You, Dan, and this guy, are douches. I have neither the time nor the inclination to expose every factual error, straw man, false dichotomy, or outright lie proposed in this series (I watched the first two videos before I nearly vomited), and if he makes the same retarded spelling errors as in the last one ("heigth") -- which he did at least once in the first video ("botony") -- then I actually will vomit.Stop being a douche.--Stan
I just knew you would enjoy these Stan. I know I am enjoying it. Wait a sec. If someone spells something wrong that means that the entire point is void? Ad Hom much? Apparently, douchery is rampant.
Well, at least Simmons is consistent: this video is of the same intellectual quality as his Antichrist one.Here's another misspelling from Destroying Evolution: "kool-aide". If I had an audience of millions and couldn't spell any better than that, or work a spell checker, I would be tempted to disable the comments. Well, what do you know: comments are disabled!I didn't even make it past the first video, but I must concur with Stan: there's simply too much here to fisk. I'll just point out one thing. Simmons takes evolutionists to task for separating abiogenesis from evolutionary theory:Oh no...(wink wink)Evolution Text Books never address the ORIGINS OF LIFEPlease...it seems your hypocrisy knows no bounds.Mr. EvolutionistDo you see how STUPID you look, when you speak?While this is thigh-slapping witty stuff, someone should tell Mr. Simmons that evolution text books often don't address the origins of life because, well, it is considered a different subject matter. This is just as sensible an objection as calling a book about race cars "stupid" because it doesn't talk about steel foundries.And I also have the feeling that Mr. Simmons simply didn't think about many of the quotes he put up, since they were either descriptions of things which are not (yet) known, or rather out of date (for instance, the one from Richard Goldschmidt of "hopeful monster" infamy- he died in 1958).Sorry, Dan, no debunking again.
Wait a sec. If someone spells something wrong that means that the entire point is void? Cherry-pick much?I have neither the time nor the inclination to expose every factual error, straw man, false dichotomy, or outright lie proposed in this series... Note, douche, that all of the above preceded the flippant remark regarding his awful spelling. Dammit, though, I forgot "appeal to authority," "blatant misrepresentation," "poisoning of the well," and "quote mine."For fuck's sake, the opening quotation is from 1933. Nineteen thirty-three. Do you know what wasn't yet discovered or invented in 1933? DNA, the Hammond B-3 organ (any Hammond organ), FM radio, the shopping cart...I'd guess there have been significant discoveries in the field of biology since that statement, even if it wasn't untrue when it was uttered.As a simple example of a false dichotomy (wrapped in an appeal to authority and draped with a poisoning of the well, no less), the douche states the following (at the 1:16 mark of the first video):Will you believe evolutionist kool-aide [sic] drinkers or published and recognized scientific experts? Really? That's how he wants to set this tripe up? Let's ask you, douche, will you believe evolutionist Kool-Aid drinkers or published and recognized scientific experts?(Psst. The "evolutionist kool-aide drinkers" are the only "published and recognized scientific experts," and if that's the dichotomy you wish to propose, why don't you accept the "published and recognized scientific experts" who have volumes of evidence of an old universe?)Douche.Ad Hom much? Apparently, douchery is rampant. Nope, but when I'm presented a video from a source to whom my only other exposure has been a complete and utter fabrication, which fabrication has been thoroughly detailed to the one who presented the video, yet the presenter both refuses to admit that the initial presentation was pure fabrication and has the audacity to say -- in spite of the demonstration that it was a fabrication -- that it was nonetheless "evidence" of its fabricated claim...Yeah, then I call douche.Likewise, with 'respect' to the author of the videos, when I am presented with a video which is quickly shown to be a pure fabrication, which prompts a re-release of the video to obscure some of the more egregious claims, yet is still quickly shown to be a complete fabrication still, and when following this presentation, I am presented with a second video -- a series -- which begins with a quote-mined appeal to authority, followed immediately by a false dichotomy, and which is replete with factual errors and blatant misrepresentations...Yeah, then I call douche.Ad hominem is attacking the man rather than the argument. I've quite clearly attacked first the argument (or did you ignore the piles of evidence that the first video was complete bullshit), and then, after reviewing a portion of a second video and likewise attacking its "arguments," I deduced that these were products not of an honest person, but of a douche.You, then, are a douche for knowingly promoting dishonest material, and for neglecting to admit (refusing, more like) that your endorsement of this dishonesty is a) uncritical and b) no longer uninformed.--Stan
Stan,I am trying to read your comment, but I cring each time I see a cuss word. (Call me a girl, call me too sensitive, call me a dumb Christian, whatever, but this is a blog about science, God, etc.)I am not passing judgement, it's just hard to find you crediable if you have to name call inbetween your refutes of Dan's information on evolution.Just a persepective, I don't find it very professional.Hey, but otherwise, I hope you have good day.God Bless :)
J.J.Day: well, do you find me credible? I don't cuss as much as Stan, and I agree with just about everything he says. And if you don't like cussing, how do you like calling people "stupid", as Simmons does? Just askin'.Have a great day, cheer from starryskyed Vienna, zilch
Evolution has nothing to do with God, followed by quotes showing otherwise.It's a science that stands neutral from any religious viewpoint, but it does indeed point strongly toward either undirected change, or toward a God who used undirected change to create life, or toward a God who created life but is tricking us into thinking it was undirected.Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, followed by quotes claiming to show otherwise.None of the quotes dispute the claim. The first quote says that abiogenesis is a hypothesis about the origin of life. Yes, it is. And it has nothing to do with evolution, which means "change over time." Evolution is about CHANGE in ALREADY EXISTING life. NOT the origin of that life.The next quote says that abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Yes, it is. And it has nothing to do with evolution, which means "change over time." Evolution is about CHANGE in ALREADY EXISTING life. NOT the origin of that life.Two quotes that failed to dispute the statement that "abiogenesis and evolution have nothing to do with each other."Name calling, telling us "evolutionists" we are STUPID.Great. Maturity at its finest.Statement that fossils prove evolution, followed by quotes that somehow prove it doesn't.The Bible wants us to smash babies against rocks: "Happy shall he be, who taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Psalm 137:9Oh! Oh! I'm sorry! Did I take that quote out of context? Congratulations. Now you understand the absurdity of this section of the video.Evolution says that genetic mutations are the engine of change, followed by quotes that allegedly dispute this.MORE quotes taken out of context. Don't you hate it when someone does this with the Bible? So why do you do the same thing with evolution? Aren't you embarrassed? Evolution being responsible for atoms and matter, and quotes disputing this.What the hell? Evolution is about CHANGE in ORGANISMS over time. Anyone using it in cosmology or physics is using it colloquially. More name calling and a statement that when we try to explain the existence of the atom, we look like FOOLS! FOOLS! STUPID FOOLS!So... we should NOT try to examine and explain the world around us. Got it. What this has to do with biological evolution is beyond me.
