
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,10:36

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,10:29)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:26)
I agree dheddle....two of my very closest friends have both had abortions.   I certainly am not going to disolve our friendship because of it...sheesh.  We're talking about photos and having no empathy for them.  We all do...it's a human response.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet not moments ago people who did not share your precise response to a photo were sub-human Dahmer-esque monsters who only said these things to justify their lifestyle.

Does your lack of intellectual integrity ever bother you, FTK? It should you know.

Oh and I notice that no detail or evidence about these lifestyles and other slanders has come forth, so we'll assume, as always, you are merely making things up to be unpleasant.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How did I change my response?  I never once said that if you have an abortion you are subhuman....not once.  Pay attention.  I said, if you look at aborted fetuses and feel no empathy or revulsion...u are subhuman.  I'll certainly not change my stance on that.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,10:40

Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,10:28)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,11:18)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,09:44)
   
Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,15:36)
   
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,04:11)
     
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 24 2011,21:43)
           
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 24 2011,20:49)
The point of commenting here is that I would like to think that even if I were pro-choice I would readily admit that PZ's comments were repulsive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But, you clearly AREN'T pro-choice so projecting your own squik threshold on those who don't share your particular bias is rather pointless.

I happen to agree with PZ and you and other religiously motivated knicker twisters can get the vapours all you want. Just stay the fuck off of my fainting couch, you wankers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You agree with him that pictures of mangled aborted fetuses inspire  no thoughts other than "it's just meat?".

For crying out loud, when I see a dead unborn bird (the egg fell) it makes me feel sad.  And that has nothing to do with religion.

Not you. Regardless of your stand on abortion, you can truly look at aborted fetuses with no metaphysical connection, even if only to the potential human whose parts are clearly recognizable, lying in a bloody heap? Even without ascribing any moral culpability to anyone, or even acknowledging that that there is any moral issue, even if the abortion was most straightforward inarguable case, (say, saving the life of a woman who was incestuously gang-raped) even then it would be the equivalent of looking at meat?  

Then, like PZ, you are also a cold-hearted scumbag with no empathy.

But none of that was my point, which was the speculation none of the other big-name atheists would be stupid enough to write what PZ wrote. They make names for themselves by their writing with style and class. PZ by does it by shocking.

Of course you didn't grasp what I was saying. All you did was the reflexive: religious person speaking--must disagree. Everything is good-guy/bad-guy.

So you know what? You can bite me, jackass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.abortionaccess.info/abortionpictures.htm >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG Claudia!!! IT MAKES ME SOOO SAAAADD!!!

WHY, OH WHY DID YOU POST THAT HERE????????


Ahem, sorry 'bout that, please continue...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think we want to start < posting pictures....only a little over half of women have abortions before week 9. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.abortionaccess.info/abortionpictures.htm >

So tell me FTK, what should be my punishment?
Stoning?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Khan, I believe I've been ~quite~ consistent throughout this entire discussion.  There should be no punishment, imho.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,10:43

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,11:36)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,10:29)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:26)
I agree dheddle....two of my very closest friends have both had abortions.   I certainly am not going to disolve our friendship because of it...sheesh.  We're talking about photos and having no empathy for them.  We all do...it's a human response.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet not moments ago people who did not share your precise response to a photo were sub-human Dahmer-esque monsters who only said these things to justify their lifestyle.

Does your lack of intellectual integrity ever bother you, FTK? It should you know.

Oh and I notice that no detail or evidence about these lifestyles and other slanders has come forth, so we'll assume, as always, you are merely making things up to be unpleasant.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How did I change my response?  I never once said that if you have an abortion you are subhuman....not once.  Pay attention.  I said, if you look at aborted fetuses and feel no empathy or revulsion...u are subhuman.  I'll certainly not change my stance on that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still have my yanked wisdom teeth. Like the abortion the only reaction was relief that the source of pain was gone.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,10:43

no punishment

BUT

you are not human!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,10:44

so if you have an abortion, FtK don't give a fuck

but if you have an abortion and observe some part of the procedure, you are subhuman.  nice.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,10:45

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,11:44)
so if you have an abortion, FtK don't give a fuck

but if you have an abortion and observe some part of the procedure, you are subhuman.  nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shit, I asked to see the ultrasound.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,10:47

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:36)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,10:29)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:26)
I agree dheddle....two of my very closest friends have both had abortions.   I certainly am not going to disolve our friendship because of it...sheesh.  We're talking about photos and having no empathy for them.  We all do...it's a human response.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet not moments ago people who did not share your precise response to a photo were sub-human Dahmer-esque monsters who only said these things to justify their lifestyle.

Does your lack of intellectual integrity ever bother you, FTK? It should you know.

Oh and I notice that no detail or evidence about these lifestyles and other slanders has come forth, so we'll assume, as always, you are merely making things up to be unpleasant.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How did I change my response?  I never once said that if you have an abortion you are subhuman....not once.  Pay attention.  I said, if you look at aborted fetuses and feel no empathy or revulsion...u are subhuman.  I'll certainly not change my stance on that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read what I wrote FTK.

You've made an error.

Louis
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,10:50

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,10:44)
so if you have an abortion, FtK don't give a fuck

but if you have an abortion and observe some part of the procedure, you are subhuman.  nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK can't help it.  She's fundamentally immoral, pretending to be good (it's the willingness to write people off as subhuman that does it).

Happens all the time.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,10:53

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,10:44)
so if you have an abortion, FtK don't give a fuck

but if you have an abortion and observe some part of the procedure, you are subhuman.  nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ummm....I do give a fuck.  Obviously, I have strong feelings about the lives of children.  But, getting pregnant and/or having an abortion is such an insanely emotional and intense moment in a woman's life that I cannot and will not sit back and judge them individually.

That does not change the fact that when people look at mangled human fetuses of children, they *should* feel empathy or revulsion rather than feeling absolutely nothing at all.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 25 2011,10:54

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,10:36)
How did I change my response?  I never once said that if you have an abortion you are subhuman....not once.  Pay attention.  I said, if you look at aborted fetuses and feel no empathy or revulsion...u are subhuman.  I'll certainly not change my stance on that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FFS. This is classic FTK people.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I said, if you look at aborted fetuses and feel no empathy or revulsion...u are subhuman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I said, dumbass, that if you spend a lifetime looking at such and stop feeling revulsion, are you then subhuman?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,10:55

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,10:47)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:36)
 
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,10:29)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:26)
I agree dheddle....two of my very closest friends have both had abortions.   I certainly am not going to disolve our friendship because of it...sheesh.  We're talking about photos and having no empathy for them.  We all do...it's a human response.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet not moments ago people who did not share your precise response to a photo were sub-human Dahmer-esque monsters who only said these things to justify their lifestyle.

Does your lack of intellectual integrity ever bother you, FTK? It should you know.

Oh and I notice that no detail or evidence about these lifestyles and other slanders has come forth, so we'll assume, as always, you are merely making things up to be unpleasant.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How did I change my response?  I never once said that if you have an abortion you are subhuman....not once.  Pay attention.  I said, if you look at aborted fetuses and feel no empathy or revulsion...u are subhuman.  I'll certainly not change my stance on that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read what I wrote FTK.

You've made an error.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What the hell does the comment about "intellectual integrity" mean then??
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 25 2011,10:56

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,10:53)
That does not change the fact that when people look at mangled human fetuses of children, they *should* feel empathy or revulsion rather than feeling absolutely nothing at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And if you've spent a lifetime looking at such and don't feel as you expect, then you are subhuman right?

It's no wonder that religion caused the death of so many people.

Don't feel or believe a certain way? You are not human and can be treated as a animal.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,10:58

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,10:54)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,10:36)
How did I change my response?  I never once said that if you have an abortion you are subhuman....not once.  Pay attention.  I said, if you look at aborted fetuses and feel no empathy or revulsion...u are subhuman.  I'll certainly not change my stance on that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FFS. This is classic FTK people.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I said, if you look at aborted fetuses and feel no empathy or revulsion...u are subhuman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I said, dumbass, that if you spend a lifetime looking at such and stop feeling revulsion, are you then subhuman?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Desensitizing yourself is not relevant to this coversation.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,10:58

Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,11:45)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,11:44)
so if you have an abortion, FtK don't give a fuck

but if you have an abortion and observe some part of the procedure, you are subhuman.  nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shit, I asked to see the ultrasound.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YOU MONSTER
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 25 2011,10:58

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,10:55)
What the hell does the comment about "intellectual integrity" mean then??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


…embrace a moral point of view that urges them to be conceptually clear, logically consistent, apprised of relevant empirical evidence, and careful about acknowledging as well as weighing relevant moral considerations. Persons of integrity impose these restrictions on themselves since they are concerned, not simply with taking any moral position, but with pursuing a commitment to do what is best. (Halfon 1989, p. 37.)

< http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/integrity/#4 >
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,10:58

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:55)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,10:47)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:36)
 
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,10:29)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:26)
I agree dheddle....two of my very closest friends have both had abortions.   I certainly am not going to disolve our friendship because of it...sheesh.  We're talking about photos and having no empathy for them.  We all do...it's a human response.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet not moments ago people who did not share your precise response to a photo were sub-human Dahmer-esque monsters who only said these things to justify their lifestyle.

Does your lack of intellectual integrity ever bother you, FTK? It should you know.

Oh and I notice that no detail or evidence about these lifestyles and other slanders has come forth, so we'll assume, as always, you are merely making things up to be unpleasant.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How did I change my response?  I never once said that if you have an abortion you are subhuman....not once.  Pay attention.  I said, if you look at aborted fetuses and feel no empathy or revulsion...u are subhuman.  I'll certainly not change my stance on that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read what I wrote FTK.

You've made an error.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What the hell does the comment about "intellectual integrity" mean then??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


These "lifestyles" to which people who don't share your precise response to a photo, what are they? How do you know what you claim to know? Why is someone's emotional response to a photo predicated on some claimed lifestyle that person has?

You're making claims and judgements you have no basis for, do you think that might have some bearing on your intellectual integrity?

Louis
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,10:59

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,10:50)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,10:44)
so if you have an abortion, FtK don't give a fuck

but if you have an abortion and observe some part of the procedure, you are subhuman.  nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK can't help it.  She's fundamentally immoral, pretending to be good (it's the willingness to write people off as subhuman that does it).

Happens all the time.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'll have to point out where I've been inconsistent.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,11:02

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:58)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,10:54)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,10:36)
How did I change my response?  I never once said that if you have an abortion you are subhuman....not once.  Pay attention.  I said, if you look at aborted fetuses and feel no empathy or revulsion...u are subhuman.  I'll certainly not change my stance on that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FFS. This is classic FTK people.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I said, if you look at aborted fetuses and feel no empathy or revulsion...u are subhuman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I said, dumbass, that if you spend a lifetime looking at such and stop feeling revulsion, are you then subhuman?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Desensitizing yourself is not relevant to this coversation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh but it is.

You and Heddle have made the claim that people who do not share your specific emotional, visceral reaction to a photo of an aborted foetus are (depending on who said precisely what) variously not normal, lacking empathy, sub human, or like a specific serial killer.

How someone might have become desensitised to such images is PRECISELY relevant, unless you wish to define all such possible desensitisation as rendering one in some fashion sub-human etc.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,11:03

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,16:58)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,11:45)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,11:44)
so if you have an abortion, FtK don't give a fuck

but if you have an abortion and observe some part of the procedure, you are subhuman.  nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shit, I asked to see the ultrasound.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YOU MONSTER
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My wife and I even knew the sex of out baby before it was born. People said "don't you want a surprise", I replied that it wasn't much of a surprise now was it? I mean it's going to be a boy or a girl. Puppies would be a surprise!

Louis
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,11:06

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,10:59)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,10:50)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,10:44)
so if you have an abortion, FtK don't give a fuck

but if you have an abortion and observe some part of the procedure, you are subhuman.  nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK can't help it.  She's fundamentally immoral, pretending to be good (it's the willingness to write people off as subhuman that does it).

Happens all the time.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'll have to point out where I've been inconsistent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reading comprehension failure.

I did not accuse you of being inconsistent (although in many ways you are, and can't help it, given the nature of your delusions).  I said you are fundamentally immoral.

You are inconsistent, however, in that on the one hand you can't understand why this stuff is so divisive and on the other hand you make sweeping generalizations that dehumanize others without regard to circumstance.  That's pretty silly.  Of course, given the nature of your delusions, you can't help that, either.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,11:06

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,11:58)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,11:45)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,11:44)
so if you have an abortion, FtK don't give a fuck

but if you have an abortion and observe some part of the procedure, you are subhuman.  nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shit, I asked to see the ultrasound.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YOU MONSTER
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. Also asked to the see the xrays of my fucked up wrist & back & of cat with ruptured diaphragm & whole head xray by dentist.

And to upset other folks: I have participated in chicken & turkey slaughtering.

Life is messy.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,11:08

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 25 2011,09:57)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 25 2011,06:59)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,06:34)
The feeling I have is more of repulsion and disgust, but that's just because I don't really like seeing blood. But it will never be a feeling of sadness, that's for sure...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This.  With strobe lights.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In 1984 my s.o. at the time miscarried at about 5 months. I was nearby and saw the doctor carry out a pan with something red in it.  There was definitely an emotional factor.  Even though I knew I wasn't ready to be a dad, it was still sad.  

I know it's a different situation than choosing not to carry to term. Sometimes Bad Things happen, people make hard decisions, but I really don't think anyone just shrugs off these things.  Maybe they do.  Maybe one person's heartbreak is another person's equivalent of a stubbed toe.

For my part I'm pissed off at the deliberate attempt at emotional manipulation by people who put up anti-choice billboards.  I can see how one response would be to deny that any such emotion exists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I missed this....this is an honest response.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,11:09

honest, but clearly fnxtr is just like Jeffrey Dahmer.  Why, I bet he regularly practices rape, torture, dismemberment, necrophilia and cannibalism.  You can't prove he doesn't.  I'm just saying.  Where have I been inconsistent.  It's just his lifestyle.  <shrug> Look hon, a heron!


edited to name the appropriate hero
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 25 2011,11:11

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,10:58)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,10:54)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,10:36)
How did I change my response?  I never once said that if you have an abortion you are subhuman....not once.  Pay attention.  I said, if you look at aborted fetuses and feel no empathy or revulsion...u are subhuman.  I'll certainly not change my stance on that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FFS. This is classic FTK people.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I said, if you look at aborted fetuses and feel no empathy or revulsion...u are subhuman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I said, dumbass, that if you spend a lifetime looking at such and stop feeling revulsion, are you then subhuman?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Desensitizing yourself is not relevant to this coversation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, my dear, but it is.

Perhaps the first day that PZ saw such an image he reacted in the way you would want him to. I don't know one way or the other.

But after a lifetime of cutting up biological entities, just meat.

Subhuman? I don't think so.

People who hold up pictures of abortions in front of family planning clinics?

Subhuman. Without a doubt.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,11:14

Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,12:06)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,11:58)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,11:45)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,11:44)
so if you have an abortion, FtK don't give a fuck

but if you have an abortion and observe some part of the procedure, you are subhuman.  nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shit, I asked to see the ultrasound.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YOU MONSTER
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. Also asked to the see the xrays of my fucked up wrist & back & of cat with ruptured diaphragm & whole head xray by dentist.

And to upset other folks: I have participated in chicken & turkey slaughtering.

Life is messy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


actually it's the part about cats that is the most dehumanizing.  the little bastards
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,11:16

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,12:11)
Oh, my dear, but it is.

Perhaps the first day that PZ saw such an image he reacted in the way you would want him to. I don't know one way or the other.

But after a lifetime of cutting up biological entities, just meat.

Subhuman? I don't think so.

People who hold up pictures of abortions in front of family planning clinics?

Subhuman. Without a doubt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also note that the pictures that the forced birthers hold up are lies.
They show 6 month miscarriages as 2 month abortions.
Nothing lies like a fundie.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,11:18

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,10:58)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:55)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,10:47)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:36)
   
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,10:29)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:26)
I agree dheddle....two of my very closest friends have both had abortions.   I certainly am not going to disolve our friendship because of it...sheesh.  We're talking about photos and having no empathy for them.  We all do...it's a human response.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet not moments ago people who did not share your precise response to a photo were sub-human Dahmer-esque monsters who only said these things to justify their lifestyle.

Does your lack of intellectual integrity ever bother you, FTK? It should you know.

Oh and I notice that no detail or evidence about these lifestyles and other slanders has come forth, so we'll assume, as always, you are merely making things up to be unpleasant.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How did I change my response?  I never once said that if you have an abortion you are subhuman....not once.  Pay attention.  I said, if you look at aborted fetuses and feel no empathy or revulsion...u are subhuman.  I'll certainly not change my stance on that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read what I wrote FTK.

You've made an error.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What the hell does the comment about "intellectual integrity" mean then??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


These "lifestyles" to which people who don't share your precise response to a photo, what are they? How do you know what you claim to know? Why is someone's emotional response to a photo predicated on some claimed lifestyle that person has?

You're making claims and judgements you have no basis for, do you think that might have some bearing on your intellectual integrity?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same lifestyle as I've lived from time to time.  You play, you pay.  I'm not be condescending.  I could bring up my past payments, but I don't particularly care to see this thread turn into a Jerry Springer circus.

I'm just stating the obvious...chill brother.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,11:25

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:18)
Same lifestyle as I've lived from time to time.  You play, you pay.  I'm not be condescending.  I could bring up my past payments, but I don't particularly care to see this thread turn into a Jerry Springer circus.

I'm just stating the obvious...chill brother.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what is the punishment for me & the doctor & the kind folks at the clinic?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,11:27

Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,11:25)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:18)
Same lifestyle as I've lived from time to time.  You play, you pay.  I'm not be condescending.  I could bring up my past payments, but I don't particularly care to see this thread turn into a Jerry Springer circus.

I'm just stating the obvious...chill brother.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what is the punishment for me & the doctor & the kind folks at the clinic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She keeps repeating that she doesn't think their ought to be any legal punishment, all the while no doubt harboring thoughts that these sinners will be roasting in hell for all eternity...

Which is a funny way of saying that there ought not be any punishment, but there you go.  Her imaginary friend is a bit unpleasant that way.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 25 2011,11:28

Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,11:25)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:18)
Same lifestyle as I've lived from time to time.  You play, you pay.  I'm not be condescending.  I could bring up my past payments, but I don't particularly care to see this thread turn into a Jerry Springer circus.

I'm just stating the obvious...chill brother.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what is the punishment for me & the doctor & the kind folks at the clinic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Burn in hell forever, sinner!

Hey, FTK, do women who have abortions go to hell?

:p

Joke, joke.....

But answer if you like...
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,11:33

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,17:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
These "lifestyles" to which people who don't share your precise response to a photo, what are they? How do you know what you claim to know? Why is someone's emotional response to a photo predicated on some claimed lifestyle that person has?

You're making claims and judgements you have no basis for, do you think that might have some bearing on your intellectual integrity?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Same lifestyle as I've lived from time to time.  You play, you pay.  I'm not be condescending.  I could bring up my past payments, but I don't particularly care to see this thread turn into a Jerry Springer circus.

I'm just stating the obvious...chill brother.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does anything you've said even remotely resemble details? No.

Does anything you've said even remotely resemble an argument? No.

I'm not asking for your personal details, FTK, I profoundly do not care about them.

You made a very specific claim which runs thus:

"People who do not share my emotional and visceral reaction to a photo of an aborted foetus are Dahmeresque sub-humans who do not share my emotional and visceral reaction because of their lifestyle".

This is not obvious, it's not even true as it happens, and this brother is so chilled you could keep a side of meat in him for a month.

You make a claim, you support a claim. Period. End of story, The fat lady she singeth and cetera.

If you cannot support the claim, say so and retract it. No biggie.

Louis
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,11:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
this brother is so chilled you could keep a side of meat in him for a month.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



yes, onlookers, that is solicitation.  AND what passes for "foreplay" on louis' side of the pond
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,11:38

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,12:28)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,11:25)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:18)
Same lifestyle as I've lived from time to time.  You play, you pay.  I'm not be condescending.  I could bring up my past payments, but I don't particularly care to see this thread turn into a Jerry Springer circus.

I'm just stating the obvious...chill brother.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what is the punishment for me & the doctor & the kind folks at the clinic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Burn in hell forever, sinner!

Hey, FTK, do women who have abortions go to hell?

:p

Joke, joke.....

But answer if you like...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe we should all be in prison for ~20 years; then who is going to make your fucking sandwiches?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,11:45

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,17:08)
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 25 2011,09:57)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 25 2011,06:59)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,06:34)
The feeling I have is more of repulsion and disgust, but that's just because I don't really like seeing blood. But it will never be a feeling of sadness, that's for sure...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This.  With strobe lights.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In 1984 my s.o. at the time miscarried at about 5 months. I was nearby and saw the doctor carry out a pan with something red in it.  There was definitely an emotional factor.  Even though I knew I wasn't ready to be a dad, it was still sad.  

I know it's a different situation than choosing not to carry to term. Sometimes Bad Things happen, people make hard decisions, but I really don't think anyone just shrugs off these things.  Maybe they do.  Maybe one person's heartbreak is another person's equivalent of a stubbed toe.

For my part I'm pissed off at the deliberate attempt at emotional manipulation by people who put up anti-choice billboards.  I can see how one response would be to deny that any such emotion exists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I missed this....this is an honest response.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And others are not? Interesting.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,11:46

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,17:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
this brother is so chilled you could keep a side of meat in him for a month.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



yes, onlookers, that is solicitation.  AND what passes for "foreplay" on louis' side of the pond
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't be silly. Foreplay is turning the lights off and saying "Brace yerself, love".

Louis
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,11:55

Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,11:25)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:18)
Same lifestyle as I've lived from time to time.  You play, you pay.  I'm not be condescending.  I could bring up my past payments, but I don't particularly care to see this thread turn into a Jerry Springer circus.

I'm just stating the obvious...chill brother.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what is the punishment for me & the doctor & the kind folks at the clinic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all live with it.  Sounds like you're doing well....I'm honestly glad.  Not everyone is as tough as you.  But, Ima go out on a limb here and say that when you first glanced at that little pink line on that pregnancy stick, you felt hollow for a second...or at least some type of remorseful feeling (perhaps fleeting for you in particular).  

Whatever you did after that to carry forward is your deal.  You, obviously, managed fine.

I've carried my feelings of regret for some things that have occurred in my life, but I learned A LOT from them, and I'm honestly not sure that I'd have been better off without having them.
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 25 2011,12:00

Off Topic, and mostly for my pal Richard Hughes:

my son (who is autistic) < on youtube. >

You can bump this proud daddy to the BW, but he will not be deterred!
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,12:05

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:55)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,11:25)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:18)
Same lifestyle as I've lived from time to time.  You play, you pay.  I'm not be condescending.  I could bring up my past payments, but I don't particularly care to see this thread turn into a Jerry Springer circus.

I'm just stating the obvious...chill brother.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what is the punishment for me & the doctor & the kind folks at the clinic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all live with it.  Sounds like you're doing well....I'm honestly glad.  Not everyone is as tough as you.  But, Ima go out on a limb here and say that when you first glanced at that little pink line on that pregnancy stick, you felt hollow for a second...or at least some type of remorseful feeling (perhaps fleeting for you in particular).  

Whatever you did after that to carry forward is your deal.  You, obviously, managed fine.

I've carried my feelings of regret for some things that have occurred in my life, but I learned A LOT from them, and I'm honestly not sure that I'd have been better off without having them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Listen ms little pearl cluther:
My first thought was: shit
Fortunately for me I had no problem with the money
Anything else I would say would probably get deleted.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,12:05

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,11:27)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,11:25)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:18)
Same lifestyle as I've lived from time to time.  You play, you pay.  I'm not be condescending.  I could bring up my past payments, but I don't particularly care to see this thread turn into a Jerry Springer circus.

I'm just stating the obvious...chill brother.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what is the punishment for me & the doctor & the kind folks at the clinic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She keeps repeating that she doesn't think their ought to be any legal punishment, all the while no doubt harboring thoughts that these sinners will be roasting in hell for all eternity...

Which is a funny way of saying that there ought not be any punishment, but there you go.  Her imaginary friend is a bit unpleasant that way.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm...I always find it interesting to watch how people picture me.  It's funny....I don't harbor any feelings of hate for anyone.  What is the point?  I found out loooongggg ago that hate sucks...make ya feel horrible 24/7.  Life's too short.  

What kind of legal punishment could possibly be given?   I don't think I've ever heard pro-choice people offering possible ideas for punishing people legally who have had an abortion.  Honestly, it's never crossed my mind.  From where I stand, I've always wanted to see the numbers of abortions decrease by millions through education, counseling, etc..  I've never once considered someone who had an abortion evil.  Gawd...I'm a woman...I know full well what goes through one's mind when you become pregnant.  Come on....chill a little.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,12:08

Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,12:05)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:55)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,11:25)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:18)
Same lifestyle as I've lived from time to time.  You play, you pay.  I'm not be condescending.  I could bring up my past payments, but I don't particularly care to see this thread turn into a Jerry Springer circus.

I'm just stating the obvious...chill brother.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what is the punishment for me & the doctor & the kind folks at the clinic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all live with it.  Sounds like you're doing well....I'm honestly glad.  Not everyone is as tough as you.  But, Ima go out on a limb here and say that when you first glanced at that little pink line on that pregnancy stick, you felt hollow for a second...or at least some type of remorseful feeling (perhaps fleeting for you in particular).  

Whatever you did after that to carry forward is your deal.  You, obviously, managed fine.

I've carried my feelings of regret for some things that have occurred in my life, but I learned A LOT from them, and I'm honestly not sure that I'd have been better off without having them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Listen ms little pearl cluther:
My first thought was: shit
Fortunately for me I had no problem with the money
Anything else I would say would probably get deleted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like I said...it's your deal.  Your choice....ur life.  Don't know why you're even arguing about it.  Worked out fine for.  I'm probably wrong and you felt nothing but pissed off.  Great...makes it all the easier.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,12:10

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,12:00)
Off Topic, and mostly for my pal Richard Hughes:

my son (who is autistic) < on youtube. >

You can bump this proud daddy to the BW, but he will not be deterred!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WOW.  How old is he?  He play by ear..or is that memorized?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,12:15

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,18:00)
Off Topic, and mostly for my pal Richard Hughes:

my son (who is autistic) < on youtube. >

You can bump this proud daddy to the BW, but he will not be deterred!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't really see what this has to do with the current discussion, but I will say this:

You're son is a Master! To have his left hand skills I would give...well... my right hand!

Thanks a thousand for the link, I'll watch it again a few times in absolute awe...
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,12:17

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:05)
Hmmm...I always find it interesting to watch how people picture me.  It's funny....I don't harbor any feelings of hate for anyone.  What is the point?  I found out loooongggg ago that hate sucks...make ya feel horrible 24/7.  Life's too short.  

What kind of legal punishment could possibly be given?   I don't think I've ever heard pro-choice people offering possible ideas for punishing people legally who have had an abortion.  Honestly, it's never crossed my mind.  From where I stand, I've always wanted to see the numbers of abortions decrease by millions through education, counseling, etc..  I've never once considered someone who had an abortion evil.  Gawd...I'm a woman...I know full well what goes through one's mind when you become pregnant.  Come on....chill a little.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pull ye the other one: you pass judgment at one remove and pretend that you don't, because it's all about what your imaginary friend wants.

You judge those who do not behave as you do, be they promiscuous, premarital, or gay...but you hide it behind nice language and friendly concern.  It's all about what your imaginary friend tells you is right.  It's all about the magic book with the magic words and unquestionable instructions.

Your very belief system entails consigning people with whom you do not agree to everlasting punishment on the basis of what a figment of your imagination is said to have commanded.  It certainly allows you to write others off as subhuman when it's convenient!  Or do you discard the doctrine of hell when it proves to be an embarrassment?  Whoops!  There goes the reason for obeying the Sky Daddy!

And yet, you think I am hateful because I point these uncomfortable truths out to you.  Funny, that.  Project much?


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,12:17

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,18:00)
Off Topic, and mostly for my pal Richard Hughes:

my son (who is autistic) < on youtube. >

You can bump this proud daddy to the BW, but he will not be deterred!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Way to go Heddle Jr! Talented lad (autistic or not). And therefore I feel a partial credit and a parenting award must be given to the Heddle Srs! ;-)

You should be very justifiably proud.

I shall have to beat my boy more, he's 19 months and barely knows any quantum mechanics and he cannot even write a symphony yet.*

Louis

*I'm not serious. Of course he can write a symphony! (I'm not serious about the beating of course...is that Child Services at the door?)
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,12:17

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,11:33)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,17:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
These "lifestyles" to which people who don't share your precise response to a photo, what are they? How do you know what you claim to know? Why is someone's emotional response to a photo predicated on some claimed lifestyle that person has?

You're making claims and judgements you have no basis for, do you think that might have some bearing on your intellectual integrity?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Same lifestyle as I've lived from time to time.  You play, you pay.  I'm not be condescending.  I could bring up my past payments, but I don't particularly care to see this thread turn into a Jerry Springer circus.

I'm just stating the obvious...chill brother.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does anything you've said even remotely resemble details? No.

Does anything you've said even remotely resemble an argument? No.

I'm not asking for your personal details, FTK, I profoundly do not care about them.

You made a very specific claim which runs thus:

"People who do not share my emotional and visceral reaction to a photo of an aborted foetus are Dahmeresque sub-humans who do not share my emotional and visceral reaction because of their lifestyle".

This is not obvious, it's not even true as it happens, and this brother is so chilled you could keep a side of meat in him for a month.

You make a claim, you support a claim. Period. End of story, The fat lady she singeth and cetera.

If you cannot support the claim, say so and retract it. No biggie.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, stating the obvious.....no scientific graphs and charts needed.

Let's say for a moment, that we all lived the life....one man/one woman forever Amen.

That imediately does away with virtually all std's and the vast, vast majority of all unwanted pregnancies.  Not all....but most.  And, we'd have those little babies anyway and work things out.  

Lifestyle....period.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,12:26

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:17)
Let's say for a moment, that we all lived the life....one man/one woman forever Amen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's suppose the moon is made of green cheese, while we're at it.

Let's just write off anyone who just happens to be different, say, because they're genetically inclined to prefer their own gender.  Or both.  (Another entry in the file of evidence that your imaginary friend is an asshole, by the way, is the growing documentation of same-sex attraction in other species.  Do pay attention!)

How about you go play in the World of Reality for a while?

By your fruits we know you, and it isn't a pretty picture.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 25 2011,12:29

Thanks y'all for stroking my parent-ego. To answer one question--he has that pieced memorized, but he does not play by ear, he reads music.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,12:30

let's say for a moment that we all shit and fell back in it
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,12:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's say for a moment, that we all lived the life....one man/one woman forever Amen.

That imediately does away with virtually all std's and the vast, vast majority of all unwanted pregnancies.  Not all....but most.  And, we'd have those little babies anyway and work things out.  

Lifestyle....period.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And a big (huge) part of the population would either cheat on their spouse or commit suicide out of depression and/or repressed sexual needs.

FTK, YOUR view is not EVERYONE'S view. We have agreed on that. If you think the world would be wonderful and everyone would be pissing brandy and crapping plum-pudding if they behaved the way you think they should, that's your own problem, not ours. And it's totaly human.

I would have a miserable life if I didn't have the sexual openness I have. Don't get me wrong, I have a steady (and lovely, in case she reads this) girlfriend, and I don't ever cheat on her. But I also have had periods in my life when I was single and just wanted to have fun. Always protected, of course, because I'm not a dumbass and I got educated about these things.

In fact, I think my last sentence alone would suffice to burry your argument about STDs and unwanted pregnancy. So just keep that last one in mind, since it meets your own (public) wishes...
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,12:32

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,13:17)
You should be very justifiably proud.

I shall have to beat my boy more, he's 19 months and barely knows any quantum mechanics and he cannot even write a symphony yet.*

Louis

*I'm not serious. Of course he can write a symphony! (I'm not serious about the beating of course...is that Child Services at the door?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm 60, I've been married & divorced; I've had an abortion; I've had wisdom teeth yanked; I've had sex outside of marriage.
I've also eaten shrimp & clams; & have worn clothes of mixed fabrics; & interplanted crops.

Which of these behaviors are subject to stoning or shunning?
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 25 2011,12:33

This is a genuine, snark-free question for FTK and/or anyone else who can remember more bible than me...

What, specifically, does the bible say about abortion, one way or the other?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,12:34

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,12:17)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:05)
Hmmm...I always find it interesting to watch how people picture me.  It's funny....I don't harbor any feelings of hate for anyone.  What is the point?  I found out loooongggg ago that hate sucks...make ya feel horrible 24/7.  Life's too short.  

What kind of legal punishment could possibly be given?   I don't think I've ever heard pro-choice people offering possible ideas for punishing people legally who have had an abortion.  Honestly, it's never crossed my mind.  From where I stand, I've always wanted to see the numbers of abortions decrease by millions through education, counseling, etc..  I've never once considered someone who had an abortion evil.  Gawd...I'm a woman...I know full well what goes through one's mind when you become pregnant.  Come on....chill a little.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pull ye the other one: you pass judgment at one remove and pretend that you don't, because it's all about what your imaginary friend wants.

You judge those who do not behave as you do, be they promiscuous, premarital, or gay...but you hide it behind nice language and friendly concern.  It's all about what your imaginary friend tells you is right.  It's all about the magic book with the magic words and unquestionable instructions.

Your very belief system entails consigning people with whom you do not agree to everlasting punishment on the basis of what a figment of your imagination is said to have commanded.  It certainly allows you to write others off as subhuman when it's convenient!  Or do you discard the doctrine of hell when it proves to be an embarrassment?  Whoops!  There goes the reason for obeying the Sky Daddy!

And yet, you think I am hateful because I point these uncomfortable truths out to you.  Funny, that.  Project much?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know...this doesn't even make sense to me AT ALL.  

So, are you saying that since I hold to a particular moral standard that I see as the perfect goal, that I then should be fucking mean as hell to people who can't maintain that standard?  How in the holy hell would I be able to do that and live with myself????  Wouldn't that be incredibly, insanely hypocritical???  Why do I have to be unfriendly, and not show friendly concern?  Shit, I would certainly hope that there would be people out there concerned when I fuck up.  Luckily there have been!

I am stating what I hold to be the best possible way of living.  We all make mistakes and all have regrets.  Must, then, my next response be to damn everyone to hell?  That is RIDICULOUS.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,12:39

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:34)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,12:17)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:05)
Hmmm...I always find it interesting to watch how people picture me.  It's funny....I don't harbor any feelings of hate for anyone.  What is the point?  I found out loooongggg ago that hate sucks...make ya feel horrible 24/7.  Life's too short.  

What kind of legal punishment could possibly be given?   I don't think I've ever heard pro-choice people offering possible ideas for punishing people legally who have had an abortion.  Honestly, it's never crossed my mind.  From where I stand, I've always wanted to see the numbers of abortions decrease by millions through education, counseling, etc..  I've never once considered someone who had an abortion evil.  Gawd...I'm a woman...I know full well what goes through one's mind when you become pregnant.  Come on....chill a little.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pull ye the other one: you pass judgment at one remove and pretend that you don't, because it's all about what your imaginary friend wants.

You judge those who do not behave as you do, be they promiscuous, premarital, or gay...but you hide it behind nice language and friendly concern.  It's all about what your imaginary friend tells you is right.  It's all about the magic book with the magic words and unquestionable instructions.

Your very belief system entails consigning people with whom you do not agree to everlasting punishment on the basis of what a figment of your imagination is said to have commanded.  It certainly allows you to write others off as subhuman when it's convenient!  Or do you discard the doctrine of hell when it proves to be an embarrassment?  Whoops!  There goes the reason for obeying the Sky Daddy!

And yet, you think I am hateful because I point these uncomfortable truths out to you.  Funny, that.  Project much?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know...this doesn't even make sense to me AT ALL.  

So, are you saying that since I hold to a particular moral standard that I see as the perfect goal, that I then should be fucking mean as hell to people who can't maintain that standard?  How in the holy hell would I be able to do that and live with myself????  Wouldn't that be incredibly, insanely hypocritical???  Why do I have to be unfriendly, and not show friendly concern?  Shit, I would certainly hope that there would be people out there concerned when I fuck up.  Luckily there have been!

I am stating what I hold to be the best possible way of living.  We all make mistakes and all have regrets.  Must, then, my next response be to damn everyone to hell?  That is RIDICULOUS.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Try reading for comprehension, ftk.

Are you saying that all that stuff about hellfire and damnation isn't to be taken seriously?

Do you deny that you earlier commented that it is your imaginary friend's business to judge?

Do you understand the concept of 'Minnesota nice'?  You're using it.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,12:39

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:34)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,12:17)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:05)
Hmmm...I always find it interesting to watch how people picture me.  It's funny....I don't harbor any feelings of hate for anyone.  What is the point?  I found out loooongggg ago that hate sucks...make ya feel horrible 24/7.  Life's too short.  

What kind of legal punishment could possibly be given?   I don't think I've ever heard pro-choice people offering possible ideas for punishing people legally who have had an abortion.  Honestly, it's never crossed my mind.  From where I stand, I've always wanted to see the numbers of abortions decrease by millions through education, counseling, etc..  I've never once considered someone who had an abortion evil.  Gawd...I'm a woman...I know full well what goes through one's mind when you become pregnant.  Come on....chill a little.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pull ye the other one: you pass judgment at one remove and pretend that you don't, because it's all about what your imaginary friend wants.

You judge those who do not behave as you do, be they promiscuous, premarital, or gay...but you hide it behind nice language and friendly concern.  It's all about what your imaginary friend tells you is right.  It's all about the magic book with the magic words and unquestionable instructions.

Your very belief system entails consigning people with whom you do not agree to everlasting punishment on the basis of what a figment of your imagination is said to have commanded.  It certainly allows you to write others off as subhuman when it's convenient!  Or do you discard the doctrine of hell when it proves to be an embarrassment?  Whoops!  There goes the reason for obeying the Sky Daddy!

And yet, you think I am hateful because I point these uncomfortable truths out to you.  Funny, that.  Project much?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know...this doesn't even make sense to me AT ALL.  

So, are you saying that since I hold to a particular moral standard that I see as the perfect goal, that I then should be fucking mean as hell to people who can't maintain that standard?  How in the holy hell would I be able to do that and live with myself????  Wouldn't that be incredibly, insanely hypocritical???  Why do I have to be unfriendly, and not show friendly concern?  Shit, I would certainly hope that there would be people out there concerned when I fuck up.  Luckily there have been!

I am stating what I hold to be the best possible way of living.  We all make mistakes and all have regrets.  Must, then, my next response be to damn everyone to hell?  That is RIDICULOUS.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So I'm not going to hell?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,12:42

yes but not for that.  for the cats
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,12:44

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,18:42)
yes but not for that.  for the cats
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Massive LOL right there!
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,12:44

Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,12:32)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,13:17)
You should be very justifiably proud.

I shall have to beat my boy more, he's 19 months and barely knows any quantum mechanics and he cannot even write a symphony yet.*

Louis

*I'm not serious. Of course he can write a symphony! (I'm not serious about the beating of course...is that Child Services at the door?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm 60, I've been married & divorced; I've had an abortion; I've had wisdom teeth yanked; I've had sex outside of marriage.
I've also eaten shrimp & clams; & have worn clothes of mixed fabrics; & interplanted crops.

Which of these behaviors are subject to stoning or shunning?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Always looking for punishment, aren't you?  I'm giving you the ideal....what is strived for.  Even 'ol SD has fallen into the one man/one woman.  It's what works in the end.  

It's not a perfect world, obviously.  I personally believe we learn a lot about life from our mistakes.  That doesn't mean that Ima support abortion because it makes you all feel better.

You bringing up stoning and shunning is entirely a different subject that should be taken back to Christianity 101.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,12:44

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,18:17)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,11:33)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,17:18)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
These "lifestyles" to which people who don't share your precise response to a photo, what are they? How do you know what you claim to know? Why is someone's emotional response to a photo predicated on some claimed lifestyle that person has?

You're making claims and judgements you have no basis for, do you think that might have some bearing on your intellectual integrity?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Same lifestyle as I've lived from time to time.  You play, you pay.  I'm not be condescending.  I could bring up my past payments, but I don't particularly care to see this thread turn into a Jerry Springer circus.

I'm just stating the obvious...chill brother.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does anything you've said even remotely resemble details? No.

Does anything you've said even remotely resemble an argument? No.

I'm not asking for your personal details, FTK, I profoundly do not care about them.

You made a very specific claim which runs thus:

"People who do not share my emotional and visceral reaction to a photo of an aborted foetus are Dahmeresque sub-humans who do not share my emotional and visceral reaction because of their lifestyle".

This is not obvious, it's not even true as it happens, and this brother is so chilled you could keep a side of meat in him for a month.

You make a claim, you support a claim. Period. End of story, The fat lady she singeth and cetera.

If you cannot support the claim, say so and retract it. No biggie.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, stating the obvious.....no scientific graphs and charts needed.

Let's say for a moment, that we all lived the life....one man/one woman forever Amen.

That imediately does away with virtually all std's and the vast, vast majority of all unwanted pregnancies.  Not all....but most.  And, we'd have those little babies anyway and work things out.  

Lifestyle....period.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where does one even start?

And weren't we talking about REACTIONS TO PHOTOS, FTK? Weren't you the one who complained (wrongly) about the errors of others for ascribing an inconsistent position to you?

So the people who are the Dahmer-esque sub-humans are not the ones who do not share your reaction to a photo, but the people who have an abortion now? You're being more than a little inconsistent FTK. I've bolded your claim in the quoted post above. Support that claim.

You said that people who looked at a photo and didn't feel a set of feelings you described yourself as feeling were Dahmeresque sub-humans and only felt that way because of their lifestyle. Let me give you a hint, the set of people who do not share your reaction to those sorts of photos are not necessarily the same as the set of people who have had abortions. You are talking about two different sets of people.

To clarify this even more for you, it is possible for, say, a single, celibate pathologist to look at photos of dimembered foetuses with a greater degree of dispassion than you and to have never had, or been responsible for, a pregnancy that was deliberately terminated by abortion. Thus the set of people who have had abortions does not include the set of people who have different reactions to your own when presented with those photographs. Lifestyle? I think not.

It is equally possible for a promiscuous person, who has had many abortions, or been responsible for many pregnancies which ended in abortions, to have precisely the visceral, emotional reaction to those photos you do. Thus the set of people who have the same reactions to these photos as you does not include the set of people who have not had abortions. Lifestyle again? In a word: no.

Your tedious moralising is as unexamined and bigotted as your life.

Louis
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,12:45

Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,12:39)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:34)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,12:17)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:05)
Hmmm...I always find it interesting to watch how people picture me.  It's funny....I don't harbor any feelings of hate for anyone.  What is the point?  I found out loooongggg ago that hate sucks...make ya feel horrible 24/7.  Life's too short.  

What kind of legal punishment could possibly be given?   I don't think I've ever heard pro-choice people offering possible ideas for punishing people legally who have had an abortion.  Honestly, it's never crossed my mind.  From where I stand, I've always wanted to see the numbers of abortions decrease by millions through education, counseling, etc..  I've never once considered someone who had an abortion evil.  Gawd...I'm a woman...I know full well what goes through one's mind when you become pregnant.  Come on....chill a little.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pull ye the other one: you pass judgment at one remove and pretend that you don't, because it's all about what your imaginary friend wants.

You judge those who do not behave as you do, be they promiscuous, premarital, or gay...but you hide it behind nice language and friendly concern.  It's all about what your imaginary friend tells you is right.  It's all about the magic book with the magic words and unquestionable instructions.

Your very belief system entails consigning people with whom you do not agree to everlasting punishment on the basis of what a figment of your imagination is said to have commanded.  It certainly allows you to write others off as subhuman when it's convenient!  Or do you discard the doctrine of hell when it proves to be an embarrassment?  Whoops!  There goes the reason for obeying the Sky Daddy!

And yet, you think I am hateful because I point these uncomfortable truths out to you.  Funny, that.  Project much?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know...this doesn't even make sense to me AT ALL.  

So, are you saying that since I hold to a particular moral standard that I see as the perfect goal, that I then should be fucking mean as hell to people who can't maintain that standard?  How in the holy hell would I be able to do that and live with myself????  Wouldn't that be incredibly, insanely hypocritical???  Why do I have to be unfriendly, and not show friendly concern?  Shit, I would certainly hope that there would be people out there concerned when I fuck up.  Luckily there have been!

I am stating what I hold to be the best possible way of living.  We all make mistakes and all have regrets.  Must, then, my next response be to damn everyone to hell?  That is RIDICULOUS.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So I'm not going to hell?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol....no one is going to hell just for having an abortion.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,12:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even 'ol SD has fallen into the one man/one woman.  It's what works in the end.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey FTK, don't get carried away!

if Ali was into all that moresome hot steamy stuff, we'd be out shagging a whole college dorm right now. She's just not into it, and I'm loving and gentlemanly enough to put her at the top of my priorities.

I live well with that, because she allows me to watch porn and wank as much as I want when needed.*



*TMI?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,12:50

what if you have sex with an abortion.  out side of marriage.  while eating shellfish wearing a cotton-polyester blend in the middle of cherokee beans-corn-squash agriculture plot?  

for fucks sake FtK you called people Dahmeresque simply because they have a different aesthetic than you.  own that shit you hypocrite
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,12:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where does one even start?

And weren't we talking about REACTIONS TO PHOTOS, FTK? Weren't you the one who complained (wrongly) about the errors of others for ascribing an inconsistent position to you?

So the people who are the Dahmer-esque sub-humans are not the ones who do not share your reaction to a photo, but the people who have an abortion now? You're being more than a little inconsistent FTK. I've bolded your claim in the quoted post above. Support that claim.

You said that people who looked at a photo and didn't feel a set of feelings you described yourself as feeling were Dahmeresque sub-humans and only felt that way because of their lifestyle. Let me give you a hint, the set of people who do not share your reaction to those sorts of photos are not necessarily the same as the set of people who have had abortions. You are talking about two different sets of people.

To clarify this even more for you, it is possible for, say, a single, celibate pathologist to look at photos of dimembered foetuses with a greater degree of dispassion than you and to have never had, or been responsible for, a pregnancy that was deliberately terminated by abortion. Thus the set of people who have had abortions does not include the set of people who have different reactions to your own when presented with those photographs. Lifestyle? I think not.

It is equally possible for a promiscuous person, who has had many abortions, or been responsible for many pregnancies which ended in abortions, to have precisely the visceral, emotional reaction to those photos you do. Thus the set of people who have the same reactions to these photos as you does not include the set of people who have not had abortions. Lifestyle again? In a word: no.

Your tedious moralising is as unexamined and bigotted as your life.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This, right here, sums it up very nicely. I would push for PotW for the simple fact that it's simple, effective, unbiased, and Louis paid me to do so...

So... PotW?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,12:51

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:45)
lol....no one is going to hell just for having an abortion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right.  And you would know this, how, exactly?  And your credentials in this matter would be what, exactly?  (Forgive the snarky tone.  This isn't so different from FL or Biggy claiming to have the right interpretation of scripture, all others be damned.  Just because I LIKE your take on the matter doesn't mean I should just overlook the questions.)

Instead of telling this to us, why aren't you out trying to convince your fellow believers of this?  Because this makes you the first (Christian) pro-birther I've ever heard make this (welcome and encouraging) concession...and there are a whole lot of others who haven't gotten the memo.

I would add that, all snark on my part aside, I do find your commitment to reducing the number of abortions by education and other means of birth control to be more consistent and helpful than the usual noise that results.  Credit where it's due...


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,12:54

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
lol....no one is going to hell just for having an abortion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why not?

What about interplanting?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is my arthritis some sort of intergenerational punishment?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,12:57

"Try reading for comprehension, ftk."

OK

"Are you saying that all that stuff about hellfire and damnation isn't to be taken seriously?"

IN REGARD TO WHAT?  ABORTION?  DO I THINK THERE IS A HELL?  YES.  DO I THINK THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN ABORTION, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL?  NO.

"Do you deny that you earlier commented that it is your imaginary friend's business to judge?"

OF COURSE NOT...IT'S *ONLY* HIS PLACE TO JUDGE.  IT IS MY PLACE TO SHARE MY VIEWS IN REGARD TO GOALS BEST STRIVED FOR.

"Do you understand the concept of 'Minnesota nice'?  You're using it."

