Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pat Robertson on natural disasters
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 196 of 302 (254703)
10-25-2005 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Buzsaw
10-24-2005 10:36 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Hello Buz.
Because they should understand that Robertson, a more Biblial fundamentalist Christian than some, especially so far as the OP of this thread was quoting lots of scripture and being very literally fundamental as to what the Bible says on the subject pertaining to the op.
I watched Pat do his thing regarding natural disasters for years. While Politicians were not doing what he said (specifically Democrats) every one of them had the omen of the second coming and a slam on the current administration. That is God was judging what this nation's gov't was doing.
Within a thread discussing Pat and natural disasters (I can't remember if it was this or another one) I listed the disasters as they have happened in accordance with our gov'ts actions. I did it in the exact same way he used to do it. And what's amazing is that it pretty well fits... better then they ever did for past events.
Why do you feel he is correct in his speculations when he was predicting the end for years and it did not come, and... now that his recommendations are being put into practice by our gov't they have met with more of God's disproval than Democratic actions had... he has decided to stop using natural disaster's to discredit those in power?
Even if one believed in prophecy shouldn't one be doubting his prophecies?
I would also like your evaluation on why we have faced the worst disasters in our nation's history... ever... both manmade and natural, ever since a conservative took office and has instituted policies the religious right has wanted for years?
Also, that God's wrath seems focused on our power base and appears to continually miss places Xian fundies would consider blasphemous and antiXian?
AbE: My list is in this thread, message #12.
This message has been edited by holmes, 10-25-2005 12:28 PM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Buzsaw, posted 10-24-2005 10:36 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Buzsaw, posted 10-25-2005 6:07 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 201 of 302 (254869)
10-26-2005 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Buzsaw
10-25-2005 6:07 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Absence sure hasn't changed your methods. Let me try this again...
Since it is clear that disasters are concentrating solely on those that consider themselves the righteous (that would be the religious right), and their means of maintaining power, and have sometimes "miraculously" avoided places they consider blasphemous... doesn't that say something about what God wants?
In fact Robertson had a prayer offensive calling on God to target and remove supreme court justices not in keeping with his will, and the result was no removal of any of the liberal justices. Instead a swing conservative has moved to retire and the chief conservative died. Intriguingly Robertson even mention illnesses as a method for removal and that's what killed Rehnquist.
If it was two liberal justices who got nized I'm sure we'd have heard no end of told you so's. If the Sinful Section of New Orleans had been wiped out, I'm sure we'd have heard no end of see what makes God mad. And if it was only a Xian church spared mass devastation we'd be seeing that image endlessly as a testament to the miraculous power of God's protecting hand.
Yet because it went totally the other direction we hear nothing. Isn't that a statement regarding Robertson's connection to God?
Bible which he's quoting and not when they're being fulfilled before our eyes as we watch our TV screens.
Just to let you know, he is now backing off of his statements regarding the second coming. If you have read his recent statements he caveats all of his claims with "well it might not mean anything" kind of stuff. That is unlike his commentary over ten years ago where he was pretty self assured.
That means he is shifting AWAY from quoting that something is being fulfilled before our eyes. Doesn't that say something?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Buzsaw, posted 10-25-2005 6:07 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Phat, posted 10-26-2005 10:01 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 204 by Buzsaw, posted 10-27-2005 12:24 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 205 of 302 (255023)
10-27-2005 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by crashfrog
10-26-2005 10:00 PM


