But where are the crocoducks, tho?
I dont give Ray Comfort the same leeway, he is legitimately a moron along with his sidekick Kirk Cameron.
I think I am done arguing with young earth creationists
Posted July 16 2014 - 02:34 AM
Posted July 16 2014 - 03:14 PM
I actually just rewatched the debate between the Rational Response Squad and Comfort/Cameron the other day. I honestly do not understand how that duo functions in society.
Posted July 16 2014 - 04:13 PM
Don't even call them "young Earth creationists" btw.
Giving them a title builds merit as though this is an argument.
Posted July 17 2014 - 04:44 PM
No, but one did call me "Bill Nye" as if that is an insult.
"Hey, I am going to compare you to one of the most genuinely likeable people on this planet who has dedicated his life to educating and entertaining children! Take that f***ER!"
- mystikol87 likes this
Posted July 17 2014 - 04:46 PM
Have you told them that there are trees older than how old they think the earth is?
Posted July 17 2014 - 05:16 PM
Not just trees. The dog has been domesticated for twice as long as they think how old the earth is.
Posted July 17 2014 - 05:17 PM
When I pointed out that calling me or anyone Bill Nye is not an insult, the response was "oh so you know him personally huh?"....I had always assumed that knowing Bill Nye is one of the most genuinely good and decent people around was just common knowledge.
Posted Yesterday, 04:57 PM
Posted Today, 08:53 AM
Hmm. I have never gotten into any discussion of any kind with any "young earth creationist" or any bible-thumper of any kind. Or, for that matter any religious discussion of any kind. Or any discussion of abortion. There's no point.
I'm agnostic -- not anti-religion -- people can believe whatever they want, no skin off my butt. I have no time for the arguments of organized religion. And very little for even disorganized quasi-religion, say of the environmentalist/warmist/alarmist/we're all gonna die stripe.
But, I wonder what you mean by "gaga" as in "I sometimes forget how gaga the people in this country are over Israel."
Posted Today, 09:08 AM
Defend them and attempt to justify their actions to the point of irrationality.
Posted Today, 10:23 AM
OK. What constitutes an attempt to justify their actions "to the point of irrationality"?
Just so you know where I'm coming from, if I'm the elected leader of a country (say Israel) and one of my (many) enemies (say Hamas) whose founding documents flat-out state their intent to destroy my country (something they refuse to disavow) and then they fire thousands of rockets intended to kill as many random civilians as possible (even if they aren't any good at it because I have good defenses) and build hundreds of tunnels to infiltrate my country so that they can kidnap citizens and hold them for ransom, I'm not going to sit by and do nothing about it.
Could be any country, could be any enemy. Nobody in their right mind does nothing about blatant acts of war.
Is taking action against the perpetrators (or defending it) rational? At what point does "justifying it" become irrational?
Posted Today, 12:33 PM
Ah, yes, the immoral muck of moral equivalence.
Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza in 2005 -- OK, we're gone, you can govern yourselves. Have at it, we wish you the best, just leave us alone. We'll sell you all the electricity you need and anything else you want as long as you don't attack us.
They left behind thousands of greenhouses which produced flowers and vegetables for export. What happened to them? All destroyed and looted.
Hamas was elected in 2006. Hundreds of millions in aid have since flowed in to Gaza. Was it used to build a government and a functioning peaceful civil society? No, they built tunnels, smuggled arms and, of course, 15 or 20% off the top went to line the pockets of Hamas leaders.
Functioning government? Civil society? Nah, we don't need that. We want to destroy Israel. Tunnels and rockets, baby!
Hamas tries to kill as many Israeli civilians as it can, that's what they do. It's their entire reason for existing.
At the same time, they want as many dead Palestinians as possible. Which is why they store and fire rockets in and from schools and mosques and other civilian sites (including UN sites) subject to attack -- all for media effect.
Oh, look! A dead Palistinian! Israel bad! Israel evil! Never mind that the Palistinian is dead solely because of Hamas, sometimes to include misfiring rockets. Hamas obviously doesn't give a crap about what happens to any individual Palistinian, they only care about destroying Israel and publicity they can spin to that interest.
Israel tries to protect its own civilians from Hamas rocket fire and also tries to protect Palestinians by warning them before Hamas locations are going to be attacked. Sometimes called "knocking on the roof." Drop a harmless charge on a building to let them know that really bad, nasty stuff is coming soon. And by e-mail, telephone or social media. They warn their targets.
Could the contrast be any more striking or the moral equivalence any more nonexistent?
1 user(s) are reading this topic
1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users