Quantcast

'Religious' Idiots

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,890
4
Hypernormality
So take a look at this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/26/education/26evolution.html?oref=login

A Web of Faith, Law and Science in Evolution Suit

DOVER, Pa., Sept. 23 - Sheree Hied, a mother of five who believes that God created the earth and its creatures, was grateful when her school board here voted last year to require high school biology classes to hear about "alternatives" to evolution, including the theory known as intelligent design.

But 11 other parents in Dover were outraged enough to sue the school board and the district, contending that intelligent design - the idea that living organisms are so inexplicably complex, the best explanation is that a higher being designed them - is a Trojan horse for religion in the public schools.

With the new political empowerment of religious conservatives, challenges to evolution are popping up with greater frequency in schools, courts and legislatures. But the Dover case, which begins Monday in Federal District Court in Harrisburg, is the first direct challenge to a school district that has tried to mandate the teaching of intelligent design.

What happens here could influence communities across the country that are considering whether to teach intelligent design in the public schools, and the case, regardless of the verdict, could end up before the Supreme Court.

Dover, a rural, mostly blue-collar community of 22,000 that is 20 miles south of Harrisburg, had school board members willing to go to the mat over issue. But people here are well aware that they are only the excuse for a much larger showdown in the culture wars.

"It was just our school board making one small decision," Mrs. Hied said, "but it was just received with such an uproar."

For Mrs. Hied, a meter reader, and her husband, Michael, an office manager for a local bus and transport company, the Dover school board's argument - that teaching intelligent design is a free-speech issue - has a strong appeal.

"I think we as Americans, regardless of our beliefs, should be able to freely access information, because people fought and died for our freedoms," Mrs. Hied said over a family dinner last week at their home, where the front door is decorated with a small bell and a plaque proclaiming, "Let Freedom Ring."

But in a split-level house on the other side of Main Street, at a desk flanked by his university diplomas, Steven Stough was on the Internet late the other night, keeping track of every legal maneuver in the case. Mr. Stough, who teaches life science to seventh graders in a nearby district, is one of the 11 parents suing the Dover district. For him the notion of teaching "alternatives" to evolution is a hoax.

"You can dress up intelligent design and make it look like science, but it just doesn't pass muster," said Mr. Stough, a Republican whose idea of a fun family vacation is visiting fossil beds and natural history museums. "In science class, you don't say to the students, 'Is there gravity, or do you think we have rubber bands on our feet?' "

Evolution finds that life evolved over billions of years through the processes of mutation and natural selection, without the need for supernatural interventions. It is the foundation of biological science, with no credible challenges within the scientific community. Without it, the plaintiffs say, students could never make sense of topics as varied as AIDS and extinction.

Advocates on both sides of the issue have lined up behind the case, often calling it Scopes II, in reference to the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial that was the last century's great face-off over evolution.

On the evolutionists' side is a legal team put together by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. These groups want to put intelligent design itself on trial and discredit it so thoroughly that no other school board would dare authorize teaching it.

Witold J. Walczak, legal director of the A.C.L.U. of Pennsylvania, said the plaintiffs would call six experts in history, theology, philosophy of science and science to show that no matter the perspective, "intelligent design is not science because it does not meet the ground rules of science, is not based on natural explanations, is not testable."
1st thing: This woman Hied infuriates me with her ignorant stupidity. I choose that phrase carefully. She represents the dictionary definition of both ignorance and stupidity.
"It was just our school board making one small decision," Mrs. Hied said, "but it was just received with such an uproar."
Damn! The moment she made that statement, any normal person should have slapped her and tossed her out on the street. I've heard some retarded **** but that really takes the biscuit. ****, how can anyone just stand there and listen to her say that, and just be like 'Uh huh, OK.'? The reporter in this case is as responsible as the next jerk who at some point in the last year hasn't put this dumb bitch straight.

2nd: I hope this is Scopes II but I gotta doubt it. Just the fact that someone can hold an opinion this retarded as this and not be aware of their own tangential relationship with reality is a scary place to start from.

Damn, America - We need to start testing people before they're allowed to participate in society. This person's vote carries the same weight as yours. The system is surely broken!
 