Re: More inconsistency and ad hom from Holmes
I no longer play these games crash.
Ok. Let's see you use your vaunted symbolic logic to prove it.
You claim your logic is sound. I challenged it. Since you mentioned that you have practice in symb log I asked you to diagram your argument so that it could be seen that your argument hangs together logically.
I'm not sure why you said "vaunted" when you were the one hyping your skills. If you don't wish to prove the coherence of your argument using skills you claim to possess, I am not about to do anything, as I don't have to.
That's what a discussion is - the use of language to defend and attack positions.
I have already agreed the rhetoric is a tool for expressing an argument. What I have suggested is that a reliance on the tools of rhetoric at the expense of applying logic consistently (particularly to one's own position) is not worthwhile and sophistry.
That's an argumentum ad hominem, but that's really your stock in trade, now isn't it?
No. I have already shown that the nature of your argument assumes that others are wrong in theirs. That is one of the problems with your position. And that assumption, if contrasted with evidence (which I have given) is wrong. That is another problem.
I didn't even imply that I was the arbiter. This is just more ad hom from you.
When you say that Jazzns must change to fit your definitional scheme because your confusion is justified over Jazzns nonconfusion, you are inherently declaring that you are the arbiter of correct terminology.
If I felt that harm would result, or negativity directed towards my person that I did not want to experience, I would lie. Immature?
I already agreed that lying to avoid harm or the threat of harm was not immature. The statement that you quoted was not trying to reverse that position. It was showing you why the analogy you used was not pertinent to what we were discussing.
That's why the YOURSELF was in caps. I went on to agree that lies to avoid people getting hurt (which was your example) was also not immature.
The original situation in which I mentioned immaturity is if you heard a bunch of people discussing Americans being like X, you'd say you were Canadian. Unless there was threat of violence, or some hassle you'd encounter which would be detrimental, that would be immature. I stand by my opinion. It's subjective so you don't have to agree.
Well, your assertion about subunits not speaking for the whole is unsupported, because your example was false. In the example you gave, subunits are considered by the whole to be speaking for the whole.
I already gave you an example and I moved on to analogy. Your mistake was then to treat my analogy as a real example in all possible situations, which is what I said I was not discussing. Thus you refuted my analogy only by extending it beyond the limits that were set into the analogy and so you commited a logical fallacy.
Really.
What's more I went on to show how your own extension actually hurt your own position. I notice you did not even bother to deal with that.
But this is pointless, I was using an analogy to help you understand evidence already provided to you. I am not going to get sidetracked trying to defend an analogy. Go back to the evidence and the real thing.
Subunits of Xianity may not speak for the whole of Xianity regarding most topics. The few topics they are likely to agree on were right there in the link, and are extremely limited and vague, such that some specific focus on any can split subunits apart into whole disagreement.
The Wiki article is very clear on this reality and repeats it. Perhaps you should alter the Wiki page explaining how most Xians must bow redefine themselves because a small fraction of fundies are what you and some other people believe all Xians to be. I'd be interested to see how long that lasts.
Once again you've proved over and over that, beyond ad hominem and continuous distortion, you have only the most tenuous of arguments to offer. And quite frankly, it's boring to endlessly correct and correct you.
Well at least you didn't say "we". You have clearly made mistakes understanding my position, which is why some here have been called distortions of your position. And what can I say about your proved over and over charge? By whom?
I do imagine it is boring. It must be excruciating having to invent the next line of logic to save a failed argument, when (likely) you know it can be countered by showing its inconsistency.
To this date you have not dealt with the evidence that I provided to you on that subject. You said "fine", claimed you were changing focus of your argument, but then implicitly held on to your original position in order to support your new argument.
you might want to think about taking a break.
Nah. I'm not even feely pissed off. Though I am fine with dropping this subthread. If you feel you have provided your argument and its obvious that you are right, I am feeling fine with my position. We can let readers decide for themselves.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by crashfrog, posted 10-26-2005 10:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2005 4:16 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 206 of 302 (255024)
10-27-2005 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Buzsaw
10-27-2005 12:24 AM


What's your problem? I responded to your points forthrightly. You should do the same for me. Most of this post of yours digresses from the specific points I made in response to your statements and questions.
I realize you may feel you responded forthrightly, but you didn't. I didn't want to get into a big discussion about it so I simply redid my argument and questions so that they'd be focused enough that I might get responses to the actual issues I was discussing.
You are correct that my post did not address your specific points. It was a rewrite of my original post. That you feel it was a digression, merely substantiates the fact that you were addressing something other than what I was wanting to discuss. I rewrote to try again to get us talking about what I wanted to talk about originally.
Do you have a link specifying and clarify your contention that he's backing off of anything he's quoted as saying in the OP?
Yes, it is within this thread. But I was actually moving away from just the article in the OP to get at his general comments related to such things. Both Prophecy and judgement.
I was trying to get at whether you can support his statements on these things given his method and track record. And if you do believe in signs from heaven, how you can view current trends as a slam on anything but the fundies in power.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Buzsaw, posted 10-27-2005 12:24 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Buzsaw, posted 10-27-2005 12:03 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 210 of 302 (255193)
10-27-2005 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by crashfrog
10-27-2005 4:16 PM


