Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (9011 total)
93 online now:
kjsimons, Pollux (2 members, 91 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 881,621 Year: 13,369/23,288 Month: 299/795 Week: 95/33 Day: 28/6 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Censorship vs Public Safety
RAZD
Member (Idle past 64 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 16 of 58 (875141)
04-15-2020 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tangle
04-15-2020 7:14 AM


Pecy has gone into hyperactive paranoia mode about Covid sadly.

I agree that he seems to be a little overboard, and certainly is taking steps beyond anyone I know. But I also feel that he may be justified. In my case I have a challenged immune system due to my cancer and treatments, yet I don't take all his steps. We have no second refrigerator to quarantine perishables, but we do have a back porch to shed outer clothes and shoes and wash hands on re-entry to the house. I'm better at this, but I rarely go out. I live with someone who has early onset dementia, and she has trouble remembering. Being the healthier and more active one she does most of the shopping, which we have gotten down to once a week (she keeps a list on her phone). This is good for her to exercise her memory. We do what we can.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tangle, posted 04-15-2020 7:14 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 17 of 58 (875142)
04-15-2020 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
04-14-2020 10:16 AM


Re: Banning Faith had no effect of her FAKE NEWS.
Jar writes:

Unfortunately, banning Faith from EvC simply means the same destructive, horrid, obscene, vitriolic, absurd, dishonest, stupid, disgusting, demonic, excrement will get posted without being challenged and she will have another tool to show that what is happening in a liberal commie socialist attack on her, on God and on 'Murica!
The disconnect from reality and direct attack on CONTENT over SOURCE, EVIDENCE over TESTIMONY and REALITY over BELIEF is pervasive and ubiquitous.

EvC served as a valued counterpoint, a place when the viscous, obscene and repulsive stuff she marketed never went unchallenged.

Unfortunately, banning Faith only removed the challenge side of her spiel. The spiel will continue but on other venues where it goes not just unchallenged but applauded.

Is this an epithet-soup or what?

You do realise that anyone can take some dysphemisms, aim them at someone then venerate themselves by juxtaposing them with some positive terminology aimed at themselves or their own group, don't you?

That's why I see you as a rhetoricist.

Your standard of debate is WORSE than anything Faith put forward, because you just always do the same thing; BARELY ASSERT A BUNCH OF NASTY HATE-FILLED VITRIOLE.

Just associating yourself with all of the positive epithets like, "reality" and, "evidence" doesn't mean you are one who is on the side of those things. You have to prove it by your actions, and in my experience those words do not describe you simply because you say them out loud.

Anyone can play the group-game of, "our group is on the side of reality, facts, truth, and your lies, ficts and fiction."

But groups are consisting of individuals where some may be guilty and some may not be, you cannot venerate your side by associating it with the positive terminology, then attributing a bunch of negative things to the other group. It's called a false disjunction, or a "false dichotomy" where you just play off of two positions.

Dawkins done it when he made his famous false trichotomy against creationists, he came up with a few negative epithets and said, "you're either this that or the other if you don't accept evolution".

And logical rules proved him 100% wrong, because it was not a sound disjunctive syllogism. It was nothing more than rhetorical propaganda; a limited choice fallacy.

So your rhetorical phlegm counts as ZERO.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 04-14-2020 10:16 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 04-15-2020 12:53 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 18 of 58 (875143)
04-15-2020 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
04-14-2020 9:15 AM


Why would anyone go to a forum as obscure as this to read Faith's advice, and since other people can counter that advice then they would also read the counter-arguments anyway?

It seems like a strange thing for a permanent ban.

There are plenty of evolutionists here like Jar and Tangle who have always represented a very poor standard and fill their posts with rhetorical nonsense a lot of the time and many who personally attacked Faith more than discussing things with her, but they don't seem to be getting banned.

Could that be because they are evolutionist? That's just a question I am throwing out there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-14-2020 9:15 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by AZPaul3, posted 04-15-2020 3:48 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 19 of 58 (875148)
04-15-2020 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mike the wiz
04-15-2020 11:28 AM


Re: Banning Faith had no effect of her FAKE NEWS.
Yet the fact remains; Faith will still post her absurdities at sites where they will not be challenged.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 04-15-2020 11:28 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by mike the wiz, posted 04-15-2020 2:11 PM jar has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 20 of 58 (875152)
04-15-2020 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
04-15-2020 12:53 PM


Re: Banning Faith had no effect of her FAKE NEWS.
Jar writes:

et the fact remains; Faith will still post her absurdities at sites where they will not be challenged.