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
Changleen said:
We need to start testing people before they're allowed to participate in society. This person's vote carries the same weight as yours. The system is surely broken!
So essentially a person's value is based on their intellegence??
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
Andyman_1970 said:
So essentially a person's value is based on their intellegence??
Psst... intellIgence...


Oh, and that guy's analogy with gravity/rubber bands is bollox. No one is trying to deny that live exists, they're talking about its origins. Therefore his analogy does not reflect the argument correctly.
 

Reactor

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2005
3,978
1
Chandler, AZ, USA
MSNBC just did a article about intelligent design, and it really doesn't pass muster. It's the anti-science.

The whole premise it's based on is false. The basic idea is that it such an unimaginable series events for life to occur that it can't possibly be an unplanned occurance. It's like saying it took an unimaginable series of events, that I don't understand, for a rock to be in exactly the right place to cause me to crash, it must be an act of god.

The problem with the "irreducibly complexity" argument is that you start with a result, the world as we know it, and since you can't completely explain it, you give up and attribute it to an outside force, AKA god. This is a problem because in a nearly infinite universe, no matter how unlikely a combination of factors it takes to produce a result you are likely to find at least one place where it exists.


Why ID isn't science

msnbc article about case
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,848
0
Orange County, CA
fluff said:
No one is trying to deny that live exists, they're talking about its origins.
Actually, that's not true. E.O. Wilson identifies himself as leaning toward Deism.

Now, keep in mind, that isn't what intelligent design proponents want, so that won't make them happy. A good chunk of them are biblical literalists, so it has to be God in six days, even if they won't say it out loud to you.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
Silver said:
Actually, that's not true. E.O. Wilson identifies himself as leaning toward Deism.

Now, keep in mind, that isn't what intelligent design proponents want, so that won't make them happy. A good chunk of them are biblical literalists, so it has to be God in six days, even if they won't say it out loud to you.
Of course I meant life, not live. How is what you're saying related to what I said?
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,848
0
Orange County, CA
fluff said:
Of course I meant life, not live. How is what you're saying related to what I said?
Evolutionary theory has nothing to say on the origin of life. Remember what Darwin's book was called?

Now, granted, it does lead a lot of people to the conclusion that since life doesn't need an omnipresent God hanging around to direct everything, you shouldn't assume one, I'll grant you that.

Look, the courts said that you can't teach creationism because it was an explicitly religious doctrine. So, you put a little lipstick on the pig, promise (cross your heart and hope to die) to not mention GOD, and voila, you have Intelligent Design.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,287
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Silver said:
Evolutionary theory has nothing to say on the origin of life. Remember what Darwin's book was called?

Now, granted, it does lead a lot of people to the conclusion that since life doesn't need an omnipresent God hanging around to direct everything, you shouldn't assume one, I'll grant you that.

Look, the courts said that you can't teach creationism because it was an explicitly religious doctrine. So, you put a little lipstick on the pig, promise (cross your heart and hope to die) to not mention GOD, and voila, you have Intelligent Design.
Darwin never proposed the theory of evolution to account for the origins of living beings, only the process of change once life exists. I've always been facinated why Darwin catches so much hell about that. Though he did theorize that life may very well have been born in a "warm little puddle".

The theories or better yet hypothesises (sp?) of the origins of life have be considered much more controversial. Well at least to me.
 

kinghami3

Future Turbo Monkey
Jun 1, 2004
2,241
0
Ballard 4 life.
Andyman_1970 said:
So essentially a person's value is based on their intellegence??
No, it's based on how much money they have, everyone knows that.


The problem is that people just don't know that much about Darwin's theories, science, or even the Bible. They say things like that because their pastor tells them so; it's not actually her own decision. When the Bible has two different accounts of creation in addition to massive biological and genealogical inconsistencies, it should at least make some people wonder, but it doesn't. Kind of the same reason I need to read my Bible more than once a month; I have a working knowledge of scripture but I can't point anything out off the top of my head.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,848
0
Orange County, CA
DRB said:
Darwin never proposed the theory of evolution to account for the origins of living beings, only the process of change once life exists. I've always been facinated why Darwin catches so much hell about that. Though he did theorize that life may very well have been born in a "warm little puddle".

The theories or better yet hypothesises (sp?) of the origins of life have be considered much more controversial. Well at least to me.
Bingo.