Re: More inconsistency and ad hom from Holmes
I can't remember the last time that you engaged any of my arguments seriously.
You mean like when I presented evidence about Xianity and Pat Robertson?
So let's see the logic behind your challenge.
I already showed you the logic of my challenge and more importantly the evidence. You claimed you could do some particular logical analysis and I said it was obvious you had not done it on your position, and asked you to show that it does work out using that method. If you don't want to show it that's fine and it would figure.
How dishonest can you be?
Not very if you have been reading my posts I mentioned being arbiter of terminology more than once. You are correct that that one quote you pulled was in reference to my comment following a statement by you suggesting your read of quite was correct, but that comment is directing attention at the problem you had already exhibited with Jazzns.
I was trying to avoid dealing with a minor issue of where you applied it to me, and bring it back to the real topic which was your doing it to Jazzns. They are both examples, but I'd rather stick to the topical one.
That was not the original situation.
Yes it was. Go back and look. We were discussing redefining onesself based on public perception. I had asked if you identify yourself as being an American. You made a glib comment about identifying yourself as Canadian, and I suggested that was immature.
You go ahead and link and quote that that was not how it started.
I didn't extend the analogy in the slightest. I simply pointed out that the analogy was a false statement.
I used the analogy of a military dept officer speaking for their department. While other members of the military may be part of the same heirarchy it is completely true that due to their structure the officer cannot be speaking for the other branches.
It was a very limited analogy regarding separation of subunits within a heirarchy, which you claimed was not possible.
To defend your position you extended the analogy by discussing a totally different issue, which was military officers engaged in political speech. You pointed out that there is a prohibition because the words of military officers could reflect (or whatever) on the gov't.
I had not been discussing political speech and this did not affect my analogy. Their inability to make political speech has no bearing on whether they can make military speech. They can do that, and as I pointed out such speech is recognized as not holding from one dept to another.
Okay now I just ran it by you twice. Do you get it yet?
Anything is much more interesting than endlessly correcting your next round of distortions.
Well I wish some of those anythings were accurately reading my posts, dealing with the evidence provided to you, and analyzing your own position.
It appears that what you find interesting is anything but that.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2005 4:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2005 7:08 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 211 of 302 (255194)
10-27-2005 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Buzsaw
10-27-2005 12:03 PM


Re: Focus on Topic
Other stuff about the man unrelated to the topic which is Robertson on natural disasters, leads the thread off topic, so please don't fault me for not following you there.
Well mine was about his handling of natural disasters, but I realize you are seeing a difference. This should have been your first response to my post, rather than discussing what you wanted to talk about in place of "following me there".
As I described befoe, that is what I meant by you haven't changed your methods. I ask a question and get what you want to tell me about something that might not be related.
I was hoping for an interesting response on this as you say you are open to prophecy and that does require some analytical ability.
Oh yes, on topic, one of Robertson's changes from definite to hazy on the second coming can be seen in the OP quote. Look at the bottom quotes from him. He is definitely less sure now based on his commentary than he was ten years ago.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Buzsaw, posted 10-27-2005 12:03 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 219 of 302 (255266)
10-28-2005 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by crashfrog
10-27-2005 7:08 PM