I am not sure if everything she said/argued will be counted as, "absurd".

The fact is all sorts of silly things go unchallenged every day all over the internet. There are absurd creationists as there are evolutionists. The layman-creationists can do more harm to creationism than good most of the time by using arguments the creation-scientists would ask them not to use.

Some creation scientist sites even have an, "arguments NOT to use" list.

But a lot of atheist phlegm on this site also goes unchallenged which is of very little merit and there is a high level of unthoughtful nonsense in my experience.

Not from people that just sensibly make their case like RAZD or NosyNed of course, certainly not everyone can be lumped into one group.

And let's face it a lot of ad hom attacks on Faith from many people here just went totally ignored by Percy and his men.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 04-15-2020 12:53 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 04-15-2020 2:50 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 21 of 58 (875158)
04-15-2020 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by mike the wiz
04-15-2020 2:11 PM


Re: Banning Faith had no effect of her FAKE NEWS.
There is no such thing as "Creation Science".

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by mike the wiz, posted 04-15-2020 2:11 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 04-15-2020 3:01 PM jar has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 22 of 58 (875159)
04-15-2020 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
04-15-2020 2:50 PM


Re: Banning Faith had no effect of her FAKE NEWS.
Jar writes:

There is no such thing as "Creation Science".

I said, "creation scientists". Creation scientists are people that have scientific credentials, and therefore count as scientists but they believe and expounds scientific evidence that supports creation and the flood.

Strictly speaking, "creation science" is more of a term those scientists use pertaining to their own investigations within that paradigm. However a better word is apologetics.

On the whole, apologetics deals with giving reasoned defences of biblical Christianity and the miracles of the creation and flood.

But creationism as apologetics incorporates scientific evidence which favours creation and design because we expect that evidence under that paradigm.

Logically speaking, it's true that the mainstream scientific establishment does not recognise creation science and would deem it as pseudo-science, but this is misleading because creationism doesn't only consist of science-evidence, so it can't be defined solely that way.

For example part of apologetics is giving reasons as to why God performs certain miracles or does certain acts, or answering philosophical problems such as the problem of evil and suffering.

So even if creation science isn't officially accepted or rejected according to a modern, secularised definition of what science is it does not logically follow that a special creation is not a true event and that scientific evidence does not support it.

If in fact God did create the world and the rocks are caused by the flood in actual fact as a historical fact then obviously there is, "science" facts that are a part of that, it's just that they won't be acknowledge as facts for creation.

In other words there are lots of facts with anatomy which are basically synonymous with design, and anatomists have disagreed with the likes of Dawkins about the eye being wrongly designed. Anatomists will speak intelligent design. However because that science of anatomy is NOT COUNTED as facts for ID/Creation, because of SEMANTICS about what science is, then it only becomes a vacuous point that creation is not accepted as science by the mainstream, for what truly matters is that science facts do support creation/ID.

It's like Stephen Meyer says, truth is more important than the toying of words. (semantics).

That's really all you tend to do Jar, words are basically used in place of argumentation with you.

Note you didn't give any lengthy explanation or reasoning like I just have, and guess what? Historically you never did. Mostly the evolutionists are here to just SHOUT at creationism. Shout, "we win".

But intellectually you guys don't produce SQUAT most of the time. Lol


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 04-15-2020 2:50 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 04-15-2020 3:11 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 25 by AZPaul3, posted 04-15-2020 3:28 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 35 by JonF, posted 04-16-2020 10:11 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 23 of 58 (875162)
04-15-2020 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
04-15-2020 3:01 PM


Re: Banning Faith had no effect of her FAKE NEWS.
There are no Creation Scientists.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 04-15-2020 3:01 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 04-15-2020 3:19 PM jar has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 24 of 58 (875163)
04-15-2020 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
04-15-2020 3:11 PM


Re: Banning Faith had no effect of her FAKE NEWS.
Jar writes:

There are no Creation Scientists.

"Wow............you're beautiful" - Dennis Weaver - Duel.

So you're going to play the game of, "I state it, you disprove it."

Why is the burden of proof upon me to disprove it when I did in my previous post? If you have a proper credential in science you are a scientist in that area. If you also are creationist, and can still do science in that area as many creationists still do, like John Sanford, co-inventor of the gene gun, then it isn't mutually exclusive to be a creationist and a scientist.

If you argue it does, you commit the no-true-scotsman fallacy because the predicate, "creationist" does not truly contradict the definition of being a scientist, NOT having a credential is the predicate that would contradict the definition.