I think he caught so much hell over it because it made a personal God unneeded. Still catching hell over it, I guess.
 

Tenchiro

Attention K Mart Shoppers
Jul 19, 2002
5,407
0
New England
What I wonder is that if life on earth is so complex that it couldn't have formed without some sort of a "creator", then who created the creator?

Surely if a system is so complex that random creation is impossible, then the creator of that system would they themselves be so complex that they would also need a creator. (and so on and so forth...)
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,848
0
Orange County, CA
Tenchiro said:
What I wonder is that if life on earth is so complex that it couldn't have formed without some sort of a "creator", then who created the creator?

Surely if a system is so complex that random creation is impossible, then the creator of that system would they themselves be so complex that they would also need a creator. (and so on and so forth...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
Silver said:
Evolutionary theory has nothing to say on the origin of life. Remember what Darwin's book was called?

Now, granted, it does lead a lot of people to the conclusion that since life doesn't need an omnipresent God hanging around to direct everything, you shouldn't assume one, I'll grant you that.

Look, the courts said that you can't teach creationism because it was an explicitly religious doctrine. So, you put a little lipstick on the pig, promise (cross your heart and hope to die) to not mention GOD, and voila, you have Intelligent Design.
OK, I'll admit I'm not the most au fait with ID theory (for the very reasons you mention), but surely intelligent design implies an intelligent designer whether you call him God or Eric or whatever.

So if ID does not define a designer and does not deny natural selection what is everyone getting their knickers in a twist about?

Furthermore it does involve the origins of life if there is anything to argue about at all, be it the origin of all life or the origin of some life.

This is pretty much semantics.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,287
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
fluff said:
OK, I'll admit I'm not the most au fait with ID theory (for the very reasons you mention), but surely intelligent design implies an intelligent designer whether you call him God or Eric or whatever.

So if ID does not define a designer and does not deny natural selection what is everyone getting their knickers in a twist about?

Furthermore it does involve the origins of life if there is anything to argue about at all, be it the origin of all life or the origin of some life.

This is pretty much semantics.
What involves the origin of life? ID or Evolution? Or something else I missed.

Natural selection isn't really natural selection if there is a man behind the current. The text of the article spells it out

And they generally have no problem with much of evolutionary theory, which can — in part —be stated as the change of species over time. Evidence, they agree, amply bears out this observation, which is known as micro-evolution.

Where they dissent is in what’s known as macro-evolution — the transformation over time of a species into another species. The distinction is drawn in “Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins,” the alternative text endorsed by the Dover school board:

“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their primitive features intact, rather than gradually developing.”
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
DRB said:
What involves the origin of life? ID or Evolution? Or something else I missed.
Both, the raging debate about ID versus evolution, and this thread.

It all started when I pointed what a poor analogy was contained in the article quoted in the first post. I think perhaps people are thinking I am arguing for ID; I'm not.
 

F5000sl

Chimp
Nov 18, 2003
34
0
Richmond
yeah, and then there are the freaks of life.

Seriously folks, what is wrong with people these days?
Some people are so out there, so freak'n crazy, they have to know it.

Today at VCU, we were treated to a freak of nature donning a sign that was about 6'x4' and read, "Obey Jesus or Perish".
WTF??? What religion is that? Is this the same Jesus that forgives when asked?

The person holding the sign was lets say, late teens early 20's and she (YES She) shouted at folks as they walked by her sign's slogan.
Being ignored, she reverted to yelling at people, telling everyone that everyone that we know, our parents, brothers, sister, uncle & aunts, our teachers & the world in general is lying to us. They are holding back the truth and she was here to set us straight. "Believe what I say, learn to think for yourself" she added. Yeah, think about that one. "They are all liars!"
She went on chanting this crap for about 3 hrs, on my way to my last class, she had pissed off enough folks that people were getting angry, some people started to offer up $$ to steal her sign. The first offer started at $10.00, and within 30 seconds was @ $30.00, I had crossed the street by then and have no idea how it ended.
Upon getting out of class, she was just a memory & folks had someone to talk about as they giggled.

