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... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Pages: (527) < ... 135 136 137 138 139 [140] 141 142 143 144 145 ... >

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2015,10:38    Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 14 2015,07:03) Quote (Learned Hand @ Aug. 13 2015,23:36) Coincidentally I had a client contact me today to ask for support in an ongoing negotiation. One of their questions was whether they should accuse the other side of negotiating in bad faith right away, or wait a bit. I gave the advice any good negotiator or communicator would: don't accuse them at all. First of all, it's probably not true. Second, what's the point? It might make you feel good, but does it help you at all? Will they come around more quickly, or be more reluctant to agree? Will it discourage future bad behavior, or encourage it? I was thinking about that at the same time Stephen was writing that materialists are just lying objectivists, and a while after Barry went on his tirade about lying maggots spewing idiot garbage, etc. It's not just crass, it's shortsighted and foolish. Ironically the objectivists are the ones lighting fires because it feels good. I grew up in a household with really poor communication. Countless times I had to parse instructions like "Get me the thing off the thing." and daily bickering that traced back to a shitty communicator getting frustrated that nobody understood him and turning shitty communication into mean communication. I became really aware of, and sensitive to, how and why people communicate. And it's 100% clear that Barry's in this to prove how much smarter and penetrating his mind is. All other goals are secondary. It's probably tied into why he became a lawyer in the first place. Excessive self-regard. I don't know that it's a goal so much as an underlying condition.  If you don't think the same as Barry, then by definition you must be stupid, evil, or both. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2015,11:19    Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 14 2015,11:38) Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 14 2015,07:03) Quote (Learned Hand @ Aug. 13 2015,23:36) Coincidentally I had a client contact me today to ask for support in an ongoing negotiation. One of their questions was whether they should accuse the other side of negotiating in bad faith right away, or wait a bit. I gave the advice any good negotiator or communicator would: don't accuse them at all. First of all, it's probably not true. Second, what's the point? It might make you feel good, but does it help you at all? Will they come around more quickly, or be more reluctant to agree? Will it discourage future bad behavior, or encourage it? I was thinking about that at the same time Stephen was writing that materialists are just lying objectivists, and a while after Barry went on his tirade about lying maggots spewing idiot garbage, etc. It's not just crass, it's shortsighted and foolish. Ironically the objectivists are the ones lighting fires because it feels good. I grew up in a household with really poor communication. Countless times I had to parse instructions like "Get me the thing off the thing." and daily bickering that traced back to a shitty communicator getting frustrated that nobody understood him and turning shitty communication into mean communication. I became really aware of, and sensitive to, how and why people communicate. And it's 100% clear that Barry's in this to prove how much smarter and penetrating his mind is. All other goals are secondary. It's probably tied into why he became a lawyer in the first place. Excessive self-regard. I don't know that it's a goal so much as an underlying condition.  If you don't think the same as Barry, then by definition you must be stupid, evil, or both. as you pointed out at UD, he's not thinking strategically, so i agree, he's not acting with a conscious goal in mind. Showing off his piercing intellect is a condition or subconscious motivation. In my mid-20's i took some communication classes which really got me thinking explicitly about this stuff, and it's improved my life.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2015,11:45    Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 14 2015,09:19) Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 14 2015,11:38) Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 14 2015,07:03)   Quote (Learned Hand @ Aug. 13 2015,23:36) Coincidentally I had a client contact me today to ask for support in an ongoing negotiation. One of their questions was whether they should accuse the other side of negotiating in bad faith right away, or wait a bit. I gave the advice any good negotiator or communicator would: don't accuse them at all. First of all, it's probably not true. Second, what's the point? It might make you feel good, but does it help you at all? Will they come around more quickly, or be more reluctant to agree? Will it discourage future bad behavior, or encourage it? I was thinking about that at the same time Stephen was writing that materialists are just lying objectivists, and a while after Barry went on his tirade about lying maggots spewing idiot garbage, etc. It's not just crass, it's shortsighted and foolish. Ironically the objectivists are the ones lighting fires because it feels good. I grew up in a household with really poor communication. Countless times I had to parse instructions like "Get me the thing off the thing." and daily bickering that traced back to a shitty communicator getting frustrated that nobody understood him and turning shitty communication into mean communication. I became really aware of, and sensitive to, how and why people communicate. And it's 100% clear that Barry's in this to prove how much smarter and penetrating his mind is. All other goals are secondary. It's probably tied into why he became a lawyer in the first place. Excessive self-regard. I don't know that it's a goal so much as an underlying condition.  If you don't think the same as Barry, then by definition you must be stupid, evil, or both. as you pointed out at UD, he's not thinking strategically, so i agree, he's not acting with a conscious goal in mind. Showing off his piercing intellect is a condition or subconscious motivation. In my mid-20's i took some communication classes which really got me thinking explicitly about this stuff, and it's improved my life. I find it interesting how much his approach resembles a stereotypical sleazy lawyer summing-up to a jury.  Nothing but distortions and appeals to emotion.  He wouldn't last five minutes in a science forum - or, for that matter, in a courtroom with a half-decent judge. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2015,11:53    I love how he takes thousand-year-old philosophical dilemmas and just blurts "It's obvious that (blah blah blah)..." It never occurs to him that there's more to anything than whatever just pops into his undeveloped mind.

