The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: will
About
User Name: will
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests:
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Monday, June 29, 2009
Last Visit: Sunday, July 22, 2018 5:38:23 PM
Number of Posts: 1,081
[0.12% of all post / 0.33 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Treason
Posted: Sunday, July 22, 2018 5:34:01 PM
FounDit wrote:
...you have a very strange idea of what b...

Calm down, take a breath. Nothing in your response has any bearing on my point. We were talking about your statement that ‘Dems are talking out of both sides of their mouths, but this is what you get with brain-damaged people. The left brain doesn't know what the right brain is doing, and vice-versa’. What has ISIS throwing homosexuals off buildings etc. got to do with my response to that?

If you took just a little time to process what people actually write before you respond, you might not come across as so irrational – note, it does not follow that I’m suggesting you are mentally ill. Think

FounDit wrote:
Are you actually foolish enough… blah, blah blah.

Again, calm down. Using further ad hominem while attempting to justify previous use of ad hominem is not great debating technique.

My point was that Trump’s brand of politics is typified by his use of rhetoric, hyperbole, crass stereotypes and offensive generalisations. You whining about rhetoric that paints dein Anführer in an unflattering light is priceless.

FounDit wrote:
If someone drives through a black neighborhood shouting the "N" word out the window until they get a reaction, would you then agree that blacks are violent and can't be trusted to behave?

At the risk of being dragged further into your tangential ramblings... No. I can’t envision any scenario where I would ‘agree that blacks [or any skin colour, race, gender, etc] are violent and can't be trusted to behave’. I'm proud to be one of those liberals who prefers to judge individuals on their individual merits, rather than lump people into groups. To paraphrase something you posted earlier: that racist kind of talk is eventually going to lead to killings on the streets of our cities, and needs to be stopped now. We've seen it before, and we all need to push back on that kind of rhetoric. One way of doing that is to show that it is not normal thinking and must be rejected.

FounDit wrote:
This is a similar kind of behavior, but I'm not sure you are bright enough to grasp that after what you posted here.

Yawn...


.
Topic: Won't Need a #MeToo Movement Soon!
Posted: Saturday, July 21, 2018 6:16:10 PM
Poor man. What are the chances? A waitress with martial arts training and a degree in Women’s and Gender studies. It’s political correctness gone mad! Whistle


.
Topic: Treason
Posted: Saturday, July 21, 2018 6:13:44 PM
FounDit wrote:
Of course it is ad hominem; but they are accurate. Tell me, please, how any rational person can truly equate President Trump to Adolph Hitler; how any rational thinking person can truly equate border holding facilities to German death camps. If you can justify those things, or offer ANY evidence they are true, I'll stop saying they are mentally damaged, but until such time, I'm going to insist they are not mentally fit to judge the man.

Being irrational, or being factually incorrect, is not synonymous with being mentally damaged. You've just replaced ad hominem with rhetoric.

FounDit wrote:
That Nazi kind of talk is eventually going to lead to killings on the streets of our cities, and needs to be stopped now. We've seen it before, and we all need to push back on that kind of rhetoric. One way of doing that is to show that it is not normal thinking and must be rejected. I would think that folks on the political Left who abhor violence, would join in preventing the violence caused by such hateful speech, but I'm certainly seeing little of that. But I would ask you to join that cause.

And here, rhetoric and hyperbole... and in defence Donald Trump too. Priceless. d'oh!

.
Topic: This sounds like a reasoned argument . . .
Posted: Thursday, July 12, 2018 5:16:04 AM
leonAzul wrote:
It is my humble opinion that video is certainly more coherent than this one.

Say what you like about Hitler, but there was a man who could draw a big crowd. I don’t think he gets enough credit for that. He broke all of Marlene Dietrich’s records, no one talks about that, and he didn’t even have a glockenspiel or schäferpfeife. Whistle


.
Topic: Happy Easter!
Posted: Monday, April 2, 2018 9:46:14 AM
jacobusmaximus wrote:
For reasons that will be obvious, I am not casting any pearls here.

Ah, the enduring appeal of Faith, the luxury of simply asserting that one’s personal truths are pearls of wisdom, untarnished by the burden of evidence and above the incredulity of ignorant pigs such as myself. Eh?

Helenej wrote:
God saved the most righteous people to only end up having, in the long run, the same mixture of very few righteous and the majority of unrighteous ones, just as before the Flood. What puzzles me, though, is that He, who knows what will happen, couldn’t predict the result.

A common mantra of the Christian apologist is that without evil in the world we would have nothing to measure good against; but this cuts both ways. It could just as well be argued that God (whomever he or she is) is actually a malevolent being and the world is supposed to be full of evil – with some good thrown in to measure the evil against. This would certainly explain the arbitrary nature of suffering – infant mortality, whole communities buried under mudslides, or even global floods (if one suspends all logic and reason and accepts such nonsense). An evil creation would certainly explain large parts of the Old Testament. An evil creation definitely makes more sense than believing that malaria, currently killing 3000 African children daily, is an acceptable consequence of a benevolent omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God successfully tempting His first created humans with a talking snake.

Perhaps (this omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient) God’s repeated attempts to fine tune His creation is to keep humanity’s propensity for good in check. It’s a credit to humanity, and cause for great pride and celebration, that good deeds, love and respect are generally the default position, but life is still pretty insufferable for vast numbers of our species and personal beliefs do little, if anything, to alleviate that.

Of course, what makes most sense is that there are no gods, nothing supernatural and no afterlife of eternal salvation, or suffering, depending on one’s adherence to specific sets of contradictory beliefs and practices… but apparently large numbers of humanity still find empiricism incompatible with their egos and fear of their own mortality.

Epiphileon wrote:
if you accept the foundational premises of the belief, then the rest of it is pretty much logically consistent.

If you simply accept foundational premises without question, then any position could be made to look consistent. But logic and reason must always, by definition, be based on a sound premise. So, yes, it could be argued that the Bible is internally consistent – though it really isn’t – but, being founded on flawed premises, it certainly is not logically consistent.

In truth, as I’m not fluent in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, I have no genuine way of knowing if God’s word (assuming it is God’s word at all) was consistent, logically or otherwise… and the same is true of absolutely everyone else on this forum, or indeed anyone alive. All we have is subsequent editing, translation and personal interpretation by mere mortals; the result is, in my humble opinion, neither logical nor consistent.

But thank you for wallowing in the mud and pig shit with me and at least attempting to offer a reasoned explanation... very Christian of you Angel


.
Topic: Happy Easter!
Posted: Saturday, March 31, 2018 10:54:20 AM
Considering Jesus knew (Matthew 20:21, for example) that he would be resurrected after a few days, and returned to His exalted position of Lord over everything, for all eternity… can Christ’s crucifixion really be considered a ‘sacrifice’?

Sure, it would have been an unpleasant few days, but considering Jesus (by his own account, John 10:30 et al.) is God Himself – omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient – those few days would have been a blink of an eye and nothing compared to the suffering so many of His subjects, through no fault of their own, endure every day; being a victim of the high infant mortality rates in Christ’s time was forever; mere mortals don’t get to have a little rest for three days before hitting the reset button for a straight pass into paradise.

Surely the real hero in the Easter myth is Judas. It was Judas who played the vital role that enabled Jesus to complete the prophecy, which He already knew would happen...being omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and all that.

Depending on which flavour of Christianity one chooses to believe, it was Judas who either returned the 30 pieces of silver before hanging himself, or who bought a field and fell over in it causing all his bowels to gush out, or who got fat and was crushed by a chariot… causing his bowels to gush out. Either way he met a truly sorry end, for eternity.

Judas was the ultimate scapegoat, despised and vilified, condemned to an eternity of suffering, but without his sacrifice mankind would not have been saved (at least in the manner foretold by Jesus)

In my opinion, Jesus comes out of the Easter myth looking like a privileged prince who expects the adulation of his subjects, just because he gave up his weekend to convince the malevolent king not to escalate his tyrannical rule.

And what are the chocolate eggs all about?



Topic: FYI - Polar Bears - New Study and It's Not Good News
Posted: Friday, February 2, 2018 7:43:45 AM
They should switch to eating fish... they should be easy enough to catch in open water. Think



.
Topic: Massive Hole Appears In Antarctic Ice and Scientists Aren't Sure Why
Posted: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 8:58:21 AM
Time for me to chip in then?

FounDit wrote:
I have listened to, and observed the discussion on "Climate Change" for about 45 years now. I've heard both the pro's and con's. And since absolutely none of the predictions by climate change advocates have come true over that time period, I have remained in the skeptical camp.

Nonsense.

Svante Arrhenius first postulated that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase the Earth's surface temperature, through the greenhouse effect, more than 100 years ago. Since then this basic theory has been extensively tested and every prediction, experiment and data set that has survived the scientific method and peer review fully supports that principle.

In the last 50 years, decade upon decade, year on year, the scientific method – formulate a hypothesis, make predictions, conduct experiments, gather data, then reject or improve the theory – has tested many predictions. Some failed and have been discarded. Many others pass, because they accurately reflect the observable experimental data, and are used to strengthen the reliability of the theory. That’s how science works. Through this method the veracity of anthropic climate change has become so compelling that it has gone from Svante Arrhenius’ personal opinion, to a fringe theory in the 1960’s, to the overwhelming scientific consensus we have today – over 90% across associated sciences, rising to a fraction off 100% in the field of climate science.

To claim “ none of the predictions by climate change advocates have come true” is pure bullshit, and only serves to highlight your ignorance of how science works.

FounDit wrote:
I was also convinced to remain skeptical by the fact that we now know the data has been falsified and manipulated by climate scientists and this has proven to me that I must continue to doubt it.

Nonsense.

I don’t know if you have a specific incident in mind (Piltdown Man perhaps? Think ) but for the current consensus to be based on falsified and manipulated data would require an unimaginably complex conspiracy. This conspiracy would not only need to involve every climate scientist, but it would also require, at the very least, tacit collusion from fields as diverse as zoology, chemistry, geography, physics and oceanography. A conspiracy to falsify and manipulate data on the scale required would also require a collective political or ideological motivation that the world has never before seen. The boards of every scientific body, and every major business (including all the major fossil fuel companies), and every government on the planet (with the possible exception of Trump’s autocratic inner circle) would need to share this collective political or ideological motivation for such a conspiracy to work.

You may be able to imagine the existence of such a collective ideology… but this really is tin foil hat territory.

FounDit wrote:
So whenever I see someone advocating "anthropogenic" climate change, I feel the need to refute it, as there is absolutely no evidence to date that humans are responsible for any of it.

So trying to convince me of it is like trying to convince me to become a believer in gods and religions. I've been told it's true, but I see no evidence of it; just the opposite. So I remain unconvinced.

And very much like the creationist “need to refute” evolution, your “need” has nothing to to with the science.

FounDit wrote:
As for the polar bears, what habitat is shrinking -- the ice? You do know, don't you, that polar bears need to be able to dive into the water to hunt for fish for food? So open water, or less ice, is a good thing for them. They would starve if there was nothing but ice and no way to get into the water.

Are you serious? This is a frankly idiotic line of reasoning.Eh?

FounDit wrote:
Well, again, if you want to live like a Native Canadian, you can. I choose to live in the modern age even with its problems, because I think we can solve them without disrupting industries. It won't be easy, of course. Change never is, but it can be done. We've already see that it can.

This is like someone in the 19th century arguing that we should seek to just solve the problems caused by the whaling and logging industries, and that a move to alternative energy sources is unnecessary because whale extinction and deforestation is not man-made, and should not be disrupted.

First you claim the ‘problem’ has nothing to do with mankind burning fossil fuel and then you say we can solve the problems of burning fossil fuel. You’ve contradicted yourself in this way several times

The overwhelming scientific and political consensus says we need to change to low carbon economies; that change is not easy (as you say) but not because the consensus is based on a lie, but because the facts are contrary to the economic and ideological interests of a powerful minority… a minority that perpetuate the kind of muddled misdirection and pseudo-science that you are repeating here -- such as the “hockey stick” data was based on a single tree... complete bullshit.

FounDit wrote:
Have we frozen to death, as environmentalists first proposed we would back in the 1970's?

I’ve called you out on this before. You chose to ignore it before. It’s dishonest to pretend otherwise. Shame on you

There was no serious scientific support for global cooling in the 1970’s (or any recent time). Although not as strong as it is today, the consensus in the 1970’s was actually predicting what we actually observe today: global warming. In the 1970’s support for a theory of global cooling was about as well supported as the current support for theories that reject anthropic climate change today... i.e practically bugger all.

FounDit wrote:
With all progress over the millennia there have been concurrent problems that arose, and we have dealt with them. I see no reason we won't continue to be able to do so in the future.

The overwhelming scientific consensus says that we haven’t dealt with the problems predicted by Svante Arrhenius over 100 years ago, problems have arisen, as predicted decade upon decade, year upon year, and supported by empirical observations. However, finally, the political consensus has also now reached the point where there is overwhelming agreement that the problems predicted by the science need to be dealt with.

This issue is no longer up for debate. Apart from a minority aiming to wring the last dime out of the fossil fuel cash cow, and a few tin foil hat wearing ideologists, this issue is settled.

FounDit wrote:
No one denies that the climate changes. What is denied is that we are causing it to happen.

Until recently today’s skeptics were absolutely denying that the climate was changing. Only now that the evidence is so overwhelming has the argument switched to ‘yeah, it’s changing. But it’s not man-made’.

In fact the evidence that it is man-made is now also so overwhelming that there are now very few who even deny that – even Mike Pence could no longer ignore the science… and he believes the Earth is 6 thousand years old. Current skeptics mainly argue about what action we should take.

Again, it’s very much like how creationists moved from denying evolution completely, to accepting ‘adaptation’ through Intelligent Design, and finally to wilful ignorance and self delusion.

FounDit wrote:
One such scientist is Dr. Roy Spencer. There are many others. http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Dr Spencer mainly voices opinions in line with his employers, The Heartland Institute, but they are just opinions. To obtain the credibility of ‘scientists who disagree with the consensus’ he really needs to turn those opinions into scientifically credible hypotheses. Like anyone else, he is total free to do so by submitting his data for peer review and scientific scrutiny. He's yet to do so.

Dr Spencer also rejects evolution in favour of Intelligent Design, and perhaps he’s right. But his opinion that all of biology (and every associated field), most of chemistry and large parts of physics are wrong, in favour of an alternative theory that cannot be tested and for which there is no evidence, has absolutely nothing to do with science.


.
Topic: Could It Really Happen That Way?
Posted: Friday, January 19, 2018 6:06:59 AM
Fyfardens wrote:
Nearly 40% of Americans approve of Trump's presidency.
Nearly 40% of Americans believe that God created all life in the last ten thousand years.
It would not surprise me to learn that 40% of Americans believe that if Trump ordered a nuclear attack on North Korea (or Iran, or Hati or some other s***hole state) the world would be a better place - and no Americans would suffer.


Agreed. Applause

With the current political landscape, shaped as it is by conflicting strains of Abrahamic death cults, it’s sometimes hard to trust one’s faith in humanity.

Most recent Pew research (2013) found that roughly half of all Christians in the U.S believe the return of Christ, the central event in Christian eschatology, will occur within the next 40 years.

Senator Doug Broxson received rapturous applause (pun intended) when he announced, with giddy excitement, that Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital might bring forward a Biblical bloodbath... from which the chosen few are saved, of course. Pray

I suspect the applause, and the Pew poll, reflects a wider political and theological ignorance in the U.S, rather than a general culture of deranged Rapture-ready sociopaths, but it doesn’t paint a pleasant picture. It’s this kind of mentality in other Faiths that has Trump supporters foaming at the mouth.

The last forty years alone has witnessed countless apocalypse-hungry Christian leaders gleefully heralding the imminent mass extinction of all life on Earth. I have no doubt Mike Pence believes he will make the list come Judgement Day, and there is a very real scenario where he could actually bring such an apocalypse about.

Trump might just launch the nuclear arsenal if the button is ever designed with a certain gropeable quality. Eh?


.
Topic: Fear mongering
Posted: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 8:32:44 AM
progpen wrote:
Yes, that is what I'm doing but Listening doesn't seem to catch on to that sort of thing, so I then resort to being direct and he ignores me. Ah well, what can you do?


It's worth considering that Listening... might be ignoring you for an entirely different reason. I would hate to think FounDit believes I ignore his arguments because I'm unable to 'catch on'. Think


.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.