NO, NOR DO I CARE.  I AM BEING ME...I WILL NOT BE MEAN (UNLESS I LOSE IT EMOTIONALLY) TO PEOPLE WHO HOLD DIFFERENT VIEWS THAN I DO JUST TO MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER FOR SOME WEIRD TWISTED REASON.  THAT'S NO WHO I AM, AND IT'S NOT HOW I FEEL REGARDLESS OF THE GOD FACTOR OR NOT.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,12:58

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,12:50)
what if you have sex with an abortion.  out side of marriage.  while eating shellfish wearing a cotton-polyester blend in the middle of cherokee beans-corn-squash agriculture plot?  

for fucks sake FtK you called people Dahmeresque simply because they have a different aesthetic than you.  own that shit you hypocrite
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


pull the doobie out and retype that
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,12:59

DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,13:01

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:58)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,12:50)
what if you have sex with an abortion.  out side of marriage.  while eating shellfish wearing a cotton-polyester blend in the middle of cherokee beans-corn-squash agriculture plot?  

for fucks sake FtK you called people Dahmeresque simply because they have a different aesthetic than you.  own that shit you hypocrite
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


pull the doobie out and retype that
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you think the biblical condemnations are a piece of shit? Or do you pick & choose which shit you adhere to?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,13:02

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,18:59)
DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DONT TELL HER TO NOT TELL YOU WHAT TO DO!!!111ONE1








Sorry, been working out this morning, low blood-sugar, etc...
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,13:02

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,13:42)
yes but not for that.  for the cats
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've known for a long time that the cats would lead me to hell.
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 25 2011,13:04

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,12:51)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:45)
lol....no one is going to hell just for having an abortion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right.  And you would know this, how, exactly?  And your credentials in this matter would be what, exactly?  (Forgive the snarky tone.  This isn't so different from FL or Biggy claiming to have the right interpretation of scripture, all others be damned.  Just because I LIKE your take on the matter doesn't mean I should just overlook the questions.)

Instead of telling this to us, why aren't you out trying to convince your fellow believers of this?  Because this makes you the first (Christian) pro-birther I've ever heard make this (welcome and encouraging) concession...and there are a whole lot of others who haven't gotten the memo.

I would add that, all snark on my part aside, I do find your commitment to reducing the number of abortions by education and other means of birth control to be more consistent and helpful than the usual noise that results.  Credit where it's due...


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are kidding, right? Ftk is absolutely correct in this theological point--and it is broad-based Christianity 101. That is, Christianity teaches that you go to heaven if you have placed your faith in the power of Christ's death to atone for your sins. And if you don't, then you don't. On that there is nearly universal agreement--so much so that that is as good of a working definition of Christianity that you can find.

The consequence of which is:

If you have had abortions and have the aforementioned saving faith, you are saved.

If you devote your entire life to charity yet lack this faith, then you are lost.

The are a lot of details about which have internecine  warfare--such as how the faith is acquired, but on what I just wrote--no disagreement to speak of.  

We must associate with different Christians--because I never heard even one say "if you have an abortion you will go to hell." If I did, I'd be tempted to smack him.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,13:04

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:44)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,12:32)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,13:17)
You should be very justifiably proud.

I shall have to beat my boy more, he's 19 months and barely knows any quantum mechanics and he cannot even write a symphony yet.*

Louis

*I'm not serious. Of course he can write a symphony! (I'm not serious about the beating of course...is that Child Services at the door?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm 60, I've been married & divorced; I've had an abortion; I've had wisdom teeth yanked; I've had sex outside of marriage.
I've also eaten shrimp & clams; & have worn clothes of mixed fabrics; & interplanted crops.

Which of these behaviors are subject to stoning or shunning?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Always looking for punishment, aren't you?  I'm giving you the ideal....what is strived for.  Even 'ol SD has fallen into the one man/one woman.  It's what works in the end.  

It's not a perfect world, obviously.  I personally believe we learn a lot about life from our mistakes.  That doesn't mean that Ima support abortion because it makes you all feel better.

You bringing up stoning and shunning is entirely a different subject that should be taken back to Christianity 101.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jesus fucking shit: what behaviors should lead to death/hell?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,13:05

Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,13:01)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:58)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,12:50)
what if you have sex with an abortion.  out side of marriage.  while eating shellfish wearing a cotton-polyester blend in the middle of cherokee beans-corn-squash agriculture plot?  

for fucks sake FtK you called people Dahmeresque simply because they have a different aesthetic than you.  own that shit you hypocrite
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


pull the doobie out and retype that
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you think the biblical condemnations are a piece of shit? Or do you pick & choose which shit you adhere to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


khan, you got about a month of one on one time for me to go into this with you?  In the long run, you don't care...so just let it go.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,13:06

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:57)
"Try reading for comprehension, ftk."

OK

"Are you saying that all that stuff about hellfire and damnation isn't to be taken seriously?"

IN REGARD TO WHAT?  ABORTION?  DO I THINK THERE IS A HELL?  YES.  DO I THINK THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN ABORTION, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL?  NO.

"Do you deny that you earlier commented that it is your imaginary friend's business to judge?"

OF COURSE NOT...IT'S *ONLY* HIS PLACE TO JUDGE.  IT IS MY PLACE TO SHARE MY VIEWS IN REGARD TO GOALS BEST STRIVED FOR.

"Do you understand the concept of 'Minnesota nice'?  You're using it."

NO, NOR DO I CARE.  I AM BEING ME...I WILL NOT BE MEAN (UNLESS I LOSE IT EMOTIONALLY) TO PEOPLE WHO HOLD DIFFERENT VIEWS THAN I DO JUST TO MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER FOR SOME WEIRD TWISTED REASON.  THAT'S NO WHO I AM, AND IT'S NOT HOW I FEEL REGARDLESS OF THE GOD FACTOR OR NOT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's the thing.

You judge, all right.  You are perfectly willing to write other people off for not believing in your imaginary friend, or following your oh-so-perfect interpretation of your magic book with magic words...but you pretend that it's all your imaginary friend's doing.  That's an abdication of responsibility.  It's also deliberately acting in bad faith.  It's 'Minnesota nice' of you.

Why are you getting so upset over this?  It's all just whispers, isn't it?  It ought not be so divisive.  Remember?


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,13:09

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,14:04)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,12:51)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:45)
lol....no one is going to hell just for having an abortion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right.  And you would know this, how, exactly?  And your credentials in this matter would be what, exactly?  (Forgive the snarky tone.  This isn't so different from FL or Biggy claiming to have the right interpretation of scripture, all others be damned.  Just because I LIKE your take on the matter doesn't mean I should just overlook the questions.)

Instead of telling this to us, why aren't you out trying to convince your fellow believers of this?  Because this makes you the first (Christian) pro-birther I've ever heard make this (welcome and encouraging) concession...and there are a whole lot of others who haven't gotten the memo.

I would add that, all snark on my part aside, I do find your commitment to reducing the number of abortions by education and other means of birth control to be more consistent and helpful than the usual noise that results.  Credit where it's due...


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are kidding, right? Ftk is absolutely correct in this theological point--and it is broad-based Christianity 101. That is, Christianity teaches that you go to heaven if you have placed your faith in the power of Christ's death to atone for your sins. And if you don't, then you don't. On that there is nearly universal agreement--so much so that that is as good of a working definition of Christianity that you can find.

The consequence of which is:

If you have had abortions and have the aforementioned saving faith, you are saved.

If you devote your entire life to charity yet lack this faith, then you are lost.

The are a lot of details about which have internecine  warfare--such as how the faith is acquired, but on what I just wrote--no disagreement to speak of.  

We must associate with different Christians--because I never heard even one say "if you have an abortion you will go to hell." If I did, I'd be tempted to smack him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you think I am going to some sort of eternal torment because your fucking god declared it so from the beginning?

Thank you jebus & heddle & nascat.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,13:10

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,12:59)
DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lmfao.  That there is funny.  

See there?  

Now, Eramus is a TOTAL ass, but how can I possibly not love him?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,13:11

hell yeah, she "judges"

for instance, anyone who doesn't have the FtK sanctioned reaction to a picture of an aborted fetus is "Dahmeresque" and "sub-human"

all this bullshit about who is going to hell just lets her equivocate and vacillate far away from her original statement, which by the way Heddle echoed.

So, again, you twinks,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyone who can look at an aborted fetus and think anything but MMMMMM MEAT is sub-human
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



suck on that.  see how stupid this is

*ETA FtK you love sub-humans?  You realize that is almost beast
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,13:12

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,13:04)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,12:51)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:45)
lol....no one is going to hell just for having an abortion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right.  And you would know this, how, exactly?  And your credentials in this matter would be what, exactly?  (Forgive the snarky tone.  This isn't so different from FL or Biggy claiming to have the right interpretation of scripture, all others be damned.  Just because I LIKE your take on the matter doesn't mean I should just overlook the questions.)

Instead of telling this to us, why aren't you out trying to convince your fellow believers of this?  Because this makes you the first (Christian) pro-birther I've ever heard make this (welcome and encouraging) concession...and there are a whole lot of others who haven't gotten the memo.

I would add that, all snark on my part aside, I do find your commitment to reducing the number of abortions by education and other means of birth control to be more consistent and helpful than the usual noise that results.  Credit where it's due...


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are kidding, right? Ftk is absolutely correct in this theological point--and it is broad-based Christianity 101. That is, Christianity teaches that you go to heaven if you have placed your faith in the power of Christ's death to atone for your sins. And if you don't, then you don't. On that there is nearly universal agreement--so much so that that is as good of a working definition of Christianity that you can find.

The consequence of which is:

If you have had abortions and have the aforementioned saving faith, you are saved.

If you devote your entire life to charity yet lack this faith, then you are lost.

The are a lot of details about which have internecine  warfare--such as how the faith is acquired, but on what I just wrote--no disagreement to speak of.  

We must associate with different Christians--because I never heard even one say "if you have an abortion you will go to hell." If I did, I'd be tempted to smack him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heddle, I understand that you can't help it because you're a Calvinist, but since I consider Calvinism to be an immoral doctrine at best, your interpretation of ftk isn't helpful here.

Here you go with the argument from incredulity again!  You have either redefined Christian to mean an incredibly tiny subset of the whole, or you have some heavy-duty blinders on.

There is a reason I refer to your variation of the imaginary friend as a monster, but that's a completely different discussion for another time.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,13:12

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,19:10)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,12:59)
DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lmfao.  That there is funny.  

See there?  

Now, Eramus is a TOTAL ass, but how can I possibly not love him?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At least he's our ass!


Wait, that didn't come out right...
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,13:13

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,13:06)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:57)
"Try reading for comprehension, ftk."

OK

"Are you saying that all that stuff about hellfire and damnation isn't to be taken seriously?"

IN REGARD TO WHAT?  ABORTION?  DO I THINK THERE IS A HELL?  YES.  DO I THINK THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN ABORTION, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL?  NO.

"Do you deny that you earlier commented that it is your imaginary friend's business to judge?"

OF COURSE NOT...IT'S *ONLY* HIS PLACE TO JUDGE.  IT IS MY PLACE TO SHARE MY VIEWS IN REGARD TO GOALS BEST STRIVED FOR.

"Do you understand the concept of 'Minnesota nice'?  You're using it."

NO, NOR DO I CARE.  I AM BEING ME...I WILL NOT BE MEAN (UNLESS I LOSE IT EMOTIONALLY) TO PEOPLE WHO HOLD DIFFERENT VIEWS THAN I DO JUST TO MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER FOR SOME WEIRD TWISTED REASON.  THAT'S NO WHO I AM, AND IT'S NOT HOW I FEEL REGARDLESS OF THE GOD FACTOR OR NOT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's the thing.

You judge, all right.  You are perfectly willing to write other people off for not believing in your imaginary friend, or following your oh-so-perfect interpretation of your magic book with magic words...but you pretend that it's all your imaginary friend's doing.  That's an abdication of responsibility.  It's also deliberately acting in bad faith.  It's 'Minnesota nice' of you.

Why are you getting so upset over this?  It's all just whispers, isn't it?  It ought not be so divisive.  Remember?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The capitals weren't to be equated with yelling or being upset..lol.  Just a way to respond so it's easy to read who said what.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,13:13

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,14:04)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,12:51)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:45)
lol....no one is going to hell just for having an abortion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right.  And you would know this, how, exactly?  And your credentials in this matter would be what, exactly?  (Forgive the snarky tone.  This isn't so different from FL or Biggy claiming to have the right interpretation of scripture, all others be damned.  Just because I LIKE your take on the matter doesn't mean I should just overlook the questions.)

Instead of telling this to us, why aren't you out trying to convince your fellow believers of this?  Because this makes you the first (Christian) pro-birther I've ever heard make this (welcome and encouraging) concession...and there are a whole lot of others who haven't gotten the memo.

I would add that, all snark on my part aside, I do find your commitment to reducing the number of abortions by education and other means of birth control to be more consistent and helpful than the usual noise that results.  Credit where it's due...


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are kidding, right? Ftk is absolutely correct in this theological point--and it is broad-based Christianity 101. That is, Christianity teaches that you go to heaven if you have placed your faith in the power of Christ's death to atone for your sins. And if you don't, then you don't. On that there is nearly universal agreement--so much so that that is as good of a working definition of Christianity that you can find.

The consequence of which is:

If you have had abortions and have the aforementioned saving faith, you are saved.

If you devote your entire life to charity yet lack this faith, then you are lost.

The are a lot of details about which have internecine  warfare--such as how the faith is acquired, but on what I just wrote--no disagreement to speak of.  

We must associate with different Christians--because I never heard even one say "if you have an abortion you will go to hell." If I did, I'd be tempted to smack him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So do I go to hell for abortion or divorce or blasphemy or being really bad at housework?
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,13:15

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,14:05)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,13:01)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:58)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,12:50)
what if you have sex with an abortion.  out side of marriage.  while eating shellfish wearing a cotton-polyester blend in the middle of cherokee beans-corn-squash agriculture plot?  

for fucks sake FtK you called people Dahmeresque simply because they have a different aesthetic than you.  own that shit you hypocrite
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


pull the doobie out and retype that
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you think the biblical condemnations are a piece of shit? Or do you pick & choose which shit you adhere to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


khan, you got about a month of one on one time for me to go into this with you?  In the long run, you don't care...so just let it go.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't fuck with me: I've debugged COBOL in hex.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,13:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't fuck with me: I've debugged COBOL in hex.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



O_o genuinely impressed. I don't know what a COBOL is or what hex does (appart from Prtachettian universe)...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 25 2011,13:19

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:05)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,13:01)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:58)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,12:50)
what if you have sex with an abortion.  out side of marriage.  while eating shellfish wearing a cotton-polyester blend in the middle of cherokee beans-corn-squash agriculture plot?  

for fucks sake FtK you called people Dahmeresque simply because they have a different aesthetic than you.  own that shit you hypocrite
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


pull the doobie out and retype that
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you think the biblical condemnations are a piece of shit? Or do you pick & choose which shit you adhere to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


khan, you got about a month of one on one time for me to go into this with you?  In the long run, you don't care...so just let it go.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you like we could go into the PM I sent you which you called "interesting" IIRC.

In fact we could spend not months but years talking about the ramifications of that single image and what it means.

But you'd rather talk about anything but. I wonder why.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,13:21

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,14:19)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't fuck with me: I've debugged COBOL in hex.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



O_o genuinely impressed. I don't know what a COBOL is or what hex does (appart from Prtachettian universe)...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Young one. I've been fucking with computers since before you were born. :)
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 25 2011,13:24

I could tell you about troubleshooting Fibonacci algorithms implemented in core memory.

Actually, I couldn't. I've forgotten it all.
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 25 2011,13:25

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,13:12)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,13:04)
 
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,12:51)
     
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:45)
lol....no one is going to hell just for having an abortion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right.  And you would know this, how, exactly?  And your credentials in this matter would be what, exactly?  (Forgive the snarky tone.  This isn't so different from FL or Biggy claiming to have the right interpretation of scripture, all others be damned.  Just because I LIKE your take on the matter doesn't mean I should just overlook the questions.)

Instead of telling this to us, why aren't you out trying to convince your fellow believers of this?  Because this makes you the first (Christian) pro-birther I've ever heard make this (welcome and encouraging) concession...and there are a whole lot of others who haven't gotten the memo.

I would add that, all snark on my part aside, I do find your commitment to reducing the number of abortions by education and other means of birth control to be more consistent and helpful than the usual noise that results.  Credit where it's due...


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are kidding, right? Ftk is absolutely correct in this theological point--and it is broad-based Christianity 101. That is, Christianity teaches that you go to heaven if you have placed your faith in the power of Christ's death to atone for your sins. And if you don't, then you don't. On that there is nearly universal agreement--so much so that that is as good of a working definition of Christianity that you can find.

The consequence of which is:

If you have had abortions and have the aforementioned saving faith, you are saved.

If you devote your entire life to charity yet lack this faith, then you are lost.

The are a lot of details about which have internecine  warfare--such as how the faith is acquired, but on what I just wrote--no disagreement to speak of.  

We must associate with different Christians--because I never heard even one say "if you have an abortion you will go to hell." If I did, I'd be tempted to smack him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heddle, I understand that you can't help it because you're a Calvinist, but since I consider Calvinism to be an immoral doctrine at best, your interpretation of ftk isn't helpful here.

Here you go with the argument from incredulity again!  You have either redefined Christian to mean an incredibly tiny subset of the whole, or you have some heavy-duty blinders on.

There is a reason I refer to your variation of the imaginary friend as a monster, but that's a completely different discussion for another time.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice try (not really)  but alas there is no Calvinism in my post. Being saved by faith in the finished work of Christ is a doctrine shared by the majority of Christians. Calvinists, non-Calvinists, Protestants, and Catholics.

That's about the third time you used "heddle is a Calvinist" as a blunt instrument. If you want a piece of advice--wait until I actually make an argument from Calvinism before you use it as an argument stopper.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,13:26

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:13)
The capitals weren't to be equated with yelling or being upset..lol.  Just a way to respond so it's easy to read who said what.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somehow I find it difficult to treat that claim credibly.  Can't think why.

Oh, right.  Because I've known too many Christians.  (/Inigo Montoya)  For that matter, I was one until the Biggys and FLs and heddles encouraged me to apply Occam's Chainsaw a bit more broadly.  But that's off topic.

I ask again--why should I take your interpretation of this matter more seriously than that being pushed forward by so many of your co-religionists?


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 25 2011,13:27

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,12:44)
Where Why does one even start?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTFY
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,13:30

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 25 2011,19:27)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,12:44)
Where Why does one even start?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTFY
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rem acu tetigisti.

Louis
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 25 2011,13:31

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,12:00)
Off Topic, and mostly for my pal Richard Hughes:

my son (who is autistic) < on youtube. >

You can bump this proud daddy to the BW, but he will not be deterred!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*STANDS AND APPLAUDS*

Simply fantastic! I hope it brings him great joy to play it. What a gift! Tell him I think he's a star.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,13:31

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,13:00)
Off Topic, and mostly for my pal Richard Hughes:

my son (who is autistic) < on youtube. >

You can bump this proud daddy to the BW, but he will not be deterred!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


nice!

that's quite a memory.  although i haven't tried to memorize a piano piece in years, i am pretty sure that faculty is shot to shit.  for one, improvisation destroyed it.  and college.  post moar!
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,13:33

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,13:25)
Nice try (not really)  but alas there is no Calvinism in my post. Being saved by faith in the finished work of Christ is a doctrine shared by the majority of Christians. Calvinists, non-Calvinists, Protestants, and Catholics.

That's about the third time you used "heddle is a Calvinist" as a blunt instrument. If you want a piece of advice--wait until I actually make an argument from Calvinism before you use it as an argument stopper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, heddle, but mercy is for the merciful.  Your opinion on these matters is well known, as is your affiliation.  And since, in my opinion, your opinions on these matters come from your particular denomination's interpretation, I will continue to refer to this fact.  

If you feel I have misrepresented or misquoted you, of course, I would expect you to point it out...but let there be no misunderstanding--you are a Calvinist, as you have said so yourself many times.  It is hardly unfair of me to refer to you as such.

Since nobody is forcing you to read my posts, nor to respond to them, you might as well simply ignore them.  It isn't as though I have any plans of trying to change your mind.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,13:34

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,14:19)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't fuck with me: I've debugged COBOL in hex.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



O_o genuinely impressed. I don't know what a COBOL is or what hex does (appart from Prtachettian universe)...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


COBOL is the mainframe computer language that most of your shit still runs
HEX is hexadecimal which most stuff still runs along with octal and binary
Did I mention I'm old & vulgar?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,13:35

well, you are a Dahmeresque sub-human.  we have that on good some kinda authority
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,13:36

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,13:26)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:13)
The capitals weren't to be equated with yelling or being upset..lol.  Just a way to respond so it's easy to read who said what.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somehow I find it difficult to treat that claim credibly.  Can't think why.

Oh, right.  Because I've known too many Christians.  (/Inigo Montoya)  For that matter, I was one until the Biggys and FLs and heddles encouraged me to apply Occam's Chainsaw a bit more broadly.  But that's off topic.

I ask again--why should I take your interpretation of this matter more seriously than that being pushed forward by so many of your co-religionists?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who's asking you to?  I'm long past the point of carrying whether people believe me or not.  Did years ago, but really doesn't matter much to me anymore.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,13:37

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,14:25)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,13:12)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,13:04)
   
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,12:51)
     
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:45)
lol....no one is going to hell just for having an abortion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right.  And you would know this, how, exactly?  And your credentials in this matter would be what, exactly?  (Forgive the snarky tone.  This isn't so different from FL or Biggy claiming to have the right interpretation of scripture, all others be damned.  Just because I LIKE your take on the matter doesn't mean I should just overlook the questions.)

Instead of telling this to us, why aren't you out trying to convince your fellow believers of this?  Because this makes you the first (Christian) pro-birther I've ever heard make this (welcome and encouraging) concession...and there are a whole lot of others who haven't gotten the memo.

I would add that, all snark on my part aside, I do find your commitment to reducing the number of abortions by education and other means of birth control to be more consistent and helpful than the usual noise that results.  Credit where it's due...


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are kidding, right? Ftk is absolutely correct in this theological point--and it is broad-based Christianity 101. That is, Christianity teaches that you go to heaven if you have placed your faith in the power of Christ's death to atone for your sins. And if you don't, then you don't. On that there is nearly universal agreement--so much so that that is as good of a working definition of Christianity that you can find.

The consequence of which is:

If you have had abortions and have the aforementioned saving faith, you are saved.

If you devote your entire life to charity yet lack this faith, then you are lost.

The are a lot of details about which have internecine  warfare--such as how the faith is acquired, but on what I just wrote--no disagreement to speak of.  

We must associate with different Christians--because I never heard even one say "if you have an abortion you will go to hell." If I did, I'd be tempted to smack him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heddle, I understand that you can't help it because you're a Calvinist, but since I consider Calvinism to be an immoral doctrine at best, your interpretation of ftk isn't helpful here.

Here you go with the argument from incredulity again!  You have either redefined Christian to mean an incredibly tiny subset of the whole, or you have some heavy-duty blinders on.

There is a reason I refer to your variation of the imaginary friend as a monster, but that's a completely different discussion for another time.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice try (not really)  but alas there is no Calvinism in my post. Being saved by faith in the finished work of Christ is a doctrine shared by the majority of Christians. Calvinists, non-Calvinists, Protestants, and Catholics.

That's about the third time you used "heddle is a Calvinist" as a blunt instrument. If you want a piece of advice--wait until I actually make an argument from Calvinism before you use it as an argument stopper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jesus god fucking shit: we all know that yiu are a Calvinist and that most of us are going to burn in hell for eternity:
BTW: do you still lust for the ignorant fuck Palin?
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 25 2011,13:42

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,13:33)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,13:25)
Nice try (not really)  but alas there is no Calvinism in my post. Being saved by faith in the finished work of Christ is a doctrine shared by the majority of Christians. Calvinists, non-Calvinists, Protestants, and Catholics.

That's about the third time you used "heddle is a Calvinist" as a blunt instrument. If you want a piece of advice--wait until I actually make an argument from Calvinism before you use it as an argument stopper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, heddle, but mercy is for the merciful.  Your opinion on these matters is well known, as is your affiliation.  And since, in my opinion, your opinions on these matters come from your particular denomination's interpretation, I will continue to refer to this fact.  

If you feel I have misrepresented or misquoted you, of course, I would expect you to point it out...but let there be no misunderstanding--you are a Calvinist, as you have said so yourself many times.  It is hardly unfair of me to refer to you as such.

Since nobody is forcing you to read my posts, nor to respond to them, you might as well simply ignore them.  It isn't as though I have any plans of trying to change your mind.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you haven't misquoted me or insulted me or anything of that nature. Nor have you been unfair, per se. What you did was argue ad hominem. "Heddle is a Calvinist" is not relevant when the point I am making has nothing to do with Calvinism. For example, we can ask FtK (whom I do not believe is a Calvinist) if she agrees with my working definition of Christianity--that salvation comes from having faith in the work of Christ to atone for your sins. For crying out loud, you could ask Wes. Actually you could ask anyone who has studied Christianity for more than 15 minutes.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,13:43

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:36)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,13:26)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:13)
The capitals weren't to be equated with yelling or being upset..lol.  Just a way to respond so it's easy to read who said what.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somehow I find it difficult to treat that claim credibly.  Can't think why.

Oh, right.  Because I've known too many Christians.  (/Inigo Montoya)  For that matter, I was one until the Biggys and FLs and heddles encouraged me to apply Occam's Chainsaw a bit more broadly.  But that's off topic.

I ask again--why should I take your interpretation of this matter more seriously than that being pushed forward by so many of your co-religionists?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who's asking you to?  I'm long past the point of carrying whether people believe me or not.  Did years ago, but really doesn't matter much to me anymore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you are unable to answer the question.  I see.  Thank you.

Next contestant, please...


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,13:50

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,13:43)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:36)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,13:26)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:13)
The capitals weren't to be equated with yelling or being upset..lol.  Just a way to respond so it's easy to read who said what.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somehow I find it difficult to treat that claim credibly.  Can't think why.

Oh, right.  Because I've known too many Christians.  (/Inigo Montoya)  For that matter, I was one until the Biggys and FLs and heddles encouraged me to apply Occam's Chainsaw a bit more broadly.  But that's off topic.

I ask again--why should I take your interpretation of this matter more seriously than that being pushed forward by so many of your co-religionists?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who's asking you to?  I'm long past the point of carrying whether people believe me or not.  Did years ago, but really doesn't matter much to me anymore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you are unable to answer the question.  I see.  Thank you.

Next contestant, please...


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't even know what matter exactly you are talking about at this point?  Be specific.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,13:53

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,19:42)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,13:33)
   
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,13:25)
Nice try (not really)  but alas there is no Calvinism in my post. Being saved by faith in the finished work of Christ is a doctrine shared by the majority of Christians. Calvinists, non-Calvinists, Protestants, and Catholics.

That's about the third time you used "heddle is a Calvinist" as a blunt instrument. If you want a piece of advice--wait until I actually make an argument from Calvinism before you use it as an argument stopper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, heddle, but mercy is for the merciful.  Your opinion on these matters is well known, as is your affiliation.  And since, in my opinion, your opinions on these matters come from your particular denomination's interpretation, I will continue to refer to this fact.  

If you feel I have misrepresented or misquoted you, of course, I would expect you to point it out...but let there be no misunderstanding--you are a Calvinist, as you have said so yourself many times.  It is hardly unfair of me to refer to you as such.

Since nobody is forcing you to read my posts, nor to respond to them, you might as well simply ignore them.  It isn't as though I have any plans of trying to change your mind.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you haven't misquoted me or insulted me or anything of that nature. Nor have you been unfair, per se. What you did was argue ad hominem. "Heddle is a Calvinist" is not relevant when the point I am making has nothing to do with Calvinism. For example, we can ask FtK (whom I do not believe is a Calvinist) if she agrees with my working definition of Christianity--that salvation comes from having faith in the work of Christ to atone for your sins. For crying out loud, you could ask Wes. Actually you could ask anyone who has studied Christianity for more than 15 minutes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That includes me then. Can we not but say we did?

Louis
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 25 2011,13:53

*pulls pants up to nipples*

GERROFF MY LAWN YOU FLAMERS.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,13:54

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,13:42)
No you haven't misquoted me or insulted me or anything of that nature. Nor have you been unfair, per se. What you did was argue ad hominem. "Heddle is a Calvinist" is not relevant when the point I am making has nothing to do with Calvinism. For example, we can ask FtK (whom I do not believe is a Calvinist) if she agrees with my working definition of Christianity--that salvation comes from having faith in the work of Christ to atone for your sins. For crying out loud, you could ask Wes. Actually you could ask anyone who has studied Christianity for more than 15 minutes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While I did not intend to ad hom you, I will admit the possibility that I did so.  I intended that to be descriptive rather than dismissive--there are some lines of argument one must expect from a Calvinist, and you run true to form.  That I find your arguments less than convincing is not the same as saying that I expect, say, ftk to agree with that assessment.  You do, however, use slightly arguments than, say, a Jesuit would.  Hence the repetition.

Why do you assume I don't know anything about Christianity, exactly?


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,14:02

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:50)
I don't even know what matter exactly you are talking about at this point?  Be specific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why?  You aren't interested in answering an honest question.  And if you're not interested, I'm certainly not going to force you.

But since you want me to be specific:

Committing a murder will get someone sent to hell, right?

And abortion is murder, yes?

But an abortion will not get someone sent to hell...even though it's murder, and even though a lot of other Christians say that it will.  (Heddle's incredulity aside, he doesn't speak for every possible sect, and frankly his 'common ground' is a bit like describing Led Zepplin's farewell concert as four guys on stage playing instruments.  Accurate but not quite complete.)

So the question is, even though I find your interpretation a refreshing change of pace, why should I take it seriously?  Why is your interpretation better than, say, the Pope's?  Jerry Falwell's?  Joel Osteen's? FL's?


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 25 2011,14:10

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 25 2011,13:31)
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,12:00)
Off Topic, and mostly for my pal Richard Hughes:

my son (who is autistic) < on youtube. >

You can bump this proud daddy to the BW, but he will not be deterred!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*STANDS AND APPLAUDS*

Simply fantastic! I hope it brings him great joy to play it. What a gift! Tell him I think he's a star.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks Rich (and Erasmus, and others).
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,14:11

for shit's sake i hardly know any christianists of any stripe who think you are going to hell because you have an abortion.

they already think you are going to hell because you refuse to accept their god.  

or, in other cases, because their god chose sides pre-dawn-of-time and, well, you lost.  so fuck off, in the cosmic eternal sense.  and for fuck's nuts don't go buggering THOSE blokes about free will.  jesus that is one of the most boring conversations ON.THIS.EARTH

so who cares.  this bullshit is about the aesthetic preferences of FtK and Heddle who believe that anyone who thinks that aborted fetuses <= bacon is a "Dahmeresque sub human" or "something like PZ Myers" or something like that.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,14:13

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,15:10)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 25 2011,13:31)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,12:00)
Off Topic, and mostly for my pal Richard Hughes:

my son (who is autistic) < on youtube. >

You can bump this proud daddy to the BW, but he will not be deterred!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*STANDS AND APPLAUDS*

Simply fantastic! I hope it brings him great joy to play it. What a gift! Tell him I think he's a star.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks Rich (and Erasmus, and others).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


thanx for posting it.  maybe not his style, but does he play Teh Joplin?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,14:13

I always wondered, is Calvinism somehow linked to Calvin and Hobbs?

If so, where do I sign?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 25 2011,14:14

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,14:13)
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,15:10)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 25 2011,13:31)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,12:00)
Off Topic, and mostly for my pal Richard Hughes:

my son (who is autistic) < on youtube. >

You can bump this proud daddy to the BW, but he will not be deterred!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*STANDS AND APPLAUDS*

Simply fantastic! I hope it brings him great joy to play it. What a gift! Tell him I think he's a star.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks Rich (and Erasmus, and others).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


thanx for posting it.  maybe not his style, but does he play Teh Joplin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,14:19

Oh Yes, and could you get him to play You Got What I Need.  i love that piano part.  And also, Truck Driving Man.  and some shit by oasis.  aaaaah
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,14:21

Just showed Luke's video to my girlfriend. Same reaction as me: jaw drops to the floor, explodes laminated mahogany tiles, passes through downstair neighbor's living room and ends up in the gutter crying for mommy.

I'm not saying this to flatter in anyway, but it is very impressive for a person of such young age to master that piece thus.

Kudos to him (and you and your significant one for his upbringing), and then some!
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,14:22

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,14:02)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:50)
I don't even know what matter exactly you are talking about at this point?  Be specific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why?  You aren't interested in answering an honest question.  And if you're not interested, I'm certainly not going to force you.

But since you want me to be specific:

Committing a murder will get someone sent to hell, right?

No

And abortion is murder, yes?

Yes

But an abortion will not get someone sent to hell...even though it's murder, and even though a lot of other Christians say that it will.  (Heddle's incredulity aside, he doesn't speak for every possible sect, and frankly his 'common ground' is a bit like describing Led Zepplin's farewell concert as four guys on stage playing instruments.  Accurate but not quite complete.)

So the question is, even though I find your interpretation a refreshing change of pace, why should I take it seriously?  Why is your interpretation better than, say, the Pope's?  Jerry Falwell's?  Joel Osteen's? FL's?

I think maybe you might be misunderstanding a lot of them in regard to the two pointed questions above


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


see below
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,14:22

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,14:22)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,14:02)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:50)
I don't even know what matter exactly you are talking about at this point?  Be specific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why?  You aren't interested in answering an honest question.  And if you're not interested, I'm certainly not going to force you.

But since you want me to be specific:

Committing a murder will get someone sent to hell, right?

No

And abortion is murder, yes?

Yes

But an abortion will not get someone sent to hell...even though it's murder, and even though a lot of other Christians say that it will.  (Heddle's incredulity aside, he doesn't speak for every possible sect, and frankly his 'common ground' is a bit like describing Led Zepplin's farewell concert as four guys on stage playing instruments.  Accurate but not quite complete.)

So the question is, even though I find your interpretation a refreshing change of pace, why should I take it seriously?  Why is your interpretation better than, say, the Pope's?  Jerry Falwell's?  Joel Osteen's? FL's?

I think maybe you might be misunderstanding a lot of them in regard to the two pointed questions above


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


see below
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i mean above....lol
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,14:24

As below, so above...
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,14:25

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,14:24)
As below, so above...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


;P
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 25 2011,14:25

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,14:02)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:50)
I don't even know what matter exactly you are talking about at this point?  Be specific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why?  You aren't interested in answering an honest question.  And if you're not interested, I'm certainly not going to force you.

But since you want me to be specific:

Committing a murder will get someone sent to hell, right?

And abortion is murder, yes?

But an abortion will not get someone sent to hell...even though it's murder, and even though a lot of other Christians say that it will.  (Heddle's incredulity aside, he doesn't speak for every possible sect, and frankly his 'common ground' is a bit like describing Led Zepplin's farewell concert as four guys on stage playing instruments.  Accurate but not quite complete.)

So the question is, even though I find your interpretation a refreshing change of pace, why should I take it seriously?  Why is your interpretation better than, say, the Pope's?  Jerry Falwell's?  Joel Osteen's? FL's?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok, I don't get this. I didn't get when Lenny did it either. I mean, what is the pleasure derived from asking questions about one's religion--only to add "why should I believe you rather than [insert some other Christian, preferably as unattractive one as is possible] or my pizza man?"

In the abstract it is a fair question--but what's the fun in the exercise? Especially when the person keeps saying I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm just answering your question.

Either you ask because you are intellectually curious about what the person's answer will be or you don't ask. But asking and then following up with "why should I believe you and not, say, Fred Phelps?" seems a bit tiresome.

I mean, really, does this:

Q: will I go to hell if I have an abortion?
A: no you don't go to hell for having an abortion.
Q: why should I believe your answer instead of Jerry Falwell's answer?

actually seem productive? Or demonstrative? Or in lieu of anything substantive does is it at least have the virtue of being clever and funny?

Personally I think not.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,14:31

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,14:22)
i mean above....lol
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I understand them pretty well.  It's this ridiculous 'get out of jail free' card that puzzles me, 'cause it's only available to people who agree with them, which seems neither just nor particularly coherent.

But you don't judge, obviously.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 25 2011,14:37

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,14:13)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,15:10)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 25 2011,13:31)
   
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,12:00)
Off Topic, and mostly for my pal Richard Hughes:

my son (who is autistic) < on youtube. >

You can bump this proud daddy to the BW, but he will not be deterred!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*STANDS AND APPLAUDS*

Simply fantastic! I hope it brings him great joy to play it. What a gift! Tell him I think he's a star.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks Rich (and Erasmus, and others).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


thanx for posting it.  maybe not his style, but does he play Teh Joplin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Scott Joplin (yes). Janice Joplin (my all-time fav female vocalist) no-so much. He does play some pop--but he likes the Beatles and Billy Joule. Got that from his mom...

His memory is very handy in church. If we are in "request a hymn mode" and someone shouts out: "Pass Me Not, O Gentle Saviour" everyone will look to Luke who will announce: Number 242.

Last brag (I kind of promise): It's a close call whether he is better on the piano or the violin. (We'll have get a video of that posted some day.)
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,14:48

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,14:25)
Ok, I don't get this. I didn't get when Lenny did it either. I mean, what is the pleasure derived from asking questions about one's religion--only to add "why should I believe you rather than [insert some other Christian, preferably as unattractive one as is possible] or my pizza man?"

In the abstract it is a fair question--but what's the fun in the exercise? Especially when the person keeps saying I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm just answering your question.

Either you ask because you are intellectually curious about what the person's answer will be or you don't ask. But asking and then following up with "why should I believe you and not, say, Fred Phelps?" seems a bit tiresome.

I mean, really, does this:

Q: will I go to hell if I have an abortion?
A: no you don't go to hell for having an abortion.
Q: why should I believe your answer instead of Jerry Falwell's answer?

actually seem productive? Or demonstrative? Or in lieu of anything substantive does is it at least have the virtue of being clever and funny?

Personally I think not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given the number of varying opinions on certain supposedly absolute truths, each of which claims to be exclusive, and for rejecting which one is often threatened with eternal unpleasantness, it would be intellectually dishonest not to hold each of them to the same standard.  Where that standard is not satisfied, further examination is required.

Is it tedious?  Yes, as is listening to sermons and lectures from people who are absolutely sure that their beliefs are the only correct ones, and everybody else is going to suffer for eternity.

But until your ilk stop preachifying at me and quoting your magic book with magic words as if it means something, and demanding respect for your imaginary friend upon threat of eternal suffering, I'm going to be playing the gadfly.

Don't like?  Don't read...and don't preach unless you want to have those questions thrown at you.

"I don't see the fun in it."

There is no fun at all in being badgered about eternal suffering because one cannot with intellectual honesty and integrity accept a ridiculous little fairy tale with a healthy side order of 'blame the victim' as a positive world view.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 25 2011,14:50

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,12:37)
Scott Joplin (yes). Janice Joplin (my all-time fav female vocalist) no-so much. He does play some pop--but he likes the Beatles and Billy Joule. Got that from his mom...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hardly surprising.  His dad's a physicist.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,14:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Last brag (I kind of promise): It's a close call whether he is better on the piano or the violin. (We'll have get a video of that posted some day.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You'd better!!! (eventual guest work intended...)
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 25 2011,14:52

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:22)
And abortion is murder, yes?

Yes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, to rephrase an earlier question:  if an abortion is performed, who should be punished, and in what way?


Edit:  And in case my earlier question was missed: what specifically does the Bible say about abortion?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,14:58

Never too late for a good ol' < Sonseed!!! >
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,15:00

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,14:31)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,14:22)
i mean above....lol
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I understand them pretty well.  It's this ridiculous 'get out of jail free' card that puzzles me, 'cause it's only available to people who agree with them, which seems neither just nor particularly coherent.

But you don't judge, obviously.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By agreeing with them, you mean agreeing that we believe what the Christian faith says about who will and who will not be going to Heaven?  

Why should this puzzle you....why do you care?  This is what I don't understand.

From what I can tell, quite a few of you believe the exact same thing that I do about abortion....so why the argument ?  

You should have no issues about the "get out of jail (I think you're meaning hell) free card".  You should be worried about legislation on abortion only.  Hell doesn't have anything to do with this issue.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 25 2011,15:06

Allright - bounce this to the FTK thread or BW, please. Delete the duplicates. Clean up on ISLE TARD.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,15:06

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 25 2011,14:52)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:22)
And abortion is murder, yes?

Yes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, to rephrase an earlier question:  if an abortion is performed, who should be punished, and in what way?


Edit:  And in case my earlier question was missed: what specifically does the Bible say about abortion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, in the case of the Philadephia slaughter, I think the case could be made that the doc should be held accountable.  This is the only reason why I see legislature should be involved.  Meat markets should be out of the question legally.  Of course, again, this puts to question....at what point (how many or what kind of abortions performed) should someone be prosecuted.  I simply cannot answer that.  It's too difficult.  Yes, I'm bailing on that one....as a woman, I simply can't answer it...too many emotions involved.  In other words, im torn.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,15:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, in the case of the Philadephia slaughter, I think the case could be made that the doc should be held accountable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



???????????????????????????????????????????????????

Quite honestly, I mean, I'm not familiar with this case and I hope you are not saying what I think you are saying if it is a case such as I think of.

So...

????????????????????????????????????????????????????

ETA: If you are talking about Kermit Gosnell, then I'm more than willing to take your side, puke a few times, and agree with you wholeheartedly.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,15:16

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,15:06)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 25 2011,14:52)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:22)
And abortion is murder, yes?

Yes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, to rephrase an earlier question:  if an abortion is performed, who should be punished, and in what way?


Edit:  And in case my earlier question was missed: what specifically does the Bible say about abortion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, in the case of the Philadephia slaughter, I think the case could be made that the doc should be held accountable.  This is the only reason why I see legislature should be involved.  Meat markets should be out of the question legally.  Of course, again, this puts to question....at what point (how many or what kind of abortions performed) should someone be prosecuted.  I simply cannot answer that.  It's too difficult.  Yes, I'm bailing on that one....as a woman, I simply can't answer it...too many emotions involved.  In other words, im torn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry..didn't answer the second question.  There's not much in scripture regarding abortion from what I've read.  There are verses about children in the womb and how they are fearfully and wonderfully made, but nothing specific.

It doesn't take bible verses alone to find abortion repugnant.  I've had children and been in awe of the entire process.  It's not just Christians who are against abortion.  Life is sacred....we find murder wrong no matter who we are.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,15:17

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,15:00)
By agreeing with them, you mean agreeing that we believe what the Christian faith says about who will and who will not be going to Heaven?  

Why should this puzzle you....why do you care?  This is what I don't understand.

From what I can tell, quite a few of you believe the exact same thing that I do about abortion....so why the argument ?  

You should have no issues about the "get out of jail (I think you're meaning hell) free card".  You should be worried about legislation on abortion only.  Hell doesn't have anything to do with this issue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We ARE worried about legislation.  If you haven't noticed, there are a whole bunch of people who claim to be on your team who are working very hard to make it illegal, hard to get, expensive...without also expanding and improving education and other services to make it rare.

So long as one side insists on grouping in late-term abortions done to save the health of the mother in with stereotyped birth control carelessness, there will be argument.  

Go talk to your coreligionists about it instead of arguing with us.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,15:19

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,15:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, in the case of the Philadephia slaughter, I think the case could be made that the doc should be held accountable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



???????????????????????????????????????????????????

Quite honestly, I mean, I'm not so familiar with this case and I hope you are not saying what I think you are saying if it is a case such as I think of.

So...

????????????????????????????????????????????????????
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He put a scissor into the necks of late term newborns who did not die during the abortion process.  He killed a woman by giving the wrong amount of anestesia.  Many more horrors stories that, if found to be accurate, pretty much should be prosecuted.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,15:23

"We ARE worried about legislation."

Have abortions....Im not going to stop anyone...wouldn't vote to make it illegal.  But, I would vote to keep *my* tax dollars from funding it.  So, yes, that I would do.  Makes my physically ill thinking that I might fund an abortion.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,15:23

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,21:19)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,15:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, in the case of the Philadephia slaughter, I think the case could be made that the doc should be held accountable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



???????????????????????????????????????????????????

Quite honestly, I mean, I'm not so familiar with this case and I hope you are not saying what I think you are saying if it is a case such as I think of.

So...

????????????????????????????????????????????????????
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He put a scissor into the necks of late term newborns who did not die during the abortion process.  He killed a woman by giving the wrong amount of anestesia.  Many more horrors stories that, if found to be accurate, pretty much should be prosecuted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok, so it's Kermit Gosnell you were talking about.

Then I agree with you 200%. This guy is a psycho. And I even feel both sad and revulsed.
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 25 2011,15:29

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:16)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,15:06)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 25 2011,14:52)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:22)
And abortion is murder, yes?

Yes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, to rephrase an earlier question:  if an abortion is performed, who should be punished, and in what way?


Edit:  And in case my earlier question was missed: what specifically does the Bible say about abortion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, in the case of the Philadephia slaughter, I think the case could be made that the doc should be held accountable.  This is the only reason why I see legislature should be involved.  Meat markets should be out of the question legally.  Of course, again, this puts to question....at what point (how many or what kind of abortions performed) should someone be prosecuted.  I simply cannot answer that.  It's too difficult.  Yes, I'm bailing on that one....as a woman, I simply can't answer it...too many emotions involved.  In other words, im torn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry..didn't answer the second question.  There's not much in scripture regarding abortion from what I've read.  There are verses about children in the womb and how they are fearfully and wonderfully made, but nothing specific.

It doesn't take bible verses alone to find abortion repugnant.  I've had children and been in awe of the entire process.  It's not just Christians who are against abortion.  Life is sacred....we find murder wrong no matter who we are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what I thought.  I find it curious that the opposition to abortion is overwhelmingly from certain branches of Christianity, despite little or no biblical support for this position.

I've never met anyone who doesn't find murder wrong, FTK.  What's interesting to me is why so many people define abortion as murder.  The "fertilised egg=human" concept doesn't appear to come directly from Christianity's source document, so why is it so pervasive?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,15:38

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 25 2011,15:29)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:16)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,15:06)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 25 2011,14:52)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:22)
And abortion is murder, yes?

Yes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, to rephrase an earlier question:  if an abortion is performed, who should be punished, and in what way?


Edit:  And in case my earlier question was missed: what specifically does the Bible say about abortion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, in the case of the Philadephia slaughter, I think the case could be made that the doc should be held accountable.  This is the only reason why I see legislature should be involved.  Meat markets should be out of the question legally.  Of course, again, this puts to question....at what point (how many or what kind of abortions performed) should someone be prosecuted.  I simply cannot answer that.  It's too difficult.  Yes, I'm bailing on that one....as a woman, I simply can't answer it...too many emotions involved.  In other words, im torn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry..didn't answer the second question.  There's not much in scripture regarding abortion from what I've read.  There are verses about children in the womb and how they are fearfully and wonderfully made, but nothing specific.

It doesn't take bible verses alone to find abortion repugnant.  I've had children and been in awe of the entire process.  It's not just Christians who are against abortion.  Life is sacred....we find murder wrong no matter who we are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what I thought.  I find it curious that the opposition to abortion is overwhelmingly from certain branches of Christianity, despite little or no biblical support for this position.

I've never met anyone who doesn't find murder wrong, FTK.  What's interesting to me is why so many people define abortion as murder.  The "fertilised egg=human" concept doesn't appear to come directly from Christianity's source document, so why is it so pervasive?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I find interesting is that adament pro-choice advocates usually only refer to abortion in terms of egg and sperm or offer a picture of a zygote.
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 25 2011,15:49

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:38)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 25 2011,15:29)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:16)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,15:06)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 25 2011,14:52)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:22)
And abortion is murder, yes?

Yes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, to rephrase an earlier question:  if an abortion is performed, who should be punished, and in what way?


Edit:  And in case my earlier question was missed: what specifically does the Bible say about abortion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, in the case of the Philadephia slaughter, I think the case could be made that the doc should be held accountable.  This is the only reason why I see legislature should be involved.  Meat markets should be out of the question legally.  Of course, again, this puts to question....at what point (how many or what kind of abortions performed) should someone be prosecuted.  I simply cannot answer that.  It's too difficult.  Yes, I'm bailing on that one....as a woman, I simply can't answer it...too many emotions involved.  In other words, im torn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry..didn't answer the second question.  There's not much in scripture regarding abortion from what I've read.  There are verses about children in the womb and how they are fearfully and wonderfully made, but nothing specific.

It doesn't take bible verses alone to find abortion repugnant.  I've had children and been in awe of the entire process.  It's not just Christians who are against abortion.  Life is sacred....we find murder wrong no matter who we are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what I thought.  I find it curious that the opposition to abortion is overwhelmingly from certain branches of Christianity, despite little or no biblical support for this position.

