Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Young Cosmos

Pages: (32) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,14:17    Quote Really uncalled for, Bill. I doubt FTK had to look it up.   Quote But, it looks like your involvement with the above Erasmus post and your smegma name calling puts you in the exact same category as Salvador Cordova. Depends on the target audience I suppose.  And anyway, would "category" be like "kind" by any chance?   Quote   How does that hit ya?   Like a 6000 year old earth.   Quote Interesting that you were the one who said there isn't anything written here than compares to Sal's shenanigans. Pah. A "rude" word that in fact has an accepted definition and is just a word compares to Sal's behaviour?   Quote Pot, meet kettle... See the avatar. Meet pot. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,14:18    If the animal finds no trouble in it: what's the matter? Hell, dogs sometimes start humping people out of themselfs, they start. Why would I condemn such an act, if no one is getting hurt.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,14:19    Quote I really don't know what my parents think of religion and what they beleive themselfs. Honey, the fact that they never discussed the issue of religion with you is influential in and of itself.  Parents make a point of talking with their children about things they hold dear or that they think are important.  The fact that you've never heard word one from them about religious matters tells you that it's simply not important to them.  That is influential to a child. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,14:24    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,13:54) Dave, I have no idea how you find that sentence Sal used an example of quote mining.           Quote Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Skatje Myers (daughter of Darwinist PZ Myers) That is exactly her feelings on the subject.  That sentence has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she has sex or wants to have sex with animals!  The point is that she feels it shouldn't be shocking that some people can find deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets!!! How is that quote mining?! It's quote-mining because of what you left out (egad, you are quote-mining Sal!).  He then wrote     Quote I’m refraining commenting on the morality of human-animal sex in this post, but human animal sex just sounds plain icky, ICKY with a capital “I”. Imagine you are the proud parent of a young lady, and then she introduces you to her prospective fiance, the “man” she wants as her husband: followed by a picture of a collared peccary. Sal is clearly implying something other than what she expressed in her post, and which he omitted.         Quote Allow me to first tell you that I personally do not have an interest in bestiality. Parse it however you want, and try to fit it into your definition of good Christian behavior, but to everyone else on the planet, Sal is quote-mining and engaging in innuendo about a teen-age girl and bestiality. If that's OK in your god-given moral code, then you certainly will have zero credibility the next time you get up on your Clydesdale and lecture atheists about their moral code... Now please explain to me how the sins of her father need to be visited upon a teen-age girl. Before you answer, consider how you would feel if someone wrote a blog post implying that one of your kids used somebody else's painting for his award-winning duck stamp entry, and justified it by saying that they didn't agree with your unscientific attitude about the age of the earth. You seem to have lost track of that particular issue from my last post. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,14:26    Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,14:18) If the animal finds no trouble in it: what's the matter? Hell, dogs sometimes start humping people out of themselfs, they start. Why would I condemn such an act, if no one is getting hurt. Exactly...why condemn it?  That's the point.  Sex in any fashion is okay just as long as the other person, animal, brother, sister, child, or adult is okay with it.  In fact, there is really no need for marriage either.  Kids don't need the influence of both a father and a mother.  We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's or a single of each.   So, let's set up a huge orgy tonight and have a ball!!  I can't imagine it would hurt any of us (unless Rich gets out the whips). MORAL RELATIVISM....  yahoo! -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,14:26    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:14)   Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 02 2008,14:01)     Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,13:54) Dave, I have no idea how you find that sentence Sal used an example of quote mining.           Quote Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Skatje Myers (daughter of Darwinist PZ Myers) That is exactly her feelings on the subject.  That sentence has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she has sex or wants to have sex with animals!  The point is that she feels it shouldn't be shocking that some people can find deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets!!! How is that quote mining?! Keep on digging FTK!       Quote Skatje Allow me to first tell you that I personally do not have an interest in bestiality. I don’t support it being legal because I want to hump animals. You might ask, why even bother arguing for this position if it really doesn’t actually matter to me. You’re right. There’s no point in me doing this, but since FTK made a comment and I replied asking why she’s against bestiality, there’s been a huge freak-out. So I feel the need to address this and clarify that I’m just arguing a rational stance and I’m not some sort of psychotic horse-raping weirdo. ? You're point?  