Woodbine Posts: 1218 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2015,12:15    I remember ages ago a thread at UD about free will and up popped Gil 'classical education dontcha know' Dodgen to denounce the idea that we might not be the authors of our actions as some new-fangled and transparently nonsensical Darwinian plot against all reason.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2015,12:33    Quote 22 MarfinAugust 14, 2015 at 1:45 am Why can`t the average materialist just be honest and admit that in their world there is no objective standard that you can judge good and evil by.The problem with any definition is , who is the final arbiter and judge of the definition they give.Any definition is subject to disagreement so who is the final judge , maybe its judge Dredd. Why don't you concentrate on finally passing 8th-grade english, and leave the philosophy to others? linky

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2015,12:37    Did Kairos and Barry deliberately put their words in maroon to highlight them a la "Jesus's Words" in the bible?

KevinB Posts: 525 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2015,12:51    Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 14 2015,12:37) Did Kairos and Barry deliberately put their words in maroon to highlight them a la "Jesus's Words" in the bible? It's the board highlighting the poster of the OP. I must say that the idea of Barry and marooning immediately links in my mind to the seaside resort south-west of Cardiff known as Barry Island - the South Walian equivalent of Southend or Blackpool, or possibly Coney Island. There seems to me to be a distinct conceptual association between BA's OPs and candy floss.

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2015,12:57    Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 14 2015,12:33) Quote 22 MarfinAugust 14, 2015 at 1:45 am Why can`t the average materialist just be honest and admit that in their world there is no objective standard that you can judge good and evil by.The problem with any definition is , who is the final arbiter and judge of the definition they give.Any definition is subject to disagreement so who is the final judge , maybe its judge Dredd. Why don't you concentrate on finally passing 8th-grade english, and leave the philosophy to others? linky An 8th grade civics class might also be helpful, as it would answer that ridiculous question. -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2015,14:07    Quote The problem with any definition is , who is the final arbiter and judge of the definition they give. Yep. And that applies just as much to a so-called "objective standard" as it does to a non-objective one.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2015,14:26    Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 14 2015,12:07) Quote The problem with any definition is , who is the final arbiter and judge of the definition they give. Yep. And that applies just as much to a so-called "objective standard" as it does to a non-objective one. They're all, every one of them, defining "objective standard" as "God's subjective standard."  It's good because God says so. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2015,16:06    The trouble with that is, who gets to decide what it was that God said?

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2015,16:13    Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 14 2015,14:06) The trouble with that is, who gets to decide what it was that God said? Barry, self-evidently. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Learned Hand Posts: 214 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2015,16:52    On the subject of abusive rhetoric generally, I was writing this during the latest UD spittle-storm: http://violentmetaphors.com/2015....m-taleb

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2015,22:53    Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 14 2015,16:06) The trouble with that is, who gets to decide what it was that God said? I.S.I.S.

Woodbine Posts: 1218 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2015,01:42    Quote I am the LAW The Judge said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