What produces these types of people? What goes so wrong in ones life that they turn so freaky
 

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
Changleen said:
To society? Yes. Combined of course with their willingness to use it constructively and progressively.
I prefer not to place an arbitrary value on a person based on what they can and cannot do............I think someone else did that as well..............let me think............ :rolleyes:
 

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
F5000sl said:
yeah, and then there are the freaks of life.

Seriously folks, what is wrong with people these days?
Some people are so out there, so freak'n crazy, they have to know it.

Today at VCU, we were treated to a freak of nature donning a sign that was about 6'x4' and read, "Obey Jesus or Perish".
WTF??? What religion is that? Is this the same Jesus that forgives when asked?
It’s not true Christianity that’s for sure. These are the kind of people I would love to meet on the street and get into a theological “kung fu” fight with.

F5000sl said:
The person holding the sign was lets say, late teens early 20's and she (YES She) shouted at folks as they walked by her sign's slogan.

Being ignored, she reverted to yelling at people, telling everyone that everyone that we know, our parents, brothers, sister, uncle & aunts, our teachers & the world in general is lying to us. They are holding back the truth and she was here to set us straight. "Believe what I say, learn to think for yourself" she added. Yeah, think about that one. "They are all liars!"
That chick needs to reread her Bible, it clearly states even those who don’t know God sometimes do and say things that are true according to God.

It’s pretty clear these kinds of folks are just regurgitating stuff they hear from their pastor/cult minder and have not actually explored the Scriptures enough to actually have a grasp of what the Gospel meant in Jesus day and what it means today, let alone all the garbage they spew.

F5000sl said:
She went on chanting this crap for about 3 hrs, on my way to my last class, she had pissed off enough folks that people were getting angry, some people started to offer up $$ to steal her sign. The first offer started at $10.00, and within 30 seconds was @ $30.00, I had crossed the street by then and have no idea how it ended.
Upon getting out of class, she was just a memory & folks had someone to talk about as they giggled.
The sad thing is how many people did she turn off to her cause because of her delivery? Jesus never presents the Gospel as “you don’t’ want to go to Hell do you?”, never not once does He frame it in that kind of language. Interestingly the only people who Jesus really got riled up at where the religious leaders of the time who treated Judaism like a holy country club for exclusive members…………..sound familiar???

What hacks me off about people like this, is that I get painted with the same brush as this chick. People on here find out I’m a follower of Jesus and the knee jerk reaction is I must be like those people on the street corner with a bullhorn screaming “repent the Kingdom of God is near”. Some of us really and truly take what Jesus said seriously, we really try everyday to love people unconditionally, no strings attached, we really strive to make the world a better place through loving and serving others………….but people like this tend to shape the perception that following Jesus is about hate, judgment and fear instead of love and hope.

F5000sl said:
What produces these types of people? What goes so wrong in ones life that they turn so freaky
The same root of fundamentalism that encourages people to run into a crowded café and blow themselves up, or run into an abortion clinic and start shooting people. I seem to remember Jesus not advocating violence……….
 

Tenchiro

Attention K Mart Shoppers
Jul 19, 2002
5,407
0
New England
fluff said:
OK, I'll admit I'm not the most au fait with ID theory (for the very reasons you mention), but surely intelligent design implies an intelligent designer whether you call him God or Eric or whatever.

So if ID does not define a designer and does not deny natural selection what is everyone getting their knickers in a twist about?

Furthermore it does involve the origins of life if there is anything to argue about at all, be it the origin of all life or the origin of some life.

This is pretty much semantics.
The problem is that ID is nothing but a Trojan Horse to get christianity into public schools and blur the line between itself and science.

While I would have no problem if they discussed religion in say Social Studies class, or even Christianity's (SP?) effects on the world in a History class. But it should never be confused with science.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
Tenchiro said:
The problem is that ID is nothing but a Trojan Horse to get christianity into public schools and blur the line between itself and science.

While I would have no problem if they discussed religion in say Social Studies class, or even Christianity's (SP?) effects on the world in a History class. But it should never be confused with science.
Look, all I did was point out a crap analogy. That's all...

Stop treating me like I want to talk about ID, I don't. I think it's a bunch of carp.
 