How does that negate the fact that she condones the act?  She thinks it's A-okay to have relations with animals.  So what if she says she doesn't enjoy it personally.  That's not even the point.  You believe homosexuality is A-okay, yet you probably aren't participating in the act.  Same thing. FTK. For starters, a typical blog post of yours consists of a paragraph of text somebody else wrote, a cryptic comment from you (if that) and somehow that counts as an opinion. So don't make me laugh. FTK, I guess you are a vegetarian right? Quote How does that negate the fact that she condones the act? She thinks it's A-okay to have relations with animals. Condone? Oh, I thought you said: Quote The point is that she feels it shouldn't be shocking that some people can find deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets!!! And, oddly, I can't find the word "condone" or "condones" in the article. Perhaps it's not there to quotemine? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,14:28    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:26)   Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,14:18) If the animal finds no trouble in it: what's the matter? Hell, dogs sometimes start humping people out of themselfs, they start. Why would I condemn such an act, if no one is getting hurt. Exactly...why condemn it?  That's the point.  Sex in any fashion is okay just as long as the other person, animal, brother, sister, child, or adult is okay with it.  In fact, there is really no need for marriage either.  Kids don't need the influence of both a father and a mother.  We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's or a single of each.   So, let's set up a huge orgy tonight and have a ball!!  I can't imagine it would hurt any of us (unless Rich gets out the whips). MORAL RELATIVISM....  yahoo! FTK, simple question. Has a monogamous "marriage" type arrangement been in existence and predominated over rival arrangements during recorded history? EDIT: Or rather, to what extent has civilisation depended on FTK's specific interpretation of the way to arrange a life and who to sleep with? EDIT: Anyway, wasn't that the 60's FTK was describing? Not that I was there. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,14:29    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:19) Quote I really don't know what my parents think of religion and what they beleive themselfs. Honey, the fact that they never discussed the issue of religion with you is influential in and of itself.  Parents make a point of talking with their children about things they hold dear or that they think are important.  The fact that you've never heard word one from them about religious matters tells you that it's simply not important to them.  That is influential to a child. Not just words, nothing. No hints, nothing. I really don't know what they think is imporant, I don't know what they hold dear. It's odd I know.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,14:35    Quote Sal is clearly implying something other than what she expressed in her post, and which he omitted. Oh, no, no, no, no!  You are *projecting*.  He provided her quote and then gave a humorous example of  "girl", not *Skatje*.  There is no implication that *Skatje* enjoys bestiality in his post whatsoever.  She does, however, condone it and believes that it is okay to have that special relationship with one's pet.   That is not quote mining. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,14:36    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:35) Quote Sal is clearly implying something other than what she expressed in her post, and which he omitted. Oh, no, no, no, no!  You are *projecting*.  He provided her quote and then gave a humorous example of  "girl", not *Skatje*.  There is no implication that *Skatje* enjoys bestiality in his post whatsoever.  She does, however, condone it and believes that it is okay to have that special relationship with one's pet.   That is not quote mining. Quote the bit where it says Quote She does, however, condone it Then. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,14:45    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:26) Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,14:18) If the animal finds no trouble in it: what's the matter? Hell, dogs sometimes start humping people out of themselfs, they start. Why would I condemn such an act, if no one is getting hurt. Exactly...why condemn it?  That's the point.  Sex in any fashion is okay just as long as the other person, animal, brother, sister, child, or adult is okay with it.  In fact, there is really no need for marriage either.  Kids don't need the influence of both a father and a mother.  We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's or a single of each.   So, let's set up a huge orgy tonight and have a ball!!  I can't imagine it would hurt any of us (unless Rich gets out the whips). MORAL RELATIVISM....  yahoo! Then ask me, why the hell should you condemn someone who has sex with a horse (who doesn't even notice such a small human penis, compared to what a horse has) if the horse isn't troubled and if the human isn't troubled. Yes it's biological odd, I even think the brains of people who do that are damaged (afterall, it has no function or use whatsoever, it can be dangerous!) and I actually think the same about homosexuality (thus a little misswiring) but why the hell should I condemn it if 2 men are happy toghether even though it's biological odd. Besides, are you saying someone can't be brought up by a homo-couple?

