Page 2 of 4 [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

TheKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,100
Location: Merced, California

05 Feb 2011, 2:32 pm

Tensu wrote:
Zeek wrote:
God does work in mysterious ways, genocide, supporting rape and murder of small children among other thing.\


What makes you think God supports any of that?


in Exodus he kills every first born child, read the Gospel of Joshua and you will see all the death and destruction he causes

in the bible it says in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New International Version, ©2010)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

AND don't give me that that was the "old" testament. So was the creation story and the 10 commandments. You cant pick and choose(such hypocrites). If you strictly believe in the New Testament ok. But very few sects believe like that.


_________________
WP Strident Atheist
If you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have accepted him as your lord and savior, and are 100% proud of it, put this in your sig.


TheKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,100
Location: Merced, California

05 Feb 2011, 2:33 pm

quick note: i dont know for sure but im assuming 50 shekels means 50 pieces


_________________
WP Strident Atheist
If you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have accepted him as your lord and savior, and are 100% proud of it, put this in your sig.


Zeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2009
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 925

05 Feb 2011, 2:40 pm

It's relatively obvious. Shekels are pieces but for those that require proof http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shekel .

Also Jesus said to follow the Old Testament Laws. In fact Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17-19
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

05 Feb 2011, 9:22 pm

mightypen515 wrote:
I do have something against some of their practices, i.e., encouraging the throwing of paint on people wearing fur (destruction of property, assault and other crimes involved in that one act), and the placement of moral judgment.

EVERYONE "places moral judgement" on those who perpetrate and fund practices they find ethically abominable.
mightypen515 wrote:
I might not kill an animal for its fur. I don't know what I would do, facing a survival situation in below-freezing temperatures. I might kill one for its flesh, then take advantage of the fact I have the fur, or the skin. If I shot a deer, and processed its meat, damn right I'm gonna have a buckskin suit.

There are 300 million Americans. Guess how many are required to kill animals to survive.
mightypen515 wrote:
I don't wear makeup, so I see no advantage for me in supporting animal testing for the sake of cosmetics. I may support some animal testing if it'll save my life or the lives of people I love or the lives of my fellow citizenry, when it comes to life threatening disease (cancer, aids).

You don't have to support animal testing to wear cosmetics, and there is no argument that ethically justifies testing on animals that does not also justify testing on babies and the mentally retarded.
mightypen515 wrote:
We do test on people, there are plenty of volunteers who take money in exchange for that use of their bodies

And there are plenty more, to the tune of BILLIONS, of animals who are burned, injected with disease, and generally tortured to look for cures for human diseases.
mightypen515 wrote:
how far does revolution go, and why is everyone required to participate? And what is the punishment for not participating? It starts with destruction of property - does it extend to murder?

Slippery slope fallacy if I've ever heard one.
mightypen515 wrote:
Many revolutionaries doing their thing to save animals from unnecessary torture may get farther in their endeavor if they'd put that kind of fervor and attention into the necessary paperwork, lobbying, and other activities that convince the powers that be that animal testing isn't necessary.

No torture is NECESSARY.
There are millions spent on lobbying the government by animal rights activists.
There are BILLIONS spent on lobbying the government by industries that make profit from using animals as commodities.
And this, of course, presumes that AR activists in question undertake direct action illegal tactics as PRIMARILY a means of protest, as opposed to PRIMARILY to rescue animals who are in imminent danger of being subjected to horrific cruelty.
mightypen515 wrote:
I'm not vegetarian or vegan either - for many of the same reasons you aren't. When confronted with a vegan's view that includes the screaming of an animal, I let them know about scientific testing on plants that has determined that plants scream, too.

Plants lack a central nervous system, and so do not experience pain as we understand it,
and if they did, they lack a brain with which to consciously perceive it.
I highly doubt you'd consider stabbing a dog versus a potato to be analogous.
mightypen515 wrote:
If I was the wife of an Asian whaler, and my husband came home with burns and couldn't see out of one or both eyes, I'd be dragging those men into court.

Why would that be? You'd think you'd be used to a husband who returns from work drenched in blood.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Zeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2009
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 925

05 Feb 2011, 9:31 pm

Bethie, thank you for your post. Good to see I'm not alone in hating animal cruelty.



TheKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,100
Location: Merced, California

05 Feb 2011, 10:23 pm

Zeek wrote:
Bethie, thank you for your post. Good to see I'm not alone in hating animal cruelty.


oh dont get me wrong Zeek i hate animal cruelty i mean i love animals especially cats, i am a supporter of animal testing only because its inhumane to test on humans with things that can potentially kill them unless of course we in North Korea, Cuba, Soviet Russia(when it existed) where you can use humans as Guinea Pigs lol


_________________
WP Strident Atheist
If you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have accepted him as your lord and savior, and are 100% proud of it, put this in your sig.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

05 Feb 2011, 10:29 pm

A lot of animal testing is justified; a lot of it is not. Toxicology testing in particular should be replaced by tissue culture, which is both cheaper and more ethical. The only problem is that the researchers and evaluators are used to see toxicity in terms of LD50; there isn't a solidified rubrick for tissue culture toxicity testing yet.



mightypen515
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 143

06 Feb 2011, 1:23 am

Bethie wrote:
mightypen515 wrote:
I do have something against some of their practices, i.e., encouraging the throwing of paint on people wearing fur (destruction of property, assault and other crimes involved in that one act), and the placement of moral judgment.

EVERYONE "places moral judgement" on those who perpetrate and fund practices they find ethically abominable.
mightypen515 wrote:
I might not kill an animal for its fur. I don't know what I would do, facing a survival situation in below-freezing temperatures. I might kill one for its flesh, then take advantage of the fact I have the fur, or the skin. If I shot a deer, and processed its meat, damn right I'm gonna have a buckskin suit.

There are 300 million Americans. Guess how many are required to kill animals to survive.
mightypen515 wrote:
I don't wear makeup, so I see no advantage for me in supporting animal testing for the sake of cosmetics. I may support some animal testing if it'll save my life or the lives of people I love or the lives of my fellow citizenry, when it comes to life threatening disease (cancer, aids).

You don't have to support animal testing to wear cosmetics, and there is no argument that ethically justifies testing on animals that does not also justify testing on babies and the mentally retarded.
mightypen515 wrote:
We do test on people, there are plenty of volunteers who take money in exchange for that use of their bodies

And there are plenty more, to the tune of BILLIONS, of animals who are burned, injected with disease, and generally tortured to look for cures for human diseases.
mightypen515 wrote:
how far does revolution go, and why is everyone required to participate? And what is the punishment for not participating? It starts with destruction of property - does it extend to murder?

Slippery slope fallacy if I've ever heard one.
mightypen515 wrote:
Many revolutionaries doing their thing to save animals from unnecessary torture may get farther in their endeavor if they'd put that kind of fervor and attention into the necessary paperwork, lobbying, and other activities that convince the powers that be that animal testing isn't necessary.

No torture is NECESSARY.
There are millions spent on lobbying the government by animal rights activists.
There are BILLIONS spent on lobbying the government by industries that make profit from using animals as commodities.
And this, of course, presumes that AR activists in question undertake direct action illegal tactics as PRIMARILY a means of protest, as opposed to PRIMARILY to rescue animals who are in imminent danger of being subjected to horrific cruelty.
mightypen515 wrote:
I'm not vegetarian or vegan either - for many of the same reasons you aren't. When confronted with a vegan's view that includes the screaming of an animal, I let them know about scientific testing on plants that has determined that plants scream, too.

Plants lack a central nervous system, and so do not experience pain as we understand it,
and if they did, they lack a brain with which to consciously perceive it.
I highly doubt you'd consider stabbing a dog versus a potato to be analogous.
mightypen515 wrote:
If I was the wife of an Asian whaler, and my husband came home with burns and couldn't see out of one or both eyes, I'd be dragging those men into court.

Why would that be? You'd think you'd be used to a husband who returns from work drenched in blood.


Do you feel better now? Chest heaving a little, little bit of sweat at the brows, proud of yourself? You go girl!

I agree, everyone places moral judgment on a lot of BS, including YOU, and ME.

As far as 300 million Americans go, plants take up a lot of more space than animals do. We are overpopulated, no matter what the conservatives say (and the the conservatives are absolutely fullobull on that). People could choose to limit themselves to creating one child, rather than many. Not everyone who wears cosmetics supports animal testing, but they participate by buying cosmetics.

I don't know what a slipper slope fallacy is by definition, but I know it's related to debate tactics and am aware that it was just a snotty thing to say on your part. And I don't use debate tactics, as far as I'm aware, I just say what's on my mind, and TRY to make myself clear.

No torture is necessary (excluding Fred Phelps and the WBC and I mean that, not 100 percent, but 99 percent). I didn't mean to type "torture," I meant to type "testing"; was in hurry because I wanted to catch another poster's attention before he would sign out, hoping he might reply to my post. I find his posts thoughtful and engaging. I like that dude's attitudes. Sorry I mis-typed.

"Do not experience pain as we understand it" is disingenuous. That's the same excuse fishermen use to explain to other people how it is that he can skin it BEFORE he kills it. I've seen it action, heard them say the words, and seen the words not taken well and not believed, including by me, because nothing behaves like that unless it's in pain.

"if they did, they lack a brain with which to consciously perceive it." It's the "if" part that makes people feel stronger about making statements like that (it's a "just in case" sort of thing).
How conscious does a thing have to be to perceive pain in a manner that would satisfy you?
Pain is pain, it freakin' hurts.
I don't fish. If I fished, I'd chop a head off before scaling or skinning.

No I wouldn't stab a dog. Obviously. Are you crazy? Well...unless it was the ONLY possible way that I could get a rabid or psycho one to stop biting the leg off a four-year-old kid. If kicking or whatever wasn't working? I don't know about your town, but in my town, the average time it takes from 911 to police on scene is 4.32 minutes, and for the EMS, 6.77 minutes.
I've had two dogs, both of which lived to ripe old ages before they broke my heart. I love dogs, but I think a four-year-old's leg is more important than a random dog.
I could be wrong, though, I mean, it's just a leg, right?

I probably wouldn't stab a potato; I can't think of a situation in which I would have to. But I'm likely to cut it up somehow, unless I want a baked potato, and then, I'll wrap it in foil. As far as Asian whaler's wives go, often the family is very poor, they work insane long hours for little pay and when he goes out she knows she may not see him again (because people die at sea sometimes), it's a crappy way to live, yes I would want them brought to justice absolutely for maiming my husband. I would be much more concerned for my husband than I would be for the crocodile tears of some stranger.

A key to fixing the whaling epidemic is getting government in those countries to ban it and people in those countries to avoid the use of anything comes from a whale, and try to teach them other ways, and help them understand that they are actually helping themselves when they DON'T do any whaling, and they're helping the environment, and they're not killing something that that there's not many of.

Banning whaling altogether, with full limitation and absolutely no whaling allowed, anywhere, by anyone, why can't anyone get that done? Because for the powers that be, it ain't morality, morality doesn't figure. The powers that be care about money. It's not okay for Asians to do it, but it is okay for Nordics to do it? Until whaling is banned altogether, whaling will continue.

"Why would that be? You'd think you'd be used to a husband who returns from work drenched in blood."
I'm not sure what that means, other than a trolly statement to make, and meant to get another person's hackles up, no more than that, and to satisfy yourself. My husband works for a sewer department. He is a mechanic, and the best mechanic the department has.
If the statement was about an Asian whaler, obviously they wash before they ever come off the boat. Whaling boats are equipped with many ways to spray water, they have to use water to spray the decks, who is going take that long drive home covered in blood? Who is going to get into the driver's seat of their own damn car, covered in blood? What bus driver is going to let you on, covered in blood? ...You don't do that, do you? Because it wouldn't be smart, convenient, or forward-thinking, or any other number of reasons, a person would figure it would not be the thing to do to allow blood to dry on your clothing and skin.

I like steak. I like bacon, sausage, pork roast, salmon, cod, WHALE (just kidding, I wouldn't eat whale, but I do use it in lamps, just kidding there too). I also enjoy rice, lentils, beans, many vegetables and fruits and nuts. I don't place moral judgments on anti-meaties when they're not placing moral judgments on me.

Jane Doe might want to see a particular scientist overseeing an animal experiment totally dead because of what he's doing - maybe Jane Doe wouldn't bomb his place. Jane won't send threatening letters or harass his family. Jane would give him no notice at all, because if he's not notified he's in danger, he won't be looking for it everywhere he goes, ergo unprepared for sudden attack. It would happen quickly and quietly and look like a suicide or accident, maybe depending on what flavor murder Jane feels like and what would be most appropriate for the situation. That's ending his experiments right there. If you're gonna go, why not go all the way? As far as other scientists go, if animal testing were made illegal, all the time, no matter what, no matter who, those scientists would have to find other jobs.

Humans make laws. Laws should be abided or the non-abiders face punishment. Man's law ought to be respected, and it is man's responsibility to change the law when the law becomes ineffective, does not carry enough weight. It is man's responsibility to adjust the punishments as well. Make animal testing illegal - with very harsh sentences - and the problem is solved. Threatening letters is criminal, and so is bombing and harassment. I'm just saying, keep yourself out of damn jail while you're doing your good. There's plenty that can be done, and is being done, without committing crimes. If you're in jail, you can't do anything at all!

My post wasn't meant to Pavlov anybody, it's just my opinion. I might eat meat tonight, I might not. More often than not, I don't, because of personal preference. 3 out 10 meals include meat. I don't shoot any damn deer. I don't fish. I don't hunt. I have enough trouble with my crappy drive to the farm where I get goat's milk, and enough trouble with rude shoppers at the grocery to even THINK about the work put into hunting. And it's just not my thing. Not fun, freakin' cold, no toilet, no Mac. But...I'm always happy to go into my backyard and gather my dinner. We get compliments on the variety out there and we use anything we can think of to avoid the use chemicals. We're just that way. I myself am impressed with our garden. I try not to be obnoxious about it! When Neighbor said my marigolds stink up his yard, I moved them. We get more than we can eat, the food bank gets some, along with our friends and family. Many people need to learn better eating habits, with or without meat.

There's plenty of ways food plants are grown in this country in ways I consider impractical, immoral and unjustifiable; and ways to raise and kill food animals in safe, humane, painless environments. An environmentalist who eats meat and lives green-ly and raises his own rabbits is being (just MHO, not a bell or a whistle) more responsible than the girl next door who grows all her own food and dumps insecticides on everything.

Now, I think I'll get up and go get some summer sausage and cheddar cheese to munch on...but I'll get some crackers too!



mightypen515
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 143

06 Feb 2011, 1:36 am

TheKing wrote:
Tensu wrote:
Zeek wrote:
God does work in mysterious ways, genocide, supporting rape and murder of small children among other thing.\


What makes you think God supports any of that?


in Exodus he kills every first born child, read the Gospel of Joshua and you will see all the death and destruction he causes

in the bible it says in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New International Version, ©2010)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

AND don't give me that that was the "old" testament. So was the creation story and the 10 commandments. You cant pick and choose(such hypocrites). If you strictly believe in the New Testament ok. But very few sects believe like that.


Wow, that's crappy for a first born child. Wow, that's crappy for a woman. You know, I always thought Cain brought the better gift - the sweat of his brow.
...and non-screaming food. :lol:



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

06 Feb 2011, 2:45 am

mightypen515 wrote:
Do you feel better now? Chest heaving a little, little bit of sweat at the brows, proud of yourself? You go girl!

Do you feel better now, you paternalistic twat? {irony intended - and, yes, women can be paternalistic}
Are you incapable of arguing her points without ad-homineming her as a hysterical little girl first?

Quote:
"Do not experience pain as we understand it" is disingenuous.

Not when referring to plants, which lack a nervous system. It is, in fact, overgenerous based on our current knowledge of consciousness and neurology. Plants have no neurons, no nervous system, no central nervous system. Unlike us, and unlike fish. They don't even have the neural network that clams or jellyfish have.
As far as plants "screaming," as a biologist I'd love to see that 'research.'

Quote:
There's plenty of ways food plants are grown in this country in ways I consider impractical, immoral and unjustifiable; and ways to raise and kill food animals in safe, humane, painless environments. An environmentalist who eats meat and lives green-ly and raises his own rabbits is being (just MHO, not a bell or a whistle) more responsible than the girl next door who grows all her own food and dumps insecticides on everything.

This part I'm not sure I actually agree with or not, but I do see where you're coming from.



mightypen515
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 143

06 Feb 2011, 12:22 pm

LKL wrote:
mightypen515 wrote:
Do you feel better now? Chest heaving a little, little bit of sweat at the brows, proud of yourself? You go girl!

Do you feel better now, you paternalistic twat? {irony intended - and, yes, women can be paternalistic}
Are you incapable of arguing her points without ad-homineming her as a hysterical little girl first?

Quote:
"Do not experience pain as we understand it" is disingenuous.

Not when referring to plants, which lack a nervous system. It is, in fact, overgenerous based on our current knowledge of consciousness and neurology. Plants have no neurons, no nervous system, no central nervous system. Unlike us, and unlike fish. They don't even have the neural network that clams or jellyfish have.
As far as plants "screaming," as a biologist I'd love to see that 'research.'

Quote:
There's plenty of ways food plants are grown in this country in ways I consider impractical, immoral and unjustifiable; and ways to raise and kill food animals in safe, humane, painless environments. An environmentalist who eats meat and lives green-ly and raises his own rabbits is being (just MHO, not a bell or a whistle) more responsible than the girl next door who grows all her own food and dumps insecticides on everything.

This part I'm not sure I actually agree with or not, but I do see where you're coming from.


Dude, no point in name-calling, I'm not paternalistic and I'm not a twat.
As far as capabilities or incapabilities go, it's not my responsibility to argue anything, and definitely not to argue her points in a manner that makes YOU happy.
I never made any points involving her being a "hysterical little girl." I don't see how chest-heaving and sweat at the brow relates to little girls in particular. Obviously she's a grown woman - and very obviously she can take of herself. I didn't call HER any names. Though she meant to get my hackles up, SHE didn't call me any names.
I'm proud of her that she came in and said something.
I feel the same way when I come down like a sack of bricks on a pro-lifer, anti-gunner or book burner.
I don't know what ad-homineming is.
Pain is pain. My abcess tooth is pain, your broken leg is pain, they're two different kinds of pain, but they're still pain.
Try skinning a fish alive sometime and see how you FEEL. You feel that way because you sense its pain.
Thank you for saying you see where I'm coming from, I appreciate that very much, and I mean that 100 percent.
If you'd love to see the research, go look for it, I did. Start with Fort Hays State University, move on to Countryside magazine, and there's plenty of other places to find this research, though much of it is taking place in western states. While you're there, grab up Antony Flew's "How to Think Straight." That's not meant as an insult. I bought that book because I have a friend who compulsively enjoys arguing and I wanted to make certain points to him that his own arguments might have problems (he alludes to a wrong act being not so bad because other people do it, just little things, not like murder or anything), and Flew's book really helped. He doesn't enjoy arguing with me anymore.
Don't call me a twat, you prick. :roll:



danandlouie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Age: 74
Gender: Male
Posts: 796
Location: rainbow bridge

06 Feb 2011, 2:02 pm



Last edited by danandlouie on 11 Feb 2011, 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

06 Feb 2011, 6:43 pm

mightypen515 wrote:
[If you'd love to see the research, go look for it, I did.

That's not the way arguing factual claims works. You made an extraordinary claim, and it's up to you to support it with extraordinary evidence - not ours to believe you or search for it.

Quote:
While you're there, grab up Antony Flew's "How to Think Straight."

I have a BSc in biology and my coursework included statistics, critical thinking, the scientific method, and arguing and interpreting scientific claims. I focused on evolutionary theory and anatomy and physiology. Given that you don't know what an 'ad hominem' is despite having read Flew's book, and apparently dont' know much about neurology, I think I'll skip it.

Quote:
Don't call me a twat, you prick. :roll:

Please, that's 'b***h.' I'm pretty sure 'prick' is a male insult.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

06 Feb 2011, 6:50 pm

danandlouie wrote:
to writer MCALAVERA.......peta certainly kills animals. i'm a supporter of animal rights and i've killed animals. all depends on the context. silly humans like you don't really care about animals, so you just say anything to fit in with the macho crowd on w.p.

when you're faced with a situation that kills your soul, where a cat or dog has been burned and beaten nearly to death and there's zero chance for recovery, i choose and peta chooses to put the animal down, not prolong the pain and agony that you seem to advocate. uncountable. the ways humans torture and abuse animals, many times just for fun. uncountable.

approximately 5 million dogs and cats will be killed in usa animal shelters this year. no homes for them, no one to take care of them. let me head some of you off, no-kill shelters also kill, or they only take in the best that are offered to them, generally 1 per cent. they turn away the other 99 per cent that need help.

peta will take the worst abuse cases, the ones who are desperate. they work hard to save the ones they can and the rest will be killed. IT'S A MERCY ACT. just how stupid are you not to realize this....oh, i forgot, you probably like to watch animals suffer till they die. a thought......are you really michael vick? that would explain your attitude.

many other animal rights groups.....in defense of animals, last chance for animals, farm sanctuary take on those who like to abuse animals. why the writers on wrong planet just condemn peta means they are such followers that when someone mentioned peta a long time ago that's what they stuck with. don't care about the truth. it's just good to be a follower. how shameful for you. i would like to help you. maybe we could meet. i would certainly enjoy that.
j f c.....it's so sad there's not a convention of some sort for wrong planet.


LOL, go PMS on someone else.

I could care less about what an advocate for terrorism (both for animals and humans) thinks about me.



mightypen515
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 143

06 Feb 2011, 7:13 pm

LKL wrote:
mightypen515 wrote:
[If you'd love to see the research, go look for it, I did.

That's not the way arguing factual claims works. You made an extraordinary claim, and it's up to you to support it with extraordinary evidence - not ours to believe you or search for it.

Quote:
While you're there, grab up Antony Flew's "How to Think Straight."

I have a BSc in biology and my coursework included statistics, critical thinking, the scientific method, and arguing and interpreting scientific claims. I focused on evolutionary theory and anatomy and physiology. Given that you don't know what an 'ad hominem' is despite having read Flew's book, and apparently dont' know much about neurology, I think I'll skip it.

Quote:
Don't call me a twat, you prick. :roll:

Please, that's 'b***h.' I'm pretty sure 'prick' is a male insult.


Why say you'd love to see the research, yet not be willing to look for it? And why are you freaked over this? I took enough out of that book to show my friend he can sometimes be a jerk. I didn't read any of it for your benefit. Weirdo.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

06 Feb 2011, 7:39 pm

It looks to me like you and LKL are about to be the best of friends soon, lol.