| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Captain Compassion" |
| Date: |
18 Jun 2007 09:03:16 AM |
| Object: |
The garden of good and evil |
The garden of good and evil
June 17, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-garden-of-good-and-evil/2007/06/16/1181414606757.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
With its hectoring rhetoric, the green movement is in danger of
becoming a quasi religion, writes Simon Castles.
CLIMATE change denial is something we'll hear plenty about in the
coming months. Leading up to the election, Kevin Rudd will repeat ad
nauseam his claim that John Howard is a rolled-gold climate change
denier. And next month, the ABC broadcasts the controversial
documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, which will lead to
further charges that the film-makers, the film's talking heads and the
ABC board are in denial.
Whatever your views on global warming, the term "climate change
denial", and the speed with which it has become part of everyday
language, shouldn't be welcomed. The term is reductive, as well as
offensive in its connotations.
It encapsulates the way the environmental movement, for all its good
intentions, is increasingly adopting the sanctimonious, hectoring and
stifling attributes of organised religion. To question climate change
today is to be cast as a denier of an absolute truth.
That people who used to be called "climate change sceptics" are now
called "deniers" is quite deliberate. The aim is to suggest that
climate change scepticism is somehow akin to Holocaust denial. The
moral repugnance we feel for the latter, we should essentially feel
for the former. The connection is subliminal mostly, but some
commentators have been more than happy to spell it out.
British journalist Mark Lynas wrote: "I put (climate change denial) in
a similar category to Holocaust denial — except that this time the
Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those
who try to ensure we don't will one day have to answer for their
crimes." In Nuremberg-style trials, one presumes.
Guardian columnist and author George Monbiot wrote: "Almost
everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and unacceptable
as Holocaust denial."
Closer to home, Margo Kingston wrote: "David Irving is under arrest in
Austria for Holocaust denial. Perhaps there is a case for making
climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity,
after all."
Such attempts at moral equivalence are deeply repugnant and, frankly,
stupid. The murder of 6 million Jews happened; the worst consequences
of climate change are yet to happen, and we can't even say with
certainty what they will be. To start judging people guilty for
denying things that haven't happened yet — for having contrary
thoughts — is surely to trump Orwell's nightmare vision.
It also corrupts the central tenet of science — that hypotheses are
there to be tested; to be verified or falsified. As scientist Thomas
Huxley said of his discipline, "scepticism is the highest of duties;
blind faith the one unpardonable sin". The overwhelming majority of
scientists believe in man-made climate change. No argument from me.
But when you read or hear that "the jury is in" on climate change, or
the "science is settled", alarm bells should ring. Science is never
really settled. It can always be challenged. Science that isn't open
to challenge isn't science; it's more like faith.
A group of 38 scientists recently wrote an open letter to the
production company behind The Great Global Warming Swindle, insisting
that the doco be altered before its release on DVD. "Free speech,"
they wrote, "does not extend to misleading the public by making
factually incorrect statements." Really? We'd better do away with that
internet thing then.
These scientists are no doubt passionate in their beliefs, and
concerned about climate change and the content of the doco. But when
any group starts telling us what free speech is and isn't allowed, we
should be worried. As Brendan O'Neill quipped on the Spiked website:
"What next, a House Committee on Un-Scientific Activities?"
I am not a scientist; I don't pretend to understand the science of
climate change. And I'm certainly not arguing that global warming is a
swindle. But like the novice in an art gallery, I know what I don't
like, and that's a censorious culture, the demonisation of people and
ideas, and the undermining of rational debate.
The more the most zealous greenies argue that climate change is beyond
debate, the science beyond interrogation, and that anyone who
disagrees is no better than a Holocaust denier, the more they sound to
me like religious extremists, and the more I don't want to listen to
them.
Monbiot says that he wants to "make people so depressed about the
state of the world that they stay in bed all day, thereby reducing
their consumption of fossil fuel". Strewth. I spent my childhood under
the tutelage of deeply repressed Christian Brothers and priests, but I
don't recall ever hearing anything quite so fun-denying,
guilt-inflicting and self-flagellating as that.
There is plenty that is good and positive about the green movement.
But we need to be wary of the slippery slope between sensible
environmentalism and environmentalism as a quasi religion.
And boy, does the green movement seem like a religion sometimes. The
similarities are there in the rhetoric. We must reject profligate ways
or face climate doom (sinners must repent or go to hell). We ought to
feel guilty when we're wasteful, but if our footprint is light on the
earth, self-righteousness and superiority are the reward. If we are
bad, we should buy carbon credits (aka, do penance). We should never
seriously doubt or question the facts, and can demonise those who dare
to.
Whatever your opinion on climate change, the undermining of debate by
casting sceptics as little better than a bunch of David Irvings should
be a cause for concern. It is anti-science and anti-intellectual. The
planet may face many threats, but free speech, open debate and
scepticism are not among them.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
Celibacy in healthy human beings is a form of
insanity. -- Captain Compassion
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: The garden of good and evil |
19 Jun 2007 07:28:47 AM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:og3d73t5l5kr4vslhtgmsn9nl8o1rcmn6q@4ax.com...
The garden of good and evil
June 17, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-garden-of-good-and-evil/2007/06/16/1181414606757.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
By the same author:
From http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/21/1071941606660.html
The most in-demand video over this holiday season may well be a grainy
three-minute affair starring party girl Paris Hilton and an old boyfriend.
Millions have already seen it; millions more will. According to
wordtracker.com, which monitors what the world's internet users are typing
in from minute to minute, the current top searches are: "Paris Hilton",
followed by "sex", followed by "porn". (The usual search suspects - "nude",
"boobs" and "*****" have been momentarily relegated.)
With its hectoring rhetoric, the green movement is in danger of
becoming a quasi religion, writes Simon Castles.
CLIMATE change denial is something we'll hear plenty about in the
coming months. Leading up to the election, Kevin Rudd will repeat ad
nauseam his claim that John Howard is a rolled-gold climate change
denier. And next month, the ABC broadcasts the controversial
documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, which will lead to
further charges that the film-makers, the film's talking heads and the
ABC board are in denial.
Whatever your views on global warming, the term "climate change
denial", and the speed with which it has become part of everyday
language, shouldn't be welcomed. The term is reductive, as well as
offensive in its connotations.
It encapsulates the way the environmental movement, for all its good
intentions, is increasingly adopting the sanctimonious, hectoring and
stifling attributes of organised religion. To question climate change
today is to be cast as a denier of an absolute truth.
That people who used to be called "climate change sceptics" are now
called "deniers" is quite deliberate. The aim is to suggest that
climate change scepticism is somehow akin to Holocaust denial. The
moral repugnance we feel for the latter, we should essentially feel
for the former. The connection is subliminal mostly, but some
commentators have been more than happy to spell it out.
British journalist Mark Lynas wrote: "I put (climate change denial) in
a similar category to Holocaust denial - except that this time the
Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those
who try to ensure we don't will one day have to answer for their
crimes." In Nuremberg-style trials, one presumes.
Guardian columnist and author George Monbiot wrote: "Almost
everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and unacceptable
as Holocaust denial."
Closer to home, Margo Kingston wrote: "David Irving is under arrest in
Austria for Holocaust denial. Perhaps there is a case for making
climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity,
after all."
Such attempts at moral equivalence are deeply repugnant and, frankly,
stupid. The murder of 6 million Jews happened; the worst consequences
of climate change are yet to happen, and we can't even say with
certainty what they will be. To start judging people guilty for
denying things that haven't happened yet - for having contrary
thoughts - is surely to trump Orwell's nightmare vision.
It also corrupts the central tenet of science - that hypotheses are
there to be tested; to be verified or falsified. As scientist Thomas
Huxley said of his discipline, "scepticism is the highest of duties;
blind faith the one unpardonable sin". The overwhelming majority of
scientists believe in man-made climate change. No argument from me.
But when you read or hear that "the jury is in" on climate change, or
the "science is settled", alarm bells should ring. Science is never
really settled. It can always be challenged. Science that isn't open
to challenge isn't science; it's more like faith.
A group of 38 scientists recently wrote an open letter to the
production company behind The Great Global Warming Swindle, insisting
that the doco be altered before its release on DVD. "Free speech,"
they wrote, "does not extend to misleading the public by making
factually incorrect statements." Really? We'd better do away with that
internet thing then.
These scientists are no doubt passionate in their beliefs, and
concerned about climate change and the content of the doco. But when
any group starts telling us what free speech is and isn't allowed, we
should be worried. As Brendan O'Neill quipped on the Spiked website:
"What next, a House Committee on Un-Scientific Activities?"
I am not a scientist; I don't pretend to understand the science of
climate change. And I'm certainly not arguing that global warming is a
swindle. But like the novice in an art gallery, I know what I don't
like, and that's a censorious culture, the demonisation of people and
ideas, and the undermining of rational debate.
The more the most zealous greenies argue that climate change is beyond
debate, the science beyond interrogation, and that anyone who
disagrees is no better than a Holocaust denier, the more they sound to
me like religious extremists, and the more I don't want to listen to
them.
Monbiot says that he wants to "make people so depressed about the
state of the world that they stay in bed all day, thereby reducing
their consumption of fossil fuel". Strewth. I spent my childhood under
the tutelage of deeply repressed Christian Brothers and priests, but I
don't recall ever hearing anything quite so fun-denying,
guilt-inflicting and self-flagellating as that.
There is plenty that is good and positive about the green movement.
But we need to be wary of the slippery slope between sensible
environmentalism and environmentalism as a quasi religion.
And boy, does the green movement seem like a religion sometimes. The
similarities are there in the rhetoric. We must reject profligate ways
or face climate doom (sinners must repent or go to hell). We ought to
feel guilty when we're wasteful, but if our footprint is light on the
earth, self-righteousness and superiority are the reward. If we are
bad, we should buy carbon credits (aka, do penance). We should never
seriously doubt or question the facts, and can demonise those who dare
to.
Whatever your opinion on climate change, the undermining of debate by
casting sceptics as little better than a bunch of David Irvings should
be a cause for concern. It is anti-science and anti-intellectual. The
planet may face many threats, but free speech, open debate and
scepticism are not among them.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
Celibacy in healthy human beings is a form of
insanity. -- Captain Compassion
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: The garden of good and evil |
19 Jun 2007 10:48:27 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 05:28:47 -0700, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:og3d73t5l5kr4vslhtgmsn9nl8o1rcmn6q@4ax.com...
The garden of good and evil
June 17, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-garden-of-good-and-evil/2007/06/16/1181414606757.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
By the same author:
From http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/21/1071941606660.html
The most in-demand video over this holiday season may well be a grainy
three-minute affair starring party girl Paris Hilton and an old boyfriend.
Millions have already seen it; millions more will. According to
wordtracker.com, which monitors what the world's internet users are typing
in from minute to minute, the current top searches are: "Paris Hilton",
followed by "sex", followed by "porn". (The usual search suspects - "nude",
"boobs" and "*****" have been momentarily relegated.)
He's correct on both accounts.
The nice thing about web porn is that the pages don't get sticky.
-- Captain Compassion.
With its hectoring rhetoric, the green movement is in danger of
becoming a quasi religion, writes Simon Castles.
CLIMATE change denial is something we'll hear plenty about in the
coming months. Leading up to the election, Kevin Rudd will repeat ad
nauseam his claim that John Howard is a rolled-gold climate change
denier. And next month, the ABC broadcasts the controversial
documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, which will lead to
further charges that the film-makers, the film's talking heads and the
ABC board are in denial.
Whatever your views on global warming, the term "climate change
denial", and the speed with which it has become part of everyday
language, shouldn't be welcomed. The term is reductive, as well as
offensive in its connotations.
It encapsulates the way the environmental movement, for all its good
intentions, is increasingly adopting the sanctimonious, hectoring and
stifling attributes of organised religion. To question climate change
today is to be cast as a denier of an absolute truth.
That people who used to be called "climate change sceptics" are now
called "deniers" is quite deliberate. The aim is to suggest that
climate change scepticism is somehow akin to Holocaust denial. The
moral repugnance we feel for the latter, we should essentially feel
for the former. The connection is subliminal mostly, but some
commentators have been more than happy to spell it out.
British journalist Mark Lynas wrote: "I put (climate change denial) in
a similar category to Holocaust denial - except that this time the
Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those
who try to ensure we don't will one day have to answer for their
crimes." In Nuremberg-style trials, one presumes.
Guardian columnist and author George Monbiot wrote: "Almost
everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and unacceptable
as Holocaust denial."
Closer to home, Margo Kingston wrote: "David Irving is under arrest in
Austria for Holocaust denial. Perhaps there is a case for making
climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity,
after all."
Such attempts at moral equivalence are deeply repugnant and, frankly,
stupid. The murder of 6 million Jews happened; the worst consequences
of climate change are yet to happen, and we can't even say with
certainty what they will be. To start judging people guilty for
denying things that haven't happened yet - for having contrary
thoughts - is surely to trump Orwell's nightmare vision.
It also corrupts the central tenet of science - that hypotheses are
there to be tested; to be verified or falsified. As scientist Thomas
Huxley said of his discipline, "scepticism is the highest of duties;
blind faith the one unpardonable sin". The overwhelming majority of
scientists believe in man-made climate change. No argument from me.
But when you read or hear that "the jury is in" on climate change, or
the "science is settled", alarm bells should ring. Science is never
really settled. It can always be challenged. Science that isn't open
to challenge isn't science; it's more like faith.
A group of 38 scientists recently wrote an open letter to the
production company behind The Great Global Warming Swindle, insisting
that the doco be altered before its release on DVD. "Free speech,"
they wrote, "does not extend to misleading the public by making
factually incorrect statements." Really? We'd better do away with that
internet thing then.
These scientists are no doubt passionate in their beliefs, and
concerned about climate change and the content of the doco. But when
any group starts telling us what free speech is and isn't allowed, we
should be worried. As Brendan O'Neill quipped on the Spiked website:
"What next, a House Committee on Un-Scientific Activities?"
I am not a scientist; I don't pretend to understand the science of
climate change. And I'm certainly not arguing that global warming is a
swindle. But like the novice in an art gallery, I know what I don't
like, and that's a censorious culture, the demonisation of people and
ideas, and the undermining of rational debate.
The more the most zealous greenies argue that climate change is beyond
debate, the science beyond interrogation, and that anyone who
disagrees is no better than a Holocaust denier, the more they sound to
me like religious extremists, and the more I don't want to listen to
them.
Monbiot says that he wants to "make people so depressed about the
state of the world that they stay in bed all day, thereby reducing
their consumption of fossil fuel". Strewth. I spent my childhood under
the tutelage of deeply repressed Christian Brothers and priests, but I
don't recall ever hearing anything quite so fun-denying,
guilt-inflicting and self-flagellating as that.
There is plenty that is good and positive about the green movement.
But we need to be wary of the slippery slope between sensible
environmentalism and environmentalism as a quasi religion.
And boy, does the green movement seem like a religion sometimes. The
similarities are there in the rhetoric. We must reject profligate ways
or face climate doom (sinners must repent or go to hell). We ought to
feel guilty when we're wasteful, but if our footprint is light on the
earth, self-righteousness and superiority are the reward. If we are
bad, we should buy carbon credits (aka, do penance). We should never
seriously doubt or question the facts, and can demonise those who dare
to.
Whatever your opinion on climate change, the undermining of debate by
casting sceptics as little better than a bunch of David Irvings should
be a cause for concern. It is anti-science and anti-intellectual. The
planet may face many threats, but free speech, open debate and
scepticism are not among them.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
Celibacy in healthy human beings is a form of
insanity. -- Captain Compassion
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
Celibacy in healthy human beings is a form of
insanity. -- Captain Compassion
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: The garden of good and evil |
18 Jun 2007 11:10:50 AM |
|
|
"lacking comprehension" <daranc@charter.net> wrote:
With its hectoring rhetoric, [..]
Are you sure you aren't merely 'projecting' the usual right-wing
pabulum, like the 'quasi-religion' you falsely accuse environmental
issues and advocates of?
--Not that I expect you to comprehend that..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: The garden of good and evil |
18 Jun 2007 03:36:17 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:10:50 -0500, Kurt Lochner
<kurt_lochner@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
"lacking comprehension" <daranc@charter.net> wrote:
With its hectoring rhetoric, [..]
Are you sure you aren't merely 'projecting' the usual right-wing
pabulum, like the 'quasi-religion' you falsely accuse environmental
issues and advocates of?
--Not that I expect you to comprehend that..
No. I'm not asking anyone to sacrifice anything. I'm not asking anyone
to live in fear or guilt. I'm not asking anyone to believe but only to
doubt.
Any truely rational individual will reject all theories, philosophies,
Political plans or belief systems that limit personal freedom or limit
personal options. Altruism not being a general human trait, self
sacrifice must be considered a form of insanity. -- Captain Compassion
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
Celibacy in healthy human beings is a form of
insanity. -- Captain Compassion
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: The garden of good and evil |
18 Jun 2007 05:09:32 PM |
|
|
"lacking comprehension" <daranc@charter.net> wrote:
Kurt Lochner was laughing at the pathology exhibited by:
"lacking comprehension" <daranc@charter.net> wrote:
With its hectoring rhetoric, [..]
Are you sure you aren't merely 'projecting' the usual right-wing
pabulum, like the 'quasi-religion' you falsely accuse environmental
issues and advocates of?
--Not that I expect you to comprehend that..
No. I'm not asking anyone to sacrifice [..]
Where did I say anything about 'sacrifice'?
Do you prefer your steady intake of fear, uncertainty and doubt?
Any truely rational individual[..]
That would be another fallacy argument..
--You've been sold a bill of faulty goods, it seems..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: The garden of good and evil |
18 Jun 2007 06:40:30 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:09:32 -0500, Kurt Lochner
<kurt_lochner@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
"lacking comprehension" <daranc@charter.net> wrote:
Kurt Lochner was laughing at the pathology exhibited by:
"lacking comprehension" <daranc@charter.net> wrote:
With its hectoring rhetoric, [..]
Are you sure you aren't merely 'projecting' the usual right-wing
pabulum, like the 'quasi-religion' you falsely accuse environmental
issues and advocates of?
--Not that I expect you to comprehend that..
No. I'm not asking anyone to sacrifice [..]
Where did I say anything about 'sacrifice'?
Do not you warming cultists want others to modify their life styles to
reduce their carbon footprints? Do you not want me to sacrifice my
wealth for carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes?
Do you prefer your steady intake of fear, uncertainty and doubt?
The only thing I fear are those that have my best "interest at heart"
and want to dictate how I live. That the is uncertainty in this live I
have no doubt.
Any truely rational individual[..]
That would be another fallacy argument..
Like a good troll you sniped the statement.
--You've been sold a bill of faulty goods, it seems..
You whine because I won't buy into your fallacy.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
Celibacy in healthy human beings is a form of
insanity. -- Captain Compassion
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: The garden of good and evil |
18 Jun 2007 07:06:54 PM |
|
|
"lacking comprehension" <daranc@charter.net> wrote:
Kurt Lochner was laughing at the fallacy arguments written by:
"lacking comprehension" <daranc@charter.net> wrote:
Kurt Lochner was laughing at the pathology exhibited by:
"lacking comprehension" <daranc@charter.net> wrote:
With its hectoring rhetoric, [..]
Are you sure you aren't merely 'projecting' the usual right-wing
pabulum, like the 'quasi-religion' you falsely accuse environmental
issues and advocates of?
--Not that I expect you to comprehend that..
No. I'm not asking anyone to sacrifice [..]
Where did I say anything about 'sacrifice'?
Do not you warming cultists want others to modify their life styles[..]
Wouldn't that be a rhetorical question, as regards your assumed premise
about what I am or what I want to see done about "global warming"?
Do you prefer your steady intake of fear, uncertainty and doubt?
The only thing I fear are those that have my best "interest [..]
Well, that certainly wouldn't be me. If you can't take of
yourself, please plead your intentional ignorance to someone else,
I'm not buying any today..
Any truely rational individual[..]
That would be another fallacy argument..
Like a good troll you sniped[..]
Like that? You know why? Because it's a fallacy argument,
and as such, I have no obligation to quote it or argue against
such trivial and illogical pseudo-logic..
Oh, and it's spelled "snipped", you blitheringly stupid cretin..
--You've been sold a bill of faulty goods, it seems..
You whine because[..]
Negative claims again so soon after I pointed out your false
premises and deliberately false 'conclusions'? *>LOL!<*
--Why you argue against the facts is beyond me..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The garden of good and evil |
18 Jun 2007 06:47:28 PM |
|
|
Do you know what science is? Define it for us, please.
After you have done so your silly argument will melt like a Wiccan
candle and your ***** when you confront a real, willing woman.
What is the difference between science and faith based *****?
Define it, if you are an honest man. If you are not, I wouldn't hire
you to wash my boxers.
Stupid and faith-based are a bad, bad combination. Boxer washers know
more. Protein stains are a ***** to get out. And so are you.
Stand up, *****. Make your case or wash my boxers. Science. What is it
as opposed to faith?
There is your question.
Are you a man or a mouse? Hell, everyone already knows. Your wife
knows. Your mother knows. You talk *****. They know it. And so do we.
B4
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The garden of good and evil |
18 Jun 2007 06:48:47 PM |
|
|
On Jun 18, 5:47 pm, wrote:
Do you know what science is? Define it for us, please.
After you have done so your silly argument will melt like a Wiccan
candle and your ***** when you confront a real, willing woman.
What is the difference between science and faith based *****?
Define it, if you are an honest man. If you are not, I wouldn't hire
you to wash my boxers.
Stupid and faith-based are a bad, bad combination. Boxer washers know
more. Protein stains are a ***** to get out. And so are you.
Stand up, *****. Make your case or wash my boxers. Science. What is it
as opposed to faith?
There is your question.
Are you a man or a mouse? Hell, everyone already knows. Your wife
knows. Your mother knows. You talk *****. They know it. And so do we.
B4
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: The garden of good and evil |
18 Jun 2007 07:53:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:47:28 -0700, wrote:
Do you know what science is? Define it for us, please.
After you have done so your silly argument will melt like a Wiccan
candle and your ***** when you confront a real, willing woman.
What is the difference between science and faith based *****?
Define it, if you are an honest man. If you are not, I wouldn't hire
you to wash my boxers.
Stupid and faith-based are a bad, bad combination. Boxer washers know
more. Protein stains are a ***** to get out. And so are you.
Stand up, *****. Make your case or wash my boxers. Science. What is it
as opposed to faith?
There is your question.
Are you a man or a mouse? Hell, everyone already knows. Your wife
knows. Your mother knows. You talk *****. They know it. And so do we.
B4
Definition #1
Science is what scientists do.
Definition #2
Any systematic methodology which attempts to collect accurate
information about the shared reality and to model this in a way which
can be used to make reliable, concrete and quantitative predictions
about events, in line with hypotheses proven by experiment.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
Celibacy in healthy human beings is a form of
insanity. -- Captain Compassion
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The garden of good and evil |
18 Jun 2007 06:49:32 PM |
|
|
Run away. It's your only option.
B4
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
