Louis
Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 14 2008,20:12) | | Quote (Louis @ Feb. 14 2008,11:45) | | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2008,14:48) | | Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 14 2008,09:22) | | It has been a truly remarkable performance, and one that we may never see again. |
Although I don't think that's the message of Carlsonjok's post, above. |
{laughs}
Very witty, Oscar, very witty. I wish I'd said that.
{cue: You will, George, you will etc}
I have to say 'tis the only thing J-Dog has ever said that I disagree with. Surely if history has taught us anything it is:
a) That there is an inexhaustible supply of creationists and morons.....but I repeat myself. Like buses, one will be along in a minute. And just like buses, probably three will turn up at once.
b) FTK is like the proverbial bad penny. I think she needs to seek professional help of a psychological nature. Not that pennies need psychological help of course....oh you know what I meant!
Louis
EDITTED TO ADD: it is yet again time for the song by Motley Crue, that has typified FTK's time here, to be played.
"Girl don't go away mad, girl just go away...." |
Well, now that we've chased away our play-thing, are you going to help get us a new one? As a past winner of teh "Official Meanest Poster Award", you should use some of that suave debonair charm, and talk Maggie Thatcher out of retirement.
She's only 82, but I'll bet she's still feisty and might put up a good fight, before she runs away.
Alternatively, maybe we could email some Christian sites and tell them we are currently accepting applications for Martyr?
Hours are good, tears optional. Tard required. Must be able to quote chapter and verse. BYOCT (Bring Your Own Crown of Thorns) |
Oh but J-Dooooggggggg, do I have to? I don't wanna.
Maggie is too much for any of us. I think the nuclear option of inviting the seriously mentally exciting should be left well alone. Speaking of mentally subnormal people who need profound psychological help, I wonder how FTK is doing. Ohhhh I kill me sometimes.
But seriously, one thing I know for certain is we will never want for woo-woo proponents. FTK is not gone for good, she'll be back, she has neither the willpower nor the appreciation of her own lack of importance and wit to be able to stay away. Failing that we can always resurrect a few topics likely to bring screaming hoardes of deluded arseholes. It's not like baiting these mindless dupes into frothing at some venue or another is hard.
To be honest, I can't be bothered. I've spent a large section of my life debating with people both brilliant and boring and I know which I prefer. The experience of having to walk someone through the equivalent of a biology or chemistry GCSE* or philosophy 101 is not necessarily a bad one, or one I am not interested in, but doing it with someone who is incapable of, and unwilling and generally hostile to, learning anything has got extremely old. Sorry I know I'm a nasty old big meanie of an intellectual snob, but frankly I don't care too much anymore. If one thing that dealing with creationists has taught me it's that you must be at least this tall to go on this ride! I'm through trying to convince the intellectually stunted to climb on each other's shoulders and wear a long coat in order to stagger past the ticket guy.
Debating with someone brilliant is a totally different experience. Losing a debate because your argument is flawed or you've made an error obvious to someone more intelligent and experienced than yourself is actually quite thrilling and very educational. Although if you keep losing to experience that thrill I suggest certain S and M clubs might be more appropriate for your predilection! We (should) learn from our mistakes. Debating with someone intelligent and informed is hard work, it takes preparation and dedication, it's tough. At the very least familiarity with the topic at hand is needed, and I'm sorry but the vast majority of creationists etc we encounter are not familiar with the topics they "debate".
More than that there must be some, well I can't think of a better term than intellectual humility. Since we're on that thread, take FTK as the example again, she cannot understand Dembski's maths, she has not even the remotest clue about the basic science or philosophy and has no interest in learning despite any protestation to the contrary she might have. And yet she seeks to lecture and cast scorn on those who can and do because they have the temerity to disagree with her. She cannot even muster sufficient intellectual powers to comprehend that the reasons we disagree with her views are not the same reasons she disagrees with ours. What's the point of engaing FTK on any serious level? She manifestly cannot manage it either in terms of experience, familiarity with the topics at hand or intellectual agility. Which brings me to another idea...
I'm going to say something shocking. Before he jumped the shark at least, as trolls go, GoP was slightly interesting. He tried to get discussions going on quintessence/aether/crystalline space etc and geocentrism. Whilst these are obviously a total load of old shit, and he persisted with them and other things far beyond the point of amusement, at least he had the nuts to front up on a scientific level. Even AFDave engaged the science to some extent. The problem with both these gents was not their willingness to engage on scientific topics but their utter lack of intellectual honesty and willingness to learn. FTK manages the trifecta of tard, she's dishonest, ignorant and unwilling to learn. Actually it's more than a trifecta since she's also just plain stupid, but I digress.
So we return to the Dawkinsian Pentumvirate of undesirable traits: stupidity, ignorance, apathy, gullibility and dishonesty. Stupidity is to some extent correctable as is apathy and gullibility. Ignorance is the easiest to correct with someone willing to learn. Dishonesty though renders the whole enterprise impossible. Granted we should have some sympathy, granted people are dishonest in many varied and wonderful ways and they each take different methods to counter them. The point is though if people are incapable of admitting when they are demonstrated to be in error and are unwilling to learn or make the intellectual effort required to do the basics, it rapidly ceases to be a productive use of anyone's time to try to beat it into them! Three strikes baby, three strikes.
So if we DO get a new play mate, let's hope it's someone fun and capable. Maybe when people go to UD to imitate tard for comedy sock puppet related fun they should instead be trying to imitate tard HERE in as effective a manner as possible, however that requires a LOT more work and is genuinely a tricky thing to acheive.
Louis
*The GCSE is a set of exams taken at 16 in the UK, it's roughly equivalent to a high school diploma in the USA, but with some variations. I think, for example, USA high school maths is vastly more profound than GCSE maths, so the analogy doesn't map perfectly. Admittedly I'm basing this to a large extent on the fact that in the mid 90s I was TAing chemistry 101 in a USA university and was surprised by how poor their chemistry was and how amazingly good their maths was for freshman/ist year uni students. So YMMV.
--------------
Bye.
|
