Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!

Posted by: yhabpo

Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 05:31 PM

The dumb, the greedy, and the ignorant has elected their intellectual superior, Bush, for another term! Terrorists can operate freely without retaliation for another four years, as Bush will wage misdirected wars for his own personal and corporate interests. Enemies can watch America's economy plummet: no terrorist action can alone cause such disintegration of the economy.

I thought pianists or musicians in general were more civilized and intelligent than the ordinary folks. My prejudices were wrong. The number of Bush supporters here proves the contrary.

My words are backed by world opinion. By mob rule, the system that Americans cherish, what I speak is the truth.

Please note that I am not a Democrat or a liberal. Both political parties of America are equally worthless.
Posted by: Larry

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 05:59 PM

Posted by: gryphon

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 06:04 PM

Posted by: AKindWord

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 06:12 PM

Typical responses from Bush supporters.

AKindWord
Posted by: jkeene

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 06:18 PM

Looking over the Coffee Room this evening I think someone left the Screed-o-matic out where children could play with it.
Posted by: Troyboy

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 06:19 PM

 Quote:
Both political parties of America are equally worthless.

So we would have read this same bilge in the event that Kerry won?! Do tell us how things are so much the better in your country.

Then again, who are we to argue with one backed by the power of world opinion?! :rolleyes:
Posted by: Ben D.

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 06:52 PM

What's sad is his post has been totally lost on you wingers. It's not even worth explaining. Facts don't help when you're dealing with people who have no use for logic. Better luck next time, yhabpo. Really.
Posted by: Requiem Aeternam

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 06:58 PM

Wow, for once I agree with my dear friend Ybhpoaobop, or whatever his dull name is. That being said, I think it quite humorous reading a Bush supporter state, "I feel much safer with Bush in offce.", when the purportedly most feared and dangerous terrorist on the face of the earth (Bin Laden), has just clearly and unequivocally stated in a speech that if Bush wins re-election he will bomb the U.S. Way to go guys! ;-)
Posted by: iainhp

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 07:22 PM

If I understand this correctly, over the past 3 years Bush is the one out in public giving live speeches and shaking hands, and Bin Laden is the one hiding in a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan sending out video tapes, and you seem to admire Bin Laden?
Posted by: apple*

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 08:10 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by yhabpo:
The dumb, the greedy, and the ignorant has elected their intellectual superior, Bush, for another term! [/b]
I am not dumb greedy or ignorant and I doubt if Bush is my intellectual superior..

yet I voted..

stood in line a couple hours... babysat Grandma for a couple hours so Grandpa could vote.

things will be fine..
you just ate your party line
totally adverse to mine
have yourself a glass of whine
Posted by: Requiem Aeternam

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 08:18 PM

If I understand this correctly, over the past 3 years Bush is the one out in public giving live speeches and shaking hands, and Bin Laden is the one hiding in a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan sending out video tapes, and you seem to admire Bin Laden?


You 'understand' very little obviously. As he was shaking hands and giving live speeches (being fed to him by earpiece), he was also landing on aircraft carriers proclaiming AN END TO ALL MAJOR CONFLICT, HERALDED BY A GIANT BANNER READING, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!", while hundreds of AMERICAN SOLDIERS were being haplessly slaughtered left and right due to his utter inadequacy as president.
Posted by: teachum

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 08:19 PM

Apple strikes again! Hit the nail right on the head. I'm just full of cliches tonight. GUess I'd better go play my lovely piano. It's a good night and I don't have to watch politics.

Oh yes - I'm not dumb, greedy or ignorant either. :p
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 08:59 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by yhabpo:
The dumb, the greedy, and the ignorant has[/b] elected their intellectual superior
Pot, meet kettle.
 Quote:
Terrorists can operate freely without retaliation for another four years[/b]
If you think that is true and you are worried about it, perhaps you can persuade your government to fight terrorism.
Posted by: markjpcs

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 09:02 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by yhabpo:
The dumb, the greedy, and the ignorant has elected their intellectual superior, Bush, for another term! [/b]
Insulting over fifty million people all at once does nothing for your credibility. In fact one might be lead to believe that you are dumb, ignorant and intellectually inferior to all of them.

 Quote:
Originally posted by yhabpo:
Terrorists can operate freely without retaliation for another four years, as Bush will wage misdirected wars for his own personal and corporate interests. Enemies can watch America's economy plummet: no terrorist action can alone cause such disintegration of the economy. [/b]
If you actually believe this then you are the intellectual inferior of anyone who voted for GW

 Quote:
Originally posted by yhabpo:
I thought pianists or musicians in general were more civilized and intelligent than the ordinary folks. My prejudices were wrong. The number of Bush supporters here proves the contrary.[/b]
Oh yeah, that's a great way to solidify your argument! Insult the intelligence of the good people of this forum. The people who helped reelect GW are way more civilized and intelligent then the likes of you who would just assume appease the do nothing people of the world while forsaking the security of this nation.

Just because you have a different opinion about the world than the majority of the people in this country proves nothing. You have only proven that you are as stupid, if not more than you say others are just for holding their beliefs. You prove how lacking in intelligence you are by admitting that you are prejudiced. To assume anything about a group of people just because they do or enjoy a specific activity can only be described as stupidity.

 Quote:
Originally posted by yhabpo:
My words are backed by world opinion. By mob rule, the system that Americans cherish, what I speak is the truth.[/b]
What you speak is garbage. Your words are backed by nothing than your need to vent your anger because your guy lost and lost big time. Oh wait! I see that he is not your guy because of your statement below. Do tell us, what would have been your preference? I know, I know, "Anyone by Bush!" right? Well it's exactly that attitude that got him re-elected in the first place.

 Quote:
Originally posted by yhabpo:
Please note that I am not a Democrat or a liberal. Both political parties of America are equally worthless. [/b]
Then what exactly are you besides ignorant of the world?
Posted by: NAK

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 09:22 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by yhabpo:
Please note that I am......worthless.[/b]
ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Posted by: yhabpo

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 09:40 PM

 Quote:
...then the likes of you who would just assume appease the do nothing people of the world while forsaking the security of this nation..
 Quote:
To assume anything about a group of people just because they do or enjoy a specific activity can only be described as stupidity.
I made a fair assumption regarding the worth of people who suppport murder. Republicans seem to hold in low esteem the people under the manufactured label of "terrorists". Why can't the politically aware Republicans reason that they are the same type of people as the "terrorists"? Please note the use of the term "politically aware Republicans". I didn't want to include the simple-minded or ignorant people that might not have such bad intentions.

As time passes, markjpcs' discourse will be held in the same regard as the people of today regard the Nazi party's literature.
Posted by: Requiem Aeternam

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 09:44 PM

I suppose I will help my poor embattled friend out a little bit.

 Quote:
Insulting over fifty million people all at once does nothing for your credibility. In fact one might be lead to believe that you are dumb, ignorant and intellectually inferior to all of them....The people who helped reelect GW are way more civilized and intelligent then the likes of you...You have only proven that you are as stupid, if not more than you say others are just for holding their beliefs. You prove how lacking in intelligence you are by admitting that you are prejudiced. To assume anything about a group of people just because they do or enjoy a specific activity can only be described as stupidity....What you speak is garbage.
You claim insulting people does little to ones credibility yet you have called him dumb(1), ignorant(1), intellectually inferior(1), stupid(2), and referred to his statements as garbage(1).

At this point, one might infer that insulting people in such childish manners not only "does little to ones credibility," but also makes one look immature and child-like.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out two more asinine statements:

 Quote:
Just because you have a different opinion about the world than the majority of the people in this country proves nothing.
Last time I checked, 50 million people was not a "majority" of 300 million, fix your abacus and try again, pal.

 Quote:
What you speak is garbage. Your words are backed by nothing than your need to vent your anger because your guy lost and lost big time.
Lost big time? Last time I checked he lost by about 200,000 votes in Ohio, or by 22 electorals. I don't know how many elections you've seen but that's actually pretty damn close.
Posted by: yhabpo

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 09:46 PM

Requiem Aeternam: I must warn you that my views are more extreme than they seem.
Posted by: Requiem Aeternam

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 09:51 PM

Yhabpo: I must warn you mine are probably more extreme than yours, but for obvious reasons this is not the proper venue to even begin expressing them, as too many constricted alarmists populate these realms.
Posted by: markjpcs

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 09:52 PM

You made no such thing resembling a "fair assumption". You made bigoted remarks in relation to an entire group of people based on the fact that they play the piano! How idiotic can you be?

Support murder? You actually believe that the people who voted for Bush support murder? You are equating Republicans with the terrorists that attacked this country on 9/11/2001? You are equating the thought process of logical, caring, thinking people who defend[/b] their freedom by pursuing those who would do them harm with the Nazis? The same Nazis that tried to take over the world and commit genocide because of race, physical/mental attributes and religious beliefs? The same Nazis that we helped defeat?

You are an idiot.
Posted by: markjpcs

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 10:02 PM

Sour grapes RA?

Admitting that you are extreme in your beliefs just nullifies anything you have to say.

Extremists are blind to facts. Extremists ignore reality.

Have fun in your extreme world. I choose to live in the real world.
Posted by: Requiem Aeternam

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 10:09 PM

Um, Mark, I"m not sure which news stations you've been tuning in to (FOX perhaps?), but anyone who supports Bush, or has been supporting him from the onset IS SUPPORTING MURDER. We are in Iraq murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Why? Can you answer me that one simple question? Where are the weapons of mass destruction, where is Osama bin Laden, is he in Iraq too? When the councils have admitted that Bin Laden's ties to Iraq and Hussein are extremely tenuous at best and most probably non existent.

We're not only supporting murder of the Iraqi's though, but also the murder of our own troops, who are dying daily as Bush and his corrupt evil empire sit smugly waiting for the results of this farcical hoax of an election.

Why haven't any of the questions concerning 911 been answered, why is there a monumental coverup in progress, why is all flight data kept in secrecy, why have grieving victims' families been forcefully rebuffed and denied payments, why has unemployment, living costs, gasoline, job outsourcing skyrocketed to unheard of levels, why does the world hate America, why are we allowing Israel to build nuclear weapons and new Nuclear Submarines and then threatening to exterminate Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and North Korea for the same infringements, why is every other country realizing their errors and pulling out of Iraq while our troops are being slaughtered like cattle, why is Cheney and Halliburton making billions off Iraq, why is the middle class getting poorer and the corporate supporters of this Nazi-like regime filing their coffers with riches, why did Bush's grandfather financially supported the Nazi's in the 1930's, helping their rise to power, why is Afghanistan quickly falling into instability, with more and more American troops dying weekly, why did Bush have an Iraqi invasion on the drawing boards long before 911 as stated by many top white house staff employees, can you answer a single one of these questions about this imperial totalitarian regime intent on conquering the entire world for its own personal and corporate aggrandizement, I suppose you can't.

And before you rail against that I should go back to my own country, or whatever other drivel, I'll have you know I live in NY and was there during September 11, 2001, my sister was mere blocks from ground zero, and I was in Manhattan in the aftermath volunteering. So let's not question anyone's patriotism or love for one's country and people, as opposed to one's corrupt, evil, tyrannical government.
Posted by: Requiem Aeternam

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 10:12 PM

Markjpc, don't confuse yourself with sophmoric semantics. By saying I have extreme views does not make me an 'extremist' or whatever ridiculous 'tag' you can come up with to subsume me into your disordered system of il-logic. If it makes it easier for you to digest what I have to say, then fine, but you are only blinding yourself to the truth, and with that, I hope you enjoy your life in a self cast delusional world.
Posted by: yhabpo

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 10:12 PM

 Quote:
You actually believe that the people who voted for Bush support murder?
No matter how powerful a pen, it cannot legalize the murder of a human by its dispensation of ink. Supporting a country in an aggressive war is supporting murder.