ChrisRobin

Turbo Monkey
Jan 30, 2002
3,032
61
Vancouver
F5000sl said:
The person holding the sign was lets say, late teens early 20's and she (YES She) shouted at folks as they walked by her sign's slogan.
Being ignored, she reverted to yelling at people, telling everyone that everyone that we know, our parents, brothers, sister, uncle & aunts, our teachers & the world in general is lying to us. They are holding back the truth and she was here to set us straight. "Believe what I say, learn to think for yourself" she added. Yeah, think about that one. "They are all liars!"
She went on chanting this crap for about 3 hrs, on my way to my last class, she had pissed off enough folks that people were getting angry, some people started to offer up $$ to steal her sign. The first offer started at $10.00, and within 30 seconds was @ $30.00, I had crossed the street by then and have no idea how it ended.
Upon getting out of class, she was just a memory & folks had someone to talk about as they giggled.

What produces these types of people? What goes so wrong in ones life that they turn so freaky
You should of told her that Satan is really the one who created man and demons were going to eat her parents. :devil:
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,890
4
Hypernormality
Andyman_1970 said:
I prefer not to place an arbitrary value on a person based on what they can and cannot do............I think someone else did that as well..............let me think............ :rolleyes:
I'm not talking about placing a value on someone. I'm talking about potential. Clearly a genius has the potential to contribute far more to society than someone like your president, provided his energies are focussed in the right way. The flipside to that is someone who uses his intelligence in a negative way, such as creating ways to manipulate people. I'm not saying dumb people are worthless, far from it. A retard with good intentions is clearly more use to society than an intelligent but self serving person such as Robert Mugabe.
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
5,380
168
Lima, Peru, Peru
fluff said:
Psst... intellIgence...


Oh, and that guy's analogy with gravity/rubber bands is bollox. No one is trying to deny that live exists, they're talking about its origins. Therefore his analogy does not reflect the argument correctly.
no one is denying that gravity exists either. the analogy talked about how it worked.
 

Ciaran

Fear my banana
Apr 5, 2004
9,844
11
So Cal
Andyman_1970 said:
These are the kind of people I would love to meet on the street and get into a theological ?kung fu? fight with.
That's one I would love to stand by and watch. Can I be your corner man? Maybe help with a little Mr. Miyagi... Concentrate, focus power... balance in whoooole life Andy-san... :D
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
5,380
168
Lima, Peru, Peru
Andyman_1970 said:
It’s not true Christianity that’s for sure. These are the kind of people I would love to meet on the street and get into a theological “kung fu” fight with.



That chick needs to reread her Bible, it clearly states even those who don’t know God sometimes do and say things that are true according to God.

It’s pretty clear these kinds of folks are just regurgitating stuff they hear from their pastor/cult minder and have not actually explored the Scriptures enough to actually have a grasp of what the Gospel meant in Jesus day and what it means today, let alone all the garbage they spew.



The sad thing is how many people did she turn off to her cause because of her delivery? Jesus never presents the Gospel as “you don’t’ want to go to Hell do you?”, never not once does He frame it in that kind of language. Interestingly the only people who Jesus really got riled up at where the religious leaders of the time who treated Judaism like a holy country club for exclusive members…………..sound familiar???

What hacks me off about people like this, is that I get painted with the same brush as this chick. People on here find out I’m a follower of Jesus and the knee jerk reaction is I must be like those people on the street corner with a bullhorn screaming “repent the Kingdom of God is near”. Some of us really and truly take what Jesus said seriously, we really try everyday to love people unconditionally, no strings attached, we really strive to make the world a better place through loving and serving others………….but people like this tend to shape the perception that following Jesus is about hate, judgment and fear instead of love and hope.



The same root of fundamentalism that encourages people to run into a crowded café and blow themselves up, or run into an abortion clinic and start shooting people. I seem to remember Jesus not advocating violence……….
wait...
while i consider you quite an educated man in jesus ways...

who defines what is "christianity" or "good christianity" from within??? i mean, you could argue on rational grounds thru direct interpretation an interpolation on the bible.. yet the other side might be able to do so.
and even if they dont, the whole rationalism is kinda invalid, if you are starting from a premise that cannot be logically validated.

so, if both positions start from non-rational start points... how do we define which one of them is "rationally" following or representing the 1st irrational thought??
wouldnt, in their logical invalidity, both be non-rational, thus neither one the "right" nor the "wrong" one in an strict rational sense???
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
5,380
168
Lima, Peru, Peru
Ciaran said:
That's one I would love to stand by and watch. Can I be your corner man? Maybe help with a little Mr. Miyagi... Concentrate, focus power... balance in whoooole life Andy-san... :D

that'd be Kimbo Slice VS Gannon the Cannon...
 
E

enkidu

Guest
ALEXIS_DH said:
wait...
while i consider you quite an educated man in jesus ways...

who defines what is "christianity" or "good christianity" from within??? i mean, you could argue on rational grounds thru direct interpretation an interpolation on the bible.. yet the other side might be able to do so.
and even if they dont, the whole rationalism is kinda invalid, if you are starting from a premise that cannot be logically validated.

so, if both positions start from non-rational start points... how do we define which one of them is "rationally" following or representing the 1st irrational thought??
wouldnt, in their logical invalidity, both be non-rational, thus neither one the "right" nor the "wrong" one in an strict rational sense???
Yup, Christ obviously wanted his disciples to be one as he and the Father were one (John 17:22), and knew that in the face of our tendency to be divisive we needed a leader (Peter, "the Rock": Matt 16:13-19), bishops and deacons (1 Timothy 3) and a church ("household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Timothy, 3:15). Already in Acts we see Peter speaking and acting as the leader of the apostles and disciples. St. Irenaeus (2nd Century) of the early church fathers mentions how "apostles left bishops as their successors and gave them their own position of teaching authority".

So Anglicans, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Churches stress this "laying of hands" of bishops to assure the orthodoxy of their teachings. And that's how they try to discern what are authentic Christian teachings.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
ALEXIS_DH said:
no one is denying that gravity exists either. the analogy talked about how it worked.

You shure??

Quote...

'Is there gravity, or do you think we have rubber bands on our feet?' "

There's a nasty little 'or' in there... :)
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
Changleen said:
I'm not talking about placing a value on someone. I'm talking about potential. Clearly a genius has the potential to contribute far more to society than someone like your president, provided his energies are focussed in the right way. The flipside to that is someone who uses his intelligence in a negative way, such as creating ways to manipulate people. I'm not saying dumb people are worthless, far from it. A retard with good intentions is clearly more use to society than an intelligent but self serving person such as Robert Mugabe.
So an arbitrary value based on a person's potential??? Ok...
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
Changleen said:
Did you read what I said? :drool:
Yeah. Did you?

You first say America has to test people before letting them participate in society. You then replied to Andy's question about value by intelligence with an affirmative answer. Then when compared to a nasty dictator you wriggled and gave some self-contradictory guff moving your valuometer onto that so easily measured object of potential (rather than intelligence).

You're been caught on Andy's line and you're wriggling.

:eviltongu
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,890
4
Hypernormality
fluff said:
Yeah. Did you?

You first say America has to test people before letting them participate in society. You then replied to Andy's question about value by intelligence with an affirmative answer. Then when compared to a nasty dictator you wriggled and gave some self-contradictory guff moving your valuometer onto that so easily measured object of potential (rather than intelligence).

You're been caught on Andy's line and you're wriggling.

:eviltongu
If you want to simplify what I said to suit your slant of what I said, suit your self. Believe yor 'summary' or read what I actually said. It's not that complex. If you disagree, list me some well-known idiots who have made positive contributions to humanity and I'll list ten times the number of well-known highly intelligent people who have done more. You know it's true.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
Changleen said:
If you want to simplify what I said to suit your slant of what I said, suit your self. Believe yor 'summary' or read what I actually said. It's not that complex. If you disagree, list me some well-known idiots who have made positive contributions to humanity and I'll list ten times the number of well-known highly intelligent people who have done more. You know it's true.
Ha! I am not disagreeing that people's contribution to the greater good varies. And some of what you said is true, and perhaps if it were possible to know the full effect of each and every person's ultimate effect on society (and indeed of the lack of their presence) there could be an argument for removing them (though we both know that concept is impossible).

However you cannot deny that have initially proposed measuring people's intelligence then their potential and valuing them accordingly.

Wriggle or spin, it's there in black and white and throwing accusations at me doesn't change it.