Is debate possible between ignoramuses?How is it possible

I agree farmerman. Cav chose his arguments well. And he could convince, me as well as others. But he didn't convince everyone. Some people are unconvincible on some subjects. I usually agreed with Cav's points of view. So I never needed much convincing from him.

But it's hard to demonstrate an ability to be convinced by another's arguments when the other's arguments don't convince. I'm happy for someone to try to convince me, whether they are successful or not. But as I've said, I sometimes resort to nastiness when I'm faced with pure bigotry. In this case, I think of nastiness as the booby prize, if you know what I mean.

agreed. I even find that there are a few on line that love to take the immediate counterpoint with a streak of nastiness and just dont know that theycan get tiresome. I usually see those posts begin with "multiple quotes" interspersed with someones own (usually) snotty , self approbative kind of shithead answers.
Those I tend to leave alone.

That's cuz you're a poopyhead.

Let me respond to this in a point by point fashion

I am not your cuz, we are not the least remotely related. My genome is 102% of yours


I have no response to this obvious attack at my race. You should be severely criticized for violating the TOS


Under the first amendment of the Constitution this is recognized as speech and is otherwise protected. What I do in the privacy of my own home is further guarenteed under some other parts of the Constitution of which I havent the slightest idea, but could refer you to Lemis v poopyhead (1943)

Yes, but if you had checked the later ruling in Poopyhead vs. Dunderhead in 1968, you would have seen that it specifically states that the clear nature of the inherent relevancy of Lemis v poopyhead was in fact in it's flexibility, and was thus overturned by the ruling of the supreme court in the related poopyhead v Pinhead, in 1963, because of breach of duty assignated to the party of the first part without regard to the culpability of the party of part B, of which Dunderhead was impunged.

Well, with that scholarly missive, I take a second seat, secure in the knowledge that , whenever we need Constitutional scholarship, we can count on the kickster.

Think weve taken this thread where no thread has gone before? Do we not proudly tote the full meaning of this threads title?

I believe we have, and I believe we do, farmerman.

hehehe

I'm very much afraid that there are aspects to ignorance of which you all have no conception.

fm.I have,now and then,been guilty of being on the wrong side of quite a few codes of conduct.Had I been brought to book I would have considered myself doomed as soon as your avvie came to life occupying the main seat.

good morning

Lola:-

Glad you're there safe and sound.

Bit early ain't it?I'm quite busy.

Where were we.A lot has happened.

Did you see my Shakespearish post?

I'll look.

the one about the Bible translation?

Lola:-

That's the one.Took two hours that.Now that's love.
Actions speak louder than words.How easy it is to say "I love you".Actors do it all the time

I'll read it and that will prove my love too.

OH PULEEZE. Im gonna blow lunch

To the original post, isn't the plural "ignorami" ?

Eorl:-

Only if you are a theologian which none of us on here are.

just sit very still, farmerman and try to keep it down.

And just speak for yourself, mr spendius. some of us are theologians. We're bound to have one or two hidden in here somewhere.

I'm looking out the window.
What do I see?
A world.
What does it consist of.
Atoms,molecules,forces,states of things.
Can these be differentiated?
Yes.Of course.
Inorganic and organic.Dead matter and life.
Okay.
Which is a culture.Is it inorganic or organic.
Is it possible for meaningful debate to take place between proponents of either position or those who are not even taking these differences into account?