 Quote:
You are equating Republicans with the terrorists that attacked this country on 9/11/2001?
The party did everything to benefit from the incident. You did get your "four more years," didn't you?

 Quote:
You are equating the thought process of logical, caring, thinking people who defend their freedom by pursuing those who would do them harm with the Nazis?
Their one-sided justifications parallels the thought process of Nazis.
Posted by: Requiem Aeternam

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 10:26 PM

Posted by: Requiem Aeternam

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 10:27 PM

Enjoy your four more years Mark and co.
Posted by: David Burton

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 10:36 PM

Well, sort of looks like this thread has burned itself out.
Posted by: markjpcs

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 10:38 PM

it's not even worth arguing with people who think like you two. You are of the ilk of conspiracy theorists whose assumptions about what is happening in this world are not based in anything resembling reality.

I hope you enjoy living in the hellish, anger based existence you have chosen for yourselves.

Have a nice life.
Posted by: Requiem Aeternam

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 10:49 PM

I see you're quite keen on labeling others. I guess it helps small minds to organize themselves with the use of effective 'labels,' that misrepresent reality. You seem quite an uneducated individual, I feel bad for you, as if you've ever received an education you would have learned what a dangerous game such labeling becomes. Life is dynamic, people and events are complicated and cannot be understood by simple minded blanket statements akin to those you make. From another thread:

 Quote:
Typical liberal clap trap of untruths and exaggerations.

So sorry your apologist, left wing socialist candidate lost. NOT!

Liberals, left wing socialists, apologists, conspiracy theorists, alarmists, it is sad how you are unable to comprehend a single dynamic concept and must use these easy-reference tags to subsume ideas into disorder. You should try actually thinking for once instead of repeating what you've been taught and brainwashed.

Quite humorous to me how your inept mind works. You've further catalogued both me and Yhabo, into a distinct category, calling us conspiracy theorists living an existence not based in reality, when it was in fact me, not him, who related a few pieces of factual information, often misinterpreted as 'conspiracy theory.' But once again your disordered and childlike mind, incapable of processing any thought patterns beyond cliche'd labels and taglines that you heard your favorite pundit mutter on TV, somehow managed to categorize two completely separate ideas into one.

You are a disheveled mess, it's not worth even arguing with inept minds such as yours.
Posted by: signa

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 10:55 PM

i wouldn't say that explicitly myself, but nevertheless i agree with Requiem Aeternam on the issue of iraq war. some people tend to forget or simply dismiss the number of killed US soldiers not to mention the far more number of iraqees killed there. do we (or just you) really care about that? so, when you rejoice with bush victory, simply take a minute to think about those who died in iraq or even those victims of 911 and reflect little bit more on what bush lead you to...
Posted by: Requiem Aeternam

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 11:09 PM

Actually, I was just going to go to bed, but I figured since you're such an easy victim to assail, since you lack any sort of mental acumen, I'll kick you while you're down, or beat a dead horse if that's easier for you to understand, since you're down for the count, bleeding profusely on the canvas of ignorance.

You claim I live in delusion and have "labeled" me a conspiracy theorist.

I challenge you to refute a SINGLE STATEMENT of mine. Allow me to post it to you again.

 Quote:
We are in Iraq murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Why? Can you answer me that one simple question? Where are the weapons of mass destruction, where is Osama bin Laden, is he in Iraq too? When the councils have admitted that Bin Laden's ties to Iraq and Hussein are extremely tenuous at best and most probably non existent.
Strange it seems to me, as even the mainstream media has already long caught on to the FACTS of this war. Namely, that there are no weapons of mass destruction and that Bin Laden has no ties to Iraq or Hussein. So, Markpcs, enlighten me, or at least throw a few more vacuous labels at me for fun, why are we in Iraq Mark? Why are we killing hundreds of thousands of children and civilians, Mark? Why are thousands of AMERICAN SOLDIERS maimed and decollated, Mark? Why are thousand+ more dead, Mark? Can you answer me any of these questions? Have we a right to be there? Our pretense was weapons of mass destruction, Mark, you know the same ones that Israel, North Korea, China, India, and Pakistan have. But why are we attacking Iraq and not them, Mark? Does it have anything to do with the fact that none of the other aforementioned countries sit atop an oil field the size of Wisconsin? Or perhaps because Iraq, with its obsolete, demoralized, and easily bribed armed forces, is the easiest foe to move in on, trample, and vanquish for the sake of financial prosperity, riches, and middle east IMPERIALISM.

Are you a religious man, Mark? Mr. Bush claims to be. In fact he claims to be a devout Christian. Mark, now I gotta ask ya for a favor, buddy. You know my memory's been going lately and I just am wondering if you can help an old pal out. Can you help me find that passage in the Bible that tells us Christians to invade, pillage, pilfer, sack, kill, maraud, shock and awe, rape, humiliate, demoralize, a country for its oil. Oh, and if you can't find that one, can you please try to look for that one that allows us to pillage a country's resources and people even after our initial pretense of invasion has been debunked as a fraud, or at least a gross miscalculation? Thanks, buddy, I knew I could count on you. Let me know when you find them.
Posted by: markjpcs

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 11:36 PM

I do not need to justify anything to you.

You are against the war. Wow! What a revelation! War is bad! War is hell. People die! Horror!

I am all for preemptive attacks to secure this nation. I do not care what you think, feel or demand. As long as certain nations of the middle east or any nation or warlord, or leader of any kind continue to breed their people to hate and attack us we must be on the offensive. If that takes till the end of time, so be it.

It has nothing to do with imperialism.

 Quote:
Requiem Aeternam spewed pillage, pilfer, sack, kill, maraud, shock and awe, rape, humiliate, demoralize, a country for its oil. [/b]
Yeah. Ok. I see where you are now. You are obviously so biased in this matter that you fail to see the reality of what the proud men and women of our military are actually doing over there.

You admit your memory has been going so I would suggest you try to do something about that. Maybe you could try to read something other than the left wing propaganda to which you seem to be indulging.

Religion has nothing to do with this.
Posted by: NAK

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 11:41 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Requiem Aeternam:
I challenge you to refute a SINGLE STATEMENT of mine. Allow me to post it to you again.

 Quote:
We are in Iraq murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Why? Can you answer me that one simple question? Where are the weapons of mass destruction, where is Osama bin Laden, is he in Iraq too? When the councils have admitted that Bin Laden's ties to Iraq and Hussein are extremely tenuous at best and most probably non existent.
[/b]
Actually, you asked 3 questions there.

Anyway, you really need to settle down about this. You scream about the threats that Osama made to bomb the U.S. should Bush get re-elected, when really it just shows how desperate he is to get him out of office. Could this be because he knows he will have a harder time with Bush than with Kerry? Who's to say he wouldn't attack even if Kerry was elected? Are you going to trust a terrorist? Are you a terrorist?

Well, I'll let you go to bed now. Don't forget your rubber sheets.
Posted by: David Burton

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 11:43 PM

Mark, you are dealing with loonys!
Posted by: markjpcs

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 11:49 PM

I know David.

It's fun to see them get all worked up though! \:D
Posted by: markjpcs

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/03/04 11:50 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Requiem Aeternam:
Enjoy your four more years Mark and co. [/b]
Thank you RA! We will.
Posted by: Apathy's Last Kiss

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 03:27 AM

 Quote:
Um, Mark, I"m not sure which news stations you've been tuning in to (FOX perhaps?), but anyone who supports Bush, or has been supporting him from the onset IS SUPPORTING MURDER. We are in Iraq murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
Going by your logic, anyone who supported the Allies in WW2 was supporting murder seeing how the millions of German civilians were killed.

Liberals like you always have to take everything to the extreme, which is where you lose all credibility.
Posted by: Tom--K

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 03:54 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Requiem Aeternam:
Actually, I was just going to go to bed, but I figured since you're such an easy victim to assail, since you lack any sort of mental acumen, I'll kick you while you're down, or beat a dead horse if that's easier for you to understand, since you're down for the count, bleeding profusely on the canvas of ignorance.

You claim I live in delusion and have "labeled" me a conspiracy theorist.

I challenge you to refute a SINGLE STATEMENT of mine. Allow me to post it to you again.

[QUOTE]
Are you a religious man, Mark? Mr. Bush claims to be. In fact he claims to be a devout Christian. Mark, now I gotta ask ya for a favor, buddy. You know my memory's been going lately and I just am wondering if you can help an old pal out. Can you help me find that passage in the Bible that tells us Christians to invade, pillage, pilfer, sack, kill, maraud, shock and awe, rape, humiliate, demoralize, a country for its oil. Oh, and if you can't find that one, can you please try to look for that one that allows us to pillage a country's resources and people even after our initial pretense of invasion has been debunked as a fraud, or at least a gross miscalculation? Thanks, buddy, I knew I could count on you. Let me know when you find them. [/b]
Man RA--you gotta buy yourself a Bible and read it! People are getting slaughtered in it all over the place. \:D \:D \:D
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 04:27 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Requiem Aeternam:
[QB] I challenge you to refute a SINGLE STATEMENT of mine. Allow me to post it to you again.

[QUOTE]We are in Iraq murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Why? Can you answer me that one simple question? Where are the weapons of mass destruction, where is Osama bin Laden, is he in Iraq too? When the councils have admitted that Bin Laden's ties to Iraq and Hussein are extremely tenuous at best and most probably non existent.
1) The term "murdering" implies intent. If you are implying that our troops are intentionally killing innocent Iraqis then your ignorance is only exceeded by your calumny.

2) What "councils" have admitted that bin Laden's ties to Saddam Hussein were "tenuous at best" and just what degree of non-tenuousness is required before we begin to worry about them. Listening to you one would have to conclude that you believe there was no conceivable chance that Saddam's WMD capabilities and financial resources would ever find themselves in the hands of Al Qaeda and yet there have been numerous documented encounters beteen the two. How many undocumented encounters might we suppose or even assume that there have been.
Posted by: sarah_blueparrot

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 05:36 AM

This is the second most ridiculous thread I've read, containing two of the rudest and narrow-minded people I've met in a while.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 06:00 AM

yahpaapapabo,

I bet you if someone had kidnapped you and your family, holding them hostage in your basement, and you watch as the attacker kills your brother because he spoke up....and you and your family are sitting there helpless in the basement, and I come in and kill the attacker, thus making you and your family free....afterwards you would get mad at me and call me a murderer?

THAT is why you are a moron.
Posted by: Larry

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 06:19 AM

THAT is why you are a moron.[/b]


I must disagree. That is *proof* he is a moron. *Why* he is a moron runs much, much deeper.
Posted by: Phlebas

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 06:19 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by yhabpo:
My prejudices were wrong. [/b]
Most true and revealing statement in your post.

So. Where the hell are you from, anyway?
Posted by: Larry

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 06:22 AM

Where the hell are you from, anyway?[/b]

You do realize that you answered your own question within your question, don't you?......

;\)
Posted by: sarah_blueparrot

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 06:27 AM

\:D
Posted by: Renauda

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 06:34 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Phlebas:

So. Where the hell are you from, anyway? [/b]
"You", I am embarrassed to say, is probably a Canadian. Indeed, "you" made reference in the "Canadian Friend" thread to a poltical party which only Canadians, or people on the Canada Desk in the State Dept. would be aware. I very much doubt the latter.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 06:36 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Larry:
Where the hell are you from, anyway?[/b]

You do realize that you answered your own question within your question, don't you?......

;\) [/b]
Larry is the man. \:D
Posted by: PattyP

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 08:56 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by gryphon:
[/b]
:D \:D \:D
Posted by: iainhp

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 09:37 AM

 Quote:
Can you help me find that passage in the Bible that tells us Christians to invade, pillage, pilfer, sack, kill, maraud, shock and awe, rape, humiliate, demoralize, a country for its oil.
I'm confused - are you saying that the Bible says this is ok as long as it's not for oil; or are you saying the rules of engagement as defined in the bible are different if it's not for oil?
Posted by: apple*

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 11:07 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by iainhp:
I'm confused - are you saying that the Bible says this is ok as long as it's not for oil; or are you saying the rules of engagement as defined in the bible are different if it's not for oil? [/b]
It's not for oil..... really
Posted by: markjpcs

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 11:22 AM

exactly apple.

The wackos have got this all wrong. They hate Bush and that's all they know so they will try to get anyone to listen to their lies and call those who do not listen stupid. Something RA is very good at by the way.
Posted by: apple*

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 11:45 AM

All the national political ads skipped Kansas except for on election eve we were treated to a spooky (complete with ghost music) analysis of the Bush / Saudi relationship.. It put our resident dems to shame it was so leftbank.
Posted by: Penny

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 12:20 PM

Too bad it's not for oil. I WANT MY CHEAP GAS!!!

penny
(kidding, of course -- written for those of you without a sense of humor)
Posted by: Freedom

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 02:22 PM

apple , you are so right. In fact when I was talking about the election to people at school and I said I wanted Bush to win they always used that "War for oil" complaint against him, saying that he is evil etc. :rolleyes:
Posted by: Ben D.

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 06:05 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
yahpaapapabo,
...
THAT is why you are a moron. [/b]
I'm staying out of this thread, but I must say that if the pot calling the kettle black. Or, in this case, the black pot calling the blue kettle black.
Posted by: reblder

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 08:17 PM

Posted by JBryan:
 Quote:
Listening to you one would have to conclude that you believe there was no conceivable chance that Saddam's WMD capabilities and financial resources would ever find themselves in the hands of Al Qaeda and yet there have been numerous documented encounters beteen the two.[/b]
Jeesh, are you still parroting that thoroughly debunked nonsense perpetrated by none other than Dick Cheney?

You guys(and maybe gals too)just can't seem to let go of this, can you?
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 08:31 PM

Actually, no. I was using the good old common sense that the Lord provided me and seems to have, somehow, withheld from you.
Posted by: AKindWord

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 09:05 PM

Aw the heck with it. I'll just let the next 4 years speak for themselves.

AKindWord
Posted by: zartist

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 09:07 PM

The lord, whoever she is, seems to have missed JBryan when she was handing out the common
sense
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 09:09 PM

Not, "point proven again"?

Perhaps the next four years will pull the wind out of your reductio.
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 09:12 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by dogboy:
The lord, whoever she is, seems to have missed JBryan when she was handing out the common
sense [/b]
Once again, "dogboy", brilliant riposte. :rolleyes:
Posted by: David Burton

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 09:33 PM

This is another sandbox full of turds to be thrown. JBryan, apple, TomK, Larry, etc. You don't need this.
Posted by: reblder

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 10:11 PM

Proclaimed from the mountain top by JBryan(carrying the ten Commandments no less!):
 Quote:
Actually, no. I was using the good old common sense that the Lord provided me and seems to have, somehow, withheld from you[/b]
Sorry to again burst your ol' bubble JB, but this sort of "common sense" is tantamount to patent nonsense. Are you "appealing to a higher authority"(seems I've heard THAT somewhere) then to fabricate this Al Queda/Sadaam connection?

It's OK if you must, Ol' Dick Cheney for one would approve wholeheartedly even if the less "common sensical" among us here don't for one moment!
Posted by: Requiem Aeternam

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 10:47 PM

Well here we go ladies and gents, the moment you all have surely been waiting for. I am back from work, refreshed, revitalized, and re-ady to refute, rebuke, and rebut all of the re-tarded and nonsensical refuse of the self proclaimed right wing neocons of these here forums, led by the anti-popes of ignorance marksjpcs and jbryan.

First I'd like to make mention for the record that I am not a liberal, nor am I affiliated with any political party, movement, ideology or what have you. In fact, I don't even know what a liberal is for that matter, nor do I care to know, so save your political spew for someone else.

Now onto the fun part, refuting the vast amount of childishness that has accrued in my absence. Oh where lordy shall we start?

Let's start with the most asinine and ignorant of all comments:
 Quote:
Going by your logic, anyone who supported the Allies in WW2 was supporting murder seeing how the millions of German civilians were killed.[/b]
Actually, you just lost all of your credibility, dolt. You obviously have absolutely no historical knowledge, nor any concerning the present Iraq "war." Because if you did, you would realize that in World War II, we had a reason to be there. The Nazi's were slaughtering millions of Jews, they were stampeding through Poland and France, whom we pledged to defend, and threatening an invasion of Britain. Similarly, Iraq has been stockpiling large numbers of WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION! Oops! Wait a second, wasn't that just an excuse Cheney used to fill his and Halliburton's bank account. Doh! Iraq doesn't have any W.M.D. That means our entire premise for being in Iraq in the first place, and slaughtering countless civilians and American soldiers, is bogus! Wow.. incredible, nice analogy, imbecile.

Next:
 Quote:
1) The term "murdering" implies intent. If you are implying that our troops are intentionally killing innocent Iraqis then your ignorance is only exceeded by your calumny.[/b]
I suppose our troops humiliating, raping, urinating on, sexually abusing/molesting/sodomizing, POW's (against the Geneva Convention) then taking pictures of them, trading them, and putting them on the internet is quite by accident too?

 Quote:
2) What "councils" have admitted that bin Laden's ties to Saddam Hussein were "tenuous at best" and just what degree of non-tenuousness is required before we begin to worry about them. Listening to you one would have to conclude that you believe there was no conceivable chance that Saddam's WMD capabilities and financial resources would ever find themselves in the hands of Al Qaeda and yet there have been numerous documented encounters beteen the two. How many undocumented encounters might we suppose or even assume that there have been.[/b]
The Senates Commission that investigated the charges you dolt, have you never picked up a newspaper in your life? Or is FOX simply your only news source? LOL.

What degree of "non-tenuousness" is required for us to do something about it? How about this degree: A SINGLE IOTA OF A SHRED OF VERIFIABLE PROOF DUMMY!
If you'll recall, the only proof they had turned out to be a hoax, leaving a stunned CIA shaking their heads in puzzlement.

You guys are really making this all too easy for me really, try using intelligence in your next rebuttals.

 Quote:
I bet you if someone had kidnapped you and your family, holding them hostage in your basement, and you watch as the attacker kills your brother because he spoke up....and you and your family are sitting there helpless in the basement, and I come in and kill the attacker, thus making you and your family free....afterwards you would get mad at me and call me a murderer?[/b]
Some things in life are so unintelligibly stupid that they don't warrant a response. LOL.
Posted by: .rvaga*

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 11:17 PM

RA,

How many military bases do we now have in the middle east / central asia (compared to pre-911), and why do you suppose they are there?
Posted by: Requiem Aeternam

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 11:42 PM

Please elaborate on your question friend.
Posted by: Larry

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/04/04 11:56 PM

You guys are really making this all too easy for me really, try using intelligence in your next rebuttals.[/b]

You seem to be of the opinion that you're using intelligence yourself. Let me give you a clue, ******* - you're not. So drop the hot dog schtick, Dirge, you aren't up to the job.
Posted by: sarah_blueparrot

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 03:54 AM

 Quote:
..self proclaimed right wing neocons of these here forums, led by the anti-popes of ignorance marksjpcs and jbryan..

..so save your political spew for someone else..

..Now onto the fun part, refuting the vast amount of childishness that has accrued in my absence. Oh where lordy shall we start?..
 Quote:
..Let's start with the most asinine and ignorant of all comments:
 Quote:
Going by your logic, anyone who supported the Allies in WW2 was supporting murder seeing how the millions of German civilians were killed.[/b]
I think the point that was being made here, which you seem to have missed altogether, RA, was that there were ALSO German civilians killed by the Allies' hands, as well as the millions of Jews that were killed. The Allies were also murderers by your standard. Read posts more carefully.

 Quote:
..Actually, you just lost all of your credibility, dolt. You obviously have absolutely no historical knowledge, nor any concerning the present Iraq "war." ..
 Quote:
..Doh!..
 Quote:
..imbecile...
Next:
 Quote:
your ignorance is only exceeded by your calumny.[/b]
 Quote:

You guys are really making this all too easy for me really, try using intelligence in your next rebuttals.
 Quote:
Some things in life are so unintelligibly stupid that they don't warrant a response. LOL

..the vast amount of childishness..

And you don't perceive all this name-calling as childish in the slightest then? You don't see your insults, which have apparently come out of the blue, for no reason other than that these people happen to hold a different opinion from yours, as unreasonable, narrow-minded, and downright rude? Obviously not.
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 05:11 AM

Eternal Mass of Death (If I may, latin is just so "highbrow" for one of my meager intellect),

Obviously, you believe that insults and irrelevencies are a substitute for an argument. You made a very specific reference to our troops murdering innocent Iraqis, presumably, under the auspices of our government and in a systematic manner. I pointed out that, to my knowledge, no innocent Iraqis were being deliberately killed to which you replied:

 Quote:
I suppose our troops humiliating, raping, urinating on, sexually abusing/molesting/sodomizing, POW's (against the Geneva Convention) then taking pictures of them, trading them, and putting them on the internet is quite by accident too? [/b]
Obviously this is not responsive to the original point. I would join with you in condemning these despicable acts but none of them constitute "murder" nor were they systematic or condoned by anyone in our government. This occurence was an aberration of a type that, unfortunately, occurs in any war and should, of course, be dealt with severely. However, if your inference is that we suspend a major military operation whenever such an event occurs then I can only say that I am relieved that such shallow reasoning has failed to gain ascendency in our policy making apparatus.

Next, you said that links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin laden were tenuous at best to which I replied that, tenuous or not, any connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda should be a matter of grave concern to us, even to the point of (as I said, in my view) taking steps to bring about the forceful dissolution of such a connection. I requote my original statement since your response makes little enough sense in context and no sense at all without it:

 Quote:
2) What "councils" have admitted that bin Laden's ties to Saddam Hussein were "tenuous at best" and just what degree of non-tenuousness is required before we begin to worry about them. Listening to you one would have to conclude that you believe there was no conceivable chance that Saddam's WMD capabilities and financial resources would ever find themselves in the hands of Al Qaeda and yet there have been numerous documented encounters beteen the two. How many undocumented encounters might we suppose or even assume that there have been.[/b]
To which you replied:

 Quote:
The Senates Commission that investigated the charges you dolt, have you never picked up a newspaper in your life? Or is FOX simply your only news source? LOL.

What degree of "non-tenuousness" is required for us to do something about it? How about this degree: A SINGLE IOTA OF A SHRED OF VERIFIABLE PROOF DUMMY!
If you'll recall, the only proof they had turned out to be a hoax, leaving a stunned CIA shaking their heads in puzzlement.

You guys are really making this all too easy for me really, try using intelligence in your next rebuttals.[/b]
In the first place, I am unaware of any Senates Commission (sic) that came to the finding that there were no links whatsoever between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda nor am I aware of any "hoax" perpetrated on the CIA in that regard. Perhaps you would like to expand on that point.

In the second place, your statement now that there was not "A SINGLE IOTA OF A SHRED OF VERIFIABLE PROOF DUMMY!" seems to contradict your original contention that the connections were tenuous at best. Which is it? I was willing to concede that such links were tenuous (although I believe there is evidence to support them being far more than tenuous) but was making the point that we should not even countenance "tenuous" connections between two such parties.

Obviously, in light of your rather feeble rebuttals, I find your calling me "dolt" and "dummy" to be quite amusing and even a bit ironic.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 05:36 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Ben D.:
 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
yahpaapapabo,
...
THAT is why you are a moron. [/b]
I'm staying out of this thread, but I must say that if the pot calling the kettle black. Or, in this case, the black pot calling the blue kettle black. [/b]
Ah yes, another informative post by our friend Ben.

Seriously, where DO you get all those facts? I mean, I try and post facts, and sometimes I post opinion, but WOW!!!!

You are just bubbling over with facts and evidence....seriously, you should be a lawyer.

Because you know, lawyers use facts to support their argument, and with all those facts and examples that you displayed, you'd win every case.

Are you giving a seminar soon on how to support your arguments, because when you said that cute lil 'pot calling blue kettle, etc.' line, I said to myself, "WOW! this guy not only says what he thinks, but he shows why he thinks it and then supports it with an overwhelming amount of evidence."
Posted by: apple*

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 06:04 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Requiem Aeternam:
Some things in life are so unintelligibly stupid that they don't warrant a response. LOL. [/b]
Couldn't have said it better
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 06:11 AM

Im still waiting for a response from yhapabo, my scenario exactly mirrors that of what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At least let me know if you dont have an answer for it...then we can let the question die (pun intended). \:\)
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 09:01 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by yhabpo:
The dumb, the greedy, and the ignorant has elected their intellectual superior, Bush, for another term! Terrorists can operate freely without retaliation for another four years, as Bush will wage misdirected wars for his own personal and corporate interests. Enemies can watch America's economy plummet: no terrorist action can alone cause such disintegration of the economy.

I thought pianists or musicians in general were more civilized and intelligent than the ordinary folks. My prejudices were wrong. The number of Bush supporters here proves the contrary.

My words are backed by world opinion. By mob rule, the system that Americans cherish, what I speak is the truth.

Please note that I am not a Democrat or a liberal. Both political parties of America are equally worthless. [/b]
For someone who would rather have not seen GWB back in the office as president I must say that this is probably one of the worst posts I have ever read (free interpretation of Brendan's world famous quote)...

I might not agree with GWB's approach to terrorism, but saying that terrorists can operate freely without retaliation for another four years? Don't think so...
You seem to see the world in black and white :
Bush >>> disaster
Kerry >>> miracle

I think it's a little more nuanced than that...

Get a grip.

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th key:
Im still waiting for a response from yhapabo,...[/b]
And I'm still waiting for a response from you in the thread you "abandoned" the day before yesterday :rolleyes:
You demand a lot but give little in return.
Posted by: NAK

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 09:32 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Requiem Aeternam:
I suppose our troops humiliating, raping, urinating on, sexually abusing/molesting/sodomizing, POW's (against the Geneva Convention) then taking pictures of them, trading them, and putting them on the internet is quite by accident too? [/b]
I suppose you never saw the video of Armstrong being beheaded.
Posted by: justme

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 09:49 AM

Admittedly, this thread is way above my intelligence level and I could only get through page 1.

But, I'm wondering where Requiem and yhabpopopo are from. Does anyone know?
Posted by: apple*

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 10:03 AM

the left side of somewhere
Posted by: justme

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 10:16 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by apple*:
the left side of somewhere [/b]
:D
Posted by: Renauda

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 10:41 AM

I figured where yhapaho is from the other evening:

http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/10/6711/2.html

Hasn't denied it either.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 11:35 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Nunatax:
 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th key:
Im still waiting for a response from yhapabo,...[/b]
And I'm still waiting for a response from you in the thread you "abandoned" the day before yesterday :rolleyes:
You demand a lot but give little in return. [/b]
If you are talking about the gay thread, read my last post in it.
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 02:00 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
 Quote:
Originally posted by Nunatax:
 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th key:
Im still waiting for a response from yhapabo,...[/b]
And I'm still waiting for a response from you in the thread you "abandoned" the day before yesterday :rolleyes:
You demand a lot but give little in return. [/b]
If you are talking about the gay thread, read my last post in it. [/b]
Oh I have read your last post there, 89th key, the post in which you so conveniently declared that you were "tired of the subject".
I think that's pretty rude and selfish because maybe there were people there who weren't finished talking to you. I wonder what response you would give if someone else walked away like that. You'd probably be whining that they were out of facts and that you had yet again won the argument :rolleyes:
Now be a man and go read my response, I think that would be more than fair.
Posted by: justme

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 02:04 PM

89th, you did ask for it! ;\) You gotta answer. If not Nunatax wins by default!
Posted by: Tom--K

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 02:30 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by justme:
89th, you did ask for it! ;\) You gotta answer. If not Nunatax wins by default! [/b]
Yea 89th, get in there and slap that Mr. Benelux (Excuse me if I have limited file capacity for in my memory banks for exactly which European country is which,) around.