I've never met anyone who doesn't find murder wrong, FTK.  What's interesting to me is why so many people define abortion as murder.  The "fertilised egg=human" concept doesn't appear to come directly from Christianity's source document, so why is it so pervasive?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I find interesting is that adament pro-choice advocates usually only refer to abortion in terms of egg and sperm or offer a picture of a zygote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So when does it become murder, FTK?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 25 2011,15:50

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,15:38)
What I find interesting is that adament pro-choice advocates usually only refer to abortion in terms of egg and sperm or offer a picture of a zygote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I find interesting is that adament anti-choice advocates usually only refer to abortion in terms of waving posters showing miscarriages and pretending they represent abortions outside clinics.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,16:00

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 25 2011,15:49)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:38)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 25 2011,15:29)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,13:16)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,15:06)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 25 2011,14:52)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:22)
And abortion is murder, yes?

Yes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, to rephrase an earlier question:  if an abortion is performed, who should be punished, and in what way?


Edit:  And in case my earlier question was missed: what specifically does the Bible say about abortion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, in the case of the Philadephia slaughter, I think the case could be made that the doc should be held accountable.  This is the only reason why I see legislature should be involved.  Meat markets should be out of the question legally.  Of course, again, this puts to question....at what point (how many or what kind of abortions performed) should someone be prosecuted.  I simply cannot answer that.  It's too difficult.  Yes, I'm bailing on that one....as a woman, I simply can't answer it...too many emotions involved.  In other words, im torn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry..didn't answer the second question.  There's not much in scripture regarding abortion from what I've read.  There are verses about children in the womb and how they are fearfully and wonderfully made, but nothing specific.

It doesn't take bible verses alone to find abortion repugnant.  I've had children and been in awe of the entire process.  It's not just Christians who are against abortion.  Life is sacred....we find murder wrong no matter who we are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what I thought.  I find it curious that the opposition to abortion is overwhelmingly from certain branches of Christianity, despite little or no biblical support for this position.

I've never met anyone who doesn't find murder wrong, FTK.  What's interesting to me is why so many people define abortion as murder.  The "fertilised egg=human" concept doesn't appear to come directly from Christianity's source document, so why is it so pervasive?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I find interesting is that adament pro-choice advocates usually only refer to abortion in terms of egg and sperm or offer a picture of a zygote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So when does it become murder, FTK?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the question I can't answer legally.  I just explained that above.  I simply can't.  Emotionally and in *my* heart, that baby is a special human being at conception.  I don't think there are many people out there who would not consider what Gosnell did murder.  As for other abortion clinics...I don't know what to do but pray and turn a blind eye I guess.  I'd opt for pushing education and support rather than going after abortion doctors.  But, someone has to do it, or we might end up with more Gosnells.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,16:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't think there are many people out there who would not consider what Gosnell did murder
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Apart from Jeff Dahmer...He would call it "funtime".


So please don't bunch up people that don't feel the same depth of emmotional responses towards aborted meat (oups) as you do to sadistical serial killers.

For fuck's sake, Dahmer is an angel compared to your imaginary friend, according to the OT. I know I shouldn't go there, but it's 23.15 in France, I had a nice dinner, and I'm going to get an even nicer massage.

So there!
Posted by: evil bfish with a goatee on Jan. 25 2011,16:17

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,14:37)
Last brag (I kind of promise): It's a close call whether he is better on the piano or the violin. (We'll have get a video of that posted some day.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're a freaking tiger mom, you are!

:)
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 25 2011,16:31

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,14:00)
I'd opt for pushing education and support rather than going after abortion doctors.  But, someone has to do it, or we might end up with more Gosnells.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm going to put that down to sloppy writing for now.  You're not really advocating someone "going after abortion doctors", are you?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,16:44

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 25 2011,22:31)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,14:00)
I'd opt for pushing education and support rather than going after abortion doctors.  But, someone has to do it, or we might end up with more Gosnells.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm going to put that down to sloppy writing for now.  You're not really advocating someone "going after abortion doctors", are you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is very disturbing, indeed. I didn't even notice it, but it's pretty scary, and sick.

"Someone has to do it"???
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,16:47

paaagge chaaannge buuggg!!! Again...
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,17:16

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,16:44)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 25 2011,22:31)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,14:00)
I'd opt for pushing education and support rather than going after abortion doctors.  But, someone has to do it, or we might end up with more Gosnells.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm going to put that down to sloppy writing for now.  You're not really advocating someone "going after abortion doctors", are you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is very disturbing, indeed. I didn't even notice it, but it's pretty scary, and sick.

"Someone has to do it"???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol...gawd, get real.  I didn't mean go after them with a gun or blunt object.  I meant I'm glad that there are anti-abortion activists keeping a close eye on abortion clinics.  99.99999% of abortion activists aren't demented wackos out to kill doctors.  Abortion clinics shouldn't be a free for all slaughter house.  

But then, you knew what I meant.  So, yeah, "someone has to do it", and I've not the stomach for dealing with it unfortunately...I don't know at what point to draw lines for people who have no feelings about the fetus they are housing.
Posted by: the_ignored on Jan. 25 2011,17:22

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,15:50)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,15:38)
What I find interesting is that adament pro-choice advocates usually only refer to abortion in terms of egg and sperm or offer a picture of a zygote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I find interesting is that adament anti-choice advocates usually only refer to abortion in terms of waving posters showing miscarriages and pretending they represent abortions outside clinics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait, what?
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,17:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
lol...gawd, get real.  I didn't mean go after them with a gun or blunt object.  I meant I'm glad that there are anti-abortion activists keeping a close eye on abortion clinics.  99.99999% of abortion activists aren't demented wackos out to kill doctors.  Abortion clinics shouldn't be a free for all slaughter house.  

But then, you knew what I meant.  So, yeah, "someone has to do it", and I've not the stomach for dealing with it unfortunately...I don't know at what point to draw lines for people who have no feelings about the fetus they are housing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dear FTK, do you realise that means jackshit? The best I can make out of it is "I don't have the guts to go out and give an abortion doctor a good lead-poisoning in the fracas, but if I had I would, because this poor combination of amino-acids, proteins, stem cells and...shit... deserves a better chance than this abortion doctor"...

I am more than ready to help you out on your positions, but this last stuff is crazy...
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,17:41

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,22:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't think there are many people out there who would not consider what Gosnell did murder
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Apart from Jeff Dahmer...He would call it "funtime".


So please don't bunch up people that don't feel the same depth of emmotional responses towards aborted meat (oups) as you do to sadistical serial killers.

For fuck's sake, Dahmer is an angel compared to your imaginary friend, according to the OT. I know I shouldn't go there, but it's 23.15 in France, I had a nice dinner, and I'm going to get an even nicer massage.

So there!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are getting far too many massages of late. I am going to have a word with your Mrs.

Louis
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 25 2011,17:42

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,15:27)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
lol...gawd, get real.  I didn't mean go after them with a gun or blunt object.  I meant I'm glad that there are anti-abortion activists keeping a close eye on abortion clinics.  99.99999% of abortion activists aren't demented wackos out to kill doctors.  Abortion clinics shouldn't be a free for all slaughter house.  

But then, you knew what I meant.  So, yeah, "someone has to do it", and I've not the stomach for dealing with it unfortunately...I don't know at what point to draw lines for people who have no feelings about the fetus they are housing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dear FTK, do you realise that means jackshit? The best I can make out of it is "I don't have the guts to go out and give an abortion doctor a good lead-poisoning in the fracas, but if I had I would, because this poor combination of amino-acids, proteins, stem cells and...shit... deserves a better chance than this abortion doctor"...

I am more than ready to help you out on your positions, but this last stuff is crazy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree, SD.  It looks to me like she's not in favour of actually killing anyone working at a clinic, but harassment, intimidation, and making what's already a stressful time for clients into a nightmare... sure, why not?

Good news, though.  "99.99999% of abortion activists aren't demented wackos out to kill doctors."  Let's assume 10,000,000 anti-abortion activists in the US (which would be a very, very high overestimate, in my opinion).  That means there's only 1 demented wacko out to kill doctors.  There are more than 1 demented wackos out to kill doctors already in jail, so it looks like we're safe now.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,17:43

I'm sorry, I've tried to be nice, but the more she writes on this topic the more cluelessly and frighteningly unpleasant FTK appears.

We have an abbreviation for "laugh out loud", we need one for "chilling shudders every time the clueless cow puts fingers to keyboard".

Louis
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,17:48

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,17:27)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
lol...gawd, get real.  I didn't mean go after them with a gun or blunt object.  I meant I'm glad that there are anti-abortion activists keeping a close eye on abortion clinics.  99.99999% of abortion activists aren't demented wackos out to kill doctors.  Abortion clinics shouldn't be a free for all slaughter house.  

But then, you knew what I meant.  So, yeah, "someone has to do it", and I've not the stomach for dealing with it unfortunately...I don't know at what point to draw lines for people who have no feelings about the fetus they are housing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dear FTK, do you realise that means jackshit? The best I can make out of it is "I don't have the guts to go out and give an abortion doctor a good lead-poisoning in the fracas, but if I had I would, because this poor combination of amino-acids, proteins, stem cells and...shit... deserves a better chance than this abortion doctor"...

I am more than ready to help you out on your positions, but this last stuff is crazy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, i don't even know wtf you are talking about.  I didn't say ""I don't have the guts to go out and give an abortion doctor a good lead-poisoning in the fracas, but if I had I would, because this poor combination of amino-acids, proteins, stem cells and...shit... deserves a better chance than this abortion doctor"..."
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,17:52

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 25 2011,17:42)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,15:27)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
lol...gawd, get real.  I didn't mean go after them with a gun or blunt object.  I meant I'm glad that there are anti-abortion activists keeping a close eye on abortion clinics.  99.99999% of abortion activists aren't demented wackos out to kill doctors.  Abortion clinics shouldn't be a free for all slaughter house.  

But then, you knew what I meant.  So, yeah, "someone has to do it", and I've not the stomach for dealing with it unfortunately...I don't know at what point to draw lines for people who have no feelings about the fetus they are housing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dear FTK, do you realise that means jackshit? The best I can make out of it is "I don't have the guts to go out and give an abortion doctor a good lead-poisoning in the fracas, but if I had I would, because this poor combination of amino-acids, proteins, stem cells and...shit... deserves a better chance than this abortion doctor"...

I am more than ready to help you out on your positions, but this last stuff is crazy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree, SD.  It looks to me like she's not in favour of actually killing anyone working at a clinic, but harassment, intimidation, and making what's already a stressful time for clients into a nightmare... sure, why not?

Good news, though.  "99.99999% of abortion activists aren't demented wackos out to kill doctors."  Let's assume 10,000,000 anti-abortion activists in the US (which would be a very, very high overestimate, in my opinion).  That means there's only 1 demented wacko out to kill doctors.  There are more than 1 demented wackos out to kill doctors already in jail, so it looks like we're safe now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, so IOW, you prefer to allow abortion clinics free reign...no regulations whatseover.  

OK, then you and SD have absolutely no right whatsoever to claim that Gosnell was anything but doing a great job.

I never once said anything about "harassment, intimidation, and making it stressful for clients".  Do not put words in my mouth.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,18:06

maybe this sentence is what is confusing you....

"I meant I'm glad that there are anti-abortion activists keeping a close eye on abortion clinics."

Not all people who are against abortion are standing in front of abortion clinics waving crazy ass signs and yelling at anyone who walks by.  Remember that please.  I would not feel comfortable leaving all issues in regard to abortion left in the hands of pro choice activists.  Hence "I'm glad there are anti-abortion activists" out there keeping tabs on these clinics as well.

You're either honestly confused in regard to my meaning, or you're trying to paint me in a bad light.  I have no clue what makes some of you tick, so I won't try to figure out which it is.  Maybe I should have used the word advocate instead of activist as activists sometimes paints a more harsh picture.
Posted by: madbat.089 on Jan. 25 2011,18:22

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:06)
maybe this sentence is what is confusing you....

"I meant I'm glad that there are anti-abortion activists keeping a close eye on abortion clinics."

Not all people who are against abortion are standing in front of abortion clinics waving crazy ass signs and yelling at anyone who walks by.  Remember that please.  I would not feel comfortable leaving all issues in regard to abortion left in the hands of pro choice activists.  Hence "I'm glad there are anti-abortion activists" out there keeping tabs on these clinics as well.

You're either honestly confused in regard to my meaning, or you're trying to paint me in a bad light.  I have no clue what makes some of you tick, so I won't try to figure out which it is.  Maybe I should have used the word advocate instead of activist as activists sometimes paints a more harsh picture.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ftk, instead of endless excuses and whining about being misunderstood, maybe you could simply spell out EXACTLY what you meant with your flowery euphemisms "going after abortion doctors" and "anti-abortion activists keeping a close eye"
cuz, for most of us here who make regular use of the english language, "going after" someone has a very clear, very not-so-peaceful meaning...
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 25 2011,18:27

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,15:52)
Oh, so IOW, you prefer to allow abortion clinics free reign...no regulations whatseover.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where did I say that?  Where did I say anything resembling that?  I don't support allowing any medical facility "free reign(sic)...no regulations whatsoever."  I know  a few libertarians, but none of them are that hard-core.

 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:06)
maybe this sentence is what is confusing you....

"I meant I'm glad that there are anti-abortion activists keeping a close eye on abortion clinics."

Not all people who are against abortion are standing in front of abortion clinics waving crazy ass signs and yelling at anyone who walks by.  Remember that please.  I would not feel comfortable leaving all issues in regard to abortion left in the hands of pro choice activists.  Hence "I'm glad there are anti-abortion activists" out there keeping tabs on these clinics as well.

You're either honestly confused in regard to my meaning, or you're trying to paint me in a bad light.  I have no clue what makes some of you tick, so I won't try to figure out which it is.  Maybe I should have used the word advocate instead of activist as activists sometimes paints a more harsh picture.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry if I misinterpreted the phrase "anti-abortion activists keeping a close eye on abortion clinics".  (Perhaps your earlier comments about someone having to "go after" abortion doctors nudged me in that direction).  If it's not standing out on the street waving signs, what exactly does "keeping a close eye on abortion clinics" mean?

And for the record: this isn't snark.  I am honestly confused in regard to your meaning.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,18:55

Quote (madbat.089 @ Jan. 25 2011,18:22)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:06)
maybe this sentence is what is confusing you....

"I meant I'm glad that there are anti-abortion activists keeping a close eye on abortion clinics."

Not all people who are against abortion are standing in front of abortion clinics waving crazy ass signs and yelling at anyone who walks by.  Remember that please.  I would not feel comfortable leaving all issues in regard to abortion left in the hands of pro choice activists.  Hence "I'm glad there are anti-abortion activists" out there keeping tabs on these clinics as well.

You're either honestly confused in regard to my meaning, or you're trying to paint me in a bad light.  I have no clue what makes some of you tick, so I won't try to figure out which it is.  Maybe I should have used the word advocate instead of activist as activists sometimes paints a more harsh picture.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ftk, instead of endless excuses and whining about being misunderstood, maybe you could simply spell out EXACTLY what you meant with your flowery euphemisms "going after abortion doctors" and "anti-abortion activists keeping a close eye"
cuz, for most of us here who make regular use of the english language, "going after" someone has a very clear, very not-so-peaceful meaning...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok.  I had no idea that after all I've said about this issue that someone would actually think I've pulled a 180 at this point in time.  Gads.

Let's see....no "flowery euphemisms"....

I am abundantly grateful that there are human beings who are opposed to abortion and are willing to get involved and gather information and statistics on what is going on at clinics.  I'm also glad that they work at some type of legislation on these issues.  I do not want people like Gosnell to be able to get away with some of the (I'd say crimes) that he has.  Yes, people who are pro-choice can obviously be beneficial to this process, but, personally, I wouldn't be comfortable knowing that only people who are not opposed to abortion were making all the decisions.

I am also saying that I cannot personally get involved because I simply do not know how to make decisions in regard to how and when an abortion should be acceptable.  I know how I feel personally, but I also know that abortions will occur regardless of whether they are legal or not.  So, I take the cop out...which I'm not very proud of, but I simply can't emotionally deal with making those decisions.

I really hope that is clear enough because I think I've read over it 15 times now before posting.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,19:08

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,18:16)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,16:44)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 25 2011,22:31)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,14:00)
I'd opt for pushing education and support rather than going after abortion doctors.  But, someone has to do it, or we might end up with more Gosnells.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm going to put that down to sloppy writing for now.  You're not really advocating someone "going after abortion doctors", are you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is very disturbing, indeed. I didn't even notice it, but it's pretty scary, and sick.

"Someone has to do it"???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol...gawd, get real.  I didn't mean go after them with a gun or blunt object.  I meant I'm glad that there are anti-abortion activists keeping a close eye on abortion clinics.  99.99999% of abortion activists aren't demented wackos out to kill doctors.  Abortion clinics shouldn't be a free for all slaughter house.  

But then, you knew what I meant.  So, yeah, "someone has to do it", and I've not the stomach for dealing with it unfortunately...I don't know at what point to draw lines for people who have no feelings about the fetus they are housing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You think killing people who save lives is a good idea?
You are an ignorant fucking moron.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,19:23

Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,19:08)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,18:16)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,16:44)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 25 2011,22:31)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,14:00)
I'd opt for pushing education and support rather than going after abortion doctors.  But, someone has to do it, or we might end up with more Gosnells.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm going to put that down to sloppy writing for now.  You're not really advocating someone "going after abortion doctors", are you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is very disturbing, indeed. I didn't even notice it, but it's pretty scary, and sick.

"Someone has to do it"???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol...gawd, get real.  I didn't mean go after them with a gun or blunt object.  I meant I'm glad that there are anti-abortion activists keeping a close eye on abortion clinics.  99.99999% of abortion activists aren't demented wackos out to kill doctors.  Abortion clinics shouldn't be a free for all slaughter house.  

But then, you knew what I meant.  So, yeah, "someone has to do it", and I've not the stomach for dealing with it unfortunately...I don't know at what point to draw lines for people who have no feelings about the fetus they are housing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You think killing people who save lives is a good idea?
You are an ignorant fucking moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good gawd woman...read the rest of the page.  I apologize for typing what, apparently, was horrifically misunderstood.  I thought that my stance throughout all these pages has been very consistent, and that this kind of conclusion to what I wrote would not have been considered.
Posted by: madbat.089 on Jan. 25 2011,19:35

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:55)
 
Quote (madbat.089 @ Jan. 25 2011,18:22)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:06)
maybe this sentence is what is confusing you....

"I meant I'm glad that there are anti-abortion activists keeping a close eye on abortion clinics."

Not all people who are against abortion are standing in front of abortion clinics waving crazy ass signs and yelling at anyone who walks by.  Remember that please.  I would not feel comfortable leaving all issues in regard to abortion left in the hands of pro choice activists.  Hence "I'm glad there are anti-abortion activists" out there keeping tabs on these clinics as well.

You're either honestly confused in regard to my meaning, or you're trying to paint me in a bad light.  I have no clue what makes some of you tick, so I won't try to figure out which it is.  Maybe I should have used the word advocate instead of activist as activists sometimes paints a more harsh picture.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ftk, instead of endless excuses and whining about being misunderstood, maybe you could simply spell out EXACTLY what you meant with your flowery euphemisms "going after abortion doctors" and "anti-abortion activists keeping a close eye"
cuz, for most of us here who make regular use of the english language, "going after" someone has a very clear, very not-so-peaceful meaning...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok.  I had no idea that after all I've said about this issue that someone would actually think I've pulled a 180 at this point in time.  Gads.

Let's see....no "flowery euphemisms"....

I am abundantly grateful that there are human beings who are opposed to abortion and are willing to get involved and gather information and statistics on what is going on at clinics.  I'm also glad that they work at some type of legislation on these issues.  I do not want people like Gosnell to be able to get away with some of the (I'd say crimes) that he has.  Yes, people who are pro-choice can obviously be beneficial to this process, but, personally, I wouldn't be comfortable knowing that only people who are not opposed to abortion were making all the decisions.

I am also saying that I cannot personally get involved because I simply do not know how to make decisions in regard to how and when an abortion should be acceptable.  I know how I feel personally, but I also know that abortions will occur regardless of whether they are legal or not.  So, I take the cop out...which I'm not very proud of, but I simply can't emotionally deal with making those decisions.

I really hope that is clear enough because I think I've read over it 15 times now before posting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok, so your position seems to be as follows:

- Abortion is murder

- Since murder is wrong, the people who carry out abortions (the pregnant woman and the doctors) should be punished

- but they should be punished only in some cases

- you can't make up your mind in which cases they should be or shouldn't be punished

- they shouldn't be punished by law (that's a clear logical consequence of your position that you would not vote for an anti-abortion law)

- but people should make laws about abortions


in summary: huh?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,19:57

Quote (madbat.089 @ Jan. 25 2011,19:35)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:55)
 
Quote (madbat.089 @ Jan. 25 2011,18:22)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,16:06)
maybe this sentence is what is confusing you....

"I meant I'm glad that there are anti-abortion activists keeping a close eye on abortion clinics."

Not all people who are against abortion are standing in front of abortion clinics waving crazy ass signs and yelling at anyone who walks by.  Remember that please.  I would not feel comfortable leaving all issues in regard to abortion left in the hands of pro choice activists.  Hence "I'm glad there are anti-abortion activists" out there keeping tabs on these clinics as well.

You're either honestly confused in regard to my meaning, or you're trying to paint me in a bad light.  I have no clue what makes some of you tick, so I won't try to figure out which it is.  Maybe I should have used the word advocate instead of activist as activists sometimes paints a more harsh picture.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ftk, instead of endless excuses and whining about being misunderstood, maybe you could simply spell out EXACTLY what you meant with your flowery euphemisms "going after abortion doctors" and "anti-abortion activists keeping a close eye"
cuz, for most of us here who make regular use of the english language, "going after" someone has a very clear, very not-so-peaceful meaning...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok.  I had no idea that after all I've said about this issue that someone would actually think I've pulled a 180 at this point in time.  Gads.

Let's see....no "flowery euphemisms"....

I am abundantly grateful that there are human beings who are opposed to abortion and are willing to get involved and gather information and statistics on what is going on at clinics.  I'm also glad that they work at some type of legislation on these issues.  I do not want people like Gosnell to be able to get away with some of the (I'd say crimes) that he has.  Yes, people who are pro-choice can obviously be beneficial to this process, but, personally, I wouldn't be comfortable knowing that only people who are not opposed to abortion were making all the decisions.

I am also saying that I cannot personally get involved because I simply do not know how to make decisions in regard to how and when an abortion should be acceptable.  I know how I feel personally, but I also know that abortions will occur regardless of whether they are legal or not.  So, I take the cop out...which I'm not very proud of, but I simply can't emotionally deal with making those decisions.

I really hope that is clear enough because I think I've read over it 15 times now before posting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok, so your position seems to be as follows:

- Abortion is murder

- Since murder is wrong, the people who carry out abortions (the pregnant woman and the doctors) should be punished

- but they should be punished only in some cases

- you can't make up your mind in which cases they should be or shouldn't be punished

- they shouldn't be punished by law (that's a clear logical consequence of your position that you would not vote for an anti-abortion law)

- but people should make laws about abortions


in summary: huh?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


-Abortion is murder

That is how I view it, yes

- Since murder is wrong, the people who carry out abortions (the pregnant woman and the doctors) should be punished

No, unless we're looking at cases like Gosnell...and, this is where I have a hard time dealing with where to draw the line on what should and what should not be prosecuted.

- but they should be punished only in some cases

yes

- you can't make up your mind in which cases they should be or shouldn't be punished

That is pretty much what I'm saying, yes, and I think if people are honest and give it a lot of serious thought rather than base their conclusions entirely on emotion, most kinda feel the same way.

- they shouldn't be punished by law (that's a clear logical consequence of your position that you would not vote for an anti-abortion law)

Then, i guess I'm not logical, because in some instances there would need to be some kind of punishment depending upon the circumstances of the abortions taking place.  In the cases such as what I've heard has occurred at the Gosnell's clinic, there are instances where I would not have a problem voting on an anti-abortion bill of some sort.  I've only stated that I will not vote to make abortion legal or illegal.  I also cannot vote on where to draw the line.  I have no problem voting about whether someone should be prosecuted for killing a child who has lived through the abortion process.

- but people should make laws about abortions

yes, we can't have doctors like Gosnell open for business.

in summary: huh?

Exactly...it's a horrifically difficult subject and even more difficult to try to legislate in some manner.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,20:00

< http://cnsnews.com/news....been-pe >
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 25 2011,22:08

Would somebody please abort this conversation? Between this and the Kris threads I'm fixing to vomit.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 25 2011,22:46

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 25 2011,22:08)
Would somebody please abort this conversation? Between this and the Kris threads I'm fixing to vomit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't read the thread...pretty simple.  

Not to worry though...you'll get to keep your dinner down...a full day is enough of this.  I'm done.  

Peace out...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 25 2011,22:46

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 25 2011,22:08)
Would somebody please abort this conversation? Between this and the Kris threads I'm fixing to vomit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed. Give it it's own thread so I never have to look at it again. Go derail something else.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 26 2011,01:38

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 26 2011,04:46)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 25 2011,22:08)
Would somebody please abort this conversation? Between this and the Kris threads I'm fixing to vomit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed. Give it it's own thread so I never have to look at it again. Go derail something else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We already asked for a split. I hope it gets done soon...


Oh, and FTK:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, then you and SD have absolutely no right whatsoever to claim that Gosnell was anything but doing a great job.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For this I won't ever forgive you! I clearly stated that Gosnell is a revulsing monster. To even suggest that I have no right to claim that Gosnell was anything but doing a great job is a bit over the line. People can have their feelings hurt, you know.

Had you put your position in the post I adressed a little clearer, their would have been no misunderstanding. Thank you for clarifying your position later on, but I would please like you to either edit/delete this part of your post or to give me and JohnW a sincere apology.

Sorry, I'm not easy to hurt, but to even think I or JohnW would condon Gosnell's crimes makes me want to puke (or punch you in the face).

Hell, it's the first time in my life I've ever been butthurt on the interweb. And it had to be by FTK...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 26 2011,02:58

Quote (the_ignored @ Jan. 25 2011,17:22)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,15:50)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,15:38)
What I find interesting is that adament pro-choice advocates usually only refer to abortion in terms of egg and sperm or offer a picture of a zygote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I find interesting is that adament anti-choice advocates usually only refer to abortion in terms of waving posters showing miscarriages and pretending they represent abortions outside clinics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait, what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was mentioned that the posters lofted outside clinics by "activists" are often not picturing abortions at all.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 26 2011,03:01

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,19:57)
- you can't make up your mind in which cases they should be or shouldn't be punished

That is pretty much what I'm saying, yes, and I think if people are honest and give it a lot of serious thought rather than base their conclusions entirely on emotion, most kinda feel the same way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps you should ask StephenB how the universal moral code deals with such a matter, you know, the next time you are over at UncommonDescent.

The way you talk it's almost as if you don't have access to the "universal moral code" yourself. But that can't be true can it? A good god-botherer like you...

Guess things are not so black and white now eh FTK?
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Jan. 26 2011,04:20

Basically Ftk's position on abortion boils down to "abortion is murder, but I wouldn't vote to ban it."  Scary.  Better keep her away from sharp objects, and voting booths.  

But also typical of the average anti-choicer; they want to wave the "abortion is murder" flag to whip up emotional opposition to allowing women control of their own bodies, but know it's politically a non-starter to truly discuss this murder as such--since they would then have to advocate punishing the co-conspirators for it as other people who conspire to murder are punished.  I believe in Kansas a woman who pays a professional killer to murder a family member would expect to be put to death.  So they default to a position which further diminishes women, which is that somehow the woman is less accountable for the murder of the fetus--a murder which she concieved, planned, and fully conspired in--than the doctor, who somehow is to be seen as (far) more fully responsible for the murder, despite the fact that no abortion "murders" could ever occur without the woman's intent and action.

What a hypocritical, inconsistent (and woman-hating) mess, but it doesn't seem to bother them at all.  No wonder most of them are also creationists.

eta-more crap
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 27 2011,12:57

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011....ty.html >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 27 2011,13:00

nice new tard, steamy!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unsurprisingly, the New York Times columnist betrays that he has absolutely no understanding of one of the core teachings of Christianity, the very commandment that Jesus gives his disciples. Christianity is not about saving lives, especially not at the expense of others. It is about sacrificing one's life for others, something that the mother, the nun, and the hospital actually committed murder in order to avoid doing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



teddy's ignorant bleatings aside, when is HE going to do what jesus said and sacrifice himself?  I am sure that there are plenty of bridges and subway tunnels near wherever it is from which he peddles his bilious ignorance
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 27 2011,13:08

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 26 2011,01:01)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,19:57)
- you can't make up your mind in which cases they should be or shouldn't be punished

That is pretty much what I'm saying, yes, and I think if people are honest and give it a lot of serious thought rather than base their conclusions entirely on emotion, most kinda feel the same way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps you should ask StephenB how the universal moral code deals with such a matter, you know, the next time you are over at UncommonDescent.

The way you talk it's almost as if you don't have access to the "universal moral code" yourself. But that can't be true can it? A good god-botherer like you...

Guess things are not so black and white now eh FTK?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given the number of denominations out there, what are the odds of StephenB and FTK having the same universal moral code?
Posted by: khan on Jan. 27 2011,14:40

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,13:57)
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011....ty.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crap woman, you're actually citing vox fucking crazy shit day?.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 27 2011,14:52

Quote (khan @ Jan. 27 2011,14:40)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,13:57)
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011....ty.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crap woman, you're actually citing vox fucking crazy shit day?.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crap woman....read the comments....all the way down to mine.  Several people have accused me of not talking to Christians about my views on abortion.  I certainly have, but there was no way to prove that.  

You got your proof now.

Certainly doesn't mean I approve of abortion though.  I just don't think some people put much sincere thought into the matter.

I can't imagine Vox easily making the decision to watch his wife die in order to save his 5th child if they decided to have another.  Seems to me he's saying it's a cut and dry decision...no questions asked....no remorse.

Truth be told, I don't think you put a lot of thought into your views on abortion either.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 27 2011,14:59

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,13:57)
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011....ty.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So tell me FTK, what should be the punishment for a woman who aborts? Be specific.
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 27 2011,15:04

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,14:52)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 27 2011,14:40)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,13:57)
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011....ty.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crap woman, you're actually citing vox fucking crazy shit day?.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crap woman....read the comments....all the way down to mine.  Several people have accused me of not talking to Christians about my views on abortion.  I certainly have, but there was no way to prove that.  

You got your proof now.

Certainly doesn't mean I approve of abortion though.  I just don't think some people put much sincere thought into the matter.

I can't imagine Vox easily making the decision to watch his wife die in order to save his 5th child if they decided to have another.  Seems to me he's saying it's a cut and dry decision...no questions asked....no remorse.

Truth be told, I don't think you put a lot of thought into your views on abortion either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you're saying it wouldn't be a cut and dry situation for him.  Who's lying?  You or Vox?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 27 2011,15:10

Quote (blipey @ Jan. 27 2011,16:04)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,14:52)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 27 2011,14:40)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,13:57)
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011....ty.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crap woman, you're actually citing vox fucking crazy shit day?.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crap woman....read the comments....all the way down to mine.  Several people have accused me of not talking to Christians about my views on abortion.  I certainly have, but there was no way to prove that.  

You got your proof now.

Certainly doesn't mean I approve of abortion though.  I just don't think some people put much sincere thought into the matter.

I can't imagine Vox easily making the decision to watch his wife die in order to save his 5th child if they decided to have another.  Seems to me he's saying it's a cut and dry decision...no questions asked....no remorse.

Truth be told, I don't think you put a lot of thought into your views on abortion either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you're saying it wouldn't be a cut and dry situation for him.  Who's lying?  You or Vox?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wouldn't that be a dilation and curettage situation?

Just askin'
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 27 2011,15:13

Quote (khan @ Jan. 27 2011,14:59)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,13:57)
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011....ty.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So tell me FTK, what should be the punishment for a woman who aborts? Be specific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are there hearing aides for those who are having trouble hearing what has been said in typonese?  Having trouble with translation or what?
Posted by: khan on Jan. 27 2011,15:16

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,15:52)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 27 2011,14:40)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,13:57)
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011....ty.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crap woman, you're actually citing vox fucking crazy shit day?.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crap woman....read the comments....all the way down to mine.  Several people have accused me of not talking to Christians about my views on abortion.  I certainly have, but there was no way to prove that.  

You got your proof now.

Certainly doesn't mean I approve of abortion though.  I just don't think some people put much sincere thought into the matter.

I can't imagine Vox easily making the decision to watch his wife die in order to save his 5th child if they decided to have another.  Seems to me he's saying it's a cut and dry decision...no questions asked....no remorse.

Truth be told, I don't think you put a lot of thought into your views on abortion either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He (or you) would consider someone die to crap out a 5th child?

Shit, I've put a lot of thought into my views on abortion; what thought have you put into forcing me (or anyone else) to being forced to give birth?

I also don't kill endangered species.

When's the last time you actually had a thought?
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 27 2011,15:17

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,15:13)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 27 2011,14:59)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,13:57)
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011....ty.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So tell me FTK, what should be the punishment for a woman who aborts? Be specific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are there hearing aides for those who are having trouble hearing what has been said in typonese?  Having trouble with translation or what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alright, let me rephrase it for you.

1.  You believe that abortion is murder.
2.  You (I assume) believe that murder is a sin.
3.  You believe that sinners should be punished.


So, what punishment do you believe abortionists should receive?

Or, is your concept of divine justice a bit shaky?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 27 2011,15:25

SarahsDaughter 1/27/11 8:50 AM


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Perhaps it's equivalent to Faith, trusting God in all things, and Thy will be done, if she's a Christian mom.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



yeah right.  anyone who believes that happy horseshit wouldn't even flush the toilet, fuck it, Thy Will Be Done.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 27 2011,15:27

never mind i just read a few more comments and SarahsDaugher might be the head of that braintrust
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 27 2011,15:30

VD



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1. No, she made her choice when she decided to risk getting pregnant. If a woman doesn't wish to risk pregnancy, she should not get pregnant. It's not rocket science.

2. Not to the point of murdering others. See the organ transplant point above.

3. In other words, she's already had an opportunity to live her life. She's even already propagated. Regardless of whether we look at it from a logical, an evolutionary, or a moral perspective, the child's life should take priority... assuming it is an option. If the child simply isn't going to live, so be it. But if the child has a chance, that chance should not be taken away from him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



who the fuck cares what he thinks?  Oh, yeah, Rich

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR YOU STARTED THIS THREAD HAR
Posted by: khan on Jan. 27 2011,15:37

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 27 2011,16:27)
never mind i just read a few more comments and SarahsDaugher might be the head of that braintrust
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have noticed I'm getting very profane & unladylike; shall stop for now.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 27 2011,15:41

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 27 2011,16:30)
VD



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1. No, she made her choice when she decided to risk getting pregnant. If a woman doesn't wish to risk pregnancy, she should not get pregnant. It's not rocket science.

2. Not to the point of murdering others. See the organ transplant point above.

3. In other words, she's already had an opportunity to live her life. She's even already propagated. Regardless of whether we look at it from a logical, an evolutionary, or a moral perspective, the child's life should take priority... assuming it is an option. If the child simply isn't going to live, so be it. But if the child has a chance, that chance should not be taken away from him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



who the fuck cares what he thinks?  Oh, yeah, Rich

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR YOU STARTED THIS THREAD HAR
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As long as we're being virtuous: I've donated 172 units of blood; & am now being aged off the marrow donor list.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 27 2011,15:49

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,14:52)
Truth be told, I don't think...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for you.

:p

But you don't judge...only your imaginary friend does that, right?  Amazing how what your imaginary friend doesn't like is always so in line with your own squicked-out viewpoint.  Truly incredible.

Does your imaginary friend permit an exception in case of rape, incest, the health and welfare of the mother, or delays caused by small minded bureaucratic twits?


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 27 2011,15:54

Quote (khan @ Jan. 27 2011,15:16)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,15:52)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 27 2011,14:40)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,13:57)
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011....ty.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crap woman, you're actually citing vox fucking crazy shit day?.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crap woman....read the comments....all the way down to mine.  Several people have accused me of not talking to Christians about my views on abortion.  I certainly have, but there was no way to prove that.  

You got your proof now.

Certainly doesn't mean I approve of abortion though.  I just don't think some people put much sincere thought into the matter.

I can't imagine Vox easily making the decision to watch his wife die in order to save his 5th child if they decided to have another.  Seems to me he's saying it's a cut and dry decision...no questions asked....no remorse.

Truth be told, I don't think you put a lot of thought into your views on abortion either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He (or you) would consider someone die to crap out a 5th child?

Shit, I've put a lot of thought into my views on abortion; what thought have you put into forcing me (or anyone else) to being forced to give birth?

I also don't kill endangered species.

When's the last time you actually had a thought?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Either you have no reading comprehension at all...or you just skim comments on this thread and the Vox thread.  Bug off, love.  Your not paying one bit of attention and you obviously don't take any of this very seriously or you would read before you spout off.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 27 2011,15:56

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 27 2011,16:49)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,14:52)
Truth be told, I don't think...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for you.

:p

But you don't judge...only your imaginary friend does that, right?  Amazing how what your imaginary friend doesn't like is always so in line with your own squicked-out viewpoint.  Truly incredible.

Does your imaginary friend permit an exception in case of rape, incest, the health and welfare of the mother, or delays caused by small minded bureaucratic twits?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Her imaginary friend has a very large penis.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 27 2011,16:00

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 27 2011,15:49)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,14:52)
Truth be told, I don't think...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for you.

:p

But you don't judge...only your imaginary friend does that, right?  Amazing how what your imaginary friend doesn't like is always so in line with your own squicked-out viewpoint.  Truly incredible.

Does your imaginary friend permit an exception in case of rape, incest, the health and welfare of the mother, or delays caused by small minded bureaucratic twits?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol....we've gone over all that too...

Hun, I honestly think you have a serious God fixation.  Get past it....might make your life less stressful.
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 27 2011,16:02

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,15:54)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 27 2011,15:16)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,15:52)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 27 2011,14:40)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,13:57)
< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011....ty.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crap woman, you're actually citing vox fucking crazy shit day?.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crap woman....read the comments....all the way down to mine.  Several people have accused me of not talking to Christians about my views on abortion.  I certainly have, but there was no way to prove that.  

You got your proof now.

Certainly doesn't mean I approve of abortion though.  I just don't think some people put much sincere thought into the matter.

I can't imagine Vox easily making the decision to watch his wife die in order to save his 5th child if they decided to have another.  Seems to me he's saying it's a cut and dry decision...no questions asked....no remorse.

Truth be told, I don't think you put a lot of thought into your views on abortion either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He (or you) would consider someone die to crap out a 5th child?

Shit, I've put a lot of thought into my views on abortion; what thought have you put into forcing me (or anyone else) to being forced to give birth?

I also don't kill endangered species.

When's the last time you actually had a thought?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Either you have no reading comprehension at all...or you just skim comments on this thread and the Vox thread.  Bug off, love.  Your not paying one bit of attention and you obviously don't take any of this very seriously or you would read before you spout off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK espousing reading???  Is this the same FTK that tried valiantly to defend Behe's right not to read things?  Hilarious.  Even more hilarious because she doesn't know why it's funny.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 27 2011,16:07

Her imaginary friend has no optouts. The Bitch has to breed. Oh shit, am I being unkind to the big daddy in the sky?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 27 2011,16:44

FtK    1/27/11 4:30 PM

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Spacebunny: 1/27/11 4:14 PM:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FtK: 1/27/11 4:07 PM:
. But, you have no control over their final judgement. That is left to God alone.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No one claimed otherwise dear - could you be a bit more of hysterical hand waving female? Doubtful.

You are particularly pathetic in this regard because you come in here going on and on with your opinions, but when someone disagrees and shares theirs, you go all hypersonic and can't handle it, and telling people what they can and can't not do (I have no right to say something? Really?) and condemning them with ad hom attacks. Really dear. Go, take a deep calming breath and get over yourself.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Love, you didn't just share your opinions...u placed judgement and condemnation on others who don't feel as you do. I didn't do that. I said you have a choice on the matter and neither of our choices is supported in biblical black and white. As for your condescending "female" remark...par for the course at this site. Any woman disagreeing with the great Vox is a no no. There was nothing "hypersonic" about my post. You have a right to say whatever you like...you don't have the right to judge in a situation like this....that right is reserved for God. The ad homs were to give you a bit of your own medicine...I've watched you throw them at people easily in the past.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



EDIT -bah quotes are wrong - may fix later.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 27 2011,17:21

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,16:00)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 27 2011,15:49)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,14:52)
Truth be told, I don't think...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for you.

:p

But you don't judge...only your imaginary friend does that, right?  Amazing how what your imaginary friend doesn't like is always so in line with your own squicked-out viewpoint.  Truly incredible.

Does your imaginary friend permit an exception in case of rape, incest, the health and welfare of the mother, or delays caused by small minded bureaucratic twits?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol....we've gone over all that too...

Hun, I honestly think you have a serious God fixation.  Get past it....might make your life less stressful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't seem to think very much, period.

I don't have a fixation on your imaginary friend.  I do have an acute awareness of the problems caused by delusional people who use their imaginary friends as an excuse to be small-minded judgmental inquisitors and stick their prejudices and presuppositions into other people's lives.

There is a difference between the two, not that you seem to grasp this.

Just as you fail to grasp that your stance is neither consistent nor particularly moral (in that you seem quite happy to impose costs on others that you are unwilling to bear yourself, and to deny your responsibility in imposing them).

But as long as you don't judge other people's choices, I guess that's okay, isn't it?


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 27 2011,17:22

Quote (khan @ Jan. 27 2011,15:56)
Her imaginary friend has a very large penis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You owe me a new monitor.  This one's got coffee all over it.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 27 2011,17:32

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 27 2011,16:44)
FtK    1/27/11 4:30 PM

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Spacebunny: 1/27/11 4:14 PM:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FtK: 1/27/11 4:07 PM:
. But, you have no control over their final judgement. That is left to God alone.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No one claimed otherwise dear - could you be a bit more of hysterical hand waving female? Doubtful.

You are particularly pathetic in this regard because you come in here going on and on with your opinions, but when someone disagrees and shares theirs, you go all hypersonic and can't handle it, and telling people what they can and can't not do (I have no right to say something? Really?) and condemning them with ad hom attacks. Really dear. Go, take a deep calming breath and get over yourself.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Love, you didn't just share your opinions...u placed judgement and condemnation on others who don't feel as you do. I didn't do that. I said you have a choice on the matter and neither of our choices is supported in biblical black and white. As for your condescending "female" remark...par for the course at this site. Any woman disagreeing with the great Vox is a no no. There was nothing "hypersonic" about my post. You have a right to say whatever you like...you don't have the right to judge in a situation like this....that right is reserved for God. The ad homs were to give you a bit of your own medicine...I've watched you throw them at people easily in the past.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



EDIT -bah quotes are wrong - may fix later.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, she's right about my definition of judge if you read further down the thread.  

Doesn't matter....she's welcome to her choice....I find nothing biblical about it.  So, one would have to base it on what their own family would want done in that situation.  

I've talked to my husband and boys about this very issue.  They don't feel the same way as the Vox family does.  They want me to stay with them, and allow their little sibling go with the Lord.  

I also threw in an ad hom that I'm not proud of, but SP and I have never been on the best since the time I disagreed with her quite a while ago, so I let one rip.  My bad.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 27 2011,17:38

I have just read that VD thread. I am utterly disgusted. The hypocritical, sanctomonious moralising by inarticulate religious bigots is unimaginable.

Bed time I think. I'm going to read something edifying and hope that when I wake in the morning it will allllll be better.

Louis
Posted by: khan on Jan. 27 2011,17:46

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 27 2011,18:22)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 27 2011,15:56)
Her imaginary friend has a very large penis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You owe me a new monitor.  This one's got coffee all over it.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry there.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 27 2011,17:48

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 27 2011,17:21)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,16:00)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 27 2011,15:49)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,14:52)
Truth be told, I don't think...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for you.

:p

But you don't judge...only your imaginary friend does that, right?  Amazing how what your imaginary friend doesn't like is always so in line with your own squicked-out viewpoint.  Truly incredible.

Does your imaginary friend permit an exception in case of rape, incest, the health and welfare of the mother, or delays caused by small minded bureaucratic twits?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol....we've gone over all that too...

Hun, I honestly think you have a serious God fixation.  Get past it....might make your life less stressful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't seem to think very much, period.

I don't have a fixation on your imaginary friend.  I do have an acute awareness of the problems caused by delusional people who use their imaginary friends as an excuse to be small-minded judgmental inquisitors and stick their prejudices and presuppositions into other people's lives.

There is a difference between the two, not that you seem to grasp this.

Just as you fail to grasp that your stance is neither consistent nor particularly moral (in that you seem quite happy to impose costs on others that you are unwilling to bear yourself, and to deny your responsibility in imposing them).

But as long as you don't judge other people's choices, I guess that's okay, isn't it?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're right...I judge...I wasn't considering all aspects of judgement.  My mistake...had one thing on my mind.

*To form an opinion or evaluation. (this i do in regard to abortion.)

*To act or decide as a judge. (this I don't do, and I leave it to God.)

I apologize for the confusion.

"Amazing how what your imaginary friend doesn't like is always so in line with your own squicked-out viewpoint.  Truly incredible."

Uh, no.  This I never claimed to be true.  I can't know His mind other than what I read in scripture, and some of it is not in black and white.

"I do have an acute awareness of the problems caused by delusional people who use their imaginary friends as an excuse to be small-minded judgmental inquisitors and stick their prejudices and presuppositions into other people's lives."

And, likewise, I have an acute awareness of the problems caused by a faction of non-religious, small-minded judgmental inquisitors who stick their prejudices and presuppositions into other people's lives.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 27 2011,17:52

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,23:48)
[SNIP]

And, likewise, I have an acute awareness of the problems caused by a faction of non-religious, small-minded judgmental inquisitors who stick their prejudices and presuppositions into other people's lives.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ORLY? And where, when and how, do they do this? By not falling to their knees and living how you and your god-soaked fellow travellers tell them to?

Please. Your cluelessness is only matched by your wanton paranoia.

Louis
Posted by: khan on Jan. 27 2011,17:54

Does your god have hair around his anus?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 27 2011,17:57

Quote (khan @ Jan. 27 2011,23:54)
Does your god have hair around his anus?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mine used to but he waxes and bleaches. Does that count?

All this arse talk has made me think of a sketch by the excellent Aussie comic Steve Hughes on a mildly related topic.

< Teh NSFW Funneh >

Louis

ETA: P.S. I needed comedy to enlighten me. The darkness of mood brought on by reading the VD thread could have caused unrest. I have sufficient money for plane tickets and a will to batter some fools. I thought it best to have a laugh instead.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 27 2011,18:27

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,17:48)
Uh, no.  This I never claimed to be true.  I can't know His mind other than what I read in scripture, and some of it is not in black and white.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And now we're back to those oh so very dreary questions "how do you know?" and "why should we accept your interpretation over someone else's?"

Your claim to know your imaginary friend's mind is pretty funny, though.  Are you a mind reader of mythical proportions as well?


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 27 2011,18:28

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 27 2011,18:38)
I have just read that VD thread. I am utterly disgusted. The hypocritical, sanctomonious moralising by inarticulate religious bigots is unimaginable.

Bed time I think. I'm going to read something edifying and hope that when I wake in the morning it will allllll be better.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a bizarre thread, to be sure. I got through about a quarter of it, and can't go further. Anyone there raise the following obvious theological point?

Vox cites the following as the governing commandment from Christianity:

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Vox's OP and the ensuing discussion, so far as I was able to stomach it, concerns the actions of the hospital, not the mother, and then the reaction of the church to the hospital's choice. Yet Jesus didn't say "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man compel another man to lay down his life for his friends." So the exhortation has no bearing upon the hospital's behavior - as the hospital lays down little in so compelling a woman's sacrifice.

Further, dying for another because one is compelled to - and I gather the Catholic church would so compel women if it had its peculiar druthers - is not "laying down one's life for another." Perhaps some Christian women have taken Jesus' words to heart and chosen to put themselves at risk of death for the lives of their unborn babies - genuinely offering to lay down their lives for another. But that's just the point: If there are such women, the "laying down of their lives" inheres in the choice to do so. If it isn't a chosen action, then it isn't the action Jesus exhorts at all.

So, from every direction, Vox is completely out to lunch to in claiming that the above commandment is the governing passage from Christianity in this instance.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Jan. 27 2011,19:04

If I'm not mistaken, I just saw FtK stand up to Beale and the Space-Case, and call them on their black-and-white, holier- than-thou, judgmental piousness.
I commend her for that.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Jan. 27 2011,19:08

I forgot to count to 30.  Turn the page already!
Posted by: MichaelJ on Jan. 27 2011,21:01

I believe that you could create a theological position that supports Abortion (As somebody wrote somewhere recently "If men had babies, abortion would be a sacrament").

However, I can't see why these same people support capital punishment. Isn't this taking away the possibility that they may repent and be born again and saved?
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 27 2011,21:26

Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 27 2011,21:01)
I believe that you could create a theological position that supports Abortion (As somebody wrote somewhere recently "If men had babies, abortion would be a sacrament").

However, I can't see why these same people support capital punishment. Isn't this taking away the possibility that they may repent and be born again and saved?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


These people feel that whoever offends them is a sinner who neither wants nor deserves forgiveness or redemption.  Therefore, they feel that whoever offends them should be sent to Hell as soon as possible.

Why else would they do things like make websites demanding that abortion clinic doctors and Democratic politicians be murdered?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 27 2011,21:29

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 27 2011,21:26)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 27 2011,21:01)
I believe that you could create a theological position that supports Abortion (As somebody wrote somewhere recently "If men had babies, abortion would be a sacrament").

However, I can't see why these same people support capital punishment. Isn't this taking away the possibility that they may repent and be born again and saved?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


These people feel that whoever offends them is a sinner who neither wants nor deserves forgiveness or redemption.  Therefore, they feel that whoever offends them should be sent to Hell as soon as possible.

Why else would they do things like make websites demanding that abortion clinic doctors and Democratic politicians be murdered?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, I've never run across websites like that.  Pass me a few to check out.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 27 2011,21:59

Simply because you're too lazy and too embarrassed to look for such sites, FtK, does not mean they don't exist.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 27 2011,22:02

Quote (khan @ Jan. 27 2011,18:54)
Does your god have hair around his anus?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


if he don't he ain't much of a god

gadzooks i just about busted a blood vessel in my eyeball laughing at that
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 27 2011,22:10

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 27 2011,21:59)
Simply because you're too lazy and too embarrassed to look for such sites, FtK, does not mean they don't exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Must be hard to find because I've not run across any yet.  I don't think it's that difficult for you to just share a few.  I'd like to get in the discussion at these sites.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 27 2011,22:14

I like this FtK that is all into trolling other forums
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 27 2011,22:21

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,22:10)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 27 2011,21:59)
Simply because you're too lazy and too embarrassed to look for such sites, FtK, does not mean they don't exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Must be hard to find because I've not run across any yet.  I don't think it's that difficult for you to just share a few.  I'd like to get in the discussion at these sites.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shit, woman.  Can you Google?  There's about 100 sites dedicated to every single topic (no matter how outrageous) you could possibly string words together to title.

Just because no one here wants to provide them with more traffic doesn't mean you can't go visit them.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 27 2011,22:34

Quote (blipey @ Jan. 27 2011,22:21)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,22:10)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 27 2011,21:59)
Simply because you're too lazy and too embarrassed to look for such sites, FtK, does not mean they don't exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Must be hard to find because I've not run across any yet.  I don't think it's that difficult for you to just share a few.  I'd like to get in the discussion at these sites.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shit, woman.  Can you Google?  There's about 100 sites dedicated to every single topic (no matter how outrageous) you could possibly string words together to title.

Just because no one here wants to provide them with more traffic doesn't mean you can't go visit them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If she could Google, would she be sitting here, implying that I'm lying when I'm implying that a good majority of American Christians are not fluffy bunnies, frizzy kittens, and luminescent Jesuses when they wish to deny any and all women who want or need abortions, for whatever reason, through any means possible?
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 27 2011,22:38

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 27 2011,21:59)
Simply because you're too lazy and too embarrassed to look for such sites, FtK, does not mean they don't exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still looking.....

See, usually, when I make statements without providing my source, I get called on it.  I wouldn't get by with stating "find it yourself".  

Im not saying they aren't out there somewhere...I just can't find them.  Im interested because I'd like to see what type of folks post at these websites as well as add my two cents to the conversations.

Isn't that what I've been asked to do.....share my views with fellow Christians if that's what they proclaim to be?  So, help me out here.
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 27 2011,23:03

In case you haven't had time to dig anything up yet, I'll point you in the right direction.  On the first page I Googled, granted not at the top, but still on the first page.  Army of God.  Perhaps you own his book?
Posted by: rossum on Jan. 28 2011,08:39

Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 27 2011,21:01)
I believe that you could create a theological position that supports Abortion (As somebody wrote somewhere recently "If men had babies, abortion would be a sacrament").
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Start by reading Numbers 5:11-31.  If you suspect your pregnant wife has been sleeping with someone else then take her to the Temple and the priests will procure an abortion for you.

rossum
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 28 2011,09:14

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 27 2011,21:26)
   
Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 27 2011,21:01)
I believe that you could create a theological position that supports Abortion (As somebody wrote somewhere recently "If men had babies, abortion would be a sacrament").

However, I can't see why these same people support capital punishment. Isn't this taking away the possibility that they may repent and be born again and saved?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


These people feel that whoever offends them is a sinner who neither wants nor deserves forgiveness or redemption.  Therefore, they feel that whoever offends them should be sent to Hell as soon as possible.

Why else would they do things like make websites demanding that abortion clinic doctors and Democratic politicians be murdered?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


These people?? Are you kidding me?? You are really, Archie-Bunker-like, starting a rant with "These people..." ???

No doubt you can find sites dedicated to threats against abortion providers and clinics. You can find lunatic fringe websites for any outrageous position. You can probably find any number of websites dedicated to various forms of bigotry posting tirades beginning with These people...

It means nothing. What is relevant is the fact that the percentage of Christians who advocate murder and property destruction is negligible.

EDIT: spelling.
Posted by: Bing on Jan. 28 2011,10:12

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 28 2011,09:14)
What is relevant is the fact that the percentage of Christians who advocate murder and property destruction is negligible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is not negligible is the percentage of moderate Christians who, while they might disagree with the extremists, do not vigorously and publicly disabuse the extremists of their views.  

Silence =/= tacit approval but it might be interpreted that way.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 28 2011,10:28

Quote (Bing @ Jan. 28 2011,16:12)
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 28 2011,09:14)
What is relevant is the fact that the percentage of Christians who advocate murder and property destruction is negligible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is not negligible is the percentage of moderate Christians who, while they might disagree with the extremists, do not vigorously and publicly disabuse the extremists of their views.  

Silence =/= tacit approval but it might be interpreted that way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And if it isn't interpreted as tacit approval (which I would agree it likely is not) it certainly helps to allow the culture of not questioning religion/giving a free pass to religion to flourish, granting underserved cover to the nuttier elements.

As "loud and unpleasant"* as some people claim the Gnu Atheists (who aren't that new, let's be blunt) are, I'm shocked that the co-religionists of the extremist bozos aren't slapping ads across every newspaper, website and TV station with "Not in MY name, fruitcakes" and similar disclaimers in massive letters. I wonder why they don't...

It couldn't be because it serves them to keep quiet could it? Nooo that would be too mean of me to suggest. I'm going with "just regular folks". We all fail to do things we should, and sit silently when we need to stand to be counted. I know I do. But DAMN, people. If some whack job was claiming to act in MY name, about something this serious, I'd be pretty darn vocal about my opposition. Where are you "moderates"?

Louis

*Awww diddums, did someone not immediately buckle at the knee to your imaginary best friend and your refusal to leave behind the mental trappings of childhood? Sowwy. How shocking. Quick! To the fainting couch!
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 28 2011,10:32

Quote (Bing @ Jan. 28 2011,10:12)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 28 2011,09:14)
What is relevant is the fact that the percentage of Christians who advocate murder and property destruction is negligible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is not negligible is the percentage of moderate Christians who, while they might disagree with the extremists, do not vigorously and publicly disabuse the extremists of their views.  

Silence =/= tacit approval but it might be interpreted that way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really. Funny, I hear it all the time. You must not be listening. Whenever there is one of these incidents there will be all manner of Christians denouncing the violence.

Do you also think not enough Muslims have spoken out against Islamic terrorism, and so their silence is tantamount to tacit approval?  

This "oh you don't scream loud enough therefore you are part of the problem" is a) wrong b) cheap and c) a red herring.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 28 2011,10:46

Quote (Bing @ Jan. 28 2011,11:12)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 28 2011,09:14)
What is relevant is the fact that the percentage of Christians who advocate murder and property destruction is negligible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is not negligible is the percentage of moderate Christians who, while they might disagree with the extremists, do not vigorously and publicly disabuse the extremists of their views.  

Silence =/= tacit approval but it might be interpreted that way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know about you but I hear christianists mooing about the justification for murdering some set of people or nuking them into the stone age about every time i listen to them.  

sure heddle you are soooooooooooooo sophisticated but let's face it for every one of you there are shitloads of people who think that you are part of the problem.  

Bing is spot on.  

Surely Stanton would agree that he is guilty of rhetorical excess by stating

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why else would they do things like make websites demanding that abortion clinic doctors and Democratic politicians be murdered?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



but not very much else.  For fucks sake, there are probably lots of reasons why "they do things like [that]"  that don't all impinge directly on wishing whatever offends them straight to hell.  

Like, some of them may just be really stupid people whose personal identity is inseparable from some foundational political identity myth.  These are the same sorts of dipshits who believe in burning talking bushes but at the same time call the fire department when they see a burning bush instead of jumping into the nearest sackcloth and yammering in tongues at Yahweh

And some of them may be (horrors) intellectually inconsistent or intellectually non-existent boorish barbarians who don't really give a fig for abortion or republicans/democrats but just want to lop off somebody's head for no good reason*.  at least that lot i can empathize with, if not identify.

ETA *  that would be our friend Teddy methinks
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 28 2011,11:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you also think not enough Muslims have spoken out against Islamic terrorism, and so their silence is tantamount to tacit approval?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Erm, dheddle, this is exactly the major critic about "moderate" Muslims here in france. The only ones to firmly and publicly condemn terrorist acts by islamist fanatics are the Imam of the Grande Mosquée de Paris and some other Imam from Seine-Saint-Denis. And you know what most Muslims' response to the critic is? "These two Imams are not true Muslims, they are sionists and friends of Israel (which is the devil, you know)". And then they go on to lynch them outside their respective Mosquées.

Why do you think Moderate Muslims are pointed at along with the fanatics commit some atrocity or other? Because when some horrible act is made in the name of their god, they turn their eyes away. Not a single word by any Muslim association.

If you need linkies and such, feel free to ask, but it's quite easy to find on the web.

It's funny the way this totaly relates to this here subject. It's the majority, the moderate, who have to be the firsts to condemn stupidity cast in the name of their god, whatever the religion!
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 28 2011,12:10

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 28 2011,16:32)
Quote (Bing @ Jan. 28 2011,10:12)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 28 2011,09:14)
What is relevant is the fact that the percentage of Christians who advocate murder and property destruction is negligible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is not negligible is the percentage of moderate Christians who, while they might disagree with the extremists, do not vigorously and publicly disabuse the extremists of their views.  

Silence =/= tacit approval but it might be interpreted that way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really. Funny, I hear it all the time. You must not be listening. Whenever there is one of these incidents there will be all manner of Christians denouncing the violence.

Do you also think not enough Muslims have spoken out against Islamic terrorism, and so their silence is tantamount to tacit approval?  

This "oh you don't scream loud enough therefore you are part of the problem" is a) wrong b) cheap and c) a red herring.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) Yes I think "moderate" muslims are far too silent too. These guys and gals should be the first people to speak out. Nice fatwa envy Heddle. This, from you, was spectacularly pathetic, do better and do better fast. Eurgh, I feel dirty just entertaining THAT piece of bigotry from you.

2) Silence is a part of the problem and is very far from a red herring or cheap. Your denial and defensiveness are beneath you. One of the major failings of ALL of us (this is a set that includes me by the way) is that we rarely get up onto our hind legs and speak or act when it's necessary. The pressures of life are sufficient to guarantee this, it's not a mark of wanton hypocrisy or cowardice. People have bills to pay and work to do. It's normal, banale, bog standard, dull. But then so much that is genuinely "evil" is. It's inaction that holds up desired change more than conspiracy against said change.

There's a cracking example of this on Pharyngula today about public school teachers in the USA preferring to avoid controversy by bowdlerising their teaching of biology. These people contribute very strongly to the problem. Go read the paper (and the many more like it).

Learn the lessons of history, Heddle, or else you are doomed to repeat them.

3) And I don't agree with this "I hear it all the time" from you either, sorry. Look at your own massive defensiveness here. Instead of "hmmm maybe I am (partly) my brother's keeper" (to butcher a bit of bible) you are lashing out at people pointing out that the majority of people in your country are "moderate" christians, and the majority of people are silent on these issues (at best).

The opposite of "it's rarely heard by comparison to the numbers of people available to shout" is not "I hear it all the time". Three hundred odd million people in the USA, the majority of whom are christian, the majority of whom (if your claim is true, and for the sake of argument let's not question it) don't support the actions of these whackos, you know I reckon some of them might be in positions of power. Positions of influence in the media. And yet by comparison the relative silence is deafening. The Palins and Limbaughs and Haggards and Becks and Phelpses etc all get their press time. Take a moment to listen to what these people are shovelling 'cos moderate it ain't. All that access to the tools of power by the moderates and very little condemnation comes forth.

This applies to EVERYONE by the way, on issues as far and wide as religion, war, foreign policy, healthcare yadda yadda yadda. The tendancy not to rock the boat or stick one's head above the parapet is universal, so don't feel like you and yours are uniquely singled out. However, don't feel that you and yours are uniquely invulnerable, you, just like we, ain't.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 28 2011,12:18

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 28 2011,17:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you also think not enough Muslims have spoken out against Islamic terrorism, and so their silence is tantamount to tacit approval?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Erm, dheddle, this is exactly the major critic about "moderate" Muslims here in france. The only ones to firmly and publicly condemn terrorist acts by islamist fanatics are the Imam of the Grande Mosquée de Paris and some other Imam from Seine-Saint-Denis. And you know what most Muslims' response to the critic is? "These two Imams are not true Muslims, they are sionists and friends of Israel (which is the devil, you know)". And then they go on to lynch them outside their respective Mosquées.

Why do you think Moderate Muslims are pointed at along with the fanatics commit some atrocity or other? Because when some horrible act is made in the name of their god, they turn their eyes away. Not a single word by any Muslim association.

If you need linkies and such, feel free to ask, but it's quite easy to find on the web.

It's funny the way this totaly relates to this here subject. It's the majority, the moderate, who have to be the firsts to condemn stupidity cast in the name of their god, whatever the religion!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heddle is just touting the standard fatwah envy line of the christian bigot. It runs thus:

"Oh us christians we are so persecuted because we are so nice, you wouldn't pick on those muslims because they're not nice like us and will bomb you".*

It's bullshit basically. I'll criticise ANYONE of ANY religion (or none) that pulls the horseshit these guys pull. But Heddle at al cannot cope with criticism of the sky fairy belief, and so they deflect it wherever possible.

Louis

*There is a nastier racist/jingoistic undertone with some people, and I seriously doubt Heddle is one of them but I include for completeness, which runs roughly "Oh us christians we are so persecuted because we are so nice and white, you wouldn't pick on those muslims because they're darkies not nice like us and will bomb you, and you're a sand nigger-loving liberal/socialist who hates your own race and {insert country of choice}". Hey, what was it Heddle said? "Really? I hear it all the time." Must be true eh?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 28 2011,12:28

HAR HAR LOUIS AND HEDDLE SITTING IN A TREE
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 28 2011,12:35

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 28 2011,12:10)
   
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 28 2011,16:32)
   
Quote (Bing @ Jan. 28 2011,10:12)
       
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 28 2011,09:14)
What is relevant is the fact that the percentage of Christians who advocate murder and property destruction is negligible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is not negligible is the percentage of moderate Christians who, while they might disagree with the extremists, do not vigorously and publicly disabuse the extremists of their views.  

Silence =/= tacit approval but it might be interpreted that way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really. Funny, I hear it all the time. You must not be listening. Whenever there is one of these incidents there will be all manner of Christians denouncing the violence.

Do you also think not enough Muslims have spoken out against Islamic terrorism, and so their silence is tantamount to tacit approval?  

This "oh you don't scream loud enough therefore you are part of the problem" is a) wrong b) cheap and c) a red herring.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) Yes I think "moderate" muslims are far too silent too. These guys and gals should be the first people to speak out. Nice fatwa envy Heddle. This, from you, was spectacularly pathetic, do better and do better fast. Eurgh, I feel dirty just entertaining THAT piece of bigotry from you.

2) Silence is a part of the problem and is very far from a red herring or cheap. Your denial and defensiveness are beneath you. One of the major failings of ALL of us (this is a set that includes me by the way) is that we rarely get up onto our hind legs and speak or act when it's necessary. The pressures of life are sufficient to guarantee this, it's not a mark of wanton hypocrisy or cowardice. People have bills to pay and work to do. It's normal, banale, bog standard, dull. But then so much that is genuinely "evil" is. It's inaction that holds up desired change more than conspiracy against said change.

There's a cracking example of this on Pharyngula today about public school teachers in the USA preferring to avoid controversy by bowdlerising their teaching of biology. These people contribute very strongly to the problem. Go read the paper (and the many more like it).

Learn the lessons of history, Heddle, or else you are doomed to repeat them.

3) And I don't agree with this "I hear it all the time" from you either, sorry. Look at your own massive defensiveness here. Instead of "hmmm maybe I am (partly) my brother's keeper" (to butcher a bit of bible) you are lashing out at people pointing out that the majority of people in your country are "moderate" christians, and the majority of people are silent on these issues (at best).

The opposite of "it's rarely heard by comparison to the numbers of people available to shout" is not "I hear it all the time". Three hundred odd million people in the USA, the majority of whom are christian, the majority of whom (if your claim is true, and for the sake of argument let's not question it) don't support the actions of these whackos, you know I reckon some of them might be in positions of power. Positions of influence in the media. And yet by comparison the relative silence is deafening. The Palins and Limbaughs and Haggards and Becks and Phelpses etc all get their press time. Take a moment to listen to what these people are shovelling 'cos moderate it ain't. All that access to the tools of power by the moderates and very little condemnation comes forth.

This applies to EVERYONE by the way, on issues as far and wide as religion, war, foreign policy, healthcare yadda yadda yadda. The tendancy not to rock the boat or stick one's head above the parapet is universal, so don't feel like you and yours are uniquely singled out. However, don't feel that you and yours are uniquely invulnerable, you, just like we, ain't.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None of those you mentioned (Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Phelps  [really, Phelps?]) are representatives of the Christian community. In fact--as far as evangelical Protestants are concerned there is no such position. We have no pope or archbishop of Canterbury.  If the media are going to those you mention for official Christian reaction—then they are going to blatherers without poprtfolio.

And exactly how are we supposed to scream and holler? Why don’t you sneak into a garden-variety evangelical church after one of these incidents? See if the pastor denounces the incident from the pulpit, or see if he rubs his hands together and tells the flock: remember to *pretend* to be horrified!.

If you actually ask someone who is influential in the evangelical Christian community—you might consider someone like John Piper. He has enormous influence—infinitely more than Sarah Palin or James Dobson . Do the media go to Piper (who, while being pro-life has in no uncertain terms condemned such violence?) No, they go to people like Palin or especially someone who might make an outrageous statement. And even so I suspect both Palin and Dobson, two of the worst representatives for Christianity you can imagine, would both denounce the violence.

There is probably a similar problem in the Muslim world. Going to an everyday Muslim and hearing him denounce terrorism  is not going to get you picked up by the networks.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 28 2011,12:42

oh yes "he's not one of us"

whatever heddle.  

< for instance >

i suppose Wiley Drake isn't "influential in the evangelical Christian community", amirite amirite?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 28 2011,12:45

and i am sure that these christians view your type (e.g. one who consorts with us infidels) as one of the



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
worst representatives for Christianity you can imagine
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and who cares?  why should anyone care who you or they think is the worst or best representative for christianity?  or, say, the guy who blows my pizza guy?

perhaps it is clearer to the unbeliever than you why you don't rock the boat and tell the morons to shut up.  because that would require individual critical thinking, and that very quickly leads to loss of religious belief.  so, yeah
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 28 2011,13:07

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 28 2011,18:35)
[SNIP]

None of those you mentioned (Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Phelps  [really, Phelps?]) are representatives of the Christian community. In fact--as far as evangelical Protestants are concerned there is no such position. We have no pope or archbishop of Canterbury.  If the media are going to those you mention for official Christian reaction—then they are going to blatherers without poprtfolio.

And exactly how are we supposed to scream and holler? Why don’t you sneak into a garden-variety evangelical church after one of these incidents? See if the pastor denounces the incident from the pulpit, or see if he rubs his hands together and tells the flock: remember to *pretend* to be horrified!.

If you actually ask someone who is influential in the evangelical Christian community—you might consider someone like John Piper. He has enormous influence—infinitely more than Sarah Palin or James Dobson . Do the media go to Piper (who, while being pro-life has in no uncertain terms condemned such violence?) No, they go to people like Palin or especially someone who might make an outrageous statement. And even so I suspect both Palin and Dobson, two of the worst representatives for Christianity you can imagine, would both denounce the violence.

There is probably a similar problem in the Muslim world. Going to an everyday Muslim and hearing him denounce terrorism  is not going to get you picked up by the networks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, those people are not christians and do not tout themselves AS christians serving a (supposedly) christian agenda? Erm, I think they do, as even a cursory look at their outpourings will tell you.

Whether or not they are Troo Christianz ™ by the Heddle Standard is utterly irrelevant, they present themselves as such and doubtless would claim their doctrinal interpretations as superior to yours, just as you claim yours superior to theirs. I KNOW from endless iterations of this aspect of our online conversations you do not understand this. I KNOW you consider your specific narrow sect of christianity to be the "right" one, but then so do they, and so do the whackos we all despise (like Phelps and chums). It isn't a trivial question or red herring to be waved away as you usually do, and it isn't one amenable to the usual arse achingly dull and interminable biblical exegesis you and your co-religionists subject their interlocutors to. It's an epistmological question and one frequently (but I admit not exclusively) dodged by everyone from backwoods rube to "sophisticated theologian". The question of HOW you claim to know what you claim to know about your religion is a significant problem for you. Anyyyyyyyway, I digress. My point is you cannot honestly (as if that has ever worried you on this issue) hand wave away the problems with declaring people non-christian.

You and I both doubt the pastors of any church (maybe that should be the vast majority of churches for nits to pick) are saying "pretend to be horrifed". Not only do I genuinely believe most people do not share the attitudes of the extremists, even if they did, such things would be unnecessary. Tacit racism and sexism persist merrily in societies (even the Holy Liberal Lands of Europe ;-) ) without needing to be explicitly stated in official fora. If such attitudes were prevalent (and I need to make no claim that they are, I don't think they are), they hardly rely on the sort of naive caricature you have painted.

The comment you make about the Dobson/Palins* and their muslim counterparts misses my point. Your excuse is "it's not good TV to go to the non-frothing moderate"? Really? Read above, Heddle. If it is, as you say (and I'd agree), that the majority of folks are moderate religionists, then these are the people populating the news networks, internet and papers. They can, to some extent, set the agenda. The USA does not lack moderate christian millionaires, go for the American dream and set up a moderate newspaper etc. This is not what's getting done, the hysteria gets worse (and like the darling little poodles we are, the UK is emulating it, trust me, it's fun here too!) and the rhetoric descends ever gutterward in the classic race to the bottom. You do not belong to a persecuted minority, you hold the reins of power, use them. You cannot at once be the silent majority and a powerless victim.

Louis

*When did you fall out of love with La Palin? You were voting for her last time we spoke on the subject.
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 28 2011,13:37

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 28 2011,13:07)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 28 2011,18:35)
[SNIP]

None of those you mentioned (Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Phelps  [really, Phelps?]) are representatives of the Christian community. In fact--as far as evangelical Protestants are concerned there is no such position. We have no pope or archbishop of Canterbury.  If the media are going to those you mention for official Christian reaction—then they are going to blatherers without poprtfolio.

And exactly how are we supposed to scream and holler? Why don’t you sneak into a garden-variety evangelical church after one of these incidents? See if the pastor denounces the incident from the pulpit, or see if he rubs his hands together and tells the flock: remember to *pretend* to be horrified!.

If you actually ask someone who is influential in the evangelical Christian community—you might consider someone like John Piper. He has enormous influence—infinitely more than Sarah Palin or James Dobson . Do the media go to Piper (who, while being pro-life has in no uncertain terms condemned such violence?) No, they go to people like Palin or especially someone who might make an outrageous statement. And even so I suspect both Palin and Dobson, two of the worst representatives for Christianity you can imagine, would both denounce the violence.

There is probably a similar problem in the Muslim world. Going to an everyday Muslim and hearing him denounce terrorism  is not going to get you picked up by the networks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, those people are not christians and do not tout themselves AS christians serving a (supposedly) christian agenda? Erm, I think they do, as even a cursory look at their outpourings will tell you.

Whether or not they are Troo Christianz ™ by the Heddle Standard is utterly irrelevant, they present themselves as such and doubtless would claim their doctrinal interpretations as superior to yours, just as you claim yours superior to theirs. I KNOW from endless iterations of this aspect of our online conversations you do not understand this. I KNOW you consider your specific narrow sect of christianity to be the "right" one, but then so do they, and so do the whackos we all despise (like Phelps and chums). It isn't a trivial question or red herring to be waved away as you usually do, and it isn't one amenable to the usual arse achingly dull and interminable biblical exegesis you and your co-religionists subject their interlocutors to. It's an epistmological question and one frequently (but I admit not exclusively) dodged by everyone from backwoods rube to "sophisticated theologian". The question of HOW you claim to know what you claim to know about your religion is a significant problem for you. Anyyyyyyyway, I digress. My point is you cannot honestly (as if that has ever worried you on this issue) hand wave away the problems with declaring people non-christian.

You and I both doubt the pastors of any church (maybe that should be the vast majority of churches for nits to pick) are saying "pretend to be horrifed". Not only do I genuinely believe most people do not share the attitudes of the extremists, even if they did, such things would be unnecessary. Tacit racism and sexism persist merrily in societies (even the Holy Liberal Lands of Europe ;-) ) without needing to be explicitly stated in official fora. If such attitudes were prevalent (and I need to make no claim that they are, I don't think they are), they hardly rely on the sort of naive caricature you have painted.

The comment you make about the Dobson/Palins* and their muslim counterparts misses my point. Your excuse is "it's not good TV to go to the non-frothing moderate"? Really? Read above, Heddle. If it is, as you say (and I'd agree), that the majority of folks are moderate religionists, then these are the people populating the news networks, internet and papers. They can, to some extent, set the agenda. The USA does not lack moderate christian millionaires, go for the American dream and set up a moderate newspaper etc. This is not what's getting done, the hysteria gets worse (and like the darling little poodles we are, the UK is emulating it, trust me, it's fun here too!) and the rhetoric descends ever gutterward in the classic race to the bottom. You do not belong to a persecuted minority, you hold the reins of power, use them. You cannot at once be the silent majority and a powerless victim.

Louis

*When did you fall out of love with La Palin? You were voting for her last time we spoke on the subject.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Whatever they tout themselves as is beyond my control. And I didn’t say they weren’t True Christians so why go that route? You cautioned about my doing something below my standards—your heading down the tiresome path of claiming or hinting that I am saying who is or is not a true Christian is below yours. I have no reason to doubt that Palin is sincere in her Christianity. That doesn’t mean she is my—or anyone else's—representative. If you must assign us a representative, why not one who actually appears to have influence on Christianity, not politics? When I go to on-campus Christian student activities, they are talking about people like John Piper or Mark Driscoll. They are not talking about Sarah Palin, Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh.

It is no different from asking: is PZ Myers atheism’s spokesman? I suspect a great many garden-variety atheists would say either “PZ who?” or “No, he is not my spokesman.” But who do you think the media would  ask, hoping for a good sound bite, should the occasion arise? PZ or the atheist in the street?

Some atheists in our distorted internet circles are stating rather loudly that raising children in a Christian home is a form of child abuse, and it is not even a surprise to find a comment here and there suggesting that such children should be removed.  I would like to think that the silent majority of atheists do not agree. But they aren’t saying much—should I take their silence as tacit approval?

As for Palin even when I supported her I would not have considered her as a Christian representative. But even so, again, I trust she would, if asked, denounce the murdering of an abortion doctor or the bombing of a clinic. (And since you asked:  my support for Palin evaporated when she quit her job. I have already decided that I have voted for the last time. Politics is too depressing.)
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 28 2011,16:10

False equivalence, there, Heddle...about what one might expect, but still, you're off your game here.  PZ Myers speaks only for PZ Myers, and he'll be the first person to tell you so...as you probably know.

Earlier, you say that Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and Phelps are not representative of the Christian community.  Then you say you didn't say they aren't true Christians.

What you mean, obviously, is that three of these people are not clergy and have no official influence with any formally recognized denomination.  Phelps is clergy and does have official influence, but mercifully only holds sway over a tiny flock.

Unfortunately, what someone who isn't you sees in your response is "these people aren't really representative of a Christian attitude" even though they claim to be Christians, come from a Christian background, tout their credentials as true believers, slam their opposition as unChristian, et cetera.  

Nice try, but no cigar.  Splitting semantic frog hairs?  No True Scotsman, more like.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 28 2011,17:34

What I find mysterious is where all these "moderate" Christians go on election day, and where all the (oddly equal in number) nutjobs suddenly come from.

Prop 8 didn't pass because of a small minority of nutjobs over the will of a vast majority of moderates. Boehner and Palin and Bachman didn't get elected by a small minority of nutjobs in spite of a vast majority of moderates.

Funny how this vast majority of moderate Christians seems to disappear on election day.
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 29 2011,08:31

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 28 2011,16:10)
False equivalence, there, Heddle...about what one might expect, but still, you're off your game here.  PZ Myers speaks only for PZ Myers, and he'll be the first person to tell you so...as you probably know.

Earlier, you say that Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and Phelps are not representative of the Christian community.  Then you say you didn't say they aren't true Christians.

What you mean, obviously, is that three of these people are not clergy and have no official influence with any formally recognized denomination.  Phelps is clergy and does have official influence, but mercifully only holds sway over a tiny flock.

Unfortunately, what someone who isn't you sees in your response is "these people aren't really representative of a Christian attitude" even though they claim to be Christians, come from a Christian background, tout their credentials as true believers, slam their opposition as unChristian, et cetera.  

Nice try, but no cigar.  Splitting semantic frog hairs?  No True Scotsman, more like.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I 'll assume you simple made a mistake when you wrote that I am saying:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
these people aren't really representative of a Christian attitude
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



when in fact what I wrote was: they are not representatives--as in nobody has asked them or authorized them to speak on the behalf of Christians.

Like when I point out something that I think is a misconception about Christianity and I get the old: Yeah, heddle maybe you think that but why should I believe you rather than the pizza guy--who appointed you as the representative for Christianity?

Apparently if you like what a Christian says--probably because it is dumb and is easy to attack--then that is what qualifies them as bonafide "representative."
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 29 2011,09:00

so, where are these black swans, again?  certainly not attending the churches i have attended, certainly not writing letters to the editor of my local newspapers, certainly not in my family get togethers.

but, hey, leaders in the largest Protestant group in the United States have no problem with publicly yammering about how they are praying for Obama's death.


Maybe these clowns don't speak for the oh-so-sophisticated heddles, but they sure as hell seem to speak for the statistically average christianist.  heddle's experiences with which religious figures are influencing smart folks on college campuses is, ultimately, a survey of young folks who are losing their religion.  that is not the 'average' christian either.  too bad.
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 29 2011,09:15

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 29 2011,09:00)
so, where are these black swans, again?  certainly not attending the churches i have attended, certainly not writing letters to the editor of my local newspapers, certainly not in my family get togethers.

but, hey, leaders in the largest Protestant group in the United States have no problem with publicly yammering about how they are praying for Obama's death.


Maybe these clowns don't speak for the oh-so-sophisticated heddles, but they sure as hell seem to speak for the statistically average christianist.  heddle's experiences with which religious figures are influencing smart folks on college campuses is, ultimately, a survey of young folks who are losing their religion.  that is not the 'average' christian either.  too bad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As someone from a somewhat religious upbringing, who still has many friends and family members who are religious, I think this may be a bit of hyperbole.  Most of the religious people who I know are not in the process of losing their religion, nor are they likely to anytime soon.  However, I'm going to say zero (though it may be 1) of them pray for anyone's death.

IMO, there are a lot of rubes in the Christian flock, but it is a fallacy to attribute rube-ness to the entire group.  Christianity in this country encompasses an awful lot of groups, many of whom aren't all that stupid--ask Wesley.
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 29 2011,10:01

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 29 2011,09:00)
so, where are these black swans, again?  certainly not attending the churches i have attended, certainly not writing letters to the editor of my local newspapers, certainly not in my family get togethers.

but, hey, leaders in the largest Protestant group in the United States have no problem with publicly yammering about how they are praying for Obama's death.


Maybe these clowns don't speak for the oh-so-sophisticated heddles, but they sure as hell seem to speak for the statistically average christianist.  heddle's experiences with which religious figures are influencing smart folks on college campuses is, ultimately, a survey of young folks who are losing their religion.  that is not the 'average' christian either.  too bad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? I routinely seem to see letters to the editor (after one of one of these incidents) denouncing the violence. You really never see them?

And the churches you attended-- they applauded the violence? Really? Your family members applaud the violence? Really?

And what leaders? You are talking about one man as far as I can tell--Wiley Drake-- (a man with a talk radio show no less--and so there is some self-selection toward lunacy) whose outrageousness peaked after he left office at the SBC*. Furthermore all his tirades, including happiness at the death of Tiller and prayer against Obama were unequivocally denounced by the the SBC press.

So who are these leaders or even current leader? Did Al Mohler, president of their flagship seminary** applaud the violence?

Let's see how well Wiley Drake does if he runs for election as President of the SBC.

Oh--you should write a letter to our faculty--because the concern I have heard expressed is not that the young people at our university are losing their religion--but that they are more religious*** (in the sense of their seriousness) than ever before. You could reassure them, the faculty, that this is just a symptom of the students losing their faith.

*Just for clarity, I am a southern Baptist, but not a Southern Baptist. Like I am a Christian scientist but not a Christian Scientist.

**FYI our young pastor, who attends Mohler's seminary, prays every week at the start of his sermon for President Obama.

***And more Calvinistic, I might add. Although the faculty doesn't comment on that--it's my observation--borne out by data.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 29 2011,10:01

blipes college kids are the ones losing their religion the fastest aren't they.

i know at least 2 dozen christians who have directly stated to me that they use imprecatory prayer.  not saying those individuals are phylogenetically independent, and maybe hillbillies or working class folks are more inclined [than the effete academic class] to overtly favor violent rhetoric for whatever social historic economic reasons you care to invent, so i agree when heddle says "who made the the spokesmen for christians".  

But it is also true that some powerful christians, including Wiley Drake who has been a leader of the southern baptist convention and would be vice-presidential candidate, have declared in public that they are praying for the death of abortion doctors, obama and democrats.  So while we can play games about who is and who ain't a representative, it's clear that some powerful christians do hold this view.  

You are all batshit to me.
Posted by: rhmc on Jan. 29 2011,10:51

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 29 2011,11:01)
Really? I routinely seem to see letters to the editor (after one of one of these incidents) denouncing the violence. You really never see them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i, too, live in the south and for every letter denouncing violence i'll bet i see a dozen or more advocating violence against them damn mooslims and wanting them damn libruls who want sharia brought here to be disenfranchised, stripped of citizenship and sent to the middle east to be killed along with them aforementioned mooslims.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 29 2011,10:53

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,13:04)
 
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,12:51)
     
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:45)
lol....no one is going to hell just for having an abortion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right.  And you would know this, how, exactly?  And your credentials in this matter would be what, exactly?  (Forgive the snarky tone.  This isn't so different from FL or Biggy claiming to have the right interpretation of scripture, all others be damned.  Just because I LIKE your take on the matter doesn't mean I should just overlook the questions.)

Instead of telling this to us, why aren't you out trying to convince your fellow believers of this?  Because this makes you the first (Christian) pro-birther I've ever heard make this (welcome and encouraging) concession...and there are a whole lot of others who haven't gotten the memo.

I would add that, all snark on my part aside, I do find your commitment to reducing the number of abortions by education and other means of birth control to be more consistent and helpful than the usual noise that results.  Credit where it's due...


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are kidding, right? Ftk is absolutely correct in this theological point--and it is broad-based Christianity 101. That is, Christianity teaches that you go to heaven if you have placed your faith in the power of Christ's death to atone for your sins. And if you don't, then you don't. On that there is nearly universal agreement--so much so that that is as good of a working definition of Christianity that you can find.

The consequence of which is:

If you have had abortions and have the aforementioned saving faith, you are saved.

If you devote your entire life to charity yet lack this faith, then you are lost.

The are a lot of details about which have internecine  warfare--such as how the faith is acquired, but on what I just wrote--no disagreement to speak of.  

We must associate with different Christians--because I never heard even one say "if you have an abortion you will go to hell." If I did, I'd be tempted to smack him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To my bold.

I never understood where people got that idea from when I still considered myself a Christian. In fact, I still don't understand why some Christians think that way. IMO Jesus saying that the way to "Heaven" was through him, combined with the parable of the good Samaritan (amongst other stuff I can't quite remember well enough to cite), was Jesus saying that we would be judged on how well we treated others, not what we believed.

Sorry for replying to that so late, I have been away from home and off-line for a while.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Jan. 29 2011,10:54

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 29 2011,08:31)
Apparently if you like what a Christian says--probably because it is dumb and is easy to attack--then that is what qualifies them as bonafide "representative."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm still looking for that part of religious dogma (Christian or otherwise) that's not dumb and easy to attack.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 29 2011,12:01

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 29 2011,08:31)
Apparently if you like what a Christian says--probably because it is dumb and is easy to attack--then that is what qualifies them as bonafide "representative."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do not think it is possible for you to miss the point any more blatantly than this.  So let's try it again, shall we?

These people are Christians, yes?  (Even if they aren't True Christians by your reckoning, or aren't acting in an acceptably Christ-like manner by, say, John Kwok's reckoning.)

These people use their Christianity as a justification, rationale, and motivation for their heated rhetoric and inflammatory denunciations of the 'other'.

They are also popular to varying degrees (Phelps being an exception) whose pronouncements do not meet a storm of disapproval from pulpits (or at least no storm that is ever fully reported).  They are certainly not held up as shameful examples of excess by their crowds of adoring fans, who seem to hold the same shallow, silly, childish view of the world that they publicly espouse.  Quite the opposite.

That makes them a representative sample, whether or not you like it, whether or not anyone's officially asked that they become the public voice.  Your attempt to dodge your (collective) responsibility in this matter is pretty pathetic.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 29 2011,12:48

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 29 2011,12:01)
   
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 29 2011,08:31)
Apparently if you like what a Christian says--probably because it is dumb and is easy to attack--then that is what qualifies them as bonafide "representative."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do not think it is possible for you to miss the point any more blatantly than this.  So let's try it again, shall we?

These people are Christians, yes?  (Even if they aren't True Christians by your reckoning, or aren't acting in an acceptably Christ-like manner by, say, John Kwok's reckoning.)

These people use their Christianity as a justification, rationale, and motivation for their heated rhetoric and inflammatory denunciations of the 'other'.

They are also popular to varying degrees (Phelps being an exception) whose pronouncements do not meet a storm of disapproval from pulpits (or at least no storm that is ever fully reported).  They are certainly not held up as shameful examples of excess by their crowds of adoring fans, who seem to hold the same shallow, silly, childish view of the world that they publicly espouse.  Quite the opposite.

That makes them a representative sample, whether or not you like it, whether or not anyone's officially asked that they become the public voice.  Your attempt to dodge your (collective) responsibility in this matter is pretty pathetic.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The MadPanda, FCD

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Even if they aren't True Christians by your reckoning, )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since I never, ever make a claim regarding who is a True Christian,--you can kiss my ass for implying that I do.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That makes them a representative sample, whether or not you like it,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you being disingenuous on purpose, or is this concept too difficult to grasp?

Once again: I didn't say they were not a representative sample, I said, they do not represent Christianity. They are not the same. There are an infinite number of groups that are representative of Christianity. They are not (duh) our official representatives.  Even though they are representative samples, they speak only for themselves.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
whose pronouncements do not meet a storm of disapproval from pulpits (or at least no storm that is ever fully reported).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We are talking about abortion violence. Give me one example of, say, Palin supporting violence against abortion doctors or clinics.

And the standard, by the way, asinine. Reporters do not come in to garden variety churches and listen to whether someone like Phelps is denounced. If they did, they would in fact hear Phelps being denounced with regularity. (As an example, my previous church was threatened by Phelps because our pastor wrote a letter condemning Westboro Baptist.)

Have you heard a lot of reporting on the thoughts of common man-in-the-street atheists about whether they support some of Pete Singers more outrageous "ethics"? Have you seen reporting about whether the atheist next door thinks it is a good idea to desecrate a communion wafer and a Koran and to describe pictures of aborted fetuses as meat?

I haven't--but I'm not pinheaded enough to assume that the onus is on the typical atheist to make me fully aware--to my ever-changing standard of satisfaction-- that he is appalled by bad behavior from some fellow atheists. Nor do I assume, just because he hasn't told me otherwise, that just because some jackasses like PZ are famous--that  that means they are representatives of atheism.

(Yes I know, PZ would not claim that he is atheism's representative. Do you have a link where Sarah Palin announces that she is Christianity's representative?)
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 29 2011,13:21

This pissing match has gone long enough.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Jan. 29 2011,14:12

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 28 2011,15:34)
What I find mysterious is where all these "moderate" Christians go on election day, and where all the (oddly equal in number) nutjobs suddenly come from.

Prop 8 didn't pass because of a small minority of nutjobs over the will of a vast majority of moderates. Boehner and Palin and Bachman didn't get elected by a small minority of nutjobs in spite of a vast majority of moderates.

Funny how this vast majority of moderate Christians seems to disappear on election day.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or change their stripes in the privacy of the voting booth?

Nah. Couldn't be. That would mean there are hypocrites amongst them, and that's just not Christian.
Posted by: Sol3a1 on Jan. 29 2011,14:33

Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 29 2011,14:12)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 28 2011,15:34)
What I find mysterious is where all these "moderate" Christians go on election day, and where all the (oddly equal in number) nutjobs suddenly come from.

Prop 8 didn't pass because of a small minority of nutjobs over the will of a vast majority of moderates. Boehner and Palin and Bachman didn't get elected by a small minority of nutjobs in spite of a vast majority of moderates.

Funny how this vast majority of moderate Christians seems to disappear on election day.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Or change their stripes in the privacy of the voting booth?

Nah. Couldn't be. That would mean there are hypocrites amongst them, and that's just not Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you're talking about people I know.

The five women I love most in the world, my mom, sister, wife and daughters are all theists more or less Christian (Catholic and Methodist) and believe in the "good things" in god and Jesus.

Of course we often have the discussions,"Why did you stop believing?". "Are you going with us to mass?" and more but not really about the deep philosophical stuff.  At least they have stopped asking me about Pasquale's Wager.

But when I ask them, any of them, deep questions on doctrine and canon, they really don't know the bible very well.  To all of them, Jesus softened god's stance, Jesus is good and nice and kind and pets puppies and would hurt you and will take you with him to heaven, Gays are people too god loves them and it's okay.  So there they are all believing strongly in this god concept but none of them really following that harsh book they claim to live by.

I guess like most people, they don't want to think about their religion. It gives them a "warm fuzzy" kinda the ultimate tranquilizer, "Grandpa's in a better place"

So these moderate Christians aren't being hypocritical, they're just not thinking this whole thing through.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Jan. 29 2011,14:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So these moderate Christians aren't being hypocritical, they're just not thinking this whole thing through.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree what you described is not hypocritical at all.  Lou's point is that some (large) fraction of these "Gays are people too and god loves them and it's OK" types are voting to deny gays the same basic rights that all "gods people" deserve. namely:  life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

ETA:  Actually, i guess that was my point, as a possible answer to Lou's question.
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 29 2011,18:40

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 29 2011,10:01)
blipes college kids are the ones losing their religion the fastest aren't they.

i know at least 2 dozen christians who have directly stated to me that they use imprecatory prayer.  not saying those individuals are phylogenetically independent, and maybe hillbillies or working class folks are more inclined [than the effete academic class] to overtly favor violent rhetoric for whatever social historic economic reasons you care to invent, so i agree when heddle says "who made the the spokesmen for christians".  

But it is also true that some powerful christians, including Wiley Drake who has been a leader of the southern baptist convention and would be vice-presidential candidate, have declared in public that they are praying for the death of abortion doctors, obama and democrats.  So while we can play games about who is and who ain't a representative, it's clear that some powerful christians do hold this view.  

You are all batshit to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not sure what demographics are losing their religion the fastest, though college students seems a better guess than any to me.  I do not disagree that there are a lot of powerful people with ridiculous ideas and statements (Falwell comes immediately to mind).

However, my interaction with the religious generally seems to indicate that the Falwell's of the world are the fringe not the main stream.  Of course, my personal experiences also indicate that the Wesleys and Ken Millers of the world are also on the fringe.

There just aren't many people I interact with (and I interact with a broad swath of people) who actively seeks other people's death.  This is regardless of whether they are religious or irreligious.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 29 2011,20:34

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 29 2011,12:48)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 29 2011,12:01)
   
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 29 2011,08:31)
Apparently if you like what a Christian says--probably because it is dumb and is easy to attack--then that is what qualifies them as bonafide "representative."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do not think it is possible for you to miss the point any more blatantly than this.  So let's try it again, shall we?

These people are Christians, yes?  (Even if they aren't True Christians by your reckoning, or aren't acting in an acceptably Christ-like manner by, say, John Kwok's reckoning.)

These people use their Christianity as a justification, rationale, and motivation for their heated rhetoric and inflammatory denunciations of the 'other'.

They are also popular to varying degrees (Phelps being an exception) whose pronouncements do not meet a storm of disapproval from pulpits (or at least no storm that is ever fully reported).  They are certainly not held up as shameful examples of excess by their crowds of adoring fans, who seem to hold the same shallow, silly, childish view of the world that they publicly espouse.  Quite the opposite.

That makes them a representative sample, whether or not you like it, whether or not anyone's officially asked that they become the public voice.  Your attempt to dodge your (collective) responsibility in this matter is pretty pathetic.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The MadPanda, FCD

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Even if they aren't True Christians by your reckoning, )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since I never, ever make a claim regarding who is a True Christian,--you can kiss my ass for implying that I do.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That makes them a representative sample, whether or not you like it,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you being disingenuous on purpose, or is this concept too difficult to grasp?

Once again: I didn't say they were not a representative sample, I said, they do not represent Christianity. They are not the same. There are an infinite number of groups that are representative of Christianity. They are not (duh) our official representatives.  Even though they are representative samples, they speak only for themselves.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
whose pronouncements do not meet a storm of disapproval from pulpits (or at least no storm that is ever fully reported).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We are talking about abortion violence. Give me one example of, say, Palin supporting violence against abortion doctors or clinics.

And the standard, by the way, asinine. Reporters do not come in to garden variety churches and listen to whether someone like Phelps is denounced. If they did, they would in fact hear Phelps being denounced with regularity. (As an example, my previous church was threatened by Phelps because our pastor wrote a letter condemning Westboro Baptist.)

Have you heard a lot of reporting on the thoughts of common man-in-the-street atheists about whether they support some of Pete Singers more outrageous "ethics"? Have you seen reporting about whether the atheist next door thinks it is a good idea to desecrate a communion wafer and a Koran and to describe pictures of aborted fetuses as meat?

I haven't--but I'm not pinheaded enough to assume that the onus is on the typical atheist to make me fully aware--to my ever-changing standard of satisfaction-- that he is appalled by bad behavior from some fellow atheists. Nor do I assume, just because he hasn't told me otherwise, that just because some jackasses like PZ are famous--that  that means they are representatives of atheism.

(Yes I know, PZ would not claim that he is atheism's representative. Do you have a link where Sarah Palin announces that she is Christianity's representative?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see a coward who dodges the issue, abdicates his moral responsibility, and refuses to face unpleasant facts, all the while breezily insisting that anyone who disagrees with him doesn't understand the essence of his delusions.

You have been known to play the No True Scotsman card, sirrah, and to do so with abandon.  That you here indulge in semantic nit-picking of Kris-like proportions in order to avoid admitting it is not surprising in the least, but is very, very disappointing.

By the fruits of your bretheren, and their failure to own up to the consequences, we know you...all too well.

I invite you to stick your fat head into a barrel of overripe squishy pomegranates and whistle Dixie.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 30 2011,09:24

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 29 2011,11:54)
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 29 2011,08:31)
Apparently if you like what a Christian says--probably because it is dumb and is easy to attack--then that is what qualifies them as bonafide "representative."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm still looking for that part of religious dogma (Christian or otherwise) that's not dumb and easy to attack.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey now here's a blast from the past! How've you been, Jim?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 30 2011,09:27

Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 29 2011,15:58)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So these moderate Christians aren't being hypocritical, they're just not thinking this whole thing through.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree what you described is not hypocritical at all.  Lou's point is that some (large) fraction of these "Gays are people too and god loves them and it's OK" types are voting to deny gays the same basic rights that all "gods people" deserve. namely:  life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

ETA:  Actually, i guess that was my point, as a possible answer to Lou's question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, you got it. That was exactly my point.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Jan. 31 2011,06:13

I believe that Christians will be a minority within a generation, even in America. There is just too much information out there now that we didn't have when we were growing up.

I think that the main problem is Christianity itself. The big problem is that God is omni-everything. If you are omni-everything, how can you have a personality - especially one that resembles a 3 year old. It doesn't do a good job of explaining suffering either. If you are a white American with affluent parents and blessed with low libido and a high boredom threshold it is a cinch to get into heaven compared to someone who has drug addicted parents who abuse you and force you on the street at 10.

I personally think that the Eastern religions* make a lot more sense as the whole idea is to evolve our souls to be able to get to the next level of existence and suffering is part of the process. Rather than good and evil you have ying and yang which are more like complementary forces that are necessary for the universe to function.

* My mangled understanding of it in any case.
Posted by: Indiumas on Jan. 31 2011,08:15

Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 31 2011,13:13)
I personally think that the Eastern religions* make a lot more sense as the whole idea is to evolve our souls to be able to get to the next level of existence and suffering is part of the process.

* My mangled understanding of it in any case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, how do you know you have a soul so that this concept can even begin to make any sense at all? And what the heck is this next level of existence I keep hearing about?  :O
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 31 2011,08:33

Quote (Indiumas @ Jan. 31 2011,08:15)
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 31 2011,13:13)
I personally think that the Eastern religions* make a lot more sense as the whole idea is to evolve our souls to be able to get to the next level of existence and suffering is part of the process.

* My mangled understanding of it in any case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, how do you know you have a soul so that this concept can even begin to make any sense at all? And what the heck is this next level of existence I keep hearing about?  :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps in the "set of things that make no sense" there are things that make more or less sense then other things in the set.

So, an arbitrary and for all intents and purposes evil deity like what StephenB worships, makes no sense.

A hierarchy of suffering to be worked through - slightly more sense.

I know what I'd rather pin my hopes on should I be so inclined....
Posted by: Indiumas on Jan. 31 2011,08:44

Yeah, in this sense, maybe :D
But without further evidence my bet would be "no soul" and "no higher level of existance". With this bet you save yourself alot of trouble! (And, as a major benefit, you can eat a nice steak without having to worry about potential consequences for the ghost/soul of your grandma!)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 31 2011,09:02

Quote (Indiumas @ Jan. 31 2011,08:44)
Yeah, in this sense, maybe :D
But without further evidence my bet would be "no soul" and "no higher level of existance". With this bet you save yourself alot of trouble! (And, as a major benefit, you can eat a nice steak without having to worry about potential consequences for the ghost/soul of your grandma!)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, but then again anything is possible :) and the universe has been around much longer then we have...

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverworld >
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Jan. 31 2011,09:37

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 30 2011,09:24)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 29 2011,11:54)
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 29 2011,08:31)
Apparently if you like what a Christian says--probably because it is dumb and is easy to attack--then that is what qualifies them as bonafide "representative."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm still looking for that part of religious dogma (Christian or otherwise) that's not dumb and easy to attack.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey now here's a blast from the past! How've you been, Jim?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm good, thanks. I'm here lurking just about every day and just poke my head out from behind the curtain now and then.

Carry on.
Posted by: Indiumas on Jan. 31 2011,10:07

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 31 2011,16:02)
Sure, but then again anything is possible :) and the universe has been around much longer then we have...

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverworld >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, anything might be possible in some FSM-like remote sense. Maybe you have a soul or a demon or two souls or a soul playing football with 3 demons in your head and you only find this interesting higher level of existence if and when you eat so much pasta that the soul wins 42:24? Who knows? How is this relevant for anything?

Anyway, Riverworld is a nice idea, thanks for the link. Ramen! ;)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 31 2011,10:35

Quote (Indiumas @ Jan. 31 2011,10:07)
How is this relevant for anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Under the cardboard pyramid everything is relevant!
Posted by: tsig on Jan. 31 2011,10:40

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:44)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,12:32)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,13:17)
You should be very justifiably proud.

I shall have to beat my boy more, he's 19 months and barely knows any quantum mechanics and he cannot even write a symphony yet.*

Louis

*I'm not serious. Of course he can write a symphony! (I'm not serious about the beating of course...is that Child Services at the door?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm 60, I've been married & divorced; I've had an abortion; I've had wisdom teeth yanked; I've had sex outside of marriage.
I've also eaten shrimp & clams; & have worn clothes of mixed fabrics; & interplanted crops.

Which of these behaviors are subject to stoning or shunning?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Always looking for punishment, aren't you?  I'm giving you the ideal....what is strived for.  Even 'ol SD has fallen into the one man/one woman.  It's what works in the end.  

It's not a perfect world, obviously.  I personally believe we learn a lot about life from our mistakes.  That doesn't mean that Ima support abortion because it makes you all feel better.

You bringing up stoning and shunning is entirely a different subject that should be taken back to Christianity 101.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even 'ol SD has fallen into the one man/one woman.  It's what works in the end.

It's called pair bonding and is quite common in the animal kingdom.
Posted by: tsig on Jan. 31 2011,10:48

Quote (Indiumas @ Jan. 31 2011,08:15)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 31 2011,13:13)
I personally think that the Eastern religions* make a lot more sense as the whole idea is to evolve our souls to be able to get to the next level of existence and suffering is part of the process.

* My mangled understanding of it in any case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, how do you know you have a soul so that this concept can even begin to make any sense at all? And what the heck is this next level of existence I keep hearing about?  :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Death.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 31 2011,11:04

just for shits and giggles heddle, you renounced your support for palin only after she quit her job?  

not after watching videos of her being anointed for < protection from WITCHES >?  i know you read Ed's blog so I know that you had from September 2008 to June 2009 to tell yourself "What the hell, it's a good thing for someone a heartbeat away from whatever it is the president does to believe that she has protection from witches" and not be concerned about her sanity.  Until she quit her job?  wow.

of course we are taking the piss a bit.  We know that expecting Christians to point out the irrationality of other Christians is expecting too much.  because if you were being rational about the whole thing there wouldn't be any religious beliefs held by anyone.  

Hence, you have no rational basis for arguing with other Christians, from Christianity, about imprecatory prayer, shooting abortion doctors in the face or warding off haints and boogers with anointing oil.  If it were a simple matter of deduction from the premises there would be no religious diversity.  And there is.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 31 2011,11:11

tell me how many of < this crowd > thinks christians deplore violence?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FLETCHER — A dispute over leadership at a Henderson County church has turned from angry words to fist fights.

About 30 police officers from five agencies were called to break up fights Sunday at Greater New Zion Baptist Church in Fletcher.

Henderson County Sheriff's Capt. Jerry Rice says the brawl is under investigation, and no one appears to have been seriously hurt.

Rice says there were about 75 people at the church when police arrived, but not all of them were scuffling.

Church members are divided over the recent ouster of the Rev. LeVonia Ray as pastor of the church. The fighting apparently began over whether a vote should be held to reinstate Ray.

No charges have been filed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Looks like Business As Usual at church to me.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 31 2011,15:05

Even 'ol SD has fallen into the one man/one woman.  It's what works in the end.

Of course it works. For lots of us, now. Sure didn't work for me when I was 21, though.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 31 2011,16:42

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 31 2011,21:05)
Even 'ol SD has fallen into the one man/one woman.  It's what works in the end.

Of course it works. For lots of us, now. Sure didn't work for me when I was 21, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And will probably not work for me if this current relationship ends...
Posted by: sledgehammer on Jan. 31 2011,18:13

Love and commitment, or just havin' fun to feel good.  Maybe one is "deeper" than the other, but there's good in both, and gender doesn't change that, sayeth I.

ETA: (as long as no one gets hurt permanently)
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 31 2011,19:51

Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 31 2011,19:13)
Love and commitment, or just havin' fun to feel good.  Maybe one is "deeper" than the other, but there's good in both, and gender doesn't change that, sayeth I.

ETA: (as long as no one gets hurt permanently)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Sex without love is an empty experience, but as empty experiences go, it's one of the best."

- Woody Allen
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 31 2011,23:30

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 31 2011,17:51)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 31 2011,19:13)
Love and commitment, or just havin' fun to feel good.  Maybe one is "deeper" than the other, but there's good in both, and gender doesn't change that, sayeth I.

ETA: (as long as no one gets hurt permanently)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Sex without love is an empty experience, but as empty experiences go, it's one of the best."

- Woody Allen
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm just glad I'm old enough to feel like I'm finally in charge of my gonads instead of vice versa.
Posted by: the_ignored on Feb. 01 2011,06:40

Looks like Vox is trying to toss a few positive spins on his warmouse again...

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/01/tech-roundup.html >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 01 2011,21:36

I didn't see the warmouse at CES 2011.

I remember getting a Logitech 3-button mouse back when I was running something like MS-DOS 3.1. Why a 3-button mouse with DOS? Well, Logitech provided a TSR program that would allow right-click popup dialog boxes, which you could program with macros. I had an extensive set of control-structures for Turbo Pascal set up in mine, making it really easy to block outline a program.

Nowadays, I can do pretty much anything I need along those lines with Autohotkey. If I were to invest in a specialized pointing input device, I'd go for a Wacom tablet (various of which I *did* see at CES 2011). That would give me a capability I don't otherwise have access to with pressure-sensitivity.


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 02 2011,06:05

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 01 2011,00:30)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 31 2011,17:51)
 
Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 31 2011,19:13)
Love and commitment, or just havin' fun to feel good.  Maybe one is "deeper" than the other, but there's good in both, and gender doesn't change that, sayeth I.

ETA: (as long as no one gets hurt permanently)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Sex without love is an empty experience, but as empty experiences go, it's one of the best."

- Woody Allen
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm just glad I'm old enough to feel like I'm finally in charge of my gonads instead of vice versa.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Bernard Ketchum told as about one of Plato's dialogues, in which an old man is asked how it felt not to be excited by sex anymore. The old man replies that it was like being allowed to dismount from a wild horse."

- Rudy Waltz in Deadeye Dick by Kurt Vonnegut
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 02 2011,06:49

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 02 2011,14:05)
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 01 2011,00:30)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 31 2011,17:51)
 
Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 31 2011,19:13)
Love and commitment, or just havin' fun to feel good.  Maybe one is "deeper" than the other, but there's good in both, and gender doesn't change that, sayeth I.

ETA: (as long as no one gets hurt permanently)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Sex without love is an empty experience, but as empty experiences go, it's one of the best."

- Woody Allen
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm just glad I'm old enough to feel like I'm finally in charge of my gonads instead of vice versa.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Bernard Ketchum told as about one of Plato's dialogues, in which an old man is asked how it felt not to be excited by sex anymore. The old man replies that it was like being allowed to dismount from a wild horse."

- Rudy Waltz in Deadeye Dick by Kurt Vonnegut
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Salvadore Dali was asked on his 70th birthday how it felt.
"Great" he said "I don't wake up with an errection anymore"
Posted by: Ftk on Feb. 02 2011,10:16

I'm a < "pack animal" >.

I've overly moody today, so I should probably not take another glance at VD's posts about women.  Sometimes, though, I take great joy in knowing that if we were ever to meet, I would physically tower over him.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 02 2011,11:07

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2011,11:16)
I'm a < "pack animal" >.

I've overly moody today, so I should probably not take another glance at VD's posts about women.  Sometimes, though, I take great joy in knowing that if we were ever to meet, I would physically tower over him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


do you think he would flinch if you scratched your head or moved suddenly

are you amazonian or is lil teddy lilliputian
Posted by: the_ignored on Feb. 02 2011,17:14

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 02 2011,11:07)
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2011,11:16)
I'm a < "pack animal" >.

I've overly moody today, so I should probably not take another glance at VD's posts about women.  Sometimes, though, I take great joy in knowing that if we were ever to meet, I would physically tower over him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


do you think he would flinch if you scratched your head or moved suddenly

are you amazonian or is lil teddy lilliputian
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All of a sudden, FtK just became interesting to me.


*ducks, runs away*
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Feb. 02 2011,18:29

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2011,11:16)
I'm a < "pack animal" >.

I've overly moody today, so I should probably not take another glance at VD's posts about women.  Sometimes, though, I take great joy in knowing that if we were ever to meet, I would physically tower over him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't have a flaming sword so, like, QED or something.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Feb. 02 2011,19:36

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2011,08:16)
I'm a < "pack animal" >.

I've overly moody today, so I should probably not take another glance at VD's posts about women.  Sometimes, though, I take great joy in knowing that if we were ever to meet, I would physically tower over him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Little Teddy would probably just chalk it up to "that time of month" anyway. ;)
Posted by: Wolfhound on Feb. 03 2011,01:20

Quote (the_ignored @ Feb. 02 2011,18:14)
All of a sudden, FtK just became interesting to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ewwwwwwwwwww!  That's just not natural!    :O
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 03 2011,02:59

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2011,10:16)
I'm a < "pack animal" >.

I've overly moody today, so I should probably not take another glance at VD's posts about women.  Sometimes, though, I take great joy in knowing that if we were ever to meet, I would physically tower over him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In some ways that feeling is similar to the feeling I get when I read the latest distortions and outright lies coming from the ID camp.

From the people who you think never mislead and never distort who'll you'll defend endlessly.

EDIT: So those people defending VD are *you* FTK. How's that feel?
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 03 2011,10:12

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 02 2011,04:05)
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 01 2011,00:30)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 31 2011,17:51)
 
Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 31 2011,19:13)
Love and commitment, or just havin' fun to feel good.  Maybe one is "deeper" than the other, but there's good in both, and gender doesn't change that, sayeth I.

ETA: (as long as no one gets hurt permanently)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Sex without love is an empty experience, but as empty experiences go, it's one of the best."

- Woody Allen
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm just glad I'm old enough to feel like I'm finally in charge of my gonads instead of vice versa.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Bernard Ketchum told as about one of Plato's dialogues, in which an old man is asked how it felt not to be excited by sex anymore. The old man replies that it was like being allowed to dismount from a wild horse."

- Rudy Waltz in Deadeye Dick by Kurt Vonnegut
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah, I just have a tighter hold on the reins now. :-)
Posted by: the_ignored on Feb. 07 2011,10:16

Now Vox is complaining about how < atheists "whine" about being persecuted >.

Odd, I was thinking that same thing about the christians in the west...
Posted by: Robin on Feb. 07 2011,13:30

Quote (the_ignored @ Feb. 07 2011,10:16)
Now Vox is complaining about how < atheists "whine" about being persecuted >.

Odd, I was thinking that same thing about the christians in the west...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's odd...he provided no example or other substantiation that atheists complain about persecution. Gee...I guess he must have forgot...


(/sarcasm off)
Posted by: the_ignored on Feb. 17 2011,13:42

Nice < choice > he lays out here:





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rather than pursue the obvious solution and keep women out of the military, the social engineers who have succeeded in getting so many women raped by men who are specifically trained to overcome their societal and moral taboos about not killing other people is to attempt to remove those who refuse to abide by societal taboos from the military. So, it should be interesting to see what their proposed solution for Egyptians rape-mobs is.

But the most interesting thing about the Logan incident is the way it is a metaphorical lesson on the choice facing Western women between three different futures: a) a return to traditional Christian culture, b) rape and the brothel, or c) submission and the burqah.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Note that here he's finally speaking out against rape...I guess it only counts as such if it's done by someone you've never met before?
Posted by: the_ignored on Feb. 23 2011,17:55

Ironically enough, he does is while < criticizing atheist's logic > (and motivations, and personalities, etc).  Just read, you'll see what I mean.

Fallacy:  Consequences of belief.

Oddly, it seems that the studies he talks about mention any religion, not just his.  What does that say about the validity of his particular religion?

If one is going to criticize other's critical thinking skills, shouldn't one make sure that he's not using logical fallacies himself?
Posted by: blipey on Feb. 23 2011,18:17

Quote (the_ignored @ Feb. 23 2011,17:55)
Ironically enough, he does is while < criticizing atheist's logic > (and motivations, and personalities, etc).  Just read, you'll see what I mean.

Fallacy:  Consequences of belief.

Oddly, it seems that the studies he talks about mention any religion, not just his.  What does that say about the validity of his particular religion?

If one is going to criticize other's critical thinking skills, shouldn't one make sure that he's not using logical fallacies himself?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, sure.  If thinking skills are really your point, that is....
Posted by: the_ignored on Feb. 23 2011,18:19

Quote (the_ignored @ Feb. 23 2011,17:55)
Ironically enough, he does this little attack of his while < criticizing atheist's logic > (and motivations, and personalities, etc).  Just read, you'll see what I mean.

Fallacy:  Consequences of belief.

Oddly, it seems that the studies he talks about mention any religion, not just his.  What does that say about the validity of his particular religion?

If one is going to criticize other's critical thinking skills, shouldn't one make sure that he's not using logical fallacies himself?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, I meant to fix that, so I'll fix it here.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 16 2011,12:05

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/03/lexicology.html >

< http://gribbitonline.com/gribbitisms/ >

Any thoughts on why they need to define their own 'realities'?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 16 2011,12:13

Uh - maybe they don't like this one?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 06 2011,13:56

< http://www.hannity.com/article....24 >
Posted by: noncarborundum on April 06 2011,16:55

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 06 2011,13:56)
< http://www.hannity.com/article....24 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fabulous.  They deserve each other.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 28 2011,13:48

Science < Revelation:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011....on.html >
Posted by: Kristine on June 28 2011,14:38

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 28 2011,13:48)
Science < Revelation:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011....on.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Science is not like an iPhone"! :D

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

I suppose that "revelation" created the iPhone?
Posted by: Badger3k on June 28 2011,15:07

Quote (Kristine @ June 28 2011,14:38)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 28 2011,13:48)
Science < Revelation:

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011....on.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Science is not like an iPhone"! :D

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

I suppose that "revelation" created the iPhone?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder how Revelation is self-correcting.  How would we know? Whose revelation is true when you have multiple contradictory ones?

I did read a few comments down, and after choking on stupidity 3-4 times, I had to stop.  I admit that I wanted to respond to the "Carl Sagan = whiny Jew" comment with a "Like Jesus?" comment, but don't want to soil myself there.
Posted by: Henry J on June 28 2011,16:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whose revelation is true when you have multiple contradictory ones?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The one who is left standing after they've shot each other?
Posted by: Kristine on June 28 2011,16:50

Quote (Henry J @ June 28 2011,16:22)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whose revelation is true when you have multiple contradictory ones?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The one who is left standing after they've shot each other?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, whoever 404s the webpage first!

Everything about Revelations I learned from UD! :p
Posted by: Amadan on June 28 2011,16:57

Quote (Kristine @ June 28 2011,22:50)
Everything about Revelations I learned from UD! :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So is the Whore of B. . . .



Sorry. I can't.

I just can't.
Posted by: olegt on June 28 2011,19:22

The thread < Science is inferior to Revelation > contains this juicy tidbit:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Spacebunny
6/28/11
4:37 PM

for starters let's try the age of the earth- could you please do give me a precise and rigorous date, to the second if you don't mind, none of this about X billion years ago crap - if you don't mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The question makes absolutely no sense. The Earth did not form in a fraction of a second. We wouldn't be able to determine its age with that accuracy even if we were present at the Earth's formation.
Posted by: Kristine on June 28 2011,20:00

Quote (olegt @ June 28 2011,19:22)
The thread < Science is inferior to Revelation > contains this juicy tidbit:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Spacebunny
6/28/11
4:37 PM

for starters let's try the age of the earth- could you please do give me a precise and rigorous date, to the second if you don't mind, none of this about X billion years ago crap - if you don't mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The question makes absolutely no sense. The Earth did not form in a fraction of a second. We wouldn't be able to determine its age with that accuracy even if we were present at the Earth's formation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can we be within plus or minus 40,000 days and nights? ;)
Posted by: Badger3k on June 29 2011,08:37

Quote (olegt @ June 28 2011,19:22)
The thread < Science is inferior to Revelation > contains this juicy tidbit:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Spacebunny
6/28/11
4:37 PM

for starters let's try the age of the earth- could you please do give me a precise and rigorous date, to the second if you don't mind, none of this about X billion years ago crap - if you don't mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The question makes absolutely no sense. The Earth did not form in a fraction of a second. We wouldn't be able to determine its age with that accuracy even if we were present at the Earth's formation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe G is Spacebunny?
Posted by: Wolfhound on June 29 2011,12:03

Quote (Badger3k @ June 29 2011,09:37)
Quote (olegt @ June 28 2011,19:22)
The thread < Science is inferior to Revelation > contains this juicy tidbit:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Spacebunny
6/28/11
4:37 PM

for starters let's try the age of the earth- could you please do give me a precise and rigorous date, to the second if you don't mind, none of this about X billion years ago crap - if you don't mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The question makes absolutely no sense. The Earth did not form in a fraction of a second. We wouldn't be able to determine its age with that accuracy even if we were present at the Earth's formation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe G is Spacebunny?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would certainly clear a few things up about Vox.
Posted by: olegt on July 03 2011,11:00

< Vox Teh Math Genius >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, one of the problems that I occasionally encounter is that if I spend too long analyzing something, it eventually all starts to look completely nonsensical. I thought I had finished a draft of the third inflation video last night, then found myself going back and checking on a few details... and eventually got to the point where even a simple calculation like the difference between nominal and real GDP was beginning to look like an ancient series of glyphs scratched out by the Mad Arab. At one point, I had either proved that inflation cannot, in fact, exist, or that there has not been any economic growth since approximately 1566. Color me skeptical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on July 03 2011,12:22

Quote (olegt @ July 03 2011,11:00)
< Vox Teh Math Genius >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, one of the problems that I occasionally encounter is that if I spend too long analyzing something, it eventually all starts to look completely nonsensical. I thought I had finished a draft of the third inflation video last night, then found myself going back and checking on a few details... and eventually got to the point where even a simple calculation like the difference between nominal and real GDP was beginning to look like an ancient series of glyphs scratched out by the Mad Arab. At one point, I had either proved that inflation cannot, in fact, exist, or that there has not been any economic growth since approximately 1566. Color me skeptical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Vox Day must be extremely dangerous, then.  :O
Posted by: Louis on July 03 2011,18:12

Quote (olegt @ July 03 2011,17:00)
< Vox Teh Math Genius >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, one of the problems that I occasionally encounter is that if I spend too long analyzing something, it eventually all starts to look completely nonsensical. I thought I had finished a draft of the third inflation video last night, then found myself going back and checking on a few details... and eventually got to the point where even a simple calculation like the difference between nominal and real GDP was beginning to look like an ancient series of glyphs scratched out by the Mad Arab. At one point, I had either proved that inflation cannot, in fact, exist, or that there has not been any economic growth since approximately 1566. Color me skeptical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not half so dangerous as a truckload of ignorance.

Louis
Posted by: Badger3k on July 04 2011,08:59

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 03 2011,12:22)
Quote (olegt @ July 03 2011,11:00)
< Vox Teh Math Genius >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, one of the problems that I occasionally encounter is that if I spend too long analyzing something, it eventually all starts to look completely nonsensical. I thought I had finished a draft of the third inflation video last night, then found myself going back and checking on a few details... and eventually got to the point where even a simple calculation like the difference between nominal and real GDP was beginning to look like an ancient series of glyphs scratched out by the Mad Arab. At one point, I had either proved that inflation cannot, in fact, exist, or that there has not been any economic growth since approximately 1566. Color me skeptical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Vox Day must be extremely dangerous, then.  :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, he is - have you seen his flaming sword... :p
Posted by: Badger3k on July 04 2011,09:00

Quote (Louis @ July 03 2011,18:12)
Quote (olegt @ July 03 2011,17:00)
< Vox Teh Math Genius >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, one of the problems that I occasionally encounter is that if I spend too long analyzing something, it eventually all starts to look completely nonsensical. I thought I had finished a draft of the third inflation video last night, then found myself going back and checking on a few details... and eventually got to the point where even a simple calculation like the difference between nominal and real GDP was beginning to look like an ancient series of glyphs scratched out by the Mad Arab. At one point, I had either proved that inflation cannot, in fact, exist, or that there has not been any economic growth since approximately 1566. Color me skeptical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not half so dangerous as a truckload of ignorance.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, we're still talking about ol' voxie - the Wile E Coyote of Creationists?
Posted by: Henry J on July 04 2011,12:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's not half so dangerous as a truckload of ignorance.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, just look at the way one of those can stop up the plumbing!

Henry
Posted by: Tom Ames on July 04 2011,23:36

I wonder how sales on his 40 button 'warmouse' are going lately. Wasn't there some issue where the manufacturing was all FUBAR and they had to send out replacements to everyone who had bought one?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 04 2011,23:59

Here's a recent press release:

< http://warmouse.com/pr062810.html >

If you go to the original articles from whence the soundbites are lifted, it doesn't seem very well received.

ETA:

Super-Intelligence Vox working hard on designs.

Posted by: Badger3k on July 05 2011,07:31

Quote (Tom Ames @ July 04 2011,23:36)
I wonder how sales on his 40 button 'warmouse' are going lately. Wasn't there some issue where the manufacturing was all FUBAR and they had to send out replacements to everyone who had bought one?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I remember correctly, the replacements might have had problems too.  I do remember one of the original customers saying that he was told to hold the mouse correctly to fix the problem.  It was entertaining to read the comments.
Posted by: fnxtr on July 05 2011,08:44

Quote (Badger3k @ July 05 2011,05:31)
Quote (Tom Ames @ July 04 2011,23:36)
I wonder how sales on his 40 button 'warmouse' are going lately. Wasn't there some issue where the manufacturing was all FUBAR and they had to send out replacements to everyone who had bought one?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I remember correctly, the replacements might have had problems too.  I do remember one of the original customers saying that he was told to hold the mouse correctly to fix the problem.  It was entertaining to read the comments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Intelligent design, indeed.
Posted by: the_ignored on Aug. 29 2011,08:09

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,14:03)
the ignored:

Hi...hey, I have an interesting book for you to read if you get the time.  I just started it recently, and I think you might get a kick out of it.  Something else you can rail about at least.  

It's titled "If God is Good...Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil".   Author is Randy Alcorn

It provides a different perspective...always good to consider both sides of any argument.

Pick it up at the library so you don't have to support the author by paying for it.  

Enjoy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know, I'm real late with this reply; I haven't been here for a long time, but FTK, that guy deals with the suffering of life in general, I'm talking about god-ordained homicide.

Again, how a person can call themselves "pro-life" and pretend to be aghast at what Myers said and yet have no problem with god-ordained infanticide is beyond me.

Bottom line:  the doctors who work at, and the women who go to, abortion clinics have every moral right to call you out for the moral hypocrite you are, FtK, and to tell you to go fuck yourself.
Posted by: the_ignored on Aug. 29 2011,08:19

At least not all < christians > go for Day's attitude.  Note how depresses she is that Day is supported so much by xian males.
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 29 2011,12:19

Quote (the_ignored @ Aug. 29 2011,08:09)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,14:03)
the ignored:

Hi...hey, I have an interesting book for you to read if you get the time.  I just started it recently, and I think you might get a kick out of it.  Something else you can rail about at least.  

It's titled "If God is Good...Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil".   Author is Randy Alcorn

It provides a different perspective...always good to consider both sides of any argument.

Pick it up at the library so you don't have to support the author by paying for it.  

Enjoy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know, I'm real late with this reply; I haven't been here for a long time, but FTK, that guy deals with the suffering of life in general, I'm talking about god-ordained homicide.

Again, how a person can call themselves "pro-life" and pretend to be aghast at what Myers said and yet have no problem with god-ordained infanticide is beyond me.

Bottom line:  the doctors who work at, and the women who go to, abortion clinics have every moral right to call you out for the moral hypocrite you are, FtK, and to tell you to go fuck yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It always amazes me to no end that people who find the Bible abhorent seem to focus only on the few instances where God commands a city destroyed.

There are so many outstanding examples of living a moral life throughout the Bible.  I've honestly thought back on them sooo many times in my life when similiar things may happen to me that I need to work through.

But, since this is a place where God's word seems to be a thorn in the foot, I'll toss out yet another article that explains why what God command needed to be carried out.  

It seems ridiculous to me that since you believe a few stories are immoral according to what *you* consider might have been occuring at the time, that you dismiss the entire book null and void.  You aren't God, you werent' there, and you have no idea.  

Here's your < LINK >
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 29 2011,12:37

I'll also add a link to < The Thinking Christian >.  I've always enjoyed his blog, and he has several posts covering the topic.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Aug. 29 2011,12:40

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,13:19)
It seems ridiculous to me that since you believe a few stories are immoral according to what *you* consider might have been occuring at the time, that you dismiss the entire book null and void.  You aren't God, you werent' there, and you have no idea.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The entire book is null and void because it's ridiculous bullshit, sillypants!

And aplogetics are especially retarded.  Yes, let's rationalize the shit out of everything in the Bible so it doesn't seem quite so repugnant to the yokels who believe all that crazy shit might have actually happened and are perhaps doubting the value of adhering to Bronze Age morality as supposedly dictated by a war-mongering deity with a thirst for vengeance and human blood.
Posted by: the_ignored on Aug. 29 2011,12:41

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,12:19)
Quote (the_ignored @ Aug. 29 2011,08:09)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,14:03)
the ignored:

Hi...hey, I have an interesting book for you to read if you get the time.  I just started it recently, and I think you might get a kick out of it.  Something else you can rail about at least.  

It's titled "If God is Good...Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil".   Author is Randy Alcorn

It provides a different perspective...always good to consider both sides of any argument.

Pick it up at the library so you don't have to support the author by paying for it.  

Enjoy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know, I'm real late with this reply; I haven't been here for a long time, but FTK, that guy deals with the suffering of life in general, I'm talking about god-ordained homicide.

Again, how a person can call themselves "pro-life" and pretend to be aghast at what Myers said and yet have no problem with god-ordained infanticide is beyond me.

Bottom line:  the doctors who work at, and the women who go to, abortion clinics have every moral right to call you out for the moral hypocrite you are, FtK, and to tell you to go fuck yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It always amazes me to no end that people who find the Bible abhorent seem to focus only on the few instances where God commands a city destroyed.

There are so many outstanding examples of living a moral life throughout the Bible.  I've honestly thought back on them sooo many times in my life when similiar things may happen to me that I need to work through.

But, since this is a place where God's word seems to be a thorn in the foot, I'll toss out yet another article that explains why what God command needed to be carried out.  

It seems ridiculous to me that since you believe a few stories are immoral according to what *you* consider might have been occuring at the time, that you dismiss the entire book null and void.  You aren't God, you werent' there, and you have no idea.  

Here's your < LINK >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where did I say that it makes the entire bible null and void?  

What those instances do however is show that your god even as portrayed in his own holy book is not a moral being.

Yes, I've read stuff like that posted on that site before...nothing new.
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 29 2011,12:53

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,10:19)
It always amazes me to no end that people who find the Bible abhorent seem to focus only on the few instances where God commands a city destroyed.

There are so many outstanding examples of living a moral life throughout the Bible.  I've honestly thought back on them sooo many times in my life when similiar things may happen to me that I need to work through.

But, since this is a place where God's word seems to be a thorn in the foot, I'll toss out yet another article that explains why what God command needed to be carried out.  

It seems ridiculous to me that since you believe a few stories are immoral according to what *you* consider might have been occuring at the time, that you dismiss the entire book null and void.  You aren't God, you werent' there, and you have no idea.  

Here's your < LINK >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the sig, F.

Shorter < LINK >:

Why were the cities destroyed?
Collective punishment.  Generally regarded as a crime.

What about children and innocent adults?
Fuck 'em.

Couldn't the children have died painlessly?
No.  Omnipotence?  Feh!

Were the Israelites right to obey God's orders?
Yes, because God's universal moral code is subject to suspension at any time for any reason.

How did the Israelites know it was God's command?
Because he'd told them to commit atrocities before.

Were the Israelites merely justifying their aggression/xenophobia?
Well, yeah, but that's OK because their enemies were bad.

Can the genocide in the OT be used to justify genocide or mass destruction today?
Only if God signs off on it, but humans can't decide on their own that he's done so.  It will always be obvious whether that's the case.
Posted by: the_ignored on Aug. 29 2011,12:54

From that link that FtK gave me: the guy says that  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"...only those who had actively demonstrated their integrity could be saved"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

.  Uh, how in fuck could a baby "actively demonstrate" integrity?

The hell?  And yet you pretend to care about children when Myers talks about abortion?  At least most abortions are done at a developmental point before they can feel pain.

And here is a true kicker:  


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why didn't God translate the children into heaven instead of having them die by the sword? Since the children lived in a world affected by sin, they faced its earthly consequences (Rom 5:12-14). Only a few righteous people were translated into heaven, namely Enoch (Gen 5:24, Heb 11:5) and Elijah (2 Ki 2:11). As noted above, since the children had not shown themselves to be righteous, they were not spared the common fate of death.

It's worth noting that being killed with a sword (perhaps beheaded) was at the time one of the quickest ways for the children to die (as opposed to suffocation/strangulation, starvation, disease or being torn apart by wild animals - see Ex 23:28-29).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So again, because the kids were too young to prove their innocence, basically, god just said "fuck em" and to hell with any idea of a merciful "translation" into heaven, just kill them and be done with it.

You stupid, stupid little bint.  Do you have any idea how many god-fucking times I have heard this shit?!

Here's the reality:  Morality evolves over time.  Back then, survival was the name of the game...no gods to help people out.  When groups of people came into conflict over resources or whatnot, they wiped each other out and they couldn't afford to spare the kids.

With the advent of agriculture, trade, formation of communities, etc those kinds of actions became less and less necessary.  So those actions gradually became outlawed.  People could afford to be more generous, more merciful.

Problem:  The same god that was worshiped back then is still worshiped now, at a time when such actions would be abhorred.  So, you people are left trying to justify those barbaric actions while still claiming to hold to our ethical values.
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 29 2011,13:07

Do you know how many times I've heard all of *your* rationalizations for your beliefs?  We all know the score.  You choose to reject an ultimate Creator, I choose to accept.  Amen...that's it.  period.

I offer no more rationalizing or apologetics than all of you do both in regard to religion as well as Darwinian evolution. And, yes, I classify them in the same category in this instance because your "facts" are based on assumption and rationalization.  NOT science.
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 29 2011,13:10

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,11:07)
Do you know how many times I've heard all of *your* rationalizations for your beliefs?  We all know the score.  You choose to reject an ultimate Creator, I choose to accept.  Amen...that's it.  period.

I offer no more rationalizing or apologetics than all of you do both in regard to religion as well as Darwinian evolution. And, yes, I classify them in the same category in this instance because your "facts" are based on assumption and rationalization.  NOT science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Data not shown.
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 29 2011,13:10

And, why is it so imperative that you name call?  How does that help your argument?  Rant if it truely makes you feel better, but it's senseless.
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 29 2011,13:12

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,11:10)
And, why is it so imperative that you name call?  How does that help your argument?  Rant if it truely makes you feel better, but it's senseless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't often say this, F, but I agree with you here.  Don't get used to it though.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 29 2011,13:15

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,13:10)
 How does that help your argument?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't respond to rational argument. That's been proven over and over.

So if people call you names that's understandable. What else is left? It's not like you don't get to get labeled with whatever label your behavior inspires. You might not like it but it's of your own doing.

Prove you can have a rational argument/discussion. Lets talk about Jellyfish and their fossils.

Then I for one would be happy to retract the first two sentences of this comment.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 29 2011,13:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You stupid, stupid little bint.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



is that name calling or an observation?  i am not sure
Posted by: Robin on Aug. 29 2011,13:18

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,12:19)
It always amazes me to no end that people who find the Bible abhorent seem to focus only on the few instances where God commands a city destroyed.

It seems ridiculous to me that since you believe a few stories are immoral according to what *you* consider might have been occuring at the time, that you dismiss the entire book null and void.  You aren't God, you werent' there, and you have no idea.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem is, FtK, that a book devoted to "moral standards" should not contain any[ morally ambiguous or relative conditions. The fact that the bible does so makes not just those odd passages suspect, but also reduces (and in many cases outright removes) the credibility of any potentially "morally instructive" passages. Why? Because such ambiguous passages create conflict with the very "morally instructive" passages themselves.
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 29 2011,14:32

Quote (Robin @ Aug. 29 2011,13:18)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,12:19)
It always amazes me to no end that people who find the Bible abhorent seem to focus only on the few instances where God commands a city destroyed.

It seems ridiculous to me that since you believe a few stories are immoral according to what *you* consider might have been occuring at the time, that you dismiss the entire book null and void.  You aren't God, you werent' there, and you have no idea.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem is, FtK, that a book devoted to "moral standards" should not contain any[ morally ambiguous or relative conditions. The fact that the bible does so makes not just those odd passages suspect, but also reduces (and in many cases outright removes) the credibility of any potentially "morally instructive" passages. Why? Because such ambiguous passages create conflict with the very "morally instructive" passages themselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lots of things in life are ambiguous.  That doesn't mean we reject them outright.  We THINK them through.  Not everything in life is automatically black and white, but rather depends on discernment to make sense of the matter.

If you read through the arguments in the links I provided, you cannot suggest that those arguments must be rejected outright just because *your* sense of "morality"  and what a "god" would do in every situation won't allow it.  

Again, it's interesting that so much of Darwinian evolution is based upon the same type of rationalizing arguments, yet you *believe* you have rock solids fact.  Then you turn around and automatically reject my rationalization of scripture even though it makes logical sense to so many.  

It's ok that you believe what you do, but you can't condemn others who think differently when it's quite obvious that we are all using the same type of reasoning.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 29 2011,14:42

Actually, one doesn't automatically reject the existence of a god because he appears to be a psychopath.

One rejects the idea of worshiping a morally despicable god and wonders about what kind of degenerate would.

The parsimonious explanation that avoids this quandary is to suspect that like all other myths, the Abrahamic god is just another myth that justified whatever it was the leaders of the tribes wanted to do.

Nothing is proved, but belief or non-belief is pretty much beside the point.
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 29 2011,14:45

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,12:32)
Again, it's interesting that so much of Darwinian evolution is based upon the same type of rationalizing arguments, yet you *believe* you have rock solids fact.   
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Data not shown.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 29 2011,14:54

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,14:32)
Quote (Robin @ Aug. 29 2011,13:18)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,12:19)
It always amazes me to no end that people who find the Bible abhorent seem to focus only on the few instances where God commands a city destroyed.

It seems ridiculous to me that since you believe a few stories are immoral according to what *you* consider might have been occuring at the time, that you dismiss the entire book null and void.  You aren't God, you werent' there, and you have no idea.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem is, FtK, that a book devoted to "moral standards" should not contain any[ morally ambiguous or relative conditions. The fact that the bible does so makes not just those odd passages suspect, but also reduces (and in many cases outright removes) the credibility of any potentially "morally instructive" passages. Why? Because such ambiguous passages create conflict with the very "morally instructive" passages themselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lots of things in life are ambiguous.  That doesn't mean we reject them outright.  We THINK them through.  Not everything in life is automatically black and white, but rather depends on discernment to make sense of the matter.

If you read through the arguments in the links I provided, you cannot suggest that those arguments must be rejected outright just because *your* sense of "morality"  and what a "god" would do in every situation won't allow it.  

Again, it's interesting that so much of Darwinian evolution is based upon the same type of rationalizing arguments, yet you *believe* you have rock solids fact.  Then you turn around and automatically reject my rationalization of scripture even though it makes logical sense to so many.  

It's ok that you believe what you do, but you can't condemn others who think differently when it's quite obvious that we are all using the same type of reasoning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought we have been over this.  There is no moral absolutism.  (an argument you ran away from elsewhere)

What is moral is defined by our CULTURE and our SOCIETY, not by our religion or by any deity.  While it's true that deities may be a part of our culture, it is obvious (if one actually reads the Bible) that none of our morality is actually based on the Bible.

Jesus condoned slavery.  The Southern Baptists had slavery written into their church charter until 1996.

God, according to your Bible (which, BTW, is Jesus too according to your Bible) destroyed every living on the entire planet (every living thing which he created by the way), because a small subset of his creations didn't devote every waking moment to his worship.

Since he gave those creations free-will and they choose to use, He got pissed off and destroyed the planet.

And you want to talk about reading the Bible and interpreting Biblical morality?

There are not a 'few' stories in the Bible that I would consider immoral... most of the Bible contains things I would consider immoral, which is freaking hilarious since I'm an atheist.

And you do not want to argue about evolution FtK.  It is transparently obvious that you do not have one single clue about what science, biology, or evolution is about.

Scripture does not make logical sense.  In fact, by definition, faith is belief without evidence.  Logic is a form of evidence.  Faith MUST be illogical, otherwise it is simple to reject.

We are not using the same type of reasoning.  You are using fallacious arguments.  You are cherry-picking.  You are using strawmen.  You are not using logic.  Logic is there are only three mutually exclusive choices.

1) God is absolutely moral, in which case, you had better eat the baby.

2) God is not absolutely moral, in which case you disagree with God when you choose not to eat the baby.

3) There is a higher morality that God subscribes to, in which case God is not the source of morality and everything in the Bible that we think is immoral actually is immoral, including your God.

Which is it?
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 29 2011,14:58

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 29 2011,14:42)
Actually, one doesn't automatically reject the existence of a god because he appears to be a psychopath.

One rejects the idea of worshiping a morally despicable god and wonders about what kind of degenerate would.

The parsimonious explanation that avoids this quandary is to suspect that like all other myths, the Abrahamic god is just another myth that justified whatever it was the leaders of the tribes wanted to do.

Nothing is proved, but belief or non-belief is pretty much beside the point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And, that's your thoughts on the matter.  Contrary to your opinion, millions of people attain great joy and a sense of peace when facing life's trials due to their belief in an ultimate Creator.  They also actually enjoy worshipping a God who has provided so much for them both physically and spiritually.  

So, again, just because you do not experience what others do in regard to worship of the Creator does not mean what we believe is false.  

You consider Him morally despicable according to your own discernment of a history you were not involved in.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 29 2011,15:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, that's your thoughts on the matter.  Contrary to your opinion, millions of people attain great joy and a sense of peace when facing life's trials due to their belief in an ultimate Creator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And millions have been slaughtered for not conforming to someone else's beliefs. Quite a few of them as recorded in the Bible.

People who believe absurdities commit atrocities.

I take no comfort in the fact that you think the god who ordered the destruction of Jericho is a morally upright entity.
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 29 2011,15:17

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 29 2011,15:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, that's your thoughts on the matter.  Contrary to your opinion, millions of people attain great joy and a sense of peace when facing life's trials due to their belief in an ultimate Creator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And millions have been slaughtered for not conforming to someone else's beliefs. Quite a few of them as recorded in the Bible.

People who believe absurdities commit atrocities.

I take no comfort in the fact that you think the god who ordered the destruction of Jericho is a morally upright entity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You *really* need to read the links I provided.  There are hours worth of reading at The Thinking Christian if you follow all his links.  This is NOT a topic that can be rejected with merely a flip of the hand.  You're thinking process is extremely simplistic, imho.  One need consider all of Biblical history, the nature of God and ancient history surrounding this time period when broaching this topic.
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 29 2011,15:17

*Your
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 29 2011,15:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're thinking process is extremely simplistic, imho.  One need consider all of Biblical history, the nature of God and ancient history surrounding this time period when broaching this topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not exactly a youngster. I've been actively considering these issues since my confirmation class, nearly 55 years ago.

I just find it odd that the farther back we look at Abrahamic religion, the more corrupt it looks. My intuition is that if leaders were actively speaking to god and actively receiving instructions, that their behavior would more nearly reflect the will of god.

So either someone lied about receiving orders to commit genocide, or god is a moral monster.

I tend to think the leaders made the whole thing up.

I'm not at all impressed with the argument that ancient people were somehow operating under some sort of get out of jail free card when it comes to genocide. They knew it was evil.

David, who was not a paragon of virtue, knew it was evil, and tried to defy the priests.

It doesn't take a saint to recognize atrocity. But it takes a very odd person, in my opinion, to think the stories about Yahweh are about a creator god, and not just rationalizations.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 29 2011,15:34

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,21:17)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 29 2011,15:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, that's your thoughts on the matter.  Contrary to your opinion, millions of people attain great joy and a sense of peace when facing life's trials due to their belief in an ultimate Creator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And millions have been slaughtered for not conforming to someone else's beliefs. Quite a few of them as recorded in the Bible.

People who believe absurdities commit atrocities.

I take no comfort in the fact that you think the god who ordered the destruction of Jericho is a morally upright entity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You *really* need to read the links I provided.  There are hours worth of reading at The Thinking Christian if you follow all his links.  This is NOT a topic that can be rejected with merely a flip of the hand.  You're thinking process is extremely simplistic, imho.  One need consider all of Biblical history, the nature of God and ancient history surrounding this time period when broaching this topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh really? Like I'm sure you've done for Thor, Odin, Tiamat, Zeus, Apollo, Mithras, Zoroaster....

I, for one, love your attempts at relativism and shifting the burden of proof, FTK. Whilst there are complex arguments to be had, that doesn't change the fact that many of them are very simple. I'd be a little wary of who you're accusing of over simplifying difficult issues.

Toodle pip!

Louis
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 29 2011,15:49

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,15:17)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 29 2011,15:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, that's your thoughts on the matter.  Contrary to your opinion, millions of people attain great joy and a sense of peace when facing life's trials due to their belief in an ultimate Creator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And millions have been slaughtered for not conforming to someone else's beliefs. Quite a few of them as recorded in the Bible.

People who believe absurdities commit atrocities.

I take no comfort in the fact that you think the god who ordered the destruction of Jericho is a morally upright entity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You *really* need to read the links I provided.  There are hours worth of reading at The Thinking Christian if you follow all his links.  This is NOT a topic that can be rejected with merely a flip of the hand.  You're thinking process is extremely simplistic, imho.  One need consider all of Biblical history, the nature of God and ancient history surrounding this time period when broaching this topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....ply.php >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 29 2011,15:55

Genetic diversity...

Aug 29 2011 Published by genomicrepairman under Uncategorized

typically in days of yonder was the result of non-consentual sex with invading armies.  I have nothing else to add to that.
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 29 2011,15:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Thinking Christian
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



404 - Data Not Found
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 29 2011,16:08

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 29 2011,13:34)
Oh really? Like I'm sure you've done for Thor, Odin, Tiamat, Zeus, Apollo, Mithras, Zoroaster....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But Louis, they weren't true gods, so they don't count.  The true god said so.
Posted by: the_ignored on Aug. 29 2011,17:13

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,13:07)
Do you know how many times I've heard all of *your* rationalizations for your beliefs?  We all know the score.  You choose to reject an ultimate Creator, I choose to accept.  Amen...that's it.  period.

I offer no more rationalizing or apologetics than all of you do both in regard to religion as well as Darwinian evolution. And, yes, I classify them in the same category in this instance because your "facts" are based on assumption and rationalization.  NOT science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I call you names because, quite frankly, you earn them.  For one who claims to have "absolute" morality and who calls herself "pro-life" it's damned jarring to see you turn around and defend god-ordained child-killing.  My explanation for the development of morality fits reality a fuck of a lot better.

As for evolution not being based on < science >?  

Only in your fantasy world.  Read and learn something.
Posted by: the_ignored on Aug. 29 2011,17:32

Hey guys, should I be honoured or ashamed?  It seems that Vox has now dedicated an entire < post > to me.
Posted by: Badger3k on Aug. 29 2011,19:20

Quote (the_ignored @ Aug. 29 2011,17:32)
Hey guys, should I be honoured or ashamed?  It seems that Vox has now dedicated an entire < post > to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Honored - Wile E Coyote, Super-Genius, has deigned to notice you.  Wow.

I like this bit of bizarre writing:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, for all that Pharyngulans tend to believe that Vox Popoli is the polar opposite of the echo chamber that is Pharyngula, that really is not the case. Here, one is expected to respond directly to the questions posed; any rationalizations or justifications are to be offered AFTER providing an answer to the question, not in lieu of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If I read correctly, the Pharyngulans think that Vox's blog is the "polar opposite of the echo chamber...", meaning they think that Vox's blog is not an echo chamber, and "that really is not the case" - so he is saying his blog is an echo chamber?  Don't forget to laugh at that part about rationalizations, too.
Posted by: the_ignored on Aug. 29 2011,19:37

I do reply to the guy, showing how he lies about me not answering his questions, and I do ask him some questions of my own.

But FUCK!  That commenting system over there keeps fucking up my replies!  The previews look good but when I submit...

Oy,   At least my message gets across but I have to admit it really loses credibility (whether justified or not) to have that keep happening.  

Oh well, I think I'm done over there anyway.
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 29 2011,19:50

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,13:07)
{snip idiocy}

I offer no more rationalizing or apologetics than all of you do both in regard to religion as well as Darwinian evolution. And, yes, I classify them in the same category in this instance because your "facts" are based on assumption and rationalization.  NOT science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wish a sig could be this long.  Ftk, you are an ever-flowing fountain of inanity. It makes one wonder how big your prop closet is (I'm jealous).

Let's take a look at the bolded part.  From observed behavior on this forum we have several facts:

1.  You believe that people can know the contents of a book without reading it

2.  You claim you want to have serious discussion on the issues of science and education.

3.  You have a whole boatload of scientific and educational questions left unanswered because you either have no idea how to answer them or you're not really all that interested in discussion.

4.  You're afraid of jellyfish.

5.  You have had multiple offers of discussion of just the issues you claim to want to talk about.

6.  Several knowledgeable folk have presented you with concepts that you merely claim are wrong without providing any (and I mean none) reason for claiming so.

Since it has been observed that you have done nothing but rationalize for your entire history on this forum, how exactly will you rationalize your statement above?

When you have something to say that is not purely subjective, let us know.  Otherwise, save yourself the trouble of looking stupider each time you appear and call your friends when you're not feeling as popular as you'd like.
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 29 2011,20:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
While it's true that deities may be a part of our culture, it is obvious (if one actually reads the Bible) that none of our morality is actually based on the Bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For someone who boasts of reading the Bible so many times (weren’t you the one who said they’d read the bible 4 times as well as in a language other than English?  If not, my apologies...one of you stated that recently), you seem amiss here.  There are endless passages in the Bible that people refer to in regard to morality ALL the TIME. Each Sunday alone, Pastors preach morality from the pulpit based upon scripture.  Your statement is patently absurd.  Granted, it may possibly be that you never hear any of this as I’m beginning to wonder if you live in a reclusive atheist commune.

Now, if you’re suggesting that because “Christianity” was organized long after humans “evolved“, and you’re *assuming* that morality was already in place before that time due to what was passed down through evolutionary means, then that is something you cannot prove any more than I can in regard to how our sense of morality was established.  From written documents that we DO have, the most logical explanation is that morality was ultimately established by God.  No other text from antiquity provides as much moral content as the Bible.  According to those texts, our sense of morality was intact from the beginning.  Trial, error, sin  and the results of those helped established that. Oral tradition as well as documentation of events were passed down throughout the generations, and at one point the Jews put together what was to become the OT which combined these historical accounts.  Reject any part or the totality of scripture, but you have nothing that *proves* morality was originally established by other means entirely.  You have *assumption* and *speculation* based on questionable “science“.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jesus condoned slavery. The Southern Baptists had slavery written into their church charter until 1996.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We’ve been over this several time in the past, so I’ll provide a link to keep this post from getting to entirely to lengthy. < PLEASE READ IT. >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God, according to your Bible (which, BTW, is Jesus too according to your Bible) destroyed every living on the entire planet (every living thing which he created by the way), because a small subset of his creations didn't devote every waking moment to his worship.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, for someone who has read the bible so thoroughly, you’ve missed something very important here.  According to the same story you’re citing, it was not a “small subset” of people who were the cause of God’s decision to cause a flood.  Also, the Bible never mentions that the flood occurred because people didn’t “devote every waking moment to his worship“.  Let’s take a look at why the flood occurred.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Believe it or don’t, but don’t twist the content.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since he gave those creations free-will and they choose to use, He got pissed off and destroyed the planet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He did.  He’s God....He can give and He can take.  We’re His Creation.  I would argue that what He did was a blessing to future generations.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are not a 'few' stories in the Bible that I would consider immoral... most of the Bible contains things I would consider immoral, which is freaking hilarious since I'm an atheist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Interesting conclusion.  There is rarely a Sunday that goes by that I am not moved by our Pastor’s lectures with regard to scripture, and a large part of those lessons are in regard to our morality and how we should live.  ALL based on scripture.  I’m beginning to seriously doubt your familiarity with all of scripture.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And you do not want to argue about evolution FtK. It is transparently obvious that you do not have one single clue about what science, biology, or evolution is about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I debated the scientific aspects of evolution for *years*, and it was more than obvious that this debate is comes down to ideology, religion, philosophy and worldview.  There is no getting around it, and it’s futile to negate that fact.  We’re debating gray areas of science.  Those who refuse to consider an ultimate Creator will lean one way with regard to the evidence we do have, and those who reject a Creator will hold to the opposite assumptions. You also need to be reminded that I don’t bring up the topic of religion, you folks do.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Scripture does not make logical sense. In fact, by definition, faith is belief without evidence. Logic is a form of evidence. Faith MUST be illogical, otherwise it is simple to reject.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Untrue.  There are *endless* paths of evidence that lead to the logical conclusion that there is an ultimate designer.  Christianity also has an abundance of evidence to back it’s claims.  You reject that evidence.  Great...that’s your choice.  Faith does *not* have to be illogical.  Your own belief that life ultimately arose from nothing is certainly based on amount of faith.  Do you find that faith illogical?  Of course not, you follow evidence, as well as assumptions and speculation to come to this conclusion.

[/quote]We are not using the same type of reasoning. You are using fallacious arguments. You are cherry-picking. You are using strawmen. [/quote]

Back atcha, Love.
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 29 2011,20:25

Oh for shit sake, FTK.  That preachers preach morality from the pulpit in no way makes the Bible a source of ultimate morality.  Come on, you have to see this simple point.  If you don't, there is absolutely no hope for you behaving as a rational human being.  An example (I know, examples are unnecessary claptrap, but bare with me):

I tell my class that in the Polish mime tradition, they should stay connected to the ground for a particular scene we're doing.  The class has read some material on Polish mime technique.  It does not follow that the source of "rootedness" in acting is Polish mime tradition.

This is simple stuff, FTK.
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 29 2011,20:28

As for a small subset of people being responsible for the flood.  Have you done the math problem I asked you to do yet?  The one about the population of the world between Noah and the Eqyptians?  Nevermind.  I'm more interested in why you haven't done it.
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 29 2011,20:31

FTK:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, if you’re suggesting that because “Christianity” was organized long after humans “evolved“, and you’re *assuming* that morality was already in place before that time due to what was passed down through evolutionary means...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is it possible for you to follow the arguments you make into the future?  At all? Even unto just the next sentence?

Please explain to me why you believe that it is possible for humans to exist without a moral code, or apparently even the idea of what a moral code could be.

Truly baffling.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 29 2011,21:02

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,20:15)
[/quote]
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
While it's true that deities may be a part of our culture, it is obvious (if one actually reads the Bible) that none of our morality is actually based on the Bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For someone who boasts of reading the Bible so many times (weren’t you the one who said they’d read the bible 4 times as well as in a language other than English?

If not, my apologies...one of you stated that recently), you seem amiss here.  There are endless passages in the Bible that people refer to in regard to morality ALL the TIME.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, and those passages, almost universally decry the keeping of slaves, the rape of unmarried women, treating enemy soldiers with respect...

Oh wait, that's Tom Clancy, not the Bible.  The Bible encourages that stuff.  God encourages that stuff.  Would you like the quotes from the Bible?  Because I can bet that I can find more quotes supporting things you and I both consider immoral than you can find supporting things that we both think or moral.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

While it's true that deities may be a part of our culture, it is obvious (if one actually reads the Bible) that none of our morality is actually based on the Bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Each Sunday alone, Pastors preach morality from the pulpit based upon scripture.  


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And every US presidential condidate since Thomas Jefferson has promised change.  It's easy to say things that aren't real.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your statement is patently absurd.  Granted, it may possibly be that you never hear any of this as I’m beginning to wonder if you live in a reclusive atheist commune.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope, simple facts here.  I know that you reside in a reclusive Christian commune, where you do not question your Pastor, your father, and God (in that order).  

It's also pretty obvious that you have never read the Bible, just listened to what that pastor says every morning.  Isn't it interesting how pastors (I've had over twelve in my church-going years) never mention all the patent impossibilities in the Bible and all the contradictions (list of 100 ready for you, whenever you want them).

But your cute (lame, weak) ad hominim doesn't change any of the actual facts.

I'll repeat.  Current US culture is not based on Biblical morality.  If it is, then how much do you want for your daughter?

Curiously, there are several cultures in the world that are based on the morality of their holy book and they are universally decried by Christians. Interesting...


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Now, if you’re suggesting that because “Christianity” was organized long after humans “evolved“, and you’re *assuming* that morality was already in place

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quote where I said that.

This is called a 'strawman' argument.  In this, you are attacking something that no one has said or defended.  Everything past this is a waste od electrons.

What I maintain is that the morals of the culture are based on evolution of that culture over time.  Things change.  2000 years ago, keeping slaves was fine.  200 years ago, keeping slaves was fine.  20 years ago... not so much.  

The morals of our society are based on things that we find offensive.  If you go to another (mostly Christian) nation, you will find things in that culture that you would think are morally repugnant.  For example, selling your excess daughters into prostitution or the imprisonment and killing of homosexuals.  Of course, you claim to find these things immoral, yet the exact same belief system that you subscribe to is used to justify both of the acts I just described.

In other words, the Bible does not give us morality.  It is used as after-the-fact justification for the morals already present in the society.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


before that time due to what was passed down through evolutionary means, then that is something you cannot prove any more than I can in regard to how our sense of morality was established.  From written documents that we DO have, the most logical explanation is that morality was ultimately established by God.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Prove it.  Prove God exists... then answer the question: If God commanded that eating babies is both moral and required, then why wouldn't you eat them?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No other text from antiquity provides as much moral content as the Bible.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bullshit.  Ever read the Illiad?  The Oddesy?  The moral lessons in the Greek myths?   How about the viking myths?  No?  I'm not surprised.

Of course, what you don't understand, is that the Bible is mostly cobbled together from the usefull bits of legends much older than it is.

Hell, the Code of Hammurabi says the same thing as the Bible.  Remember "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"?  Code of Hammurabi, 1700 years before the Bible.

Of course, if you want an actual moral code, what about the Hippocratic Oath?  500 years before Christ and originally sworn to Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia and Panacea.  

So much for all of that.


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


According to those texts, our sense of morality was intact from the beginning.  Trial, error, sin  and the results of those helped established that. Oral tradition as well as documentation of events were passed down throughout the generations, and at one point the Jews put together what was to become the OT which combined these historical accounts.  Reject any part or the totality of scripture, but you have nothing that *proves* morality was originally established by other means entirely.  You have *assumption* and *speculation* based on questionable “science“.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nonsense, as shown above.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jesus condoned slavery. The Southern Baptists had slavery written into their church charter until 1996.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We’ve been over this several time in the past, so I’ll provide a link to keep this post from getting to entirely to lengthy. < PLEASE READ IT. >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No.  There are too many interesting things to read than apologetics.  Summarize it for me, then we'll see.  Bullet the salient points with references to the Bible.  Go ahead... I'll wait.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God, according to your Bible (which, BTW, is Jesus too according to your Bible) destroyed every living on the entire planet (every living thing which he created by the way), because a small subset of his creations didn't devote every waking moment to his worship.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, for someone who has read the bible so thoroughly, you’ve missed something very important here.  According to the same story you’re citing, it was not a “small subset” of people who were the cause of God’s decision to cause a flood.  Also, the Bible never mentions that the flood occurred because people didn’t “devote every waking moment to his worship“.  Let’s take a look at why the flood occurred.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It was a small subset, because the only people that God ever talked about were Judeans.  What about the hundreds of thousands of other people on the planet that God never talked about.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



'evil' huh?  So, every living person on the planet killed every other living thing on the planet?  

FtK, Does evil truly fix evil?  Do the ends justify the means?  

Is God moral?

Yeah, I don't think so.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



By killing them all and sending them all to hell (even the babies, heck, you could have at least eaten them).

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Believe it or don’t, but don’t twist the content.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since he gave those creations free-will and they choose to use, He got pissed off and destroyed the planet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He did.  He’s God....He can give and He can take.  We’re His Creation.  I would argue that what He did was a blessing to future generations.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So why won't you eat the babies?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are not a 'few' stories in the Bible that I would consider immoral... most of the Bible contains things I would consider immoral, which is freaking hilarious since I'm an atheist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Interesting conclusion.  There is rarely a Sunday that goes by that I am not moved by our Pastor’s lectures with regard to scripture, and a large part of those lessons are in regard to our morality and how we should live.  ALL based on scripture.  I’m beginning to seriously doubt your familiarity with all of scripture.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, your pastor skips that much of the Bible?  

Here's an interesting exercise for you. Pick up a cheap Bible and take to every church service you go to.  Highlight every verse that the preacher talks about.  Put a star by it the second and all subsequent times.

Do this for one year.

Now, examine closely how much of the Bible was NOT mentioned.

Now, again, you might be moved by the lovely stories of the Good Samaritan, the lost coin, the prodigal son, the friend at night, etc.  But these are all PARABLES!!  They didn't actually happen.  They are stories of how you should act... not things that actually happened.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And you do not want to argue about evolution FtK. It is transparently obvious that you do not have one single clue about what science, biology, or evolution is about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I debated the scientific aspects of evolution for *years*, and it was more than obvious that this debate is comes down to ideology, religion, philosophy and worldview.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bullshit.  I'll repeat, you don't know enough about it to accurately judge it.  You make massive errors everytime you talk about biology (and the Bible for that matter).

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no getting around it, and it’s futile to negate that fact.  We’re debating gray areas of science.  Those who refuse to consider an ultimate Creator will lean one way with regard to the evidence we do have, and those who reject a Creator will hold to the opposite assumptions. You also need to be reminded that I don’t bring up the topic of religion, you folks do.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Interesting.  A gray area of science is responsible for a variety of drugs that our society couldn't live without.  A gray area of science is responsible for helping feed everyone on this planet.  A gray area of science is saving lives all the time.

Yet, God does none of it.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Scripture does not make logical sense. In fact, by definition, faith is belief without evidence. Logic is a form of evidence. Faith MUST be illogical, otherwise it is simple to reject.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Untrue.  There are *endless* paths of evidence that lead to the logical conclusion that there is an ultimate designer.  Christianity also has an abundance of evidence to back it’s claims.  You reject that evidence.  Great...that’s your choice.  Faith does *not* have to be illogical.  Your own belief that life ultimately arose from nothing is certainly based on amount of faith.  Do you find that faith illogical?  Of course not, you follow evidence, as well as assumptions and speculation to come to this conclusion.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bullshit.  Either something happened or it didn't.  Do you agree that one thing can either happen or not happen?

Of course you don't agree.  If you did, then you would have to admit that there are massive contradictions in the Bible (Matthre 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 for example).

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

We are not using the same type of reasoning. You are using fallacious arguments. You are cherry-picking. You are using strawmen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Back atcha, Love.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wrong.  

I am using logic and actual facts.  You are using apologetics, which are mad eup stories to make gullible people feel better about their magic book.

I guess if you make up things and say 'that's what it means' you can say anything you want, but then, if you do that, you can't go claiming the Bible is inerrant can you?

Oh well...

Back to morality...

It's our society and people for the last 1800 years have used the Bible to support everything from the Crusades to the Spanish Inquisition.  It's that simple.

The Bible is not the source of our morality.  It is only a source for justification of what some people want to do (kill homosexuals for example).
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 29 2011,21:33

Ogre, I don't even know how to respond to your posts.  They seems so absurd to me that it's hard to fathom what is going on in your head.  I don't mean to be rude, I'm just saying that what we've read and how we view it is so entirely different that I have no idea how to even discuss the issues with you.  

Just for the record.  I've read every word of the Bible many times, as well as sat through a 2 year study that went through every word of the Bible.  My current Pastor encourages everyone to bring their Bible each Sunday as we go through several verses or chapters each week.  The next 12 weeks we will be covering the book of John.  I'm not Catholic, so maybe you're picturing something entirely different than what we hear each Sunday.  I've been a member of 6 different churches and visited many others.  It's impossible for me to understand how you can read scripture and come to the conclusions that you do.  It's as though you scan and pull out what you feel is repulsive and skim through the rest without a thought.  

So much of what you claim God commanded was actually stories telling about what happened to Biblical figures thoughout their life.  They made good choices, they made mistakes, they weren't perfect.  We learn from their history. That's the beauty of the Bible.  It's characters were far from perfect, which gives us hope as well.  

I'm sorry, but I don't get you. at all.
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 29 2011,21:44

Ftk, is it possible that you skim through the Bible and pick out what you want to?  Or is that something that only others do?  Seriously, the lack of introspection is astounding.
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 29 2011,21:52

And FWIW, while you're here you might try responding to posts by actually addressing what they say.  It'll help; I promise.

For example.  In your last post you say that Ogre is taking stories and making them God's word.  What about Lot's daughters?  Story?  Or God's word?  Related point--how do we know God's words from stories?

You could start a discussion by answering these questions.  Then I would continue the discussion by addressing your new points.  Or you could do what you normally do (jellyfish, fossils, the eye, Behe, etc) and ignore anything you don't want to talk about and then claim that no one will have a discussion with you.

Be a big girl.
Posted by: the_ignored on Aug. 29 2011,22:01

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,21:33)
Ogre, I don't even know how to respond to your posts.  They seems so absurd to me that it's hard to fathom what is going on in your head.  I don't mean to be rude, I'm just saying that what we've read and how we view it is so entirely different that I have no idea how to even discuss the issues with you.  

Just for the record.  I've read every word of the Bible many times, as well as sat through a 2 year study that went through every word of the Bible.  My current Pastor encourages everyone to bring their Bible each Sunday as we go through several verses or chapters each week.  The next 12 weeks we will be covering the book of John.  I'm not Catholic, so maybe you're picturing something entirely different than what we hear each Sunday.  I've been a member of 6 different churches and visited many others.  It's impossible for me to understand how you can read scripture and come to the conclusions that you do.  It's as though you scan and pull out what you feel is repulsive and skim through the rest without a thought.  

So much of what you claim God commanded was actually stories telling about what happened to Biblical figures thoughout their life.  They made good choices, they made mistakes, they weren't perfect.  We learn from their history. That's the beauty of the Bible.  It's characters were far from perfect, which gives us hope as well.  

I'm sorry, but I don't get you. at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thing is, Ftk is that SOME of those situations were commanded by your god (allegedly).  I am a non-believer after all.

Now, about us "skimming through the rest without a thought" after finding something that we don't like?  Please.

If one applied your reasoning to the actions of Hitler one could say that he only looks bad because his opponents "pulled out what was repulsive" and "skimmed through the rest without a thought".

Get the point yet?  Good actions do not cancel out the bad actions, not when a claim of perfect morality is being made.
Posted by: Rob R. on Aug. 29 2011,22:03

One has to wonder why Dr. Elsberry, founder of this site and a devout Christian, never seems to reply in these types of exchnages.  Let some believer argue that nature shows a sign of being created/designed... he's there.  Believers are all idiots whom follow bronze-aged ignorant sheep herders... and it's all whistling winds and tumblin' tumbleweeds.  Dover is so five years ago... what are you doing, exactly?
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 29 2011,22:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bullshit.  Ever read the Illiad?  The Oddesy?  The moral lessons in the Greek myths?   How about the viking myths?  No?  I'm not surprised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quite familiar with all.  Forgot to add < this link earlier >.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 29 2011,22:25

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,22:21)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bullshit.  Ever read the Illiad?  The Oddesy?  The moral lessons in the Greek myths?   How about the viking myths?  No?  I'm not surprised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quite familiar with all.  Forgot to add < this link earlier >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent, so you admit that your earlier statements were wrong.

Glad we could clear that up.  The Bible is NOT the earliest font of the morality tale.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 29 2011,22:38

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,21:33)
Ogre, I don't even know how to respond to your posts.  They seems so absurd to me that it's hard to fathom what is going on in your head.  I don't mean to be rude, I'm just saying that what we've read and how we view it is so entirely different that I have no idea how to even discuss the issues with you.  

Just for the record.  I've read every word of the Bible many times, as well as sat through a 2 year study that went through every word of the Bible.  My current Pastor encourages everyone to bring their Bible each Sunday as we go through several verses or chapters each week.  The next 12 weeks we will be covering the book of John.  I'm not Catholic, so maybe you're picturing something entirely different than what we hear each Sunday.  I've been a member of 6 different churches and visited many others.  It's impossible for me to understand how you can read scripture and come to the conclusions that you do.  It's as though you scan and pull out what you feel is repulsive and skim through the rest without a thought.  

So much of what you claim God commanded was actually stories telling about what happened to Biblical figures thoughout their life.  They made good choices, they made mistakes, they weren't perfect.  We learn from their history. That's the beauty of the Bible.  It's characters were far from perfect, which gives us hope as well.  

I'm sorry, but I don't get you. at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I know.  On the other hand, I know exactly why you cannot understand me.  You think you have the ability to question, but you don't.  You think you have the ability to think critically, but you do not.

Here, take the story of the centurion to your pastor.  Ask for an explanation.  Now, there three choices to what he says:

1) It's a different interpretation of events from a different perspective.  Fine, then the Bible is not inerrant.  

2) He will make up a story about how God can change minds or something like that; in which case ask for evidence that this is the case.

3) He will say that it's not important to the meaning of the Bible... in which case, one wonders why it's in the Bible anyway.

You still haven't answered my simple question.  Why don't you use the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible, which is the only Bible that contains all of the books.  You say you aren't Catholic, that's fine, but why haven't you read any of their books?

You haven't read 1 and 2 Maccabees?  What about Prayer of Manasseh?  1 and 2 Esdras?  What about the 3 Meqabyan books?

Do you even realize that your Bible as you know it didn't exist until about 400 AD (actually 28th of August 397)?

Honestly, though, that's neither here nor there and you haven't answered yet and I suspect you never will.

Back to morality.

What is the the source of your personal morality?
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 29 2011,22:44

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 29 2011,22:25)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,22:21)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bullshit.  Ever read the Illiad?  The Oddesy?  The moral lessons in the Greek myths?   How about the viking myths?  No?  I'm not surprised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quite familiar with all.  Forgot to add < this link earlier >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent, so you admit that your earlier statements were wrong.

Glad we could clear that up.  The Bible is NOT the earliest font of the morality tale.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol...I never claimed it was the "earliest font of morality tale".  I stated that "No other text from antiquity provides as much moral content as the Bible."  I also provided steps as to why I believe our earliest source of morality came via the God of scripture.

Go back and carefully read what I actually wrote.  You're doing to my posts what you seem to regularly do to scripture.
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 29 2011,22:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you even realize that your Bible as you know it didn't exist until about 400 AD (actually 28th of August 397)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Have you ever read the writings of the fathers of the early church?  If you haven't, you certainly should.  In their writing, you will find that the books we consider the inherent word of God were established long before Constantine.
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 29 2011,23:09

You are on record believing that human beings can exist independent of a moral code.  Explain.

Since all the Greek myths are attempts to explain moral behavior, explain how the Bible contains more moralizing.  I assume you can do so since you are "very familiar" with all of them.  Of course, you're also "very familiar" with science.  (See what happened there?  A quote and a scare all at once.)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 30 2011,01:05

Quote (Rob R. @ Aug. 29 2011,22:03)
One has to wonder why Dr. Elsberry, founder of this site and a devout Christian, never seems to reply in these types of exchnages.  Let some believer argue that nature shows a sign of being created/designed... he's there.  Believers are all idiots whom follow bronze-aged ignorant sheep herders... and it's all whistling winds and tumblin' tumbleweeds.  Dover is so five years ago... what are you doing, exactly?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If people want to believe I'm an idiot of some stripe (and there are certainly enough of those folks out there, as a search engine will attest), well, there isn't a lot that I can do to change their mind by arguing theology; it isn't what I've been trained in.

I contribute to discussions where I think I can make some difference. I object to people pushing plain error and would like to let them know exactly why busted apologetics are harmful. If the "breathtaking inanity" factor were dialed down from 11 or beyond, I think that that would help people get along better. It may not be much in the overall scheme of things, but it's something.

As for what I've been doing lately, I'm trying to keep financially solvent (you might have noticed that there is a recession on) and make some progress on getting data written up and < published >. Pardon me if these are not the ways that you'd like me to spend my time.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 30 2011,04:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Have you ever read the writings of the fathers of the early church?  If you haven't, you certainly should.  In their writing, you will find that the books we consider the inherent word of God were established long before Constantine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But there were far more books before Constantine, not to mention about 50 separate religions have similar messiah and resurrection themes.

Christianity won out due to the raw naked power of the emperor. Why do you suppose different sects of Christianity have different lists of inspired books?

It's not a stretch to include Islam as a descendant of Christianity. It's not particularly more distant than Mormonism. Just one more revelation.
Posted by: Cubist on Aug. 30 2011,05:16

Quote (Rob R. @ Aug. 29 2011,22:03)
One has to wonder why Dr. Elsberry, founder of this site and a devout Christian, never seems to reply in these types of exchnages.  Let some believer argue that nature shows a sign of being created/designed... he's there.  Believers are all idiots whom follow bronze-aged ignorant sheep herders... and it's all whistling winds and tumblin' tumbleweeds.  Dover is so five years ago... what are you doing, exactly?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps Dr. Elsberry takes Proverbs 27:17 more seriously than some of his co-religionists. Maybe he thinks that Christians should give more than cursory lip-service to the notion of being truthseekers. It could be that he's concerned about the lake of fire God has waiting for false witnesses. Or perhaps he feels that when Christians talk bullshit about mundane, worldly matters which can be confirmed or denied by mundane, worldly means, not only does it make unbelievers less receptive to anything else Christians might have to say (especially those spiritual assertions which a body would have to take Christians' word for!), but also, it tends to make unbelievers think Christians are stupid, ignorant, deluded, dishonest, or some combination of all four. Dr. Elsberry might even feel that if Christians are going to make noise about having access to some sort of 'higher knowledge' and/or 'higher morality', it would behoove Christians to bloody well act like it, as opposed to acting like flagrantly deceitful weasels.
And Dover may be 'five years ago', but ID-pushers don't seem to have given up on their dreams of ramming ID down the throats of innocent highschool and gradeschool students, so opposing ID is every bit as relevant now as it was when the lying Creationists of Dover were getting their asses sued and losing in court.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 30 2011,05:19

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 30 2011,07:05)
[SNIP]

I object to people pushing plain error and would like to let them know exactly why busted apologetics are harmful. If the "breathtaking inanity" factor were dialed down from 11 or beyond, I think that that would help people get along better. It may not be much in the overall scheme of things, but it's something.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolument!

Maybe FTK can reflect on the words of Thomas Jefferson (admittedly on a slightly different topic):



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



1) No one with a functioning brain who can give it even a moment's calm, rational thought gives a gibbering Dalek doodoo about what anyone believes. Go to it! Go to your churches, FTK, read your bible, pray, don't have abortions, don't understand basic science*, do no harm and you will have a friend in me. Extend your personal, private beliefs beyond that sphere and I will....

{Dramatic pause}

....argue with you. I know, persecution right? Guess what though, you get to do the same with me! How cool is that?

2) Here's a couple from Gandhi for you, not that I agree with everything the bloke says, but he's hit the nail on the head regarding this point.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Be the change you want to see in the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And here's the KJV of your own Holy Bible, Matthew 7:5:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your attempts at relativism and shifting the burden of proof are, as I have said before, hilarious. Since we have all covered this ground before many times, it pains me to say it again, but I, and others, do not simply believe the various theories of evolution and facts associated with such biology are true, we instead accept them as being provisionally true based on the available data. That might seem to you like a fine hair to split, but it is the crux of the issue. Regardless of what misinformation you have from pastors and other such sundry, pompous pious personages, we are simply not arriving at our conclusions via the same means.

If you cannot grasp that the reason scientists accept the facts and theories of evolutionary biology is EXACTLY the same reason that your car mechanic accepts the engineering principles required to fix your car, or the same reason you accept the medical principles that underpin the treatments your doctor gives you, or the electronic principles that make the computer you are reading this on work, then you are truly mistaken. And mistaken in the most pernicious manner.

So before you project, yet again...yet nauseatingly again, your own callow thought processes onto others, try to grasp the fact that it really, really, REALLY might be you that's mistaken here. Trust me when I say the entire scientific community does this on a professional basis every single day. Evolutionary biology has not been arrived at by some belief system, it has been demonstrated time and again. The various creationist claims of your "Big Tent" chums simply have not. Worse, regardless of what you think, they have been refuted utterly on every occasion...as indeed have the "logical" arguments for your (or any) deity. Wesley's point about apologetics is vital to YOU here, not to me. Every time you, or one of your dribbling creationist effluvium merchants, puts out some hideously simple apologia for your deity, it opens your deity up to disproof, to destruction as a claimed entity.

If instead you restricted your claims to faith, i.e. the simple fact that you believe in a specific deity on faith alone, then no damage could come to your beliefs. Whilst I have no truck with such epistemology, and we could argue over its value, at least I'd defend your right to espouse such to my death. But the moment you claim your deity is factually demonstrable, then people (rightly) question that claim.

3) As per usual you are "big on claims, light on evidence and reasoning". As Wes says, you want a better response, try actually acting with some intellectual integrity and ability and you might be amazed.

But I've said all this before only to be ignored, so fly my electrons, fly. You are wasted in the desert of FTK's brain.

Louis

*I'd argue this does harm, but meh, we can carry a few rubes.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 30 2011,07:05

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,22:44)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 29 2011,22:25)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,22:21)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bullshit.  Ever read the Illiad?  The Oddesy?  The moral lessons in the Greek myths?   How about the viking myths?  No?  I'm not surprised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quite familiar with all.  Forgot to add < this link earlier >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent, so you admit that your earlier statements were wrong.

Glad we could clear that up.  The Bible is NOT the earliest font of the morality tale.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol...I never claimed it was the "earliest font of morality tale".  I stated that "No other text from antiquity provides as much moral content as the Bible."  I also provided steps as to why I believe our earliest source of morality came via the God of scripture.

Go back and carefully read what I actually wrote.  You're doing to my posts what you seem to regularly do to scripture.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From written documents that we DO have, the most logical explanation is that morality was ultimately established by God.  No other text from antiquity provides as much moral content as the Bible.  According to those texts, our sense of morality was intact from the beginning.  Trial, error, sin  and the results of those helped established that. Oral tradition as well as documentation of events were passed down throughout the generations, and at one point the Jews put together what was to become the OT which combined these historical accounts.  Reject any part or the totality of scripture, but you have nothing that *proves* morality was originally established by other means entirely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5752;st=990#entry193681

You're right, you claimed that the Judean God is the font of all morality... of course, He didn't exist before the oral traditions of the Bible too.

As we have established, morality tales existed long before the Bible, Christianity, and even Judea.  Heck actual morality existed long before the Bible, Christianity, and even Judea.  I've read Clan of the Cave Bear.

I'm not doing anything to your posts and your Bible that you shouldn't do.  That is think logically about them.

So which is it FtK?  Is the Bible literally inerrant or is it open to interpretation?

It cannot be both.

BTW: What I'm doing here is showing you the complete inanity of the Biblical position.  It very simply doesn't work.  The only position you can take with the Bible is "I believe", which is most definitely not scientific.  

Any (and I mean any) other claims from the Bible or Christian religion can and will be tested.  Except for a few minor quibbles, they are all found wanting.  i.e. there is no evidence for any of it.

There is zero external evidence that the Judeans were held as slaves in Egypt.  There is zero external evidence of Solomon's temple.  There is zero external evidence of Jesus.

There is actually pretty good external evidence of Paul, which is a good thing, since your entire religion is based on him.

But I digress.  You are making claims.  We are showing those claims to be false.  You then ignore, make up stories, or move the goalpost about those claims.  Just as you do for science.  

You claimed that God is the font of all morality, yet that morality existed long before God.
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 30 2011,08:39

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2011,03:19)
(snip)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Bravo. >
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Aug. 30 2011,09:53

In many ways, I think the bible is one of the ultimate magic books.

Do good deeds: "yeah, I followed those teachings in this and this and this verse, since the bible is truth"

Do bad deeds*: "yeah, I followed those teachings in this and this and this verse, since the bible is truth"

Someone does something horrible: "yeah, he misinterpreted this and this and this verse, since the bible is truth, except when it's not. Or he's a closet atheist/muslim"

Easy stuff, really.

So, FTK, do you eat shrimps or lobster? Do you stone your kids to death if they disobey you?

Damn! We've been around this crap for years. It's getting boring...


*Please note none of the followers will ever admit to do bad deeds.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 30 2011,10:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
do you eat shrimps or lobster? Do you stone your kids to death if they disobey you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's unfair. You have to realize that absolute morality is relative to time, place and the current wind direction.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 30 2011,10:47

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 30 2011,10:25)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
do you eat shrimps or lobster? Do you stone your kids to death if they disobey you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's unfair. You have to realize that absolute morality is relative to time, place and the current wind direction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is EXACTLY the entire fucking point.

FtK eats shellfish and doesn't own slaves and can wear cotton blends because our SOCIETY and our CULTURE have decided that such things are moral or immoral.

God has nothing to do with it.  

My grandchildren will probably grow up in a society that doesn't even consider sexual orientation as anything to even think about (well mostly, there will still probably be fundamentalist Christians, even in a 100 years, brainwashing is like that).  

It's because the majority of the US society has come to accept homosexuals.  It happens simply because more of them come out and the guy you spent the last 12 years next to in your cube tells you he's been gay since he was 17.  Holy crap, he's still a real person and suddenly, you can't quite condemn homosexuals anymore (it's much funnier when that person is also a deacon at the local church).

Society and culture evolve.  Just like biological evolution.  And just like biological evolution, society and culture do NOT spring from the ground fully formed.  We have the baggage of the last several thousand years of culture and we have to adapt to our new environment.

Religions have mostly kept up.  The majority of religion unambiguously accept science (including evolution).  Some religions even accept homosexuality.  Many more 'accept the people, but not the practice'.  Of course, those same religions also don't accept ANY practice of sex outside of marriage, so that's not really a dig on homosexuality.

In 40 years, I'll be the majority of religions are fully accepting of homosexuality... if only to keep their flagging numbers up.

Societies change.  Culture changes.  What's moral and immoral changes.  Religions change.  The universe is built on change.

Then gives up people like FtK who thinks that what's good 2000 years ago is good now (except for the beating of slaves, and selling of daughters, , and sacrifice, and cannibalism, and eating shellfish, etc. etc. etc.)
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 30 2011,14:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In 40 years, I'll be the majority of religions are fully accepting of homosexuality... if only to keep their flagging numbers up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm thinking probably not.  Homosexuality is < nothing new >, and over the ages it's never led to acceptance of the practise as particularly moral.  

But, then again, maybe you're right and the tide will finally change and allow for a variety of < sexual practises > to bloom and gain acceptance.  Time will tell.

Bear in mind that my *personal* belief is that homosexuality is a choice for many, as well as a biological trait in a number of folks.  I don't accept the practise as moral, but I certainly would not reject a person who is homosexual, cause them harm, or lower myself to name calling in a derogatory manner.  Neither would I turn them away form my church.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 30 2011,14:18

Thanks for telling us homosexuality isn't new, we'd never have known. [/sarcasm]

How is consenting sex between capable adults "immoral" FTK? Why is the sex that two consenting, consenting homosexual people enjoy more/less/differently moral than the sex that two consenting, consenting homosexual people enjoy?

Louis

Edit: Homosexuality =/= paedophilia. Nor is it anything like it. Thank you for your concern, your homophobia and hatred has been noted, pathetic, transparent false protestations to the contrary.
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 30 2011,14:18

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,12:14)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In 40 years, I'll be the majority of religions are fully accepting of homosexuality... if only to keep their flagging numbers up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm thinking probably not.  Homosexuality is < nothing new >, and over the ages it's never led to acceptance of the practise as particularly moral.  

But, then again, maybe you're right and the tide will finally change and allow for a variety of < sexual practises > to bloom and gain acceptance.  Time will tell.

Bear in mind that my *personal* belief is that homosexuality is a choice for many, as well as a biological trait in a number of folks.  I don't accept the practise as moral, but I certainly would not reject a person who is homosexual, cause them harm, or lower myself to name calling in a derogatory manner.  Neither would I turn them away form my church.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK's great-great-great granny, 1800:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Slavery is nothing new, and over the ages it's never led to condemnation of the practise as particularly immoral.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 30 2011,14:31

Louis, just out of mild curiosity, where have I ever spoken of personal hatred or condoned hatred in regard to homosexuality?  Back up your false conclusions with some kind of proof or keep your inaccurate thoughts to yourself.

If we choose to hate homosexuals, treat them poorly or chase them from the churches for immorality, we'd not only lose them, but the entire congregation.  There isn't a person alive who hasn't engaged in immoral acts at some time in their lives.  That's why we're there.  Churches aren't full of saints, they are full of sinners.  Hate the acts, love the people.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 30 2011,14:34

You conveniently lose track of even recent history.

Any inclination that churches may have to accept homosexuals is a very recent thing forced on them from outside, and not something arrives at by reading scripture.
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 30 2011,14:40

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,12:31)
Louis, just out of mild curiosity, where have I ever spoken of personal hatred or condoned hatred in regard to homosexuality?  Back up your false conclusions with some kind of proof or keep your inaccurate thoughts to yourself.

If we choose to hate homosexuals, treat them poorly or chase them from the churches for immorality, we'd not only lose them, but the entire congregation.  There isn't a person alive who hasn't engaged in immoral acts at some time in their lives.  That's why we're there.  Churches aren't full of saints, they are full of sinners.  Hate the acts, love the people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well that was easy.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 30 2011,14:58

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,20:31)
Louis, just out of mild curiosity, where have I ever spoken of personal hatred or condoned hatred in regard to homosexuality?  Back up your false conclusions with some kind of proof or keep your inaccurate thoughts to yourself.

If we choose to hate homosexuals, treat them poorly or chase them from the churches for immorality, we'd not only lose them, but the entire congregation.  There isn't a person alive who hasn't engaged in immoral acts at some time in their lives.  That's why we're there.  Churches aren't full of saints, they are full of sinners.  Hate the acts, love the people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Equating homosexuality with paedophilia, or putting homosexuality on some slippery sexual slope to "other sexual practises" like paedophilia, this is an absolute expression of hatred/homophobia. You are running together the consensual acts of adult homosexuals with the sexual exploitation/abuse of non-consenting (by definition), pre-pubescent minors. Or are paedophiles "just another persecuted minority" FTK? Claiming that homosexuality between adults is of a type with sexual predation/abuse by an adult on a minor is to equate the harmless practises of consenting homosexual adults with the demonstrably harmful practises of adults perpetrating sex upon pre-pubescent minors incapable of being able to consent. You are damning by association. The two are not alike in the way you are trying to pretend they are.

Hint: you don't have to swear, shout, beat up or burn homosexuals to demonstrate your hatred of them. Simply denying them, or attempting to deny them the same civil rights you enjoy (like for example the right to adopt and marry equally under the law) because of their consensual adult sexual practises is sufficient. It's exactly what racists did/do to various ethnic groups before the various civil rights movements.

Just because you aren't Fred Phelps, it doesn't mean you're not a homophobe. Your hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty are not fooling anyone.

Louis

Edit: I notice you avoid the question in the post and substance as usual to act wounded. You're a homophobe FTK. Start with the massive beam in your own immoral eye, don't bother to pick the mote out of anyone else's.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 30 2011,15:04

find another picture please this one is burning holes in my monitor display!!!!  AAAAHHHHHHHH MUST BLEACH EYEBALLS
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 30 2011,15:33

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2011,14:58)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,20:31)
Louis, just out of mild curiosity, where have I ever spoken of personal hatred or condoned hatred in regard to homosexuality?  Back up your false conclusions with some kind of proof or keep your inaccurate thoughts to yourself.

If we choose to hate homosexuals, treat them poorly or chase them from the churches for immorality, we'd not only lose them, but the entire congregation.  There isn't a person alive who hasn't engaged in immoral acts at some time in their lives.  That's why we're there.  Churches aren't full of saints, they are full of sinners.  Hate the acts, love the people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Equating homosexuality with paedophilia, or putting homosexuality on some slippery sexual slope to "other sexual practises" like paedophilia, this is an absolute expression of hatred/homophobia. You are running together the consensual acts of adult homosexuals with the sexual exploitation/abuse of non-consenting (by definition), pre-pubescent minors. Or are paedophiles "just another persecuted minority" FTK? Claiming that homosexuality between adults is of a type with sexual predation/abuse by an adult on a minor is to equate the harmless practises of consenting homosexual adults with the demonstrably harmful practises of adults perpetrating sex upon pre-pubescent minors incapable of being able to consent. You are damning by association. The two are not alike in the way you are trying to pretend they are.

Hint: you don't have to swear, shout, beat up or burn homosexuals to demonstrate your hatred of them. Simply denying them, or attempting to deny them the same civil rights you enjoy (like for example the right to adopt and marry equally under the law) because of their consensual adult sexual practises is sufficient. It's exactly what racists did/do to various ethnic groups before the various civil rights movements.

Just because you aren't Fred Phelps, it doesn't mean you're not a homophobe. Your hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty is not fooling anyone.

Louis

Edit: I notice you avoid the question in the post and substance as usual to act wounded. You're a fucking homophobe FTK. Start with the massive beam in your own immoral eye, don't bother to pick the mote out of anyone else's.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whatever Louis.  You have no idea how I live my life or whom I associate with and how.  If we really got down to it, I probably have more homosexual friends than you do.  What I feel is far from hate for them or anyone else...you included.

Next....read the link on ancient Greece.  It wasn't a far jump from homosexuality to pedophilia.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 30 2011,15:38

Wowsers!

Hmmm - does doggy style lead to anal? Are they joined by a slippery slope?
Posted by: Robin on Aug. 30 2011,15:42

[quote=Ftk,Aug. 29 2011,14:32]
Quote (Robin @ Aug. 29 2011,13:18)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,12:19)

The problem is, FtK, that a book devoted to "moral standards" should not contain any[ morally ambiguous or relative conditions. The fact that the bible does so makes not just those odd passages suspect, but also reduces (and in many cases outright removes) the credibility of any potentially "morally instructive" passages. Why? Because such ambiguous passages create conflict with the very "morally instructive" passages themselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lots of things in life are ambiguous.  That doesn't mean we reject them outright.  We THINK them through.  Not everything in life is automatically black and white, but rather depends on discernment to make sense of the matter.

If you read through the arguments in the links I provided, you cannot suggest that those arguments must be rejected outright just because *your* sense of "morality"  and what a "god" would do in every situation won't allow it.  

Again, it's interesting that so much of Darwinian evolution is based upon the same type of rationalizing arguments, yet you *believe* you have rock solids fact.  Then you turn around and automatically reject my rationalization of scripture even though it makes logical sense to so many.  

It's ok that you believe what you do, but you can't condemn others who think differently when it's quite obvious that we are all using the same type of reasoning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So now the bible is just a non-divine, man-made, nothing-but-normal book? I mean, if you're going to compare it to "lots of things in life"...

There in lies the rub with your response - you want your cake and to eat too. Sorry, that doesn't wash. If your bible is a moral standard, it isn't "lots of things in life" - it's the one and only moral standard. And if it is this moral standard, then it can't be vague on the moral representations. That would be...wait for it...the essence of being a standard.

And of course I can reject the arguments in your links, not because of what I believe, but because they contradict the definition of a standard and yet are arguing the opposite. That's just absurdity and I reject them on that basis alone.

Oh...and there's nothing "logical" about "scripture", FtK. That's why it requires "faith" to follow it. The fact that you think there's some similarity between the approach to your belief rationalizations and evolution demonstrates you really don't have a handle on either. Pity.
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 30 2011,15:49

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,13:33)
Whatever Louis.  You have no idea how I live my life or whom I associate with and how.  If we really got down to it, I probably have more homosexual friends than you do.  What I feel is far from hate for them or anyone else...you included.

Next....read the link on ancient Greece.  It wasn't a far jump from homosexuality to pedophilia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well that settles it.  She probably has more gay friends than Louis*.  And she doesn't hate them, just their acts (which presumably means they'd be closer friends if they stopped doing Teh Gay).  Sounds positively homophilic to me.

And if you're seriously arguing** that homosexuality -> pedophilia, F: Are you familiar with the phrase "child bride"?  Were they victims of Teh Gay too?


* Data not shown

** And when I see anything this ridiculous, I can't help suspecting she's been Poe-ing us all this time.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 30 2011,15:51

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,21:33)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2011,14:58)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,20:31)
Louis, just out of mild curiosity, where have I ever spoken of personal hatred or condoned hatred in regard to homosexuality?  Back up your false conclusions with some kind of proof or keep your inaccurate thoughts to yourself.

If we choose to hate homosexuals, treat them poorly or chase them from the churches for immorality, we'd not only lose them, but the entire congregation.  There isn't a person alive who hasn't engaged in immoral acts at some time in their lives.  That's why we're there.  Churches aren't full of saints, they are full of sinners.  Hate the acts, love the people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Equating homosexuality with paedophilia, or putting homosexuality on some slippery sexual slope to "other sexual practises" like paedophilia, this is an absolute expression of hatred/homophobia. You are running together the consensual acts of adult homosexuals with the sexual exploitation/abuse of non-consenting (by definition), pre-pubescent minors. Or are paedophiles "just another persecuted minority" FTK? Claiming that homosexuality between adults is of a type with sexual predation/abuse by an adult on a minor is to equate the harmless practises of consenting homosexual adults with the demonstrably harmful practises of adults perpetrating sex upon pre-pubescent minors incapable of being able to consent. You are damning by association. The two are not alike in the way you are trying to pretend they are.

Hint: you don't have to swear, shout, beat up or burn homosexuals to demonstrate your hatred of them. Simply denying them, or attempting to deny them the same civil rights you enjoy (like for example the right to adopt and marry equally under the law) because of their consensual adult sexual practises is sufficient. It's exactly what racists did/do to various ethnic groups before the various civil rights movements.

Just because you aren't Fred Phelps, it doesn't mean you're not a homophobe. Your hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty is not fooling anyone.

Louis

Edit: I notice you avoid the question in the post and substance as usual to act wounded. You're a fucking homophobe FTK. Start with the massive beam in your own immoral eye, don't bother to pick the mote out of anyone else's.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whatever Louis.  You have no idea how I live my life or whom I associate with and how.  If we really got down to it, I probably have more homosexual friends than you do.  What I feel is far from hate for them or anyone else...you included.

Next....read the link on ancient Greece.  It wasn't a far jump from homosexuality to pedophilia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh for the love of....

1) Having homosexual "friends" (however much I doubt this in your case) does not mean you are not a homophobe.

2) I couldn't actually care less how you live your life. I am dealing with the claims you present HERE. The claims you present here are in essence (and in this instance) homophobic claims, pretty standard ones actually. You make homophobic claims, you are a homophobe. Stop making homophobic claims....

3) Some homosexuals engage in paedophilia, so do some heterosexuals. The sexuality is independent of it.

4) Believe me when I say that I am more than aware of the practises of (certain) Ancient Greek city states, I studied Classics for most of my young life and the literature of the time is not unfamiliar. You are deliberately ignoring a huge amount of societal and cultural factors in your equation of these practises with some slippery slope which conveniently reinforces your prejudices. You are trying to pretend that homosexuality leads to paedophilia AGAIN. False FTK. Sorry. If you don't believe this, then tour around Aegean sea of the times you mention and look at Sapphic worship, or the differences between Athenian and Spartan cultures. Or how homosexuality was treated in Persia. Your link, as usual misses the mark. It wasn't the simple fact of homosexuality (or its tolerance) that dictated the practises of that time and place, rather a series of (complex) cultural, tribal and historical precedents. Unlike you, I'm not trying to gainsay someone on the internet to reinforce my prejudices, so I'll let you go and do your own research. Ha, that'll happen sometime soon.

Oh and while I'm at it, learn the difference between pederasty, paedophilia and ephebephilia. It's important.

Louis
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 30 2011,16:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are trying to pretend that homosexuality leads to paedophilia AGAIN.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not sure what exactly you're alluding to in the first sentence.  If you are suggesting that I am stating that the specific acceptance of homosexuality alone will lead people to move on to pedophilia because it's in some way linked, then that is absolutely not the case I'm making.  There are many other sexually immoral acts that are not accepted that would strive for acceptance as well.  I'm throwing pedophilia out as an example.  Open the door, in other words....



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
False FTK. Sorry. If you don't believe this, then tour around Aegean sea of the times you mention and look at Sapphic worship, or the differences between Athenian and Spartan cultures. Or how homosexuality was treated in Persia. Your link, as usual misses the mark. It wasn't the simple fact of homosexuality (or its tolerance) that dictated the practises of that time and place, rather a series of (complex) cultural, tribal and historical precedents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Also find it interesting that you take into consideration "(complex) cultural, tribal and historical precedents" when discussing this issue, but when I state the same considerations when making my case that God is not immoral because of instances in ancient Israel where He commanded battle between tribes, you toss them off as not particularly relevant.
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 30 2011,16:50

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,14:16)
Also find it interesting that you take into consideration "(complex) cultural, tribal and historical precedents" when discussing this issue, but when I state the same considerations when making my case that God is not immoral because of instances in ancient Israel where He commanded battle between tribes, you toss them off as not particularly relevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We're not the ones arguing that morality is invariant and comes from God, F.
Posted by: the_ignored on Aug. 30 2011,17:04

Also, we know that those tribes didn't have any god to help take care of their needs.  You people supposedly did.  So if not, why didn't he help them out to provide resources to help take care of say, the infants of the people their "god" told them to kill.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 30 2011,17:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
because of instances in ancient Israel where He commanded battle between tribes...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



= genocide.

Men, women, children dogs, cats, baby bunnies, human fetuses, the whole nine yards.

Not because the Israelites had been wronged, or because they owned the real estate and had it stolen from them, but because they wanted it.

Like fucking bank robbers who rob banks because that's where the money is.

Now this was probably rather common at the time. people don't build walled cities because they admire the architecture.

The modern crime is to claim that this was actually ordered by god. Even worse, as some at UD claim, nothing is right or wrong until god says so.

So not only is "absolute" morality dependent on the changing and unpredictable whims of god, but it is dependent on the word of warlords and priests telling us what today's god talking points are.

And we know generals and  priests wouldn't ever lie.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Aug. 30 2011,17:19

Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 30 2011,16:50)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,14:16)
Also find it interesting that you take into consideration "(complex) cultural, tribal and historical precedents" when discussing this issue, but when I state the same considerations when making my case that God is not immoral because of instances in ancient Israel where He commanded battle between tribes, you toss them off as not particularly relevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We're not the ones arguing that morality is invariant and comes from God, F.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you see, poor Yahweh was a product of the culture that raised Him.  His parents taught him to keep slaves and order his creations to commit genocide.  It's society's fault.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Aug. 30 2011,17:44

Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 31 2011,08:19)
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 30 2011,16:50)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,14:16)
Also find it interesting that you take into consideration "(complex) cultural, tribal and historical precedents" when discussing this issue, but when I state the same considerations when making my case that God is not immoral because of instances in ancient Israel where He commanded battle between tribes, you toss them off as not particularly relevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We're not the ones arguing that morality is invariant and comes from God, F.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you see, poor Yahweh was a product of the culture that raised Him.  His parents taught him to keep slaves and order his creations to commit genocide.  It's society's fault.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly, the Jews were behaving pretty much the way everybody else was behaving at the time. King David was a cross between a Mafia boss and a mercenary.
You'd think if they were his chosen people, Yaweh would have at least taught them at least one thing that wasn't known by anybody else at the time.
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 30 2011,18:11

Quote (MichaelJ @ Aug. 30 2011,15:44)
You'd think if they were his chosen people, Yaweh would have at least taught them at least one thing that wasn't known by anybody else at the time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, he did tell them there'd been a global flood.  It came and went without anyone else even noticing.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 30 2011,18:54

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,22:16)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are trying to pretend that homosexuality leads to paedophilia AGAIN.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not sure what exactly you're alluding to in the first sentence.  If you are suggesting that I am stating that the specific acceptance of homosexuality alone will lead people to move on to pedophilia because it's in some way linked, then that is absolutely not the case I'm making.  There are many other sexually immoral acts that are not accepted that would strive for acceptance as well.  I'm throwing pedophilia out as an example.  Open the door, in other words....

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
False FTK. Sorry. If you don't believe this, then tour around Aegean sea of the times you mention and look at Sapphic worship, or the differences between Athenian and Spartan cultures. Or how homosexuality was treated in Persia. Your link, as usual misses the mark. It wasn't the simple fact of homosexuality (or its tolerance) that dictated the practises of that time and place, rather a series of (complex) cultural, tribal and historical precedents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Also find it interesting that you take into consideration "(complex) cultural, tribal and historical precedents" when discussing this issue, but when I state the same considerations when making my case that God is not immoral because of instances in ancient Israel where He commanded battle between tribes, you toss them off as not particularly relevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) Oh dear sainted trousers of Bunsen the Blessed. FTK you contradict yourself in one paragraph!

This:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you are suggesting that I am stating that the specific acceptance of homosexuality alone will lead people to move on to pedophilia because it's in some way linked, then that is absolutely not the case I'm making.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is contradicted by this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm throwing pedophilia out as an example.  Open the door, in other words....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are absolutely saying that IF we "open the door" to homosexuality (a sexually immoral act by your claim, as yet unproven, question evaded AGAIN), THEN this would lead to "opening the door" to "other sexually immoral acts" like paedophilia. This is not only untrue, it's logically fallacious (slippery slopes and all). But I digress.

This is an explicit claim by you that the acceptance of homosexuality leads to an acceptance of paedophilia. AGAIN.

You're also confusing both claims "acceptance of X leads to Y" and "X leads to Y". You're making two shitty arguments and switching between them as necessary.

As for snipping a line of mine out of context FTK, nice try, no dice. Read back, look at (for example) the post before it where I said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Equating homosexuality with paedophilia, or putting homosexuality on some slippery sexual slope to "other sexual practises" like paedophilia, this is an absolute expression of hatred/homophobia. You are running together the consensual acts of adult homosexuals with the sexual exploitation/abuse of non-consenting (by definition), pre-pubescent minors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not sure what I'm alluding to? Are you actually serious? How can I be more explicit with you short of tattooing this to your face or perhaps flying a plane with a banner around your house.

2) Don't accuse ME of what OTHER people are doing. I haven't made any claim regarding the morality of your fictional deity. Nor have I claimed anything like culture being irrelevant to the conglomeration of illiterate Bronze Age sheepherder scribblings you venerate.

Au contraire, I happen to think the culture of the age is incredibly relevant, and interestingly one of the main reasons why your tawdry tome is so utterly IRRELEVANT today as anything resembling a major source of moral/ethical enlightenment. It is precisely a product of its times, FTK. THAT is the problem. Times, ethics, and morals have changed precisely because they are fluid and not fixed as you are attempting to claim.

Does it hurt when you metaphorically punch yourself in the face this much? Seriously, with enemies like you I have no need of friends.

Louis
Posted by: Badger3k on Aug. 30 2011,19:05

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,22:21)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bullshit.  Ever read the Illiad?  The Oddesy?  The moral lessons in the Greek myths?   How about the viking myths?  No?  I'm not surprised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quite familiar with all.  Forgot to add < this link earlier >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Carm?  Carm?  Seriously?  The earlier link to the tortured apologetics that redefined slavery was bad enough, but this...wow.  Carm is up there with AIG in terms of reality (hint - they ain't near it).  Why not link to some serious scholarship - you know, people who are interested in the truth, rather than making the facts fit their beliefs?

Oh, yeah.  I forgot.
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 30 2011,19:17

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2011,16:54)
Not sure what I'm alluding to? Are you actually serious? How can I be more explicit with you short of tattooing this to your face or perhaps flying a plane with a banner around your house.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oooooh!

How much of a whip-round do you suppose we'd need to make this happen?
Posted by: Badger3k on Aug. 30 2011,19:19

Quote (MichaelJ @ Aug. 30 2011,17:44)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 31 2011,08:19)
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 30 2011,16:50)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,14:16)
Also find it interesting that you take into consideration "(complex) cultural, tribal and historical precedents" when discussing this issue, but when I state the same considerations when making my case that God is not immoral because of instances in ancient Israel where He commanded battle between tribes, you toss them off as not particularly relevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We're not the ones arguing that morality is invariant and comes from God, F.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you see, poor Yahweh was a product of the culture that raised Him.  His parents taught him to keep slaves and order his creations to commit genocide.  It's society's fault.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly, the Jews were behaving pretty much the way everybody else was behaving at the time. King David was a cross between a Mafia boss and a mercenary.
You'd think if they were his chosen people, Yaweh would have at least taught them at least one thing that wasn't known by anybody else at the time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But, Yahweh had to act that way (and command those acts) because he had to be able to act differently when Jesus came, so that people would know the real way...

seriously, I have heard this one.  Usually it is followed by the argument that YHVH couldn't do it earlier, that people weren't ready to accept Jesus yet (why not, weren't they taught the right way...ooops), or some similar rationalization.

re: morals written out in texts - of course, FTK ignores the corpus of Greek (as mentioned above), Egyptian, Sumerian (etc - Babylonian, Persian, Hittite, Ugaritic, etc), as well as all of the Eastern lands -Hindu and Buddhist texts (and philosophical schools), all the Chinese works, etc.  Claiming that the Bible, which utilizes similar themes found the world over, as the preeminent book of moral teachings is ludicrous (except for using it as a guide of what not to do).
Posted by: Badger3k on Aug. 30 2011,19:24

Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 30 2011,18:11)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Aug. 30 2011,15:44)
You'd think if they were his chosen people, Yaweh would have at least taught them at least one thing that wasn't known by anybody else at the time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, he did tell them there'd been a global flood.  It came and went without anyone else even noticing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that why the Egyptians built their pyramids while they were drowning in the Flood (and conveniently forgot to record it) - Yahweh didn't tell them it happened?
Posted by: Badger3k on Aug. 30 2011,19:28

Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 30 2011,19:17)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2011,16:54)
Not sure what I'm alluding to? Are you actually serious? How can I be more explicit with you short of tattooing this to your face or perhaps flying a plane with a banner around your house.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oooooh!

How much of a whip-round do you suppose we'd need to make this happen?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We could pass the collection plate... :D
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 30 2011,19:31

Do you have more homosexual friends than I do, FTK?  And does that matter?

Once again you prove that you are completely incapable of analyzing a single thought, yours or anyone else's.  That you think you are a tolerant person in no way makes you a tolerant person.

You will know them by their acts....

Come on, luv, simple stuff.
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 30 2011,23:54

Quote (Badger3k @ Aug. 30 2011,19:28)
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 30 2011,19:17)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2011,16:54)
Not sure what I'm alluding to? Are you actually serious? How can I be more explicit with you short of tattooing this to your face or perhaps flying a plane with a banner around your house.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oooooh!

How much of a whip-round do you suppose we'd need to make this happen?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We could pass the collection plate... :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll volunteer to deliver the banner; it's not out of my way.
Posted by: Quack on Aug. 31 2011,02:56

Isn't the history of Israel the history of semitic tribes/clans/families; nomads without a land to call their own, banding together as conquistadors, with a priesthood creating the appropriate myths?
Posted by: MichaelJ on Aug. 31 2011,07:10

Quote (Badger3k @ Aug. 31 2011,10:05)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,22:21)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bullshit.  Ever read the Illiad?  The Oddesy?  The moral lessons in the Greek myths?   How about the viking myths?  No?  I'm not surprised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quite familiar with all.  Forgot to add < this link earlier >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Carm?  Carm?  Seriously?  The earlier link to the tortured apologetics that redefined slavery was bad enough, but this...wow.  Carm is up there with AIG in terms of reality (hint - they ain't near it).  Why not link to some serious scholarship - you know, people who are interested in the truth, rather than making the facts fit their beliefs?

Oh, yeah.  I forgot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow I actually read that. What dishonest piece of wombat pooh.
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 31 2011,07:26

Quote (MichaelJ @ Aug. 31 2011,07:10)
Quote (Badger3k @ Aug. 31 2011,10:05)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,22:21)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bullshit.  Ever read the Illiad?  The Oddesy?  The moral lessons in the Greek myths?   How about the viking myths?  No?  I'm not surprised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quite familiar with all.  Forgot to add < this link earlier >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Carm?  Carm?  Seriously?  The earlier link to the tortured apologetics that redefined slavery was bad enough, but this...wow.  Carm is up there with AIG in terms of reality (hint - they ain't near it).  Why not link to some serious scholarship - you know, people who are interested in the truth, rather than making the facts fit their beliefs?

Oh, yeah.  I forgot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow I actually read that. What dishonest piece of wombat pooh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please provide evidence that the information in that link is incorrect.  I didn't originally find that at CARM.  It's standard knowledge.  CARM came up first in my search.  

Please provide evidence that it's a "dishonest piece of wombat pooh", or retract.  Thank you.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 31 2011,07:50

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 31 2011,13:26)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Aug. 31 2011,07:10)
Quote (Badger3k @ Aug. 31 2011,10:05)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,22:21)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bullshit.  Ever read the Illiad?  The Oddesy?  The moral lessons in the Greek myths?   How about the viking myths?  No?  I'm not surprised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quite familiar with all.  Forgot to add < this link earlier >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Carm?  Carm?  Seriously?  The earlier link to the tortured apologetics that redefined slavery was bad enough, but this...wow.  Carm is up there with AIG in terms of reality (hint - they ain't near it).  Why not link to some serious scholarship - you know, people who are interested in the truth, rather than making the facts fit their beliefs?

Oh, yeah.  I forgot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow I actually read that. What dishonest piece of wombat pooh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please provide evidence that the information in that link is incorrect.  I didn't originally find that at CARM.  It's standard knowledge.  CARM came up first in my search.  

Please provide evidence that it's a "dishonest piece of wombat pooh", or retract.  Thank you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<Announcement on the PA>

It's Wednesday, it's lunchtime, it's time for mockery!

</Announcement on the PA>

Awwwwwww isn't it cute when she imitates people with brains? Goooood fundy. Have a biscuit.

Now, who's up for seeing if she can be made to learn more complex tricks like "reading for basic comprehension", "internally consistent reasoning" and "intellectual honesty".

Louis

P.S. But seriously...standard knowledge? WTFROFLMAOBBQ and so on and so forth. I would point out that you appear to be using very different versions of "standard" and "knowledge" from what anyone with even a basic education would understand by those words. You wouldn't be, you know, frenetically googling nonsense to back up your prejudices now would you? No no. How churlish of me to even suggest it! Naughty naughty Louis etc. I'm off for my spanking.

P.P.S. Serious face: Familiarise yourself with the work of Hector Avalos, FTK. Just as a staring point. You may be amazed how nice he is.
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 31 2011,08:23

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2011,07:50)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 31 2011,13:26)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Aug. 31 2011,07:10)
 
Quote (Badger3k @ Aug. 31 2011,10:05)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,22:21)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bullshit.  Ever read the Illiad?  The Oddesy?  The moral lessons in the Greek myths?   How about the viking myths?  No?  I'm not surprised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quite familiar with all.  Forgot to add < this link earlier >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Carm?  Carm?  Seriously?  The earlier link to the tortured apologetics that redefined slavery was bad enough, but this...wow.  Carm is up there with AIG in terms of reality (hint - they ain't near it).  Why not link to some serious scholarship - you know, people who are interested in the truth, rather than making the facts fit their beliefs?

Oh, yeah.  I forgot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow I actually read that. What dishonest piece of wombat pooh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please provide evidence that the information in that link is incorrect.  I didn't originally find that at CARM.  It's standard knowledge.  CARM came up first in my search.  

Please provide evidence that it's a "dishonest piece of wombat pooh", or retract.  Thank you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<Announcement on the PA>

It's Wednesday, it's lunchtime, it's time for mockery!

</Announcement on the PA>

Awwwwwww isn't it cute when she imitates people with brains? Goooood fundy. Have a biscuit.

Now, who's up for seeing if she can be made to learn more complex tricks like "reading for basic comprehension", "internally consistent reasoning" and "intellectual honesty".

Louis

P.S. But seriously...standard knowledge? WTFROFLMAOBBQ and so on and so forth. I would point out that you appear to be using very different versions of "standard" and "knowledge" from what anyone with even a basic education would understand by those words. You wouldn't be, you know, frenetically googling nonsense to back up your prejudices now would you? No no. How churlish of me to even suggest it! Naughty naughty Louis etc. I'm off for my spanking.

P.P.S. Serious face: Familiarise yourself with the work of Hector Avalos, FTK. Just as a staring point. You may be amazed how nice he is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm quite familiar with Hector.  Got a hold of one of his books a year or so ago.  He also visited my blog for a short time.  He can't refute the link I provided from CARM, as it's standard knowledge as I stated.

Find something I don't know about refuting it.  I'd be interested.  Thanks.
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 31 2011,08:41

I wonder how many copies of Danielle Steele's novels are around. I bet they all agree with each other too.

Yawn.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 31 2011,08:50

OK, FtK, let's go



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics.  But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh but wait, there's a major difference between the documents in these two sentences.  Can you guess what it is?

Hint: The new Testament is listed as a book, while the others are listed as authors.

Why don't you tell us all who wrote the Gospel According to John?  Oh wait, you can't because no one has a clue.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really, so Egyptian hieroglyphics should be even more reliable than biblical manuscripts.  There are certainly more of them and they are carved in stone, not wimpy ass papyrus.  Oh, and they are internally consistent too.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy... and they are very consistent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There's another massively wrong statement (actually two) right there.

They COULD be cross-checked for accuracy.  But no one has successfully done so.  The books of the New Testament cannot be corroborated with other historical documents of the time.

While it is impossible to corroborate much of the things that happened because no one kept track of Jesus of Nazareth and Matthew and Titus and all those people, the major historical figures of the time can be matched up...

and the Bible fails miserably.  For example, Pontius Pilate was a complete and utter asshole, at least according to Josephus.  He offended everyone of any religion, he brutally suppressed a Samaritan uprising, etc, etc.  That really doesn't match the kind of cowardly lion version from the gospels.  

Likewise, the Roman census and such.  Placing the census of Quirinius (Luke 2:1) at the time of Herod (Matthew 2:1, Luke 1:5) is a just stupid.  

Josephus recorded the execution of forty-two people who had staged an unsuccessful revolt against the Idumean. Josephus recorded an eclipse of the moon that occurred during the night of this execution. This allows for precise astronomical calculations which sets the date of execution as March 13th 4 BCE. Now we are told that Herod died a few days after this execution, which makes his death around the second half of March 4 BCE.  (Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p61-63)

Josephus clearly states that the census took place thirty seven years after Caesar defeated Antony at Actium, which was fought on September 2, 31 BCE (another precise dating based on astronomy) based on our present system of reckoning. This means that census under Quirinius took place in the year AD6. We also know, from Roman sources, that Quirinius was legate (or governor) of Syria between Volusius Saturninus and Caecilius Creticus Silonus, which makes his tenure last for six years, from 6 to 12 CE. These dates are therefore consistent with Josephus' reckoning. (Guignebert, Jesus: p97-100)

So, within the New Testament there are massive contradictions with all other recorded history.  Yes, there are things that are correct.  Herod and Pilate did exist and they were in the positions claimed at the time.

This does NOT automatically make everything in the Bible 100% correct (as shown above).

Further: < http://www.infidels.org/library....ns.html >

This covers a huge list of contradictions ranging from simply who is Joseph's father to the simple FACT that Jesus (by God's previous decree) cannot be the messiah (Jesus is a 10th generation Moabite, who are forbidden to enter the temple by God).

I could go on and on.

In the first paragraph of your 'source' I found two major, fundamental errors (consistency and external accuracy) and a host of claims that don't mean a hill of beans to the accuracy of the New Testament.  We also see several fallacious arguments regarding this.

Hey FtK, if a million lemmings jumped off the bridge, would you do it to?  L. Ron Hubbards Dianetics has sold millions of copies, does that make it as accurate as the Bible?

Of course not, argument by numbers... same as the argument of the number of manuscripts of the New Testament.  If there was only ONE copy extant, but it is could be corroborated with other historical documents, then it would be more accurate than 5600 copies of documents that cannot be corroborated with other historical documents.

There you go.  I have little hope for the rest of the article, given the huge problems with the first paragraph.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 31 2011,09:55

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 31 2011,14:23)
[SNIP]

I'm quite familiar with Hector.  Got a hold of one of his books a year or so ago.  He also visited my blog for a short time.  He can't refute the link I provided from CARM, as it's standard knowledge as I stated.

Find something I don't know about refuting it.  I'd be interested.  Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? Ah well you a) are bloviating as per usual you can't understand your own claims, let alone Avalos' ones I'm willing to bet, b) want us to do your homework for you as per usual (and Ogre has kindly started, enjoy!) and c) are ignoring the questions asked of your earlier in order to merrily Gish Gallop away to comfort zones about magic books.

If you haven't, by now, learned about the internal contradictions of the bible, why on earth would you listen to my repeating the work of relevant scholars on the matter? You don't listen or try to understand when it comes other, more scientific, topics (pause for your excuses to flood in) or even try to engage honestly, and they're far closer to my actual area of expertise. For the love of all that's pink and fluffy you can't even reason adequately. The stuff on CARM isn't even relevant to your claims, even if it IS true. You're arguing at the level of "Harry Potter mentions King's Cross Station. Kings Cross Station is real, therefore wizards are real".

Louis
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 31 2011,11:11

To Louis's point, and my earlier point, and the points of oldman, ogre, hermagoras, zachriel, and many others:

Ftk, now would be a good time to pick one (perhaps 2) of ogre's points from above and make a counter-argument.  As you have demonstrated an complete lack of understanding of these things, I'll help.

You could start with hieroglyphics.  Your claim, quoted by Ogre was that the NT is better preserved than any other ancient writings.  He countered this with the example of hieroglyphics.  You would need to address his specific concern and counter it with a relevant argument: there aren't that many hieroglyphics, hieroglyphics aren't well preserved, or even better, something that was true.

You should not ignore his entire post and then ramble about something unrelated.

Good luck.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 31 2011,11:19

Quote (blipey @ Aug. 31 2011,17:11)
To Louis's point, and my earlier point, and the points of oldman, ogre, hermagoras, zachriel, and many others:

Ftk, now would be a good time to pick one (perhaps 2) of ogre's points from above and make a counter-argument.  As you have demonstrated an complete lack of understanding of these things, I'll help.

You could start with hieroglyphics.  Your claim, quoted by Ogre was that the NT is better preserved than any other ancient writings.  He countered this with the example of hieroglyphics.  You would need to address his specific concern and counter it with a relevant argument: there aren't that many hieroglyphics, hieroglyphics aren't well preserved, or even better, something that was true.

You should not ignore his entire post and then ramble about something unrelated.

Good luck.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Blipey! Why on earth would she do that? That would be an attempt at genuine intellectual endeavour and we all know that's not happening. After all who knows where that might take her?*

Louis

*Folsom Street Fair?** "Oh it's disgusting! It's perverted! Do it again!" {clutch pearls clutch pearls}.

**Because we all know that understanding, say, evolutionary biology, means that you will tolerate gays, then accept them, then become gay, and then it's a slippery slope from there to molesting kids and marrying horses.***

***Isn't FTK from the more rural areas of the USA where (if certain {cough} "reliable" news publications are to be believed) this happens all the time?
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 31 2011,11:38

Well, to be sure, Eastern Central Kansas is not a place one would like to be stuck forever, I should not totally vilify it* as I live a mere one hour drive away**.

*but I will

**albeit in Missouri, and an urban area where we only marry horses*** occasionally

***and only those of us who don't know**** that horses are one of 7 acceptable meats as revealed by Xenu

****is Scientology wrong?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 31 2011,11:40

Quote (blipey @ Aug. 31 2011,11:11)
To Louis's point, and my earlier point, and the points of oldman, ogre, hermagoras, zachriel, and many others:

Ftk, now would be a good time to pick one (perhaps 2) of ogre's points from above and make a counter-argument.  As you have demonstrated an complete lack of understanding of these things, I'll help.

You could start with hieroglyphics.  Your claim, quoted by Ogre was that the NT is better preserved than any other ancient writings.  He countered this with the example of hieroglyphics.  You would need to address his specific concern and counter it with a relevant argument: there aren't that many hieroglyphics, hieroglyphics aren't well preserved, or even better, something that was true.

You should not ignore his entire post and then ramble about something unrelated.

Good luck.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's an excellent idea Blipey.

You claimed that no one could refute your linked to article.  I refuted the main point in about 4 paragraphs, with references.

It is now up to you to support your side of the article's arguments.  You can provide source (summarize please, not just links) that support the contentions of the article.

To summarize, here are the main points of the article and the points that I refuted, pick one or two and let's go.

1) Numbers of extant copies of ancient works are meaningful to verifying accuracy and validity (I claim, using an example and logic that this is not so).

2) The Bible is internally consistent (I claim, using examples and a link to many, many more that this is not so).

3) The Bible is corroborated by other historical documents (I claim that this is partially true, in that some things can be corroborated, but the majority (especially the major points) cannot and, indeed, are refuted by historical documents, examples and references given.)

Your turn.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Aug. 31 2011,11:50

My favorite insult in ancient Egyptian:

Snefo n srente n hooni.

Lit: Baboon's dick hair!

I used to be a hierogramat, in my younger days...
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 31 2011,11:56

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 31 2011,11:50)
My favorite insult in ancient Egyptian:

Snefo n srente n hooni.

Lit: Baboon's dick hair!

I used to be a hierogramat, in my younger days...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you tell me you have a medical degree in neuroscience, I'm going to start calling you "Bukaroo"... and politely ask for a ride in the jet car.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Aug. 31 2011,11:58

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 31 2011,17:56)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 31 2011,11:50)
My favorite insult in ancient Egyptian:

Snefo n srente n hooni.

Lit: Baboon's dick hair!

I used to be a hierogramat, in my younger days...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you tell me you have a medical degree in neuroscience, I'm going to start calling you "Bukaroo"... and politely ask for a ride in the jet car.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bwahahaha!!!

Buckaroo FTW!
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 31 2011,12:03

Quote (blipey @ Aug. 31 2011,17:38)
Well, to be sure, Eastern Central Kansas is not a place one would like to be stuck forever, I should not totally vilify it* as I live a mere one hour drive away**.

*but I will

**albeit in Missouri, and an urban area where we only marry horses*** occasionally

***and only those of us who don't know**** that horses are one of 7 acceptable meats as revealed by Xenu

****is Scientology wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


***** A triumph (The Daily Mash)

Louis
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 31 2011,12:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually not a scrap of any original manuscript exists (or is known to exist).

I could be wrong, but I believe the oldest manuscript dealing with Jesus is the Gospel of Thomas, which is Gnostic in tone.

Perhaps god preserved it so we would know it is the most reliable history of Jesus.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 31 2011,13:10

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 31 2011,12:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually not a scrap of any original manuscript exists (or is known to exist).

I could be wrong, but I believe the oldest manuscript dealing with Jesus is the Gospel of Thomas, which is Gnostic in tone.

Perhaps god preserved it so we would know it is the most reliable history of Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apologists: old = original

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting (because the fundies won't even discuss) the whole concept of the gnostics and the mysteries.

Oh man, what Paul did to the religion of Jesus.
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 31 2011,13:36

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 31 2011,13:10)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 31 2011,12:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually not a scrap of any original manuscript exists (or is known to exist).

I could be wrong, but I believe the oldest manuscript dealing with Jesus is the Gospel of Thomas, which is Gnostic in tone.

Perhaps god preserved it so we would know it is the most reliable history of Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apologists: old = original

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting (because the fundies won't even discuss) the whole concept of the gnostics and the mysteries.

Oh man, what Paul did to the religion of Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"old = original"

Strawman.  That is not stated at all.  If you read it thoroughly, it states specifically why the Bible is the most reliable manuscript of antiquity.  It says nothing about whether we have the original works...we don't, and no one claims to.  But, we have *very* old fragments to base our claims of reliability upon.  

It also proves how accurately the documents have been copied throughout generations.  Also, if you had destroyed all of the Bible.  The early Christian church fathers combined have quoted it almost in it's entirety.  Just another interesting tidbit.  

The significance of the dates on the chart are worth note.

Read for content and meaning rather than throw up something that is not mentioned and act as if that is what is being claimed.
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 31 2011,13:41

In regard to gnostic writings, please bear in mind the late dates that most of those were written in comparison to the books that were included in scripture.

Also, back to the early church fathers.  Certain books were not accepted for good reason...some didn't even yet exist...others obviously were in total contrast to what 1st hand witnesses attested to in their writings.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Aug. 31 2011,13:45

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 31 2011,13:36)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 31 2011,13:10)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 31 2011,12:46)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually not a scrap of any original manuscript exists (or is known to exist).

I could be wrong, but I believe the oldest manuscript dealing with Jesus is the Gospel of Thomas, which is Gnostic in tone.

Perhaps god preserved it so we would know it is the most reliable history of Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apologists: old = original

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting (because the fundies won't even discuss) the whole concept of the gnostics and the mysteries.

Oh man, what Paul did to the religion of Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"old = original"

Strawman.  That is not stated at all.  If you read it thoroughly, it states specifically why the Bible is the most reliable manuscript of antiquity.  It says nothing about whether we have the original works...we don't, and no one claims to.  But, we have *very* old fragments to base our claims of reliability upon.  

It also proves how accurately the documents have been copied throughout generations.  Also, if you had destroyed all of the Bible.  The early Christian church fathers combined have quoted it almost in it's entirety.  Just another interesting tidbit.  

The significance of the dates on the chart are worth note.

Read for content and meaning rather than throw up something that is not mentioned and act as if that is what is being claimed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Curious. How old do you think the Earth is and why?
How old do you think the Universe is and why?
Just asking.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 31 2011,13:48

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 31 2011,13:36)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 31 2011,13:10)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 31 2011,12:46)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually not a scrap of any original manuscript exists (or is known to exist).

I could be wrong, but I believe the oldest manuscript dealing with Jesus is the Gospel of Thomas, which is Gnostic in tone.

Perhaps god preserved it so we would know it is the most reliable history of Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apologists: old = original

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting (because the fundies won't even discuss) the whole concept of the gnostics and the mysteries.

Oh man, what Paul did to the religion of Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"old = original"

Strawman.  That is not stated at all.  If you read it thoroughly, it states specifically why the Bible is the most reliable manuscript of antiquity.  It says nothing about whether we have the original works...we don't, and no one claims to.  But, we have *very* old fragments to base our claims of reliability upon.  

It also proves how accurately the documents have been copied throughout generations.  Also, if you had destroyed all of the Bible.  The early Christian church fathers combined have quoted it almost in it's entirety.  Just another interesting tidbit.  

The significance of the dates on the chart are worth note.

Read for content and meaning rather than throw up something that is not mentioned and act as if that is what is being claimed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was not talking to you about the 'old = original'.

I do, however, note your complete disregard for any of the points I made.

You have failed to show how 'many copies' (whether orally memorized or written) = 'accurate and correct'.

It does not.  

You have failed to show how the New Testament (as claimed in the article you quoted) is corroborated in any meaningful way by other historical documents.  In fact, the New Testament is specifically disputed by the majority of historical documents.  heck, the simple fact that Egyptian (and Sumerian and Chinese) writing exists before, during, and after the flood handily negates that.

You have failed to show any how the New Testament can be internally consistent when it is not.  There's a list of at least 100 internal contradictions, any time you want to start on them.

The best argument I have heard about all of this is from apologists (like yourself) who claim that some parts of the Bible are literal and some parts are not.  I have yet to hear anyone state how they can tell.

You made claims (well, you linked to someone who made claims) that were so easily refuted, it's surprising that you haven't heard the refutations.  Though I guess if you ignore anyone who says stuff you don't agree with it gets easier.

I'll take from this that you cannot refute any of my claims.  Now run along, I'm sure Bible study is coming up and you wouldn't want any real facts to get in the way of your study of myth.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 31 2011,13:50

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 31 2011,13:41)
In regard to gnostic writings, please bear in mind the late dates that most of those were written in comparison to the books that were included in scripture.

Also, back to the early church fathers.  Certain books were not accepted for good reason...some didn't even yet exist...others obviously were in total contrast to what 1st hand witnesses attested to in their writings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name one first hand witness of Jesus that can be shown to have written a book of the Bible (any Bible).
Posted by: Ftk on Aug. 31 2011,14:42

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 31 2011,13:50)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 31 2011,13:41)
In regard to gnostic writings, please bear in mind the late dates that most of those were written in comparison to the books that were included in scripture.

Also, back to the early church fathers.  Certain books were not accepted for good reason...some didn't even yet exist...others obviously were in total contrast to what 1st hand witnesses attested to in their writings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name one first hand witness of Jesus that can be shown to have written a book of the Bible (any Bible).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Plenty evidence of that, but I'm sure you've read it all, as you seem to think you're a theologian.  I'm not offering anymore links...find them yourselves.  Most refuse to read and those who do scan and throw up strawmen.  

Then again, anything you read that supports early writers and witnesses, you'll wave off as incorrect even if you have no solid evidence to refute the fact.  Get into the early church father's.  Eye opener.  

Carry on....
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Aug. 31 2011,14:50

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 31 2011,20:42)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 31 2011,13:50)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 31 2011,13:41)
In regard to gnostic writings, please bear in mind the late dates that most of those were written in comparison to the books that were included in scripture.

Also, back to the early church fathers.  Certain books were not accepted for good reason...some didn't even yet exist...others obviously were in total contrast to what 1st hand witnesses attested to in their writings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name one first hand witness of Jesus that can be shown to have written a book of the Bible (any Bible).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Plenty evidence of that, but I'm sure you've read it all, as you seem to think you're a theologian.  I'm not offering anymore links...find them yourselves.  Most refuse to read and those who do scan and throw up strawmen.  

Then again, anything you read that supports early writers and witnesses, you'll wave off as incorrect even if you have no solid evidence to refute the fact.  Get into the early church father's.  Eye opener.  

Carry on....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just flounce already!

there is not a SINGLE scripture attributed to a first hand eyewitness of the events regarding the J man.

Ever heard of the Q document?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 31 2011,15:04

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 31 2011,14:42)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 31 2011,13:50)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 31 2011,13:41)
In regard to gnostic writings, please bear in mind the late dates that most of those were written in comparison to the books that were included in scripture.

Also, back to the early church fathers.  Certain books were not accepted for good reason...some didn't even yet exist...others obviously were in total contrast to what 1st hand witnesses attested to in their writings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name one first hand witness of Jesus that can be shown to have written a book of the Bible (any Bible).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Plenty evidence of that, but I'm sure you've read it all, as you seem to think you're a theologian.  I'm not offering anymore links...find them yourselves.  Most refuse to read and those who do scan and throw up strawmen.  

Then again, anything you read that supports early writers and witnesses, you'll wave off as incorrect even if you have no solid evidence to refute the fact.  Get into the early church father's.  Eye opener.  

Carry on....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fail... again... or is it still?

You say there is much evidence of this.  Name one person who is a known author of a book of the New Testament who also can be shown to have known Jesus.

You claimed it, you back it up.

Of course, you can't.  We all know that.  This is how evidence works.  You make a claim (I made several) and I defended them.  You make claims and refuse to even talk about them other than 'that's obvious'.

Does that remind you of anyone around here FtK?  Hint, it's not a pro-science person.

Anyway, run along, when you decide to answer questions or actually engage in what the conversation is about, then feel free to come back.

You now have several challenges to you (all of which YOU started and all of which YOU are running away from) feel free to start catching up.
Posted by: blipey on Aug. 31 2011,15:21

Ooooh!  Which hieroglyphics did Ftk discuss while she breezed through?

Which counterpoints to her arguments did she mention (notice I said mention and not refute, I want to start off slow enough that Ftk can follow)?

Eagerly awaiting evidence.

Side note:  Ftk, how is it that you can behave this way and truly believe that you are involved in a discussion?  Are you mentally ill?
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 31 2011,21:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ooooh!??Which hieroglyphics did Ftk discuss while she breezed through?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And were they written in stone?

Henry
Posted by: MichaelJ on Sep. 01 2011,00:48

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 31 2011,22:26)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Aug. 31 2011,07:10)
Quote (Badger3k @ Aug. 31 2011,10:05)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,22:21)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bullshit.  Ever read the Illiad?  The Oddesy?  The moral lessons in the Greek myths?   How about the viking myths?  No?  I'm not surprised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quite familiar with all.  Forgot to add < this link earlier >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Carm?  Carm?  Seriously?  The earlier link to the tortured apologetics that redefined slavery was bad enough, but this...wow.  Carm is up there with AIG in terms of reality (hint - they ain't near it).  Why not link to some serious scholarship - you know, people who are interested in the truth, rather than making the facts fit their beliefs?

Oh, yeah.  I forgot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow I actually read that. What dishonest piece of wombat pooh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please provide evidence that the information in that link is incorrect.  I didn't originally find that at CARM.  It's standard knowledge.  CARM came up first in my search.  

Please provide evidence that it's a "dishonest piece of wombat pooh", or retract.  Thank you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dishonest because they are inferring that we have the bible in the second century where only a couple of scraps have been found. For the comparison documents only the near full versions are counted where earlier scraps and references abound for them.

Is that dishonest enough? I notice that you keep talking about the Church fathers. What is the evidence for these guys? Most of what the Church fathers said come  to us from Eusibus in the fourth century. Writer comtemporary to Eusibus say that he had a huge political axe to grind. How much about the "First Fathers" did he make up to suit his needs.
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 01 2011,02:16

I would like to draw attention to "The Jesus Mysteries" by Peter Gandy and Timothy Freke. I have read it many times and have also read the extensive notes section as well as the list of literature references.

One may disagree with the authors on the conclusions they draw but we nevertheless - unless we have sold out to the Bible - may want to reconsider some of our thoughts on the origins and the content of the NT.

I quote from the first page:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Unthinkable Thought

Jesus said, "It is to those who are worthy of my Mysteries that I tell my Mysteries."

The Gospel of Thomas

On the site where the Vatican now stands there once stood a Pagan temple. Here Pagan priests observed sacred ceremonies, which early Christians found so disturbing that they tried to erase all evidence of them ever having been practiced. What were these shocking Pagan rites? Gruesome sacrifices or obscene orgies perhaps? This is what we have been led to believe. But the truth is far stranger than this fiction.
Where today the gathered faithful revere their Lord Jesus Christ, the ancients worshiped another godman who, like Jesus, had been miraculously born on December 25 before three shepherds. In this ancient sanctuary Pagan congregations once glorified a Pagan redeemer who, like Jesus, was said to have ascended to heaven and to have promised to come again at the end of time to judge the quick and the dead. On the same spot where the Pope celebrates the Catholic mass, Pagan priests also celebrated a symbolic meal of bread and wine in memory of their savior who, just like Jesus, had declared:

He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In "The Gnostic Gospels", Elaine Pagels argue:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is the winners who write history-their way. No wonder, then, that the traditional accounts of the origins of Christianity first defined the terms (naming themselves "orthodox" and their opponents "heretics"); then they proceeded to demonstrate-at least to their own satisfaction-that their triumph was historically inevitable, or, in religious terms, "guided by the Holy Spirit." But the discoveries [of the Gnostic gospels] at Nag Hammadi reopen fundamental questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Quack on Sep. 01 2011,02:49

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 31 2011,13:10)

Oh man, what Paul did to the religion of Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


According to "The Jesus Mysteries",

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... scholars believe his later letters, known as "the Pastorals," are forgeries, which contradict his earlier letters.Like the letters attributed to the other disciples, they were written in the second century CE to combat internal divisions in the Church. But some of the earlier letters, while suffering from editing, additions, and the usual " cut and paste" treatment, are widely believed to have been written by Paul.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The forged letters were written to counter Gnosticism, attacking "many deceivers" who "do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh"

Paul had gained too much authority that they could get rid of him.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Sep. 01 2011,04:04

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 01 2011,08:16)
I would like to draw attention to "The Jesus Mysteries" by Peter Gandy and Timothy Freke. I have read it many times and have also read the extensive notes section as well as the list of literature references.

One may disagree with the authors on the conclusions they draw but we nevertheless - unless we have sold out to the Bible - may want to reconsider some of our thoughts on the origins and the content of the NT.

I quote from the first page:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Unthinkable Thought

Jesus said, "It is to those who are worthy of my Mysteries that I tell my Mysteries."

The Gospel of Thomas

On the site where the Vatican now stands there once stood a Pagan temple. Here Pagan priests observed sacred ceremonies, which early Christians found so disturbing that they tried to erase all evidence of them ever having been practiced. What were these shocking Pagan rites? Gruesome sacrifices or obscene orgies perhaps? This is what we have been led to believe. But the truth is far stranger than this fiction.
Where today the gathered faithful revere their Lord Jesus Christ, the ancients worshiped another godman who, like Jesus, had been miraculously born on December 25 before three shepherds. In this ancient sanctuary Pagan congregations once glorified a Pagan redeemer who, like Jesus, was said to have ascended to heaven and to have promised to come again at the end of time to judge the quick and the dead. On the same spot where the Pope celebrates the Catholic mass, Pagan priests also celebrated a symbolic meal of bread and wine in memory of their savior who, just like Jesus, had declared:

He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In "The Gnostic Gospels", Elaine Pagels argue:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is the winners who write history-their way. No wonder, then, that the traditional accounts of the origins of Christianity first defined the terms (naming themselves "orthodox" and their opponents "heretics"); then they proceeded to demonstrate-at least to their own satisfaction-that their triumph was historically inevitable, or, in religious terms, "guided by the Holy Spirit." But the discoveries [of the Gnostic gospels] at Nag Hammadi reopen fundamental questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh, that's weird. I always thought the temple under St Peter was a temple to Cybele, a Phrygian godess akin to Gaïa...

ETA: Oh, now I see Ba'al was also worshipped there. Ok then...
Posted by: MichaelJ on Sep. 01 2011,04:37

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 01 2011,05:42)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 31 2011,13:50)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 31 2011,13:41)
In regard to gnostic writings, please bear in mind the late dates that most of those were written in comparison to the books that were included in scripture.

Also, back to the early church fathers.  Certain books were not accepted for good reason...some didn't even yet exist...others obviously were in total contrast to what 1st hand witnesses attested to in their writings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name one first hand witness of Jesus that can be shown to have written a book of the Bible (any Bible).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Plenty evidence of that, but I'm sure you've read it all, as you seem to think you're a theologian.  I'm not offering anymore links...find them yourselves.  Most refuse to read and those who do scan and throw up strawmen.  

Then again, anything you read that supports early writers and witnesses, you'll wave off as incorrect even if you have no solid evidence to refute the fact.  Get into the early church father's.  Eye opener.  

Carry on....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You keep talking about the Church fathers as though they are totally reliable. For the most part we don't even have copies of what they wrote but rely on what Eusibus wrote in the fourth century
Posted by: OgreMkV on Sep. 01 2011,07:12

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 01 2011,02:49)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 31 2011,13:10)

Oh man, what Paul did to the religion of Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


According to "The Jesus Mysteries",

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... scholars believe his later letters, known as "the Pastorals," are forgeries, which contradict his earlier letters.Like the letters attributed to the other disciples, they were written in the second century CE to combat internal divisions in the Church. But some of the earlier letters, while suffering from editing, additions, and the usual " cut and paste" treatment, are widely believed to have been written by Paul.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The forged letters were written to counter Gnosticism, attacking "many deceivers" who "do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh"

Paul had gained too much authority that they could get rid of him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read it.  Pretty good book.  I need to dig it out again.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 01 2011,08:35

Even if you assume - as FTK does - that the Bible is divinely inspired - it's all circular reasoning, and only the credulous could possibly believe in it at all.

Q:  Why believe the bible?
A:  It's written by God.
Q:  How do we know that?
A:  It says so in the bible.

Q:  WTF????
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 01 2011,08:54

Actually, I don't know of any place in the Bible where it says it's infallible or the word of God.

There are words attributed to god  spoken by people, but no self-authentication of the text itself.

I'm not sure how there could be since the various manuscripts don't seem to be aware of each other, and weren't assembled until a Roman general got the hots for them.
Posted by: Woodbine on Sep. 01 2011,10:14

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 01 2011,14:54)
Actually, I don't know of any place in the Bible where it says it's infallible or the word of God.

There are words attributed to god  spoken by people, but no self-authentication of the text itself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apologists of a presuppositional flavour (generally protestant) get around that problem by simply asserting the Bible is 'self-authenticating'.

Easy, eh?
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 01 2011,11:22

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 01 2011,08:54)
Actually, I don't know of any place in the Bible where it says it's infallible or the word of God.

There are words attributed to god  spoken by people, but no self-authentication of the text itself.

I'm not sure how there could be since the various manuscripts don't seem to be aware of each other, and weren't assembled until a Roman general got the hots for them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Many folks point to these passages as the indication (of course, most rely on the "god-breathed" translation as opposed to KJV use of the word "inspired"):



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Personally, one has to really be grasping at straws to take the above passage as indicating that the bible is the infallible word of God. Folks who insist such (or those, as Woodbine points out, who insist it is self-authenticating), don't have much faith and desire anything to prop up their wishful thinking.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 01 2011,11:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As you noticed, profitable isn't the same thing as inerrant.

Parables are useful, but they aren't necessarily history.

But I would dispute even this rather moderate claim.

I dispute the usefulness of stories that support slavery and the like.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Sep. 01 2011,12:02

Just thought of something.  

IDists (like FtK) claim that archaeology is a good science because it follows the principles of ID.  Yet the science of archaeology tells us that much of the historical aspects of the bible is wrong... (can you see where this is going?)

So, if ID is right, then the Bible is wrong (and therefore God is probably not the designer).

If the Bible is right, then ID is completely wrong and IDiots are arguing about something that's completely wrong (but we knew that).

The other option, of course, is that they are both wrong, but for unrelated reasons.

Since we know that ID has produced nothing of value...ever.  We also know that the majority of the events as described in the Bible are wrong.

I'll go with number three.  ID and Bible are both wrong, but for different reasons.

Of course, the ID and creationists can't accept that, so they MUST accept one of the two prior conclusions.

Which is it FtK?  Is the Bible right or is ID right?  It's logically shown that they are mutually exclusive.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 01 2011,12:11

Biblical archaeology is following the same path that Newton and others did with the physical sciences: looking for evidence to support the Bible.

Up to a point you can find such evidence. Some of the cities mentioned in the Bible have been found. Some of the ancient rulers left records that are consistent with Biblical descriptions.

I'm no scholar, but my understanding is that the level of historical consistency rises after the Babylonian captivity, at the time they started writing stuff down.

Prior to that it seems to be a hodgepodge of legend and myth. Some of which is at least as historical as Washington chopping the cherry tree.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 01 2011,12:57

Okay guys, take it to the FtK thread.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 01 2011,13:07

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 01 2011,18:57)
Okay guys, take it to the FtK thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But But But.... DAAAAAAAAAD!

Louis
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 01 2011,14:04

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 01 2011,13:57)
Okay guys, take it to the FtK thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IT'S A TRAP
Posted by: Badger3k on Sep. 01 2011,19:37

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Sep. 01 2011,04:04)
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 01 2011,08:16)
I would like to draw attention to "The Jesus Mysteries" by Peter Gandy and Timothy Freke. I have read it many times and have also read the extensive notes section as well as the list of literature references.

One may disagree with the authors on the conclusions they draw but we nevertheless - unless we have sold out to the Bible - may want to reconsider some of our thoughts on the origins and the content of the NT.

I quote from the first page:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Unthinkable Thought

Jesus said, "It is to those who are worthy of my Mysteries that I tell my Mysteries."

The Gospel of Thomas

On the site where the Vatican now stands there once stood a Pagan temple. Here Pagan priests observed sacred ceremonies, which early Christians found so disturbing that they tried to erase all evidence of them ever having been practiced. What were these shocking Pagan rites? Gruesome sacrifices or obscene orgies perhaps? This is what we have been led to believe. But the truth is far stranger than this fiction.
Where today the gathered faithful revere their Lord Jesus Christ, the ancients worshiped another godman who, like Jesus, had been miraculously born on December 25 before three shepherds. In this ancient sanctuary Pagan congregations once glorified a Pagan redeemer who, like Jesus, was said to have ascended to heaven and to have promised to come again at the end of time to judge the quick and the dead. On the same spot where the Pope celebrates the Catholic mass, Pagan priests also celebrated a symbolic meal of bread and wine in memory of their savior who, just like Jesus, had declared:

He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In "The Gnostic Gospels", Elaine Pagels argue:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is the winners who write history-their way. No wonder, then, that the traditional accounts of the origins of Christianity first defined the terms (naming themselves "orthodox" and their opponents "heretics"); then they proceeded to demonstrate-at least to their own satisfaction-that their triumph was historically inevitable, or, in religious terms, "guided by the Holy Spirit." But the discoveries [of the Gnostic gospels] at Nag Hammadi reopen fundamental questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh, that's weird. I always thought the temple under St Peter was a temple to Cybele, a Phrygian godess akin to Gaïa...

ETA: Oh, now I see Ba'al was also worshipped there. Ok then...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Freke and Gandy have been criticized by biblical scholars (and others) in their "looseness" with the facts.  They have some good stuff, but anything they say should be checked out with other sources.  There is no excuse for shoddy scholarship.

(and, crapcakes that I lost my hard drive - I think the links were there since I can't find them anymore.  A lot was in the old internet infidels discussions of a few years back.  I think, perhaps, that < Higgaion > had something, and Richard Carrier did as well.  Apologies for the lack of links and sources)

(also, although I do read such scholars - and listen to their podcasts - as Robert M Price, and find his arguments somewhat compelling in his books, you have to take it all with a grain of salt, and the official story with a whole freaking shaker of salt!)

(also, congrats on the future wedding - was too busy this past however long to post anything much)

(and - shades of KF! - CARM has as much credibility as Alex Jones' Prison Planet does)
Posted by: Badger3k on Sep. 01 2011,19:49

Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 31 2011,13:36)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 31 2011,13:10)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 31 2011,12:46)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually not a scrap of any original manuscript exists (or is known to exist).

I could be wrong, but I believe the oldest manuscript dealing with Jesus is the Gospel of Thomas, which is Gnostic in tone.

Perhaps god preserved it so we would know it is the most reliable history of Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apologists: old = original

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting (because the fundies won't even discuss) the whole concept of the gnostics and the mysteries.

Oh man, what Paul did to the religion of Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"old = original"

Strawman.  That is not stated at all.  If you read it thoroughly, it states specifically why the Bible is the most reliable manuscript of antiquity.  It says nothing about whether we have the original works...we don't, and no one claims to.  But, we have *very* old fragments to base our claims of reliability upon.  

It also proves how accurately the documents have been copied throughout generations.  Also, if you had destroyed all of the Bible.  The early Christian church fathers combined have quoted it almost in it's entirety.  Just another interesting tidbit.  

The significance of the dates on the chart are worth note.

Read for content and meaning rather than throw up something that is not mentioned and act as if that is what is being claimed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Accuracy has nothing to do with how true something is.  Also, we only have accuracy to the earliest manuscripts, and even then there are many scribal errors and additions (the adulteress in John, I believe, comes to mind).  Given the history and the way the Church took over the preservation of knowledge (as well as it's destruction), why wouldn't there be a lot of bibles around?

Again, that says nothing about its accuracy - its relationship to reality.  I can bet that there are a lot of copies of early comic books - does that mean that Peter Parker existed?  Will future woo-merchants look back on ancient comics and wonder at our religion that worshipped a wall-crawling human?  He certainly was persecuted enough.

The earliest document we have is a scrap - P52, I think - that dates to maybe the second century (?).  I'm not clear on it from memory. It's a fragment of what we now know as John.  I don't think it has any name associated with it other than the later one we gave it.
Posted by: Badger3k on Sep. 01 2011,19:52

Quote (MichaelJ @ Sep. 01 2011,04:37)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 01 2011,05:42)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 31 2011,13:50)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 31 2011,13:41)
In regard to gnostic writings, please bear in mind the late dates that most of those were written in comparison to the books that were included in scripture.

Also, back to the early church fathers.  Certain books were not accepted for good reason...some didn't even yet exist...others obviously were in total contrast to what 1st hand witnesses attested to in their writings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name one first hand witness of Jesus that can be shown to have written a book of the Bible (any Bible).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Plenty evidence of that, but I'm sure you've read it all, as you seem to think you're a theologian.  I'm not offering anymore links...find them yourselves.  Most refuse to read and those who do scan and throw up strawmen.  

Then again, anything you read that supports early writers and witnesses, you'll wave off as incorrect even if you have no solid evidence to refute the fact.  Get into the early church father's.  Eye opener.  

Carry on....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You keep talking about the Church fathers as though they are totally reliable. For the most part we don't even have copies of what they wrote but rely on what Eusibus wrote in the fourth century
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wasn't Eusebius the biggest liar in history, as many scholars consider him?  Or was that Iranaeus?  I've been listening to science and skepticism more than biblical history, so it's gone to the back part of my memory right now.  The one I'm thinking of is one of the candidates considered to have written the forged (or pseudepigraphical) Pauline letters.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Sep. 01 2011,20:59

Quote (Badger3k @ Sep. 01 2011,19:49)
Again, that says nothing about its accuracy - its relationship to reality.  I can bet that there are a lot of copies of early comic books - does that mean that Peter Parker existed?  Will future woo-merchants look back on ancient comics and wonder at our religion that worshipped a wall-crawling human?  He certainly was persecuted enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Future woo-merchants will go on the brain-nets and claim that since the ancients texts clearly show Uncle Ben died for our sins, then there is just as much evidence for that as for the existence of jellyfish.  And that being nice to gay people eventually leads to throwing pumpkin bombs at children.
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 02 2011,02:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Freke and Gandy have been criticized by biblical scholars (and others) in their "looseness" with the facts.  They have some good stuff, but anything they say should be checked out with other sources.  There is no excuse for shoddy scholarship.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it is more about their obvious agenda than shoddy scholarship. I think they could have done a more scholarly treatment if they wanted to but that would also have made it less of a good read. It helps that they reference their sources and that list is impressive.

BTW, IIRC, it was Robert M Price that I was stung by at t.o. once when I referred to TJM; he appeared as rather arrogant and asked why I would believe two journalists. He struck me as having an agenda too.
Posted by: Badger3k on Sep. 02 2011,06:21

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 02 2011,02:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Freke and Gandy have been criticized by biblical scholars (and others) in their "looseness" with the facts.  They have some good stuff, but anything they say should be checked out with other sources.  There is no excuse for shoddy scholarship.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it is more about their obvious agenda than shoddy scholarship. I think they could have done a more scholarly treatment if they wanted to but that would also have made it less of a good read. It helps that they reference their sources and that list is impressive.

BTW, IIRC, it was Robert M Price that I was stung by at t.o. once when I referred to TJM; he appeared as rather arrogant and asked why I would believe two journalists. He struck me as having an agenda too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know about arrogant, but he seems to make wild leaps, esp regarding languages, that I don't think are justified (based on what I know).  Some things I think he is good on, other stuff....  He also seems to like any idea, and since he doesn't think we'll really know one way or another (and to an extent I agree), he thinks that any hypothesis is good.  Kinda like George Nouri.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 02 2011,11:43

Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 01 2011,19:59)
Future woo-merchants will go on the brain-nets and claim that since the ancients texts clearly show Uncle Ben died for our sins, then there is just as much evidence for that as for the existence of jellyfish.  And that being nice to gay people eventually leads to throwing pumpkin bombs at children.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But keep in mind, with great power comes great responsibility!
Posted by: MichaelJ on Sep. 02 2011,17:17

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 02 2011,17:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Freke and Gandy have been criticized by biblical scholars (and others) in their "looseness" with the facts.  They have some good stuff, but anything they say should be checked out with other sources.  There is no excuse for shoddy scholarship.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it is more about their obvious agenda than shoddy scholarship. I think they could have done a more scholarly treatment if they wanted to but that would also have made it less of a good read. It helps that they reference their sources and that list is impressive.

BTW, IIRC, it was Robert M Price that I was stung by at t.o. once when I referred to TJM; he appeared as rather arrogant and asked why I would believe two journalists. He struck me as having an agenda too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that they are all like that. There is so little evidence that it is easy to build fanciful towers in the air. It used to annoy me on IIDB that everybody used to shoot down everybody else's fanciful tower as it lacked evidence while they fiercely defended their own. It is worse in the FTK world as they hide and distort evidence to pretend that we know that Jesus exists.

So what do we know - In the first century we have Josephus who mentions Jesus. This is an obvious interpolation. (Also Eusiebius has a Josephus quote which is different from the copied document we now have.

In the second and third centuries we have some scraps of manuscripts and some mentions by Romans (quite a few disputed though), so we know that there was some kind of Jesus movement and that the gospels were close to what we have now.

In the fourth century we start to see the church as we know it now. Eusebius writes his history of the church, where we learn about FTK's precious church fathers. He quotes a lot of documents that no longer exist as even copies.
Now some of Eusebius's contemporaries say that he was dishonest - but why should you believe them anymore than you believe that Eusebius honestly wrote down the history of the church.
Posted by: the_ignored on Sep. 03 2011,11:28

For the record, these are what I tried posting on < Vox's site >: though my browser or something keeps mutilating my comments:


VD


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Answer this question. If science produces technology, and not the other way around, why was technological advancement almost completely frozen in the Soviet Union for fifty years when they devoted a larger percentage of their GDP to science research than the United States did?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Technological advancement almost completely frozen"?  Their space program sent a satellite and a man in space before the americans did. They got the bomb (atomic and hydrogen) very soon after the states did.

"Completely frozen"?  Not always.  Only when their ideology ruled the day.  For example, that Lysenko guy didn't believe in the chromosomal theory of heredity and got Stalin convinced of his views, and from there on, their agriculture got screwed.  As well, many geneticists were executed.  

Science has to be free to go wherever the evidence leads, that's how science works.  It won't work if you suppress it!

VD


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I further note that your argument that one must know science to create technology is disproven by your own statements. You previously asserted that I know less science than a fifth-grader, and yet I have been a successful, ground-breaking professional technology designer for 20 years.

So a second question: is science unnecessary for technological development or am I, in fact, a master of science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's look at some of your "< groundbreaking >" < work > shall we?  The one game that you designed by yourself bombed, and other games like < Rebel Moon Rising > didn't seem to do very well.

Care to explain just what ground you broke?

As for new or "ground-breaking" ideas, how's the "Failmouse" uh, sorry < "Warmouse" > thing working out?  

Science is necessary for technological development and you're not a "master" of anything.


Speaking of you and PZ Myers, didn't you < once say > that Myers didn't have the guts to go through with his cracker desecration idea?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The saltines are safe, for just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there is no vow that the militant atheist will not violate if he perceives any risk to his material well-being.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"< No athiests in foxholes >"?  Really?



===========
So, less than one full day and you go and make a post about how I have not answered any of your questions?  

Not only is that impatient as hell, but that's dishonest.  I have answered several of your questions.  
You just find some excuse to disregard them (see your post above) and then claim that I've never answered them.

I was warned that you were a dishonest prick, looks like they were right.  


From the previous post:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2. If science produces technology, and not the other way around, why was technological advancement almost completely frozen in the Soviet Union for fifty years when they devoted a larger percentage of their GDP to science research than the United States did? (Your attempt to argue that Soviet technology was essentially equal to the USA is false.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did you miss the reason I gave about what happened when ideology got thrown into the mix?

"Contradictory assertions" about science and technological develpment?  Huh?  Care to spell out what they were?  I said that technology is dependent on science.  It's basically applied science, really.  Like with the computer:  

Regardless of motives, one still needs to understand materials science, conductivity, etc. to be able to devise the plans to build one.


Let's see:  "bleeding edge technology developer"?  Is that why you have so many patents?  Or is that why your're still trying to get that ergonomic monstrosity of a "warmouse" going after a few years?  If it's so "bleeding edge" why are the reviews so mixed?  The only positive review I found was one saying that maybe for a niche market it'd be ok   But for the most part, they'd prefer some other kind of mouse.

You even quote from the post where I do answer at least some of your questions at 8/29/11 9:59 AM, but you keep claiming that I haven't answered them?  Even if you consider my answers wrong, which you say you do in this post, that's NOT the same damned thing.
-------------------------------------------------

For the questions I haven't already answered:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1. Would you seriously consider it meaningful, or even remotely relevant, if JD were to debate me on Paul Zachary's behalf, so long as he felt he has a good understanding of Paul Zachary's words?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JD agrees with you, not with PZ.  I'm trying to get him to accept PZ's challenge to see if he can back up the claims that Coulter made in her book since he seems to believe that her book is accurate.  In other words, he agrees with her.  That's where your question falls apart.  

Paul seems to want to know why people would think that, since he and other actual scientists have taken her book apart.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4. Now that I have answered all his questions and proved that "marital rape" can be reasonably defended under the principle of Common Law, is he willing to admit that by his own metric, the adjectives "inane" and "unworthy" no longer apply to me as a potential debate opponent for Paul Zachary Myers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your defense of marital rape through the use of common law?  As George, I'd love to see you try that in a real court of law.  "inane" and "unworthy" still apply to you as a person.  

I'll leave it up to Myers whether he wants to deal with you or not.  Lord knows you're certainly odious enough just through this medium.  In person, holy crap.


------

Gee, I guess I'll have to try harder...
Posted by: the_ignored on Sep. 03 2011,11:38

For context, Vox had asked me questions in that post of his, and I tried answering them. You can see how badly formatted my replies came out there, but nevertheless that's what they are.

:p
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 04 2011,14:01

I believe what the Germans applied to technology production during WW2 was science and nothing but science.  How much of it was greedily picked up by the US and Soviet?  A Norwegian student sent to Germany early in WW2 to study engineering, but actually for spying.  He went to Peenemünde and could observe what was going on but the Brits didn't believe him. He stayed in Dresden until the end of the war. During the last days of the war drove a car all the way to Hamburg in a corridor between the Allied and Soviet armies.  Bought a Mercedes from a German officer in Hamburg on his word to pay after the war. Drove it over the Danish border as the first of the Allied forces.
< Link > (Fixed)

ETA:
The article from Aftenposten is very interesting , and I translate a piece:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We had warned the people in England but they didn’t believe us. After the war the British themselves gave the answer why they for a long time did not believe the reports from Rosbaud and Bergh. They thought the Germans could not possibly have developed a fuel of sufficient density and light enough to fuel a rocket from Germany to England. But the British were wrong. The German scientist’s formula was a mixture of liquid alcohol and oxygen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 04 2011,15:05

Quote (the_ignored @ Sep. 03 2011,06:38)
For context, Vox had asked me questions in that post of his, and I tried answering them. You can see how badly formatted my replies came out there, but nevertheless that's what they are.

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bear in mind I am English by birth and have never visited the USA, though I have met some very charming Americans in Europe, and also that the internets are rather subdued on my usual subject of interest - has "Intelligent Design" come up with a theory yet.

Presumably the "Vox Day" thread has figured quite prominently recently because of lack of other news and I followed the link. Having taken a shower and a large tincture, I feel restored enough to ask: do the views expressed by the author and (his wife?) space Bunny and other apparently enthusiastic commenters represent anything approaching a significant minority view in the US?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Sep. 04 2011,15:17

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 04 2011,15:05)
Quote (the_ignored @ Sep. 03 2011,06:38)
For context, Vox had asked me questions in that post of his, and I tried answering them. You can see how badly formatted my replies came out there, but nevertheless that's what they are.

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bear in mind I am English by birth and have never visited the USA, though I have met some very charming Americans in Europe, and also that the internets are rather subdued on my usual subject of interest - has "Intelligent Design" come up with a theory yet.

Presumably the "Vox Day" thread has figured quite prominently recently because of lack of other news and I followed the link. Having taken a shower and a large tincture, I feel restored enough to ask: do the views expressed by the author and (his wife?) space Bunny and other apparently enthusiastic commenters represent anything approaching a significant minority view in the US?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a really good question that deserves some serious thought.

I think that the majority of US citizens don't think about it and don't care.  If it's not a bog block V-8, involve a football (a real one, not a soccer ball), or a trip to the beauty salon most Americans don't give a crap.

The ones that do think about would probably tend to think that there is some sort of designer (God) and then the thought drifts away from their mind like beautiful cloud.

The people that are actually capable of giving this some thought are the ones that think ID is an utter load of hokum.  

Does that help?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 04 2011,15:31

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 04 2011,10:17)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 04 2011,15:05)
 
Quote (the_ignored @ Sep. 03 2011,06:38)
For context, Vox had asked me questions in that post of his, and I tried answering them. You can see how badly formatted my replies came out there, but nevertheless that's what they are.

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bear in mind I am English by birth and have never visited the USA, though I have met some very charming Americans in Europe, and also that the internets are rather subdued on my usual subject of interest - has "Intelligent Design" come up with a theory yet.

Presumably the "Vox Day" thread has figured quite prominently recently because of lack of other news and I followed the link. Having taken a shower and a large tincture, I feel restored enough to ask: do the views expressed by the author and (his wife?) space Bunny and other apparently enthusiastic commenters represent anything approaching a significant minority view in the US?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a really good question that deserves some serious thought.

I think that the majority of US citizens don't think about it and don't care.  If it's not a bog block V-8, involve a football (a real one, not a soccer ball), or a trip to the beauty salon most Americans don't give a crap.

The ones that do think about would probably tend to think that there is some sort of designer (God) and then the thought drifts away from their mind like beautiful cloud.

The people that are actually capable of giving this some thought are the ones that think ID is an utter load of hokum.  

Does that help?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks Ogre, but I have only read the comments that Reynold/the ignored < linked to > upthread. My astonishment was more general  and more in relation to the remarks about whether a wife could be a victim of rape by her husband.
Posted by: Badger3k on Sep. 04 2011,22:50

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 04 2011,15:31)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 04 2011,10:17)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 04 2011,15:05)
   
Quote (the_ignored @ Sep. 03 2011,06:38)
For context, Vox had asked me questions in that post of his, and I tried answering them. You can see how badly formatted my replies came out there, but nevertheless that's what they are.

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bear in mind I am English by birth and have never visited the USA, though I have met some very charming Americans in Europe, and also that the internets are rather subdued on my usual subject of interest - has "Intelligent Design" come up with a theory yet.

Presumably the "Vox Day" thread has figured quite prominently recently because of lack of other news and I followed the link. Having taken a shower and a large tincture, I feel restored enough to ask: do the views expressed by the author and (his wife?) space Bunny and other apparently enthusiastic commenters represent anything approaching a significant minority view in the US?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a really good question that deserves some serious thought.

I think that the majority of US citizens don't think about it and don't care.  If it's not a bog block V-8, involve a football (a real one, not a soccer ball), or a trip to the beauty salon most Americans don't give a crap.

The ones that do think about would probably tend to think that there is some sort of designer (God) and then the thought drifts away from their mind like beautiful cloud.

The people that are actually capable of giving this some thought are the ones that think ID is an utter load of hokum.  

Does that help?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks Ogre, but I have only read the comments that Reynold/the ignored < linked to > upthread. My astonishment was more general  and more in relation to the remarks about whether a wife could be a victim of rape by her husband.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think, and hope, that they are the minority position, but we do hear that idea that a man cannot rape his wife sometimes, mainly from the heavily bible-based/fundie religious.  I say I hope they are in the minority, because we have the Quiverfull movement and others that reinforce the man-dominant/woman-virtual-slave ideology.  I think it's a dying viewpoint.
Posted by: the_ignored on Sep. 05 2011,01:14

Well, it looks like Vox is not at all interested in my answers, but is instead going to hand wave them away and not even allow me to post on < his blog >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I haven't needed any excuse to disregard his answers because he hasn't actually answered any of the four questions. Unlike his fellow Pharyngulan, Mhich, who appears to grasp the basic concept of first answering the question and only then proceeding to justify his answer, Reynold has produced nothing but incorrect, unsubstantiated, and invalid excuses for why he shouldn't have to answer the questions. Is he being evasive because he fears being pinned down or is he simply that stupid? At this point, it's a tough call. In any event, he will not be commenting here anymore unless and until he provides unequivocal, straightforward answers to the four questions, as per the publicly posted Rules of the Blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll let you guys be the judge of that...look at what I've already posted and what I'm about to post below.  Maybe if I try to explain in more detail, Vox will consider his questions "answered".  If not, well, that's why I'm posting them here, with just a link at his site to the reply here:  At least it's guaranteed that the reply is out there...


VD


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1. Would you seriously consider it meaningful, or even remotely relevant, if JD were to debate me on Paul Zachary's behalf, so long as he felt he has a good understanding of Paul Zachary's words?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I tried to say earlier:  Your question is invalid.  Why?  JD agrees with you, not with PZ.  Why would he debate you in PZ's stead if he doesn't agree with PZ??  

Otherwise, if he had a good understanding of someone's words then I'd have no problem with him debating on that other person's behalf.  For instance, Ann Coulter.  However, JD was stupid enough to not even bother to read her sodding book before agreeing with her.  The challenge was up, so I decided to call JD on it.  He said he would at some point (a lot later then the few days you gave me before you started going on about how I "never" answered your questions.) but so far, he's done nothing.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2. If science produces technology, and not the other way around, why was technological advancement almost completely frozen in the Soviet Union for fifty years when they devoted a larger percentage of their GDP to science research than the United States did? (His attempt to argue that Soviet technology was essentially equal to US technology on the basis of the stolen atomic bomb and the space program is verifiably false. I am also willing to accept an answer which substitutes why the technological level of the Soviet Union "fell significantly behind that of the United States" in lieu of its technological advancement being "almost completely frozen".)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I told you previously:  ideology and politics.  I gave the Lysenko guy as an example with Sov world genetics.

That's why their technological development fell apart in some areas...They wound up going with what they wanted to be true (ideology) as opposed to bothering to find out what the reality truly was.  If the science didn't back up what their ideology was, they suppressed it.  That is NOT how science works, I had said...you have to go where the evidence leads.

I say again:  If you hate "science" so much, then forgo everything from computers to modern medicine, transportation, etc.  You won't though, because you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Whether you accept that answer of not, I don't know.  As I said, that's why I'm only posting a link to the (second attempt) at an answer to your blog.  Even if you don't publish that comment, it's still out there.
Posted by: the_ignored on Sep. 05 2011,01:41

Well, on the the third question.  This has got to be a classic example of how a creationist will use quotes.  Read on:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3. Is science unnecessary for technological development or am I, in fact, a master of science? (This is in response to his contradictory assertions that science drives technological advancement and my supposed ignorance of science. As he questioned my technological credentials, which are well-known in the game industry, I referred him to Engadget, which described one of my various technology designs as "the most advanced they had ever seen.")
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I've said before, science is needed for technological development.

I like how he cherry-picked the review on that site.  

Here's another excerpt from apparently the < same review >:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Getting the Meta set up really isn't the struggle here. Nope, the struggle is all in remembering what you set each of the buttons to do. It's not that we have the memory of a goldfish, but trying to recall what 14 different buttons and each of their double click functions – yes, you can actually program this to do up to 48 shortcuts or commands per mode – requires an incredible amount of brain power. In practice we only ended up using a few of them: we got the hang of using A2 to copy, A4 to paste, B7 to open Engadget, and B5 to open a Google search in Firefox.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



From their conclusion:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, at the end of the day we can't help but wonder who could possibly remember how to use so many buttons on a single gadget. Sure, there's niche appeal for designers or gamers, but if you have $80 to spend on a mouse we'd honestly go with a more ergonomic option, like the Logitech MX 1100, and if you are a gamer the $130 Razer Mamba is rated amongst the top.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Get that?  The very same site that you used to show off your "technological superiority" is the same site where the reviews basically say that they'd rather use something else!

Yeah, that's real "bleeding edge" all right!

But hey, it's not all bad:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But hey, if you have a stellar memory and need a mouse with 18 buttons that can manage more shortcuts than anything else out there, there's nothing quite like the WarMouse Meta.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




So yeah Vox, you're a master of nothing.


On a < different article on that same site >, I found (if one enables the comments):

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After years of trying, someone finally made a mouse worse than Apple's Hockey Puck. Congrads. There is an entire ring of Hell reserved just for you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OpenOffice mouse? The uncomfortable interface makes it more like a GIMP mouse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or you can pay $60 to get a 3-PC license Office 2007 Home and Student, and $15 for a cheap wireless mouse

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or for $5 less you could just get MS Office! Isn't the whole point of OpenOffice that it's free?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




VD:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4. Now that I have answered all his questions and proved that "marital rape" can be reasonably defended under the principle of Common Law, is he willing to admit that by his own metric, the adjectives "inane" and "unworthy" no longer apply to me as a potential debate opponent for Paul Zachary Myers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope:  You can't "reasonably defend" something based on a law that's all but outdated.    Yet the title of your post dealing with that topic said that there is no marital rape, period.  If that was the fucking case, then there would not be < laws > against it.  

Horrifyingly, as you no doubt know, this part of "common (or English) law" is rather < recent >:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since the 1970s, the marital exemption has been under attack. The conclusive presumption that a wife always consents to sex with her husband, regardless of circumstances, is obviously untenable. Modern apologists for the exemption argue instead that in cases of marital discord, criminal sanctions represent an intrusion that could disrupt "the ongoing process of adjustment in the marital relationship" (American Law Institute, pp. 344–346). In addition, they argue, the harm of forced intimacy is less serious when the victim and the offender have "an ongoing relation of sexual intimacy."

Opponents of the exemption attack both claims. As to the first, they note that the marital exemption in its traditional form applies even when the parties are legally separated; moreover, when the parties are living together, legal sanctions for assault apply in cases of domestic violence, so there is no reason why other violent offenses within marriage should not be subject to punishment as well. As to the second claim, opponents of the exemption note that "wife rape can be as terrifying and life-threatening as stranger rape. In addition, it often evokes a powerful sense of betrayal, deep disillusionment, and total isolation" (Russell, pp. 190–191, 198–199).


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All things that Vox doesn't seem to give a fuck about...but at least he's no atheist!  This is nuts.  Shouldn't the "good xians" be the first people in line to support these new laws while trying to foist the blame for the old ones on "darwinists and atheists"??

Anyway, here's where it's shown to be out-of date:

cont'd
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Responding to these criticisms, many states have abolished their marital exemption completely, either by legislation or by judicial decision reinterpreting the common law. At least one court has ruled the marital exemption unconstitutional on equal protection grounds (People v. Liberta, 474 N.E.2d 567 (N.Y. 1984)).

Nonetheless, the exemption survives in modified form in most of the states. Though only fifteen states have abolished all distinctions between marital and nonmarital rape, many states still treat marital rape as less serious than other rapes or permit prosecution for marital rape only when aggravated force was used; some states permit prosecution only when the parties are legally separated or permit prosecution only when the parties are living apart (Shulhofer, pp. 43–44).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, at best for you, Vox, you'd get a lesser sentence than he otherwise would for raping his wife.

Never mind that the UN has a higher opinion of the value of women's lives than Vox does:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In December 1993, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published the < Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women >[10]. This establishes marital rape as a human rights violation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Meanwhile the good libertarian christian Vox sees nothing wrong with it.  


The real kicker is < is this story in the Bahamas > where they're trying to outlaw marital rape.  Guess who's fighting against it, and on what basis?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Some local religious leaders have argued that a man cannot rape his wife claiming the Bible dictates that a wife must physically submit to her husband.

Controversial pastor Cedric Moss has vocally opposed the legislation claiming the amendment would create a "society of rapists." Citing the "word of God", Mr Moss argued that rape cannot be committed in marriage because the couple

gave each other authority over the other's body and agreed to open-ended sexual consent in the marriage contract. He argued that including spouses as potential rapists would contradict the sacrament of marriage.

"But can it be right to bring married people under such a law designed for unmarried people? No, and a thousand times, no! It is not right and it can never be right to bring all married couples under this definition of rape whereby moment by moment consent is required for every stage of every act of sexual intercourse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




So yeah, Vox, you are still "inane" and a misogynit prick from what I've read of your constant rantings about women on your blog,  though I concede that how big a prick you are has no bearing on your debating ability...wait, scratch that.  It probably makes you better at debates.
Posted by: the_ignored on Sep. 05 2011,01:56

Well, I just posted a link to < Vox's blog > see the 9/5/11 1:43 AM post where I link to my replies just above.  Whether he keeps that post up or not, I don't know...but at least the answer (both attempts at it!) are up now.
Posted by: George on Sep. 05 2011,03:37

Some other guy called George:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
VD,

I think you are right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I just want to note that the George < over at VD's place > is a different one.

I feel grubby now.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 05 2011,03:43

Quote (the_ignored @ Sep. 04 2011,20:56)
Well, I just posted a link to < Vox's blog > see the 9/5/11 1:43 AM post where I link to my replies just above.  Whether he keeps that post up or not, I don't know...but at least the answer (both attempts at it!) are up now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope Badger3k is right about this being a dying viewpoint. I was just amazed that, in the 21st century, even a few supposedly civilised humans could express themselves in this way unashamedly. Maybe crazies like Vox Day should just be monitored rather than argued with. Surely not every randomn thought from anyone with with loony views and access to a keyboard needs a rebuttal?


Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 05 2011,03:45

Oops deleted double post
Posted by: the_ignored on Sep. 05 2011,14:12

You know what's funny?  One of Vox's acolytes, JD Curtis (goes by Phineagal or something on Vox's blog) made a hypocrite of himself with this entire mess.

How so?  Read what he says < here >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The aggregate amount of “Free Thought” here is dizzying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and compare it with what he does < on his own blog >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comment moderation is now enabled. Way to 'Strike a Blow for Free Speech', Chumley.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, he'll be relieved to read this thread if Voxytoad decides to leave my link up.  He'll see that I've answered twice.  Though of course, he'll deny it (He is after all, mister "Where's the Birth Certificate?")

His remarks about "social autism" strike me as ironic:  Look at all the things his hero Vox has said about women, and all the insults he constantly spews against anyone he agrees with.
Posted by: the_ignored on Sep. 29 2011,19:12

You all remember the < rape > < apologist > Vox Day, right?  Well, hold on to your hats, < here's another one >.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't believe I could recommend this as a strategy for most men, but it is surely educational to learn that raping and killing a woman is < demonstrably more attractive to women > than behaving like a gentleman. And women, before all the inevitable snowflaking commences, please note that there is absolutely nothing to argue about here. It is an established empirical fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't forget:  It's ATHEISTS who are the socially incompotent assholes here!

Even worse, check out the posts at the blog he links to!  It seems to be another one of his.

Holy shit.
Posted by: khan on Sep. 29 2011,19:27

Quote (the_ignored @ Sep. 29 2011,20:12)
You all remember the < rape > < apologist > Vox Day, right?  Well, hold on to your hats, < here's another one >.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't believe I could recommend this as a strategy for most men, but it is surely educational to learn that raping and killing a woman is < demonstrably more attractive to women > than behaving like a gentleman. And women, before all the inevitable snowflaking commences, please note that there is absolutely nothing to argue about here. It is an established empirical fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't forget:  It's ATHEISTS who are the socially incompotent assholes here!

Even worse, check out the posts at the blog he links to!  It seems to be another one of his.

Holy shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy Jesus Fucking Shit indeed.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 29 2011,22:06

To paraphrase a certain movie line:

"This guy keeps using words. I don't think they mean what he thinks they mean."

Henry
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 30 2011,04:56

Quote (the_ignored @ Sep. 30 2011,01:12)
You all remember the < rape > < apologist > Vox Day, right?  Well, hold on to your hats, < here's another one >.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't believe I could recommend this as a strategy for most men, but it is surely educational to learn that raping and killing a woman is < demonstrably more attractive to women > than behaving like a gentleman. And women, before all the inevitable snowflaking commences, please note that there is absolutely nothing to argue about here. It is an established empirical fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't forget:  It's ATHEISTS who are the socially incompotent assholes here!

Even worse, check out the posts at the blog he links to!  It seems to be another one of his.

Holy shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am genuinely ashamed to share a clade with this fuck-knuckle. I wonder how his fangirl FTK feels about his misogyny?

Louis
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 30 2011,11:25

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 30 2011,04:56)
Quote (the_ignored @ Sep. 30 2011,01:12)
You all remember the < rape > < apologist > Vox Day, right?  Well, hold on to your hats, < here's another one >.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't believe I could recommend this as a strategy for most men, but it is surely educational to learn that raping and killing a woman is < demonstrably more attractive to women > than behaving like a gentleman. And women, before all the inevitable snowflaking commences, please note that there is absolutely nothing to argue about here. It is an established empirical fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't forget:  It's ATHEISTS who are the socially incompotent assholes here!

Even worse, check out the posts at the blog he links to!  It seems to be another one of his.

Holy shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am genuinely ashamed to share a clade with this fuck-knuckle. I wonder how his fangirl FTK feels about his misogyny?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's a member of the "right side", right?  She probably loves it as what side you're on is all that matters.  And people (is that the right term?) like Vox know this and use it to their advantage.
Posted by: the_ignored on Oct. 05 2011,10:07

And now, the < pot calling the kettle black >.
Posted by: Woodbine on Oct. 05 2011,14:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....found a strong link between utilitarian responses to these dilemmas (e.g., approving the killing of an innocent person to save the others) and personality styles that were psychopathic,...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ergo, God is a psycopath.
Posted by: the_ignored on Oct. 24 2011,16:02

Let's face it: misogyny is built into the abrahamic religions.  For example, < orthodox rabbis assaulting girls going to school >.

Jesus H. Christ
Posted by: the_ignored on Oct. 25 2011,02:50

Quote (Woodbine @ Oct. 05 2011,14:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....found a strong link between utilitarian responses to these dilemmas (e.g., approving the killing of an innocent person to save the others) and personality styles that were psychopathic,...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ergo, God is a psycopath.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know it's not quite on topic, but if you want an example of god (or at least his servants) being psychopaths, get a load of < of this example here >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 28 2011,14:00

How many wrongs can you spot here:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"To give another example, if evolution were a real science, biologists would be able to predict what the next species to evolve would be, as well as which population groups within a species were more evolved than the norm. "


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 28 2011,14:40

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 28 2011,14:00)
How many wrongs can you spot here:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"To give another example, if evolution were a real science, biologists would be able to predict what the next species to evolve would be, as well as which population groups within a species were more evolved than the norm. "


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If statistics were a real math, statisticians should be able to predict the next throw of the craps dice and make millions in Vegas.  Since few statisticians are multimillionaires, statistics must not be real.

If engineering were a real science (heh), then engineers should be able to tell which of the 2012 model Ford cars are more different than the Model T.

How does this person function in the real world?
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 28 2011,14:50

Clearly by waking up on Monday and knowing he won't die on Tuesday by predicting it scientifically.

Louis
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 28 2011,17:54

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 28 2011,13:00)
How many wrongs can you spot here:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"To give another example, if evolution were a real science, biologists would be able to predict what the next species to evolve would be, as well as which population groups within a species were more evolved than the norm. "


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Four.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 28 2011,18:56

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 28 2011,15:54)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 28 2011,13:00)
How many wrongs can you spot here:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"To give another example, if evolution were a real science, biologists would be able to predict what the next species to evolve would be, as well as which population groups within a species were more evolved than the norm. "


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Four.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do we count "paying attention to VD's witterings in the first place" as one of the wrongs?
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 29 2011,00:31

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 28 2011,15:54)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 28 2011,13:00)
How many wrongs can you spot here:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"To give another example, if evolution were a real science, biologists would be able to predict what the next species to evolve would be, as well as which population groups within a species were more evolved than the norm. "


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Four.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can make four, but are they the same four?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 29 2011,00:34

What I counted:

"if evolution were a real science, " - this pretends that it isn't.
"biologists would be able to predict what the next species to evolve would be, " - the theory doesn't imply ability to predict that level of detail.
"as well as which population groups within a species " - same fallacy as in previous line.
"were more evolved than the norm. " - there's no such thing as "norm". (unless you're watching Cheers.)

(Although I suppose the 2nd and 3rd ones in that list could be considered duplicates; they just refer to different sized groups.)

Henry
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 29 2011,07:50

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 29 2011,00:34)
What I counted:

"if evolution were a real science, " - this pretends that it isn't.
"biologists would be able to predict what the next species to evolve would be, " - the theory doesn't imply ability to predict that level of detail.
"as well as which population groups within a species " - same fallacy as in previous line.
"were more evolved than the norm. " - there's no such thing as "norm". (unless you're watching Cheers.)

(Although I suppose the 2nd and 3rd ones in that list could be considered duplicates; they just refer to different sized groups.)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's no such thing as 'more evolved' either.  'More evolved' implies that a population has a history that is longer than other populations.
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 29 2011,11:34

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 29 2011,07:50)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 29 2011,00:34)
What I counted:

"if evolution were a real science, " - this pretends that it isn't.
"biologists would be able to predict what the next species to evolve would be, " - the theory doesn't imply ability to predict that level of detail.
"as well as which population groups within a species " - same fallacy as in previous line.
"were more evolved than the norm. " - there's no such thing as "norm". (unless you're watching Cheers.)

(Although I suppose the 2nd and 3rd ones in that list could be considered duplicates; they just refer to different sized groups.)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's no such thing as 'more evolved' either.  'More evolved' implies that a population has a history that is longer than other populations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it is coupled with a specific point, "more evolved" can give us comparisons.  For example, which species is more evolved for climbing trees - sloths or whales?  Other then that, yeah, it's incoherent.

As for the original OP, the only mistake that I saw was Teddy trying to play as if he understands science.  With that mistake, everything he says is useless twaddle.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 29 2011,17:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There's no such thing as 'more evolved' either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I missed one? Shazbot!

Henry
Posted by: the_ignored on Dec. 10 2011,22:43

Hah.  He finally < admits that his commenting system over there is crap >, but he couldn't find anything better.  


That bloody CoComment was the only thing on that site that I could not beat.  Maybe it's my browser, Opera, but I'm stubborn.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 07 2012,19:46

Epic fight! < FtK v. Spacebunny >.
Posted by: the_ignored on Mar. 30 2012,23:56

Looks like he has < another blog >, more devoted to misogyny than anything, it looks like.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 31 2012,13:32

Quote (the_ignored @ Mar. 31 2012,04:56)
Looks like he has < another blog >, more devoted to misogyny than anything, it looks like.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Vox Day is an odious pissant of the first water. Or alternatively an odious pisswater of the first ant. Which must be pretty old and smelly by now. Either way, best avoided.

Louis
Posted by: the_ignored on June 09 2012,05:55

Looks like Voxy Toad has struck again, according to < PZ Myers >
Posted by: olegt on June 20 2012,12:10

Antivaxxers are out in force today. In the comments section a hilarious nutter RobertT < laments >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sometimes I think we would be better off if we burned all scientists at the stake. I am a big believer in research and observing patterns, but I am continually struck by the fact that out-and-out "science" is fraudulent, and every occupation or profession becomes more fraudulent as they get closer and closer to actual science. Perhaps the most honest professions are the least "scientific of all."

I notice people chatter about the details in these cases, but at some point everyone would be better served by backing up, taking a wider view and accepting what is surely obvious by now. Science, as it is practiced today, is pure bunk and more dangerous than dancing with rattlesnakes. And twice as deadly. The fat hypothesis has probably killed more people by now than any other cause since we started scratching our history on rocks and parchment.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: OgreMkV on June 20 2012,12:47

Quote (olegt @ June 20 2012,12:10)
Antivaxxers are out in force today. In the comments section a hilarious nutter RobertT < laments >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sometimes I think we would be better off if we burned all scientists at the stake. I am a big believer in research and observing patterns, but I am continually struck by the fact that out-and-out "science" is fraudulent, and every occupation or profession becomes more fraudulent as they get closer and closer to actual science. Perhaps the most honest professions are the least "scientific of all."

I notice people chatter about the details in these cases, but at some point everyone would be better served by backing up, taking a wider view and accepting what is surely obvious by now. Science, as it is practiced today, is pure bunk and more dangerous than dancing with rattlesnakes. And twice as deadly. The fat hypothesis has probably killed more people by now than any other cause since we started scratching our history on rocks and parchment.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He said, while ironically using a computer and the internet, sitting in an air-conditioned house, eating processed food and planning for a trip (in a car, with a battery, internal combustion engine, modern tires, plastics, refined metals, etc) to the doctor (where he will take all his anti-biotics) and bitch about science.
Posted by: Cubist on Oct. 09 2013,13:29

VD news: The Warmouse is no more.

The warmouse.com URL is now a generic placeholderish page; according to Internet Archive's archived copies of warmouse.com from different times, the website died sometime between 30 Oct 2012 (the latest archived copy with real content) and 23 Aug 2013 (the first archived copy immediately after the 30 Oct 2012 a.c., this one being a generic placeholderish page). No idea when, within that nine-month "window", the website went dark. Perhaps someone with greater internet savvy… and greater interest… than myself can narrow it down.

A moment of silence is due.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 09 2013,13:33

Got Kinected?
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 21 2017,19:12

Well that's Greek to me.

Or whatever language.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Jan. 21 2017,20:48

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 21 2017,17:12)
Well that's Greek to me.

Or whatever language.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Russian porn spam.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 21 2017,23:25

Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 21 2017,18:48)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 21 2017,17:12)
Well that's Greek to me.

Or whatever language.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Russian porn spam.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In short:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Earnings happening on the collection of raw materials from domestic animals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Cubist on Jan. 22 2017,00:02

Russian, yes—the text is in the Cyrillic alphabet—and spam, also yes. Not porn, I don't think; after C&P-ing it into Google Translate, it seems like it's spam for some sort of online game in the neighborhood of Farmville. Maybe. Here's the Google-Translated version of the first few sentences:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
New simple economic game. More than 65 000 users. Earnings happening on the collection of raw materials from domestic animals. Income can be displayed on a bank card, Kiwi Payeer or purse.
The whole process is independently from you, the more animals the more earnings. Plus a huge earnings give your invited friends and just people,
invited by your personal affiliate link.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Dr.GH on Jan. 22 2017,13:38

Quote (Cubist @ Jan. 21 2017,22:02)
Russian, yes—the text is in the Cyrillic alphabet—and spam, also yes. Not porn, I don't think; after C&P-ing it into Google Translate, it seems like it's spam for some sort of online game in the neighborhood of Farmville. Maybe. Here's the Google-Translated version of the first few sentences:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
New simple economic game. More than 65 000 users. Earnings happening on the collection of raw materials from domestic animals. Income can be displayed on a bank card, Kiwi Payeer or purse.
The whole process is independently from you, the more animals the more earnings. Plus a huge earnings give your invited friends and just people,
invited by your personal affiliate link.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I get the same crap on my blog. The link typically jumps to a porn "dating" site.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 29 2017,07:13

No idea why this one ended up locked.
Posted by: clamboy on June 29 2017,10:27

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 29 2017,07:13)
No idea why this one ended up locked.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for unlocking it!
Posted by: Asnathe on July 12 2017,20:05

bonjour, je voulais savoir si quelqu’un avait une astuce pour tomber enceinte rapidement.
Posted by: Lethean on July 12 2017,20:15

Quote (Asnathe @ July 12 2017,20:05)
bonjour, je voulais savoir si quelqu’un avait une astuce pour tomber enceinte rapidement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, though it's not much of a "trick" per se.

A copious amount of unprotected coitus with a member of the opposite sex should do the trick.

HTH and good luck.
Posted by: stevestory on July 13 2017,08:14

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 29 2017,08:13)
No idea why this one ended up locked.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


when spammers hit an old thread i delete the spam and lock it or i have to keep deleting spam.
Posted by: Cubist on July 13 2017,13:56

Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2017,08:14)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 29 2017,08:13)
No idea why this one ended up locked.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


when spammers hit an old thread i delete the spam and lock it or i have to keep deleting spam.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good point. But it's always possible that some legit posts might get added to an old thread… maybe lock the thread when you delete spam, and set up a cron job to unlock it in (say) 2 weeks? I'm thinking that if the spammer doesn't try to re-spam within a short time, they probably won't re-spam at all. Maybe?
Posted by: Henry J on July 14 2017,08:24

Speaking of spam...

ETA: Never mind; it seems to have disappeared.

ETA 7/18: Although sometimes disappearances can be temporary...
Posted by: fnxtr on Sep. 19 2017,17:51

Oh, sure, that's easy for you to say.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Sep. 19 2017,18:33

We apologise for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible have been sacked. Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretti nasti...
Posted by: fnxtr on Sep. 19 2017,20:41

Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 19 2017,16:33)
We apologise for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible have been sacked. Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretti nasti...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(polite applause)
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 22 2017,13:49

Good grief.
Posted by: Lethean on Oct. 20 2017,17:32

Quote (Antoniobrore @ Oct. 20 2017,01:26)
гоÑÑ‚ на паронит  
< паронит общего Ð½Ð°Ð·Ð½Ð°Ñ‡ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ >
паронит вредноÑÑ‚ÑŒ  
<a href="http://<snip>/catalog/paronit/">паронит Ñертификат </a>
hoOzbnu17659 672N
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
guest on paronite
common paronite
paronite harmfulness
<a href="http://<snip>/catalog/paronit/"> paronite certificate </a>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Well, at least it's not viagra sales or the odd question about fertility this time around. Some sort of odd phishing attempt or test of automating account creation or..?


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paronite:

a gasketing material that is produced by compressing a blend of asbestos, natural rubber, and powdered constituents. Paronite is supplied in sheet form and is used for sealing joints that operate in the following mediums: water and steam under a pressure of 5 meganewtons per square meter (MN/ m2), or 50 kilograms-force per square centimeter, and at a temperature of 450°C; petroleum and petroleum products at 7 MN/ m2 and 200°C and at 4 MN/m2 and 400°C; and such substances as liquid and gaseous oxygen and ethyl alcohol.

In order to increase its mechanical strength, paronite is sometimes reinforced with wire mesh, in which case it is called ferronite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: timothya on Oct. 21 2017,01:59

Quote (Lethean @ Oct. 20 2017,17:32)
Quote (Antoniobrore @ Oct. 20 2017,01:26)
гоÑÑ‚ на паронит  
< паронит общего Ð½Ð°Ð·Ð½Ð°Ñ‡ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ >
паронит вредноÑÑ‚ÑŒ  
<a href="http://<snip>/catalog/paronit/">паронит Ñертификат </a>
hoOzbnu17659 672N
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
guest on paronite
common paronite
paronite harmfulness
<a href="http://<snip>/catalog/paronit/"> paronite certificate </a>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Well, at least it's not viagra sales or the odd question about fertility this time around. Some sort of odd phishing attempt or test of automating account creation or..?


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paronite:

a gasketing material that is produced by compressing a blend of asbestos, natural rubber, and powdered constituents. Paronite is supplied in sheet form and is used for sealing joints that operate in the following mediums: water and steam under a pressure of 5 meganewtons per square meter (MN/ m2), or 50 kilograms-force per square centimeter, and at a temperature of 450°C; petroleum and petroleum products at 7 MN/ m2 and 200°C and at 4 MN/m2 and 400°C; and such substances as liquid and gaseous oxygen and ethyl alcohol.

In order to increase its mechanical strength, paronite is sometimes reinforced with wire mesh, in which case it is called ferronite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ethyl alcohol? So we can drink this stuff safely?
Posted by: Henry J on July 18 2018,11:01

...
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Dec. 03 2018,17:15

Vox Day seems to be out of pocket:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Question:  what kind of moron would you have to be to work for Milo without getting paid up front?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< https://twitter.com/popehat....8509568 >
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 03 2018,21:20

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 03 2018,15:15)
Vox Day seems to be out of pocket:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Question:  what kind of moron would you have to be to work for Milo without getting paid up front?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< https://twitter.com/popehat....8509568 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


K98, back with a vengeance. :-)
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 04 2018,11:47

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 03 2018,18:15)
Vox Day seems to be out of pocket:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Question:  what kind of moron would you have to be to work for Milo without getting paid up front?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< https://twitter.com/popehat....8509568 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He lost a $thousand bet with me and never paid up. Claimed he tried to. I have the emails to prove it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 25 2019,01:42

Wow.


< https://www.unauthorized.tv/program....=344988 >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 24 2021,23:46

Hi guys.

So I had a little look - I think he's gone full QANON?

< http://voxday.blogspot.com/2021....er.html >
Posted by: Cubist on Jan. 25 2021,06:55

I don't know if VD actually has become a Qanon minion. He strikes me as more of a narcissist than anything else, and as best I can tell, he spews whatever verbiage he thinks will win him admiration (and page-views, and ad revenue…). Basically, he's the Angry Cheeto with a certain level of actual skills and accomplishments. I mean, yes, his < Warmouse > did crash and burn, but it was a real product that did what it said on the label, you know? And his publishing house did get one of Dr. Jerry Pournelle's anthologies.
Posted by: Cubist on Jan. 27 2022,05:00

Someone is selling a < Warmouse > on eBay!
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 22 2022,20:04

In case anyone checks in, I thought y’all might like to know what our old friend is up to…
< Anti-Woke Superhero Movie Blown Up in $1 Million Con >
Posted by: fnxtr on Oct. 23 2022,12:36

"Sometimes the schaden just freuds itself."
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 23 2022,16:55

Oh, is that like a Freudian slip?
Posted by: Cubist on Oct. 25 2022,19:02

Of course VD is blaming the loss on Those Evil Woke Libtards. And of course his minions are swallowing his spiel.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.