leapoflogicfrog
We both agree that, in that situation, absolute truthfulness may not be best. Seriously, Holmes, what's your problem?
??? The initial situation did not have your life seriously threatened. I granted if that was the case or some serious negative situation were possible it might be reasonable. I figured the argument would end there. I have no idea why you have continued this argument.
Thus, making it absolutely clear that, if identifying as an American would associate me with policies or actions that others would find so objectionable that there would be negative consequences, I would choose to identify differently.
Thanks for proving my point. You are equivocating here. We did not start with serious or life threatening consequences. The first mention is whether you would believe people might associate you (mistakenly) with Bush or Robertson. The second mention is whether someone thought you must support Bush and the Iraq War because you are an American.
To my mind, identifying yourself as Canadian in those situations would be rather immature. That still holds.
If those situations included the possibility that your life would be threatened because you support Bush, or would result in some other SERIOUS consequence, then it would not be immature.
You got me to agree to whether it made sense in serious situations. The original premise was not. If you thought it did it was in your mind alone, as it clearly is not in the text. Indeed find me the negative consequences (you suggest you have found in your statement above) in my text below... here it is again...
That citizenship is voluntary. What's more that has nothing to do with identifying yourself as US. Do you feel american and would you say to others you are an american? If someone said you must support Bush and the Iraq War because you are an American, would you say they are mistaken because you can be American and not a Bush supporter?
That was a series of questions, none of which implied anything of serious consequence. If you did not understand that before, understand that now.
and I corrected your distortion in the next post:
It was a jab crash.
My reasoning has been clear throughout, for over 100 posts. All you've done is simply repeat your gross distortions.
What you clipped in your distorted review is when we discussed life threatening situations. I agreed that that would be serious enough of a CONSEQUENCE to merit lying. Now you've rolled it back to any consequence, which was what we were initially discussing (you have now proved that) and I stand by my opinion: that would be immature.
If you would say you are Canadian just to avoid someone mistaking you for an American because they might think you support Bush and that is all, that is the conseqeunce, then you are being immature.
The conduct and speech of one soldier, no matter how far down the totem pole, reflects not only on himself, his unit, or his branch, but of the entire US armed services, and indeed, the United States itself. As I told you.
That's right crash, you are so absolutely correct. How could I be so wrong? Absolutely no officer ever speaks or gives orders ever. They are all bound by a code of silence and noncommunication. Yeah that makes sense.
Oh wait, no they do actually talk. Holy shit. And they do give orders to their men and set policy within their depts. And as I said such orders and policies do not pertain to other departments nor reflect on other depts, despite being part of the US military,
See that was the analogy: HOW a subunit can say things WITHOUT pertaining to or reflecting on ANOTHER SUBUNIT in the SAME HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE.
That the analogy may not hold for other types of speech within the military makes absolutely zero difference. All I need is one actual example which is valid to show an ANALOGY.
Now unless you are going to claim that no communication or orders are made by anyone in the military, or that all orders and communications pertain to all memebrs of the military, it is time to surrender.
And to conceal that fact, you've leveled spurious charges of "logical fallacy."
It is as I said an extended analogy as well as a form of the undistributed middle. You can look them up. They are real fallacies.
I was discussing an analogy to Xians using the military to show a general rule that subunits may not actually speak for the whole of a larger structure they may be a part of. You extended the analogy to something else, political speech, in order to find something that did not work. But that is false, not only because I was simply using the analogy as a model, but because the general rule now created (if your extended analogy is to be believed) would result in no communication or every speech applying to everyone in the structure, which is a false conclusion.
It was inappropriate to do what you did.
Can't you take responsibility for anything?
Yes I continue trying to explain facts and logic to a person who wishes to call me names and avoid debate, which is not a very valuable pursuit.
Your example was of officers speaking. My rebuttal was of officers speaking. It's completely the same issue. Do you get it, yet?
Look at what you just said. That is the only connection between the two. Officers speaking. Therein lies your errors of both extending an analogy (extended off officers speaking), as well as a form of the undistributed middle (based on all political speech by an officer being considered reflective on the gov't).
And I will add once more, your rebuttal itself is flawed as political speech is banned not because it reflects on the MILITARY as a whole (which was my example), but the GOV'T as a whole. That is to say the military is not supposed to be supporting or denouncing politicians and political opinions, since they are a tool of the gov't. It is a conflict of powers.
It's easy, after all, when none of your posts have evidence, argument
Unless you have derailed, that is a patent lie. You know full well I posted links and quotes to you regarding Xianity and Pat Robertson. Oh how I wish we could talk about them instead of this sidetracking garbage where you try and argue about any little thing except what is really at issue.
Remember where this started? What is reasonable to be understood about Xianity and Pat Robertson. You insisted it was Jazzns duty to change his own definition to fit your confusion. That is you are arbiter of what a real Xian is, and that apparently is what you believe to be what Pat Robertson says, though in fact that is also a mistake as Pat Robertson openly states he does not speak for all Xians.
endless stream of personal attacks and ludicrous distortions.
Saying it does not make it so.
You're an embarassment.
Yes I must be quite embarassing for you. If you don't like spending most of your time with your pants around your ankles, use a better belt.
AbE: I forgot to mention that regarding the military analogy you were also equivocating on the term "reflect". There is a difference between a member's actions or words bringing others down with them and so being a bad "reflection", versus a member's actions words reflecting what others in that organization might do or say. That is no one has to believe that all military members torture, for Abu Ghraib to "reflect" badly on the military. Or as another example, a murder-suicide by avid RPGers may reflect badly on some aspects of the RPGing community, but clearly does not reflect the behavior and opinion of the entire RPGing community.
This message has been edited by holmes, 10-28-2005 05:07 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2005 7:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by crashfrog, posted 10-28-2005 8:03 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 222 of 302 (255333)
10-28-2005 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by crashfrog
10-28-2005 8:03 AM