I am trying to read your comment, but I cring [sic] each time I see a cuss word. What are you, some kind of sensitive, dumb, Christian girl?(Call me a girl, call me too sensitive, call me a dumb Christian, whatever, but this is a blog about science, God, etc.) Oh. My bad.I am not passing judgement Yes you are, but that's okay if you can show why your position holds merit....it's just hard to find you crediable [sic] if you have to name call inbetween [sic] your refutes [sic] of Dan's information on evolution. You mean, as Zilch has already noted, that it's hard to find Dan's "information on evolution" credible when every other statement is either meant specifically to incite anger in its opposition, or is otherwise a direct insult?Just a persepective [sic], I don't find it very professional. Look, I'm not in the mood to get into this with an unknown, so suffice it to say that Dan and I have a history together, and he's shown a remarkable -- and appreciated -- tolerance for expletive use. In addition to this tolerance, though, he has gotten progressively more uncritical and less rational in his more recent posts, and despite several reasoned responses refuting virtually everything those posts affirm, Dan continues as though nothing happened.If you don't believe me, pick a few threads and read the comments (assuming you haven't been lurking for a while, but then, if you had, this is far from the most potentially offensive comment you'll find).Thicken your skin a bit -- they're just words, and they're amazingly economical at that. As for professionalism, I wonder where the notion that 'profanity is unprofessional' comes from... It hasn't been true in any of the professional environments in which I've worked, including the most well known software company in the world, and it hasn't been true regarding my experience in community or university college. In my first semester at CU-Boulder, for example, on any given day, three of my four lectures would feature "fuck" -- stated by the professor.So I really don't care if you're offended by patterns of pixels, impressions of ink, or granules of graphite. Expletives are no different than the replacement words many prudes use in their stead (e.g. darn, gosh, dang, fudge, shoot, etc.), and some of them have legitimate non-expletive uses (e.g. cock, pussy, taint, douche, prick, fag, etc.). Obviously, too, some of them appear in the bible itself (e.g. damn, ass), and still others are expressed via euphemism in the bible (e.g. "cover one's feet" in place of "shit," or "went in unto [her]" in place of "fucked").So no, you're not a girl for cringing when you encounter profanity, nor are you too sensitive, nor a dumb Christian, due to your reaction, but rather you're unwittingly hypocritical, and you're ignorant to the economy of using profanity -- especially when surrounded by the obvious ability to abstain from their use, which I expect my prose clearly suggests.If you're a girl, it's because of your chromosomes (among other factors). If you're too sensitive, it's either a dermatological issue or a repression issue. If you're a dumb Christian, it's either an issue of education, an otolaryngological issue, or a neurological issue.If you're complaining about pixels, ink, or graphite, though, that's just silly.--Stan(P.S. -- Thanks for an excuse to engage in humor, and let Dan's bullshit simmer. It's much appreciated.)
Stan,Plese forgive me.I thought about what I wrote and your right, it wasn't my place to comment.If I want to stick my nose into someone's blog comment's, then I better expect to be suprised and I was suprised.I don't like using the word 'stupid' usually, it was edgy for me. Although, I suppose by my personal convictions for the word 'stupid' is acceptable to use in certain settings. Also, I am going to a Bible college so my professors wouldn't use the word 'f***'. Too, I haven't read the comments here for a long time and so it was a spur-of-the-moment comment from me when I was trying to read your comment.I don't doubt your a smart and intellectually able guy.I shouldn't have said what I said. Using the word the 'credit' word was also wrong.Like I said, it was a persepective and even if it looked like it, my intentions were not to judge you.Again, hope you can forgive me.This was fun, I'll be coming back here again.God Bless you Stan :)
Again, hope you can forgive me. That's quite unnecessary -- as I said, I thank you for the diversion from Dan's asininity (fun word, that).In fact, I welcome a new sparring partner -- but only if you are honest. Perhaps the quickest litmus test for that sort of honesty would be to have you watch this video, and the one which precedes it, and research the issues yourself and/or read the comments made and follow the provided links. Do this, and let us know what you think of Dan's objectivity and integrity. In the Antichrist comments, be sure to note Dan's limitless credulity with respect to Obama's birth certificate.He's a sucker.(As to the expletive use, incidentally, I censored myself here for quite a while, until Dan quoted from the movie Pulp Fiction, without censoring the quote. This is undoubtedly an example of why he hates my memory -- anything he says can and will be used against him on his own blog. As for your reaction to expletive use, well, think about why they're so offensive to you, and try to justify it. I don't think you can, but if you convince yourself otherwise, imagine whether or not you'd feel as offended if I used "frack" in place of [redacted], and ask yourself why or why not. That should give you an insight into why I say complaints about expletive use are silly.)So take a look at Dan's posts and the comments they generate, and let me know what you think. I'll probably make fun of you, but that's because I make fun of everyone. I'm the nicest asshole you'll ever meet -- except you probably won't ever meet me. Don't believe me? Merriam-Webster does.Cheers.--Stan(P.S. -- As a possibly humorous aside, when I took Intro to Philosophy at a community college, the instructor was a former Jesuit. When I titled my term paper, "I am an Asshole," the class blushed and chuckled, but he didn't miss a beat as he read it aloud. Afterward, he noted the use of "crass" language, and acknowledged that some students may have been offended. With some tactful magic, though, he politely showed them how silly that feigned offense was. His argument was identical to mine, though obviously less crude.)
