Peanut Gallery 2012

There used to be a curmudgeonly character on some TV show or movie (I'm thinking Grandpa on Lassie but I could be wrong) who called people he didn't like, "pusilanimous polecats." In other words, he looked on them with opprobrium.

Well, then, you're welcome.

Do you use a Thesaurus, or something, or are those words just a part of your normal vocabulary? When's the last time you used either of those words?

Flat-out part of my normal vocabulary. I was an English major for a while. I love me some ten-dollar words. At EvC? November 2007 was the last time I appear to have used "opprobrium", and June 2005 was when I last used "pusillanimous." According to the search.

Ah, ok. I meant, like, ever, but that's cool. Thanks man.Here's a funny picture:

FRom Message 85: I haven't read that article. But I can see that a biological basis for a behavior would eliminate the evil associated with it. In what way? Murder to prevent futher evil could be understood as non-evil. Moral slavery is not an impossiblity.

Are all killings of humans defined as murder? A biological basis that compelled rape would eliminate the evil, but rape simply having a biological component would not necessarily eliminate the evil. I would suggest that before asserting that the case has been made that you do read the article. I'll point out again that we are talking about slavery as described in the Bible verses I cited. I don't see any excuse or anything moral about owning a person in the way described in those verses. If you do, I'm willing to hear your description of how it is moral.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Well that seems a bizarre attitude to take. All behaviour has a biological basis. If that eliminates the evil associated with something then there's no such thing as evil.

Message 220Doesn't this sum-up the absurdity of RAZ's position?How the hell is it logically possible to show that something non-imagined is imagined?Bluegenes has pointed out the stupidity of this in his reply but I thought it deserved highlighting.

Does the term Non-imagined in this context mean real?The statement to me reads as: it is my job t point out your failure to identfy, test and show that REAL supernatural beings are imagined/invented.Perhaps RAZD should clarify this statement if this is what he meant.

Can you give an example of a REAL supernatural being....?Because now it just looks like a demand for a real SB to be shown to be non-real. Which is equally logically impossible as RAZ's idiotic demand.Anyway - If there are any real/non-imagined SBs then presenting evidence of these will falsify bluegenes theory. That's the entire point.....

Hey don't shoot the messenger. I just pointed out that the statement could be read a different way.
Only RAZD knows what he meant.

But I don't think you have stated it in a different way simply by using a different word. Because I am lost as to what the difference between REAL and non-imagined is in this context......

I don't understand RAZD's objection's either.
I don't understand how anyone could object to the clear and (very) patient way bluegenes has been explaining the scientific method.Even RAZD's example doesn't make sense to me: This example is very true. You investigate the sightings... but the claim is not weakened until actual repeatable, objective evidence of the actual Ivory Billed Woodpeckers is found.Which is exactly the same with imaginary SBs.
Many "sightings" have been claimed.
And they have been investigated.
And no repeatable, objective evidence of SBs has ever been identified.If the Ivory Billed Woodpecker sightings are investigated.
And no evidence of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is found.
...and this happens many times (as has happened with SBs)
...and no evidence of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is ever found.
...doesn't this add confidence to the theory that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is extinct?Therefore, the fact that so many sightings of SBs have been investigated and no evidence is ever found indicates that confidence is added to bluegenes' theory.I don't understand why RAZD is bringing up an example that helps prove bluegenes' point... and then act as if bluegenes is wrong. It doesn't make sense to me.I am failing to see why RAZD included this woodpecker example. I feel that if RAZD's reasoning for the example could be identified, then RAZD's issues with bluegene's theory would become clear.

If what is meant by imagined is that it does not exist outside of the human imagination.Then to say it is (non-imagined/real) means it exist apart from the human imagination.However I am not sure that is what is intended.But to me it seems that is the only way it could be interpreted.