Re: Ad Holms-inem
Nice subthread title. Ben can banish me if he wishes, but I wish to clarify some points. It is not intended as argument of any of the points, just clarifying what was meant where and to take some blame where I wholly admit it is due.
Immature, you called me. Or did you forget?
My question of why you continued to argue the point was not because I forgot that I had called you immature. Indeed I wholly admit to stating that you, or anyone, who chooses to lie because someone might mistake one's position for something else if one tells the truth, is doing something that is immature.
I admit it was not necessarily constructive to debate. It in its own fashion is name calling (though not ad hominem as it was not used to refute your argument). I take the blame for that.
However I want to point out that I have stated clearly at least twice that it was a mere opinion, and you could have a different one. It was also limited to a very specific circumstance which I thought we had agreed would not be the same if there was a threat of force. That was why I said I had no idea why it was continued, because I thought we had agreed threat of force was a mitigating factor.
That does not change that threat of force was not within the opening examples, and which seemed to be what you were arguing now. Hence confusion.
I didn't realize that I needed your permission for so many things.
You don't. It was a mere opinion of mine, which you could take or leave. I said that in previous posts. And as an addition, a person is free to do what they want, including "negative" things, even if they know they are negative. Sometimes I do immature things, like stick in a jab when it is not going to advance debate.
If you're having a little trouble with the forum guidelines, maybe you'd like to take a break?
Let's be honest. A verbal jab is not a huge break from forum rules. And you have been doing the same so its not like you can really throw that accusation around and not break one of your own windows.
I freely admit it doesn't help debate and it didn't help this debate.
And your admitted ad hominem, sarcasm, distortions, and outright falsehoods are the height of propriety?
I have used sarcasm, and I have called you names. I did not resort to ad hominem, nor distort, nor use outright flasehoods within any of my arguments.
My failings were not the height of propriety, but that said, I was not discussing morality when I used the term inappropriate. I guess I used too vague of a term. I was simply trying to say you had commited a logical fallacy.
I'm not going to get into an argument now (given Ben's admonishment) of whether you did commit one, just explaining that is what was meant, and not a moral judgement like "you shouldn't have done that".

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by crashfrog, posted 10-28-2005 8:03 AM crashfrog has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 248 of 302 (255752)
10-31-2005 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Buzsaw
10-30-2005 10:01 PM


