I PUT HIM ON IGNORE AGAIN

Actually I think he does reason quite well Edgar. But he has so much fun pulling people's chains, a lot of folks miss it.

If u allege the existence
of a duty to debate, then I will be compelled to challenge u
to identify the source and legitimacy of any such alleged duty.

It isn't spendi's language that makes him get ignored. It's the way he clutters a science thread with irrelevance and ill manners. If he tried reasoning for a change, he would be at least tolerated.

Nothing's for certain and that's the only thing that is for certain. If ever you need cast iron proof of ros's sicentific ignorance it is right there in that--

Quote:
One thing's for certain.

And there is nobody on this thread, or anywhere else, who is disputing the fact of evolution because it is a dynamic process going on right now all around us. It didn't stop when Origins was published and it started long before mankind even existed and might well continue long after mankind has departed.

Why is ros allowed to continue misleading people, particularly young people, in the manner he has just attempted to do. And in the name of science. I am non-plussed why there are no scientists prepared to come on here and ask him to desist from discrediting science in this crass and infantile manner. I sometimes think he might be a YEC coming on here for that very purpose.

And we are not discussing the "fact" of evolution. There's nothing to discuss. Like- I think therefore I am---it's happening right now therefore it is. Which explains why ros cannot read or write. And what somebody in that state, at his age, is doing having an input into education policy for 50 million kids is baffling to put it at its mildest.

We are discussing teaching it. The reason we are discussing teaching it, and how it might be taught by Marxists and atheists in actual classrooms, is because to do so has social consequences which we might not wish to see whereas all other aspects of science, apart from a few areas of biology and psychology, don't. We wish to see, or most people do, science prosper. And it might not prosper to its fullest extent if it is to be continually used for the purpose ros is trying to sneak past our guard with slippery words.

The teaching of evolution undermines religion. All religion. And as religion has social functions the teaching of evolution, especially by political extremists, and who else is there, undermines those functions. In fact it sets them aside altogether. And that is the objective of anti-IDers and if it is unintended they are merely fools and dupes of those who do intend to undermine those functions for political reasons or for personal convenience. As a Communist would. Obviously. Or any totalitarian. Equally obviously.

Religion functions, now and always, to support and be supported by the state as we saw blatantly exposed at the inauguration. ros has no alternative but to scoff at those oaths and count them as nothing. Or any oaths taken in the name of religion. And to scoff at the church services attended on inauguration day and the day after by the Democratic hierarchy. Every jibe aimed on here equally applies to all that and much more besides. The baptisms, weddings and funerals of millions of Americans for example.

Religion affords an emotional outlet for those whose lives are circumscribed in some way. The poor, the sick, the depressed, the bereaved or even well-to-do people who sense an emptiness in their lives such as the congregation of the Burning Man cult. Religion offers the possibility of joy and release from the severe facts of life, which many millions find unbearable, and many millions more will find unbearable when faced with life seen in an exclusively scientific perspective.

It offers a system of community togetherness and facilitates social gatherings. The mystery religion of Eleusis offered the comforts of a blessed resurrection. That is not a Christian invention.

It seeks to enlist Divine aid for the practical purpose of upholding ideals of conduct which could only be acheived without religion by orders and regulations coming from a human source such as a Comintern. Or a Party structure in the hands of a few.

And religion inspires art. All our great art; be it architecture, music, literature, painting or sculpture. The Christian religion has inspired all our science.

It maintains traditional values and provides a system whereby those traditional values can only be gradually modified after much consideration rather than radically altered at the stroke of a pen.

If we allow religion to be set aside what does science have to offer in respect of those functions apart from the policies of the ruling elite. And why will anti-IDers not only not answer that question but are ****-scared of even seeing it expressed. They are wimps as well. Running from the truth. And bleating about the truth all bloody day long. As a critter too.

And it is highly likely that this ignorant and frightened opposition to religion is not only subjectively convenient to its own interests, mainly regarding sexual matters, but is fulfilling the same functions as religion does for others in that it is giving its adherents also an opportunity for emotional respite, an escape from reality, even to the point of taking leave of their senses, provides the joy and release in insulting invective aimed at people who cannot answer back and an opportunity to rewrite the ethical codes from the point of its own mad control freakery and thus further their own careers.

We all know what anti-religious Soviet art looked and sounded like and we all know how the experiment ended and thus it is fair to assume that anti-ID is subversive and treacherous. I commend this statement to the House.

(The Speaker now called the leader of the opposition.)

Another pile of flapdoodle circularity and non-sequiturings. Of course I'm all you say if your position is the right one. Tell us something we don't know. It follows like 2+2= 4 that if you are right I am silly. Obviously. Do you go around telling people what they already know all the time. All larded with machismo allusions. You should make a tape explaining how things are. You could sell it in the Insomniac's Journal. Five minutes should be enough with a ten-minute de-luxe version, only $5 extra, for those who just found out they won the lottery roll-over jackpot.

The question is "are you right?" and has nothing to do with the state I'm in if you are right. I concede every point in that case. Indeed, I would go much further.

No wonder you don't understand my posts. You're talking about the mental state of your protagonist assuming you're right. I'm talking about whether you are right or not. I wouldn't lower myself to talking about your mental state assuming you are wrong. It would be impolite.

And stop trying to write better. You need to read the masters first.

Quote:

Come on David. I like you. I would never ignore you.
You said you wanted to know who had you on ignore.
I just wanted to reassure you that I did not have you on ignore
if I at some point failed to respond to a post addressed to me.

Thank u, Foxfyre.
I like u too.
If u r missing any responsive posts to me,
that is not something that I remember.

Quote:

Anyhow, anybody who can have a really good discussion with Spendi is okay in my book.
He's one of my favorite A2K people, but I'll admit it does require talent
and intelligence to be able to converse in Spendi-speak.
(He's had to advise me from time to time that I haven't quite mastered it yet
but he never makes me mind that I was so advised.)

Americans and English may need a translator.

Well, as an experiment, I took him off ignore for a week or so. He still is an annoying little bird brain who has no manners and is busy creating metaphors that have nothing to do with the topiv=c. SO, I put im on ignore again .

Quote:

If u allege the existence
of a duty to debate, then I will be compelled to challenge u
to identify the source and legitimacy of any such alleged duty.

Quote:

Yes- I do allege a duty to debate if people seek to persuade others
to their viewpoint in a democracy.

The way u wrote that, it sounds more like a RIGHT
than a duty; like I have a right to vote, but no duty to do so.
I have a right to go for a walk around the block,
but no duty to do so.

Quote:

We elect the legislative body and we are therefore the principle legislative body.

OK

Quote:

Anyone seeking to persuade other voters to a viewpoint can be legitimately challenged.

Yes. A challenge can be asserted in that circumstance.
I have empirical proof of that fact, having done it.
In the face of such a challenge, the challenged party
can respond as he sees fit (within the law), including
silently walking away. If he does so, that is not violative of my rights,
as it woud have been if he picked my pocket.

Quote:

If you accept that we are the principle elective body,
and I don't see how you can't, then, by your own statement,
you see where the points I raise are applicable.

Being born into a democratic republic
does not subject the citizens to debate against their will.

Quote:

If you don't accept that we are the principle elective body,
having been elected by birth in a democracy,
then you must favour scrapping elections.

I accept it.
That still does not encumber me with a duty to debate,
if I dont want to; in fact, altho I am a very opinionated person,
there r some issues of controversy as to which I have no opinion
and no preference as to which side shoud prevail.

Quote:

Ignoring those views you don't agree with is the road to ruin.

Well if u put it that way,
then I 'll point out that a few of my responsive posts to YOU
did not meet with a response, after I took some time to prepare them.
I disregarded your failure to respond, deeming it inconsequential
and recognizing your right to brush it off. U r not my slave
and u don t have a duty to respond to my posts merely because
I sent something to u. I acknowledge your right to take a casual
attitude in what u can consider (my post to be) a trivial matter.





David

Being born into a democratic republic
does not subject the citizens to debate against their will

Well if u put it that way,
then I 'll point out that a few of my responsive posts to YOU
did not meet with a response, after I took some time to prepare them.
I disregarded your failure to respond, deeming it inconsequential
and recognizing your right to brush it off. U r not my slave
and u don t have a duty to respond to my posts merely because
I sent something to u. I acknowledge your right to take a casual
attitude in what u can consider (my post to be) a trivial matter.