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,14:51    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,20:26) Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,14:18) If the animal finds no trouble in it: what's the matter? Hell, dogs sometimes start humping people out of themselfs, they start. Why would I condemn such an act, if no one is getting hurt. Exactly...why condemn it?  That's the point.  Sex in any fashion is okay just as long as the other person, animal, brother, sister, child, or adult is okay with it.  In fact, there is really no need for marriage either.  Kids don't need the influence of both a father and a mother.  We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's or a single of each.   So, let's set up a huge orgy tonight and have a ball!!  I can't imagine it would hurt any of us (unless Rich gets out the whips). MORAL RELATIVISM....  yahoo! The point of this post being to highlight the assumed problems with moral relativism, I assume? Of course, this rather misses the point of moral relativism. There is no absolute morality, therefore THE MAJORITY MORALITY WE ARE BROUGHT UP IN HOLDS SWAY. There is, in our shared culture (by our I'm including the majority of the industrialised world) the opinion it's wrong to kill, steal or use child labour (although this is somehow overlooked if the labour takes place in non industrialised or industrialising areas). Similarly, for whatever reason (and I can think of many), it is seen as "immoral" for people to have sex with animals. However, that does not preclude the central point that just because there are numerous reasons for not doing something, and that the vast majority of people in the world would condemn it, that does not make it an absolute pronouncement. The universe as a whole (according to moral relativism) has no opinion of any act, right or wrong, because there is nothing in the universe TO have an opinion, so we are left with the fickle opinions of people. An arrangement I am happy with. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,14:52    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:09) Really uncalled for, Bill.  But, it looks like your involvement with the above Erasmus post and your smegma name calling puts you in the exact same category as Salvador Cordova.  How does that hit ya?   Interesting that you were the one who said there isn't anything written here than compares to Sal's shenanigans. Pot, meet kettle... Now you're just guessing. I had no role in creating Erasmus' post. I guess he wanted to borrow my mojo. As I indicated before, I'm not the AtBC police. My post accurately reported timescales for various events that I invited you to attempt to imagine. And, of course, your posts since then demonstrate what you really prefer to engage while here: you ignored that post, which containined non-provocative content, and have since gone for the exciting down dirty stuff. That's what keeps it going here, because it keeps you twirling. I believe I've made it clear that I find Sal a contemptible asshole. As we speak he is equating Darwin with Hitler, falsely suggesting that genocide follows from Darwinism (that tired old trope); he recently attempted to exploit Darwin's loss of two children in infancy (including his "deformed child") to score false and misleading rhetorical points regarding approval of "mutations"; suggested that it follows from Darwinism that we "should" receive anal intercourse from horses to make a similarly misleading point; suggested that approval of canabalism follows from Darwinism; dragged out Darwin's remorse over beating a puppy in childhood - all to make false, misleading points by means of contemptible deliberate distortion and dishonesty. What I stated is that Cordova displays more DISHONESTY in one post than a month of AtBC insults - as amply displayed in his recent YC posts. It is not the nastiness of his posts that bothers me, it is the contemptible DISHONESTY of his posts. When I refer to Sal as "rectal prolapse" and denote his posts by means of various infectious oozings no one can mistake the intent of such statements: it is to express that contempt. However, I don't otherwise attempt to mislead others regarding the content of arguments important to this discussion, creationist or otherwise, as does Sal on a minute by minute basis. As you defend him you endorse that dishonesty. There is no escaping that. [edit for clarity] [edit] I just wanted to add that I find Sal contemptible. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,14:54    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:35)     Quote Sal is clearly implying something other than what she expressed in her post, and which he omitted. Oh, no, no, no, no!  You are *projecting*.  He provided her quote and then gave a humorous example of  "girl", not *Skatje*.  There is no implication that *Skatje* enjoys bestiality in his post whatsoever.  She does, however, condone it and believes that it is okay to have that special relationship with one's pet.   That is not quote mining. Baloney. Let me break it down for you (again). 1) Her name appears in the title of the post ("Skatje Myers on human-animal sex"). 2) Her name appears in the post, followed by Sal's puerile musings about human-animal sex, a young lady, and her fiance. 3) Accompanying all this is a picture of a collared peccary. 4) He quotes something from that post that EVEN YOU interpreted as "condoning" sex with animals. The actual post, which he did not link to, says nothing of the sort, and explicitly contradicts what Sal implied in his excerpt. Net effect is to imply that a particular teen-age girl would have sex with a collared peccary. I'm not projecting; that is exactly the message Sal wanted to get across, via quote-mining and innuendo. You could show that short message to thousands of people who would immediately understand what Sal was implying. Why don't you take your computer to church this weekend and ask the congregation if they don't "project" to the same conclusion that I did? Your defense of this disgusting post is quite telling. And you are still ignoring my question about your inane argument that the sins of the father should be visited upon a teen-age girl. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,15:05    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:35) Quote Sal is clearly implying something other than what she expressed in her post, and which he omitted. Oh, no, no, no, no!  You are *projecting*.  He provided her quote and then gave a humorous example of  "girl", not *Skatje*.  There is no implication that *Skatje* enjoys bestiality in his post whatsoever.  She does, however, condone it and believes that it is okay to have that special relationship with one's pet.   That is not quote mining. Quote There is no implication that *Skatje* enjoys bestiality in his post whatsoever. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,15:12    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 02 2008,14:54) Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:35)       Quote Sal is clearly implying something other than what she expressed in her post, and which he omitted. Oh, no, no, no, no!  You are *projecting*.  He provided her quote and then gave a humorous example of  "girl", not *Skatje*.  There is no implication that *Skatje* enjoys bestiality in his post whatsoever.  She does, however, condone it and believes that it is okay to have that special relationship with one's pet.   That is not quote mining. Baloney. Let me break it down for you (again). 1) Her name appears in the title of the post ("Skatje Myers on human-animal sex"). 2) Her name appears in the post, followed by Sal's puerile musings about human-animal sex, a young lady, and her fiance. 3) Accompanying all this is a picture of a collared peccary. 4) He quotes something from that post that EVEN YOU interpreted as "condoning" sex with animals. The actual post, which he did not link to, says nothing of the sort, and explicitly contradicts what Sal implied in his excerpt. Net effect is to imply that a particular teen-age girl would have sex with a collared peccary. I'm not projecting; that is exactly the message Sal wanted to get across, via quote-mining and innuendo. You could show that short message to thousands of people who would immediately understand what Sal was implying. Why don't you take your computer to church this weekend and ask the congregation if they don't "project" to the same conclusion that I did? Your defense of this disgusting post is quite telling. And you are still ignoring my question about your inane argument that the sins of the father should be visited upon a teen-age girl. Are you **completely** daft?  It amazes me that we are even reading the same post written by Skatje. OBVIOUSLY, Skatje condones having sex with animals.  I have no idea how you can say otherwise.  I guess we have to just leave this to readers to decide for themselves as to whether she does or doesn't. Just because someone isn't interested in participating in a particular sexual act themselves doesn't mean they don't think it's okay for everyone else to if they so choose. What in the world is wrong with you? -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,15:13    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:12) OBVIOUSLY, Skatje condones having sex with animals. It'll be simple to quote the bit then. EDIT: And you are missing the point somewhat FTK. It's about SAL not Skatje. I think you see that but can't defend Sal so... -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,15:24    Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,13:37) Quote My children don't have blogs, and they don't have any want to force their beliefs on others. And what about there own children then? How is that moral? Aside from the other morality and general questions (I'm waiting with patience ;)), I wonder why you support Sal. Duh. Because he's on the 'right side'. For FTK, nothing else really matters. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,15:29    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 02 2008,15:13)   Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:12) OBVIOUSLY, Skatje condones having sex with animals. It'll be simple to quote the bit then. EDIT: And you are missing the point somewhat FTK. It's about SAL not Skatje. I think you see that but can't defend Sal so... Exactly. Diverting the discussion away from Sal's behavior is not going to work. Via quote mine and innuendo he left the impression that a teenage girl would have sex with a collared peccary. Absent any evidence to that effect, and regardless of the label as "humor", such behavior ON SAL'S PART is reprehensible. And you are defending him; you think that he has a "point". Those of us who find his behavior to be disgusting are considered "daft"; this behavior is somehow justified by your god-given moral code. That's simply amazing. As the saying goes, you can't make this shit up. And ahem, here we go again, for at least the fourth time. Do you really believe that the sins (real or imagined) of the father should be visited on a teenage girl? -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,15:31    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 02 2008,15:52) [edit] I just wanted to add that I find Sal contemptible. Personally, I prefer the moniker The Most Disgusting Piece of Spooge on Teh Interwebs. It suits him well. Ftk, you are attempting to defend the indefensible. Further, it's rather telling that you find any sexual orientations other than your own immoral by assumption, yet being a lying sack of crap like Sal is just fine.  "Without Integrity and Without Remorse" should be on Young Cosmos' header. With a moral compass like that, you hardly have grounds to pontificate. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,15:49    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 02 2008,15:29) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 02 2008,15:13)     Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:12) OBVIOUSLY, Skatje condones having sex with animals. It'll be simple to quote the bit then. EDIT: And you are missing the point somewhat FTK. It's about SAL not Skatje. I think you see that but can't defend Sal so... Exactly. Diverting the discussion away from Sal's behavior is not going to work. Via quote mine and innuendo he left the impression that a teenage girl would have sex with a collared peccary. Absent any evidence to that effect, and regardless of the label as "humor", such behavior ON SAL'S PART is reprehensible. And you are defending him; you think that he has a "point". Those of us who find his behavior to be disgusting are considered "daft"; this behavior is somehow justified by your god-given moral code. That's simply amazing. As the saying goes, you can't make this shit up. And ahem, here we go again, for at least the fourth time. Do you really believe that the sins (real or imagined) of the father should be visited on a teenage girl? Again, *daft*.  I've already said I do not support Sal's recent attempts at humor.  I've said *several* times now.  You keep after than angle to ignore what I'm really saying.   1.  I, *again*, do not condone Sal's AtBC peanut gallery form of humor.   2.  Yes, I am certainly supporting the point, which is that Skatje condones all the sexual acts mentioned in my previous posts, and that morality is subjective, relative and certainly not absolute. 3.  What sins of the father are you refering to?  What sins of the father are being visited on the "teenage girl"?  I can't imagine that you or either one of them believe these issues to be a "sin".  On what grounds would one consider them sins? -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,15:52    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 02 2008,15:52) Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:09) Really uncalled for, Bill.  But, it looks like your involvement with the above Erasmus post and your smegma name calling puts you in the exact same category as Salvador Cordova.  How does that hit ya?   Interesting that you were the one who said there isn't anything written here than compares to Sal's shenanigans. Pot, meet kettle... Now you're just guessing. I had no role in creating Erasmus' post. I guess he wanted to borrow my mojo. As I indicated before, I'm not the AtBC police. My post accurately reported timescales for various events that I invited you to attempt to imagine. And, of course, your posts since then demonstrate what you really prefer to engage while here: you ignored that post, which containined non-provocative content, and have since gone for the exciting down dirty stuff. That's what keeps it going here, because it keeps you twirling. I believe I've made it clear that I find Sal a contemptible asshole. As we speak he is equating Darwin with Hitler, falsely suggesting that genocide follows from Darwinism (that tired old trope); he recently attempted to exploit Darwin's loss of two children in infancy (including his "deformed child") to score false and misleading rhetorical points regarding approval of "mutations"; suggested that it follows from Darwinism that we "should" receive anal intercourse from horses to make a similarly misleading point; suggested that approval of canabalism follows from Darwinism; dragged out Darwin's remorse over beating a puppy in childhood - all to make false, misleading points by means of contemptible deliberate distortion and dishonesty. What I stated is that Cordova displays more DISHONESTY in one post than a month of AtBC insults - as amply displayed in his recent YC posts. It is not the nastiness of his posts that bothers me, it is the contemptible DISHONESTY of his posts. When I refer to Sal as "rectal prolapse" and denote his posts by means of various infectious oozings no one can mistake the intent of such statements: it is to express that contempt. However, I don't otherwise attempt to mislead others regarding the content of arguments important to this discussion, creationist or otherwise, as does Sal on a minute by minute basis. As you defend him you endorse that dishonesty. There is no escaping that. [edit for clarity] [edit] I just wanted to add that I find Sal contemptible. Salvador's sleazy behavior has been going on for years. He earned the nickname "Sleazy Sal" before FtK even had a username here.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,15:53    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,16:49) 2.  Yes, I am certainly supporting the point, which is that Skatje condones all the sexual acts mentioned in my previous posts, and that morality is subjective, relative and certainly not absolute. The implication being that your system is the opposite? Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:01    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:26) We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's Greengrocer's apostrophe.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:03    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,21:49) and that morality is subjective, relative and certainly not absolute.     Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,20:26)       Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,14:18) If the animal finds no trouble in it: what's the matter? Hell, dogs sometimes start humping people out of themselfs, they start. Why would I condemn such an act, if no one is getting hurt. Exactly...why condemn it?  That's the point.  Sex in any fashion is okay just as long as the other person, animal, brother, sister, child, or adult is okay with it.  In fact, there is really no need for marriage either.  Kids don't need the influence of both a father and a mother.  We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's or a single of each.   So, let's set up a huge orgy tonight and have a ball!!  I can't imagine it would hurt any of us (unless Rich gets out the whips). MORAL RELATIVISM....  