'As for your reaction to expletive use, well, think about why they're so offensive to you, and try to justify it.' -StanThanks for the comment back :)Hmm, you said I probably couldn't.Well, here is my best:The 'why' 1: Eph 4:29- Don’t use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them.And,Col 3:8- But now is the time to get rid of anger, rage, malicious behavior, slander, and dirty language.The Bible told me to do it and I 'honestly' live by it (best, I humanly can).The 'why' 2: I am 19 on aug 8th, but I live with my mom still. I like to follow her rules, just makes things easier (and, again the Bible told me too). She tells me not to use certain language in the house. If I used it out of the house I would get out of practice and use it in the house.She dosen't even like me to use 'dang', 'shoot', 'stupid', 'frickin', etc. (Sorry, if you think it is hypocritical to write these words out, but it is done.)The 'why' 3: Yeah, words are just words. However I do care about the people around me. If someone is offended with me because of a word I used then it is a big deal to me. I don't mind if I am persecuted for Jesus or what not, but if I say something and it hurts someone I need to reconcile with them.The Bible tells me that words hole the power of life or death. I could kill a relationship or bring life to it by my kind words.It is a heart thing, I don't care about letters, words, and sentences either.The 'why' 4: You have to admit that society as a whole does not approve some language. So the standards vary. I might be able to joke with my dad a bit differently than I can joke with a lady in my church. (Not that I am two-faced, it's just that I more relaxed around my dad) So, if society let's me know that 'f***' is wrose than 'fudge', than I will follow that too. (Mainly because of the heart thing again)Dosen't mean everyone must live by this. Dosen't mean every Christian should live by this.I just talked this out with God and we decided on it together for me.How'd my justification do?God Bless :)
Oh and P.S.,My dad was sitting next to me when I clicked on the merriam-webester thing- I had to explain the entire story to him.It was a blast.Hope that made your day.God Bless :)
Hope that made your day. I'm still laughing. I hope the two of you had a good chuckle, as well. If any time you're feeling especially juvenile, I recommend searching Merriam-Webster's online dictionary for expletives -- it's not just that they are there, or that pronunciations are offered, but that some are not there, while others are, and some have multiple pronunciations offered, or even entire phrase pronunciations. I don't remember which former employer was unwittingly paying me for that research, but it dawned on me that expletives were treated differently than 'normal' words by that dictionary. They don't offer a pronunciation for fish or cut bait, or even for "fish" (also in that link), but with the "f-word," they offer pronunciations "fúçk," "fück off," "fųckér," "mòthêrfūckër," etc. Where, I wondered, were "fisher," ...Hmm. Unlike Dan, I do my research before I publish, and it seems that M-W has updated its site -- "fisher" is now pronounced... Drat.Well, they still offer two pronunciations each for "shît" and "bĩtch," and they even offer two pronunciations for the composite phrase "son of a bîtch."Tell me that isn't funny, and doesn't belie any claim that they don't treat expletives differently.Anyway...
You cited two verses to support your claim, and I understand that your belief in the bible is your driving force, but this says nothing to the point, that a particular collection of phonemes cannot intrinsically be evil. As I mentioned, if a replacement word is used in place of one which has been branded "profane," or as an expletive, the meaning and intent behind the speech is preserved, even if the actual syllables are not.Of course, different languages and cultures treat words differently, so, for instance, should we avoid using the term "bloody," since it is a British expletive? What of the words such as "cock," "pussy," "douche," "prick," etc.?Peter denied Christ three times before the cock crowed, my aunt refers to her plentiful felines as her "pussies," a woman suffering from "feminine odor" may require a thorough douching, and the tale of Sleeping Beauty revolves around a prick.Indeed, the bible -- the KJV -- uses the word "piss" in place of urine. Should we cease using "piss," or urine?If the cultural views define what is and is not currently viewed as "foul language," and if what was once "foul language" can become accepted speech, or what was once accepted speech can become "foul language," then how is the whole thing not arbitrary? How is the bible's statement of any import whatsoever?Clearly, you don't worry about whether any of the terms you use in your 'acceptable vocabulary' happen to match any of the forbidden words of OT Hebrew or NT Greek/Aramaic, but why?Is it because of the meaning and intent? If so, then you should abhor all insult, ridicule, or condemnation. If you permit any of this, then you are hypocritical.Today, you probably (hopefully) avoid the use of the term, "nigger," even though it was a perfectly acceptable term to use in the 18th and 19th centuries. If we were having this discussion then, do you think you'd object to its use? Why, or why not?I remember watching television and movies as a child, and when comparing the two to today, the difference in acceptable speech is remarkable. I vividly recall the day South Park thumbed its nose at censors and aired "It Hits the Fan," in which the word "shit" was used 162 times (they had a counter). As a child, they wouldn't say "bitch," or even "whore," much less "shit," and a few seasons ago the show Rescue Me included the use of recombined words "twunt" and "cwat," after a dramatized incident involving the word "twat." Which was the more appropriate?If culture determines "acceptable speech" versus "foul language," then both are equally appropriate. If through gradual acceptance, "shit" or "fuck" become accepted, and "beautiful" or "lovely" take their place, will you argue that we should cease to say "beautiful" or "lovely"?Heh. Suffice it to say, the argument against profanity or expletive use is vacuous. It utilizes only appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, or special pleading, and it is necessarily subjective. Anyway, you don't have to use it, you just have to endure it.--Stan
True, true (well, part of what you said ;) )Something caught my eye-'Today, you probably (hopefully) avoid the use of the term, "nigger," even though it was a perfectly acceptable term to use in the 18th and 19th centuries. If we were having this discussion then, do you think you'd object to its use? Why, or why not?'Do you think all words are 'okay to say'? Why is the 'n'-word wrong to you? But the 'f'-word isn't?You might have already explained this, you probably have and this discussion is getting exhausting, but if your up to it...?I do agree, that I don't have to use it, but just endure it- we can agree to that.God Bless :)
Ugh. I had written a nearly complete response when a faulty media plug-in caused my browser to crash... Lame.Anyway, I do use "nigger," but only to mock those who use it as a pejorative, to give it in a factual context, or as a rhetorical tool (e.g. satire). I use "fuck" rather freely.There is a difference, however, and believe it or not, that difference was discussed at length in the Supreme Court decision Cohen v. California. It's a fascinating case, and the decision, including the dissent, are both very interesting, and I highly recommend reading them.The Supreme Court has held, from that case and others, that speech can be censored in only three circumstances:1. "Obscene" speech (which is defined as "appealing to the prurient interest[s]" -- explicitly sexual speech)2. Speech which unnecessarily (or fraudulently) disrupts peaceful enterprise (e.g. shouting "Fire" in a theater)3. "Fighting words" -- speech which provokes violenceSince "fuck" can be used as virtually any part of speech, as this Monty Python sketch can attest (audio, with Flash animation, including an ironic misspelling of "incompetence"; not recommended for J.J.), it cannot be reasonably argued that it is always a "fighting word," and indeed, most of the time it is not. This is why it is treated differently than "nigger," which has only one use: as a racial slur.So no, I don't call blacks, or anyone else, "niggers," and instead I confront those who do. I also don't go around telling people to "fuck off." I don't openly speculate as to how small a passerby's penis might be, and I don't tell old ladies that they smell like death and feces. Why not? Because all of these are examples of provocation, which is illegal, and even if it weren't, it goes against my character.Of course, if someone has provoked me already, I may do some of these things, but as a reaction to provocation, the use of "fighting words" is typically forgiven.So your question was astute, but it is easily answered. That answer, however, does not resolve the question regarding the use of "nigger" in your case, were this argument to take place in 1820.If cultural values dictate which words, phrases, symbols, or other forms of speech are acceptable, and which are not, then your bible is of little to no value on the subject.You know, like the value your bible adds to the discussion on appropriate attire, on the roles of women, on diet, on medicine, on legal punishment, on slavery...If you're not really using it, why do you keep using it?Anyway, that's profanity.--Stan
J.J., Stan: I'm really enjoying this exchange. Thanks to both of you for having obviously put a lot of thought into it.Being a language freak, I can't resist posting a link to the entry in An Analytic Dictionary of English Etymology on "fuck", where you will find likely more that you ever wanted to know about the history of the word. What especially interested me is the summing up of current scholarly opinion:The etymology of fuck is obscure, but not hopelessly so. Most likely, this verb was borrowed into English in the second half of the 15th century from some Low German dialect. Fuck(en) is one of many similar verbs known from Switzerland to Norway meaning 'move back and forth'. Frig, fiddle, fidget, obsolete firk, and possibly fetch belong to the same group, and so do numerous other verbs in Frisian, Dutch, German, and Scandinavian whose root begin with f and ends in a stop or an affricative."Fiddle" was news to me. My workshop here is called "Fiddlesticks" (since I'm a bowmaker), and I always thought that "fiddle" was from Latin "fidula", also the source for "viola" and "violin". Now that I think about it, though, it's probably the other way around: fiddles, meaning string instruments played with bows that move back and forth, have only been around since about the ninth century A.D., so "fidula" is probably not classical. Live and learn!
Stan: That was not a Monty Python sketch. The members of Monty Python couldn't come up with a sketch like that if they were bombed out of their minds and had had full lobotomies. Monty Python had talent.
That was not a Monty Python sketch. The members of Monty Python couldn't come up with a sketch like that if they were bombed out of their minds and had had full lobotomies. Monty Python had talent. Hmmm. I admit that it did not strike me as their work, and that I took the accrediting of that audio (from three separate sources) as accurate, but I cannot corroborate the accreditation from any truly reputable source -- I'll happily concede the point.If I may quote Idle, then, "Fuck you very much."I apologize for my evident credulity, in spite of attempts to prevent the same.--Stan
Stan Comfort: I don't even grant you the excuse of credulity. As I recall, the credits credit Monty Python only with the musical score that serves as background. As for your "if I may quote..." it translates roughly to "Stop interfering with my con-job. Get out of here!" So, you can keep your not-pology
Pvblivs, you are a cunt.Better? I've tried to be nice to you, and tried to make peace with you, but I realize now that you're a blistered twat, nothing more.As I recall, the credits credit Monty Python only with the musical score that serves as background. Wrong, and credulity is no excuse, especially since you're trying to expose ignorance on my part. It's your con-game, jackass, not mine.The accreditation of the audio to Python said exactly this:Audio: Monty Python No mention of the music as opposed to the narration, and the music is classical, not Python. Zilch can probably identify the exact piece, which I recognize, but cannot name. Guess what? I could still be wrong, but at least I'm willing to admit error, and at least I'm not a douche.It was evidently incorrect, and I have accepted the egg which found its way to my face as a result. But who cares?My apology was not to you -- I give two shits about you and your passive-aggressive fetish with hyper-skepticism -- the apology was to Python. Idle's song, featuring "Fuck you very much," is a goddamn joke, but you're so retarded that everything seems like a personal insult to you, I guess.So from now on, everything I say to you will be a personal insult. Lick my balls, then, and go fuck yourself. Dan may be retarded much of the time, and even a douche, but at least he has a sense of humor, and at least he doesn't take everything as personally as you do.Fucktard.--Stan
Stan: "I've tried to be nice to you." Try harder. Contrary to your apparent belief, "Fuck you very much" is not the pinnacle of civil discourse. "I could still be wrong, but at least I'm willing to admit error, and at least I'm not a douche." I have to disagree with that assessment. Tell you what. Let's measure the claim. If you are not a douche, you will have made the entire post without any insults. How did you do?"Pvblivs, you are a cunt.""you're a blistered twat""It's your con-game, jackass, not mine.""I give two shits about you and your passive-aggressive fetish with hyper-skepticism""but you're so retarded that everything seems like a personal insult to you""Lick my balls, then, and go fuck yourself." Oooh, it lookks like you didn't do very well. This trying to be nice and make peace must be very hard for you. And, no, not everything seems a personal insult to me. But saying "you're a retard" is a personal insult, not a joke. "The accreditation of the audio to Python said exactly this: Audio: Monty Python" Then I was wrong. I thought I remembered what it said from the first time around and didn't feel the need to sit through the claptrap another time to double-check. But I don't claim credulity. That would be a claim that I trusted someone else. The mistake was mine, and I can take ownership of it. "My apology was not to you." It is immaterial whether the notpology was to me or a general assertion. The inclusion of the insult (which you now say was a "joke") shows that any pretense of apology was meant only as sarcasm. In any event, to show that I am not so low as to be worthy of the labels that you threw at me (I suppose those were "jokes," too) I shall continue to speak with a civil tongue. If you do not deserve your own labels, you will do the same. On the other hand, if you deserve your labels, feel free to use the insults and the four-letter vocabulary. They do, indeed, reveal the character of the user. And I know that you will respond with your very best attempt to be nice and make peace. If you respond with silence, I will know that that is the best that you can do. If you respond with insults (or, as you call them, "jokes") I will know that is your best. Personally, I hope you are capable of civility. But I can't speak for you. You'll have to do that yourself.
"I've tried to be nice to you." Try harder. Nope. I'm done with you. Hence the present perfect tense -- you'll also note that what followed illustrated exactly that. When you thought everybody was out to get you, so long ago in an evolution thread, I tried to defend you, and when we found ourselves arguing the same point against Dan & Co. in a later thread, I tried to note our camaraderie.However, no sooner did I make a statement about Dan, in a comment which also mentioned you, and you flew off the handle. Again, here, no sooner do I make an extremely minor error -- which has no bearing whatsoever on the topic under discussion -- and you get all pissy. When I admit my error, and respond in Monty Python fashion, with Monty Python lyrics, you again cry foul.So, fuck you very much. I really don't give two shits about your passive-aggressive fetish with hyper-skepticism, and I think you really are a blistered twat. Those aren't jokes. They're considered responses to your light-switch bitchiness.(I wonder; might you be menstruating? Could it be that whenever these regrettable exchanges have taken place, you've been on the rag? If that's the case, perhaps we can discuss it in a week, when you're no longer unclean. If you would deny PMS and menstrual irritability as the causes for your outbursts -- which prompt swift response from me, every time -- then I maintain that you are a cunt.)So, I responded with a little of each.Are we through here? I'd rather get back to the meaningful discussion that was perfectly under way until you fucked it all up.--Stan
Incidentally, if J.J. is observing, and really, for any curious party, what has occurred above is a prime example of why the distinction between 'acceptable speech' and 'foul language' is specious. Pvblivs' inflammatory remarks (both here and in past exchanges) may not contain expletives, but that does not lessen their sting. In fact, I have argued, and cite this instance as evidence, that it is far more offensive to be insulted without the use of expletives than it is with them.When I refer to my friends as "assholes," there are two very different ways the term can be taken:--It may be an explicit insult, implying that our friendship is likely over, and I detest them greatlyor--It may be a crass jest, implying that I greatly value them as friends.When 'acceptable speech' is used, however, there is no escape as through the use of expletives. Consider the following example:That man is contemptible, and his boorish attitude begs reproach. He is both as sharp and as bright as chocolate pudding. Compare the above, then, to this equivalent statement:He's a douche. Not only is the latter more economical, but it is not always meant as an insult. It would be dry satire indeed to use the former statement in a humorous fashion, or with any meaning in mind other than direct insult.So when Pvblivs speaks to "civil" discussion, he is doing two things:1. He is attempting to poison the well; he is quite aware that I utilize expletives at will, so if I continue to use them, and this well-poisoning goes unnoticed, he can claim that I am being "uncivil." If I cease using them, he can claim victory as by effecting change, wherein he might claim that I have conceded.2. He is masking the truth; this "civil" speech he describes has not been by him employed in this matter -- he has merely resorted to euphemism, rather than direct expletive.In point of fact, I refer to the two greatest insults which could be sustained by a 19th century westerner:You're a liar, and You're a coward.Neither is explicit, and neither invokes profanity of any kind, but neither were they considered "civil speech" in the slightest. They were fighting words -- and still are -- by the very definition stated in Cohen v. California.Anyway, as I have said, Pvblivs can fuck himself. If anyone wants to continue this discussion where it left off -- before he shat all over it -- I'll be happy to join in.--Stan
Stan: "Nope. I'm done with you." Translation: The claim that you tried to be nice was a blatent lie. "[Y]ou'll also note that what followed illustrated exactly that." It did indeed demonstrate that your claim was a lie. "Again, here, no sooner do I make an extremely minor error -- which has no bearing whatsoever on the topic under discussion -- and you get all pissy." I clicked on the link because I enjoy Monty Python sketches. I expected something funny but instead was treated to something that would require a lobotomy to appreciate. I complained about the way you misrepresented the link. I find it completely implausible that anyone remotely familiar with Monty Python could take that for one of their works. Bluntly, I don't believe that was a mistake any more than I believe that "Rickrolling" is a mistake. "When I admit my error ... you again cry foul." You turned the "admission of error" into sarcasm. Interestingly, that's precisely the foul I cried. "Are we through here? I'd rather get back to the meaningful discussion that was perfectly under way until you fucked it all up." Meaningful discussion? "You, Dan, and this guy, are douches." "and if he makes the same retarded spelling errors ... then I actually will vomit." "Stop being a douche." You don't contribute to meaningful discussions. But if you want to try, try with me. Start with "Calling you a cunt and telling you to fuck yourself was completely out of line. I don't know what came over me. Normally, only a real fucktard does that." Do it without the sarcasm. So far, I don't believe you are interested in meaningful discussion. If you were, you would act differently. "I wonder; might you be menstruating? Could it be that whenever these regrettable exchanges have taken place, you've been on the rag? If that's the case, perhaps we can discuss it in a week, when you're no longer unclean. If you would deny PMS and menstrual irritability as the causes for your outbursts -- which prompt swift response from me, every time -- then I maintain that you are a cunt." Projecting much? Perhaps when you are no longer unclean we can discuss it. At any rate, I will be the bigger person here. Perhaps my self-image is a bit inflated. But you have shown your very best attempt to be nice. I will have to accept that that is what you are. You can go back to your insult-fest with Dan. I wanted to know the upper limits of your ability to be civil. I asked for them and I must assume that that was it. But if you ever improve yourself, I will hold no grudge. It's just the sort of person you are now; and people can change.
Much as Dan likes to pretend that there was a meaningful discussion and that I somehow ruined it, I maintain that there has been nothing of the sort. In his first comment, he lists a number of logical fallacies and says that he is uninterested in exposing all of them. It isn't until about an hour later that he comes up with any. But it is not really possible to have a meaningful discussion about the videos Dan likes to use against evolution. They don't contain anything meaningful. (Well, they didn't until I gave up on watching them as a non-entertaining waste of my time. If they ever do have anything meaningful, I'm sure that Dan will quote it directly in his text rather than asking us to sift through the whole video to find it.) I do maintain, myself, that the idea of universal common descent has never been subjected to the scientific method. It has scientists supporting it; but that is not the same thing. If I am wrong, then it should be possible to produce something on the order of "on date X, experiment Y was conducted in which result Z (had it occured) would mean universal common descent was not possible." If anyone ever produces something like that, I will be happy to admit that I am wrong. But Dan will never argue from that position. It is the death knell for creationism. Not only has creationism never been subjected to the scientific method, it is not possible to do so. There is no experiment imaginable such that, if we get result M, it will show that special creation is impossible. Even if true (which I don't believe) creationism cannot be scientific. Me, I find it amusing that puts up something that says nothing and Stan pounces on spelling errors as if he has made a substantial point. It's a bit of comic relief -- a sort of fast-food humor. Anything with true depth is hard to find these days.
Oops, I made a typo. That should be "much as Stan likes to pretend..." not "much as Dan likes to pretend...." Sorry, Dan.
J.J. Day,Thanks for the reminder of Eph 4:29,Col 3:8It is something that I struggle with. Trying to not get angry at your kids is almost impossible at times. I will continue to have more gentleness and kindness when they act up, best, I humanly can. :7)We will be 41 on Aug 11th. Happy blessed B-day J.J.Day!
Oh and Stan would never use the 'n'-word in a crowd of black people. He is only fooling himself when he uses profane language, in hiding. Stan we are not to put a stumbling block in front of others. Your Dad is an alcoholic, would you drink in front of him or offer him a drink? If you loved him you wouldn't. Well the same for Christians. We do not want to cause others to stumble. (Romans 14)So if cussing is offensive to someone then stop it, because you are sensitive to others feelings with love.So Stan, stop being a dick. :7)
Oh and Stan would never use the 'n'-word in a crowd of black people. Yeah, I already said that. You're misrepresenting me if you think otherwise:So no, I don't call blacks, or anyone else, "niggers," and instead I confront those who do. I also don't go around telling people to "fuck off." I don't openly speculate as to how small a passerby's penis might be, and I don't tell old ladies that they smell like death and feces. Why not? Because all of these are examples of provocation, which is illegal, and even if it weren't, it goes against my character. I don't call people "niggers," because doing so is offensive to me, but even if it weren't, it constitutes provocative behavior -- and I don't actively seek physical confrontations, either.He is only fooling himself when he uses profane language, in hiding. I have no idea what you mean, but feel free to elaborate.Stan we are not to put a stumbling block in front of others. You mean like creating, or allowing the procreation, of humans with a sinful nature?Your Dad is an alcoholic... This doesn't mean what you think it means. Let's change it to my mother-in-law, who is an admitted alcoholic, and an eighteen year member of AA. There's a huge difference....would you drink in front of [her] or offer [her] a drink? Yes, I would drink in front of her, and I did every time the opportunity arose. Since my use of alcohol is responsible, I would say that my example was positive -- that of how a person can drink in moderation, without losing control.Now, I wouldn't offer her a drink, unless I was seeking to retaliate against some snarky comment she may have made. I don't seek out confrontation, but if it shows up, I'm not running from it, either.If you loved him you wouldn't. Really, Dan? I'm pretty sure you've said quite the opposite many, many times... If you believe coddling is love then you are delusional. You must confront to show love to someone. Would I let you as a friend go and drink and drive? We will take the keys and get into your face if necessary to show that you are wrong. Get offended if you wish but I will not accept the evil wickedness of unrepentant sinning. God, nor I, condone sinning. Remember that schtick? "You must confront to show love to someone"? Well, I "confront" my mother-in-law's addiction through my passive example of responsibility.Well the same for Christians. We do not want to cause others to stumble. (Romans 14) Even if a biblical citation held any weight with someone who didn't accept the bible as authoritative, I have hardly caused anyone to stumble, but as I said, which J.J. smartly acknowledged, "you don't have to use it, you just have to endure it."You know, like sin. Sin is offensive to god, and I expect it's offensive to you, and to other True Christians™. So stop it. If you loved god, or your fellow True Christians™, you'd stop sinning.Failing that, stop blaming me for your problems, and confront them yourselves. Any sequence of syllables can be potentially offensive, not just "foul language," and J.J. and I have pretty well exhausted that topic, I think, anyway.
So if cussing is offensive to someone then stop it, because you are sensitive to others feelings with love. That sentiment shows just why I say an objection to expletive use -- specifically, the feigned "offense" to it -- is asinine. Try these equivalent phrases, and see if you can figure it out:So if [eating meat] is offensive to someone then stop it, because you are sensitive to others feelings with love. So if [praising Allah] is offensive to someone then stop it, because you are sensitive to others feelings with love. So if [women's suffrage] is offensive to someone then stop it, because you are sensitive to others feelings with love. So if [Holocaust denial] is offensive to someone then stop it, because you are sensitive to others feelings with love. So if [confronting sin] is offensive to someone then stop it, because you are sensitive to others feelings with love. Do you get it now? We don't change our behavior simply because someone is "offended." If our behavior directly affects another, then an expectation to change behavior may be warranted, but absent a direct effect to a particular behavior, following your "advice" above is an exercise in futility.Oh, and I guess you contradicted yourself regarding "offensive" behavior and "love," eh?--Stan(P.S. -- Welcome back to the fray.)
Stan said: "I have no idea what you mean, but feel free to elaborate." His 8 Aug 11:39AM comment is just the sort of provoking comment that he says he will not do in person. Indeed, he was the provoker, pure and simple with the "fuck you very much" that he first said was a "joke" (11:39AM) and later said was a "considered response." (8:44PM) I agree with Dan, here. Stan is deliberately provoking here where it is safe. "That sentiment shows just why I say an objection to expletive use -- specifically, the feigned 'offense' to it -- is asinine. Try these equivalent phrases, and see if you can figure it out:" An interesting sentiment. However, profanity is precisely that language that was created only to offend. Stan previously gave examples of comments that can offend without using profanity "you are a liar," "you are a coward." But these are also meaningful accusations. The charge of "liar" can be backed up by demonstrating multiple deliberately false statements. The charge of coward, by events where the accused ran instead of coming to defense. Not so with profanity. As a charge, it is slippery and non-specific. Profanity offends because it is intended to offend. The alternate examples that Stan used to assert meritlessness serve other purposes.
His 8 Aug 11:39AM comment is just the sort of provoking comment that he says he will not do in person. Ha! Bzzt. The comment to which you refer was a reaction to your slander, nothing more. Try to pay attention.Indeed, he was the provoker, pure and simple with the "fuck you very much" Which was a reference to an Idle song, with which I should have thought you'd be familiar. Note the tone of that entire comment -- no animosity present whatsoever. Rather, you've fallen for Luke's failure in the cave, where Yoda cautions that what lies within is "only what you take with you." You took animosity with you, and that's what you found. Had you taken anything else, you'd have seen that I "happily" conceded that I had foolishly and credulously accepted the accreditation as true, and following the 'offending' quote I offered an apology which could hardly have been seen as sarcasm -- unless, again, you took animosity into the cave.that he first said was a "joke" (11:39AM)... Because it was....and later said was a "considered response." (8:44PM) Nice job quote-mining, Ray. The "considered response" was no quotation, but was, indeed, a considered response to your provocation. Since you feigned such offense to the lyrical joke, I found it appropriate to use the statement, while altering the sentiment behind it. The quote was still a joke, the non-quote was still a considered response -- they are quite separate, as an honest reader will easily determine.I agree with Dan, here. Stan is deliberately provoking here where it is safe. Again, you're quite full of shit. If you'd like to sort this out in person, however, feel free to show up on campus at CU-Boulder. Let me know somewhere in this forum when you'll arrive, and I'll happily confront you in person. Whether the meeting ends in a visit to the ER for one or both of us, or a visit to a local pub, will be entirely up to you.I have provoked no one. I suppose I may have reacted overly quick to your accusation, but that's due to a past encounter when you convinced yourself that I was placing you into the same category as Dan with respect to creationism -- which accusation was extremely inflammatory, especially when I attempted quite politely to explain your mistake, and clarify my own statement. For those who are unfamiliar with this exchange, or who have conveniently forgotten, it begins here.So again and finally, your unchecked paranoia and hyper-skepticism are no longer remotely entertaining. Your quick-to-accuse, slow-to-back-down attitude is extremely annoying, and rather inexcusable at this point. I'm not out to get you, and I am not provoking you. I am responding to what I perceive as direct insults, which have been delivered for the sole purpose of insulting.I still think you're a piece of shit, but I am nonetheless willing to discuss this or any other issue with you or anyone else.
However, profanity is precisely that language that was created only to offend. (emphasis Pvblivs')What?! I'm talking about expletive use, not "profanity," and while the two are often used synonymously, there is a distinct difference: Expletives are simply economical terms which often connote so-called "vulgar" activity. Profanity is anything which seeks to "profane" something held as sacrosanct.Since I do not expect any god(s) exist, profanity clearly does not concern me, but an argument for or against expletive use is potentially interesting -- except you have offered none. Sure, you assert that "[expletives are] precisely that language that was created only to offend" (assuming you meant for expletives and profanity to be interchangeable here), but this is a bare assertion, and one which is obviously false given the fact that cultural attitudes toward "acceptable speech" change quite dramatically.It's not like somebody sat down and said, "Hey, I bet 'shit' would be a really offensive way to describe feces!"They are words, and their origins are no more or less interesting than the origins of any other words. How and why they become classified as "foul language" are [far more interesting] mysteries to me, but unless you have some source to back up your claim, feel free to withdraw it.Anecdotally, though, the fact that some expletives have non-expletive uses, the fact that some expletives become "accepted speech," and the fact that some non-expletives become "foul language," all vilify your statement.Seriously. With all the poorly timed crowing you do, I'm tempted to think of you as a stupid cock.--Stan
Stan: "I have provoked no one." In that case you will take the following as quite the compliment. "Your entire comment to me shows that you are the biggest cunt full of shit on the face of the planet." "You took animosity with you, and that's what you found." The expression is one that I have only heard in animosity, that includes hearing as a third party. What I took with me was pattern recognition. But -- if I am truly wrong, and it was a break in the pattern, and there was no animosity, then your succeeding comments should also have shown no animosity. I will take your continued comments to determine whether my initial assessment was correct or in error. "Seriously. With all the poorly timed crowing you do, I'm tempted to think of you as a stupid cock." Oh, in that regard, I couldn't hold a candle to you. And again, if you were not intending to provoke, consider it a compliment. And here, you can only find what you brought to the table. My contribution, for the past several comments to you, has been a mirror. (If you don't like your reflection, don't blame the mirror.) I wish you good luck. I don't think I was wrong about you. But if I was, it will be for you to show.
Stan: the background music on your link is from Vivaldi's Four Seasons, from Summer to be exact.(Naughty word warning)I have a couple of minor quibbles with the linguistic exposition there: one, a supposed German word "frichen" is claimed to be the source of the English "fuck". This is actually a Southern German dialect word meaning "to marry", and I am unaware of any evidence that shows this to be anything other than (possibly) one of a group of recent cognates of "fuck", all of which share a common ancestor. As far as I know, the early etymology of "fuck" is still debated. One possibility I've heard is that it stems from Indoeuropean *peug-, meaning "fight" or "foe", and possibly the ancestor of those two words, along with "pugnacious". So it might well be that the sexual meanings of "fuck" are secondary.Two: the narrator mentions the words "absofuckinglutely" and "infuckingcredible" as examples of "fuck" being used as "part of a word". While this is trivially true, it's not really illuminating. The interesting thing is that these words are tropes; that is, words with other words interpolated into them. This is a practice which goes back at least to the Middle Ages, where single words of the Mass were often interlarded with extraneous texts. For instance, instead of simply singing "Amen", you might have "A- Allelujah- men". Why the composers did this is unknown, but maybe they simply wanted to add some pizazz to what would otherwise have been a long stretch of singing "A-a-a-a-a"; perhaps this is the medieval version of scat singing. It could get quite elaborate sometimes- for instance "Allelujah" could be extended to "Al- Hodie Christus natus est- le- Hodie Salvator apparuit- lu- Hodie in terra canunt Angeli- ja". In any case, these neologisms hark back to a venerable tradition.If anyone is interested, there's a pretty good article about "fuck" in Wikipedia.I don't know about you, but I find that fanfuckingtastic.
I have a couple of minor quibbles with the linguistic exposition there... I'm afraid that lost in Pvblivs' nonsense is the fact that the video was not meant to be a serious illustration whatsoever, but merely to show how "fuck" could be used as virtually every part of speech. The credit given to Python for it was suspect, but I figured it was better to give them credit than to deny it.At any rate, it was not meant as a serious aspect of any argument whatsoever -- just an amusing, albeit juvenile, illustration of the flexibility of that magical word.Thanks, though, for setting the record straight on the music. I knew straight away that it was not Python...--Stan
Stan: don't mind me- I was just riding my hobby horse.
Stan,Now atheism promotes fighting? What happened to peace and love? Oh yea, wrong worldview... (Colossians 3:8, Ephesians 4:31)Ah, CU-Boulder. I heard, when I lived in Colorado Springs, that Boulder is Colorado's most liberal city and the CU has a reputation of being a hippy school full of free love and lots of drug use. True? Did you go for the science and engineering or the drug orgies? jjSpeaking of meeting. I want pics of both of you, and everyone for that matter, to look for familiar faces once we get to Heaven. :7) It would be nice to see who I have been talking to for these many years. Any pics?
Now atheism promotes fighting? Huh? I don't believe I said anything of the sort?...CU has a reputation of being a hippy school full of free love and lots of drug use. Boulder is a hippie-yuppie town -- upper-class hippies, if you will -- but CU is a major university. It has no more drug use than any other, and while it is an "open" campus with respect to alcohol, it doesn't have any more alcohol abuse than any other school, as near as I can tell.On April 20th, however, it's a different story. On that date, people from around the country congregate in one of two large fields, and smoke marijuana right out in the open. Traffic gets pretty insane, and if you're trying to park at a meter, have fun. The whole thing is very peaceful, and last year I spoke to a couple cops who were patrolling, and asked them about how surreal it must've been to them. They laughed and said they'd been doing it for years, and that it wasn't that strange any more.The rules were these:1. No tents2. No vendors3. No vandalism or violenceThere was one exception to the second rule, though -- it was evidently quite acceptable to sell pot. No soda, water, food, T-shirts, or paraphernalia, though.That event likely contributes to the school's reputation more than anything, but aside from its reputation as a "party school," it also has a reputation as being among the nation's leaders regarding physics (tied for 20th in this list), and it is especially highly regarded with respect to Quantum physics (tied for 4th in this list).Anyway, it's not noticeably different from any major university so near a major metropolis (Denver is only a half-hour away), other than 4/20.What happened to peace and love? Oh yea, wrong worldview... Heh. I can't resist. Peace and love, from the worldview that features divinely commanded genocide, infanticide, and conspiracy to commit filicide. Can we at least agree that it's a good thing we no longer accept the excuse that "god told me to do it"?I think that's common ground right there.--Stan
Excellent video!I learn more about the creobot mindset every day!- Quotes newer that ~40-50 years, HURR BAD!- Newer quotes are okay, but not in context, context, it BURRNNZZ
I don't doubt your a smart and intellectually able guy.You must have not read the rest of his posts then.
Theological Discourse, you've really got no right to be criticizing anyone else's intelligence, pal.Now, for real educational youtube videos, I recommend Why People Laugh at Creationists.
Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>