|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 18:16:46 [Permalink]
|
Yes I do accord one sex a special status over the other with regard to physical violence, and I don't care if that's considered sexist. Men and women are different physiologically, mentally, and emotionally, so to treat them identically is totally illogical in my opinion. But I'd prefer not to get into that in this topic.
I didn't fabricate any reason for them wanting to hit her, I asked the question, if I maintained the position after the question was answered negetively, then it would be a strawman.
So again:
Would you hit a woman for disagreeing with you?
If not, would you hit with a woman for disagreeing with you in a smug way?
and to appease Dave:
Would you hit with a man for disagreeing with you in a smug way? |
 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 19:24:20 [Permalink]
|
On fire for Christ:
I didn't fabricate any reason for them wanting to hit her... |
But of course you did. The hitting her part had nothing to do with disagreeing with her, which I made clear. It had to do with her smugness. So in your original question you created an obvious strawman.
On fire for Christ:
So again:
Would you hit a woman for disagreeing with you?
If not, would you hit with a woman for disagreeing with you in a smug way? |
You know what? I'm going to answer your questions, strawman and all, since apparently you are incapable of discerning when someone is speaking figuratively.
The answer is no. And I wouldn't hit a man either for being smug or purposely obtuse. So you're safe.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 08/07/2009 : 19:40:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Yes I do accord one sex a special status over the other with regard to physical violence, and I don't care if that's considered sexist. Men and women are different physiologically, mentally, and emotionally, so to treat them identically is totally illogical in my opinion. |
We're talking about treating them differently with respect to assaulting them in the middle of a conversation about an impersonal subject. I don't see any reason to not treat men and women the same way in that regard. Do you?| But I'd prefer not to get into that in this topic. |
Of course not. But since you've already derailed this topic, and are intent on continuing to derail it (by re-asking your questions), why shy away from your sexism?| I didn't fabricate any reason for them wanting to hit her, I asked the question, if I maintained the position after the question was answered negetively, then it would be a strawman. |
The question you asked included a premise which had already been falsified in the posts which preceded yours. Why ask it again if not to imply that that premise was true, thus disparaging the violent people here even further than they need to be, with no factual basis?
Really, we see a lot of those sorts of questions around here - the "because X disagrees with you" sort - and so far as I've been able to tell, they have never been asked in good faith, and I see no reason to think that you asked your question in good faith, either. The evidence I've got, from your recent posts here, suggests that you asked the original question to provoke anger, not discussion. After all, where can the topic go from where you've steered it? Denial, of course. You knew before you posted your question that nobody was going to say, "oh, yeah, sure! It's quite okay to beat people for their ideas!" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 22:05:35 [Permalink]
|
OFFC.... I'm fairly sure you used to actually post things that weren't filled to capacity with stupid(n).
Why don't you try participating in some topics, answering questions when asked (like in the "outrageous" thread), and engaging the part of your brain that gives you the ability to think?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 02:59:54 [Permalink]
|
Oh, I wouldn't hit her, but she has such a nice, long neck.....
I noticed that Wendy Wright exhibited the irritating but revealing habit, probably unbeknownst to her, of giggling every time Dawkins brought up a point she absolutely, positively didn't want to touch.
|
I picked up on that. It certainly was irritating, wasn't it?
Oddly for someone with such a high profile, it's quite difficult to find a biography on Ms. Write other than CWfA's tiny belch. there are, however, some articles by and about her that show that she is another paranoid, conservative nutcase. For example:
Concerned Women Asking About Swine Flu Panic
By David Weigel 4/27/09 4:40 PM
I was just talking to Wendy Wright, the president of the conservative group Concerned Women for America, about the nomination of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kans.) to run the Department of Health and Human Services. The group opposes the nomination, and Wright is raising some questions about the timing of the swine flu crackdown so close to tomorrow's cloture vote.
“Some people think that declaring a state of emergency about the flu was a political thing to push the Sebelius nomination through,” said Wright. She pointed to news stories that ask whether the slow-walking of the Sebelius choice will hurt the response to the flu. “If there's even a hint that [Department of Homeland Security] is manipulating the health situation to push a political appointee through, well, it almost defies imagination that they'd be willing to that.”
Wright said that she'd heard the speculation “on talk radio,” and wanted to be skeptical, but “there's too much of a basis in that argument to easily dismiss it.”
|
One can just imagine which talk radio shows she was listening to. I found the comments interesting as well.
And from this list: Obama and Notra Dame.
A Solution to the Notre Dame-Obama Conflict
by Wendy Wright
05/08/2009
Here is a humble suggestion to solve the roiling controversy over Notre Dame's honoring of Barack Obama. The only flaw in the plan is it requires the White House to act.
For those who haven't seen it in the news, Notre Dame kicked off a furor by inviting Obama to give this year's commencement address and receive an honorary doctorate. Over 60 bishops have denounced the venerable Catholic institution's decision to host the most pro-abortion president in America's history. Over 330,000 people have signed an online petition and alumni are withholding $8.2 million in planned donations.
|
She is quite fixated on everyone else's reproduction issues, and how & why she got into a Theory of Evolution discussion with Dawkins is a mystery. She knows exactly nothing about the topic and is unwilling to learn. How & why Dawkins involved himself with such an obvious, agenda-driven numskull is yet another mystery.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 10:37:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
you would hit a woman for disagreeing with you?
|
No, but it is tempting.
Such willing ignorance is very frustrating, and it is hard to stay level headed against it. Especially when they keep repeating the same disproved information again and again. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 10:51:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Would you hit a woman for disagreeing with you? |
1) This isn't about simple "disagreement." It's about blatant dishonesty and willful ignorance. 2) Would you kill a child for disagreeing with you? The bible says it's you duty. 3)No, I would never actually hit a creationist, but I would bury them alive in a coffin filled with scorpions. 4) You worship a god who burns men, women and children in hell for all eternity, so who's more immoral?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/08/2009 10:56:52 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 19:52:55 [Permalink]
|
Good grief. Wright doesn't even have the decency to offer Dawkins a chair. Just "let's stand in this corner next to a plant, how's that?"
Okay, I fully expected to get into this able to link every one of Wright's claims to some page of the Index to Creationist Claims, but it hasn't been updated since November of 2006 (!), and some of Wright's claims are just too nebulous to say anything but "huh?" about. I gave up trying to tie everything to the IoCC in less than four minutes.
She's definitely got a good grip on the Gish Gallop, and uses it to very good effectiveness at the start of the "interview," leaving Dawkins to say nothing more than "uh-huh" after quite a few claims, simply because it's clear that she's not going to stop talking even though her inflection indicated a question. (That sort of thing is a pet-peeve of mine, it drives me nuts when people are making declarations, but inflect upwards just to prompt me to indicate that they should continue.)
This whole thing isn't so much an interview as it is a debate. At least, that's how Dawkins comes off most of the time. And after saying that he would not debate creationists, this looks pretty bad for him. Wright and Dawkins together exemplify why one shouldn't offer a free-form debate to these loons.
(By the way, the "info" on the YouTube pages claims this is an uncut interview, but I see jump-cuts. What gives?)
Anyway, here's the list of bad claims Wright makes and poor questions she asks, and when. I'm not including repeats, of which there are many, which is why there are generally fewer listed as the "interview" goes on. I'm also not including anything that's reasonable (for instance, that scientific theories need to withstand testing). Particularly bizarre claims are flagged with a particular smiley.
Part 1:1) 00:43 We're more likely to treat people well if we believe they're made from love
2) 01:13 Censoring of evidence that disproves evolution
3) 01:23 Evidence which bolsters evolution has been fraudulent
4) 01:34 Teach the controversy
5) 01:43 Pig's Tooth (Nebraska Man)
6) 02:27 There's no evidence of evolution between species
7) 02:41 Microevolution is okay
8) 02:47 Dawkins is close-minded
9) 02:57 Censorship won't even allow for discussion
10) 03:10 Scientists claim only they can speak on this
11) 03:28 No material evidence found in museums as evidence of evolution, only drawings
12) 03:46 Science is almost like a religion
13) 04:20  DNA helps prove that everyone was created distinct from one another
14) 05:03 Where is the evidence of macroevolution?
15) 06:00 We're not hostile, we don't have a hidden agenda (no kidding)
16) 06:07 Ad hominem attacks show lack of confidence in the evidence
17) 07:00 Evolutionists can't show creationists the evidence they're looking for (duh!)
18) 07:20 Haeckel's embryos (but not Haeckel's embryos!)
19) 08:19 Humans should be treated with respect and dignity
20) 08:32 God created each one of us
21) 08:34 Philosophies based on evolution lead to "horrendic" [sic] horrors
22) 08:44 Evolution says that humans are "just material" and so should be judged only as to how they can benefit society
23) 09:54 Evolution might have gone from birds to mammals Part 2:24) 00:00 Show her the bones of an in-between stage from one species to another
25) 00:24 Smithsonian Museum of Natural History lacks transitional fossils
26) 01:39 Darwin said there was a difference among the races
27) 01:44 Darwin's words were used to promote racism
28) 01:49 Darwin is a hero of the evolution "movement"
29) 02:09 Dawkins had talked of the fossils of human evolution, Wright says he still doesn't have any material evidence
30) 02:33 The best-functioning societies are the ones which recognize that humans were created individually
31) 03:01 Humans all have distinct DNA
32) 05:06 Eugenisists, euthanasists and infanticists have all based their ideologies on Darwin
33) 06:20 Why is it so important for everyone to believe as Dawkins believes?
34) 06:40 Dawkins can name some fossils, but can't prove evolution from "slime" to humans
35) 07:42 Why is it so important to Dawkins that people not believe in a creator?
36) 08:10 Schoolchildren aren't being taught about the frauds in evolution
37) 08:16 Schoolchildren aren't being taught about the lack of evidence for evolution
38) 08:19 Creationists are arguing for teaching all the evidence
39) 08:36 Wright waffles on the age of the Earth
40) 09:29 Theistic evolution shows that creationists have more creative independence than evolutionists Part 3:41) 00:00 Standard Christian creation beliefs and agreeing that some people are theistic evolutionists (yawn)
42) 02:40 Doesn't think there should be as mush dissention
43) 02:48 We respect evolutionists for their beliefs
44) 04:10 Both evolution and creationism could be based on the same evidence
45) 06:14 Believing in God helps build a pleasant society
46) 06:20 Teach all the info so that kids can come to their own conclusions
47) 09:33 DNA doesn't need to be different for evolution to work
48) 10:00 No evidence for beneficial mutations (continues into next part) Part 4:49) 00:44 Parents could have lots of kids, all different, showing there's a "creative element" involved
50) 01:10 Thinks she knows what Darwin's theory is because it's been "pounded into" her
51) 02:25 Severely disabled kids demonstrate that people have "spirits" and so evolution is wrong
52) 03:08 The existence of a spirit or soul makes us different from animals (after this, Wright goes on the attack, and Dawkins allows her to do so for about five minutes)
53) 09:32 Christians in the US have been punished for their beliefs
54) 10:06 She was sentenced to 6 months in jail for "simply praying" outside an abortion clinic in Houston Part 5:55) 00:00 She violated an injunction, and it was overturned on appeal
56) 03:36 There is evidence for intelligent design
57) 03:47 She's not aware of any push to teach Biblical creation in public schools
58) 04:11 Won't answer who the Intelligent Designer is
59) 05:52 Finds it demeaning that people think she doesn't know what evolution is, 'cause she's been through a museum
60) 06:00 The philosophy of evolution says that some people are better than others
61) 07:57 Communism was based on atheistic, evolutionary beliefs
62) 08:30 "Human beings are not distinct and should not be respected" is an atheistic belief
63) 09:16 "Hardcore" evolutionists who reject a creator pave the way for brutal societies Part 6:64) 00:50 The way to inculcate respect for human beings is by seeing that they were created
65) 01:14 Doesn't need to deny any facts because the facts support her beliefs
66) 03:58 Scientists have been blackballed for not agreeing "wholeheartedly" with evolution
67) 04:30 Refuses to say whether a flat-earther should be teaching geography
68) 04:40 IDists are being denied careers
69) 05:52 "Hardcore evolutionists" have a monopoly on what is discussed and researched in science Part 7:70) 00:14 A vast amount of evidence for evolution would influence the majority of IDists
71) 01:50 If Dawkins has evidence, he'd be showing it instead of arguing with Wright
72) 02:20 She sneaks in an implication that "evidence" can't be interpreted differently by different people
73) 02:25 All past claims of transitionals have been fraudulent
74) 06:50 The moral laws that CWfA are spreading are best for society Huh, part 7 ends rather abruptly. Where's part 8?
And I don't know if it's botox or what, but Wright has dead eyes, which make her look insincere even if she's not. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 21:01:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Good grief. Wright doesn't even have the decency to offer Dawkins a chair. Just "let's stand in this corner next to a plant, how's that?" |
That was considerably bothering me throughout the whole interview. I guess Wright was hoping the rudeness would throw Dawkins off his pace, or to make him irritable. It didn't work.
Me, I would have made a polite but persistent request for a place to sit, the refusal of which would have made Wright look even a bigger asshole.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 21:49:51 [Permalink]
|
Kil, Dave, Dude, Filthy,et al..........
As I remember, I broached this subject in a thread many months ago, and Dave offered some objection to the premise that I suggested. I would like to state it again in the context of this thread:
It is my contention that fundamentalist, creationist, IDeated über christians like Wendy Wright are essentially intellectually challenged. I mean fucking stupid! Really pretty damn dumb!
Certainly there are those high profile fundies and ID'ers who are highly politically motivated, financially motivated, and power motivated. And among those are many with extraordinary acumen and cognitive abilities who simply mouth their "Christian" convictions in order to further their secular ambition.
But to witness a demonstration of non-comprehension, staggering ignorance, and an almost total inability to process and verbalize information effectively such as Ms. Wright's "interview" with Dawkins revealed; leads me to the conclusion that her intellectual level is hovering somewhere near the sub-moronic.
More, I postulate that this condition of cognitive challenge exists, to a substantial degree, in a vast majority of protestant christian, jewish, islamic, and catholic true believers. Their faith substitutes for their genuine inability to think! Christians (and religious Jews, muslims, etc. ad exhaustium) are really just dumb bastards!
I'm not suggesting that thinking people suffer them gladly, pity them, or not respond with fact and reason when confronting such purveyors of nonsense, even though these cretins are handicapped as surely as are those who are blind or have withered arms or legs; it's just that it helps a bit to explain how such preposterous nonsense as they obviously believe can be mouthed by folks who apparently have at least a rudimentary command of the language and some sort of educational background.
I would welcome commentary from any interested in this phenomenon.
My question is:
Are religious folks, specifically the followers, not necessarily the leaders, just plain dumb? Can their acceptance of superstition and irrationality be largely attributed to lack of education, ignorance, emotional dominance of the ratiocination process, mental illness or the like; and it be wrong to conclude that a simple lack of sufficient intelligence primarily explains their frequently absurd statements and actions?
I would like to hear other's thoughts on this subject. I realize we have visited this ground before, but I don't remember coming away convinced I was on the wrong track! And if these people aren't stupid, what does explain them? |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 08/08/2009 23:07:08 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 22:13:58 [Permalink]
|
Must have keeled over and hit the enter key with his face....?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 22:31:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Dave, #72 should be "can" be interpreted differently. |
No, the implication is that if it really is evidence, then different people will not interpret it differently. In other words, people somehow magically cannot make stuff up if they're looking at actual evidence, so that when people disagree upon an interpretation, then what they're looking at isn't evidence at all. That's why it got the smiley. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 23:27:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I would like to hear other's thoughts on this subject. I realize we have visited this ground before, but I don't remember coming away convinced I was on the wrong track! And if these people aren't stupid, what does explain them? |
Fear and/or uncertainty. People have an understandable desire to be free of those things (to be more comfortable), and it isn't a lack of intelligence that allows people to glom onto whatever relief they can find from such stressors. It might be irrational to pick comfort over truth, but rationality and intelligence don't appear to be highly correlated, since rationality must be taught, while intelligence seems to be innate. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 23:39:19 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| Must have keeled over and hit the enter key with his face....? |
As August inexorably leads to September, a familiar tune involving temporal succession emerges - forcing consideration of the real value of all one really has --- time. So obviously, I'm not going to waste precious minutes composing a wordy and pompous two-paragraph riposte to your snarky commentary. I'm far above all that!
Suffice to say, I'm delighted to have had the opportunity, albeit inadvertent, to service you; and I can only hope that you will be able to return the favor sometime in the near future and eat me!
Bill
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Richard Dawkins interviews Wendy Wright