yahoo! Quote The point of this post being to highlight the assumed problems with moral relativism, I assume? Of course, this rather misses the point of moral relativism. There is no absolute morality, therefore THE MAJORITY MORALITY WE ARE BROUGHT UP IN HOLDS SWAY. There is, in our shared culture (by our I'm including the majority of the industrialised world) the opinion it's wrong to kill, steal or use child labour (although this is somehow overlooked if the labour takes place in non industrialised or industrialising areas). Similarly, for whatever reason (and I can think of many), it is seen as "immoral" for people to have sex with animals. However, that does not preclude the central point that just because there are numerous reasons for not doing something, and that the vast majority of people in the world would condemn it, that does not make it an absolute pronouncement. The universe as a whole (according to moral relativism) has no opinion of any act, right or wrong, because there is nothing in the universe TO have an opinion, so we are left with the fickle opinions of people. An arrangement I am happy with. EDITS:God damn it. Repeated edits because I failed to get this post right first time, and it STILL isn't correct. But you get the general impression. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:05    Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,16:01) Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:26) We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's Greengrocer's apostrophe. Oh, shut up, apostrophe boy.  I know I screwed up...I type in a hurry and rarely check the preview screen. It just takes too much time. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:07    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:49) Again, *daft*.  I've already said I do not support Sal's recent attempts at humor.  I've said *several* times now.  You keep after than angle to ignore what I'm really saying.   I am not ignoring what you are saying. On the contrary, I am trying to make you focus on that, and the ramifications thereof.     Quote 1.  I, *again*, do not condone Sal's AtBC peanut gallery form of humor. That was already understood; this sentence is just a diversion.     Quote 2.  Yes, I am certainly supporting the point, which is that Skatje condones all the sexual acts mentioned in my previous posts, and that morality is subjective, relative and certainly not absolute. But you are unable to find evidence that she "condones" it, despite numerous requests. My reading of her words simply is that she feels it should not be "illegal". I may not condone the behavior of somebody who rides a motorcycle without a helmet, but I don't think it should be illegal. There's a difference, and it is not subtle. There is no mention of "morality" in her post; your previous accusation of projection seems to apply to you here. If you continue to maintain that she "condones" all those things you mentioned, please provide the evidence from her words, not from your projections.     Quote 3.  What sins of the father are you refering to?  What sins of the father are being visited on the "teenage girl"? In this comment, you wrote     Quote Also, Skatje is the daughter of one of the most ardent religion bashers.  It only makes sense to consider the morals of his followers and offspring when considering what our future might look like without religion. This indicates that you justify Sal's slimy innuendoes about Skatje because her father is an "ardent religion basher". That may not be how you meant it, but that is how it comes across. In addition, it is hyperbolic to assume that your future would be "without religion". Finally, if your moral code justifies quote-mining and innuendo about a teenage girl having sex with a collared peccary, I think you have no credibility in discussing the moral codes of others. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:09    Look, I think the problem here is that people are using different definitions of the word 'condone.' Alba et al appear to be using this one: Quote to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior. There's no evidence that Skatje approves of beastiality. If Ftk thinks so, she needs to provide more support than she has done so far. But I think that Ftk is using this definition: Quote to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like) I think there is sufficient evidence that the young Ms. Myers disregards such behavior even though she finds it personally objectionable. What any of this has to do with moral relativism, I have no idea. (just kidding. I know that it's a common talking point to call someone a moral relativist when they believe in giving people greater freedoms). I don't think Ftk knows what moral relativism is. -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:11    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,17:05) Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,16:01) Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,15:26) We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's Greengrocer's apostrophe. Oh, shut up, apostrophe boy.  I know I screwed up...I type in a hurry and rarely check the preview screen. It just takes too much time. If only you could edit your comments....

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,16:12    Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 02 2008,22:09) I don't think Ftk knows what moral relativism is. I don't think that is QUITE true, but it's pretty much there. I think (and this is only my opinion based upon what I've seen) FTK knows moral relativism means there is no fixed, absolute morality in the universe (which is, lets face it, THE main point of the idea) however she then fails to get the followup, which is that human societal morality is used as a substitue. She seems to see the lack of ABSOLUTE morals as, effectively, a lack of morals. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Pages: (32) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard