quote:And a poster from one side can determine what are intelligent posts from both sides, while a poster from the other side cannot?
I think that we can say that the person who tried to suggest that the restrictions on wood burning stoves was a response to global warming - and that the reason was the heat they give out - is unable to judge the intelligence. Message 633
quote:You have evidence that conservatives are trying to censor liberal speech? Or conservatives are just saying things that liberals don't like? And the answer is to censor them?
I didn’t say any such thing. I said instead that “conservative” speech was filled with falsehood, hostility and intolerance. Which seems rather likely to produce a negative reaction in those targeted. And it’s also the sort of speech that is poison to an online community. It’s in the interest of the companies hosting those communities to deal with the troublemakers.
quote:Big Tech doesn't own the internet. They shut down Parler. Censorship has reached new heights from the Democrat party, and all the branches it owns.
quote:So was Maxine Waters. Double standards, but that's where liberalism is.
Then perhaps you can show me evidence of this coup attempt and that Maxine Waters spread disinformation that lead to it.
quote:Someone was going to be injured, or die from what she posted? Or is there an increasing fear of what conservatives have to say?
COVID is a rather nasty illness that has killed a lot of people. Faith was promoting the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat it. A dangerous drug that doesn’t even work.
If it was fear of what she was saying, why wasn’t she banned much earlier? It makes no sense.
quote:That's true, the question is, what is the owner afraid of?
Obviously people suffering ill effects - or even death - due to use or misuse of hydroxychloroquine.
quote:The earth has to be billions of years old if we have to jam-pack all of reality into one time dimension.
That doesn’t even make sense. But even if it did, assuming multiple time dimensions isn’t even theistic. So not assuming them can hardly be atheistic (and in fact assuming them without solid scientific evidence would be unscientific).
So we have established that I was correct. Creationists try to put their religion in science classes because they object to the science.
Of course, even if a teacher was actually teaching that there was no God reacting to it by trying to take over parts of the science curriculum is in no way a sensible answer. Nor even a proportionate one. So that’s a good example of conservatives being worse than liberals.
quote:Almost as hilarious as Democrats shrieking "Trump - Russia collusion!!!!", even though it was shown to be a lie / conspiracy theory after the multi- million dollar Mueller investigation...
No, it wasn’t shown to be either a lie or a conspiracy theory. Manafort did have improper contact with the Russians. The Trump Tower meeting happened. The Russians were behind the DNC hack and the release of the documents. It turned out that Mueller didn’t find that things had gone far enough for charges, but there was enough to justify investigation.
quote:... and now they're calling the Trump claims of a stolen election a lie and conspiracy theory, even though any investigation of that has been a small fraction of the Mueller investigation.
Because there are no reasonable grounds for suspicion, and because the recounts and audits didn’t find any serious problems. When the supposed evidence has been looked at, it hasn’t needed any more investigation. We don’t need to seriously consider a report that compares voting figures from one State with population figures from another, or pay much attention to an “expert” report from a “Military Intelligence Analysts” who flunked the basic training for that position.
quote:Didn't go far enough for charges, but it was still the truth?
quote:But the recounts and audits didn't go on for 2 years, or cost millions of dollars. Ballot harvesting, mail in voting, and all the other fraud was barely investigated at all.
Mail in voting certainly was checked in the audits. And again, where is the evidence that would justify an investigation? Should we start with the Republican Party in California with their fake boxes for collecting ballots?
quote:No investigation on why the mainstream media completely covered up the Joe Biden / Hunter Biden corruption with Ukraine during the Obama administration, only weeks before the election.
You mean that the incredibly suspect story about the laptop? Where the hard drive just happened to get sent to Rudy Giuliani - who sat on it for months?
quote:Polls showed that enough voters would have changed their vote from Biden to Trump had they known about it, to change the results.
I’d like to see the question that was asked for that poll. But certainly the story got out - we all heard about it. But it was an obvious dirty trick.
quote:It's all about government control of personal liberty, the different divisions of government excuses to do it is fairly irrelevant.
That doesn’t change the fact that you have no idea what you were talking about. You can’t discuss the restrictions sensibly without understanding the reasons for them.
quote:I was much more concerned with intelligence, concerning the message that claimed that most all products used by humans today can easily be made without fossil fuels. And the very telling reaction it got when I pointed out how wrong that was. I'll go over to that thread here shortly.
The more interesting question there is what is the impact on climate from those uses. Using oil as a raw material for producing plastics or artificial fibres is not obviously going to have the same effects as burning it.
quote:You haven't seen the antifa and BLM riots, both before and after her incentivizing it, and calling it all okay?
So, no actual coup attempt. And since that was a very I prtant part of Trump’s ban, the equivalence isn’t there. Trump got a lot of tolerance, too.
quote:Because, as I've been saying, conservative speech is becoming tolerated LESS, as a fear of it grows.
And yet Percy still had valid reasons for the ban that are not directed at conservatism. Or even “conservatism” (that is pretty intolerant of conservative speech as Liz Cheney is finding out).
quote:It makes perfect sense, humans can't comprehend anything outside of one time dimension, three space dimensions, and re-arrangement of material. Logic actually tells us there is more to reality.
No, it didn’t make sense. And just saying that there must be more doesn’t give any reason to believe that the Earth isn’t billions of years old. Let alone that accepting that age is atheistic which is the real issue. Hinduism teaches that the Earth is even older. Does that make Hindus atheists? It’s absurd.
quote:?? That doesn't make sense.
Sure it does.
The only way atheism could be taught in schools is a teacher teaching that there was no God.
Creationists did try to inject their religious beliefs into science classes.
You say that it is because atheism was being taught. See above.
If an individual is breaking the law the correct response is to use the legal system to stop them. Not to use political means to get government support for a larger and more widely spread violation of the law.
In Message 667 he claimed that the 10th Amendment governed science. This is an outright falsehood. (The 10th Amendment is about the division of power between the Federal Government and the States).
It seems that he can’t tell the difference between the Federalist Letters which he cited in the earlier Message 659 and the Constitution. But while very useful for interpreting the Constitution the Federalist letters do not in themselves have any legal force.
It gets worse. His quote of Federalist Papers 10 was a misrepresentation. Climate scientists are not acting as a “faction” in the way Federalist Papers 10 sees as a problem. Nor is finding out facts Marc wants suppressed “mischief” in the sense intended. Worse still, Federalist Papers 10 did not advocate government control of “factions” as a solution.
The fact is that Marc wants political control of the findings of science. Which is totalitarian to the core. He claims constitutional authority but never offers any Article or Amendment that would support his claim. Only a misrepresentation of a document which is not a part of the Constitution - or any lesser part of the law.
So he admits that white privileged exists, but then insists that admitting it is somehow accusing all white people of “a collective crime”. It isn’t. It’s simply recognising the fact that due to current and past racism, being white is an advantage. And to call that ‘racist” is an obvious reversal of the truth.
A smear is not a rational argument.
quote:I totally agree. The only counter-argument that most of you have is..."Well what do you expect? He is a conservative nut
If you agree than I hope that you can support his assertions - you certainly don’t quote anything that does. Or are his claims as false as your assertion that we have no answer?
quote:This encapsulates the whole Source versus Content argument that jar and ringo keep trying to get me to accept. Atheists and secular humanists by and large believe that there is no source apart from humanity itself and that anything we write, adopt, and follow comes from within us. I disagree with this conclusion.
I don’t think that is at all true. To me the main point is that you think that God is an idiot who says nothing worth listening to. Jar and Ringo are just trying to get you to listen to the message.