I responded to show the readers that I as a creationist can prove my counter-claims using correct logical reasoning and don't have to barely assert things.

If creationists are the pseudo-intellectuals why does every evolution on this forum rely on ZERO intellectual content in their posts, and only barely assert incorrect things? Aren't you supposed to be the ones always in the right, always on the side of, "reality"?

I quote your word, that you associated yourself with. "Reality", which you juxtaposed with, "belief".

Question: are you going to go with "reality", in terms of when a predicate truly contradicts a definition and admit that a creationist can be a qualified scientist?

In my experience you would not be willing to go with reality, which kind of confirms what I have been saying really doesn't it? About your use of using positive words for yourself and your group, and associating yourself with those words. Words such as, "reality".

It is reality that creation scientists like John Sanford exist. He still does his work and puts science articles forward according to his area of expertise.

"Are we learning yet?" - John Connor - Terminator 2.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 04-15-2020 3:11 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 04-15-2020 3:56 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5370
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 25 of 58 (875165)
04-15-2020 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
04-15-2020 3:01 PM


Re: Banning Faith had no effect of her FAKE NEWS.
quote:
Creation scientists are people that have scientific credentials, and therefore count as scientists but they believe and expounds scientific evidence that supports creation and the flood.

Strictly speaking, "creation science" is more of a term those scientists use pertaining to their own investigations within that paradigm. However a better word is apologetics.

On the whole, apologetics deals with giving reasoned defences of biblical Christianity and the miracles of the creation and flood.

But creationism as apologetics incorporates scientific evidence which favours creation and design because we expect that evidence under that paradigm.

Etc. etc.


It's like Stephen Meyer says, truth is more important than the toying of words. (semantics).

Oh, Mikey Takes a Wiz, you are just too funny!


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 04-15-2020 3:01 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by mike the wiz, posted 04-15-2020 4:03 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5370
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 26 of 58 (875167)
04-15-2020 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mike the wiz
04-15-2020 11:34 AM


There are plenty of evolutionists here like Jar and Tangle who have always represented a very poor standard and fill their posts with rhetorical nonsense a lot of the time and many who personally attacked Faith more than discussing things with her, but they don't seem to be getting banned.

You really don't understand Percy's reasoning for her ban, do you.

Has nothing to do with "poor standards" or "rhetorical nonsense" or "personal attacks".

Has to do with her continued dissemination of what could be physically dangerous, deadly misinformation, even after repeated correction.

Open mouth - insert tiny foot. That happens when you don't know what the subject is all about.

You do know what they say about men with tiny feet, don't you Mikey?

Ask that Orange Bastard in the White House. He can tell you all about it.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 04-15-2020 11:34 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 04-15-2020 4:21 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 27 of 58 (875169)
04-15-2020 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
04-15-2020 3:19 PM


Re: Banning Faith had no effect of her FAKE NEWS.
A person who is a Creationist and claims to be a scientist is simply a liar.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 04-15-2020 3:19 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 28 of 58 (875171)
04-15-2020 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by AZPaul3
04-15-2020 3:28 PM


Re: Banning Faith had no effect of her FAKE NEWS.
AZPaul writes:

Oh, Mikey Takes a Wiz, you are just too funny!

You're not thinking it through. It all pertains to methodological naturalism. It is the philosophy of science we are dealing with in what I was talking about.

Basically there is almost a materialist assumption in modern times that science can only be methodological naturalism. But that is an ASSUMPTION about reality, because if reality CONTAINS MORE than merely natural cause, such as the intelligently designed eyeball as an example, then what you have done is let an assumption COLOUR your conclusion.

Let's pretend for the sake of argument, the eyeball is a miracle of God, let's agree on that for one moment as I know you don't accept that. Okay, fine, then if that truly is a miracle and for all you know it could be then the fact is now what you are going to do in explaining the eyeball is effectively force-fit a square peg into a round hole by INSISTING INTELLECTUALLY, that we MUST go with the natural cause as an explanation.

So that creates a logical problem and you can laugh all you want. That problem is that you can basically grant a false assumption as your philosophy, and that assumption will SKEW what the facts truly mean, and your conclusion will contain the assumption but that assumption as a premise is UNSUPPORTED.

But even if I was generous and were to say, "okay, I'll accept only MN is science", that still wouldn't change the problem because if something is true but is not scientifically provable like changing water to wine, and it is a real miraculous, historical fact that took place, now your science will say, "we cannot accept a possible truth because of the MN assumption.".

So you can laugh all you want but if I am funny so is Stephen Meyer and he is a qualified and intelligent person and puts his arguments forward in a perfectly rational and cogent way.