Amadan Posts: 1337 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2015,04:46    Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 13 2015,21:12) (from links above)   Quote Arrington has represented Polis on behalf of the congressman’s charter school network The New America School, and Polis said he was sorry to recommend that Arrington be fired. “… I have had respect for your legal abilities and it pains me to make that recommendation,” Polis wrote. “But in this instance it appears as if some political agenda that I don’t understand might be clouding the quality of your advice to the Twin Peaks board.” That political agenda may in fact be Arrington’s. In addition to representing various charter schools, Arrington spends time theorizing about intelligent design and its connection to the law.  He’s fought on behalf of a Colorado student who felt denigrated by a biology professor who challenged her doubts about evolution. In his musings about intelligent design, Arrington has also blogged about his thoughts on homosexuality: “A man’s body is designed to be complementary with a woman’s body and vice versa. All of the confusion about whether same-sex relations are licit would be swept away in an instant if everyone acknowledged this obvious truth.” Arrington did not return request for comment about his work on intelligent design. The full text of the back and forth between Arrington and Polis is below: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA It's Wet T-Shirt 'n Tacos Night Morning in Murica, after all: as the Republican presidential race continues to be dominated by the One Stooges, will Barry be inspired run in Trump's backwash* and bring his higher moral standards to Congress? Pleasepleasepleaseplease let it be so! Run Barry! Run! * Eeeewwwwwww -------------- "People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011 JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2015,10:23    Quote (Learned Hand @ Aug. 14 2015,17:52) On the subject of abusive rhetoric generally, I was writing this during the latest UD spittle-storm: http://violentmetaphors.com/2015.......m-taleb Taleb's problem is, he acts like a retard.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2015,12:47    Quote 88 ZachrielAugust 15, 2015 at 7:15 am kairosfocus: For anarchy, I suggest to you i/l/o dictionaries and root as cited, the primary reference is lack of rule[r], with implication of breakdown or absence of effective governance rooted in traditional power centres [typically, state, church, capital and even family], in hopes of emergence of a future, utopian communalism. Not all anarchists are communalists, as already pointed out many times. kairosfocus: I wonder why you seem unable to acknowledge a change made over a week ago and repeatedly brought to your attention, complete with dictionary definitions of -ic and anarchic. We have acknowledged the change, but it didn’t address the problems with your cubic analysis. Ignoring those objections doesn’t make them go away. From your responses, you probably can’t even restate those objections, much less answer them. Zachriel Keeps It Real

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2015,14:57    Zach slaps down Uptight Bitard: Quote Heh. It’s always fun listening to ID fancy-talk. “Physicochemical arbitrariness” shows up exactly once on Google. This very thread. “Dimensional semiotic memory” shows up twice. This thread, and another thread on Uncommon Descent where Reciprocating Bill points out that the term is not a current term of art. Throwing a bunch of words together to make it sound more complicated doesn’t change the meaning. If you mean the origin of the genetic code, why not simply say so? -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2015,17:07

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2015,08:53    Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 15 2015,15:57) Zach slaps down Uptight Bitard: Quote Heh. It’s always fun listening to ID fancy-talk. “Physicochemical arbitrariness” shows up exactly once on Google. This very thread. “Dimensional semiotic memory” shows up twice. This thread, and another thread on Uncommon Descent where Reciprocating Bill points out that the term is not a current term of art. Throwing a bunch of words together to make it sound more complicated doesn’t change the meaning. If you mean the origin of the genetic code, why not simply say so? Actually, Zachriel found "another thread on Uncommon Descent where Reciprocating Bill points out that the term is found nowhere else in the English speaking world." -------------- 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

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2015,10:28    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 16 2015,16:53) Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 15 2015,15:57) Zach slaps down Uptight Bitard:   Quote Heh. It’s always fun listening to ID fancy-talk. “Physicochemical arbitrariness” shows up exactly once on Google. This very thread. “Dimensional semiotic memory” shows up twice. This thread, and another thread on Uncommon Descent where Reciprocating Bill points out that the term is not a current term of art. Throwing a bunch of words together to make it sound more complicated doesn’t change the meaning. If you mean the origin of the genetic code, why not simply say so? Actually, Zachriel found "another thread on Uncommon Descent where Reciprocating Bill points out that the term is found nowhere else in the English speaking world." Well that's bound to happen when a bunch of monkeys pound away on typewriters for a few years. It's the evolutionary equivalent of a baby with two heads. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2015,11:20    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 16 2015,08:53) Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 15 2015,15:57) Zach slaps down Uptight Bitard:   Quote Heh. It’s always fun listening to ID fancy-talk. “Physicochemical arbitrariness” shows up exactly once on Google. This very thread. “Dimensional semiotic memory” shows up twice. This thread, and another thread on Uncommon Descent where Reciprocating Bill points out that the term is not a current term of art. Throwing a bunch of words together to make it sound more complicated doesn’t change the meaning. If you mean the origin of the genetic code, why not simply say so? Actually, Zachriel found "another thread on Uncommon Descent where Reciprocating Bill points out that the term is found nowhere else in the English speaking world." The veneer of science, with non of the work! -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2015,18:08    Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 16 2015,09:20)   Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 16 2015,08:53)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 15 2015,15:57) Zach slaps down Uptight Bitard:     Quote Heh. It’s always fun listening to ID fancy-talk. “Physicochemical arbitrariness” shows up exactly once on Google. This very thread. “Dimensional semiotic memory” shows up twice. This thread, and another thread on Uncommon Descent where Reciprocating Bill points out that the term is not a current term of art. Throwing a bunch of words together to make it sound more complicated doesn’t change the meaning. If you mean the origin of the genetic code, why not simply say so? Actually, Zachriel found "another thread on Uncommon Descent where Reciprocating Bill points out that the term is found nowhere else in the English speaking world." The veneer of science, with non of the work! UD: Mactac® for the hard-of-thinking. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,05:54    How to tell when your degree is a PhDumb:*             Quote Why I think a transcendent Creator would make computer simulations of consciousness impossible An interesting question for Intelligent Design proponents to ponder at this point is: supposing that the universe was designed by a Being Who wished to make His existence scientifically knowable to any intelligent life-forms living within the cosmos, and suppose that this Being was not only intelligent but also transcendent, how would He design the universe in such a way as to prevent human beings (and any other intelligent life-forms that might exist in outer space) from drawing the wrong inference about the nature of the Designer, and conceiving of Him as merely super-human (like the Greek and Roman gods of antiquity), rather than transcendent? Apparently an intelligent designer couldn't just appear (possibly on a pillar of fire),  introduce himself, do a few miracles, make a few non-obvious but accurate predictions about the future - you know, do some God type stuff, but do it often enough so most people have seen Him in action and also do it in front of the newsreel cameras occasionally.  That would keep me from drawing any wrong conclusions.  It would certainly be more convincing than appearing before an occasional lone goatherd and leaving him with no evidence beyond the word of a lying goatherd. * vjtorley, of course.  Physicist Paul Davies’ killer argument against the multiverse PS Wasn't Jesus kinda "corporeal" and fleshy and solid and not too powerful?  Didn't He eat and sleep and walk and talk something like a Greek or Roman god of antiquity?  We'll abbreviate that degree as a PhDb. Edited by CeilingCat on Aug. 17 2015,05:57

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,08:03    Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 17 2015,05:54) How to tell when your degree is a PhDumb:*               Quote Why I think a transcendent Creator would make computer simulations of consciousness impossible An interesting question for Intelligent Design proponents to ponder at this point is: supposing that the universe was designed by a Being Who wished to make His existence scientifically knowable to any intelligent life-forms living within the cosmos, and suppose that this Being was not only intelligent but also transcendent, how would He design the universe in such a way as to prevent human beings (and any other intelligent life-forms that might exist in outer space) from drawing the wrong inference about the nature of the Designer, and conceiving of Him as merely super-human (like the Greek and Roman gods of antiquity), rather than transcendent? Apparently an intelligent designer couldn't just appear (possibly on a pillar of fire),  introduce himself, do a few miracles, make a few non-obvious but accurate predictions about the future - you know, do some God type stuff, but do it often enough so most people have seen Him in action and also do it in front of the newsreel cameras occasionally.  That would keep me from drawing any wrong conclusions.  It would certainly be more convincing than appearing before an occasional lone goatherd and leaving him with no evidence beyond the word of a lying goatherd. Ah, yes, but the Babel Fish argument shows that doing this would destroy God. -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,09:53    Hey, if the Babel fish can be used in an argument that way, what about the Rosetta Stone?

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,11:11    Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 17 2015,09:53) Hey, if the Babel fish can be used in an argument that way, what about the Rosetta Stone? That proves the non-existence of humans before 4004BC. -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,14:03    Quote 7 daveSAugust 17, 2015 at 7:51 am BA77, Quote Actually common ancestry is not a “given”, it is an empirically unsupported materialistic assumption that Darwinists take for granted as if it were a empirically supported “given”. Behe, Denton, several ID advocates here, and virtually all mainstream scientists accept common ancestry, so it’s not just a “materialistic assumption”. I don’t want to be rude, but I won’t be responding to the rest of your posts in this thread. who in the world actually Does read BatShit77?

Pages: (527) < ... 135 136 137 138 139 [140] 141 142 143 144 145 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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