Re: Bashing Robertson
to defend the man who's not here to defend himself;
Yes, let's cry for the man with his own network and regularly villifies people who have 0 chance to defend themselves.
someone who cares to set the record straight as to exactly what he said, why he said it and whether he's as nuts as everyone is unjustifiably making him out to be. Buzsaw is here bringing some just balance to this lop-sided board and right now, specifically to this thread, if you will.
No, you mean to not address the OP, and instead launch into many monologues regarding the correctness of prophecy, without allowing one chance to question the nature of the prophecies, prophecies in general, and the track record of this particular person's prophecies.
It would seem at the very least that that last one would make a difference. But no, Pat Robertson's ability to accurately prophecize is NOT allowed to be discussed, only whether YOU are correct about prophecy which means that Pat must be.
The one thing that has always disappointed me about you is that you don't even want to examine anything critically within your own system of beliefs. Repeatedly I have tried to engage you in discussions with the assumption that prophecy is possible. Certainly if true then it is still possible to have FALSE PROPHETS. Its right in the Bible Buz. So the question is how do you find them.
Certainly FALSE PROPHETS can and will quote from the Bible, right? Or is there some megical force preventing this from happening.
My questions to you have been as much on your topic as on the OP. IF the topic is Pat Robertson AND the nature of prophesy, then is he a false prophet and his prophesy suspect? We can assume prophesy is possible.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2005 10:01 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 253 of 302 (255784)
10-31-2005 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by jar
10-31-2005 9:09 AM


Re: Why Faith left?
Truth will win out over ignorance and intolerance.
How can you say this given history? Truth and ignorance shuffle back and forth as interests over time. We could conceivably lose everything we have gained as our knowledge base in a very short period of time, if enough people simply don't want to believe.
And intolerance pretty much stays the same, merely switching from one hated group to another, with no rationale for any of it. There are very few periods of actual tolerance.
I fear the ignorant intolerant liberals, about as much as I fear the ignorant intolerant conservatives. They may tolerate a few more things that I like, and allow a bit more knowledge, but are often more strict when it comes to things they dislike and believe their own opinions and mores have an objective reality more credible than those that get such things from a book.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by jar, posted 10-31-2005 9:09 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by jar, posted 10-31-2005 6:46 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 255 by crashfrog, posted 10-31-2005 6:47 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 260 of 302 (255941)
11-01-2005 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by crashfrog
10-31-2005 6:47 PM


Re: Why Faith left?
So, I guess the libertarians are intolerant of everybody? I hate people like that!
If there were only ignorant intolerant liberals and ignorant intolerant conservatives, then yes. Thankfully, no matter how bad any society has gotten (regarding ignorance or intolerance) there has always been some number of liberals and conservatives who champion knowledge and tolerance.
They've simply seldom been in the majority for long.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by crashfrog, posted 10-31-2005 6:47 PM crashfrog has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 273 of 302 (256129)
11-02-2005 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Buzsaw
11-02-2005 12:56 AM


Re: Bashing Robertson
Yes, there's tribes missing, but with modern DNA tech, it may be possible to sort the others out soon.
So I want to get this straight... you do believe that dna tech is a capable tool for discerning branches of animal speciation?
Also, you said Israel would be without walls, but as is well known, they have walls. Not to mention that humans seeking to fulfill prophecy is different than actually doing such a thing. It is a simulation and meaningless.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2005 12:56 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2005 9:17 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 274 of 302 (256130)
11-02-2005 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Buzsaw
11-02-2005 1:14 AM


Re: Bashing Robertson
on stuff you distort so badly
Can I get an answer on how quoting a section more fully qualifies as a distortion? Distortion of text is done through selective and so minimal quotation.
Jar really seems to have you on this one. An explanation of how that was a distortion seems in order.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2005 1:14 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 281 of 302 (256186)
11-02-2005 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Buzsaw
11-02-2005 9:17 AM


Re: Bashing Robertson
Off topic: as I've told you before, don't expect to be able to draw me off with you.
How is this off topic if you brought it up in defense of your position? We don't have to go into a detailed discussion. I am just trying to clarify that you believe that dna research is capable of discovering branches of related offspring over several generations based on chemical signatures.
I see you're getting desperate also, Holmes. We all know that what walls remain are nothing but useless archives and the most grown/expanded way beyond the ancient walls.
Desparate? You have to actually start discussing things with me in a meaningful way to get me in such a position. I was merely pointing out some factual errors.
As far as the walls go, where have you been? Israel has been building an extremely controversial WALL around CITIES in order to keep out terrorists. If you do not know this then it is time to do some research on current events.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2005 9:17 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024