His argument makes sense, truth is what should ultimately count. There are reasons to believe God created. What does a Creator create? A designer? Everything we look at from people we know are designers shows they create things with specified complexity, information code, function, contingency plans, correct materials, aesthetics, purpose/goals, etc.....so then we CAN legitimately expect that evidence from a deigner.

And low and behold that is what we find in life, only off the scale. So intelligent that there is even a field called, "biomimetics" where scientists in technology basically plagiarise the designs found in life forms. Some examples are bio-luminescence. The truth of the matter is that lighting is way more efficient han our own. DNA can still store way more than computers. Storage-density and energy efficiency in lifeforms totally SMASHES our own.

This is all TRUE.

So you can carry on laughing because I don't give a hoot, your theory is a pile of quack. It belongs in the Victorian age with ignorant Darwin the priest of atheism ho, ho, don't you know.

You know all right.

Mikey out.

"Is there no one on this planet to even challenge me?" - General Zod.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by AZPaul3, posted 04-15-2020 3:28 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 29 of 58 (875174)
04-15-2020 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by AZPaul3
04-15-2020 3:48 PM


AZPaul writes:

ou really don't understand Percy's reasoning for her ban, do you.

Has nothing to do with "poor standards" or "rhetorical nonsense" or "personal attacks".
Has to do with her continued dissemination of what could be physically dangerous, deadly misinformation, even after repeated correction.
Open mouth - insert tiny foot. That happens when you don't know what the subject is all about.
You do know what they say about men with tiny feet, don't you Mikey?
Ask that Orange Bastard in the White House. He can tell you all about it.

Yes I know nothing and can't see anything and don't know what it was about.

But in fact you have misunderstood what I meant because I did not say it was about poor standards or rhetorical nonsense. If you read more carefully I acknowledged what it was about, which is why I question the reason Percy gave because I did read what he said.

In fact I probably observed more than you did. A detective when he sees obvious clues, a stupid detective may follow the trail. When I see clues that are like a bread crumb trail I stop and ask, "Hmmmmm, well that's what it looks like but is it a red-herring?"

So when Percy GAVE the reason he banned her, sure, that is the reason he gave that it is to stop the endangering of people but then he want too far after banning her by leaving clues that were too obvious.

He went overboard to post several things we all need to know about covid, the sort of things we all pretty much know that pretty much go without saying and I believe the reason he made several posts was to make it look like the reason he banned her was the reason he gave.

So as to give a show as if to say, "look this is why I banned here, by giving you retards all the basics on covid as I am clearly banning her because I fear you don't know that two and two is four."

Columbo: "oh horse shi*, you just can't stand Faith, don't bollocks me with the people are in danger crap, nobody is going to come to EvC to get advice on covid from comments about potential medicine from Faith and that crap is all over the news anyway."

Where's my cigar smiley?

AZPAul3 writes:

You really don't understand Percy's reasoning for her ban, do you.

Yes, I do. But I don't necessarily buy it.

Now fair enough, my speculations about his motives may be wrong but give me some credit, just because you buy your own horsesh*t propaganda that creationists don't know their arse from their elbow doesn't mean it's even close to true. Believe it or not we can get up in the morning and put our socks on without Dawkins' help.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by AZPaul3, posted 04-15-2020 3:48 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by AZPaul3, posted 04-15-2020 5:16 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 32 by AZPaul3, posted 04-15-2020 5:39 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5370
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 30 of 58 (875178)
04-15-2020 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by mike the wiz
04-15-2020 4:21 PM


No, I will weep no more. In such a night To shut me out?
What an interesting stream-of-consciousness dump of almost pure 185 proof bullshit.

One has to wonder if you learned from or taught Trump.

I will give you credit for having a more sophisticated rhetoric than the Orange Bastard with his simplistic childlike playground syntax.

And I see you picked up on the intellectual dysfunctions of Duane Gish.

Congratulations, Mikey, you are becoming a consummate bullshit artist in the finest traditions we expect of a christian pseudo-intellectual.

And no need to complain that I didn't respond to any of the assertions your diatribes allege. The bullshit you spew, which has been soundly refuted in a hundred different ways by thousands of real intellectuals over the past two centuries, does not require or deserve any response.

You are a waste of bandwidth. Think of all those poor electrons wizzing for Mikey in such a useless attempt to justify your demented and dismissed set of delusions.

All you've done is to add to the heat death of the universe. The shame!

O, that way madness lies; let me shun that; No more of that.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 04-15-2020 4:21 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020