I would do it for you, but pique would further damn me for impeding the Liberal disfigurement of the young. \:\( \:D
Posted by: Jeffrey

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 02:53 PM

RA: " when the purportedly most feared and dangerous terrorist on the face of the earth (Bin Laden), has just clearly and unequivocally stated in a speech that if Bush wins re-election he will bomb the U.S. Way to go guys! ;-)"

I just joined this thread. UBL will try to kill all non-muslims whenever he gets the chance. Why do you assume that UBL is telling the truth to people he thinks it meritorious to kill for the sake of Allah? If non-muslims can be killed, surely they can be lied to. I don't know what kind of weenie country you are from, but you better wake up soon, or you will be next.
Posted by: Jeffrey

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 02:55 PM

ywhatever - "manufactured label of "terrorists".

I live in NYC. There is nothing manufactured about it. Your rantings will be looked at by history the same as Neville Chamberlain's.
Posted by: Jeffrey

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 02:59 PM

RA - "we allowing Israel to build nuclear weapons"

We do not "allow" Israel to do anything at all. It is an independent country with world class scientists who can create any nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon they want.
Posted by: Ben D.

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 04:19 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
 Quote:
Originally posted by Ben D.:
 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
yahpaapapabo,
...
THAT is why you are a moron. [/b]
I'm staying out of this thread, but I must say that if the pot calling the kettle black. Or, in this case, the black pot calling the blue kettle black. [/b]
Ah yes, another informative post by our friend Ben.

Seriously, where DO you get all those facts? I mean, I try and post facts, and sometimes I post opinion, but WOW!!!!

You are just bubbling over with facts and evidence....seriously, you should be a lawyer.

Because you know, lawyers use facts to support their argument, and with all those facts and examples that you displayed, you'd win every case.

Are you giving a seminar soon on how to support your arguments, because when you said that cute lil 'pot calling blue kettle, etc.' line, I said to myself, "WOW! this guy not only says what he thinks, but he shows why he thinks it and then supports it with an overwhelming amount of evidence." [/b]
Sorry, but I couldn't help it. It was too easy. You tried to respond to my post with sarcasm, but it didn't work because it wasn't funny or insulting. You basically said my post was stupid because it was opinion. So was the post of yours that I quoted. Silly winger... next time you get pwned don't reply to it \:\( .
Posted by: yhabpo

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 04:29 PM

 Quote:
I bet you if someone had kidnapped you and your family, holding them hostage in your basement, and you watch as the attacker kills your brother because he spoke up....and you and your family are sitting there helpless in the basement, and I come in and kill the attacker, thus making you and your family free....afterwards you would get mad at me and call me a murderer?
If we are going to argue silly hypothetical situations, I suggest we contemplate a more relevant question:
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/Tissues.htm
Please reply with an answer to the question and the alternative question because discussing imaginary, obtuse, and silly situations is a great discourse. But, I will grant you an answer: yes, you will be a murderer.

The surprising fact about Republicans is that while the individual may be considered scholarly in an academic field, the Republican cannot logically deduce that they have the same mindset as terrorists: the philosophy of violent retaliation. The most disgusting characteristic of these fanatics, a characteristic that places them far below terrorists on the morality scale, is the imperialistic desires and personal greed that influence their politics. While terrorists may commit acts of violence in protest to injustice, for example US funding of the Israeli occupation, Republicans wage war, not just in retaliation of the World Trade Centre, but for corporate and religious interests. The Iraq war was not retribution for the annihilation of the skyscrapers, but purely an imperialistic conquest initiated by fanatics, funded by the greedy scum, and supported by the ignorant.

The narrow-minded nature of the Conservatives inhibits them from seeing consequences of their political agenda. The very nature of conservative politics will guarantee that while the world progresses toward liberalism, conservatives will only retard the inevitable. The future generations will regard present day Republicans with the same scorn as present day people regard the slave owners of the past. The grandchildren of Republicans will have to endure the pain of seeing their grandparents placed alongside Osama bin Ladin, George W. Bush, and Hitler as the great evils of the previous generation.
Posted by: Penny

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 04:34 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by yhabpo:

The surprising fact about Republicans is that while the individual may be considered scholarly in an academic field, the Republican cannot logically deduce that they have the same mindset as terrorists: the philosophy of violent retaliation. The most disgusting characteristic of these fanatics, a characteristic that places them far below terrorists on the morality scale, is the imperialistic desires and personal greed that influence their politics. While terrorists may commit acts of violence in protest to injustice, for example US funding of the Israeli occupation, Republicans wage war, not just in retaliation of the World Trade Centre, but for corporate and religious interests. The Iraq war was not retribution for the annihilation of the skyscrapers, but purely an imperialistic conquest initiated by fanatics, funded by the greedy scum, and supported by the ignorant.

The narrow-minded nature of the Conservatives inhibits them from seeing consequences of their political agenda. The very nature of conservative politics will guarantee that while the world progresses toward liberalism, conservatives will only retard the inevitable. The future generations will regard present day Republicans with the same scorn as present day people regard the slave owners of the past. The grandchildren of Republicans will have to endure the pain of seeing their grandparents placed alongside Osama bin Ladin, George W. Bush, and Hitler as the great evils of the previous generation. [/b]
Here's some advice: Keep up that tone of superiority and name-calling. I'm sure that's going to work for you and the Democratic Party.

penny
Posted by: apple*

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 04:37 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by yhabpo:


The narrow-minded nature of the Conservatives inhibits them from seeing consequences of their political agenda. The very nature of conservative politics will guarantee that while the world progresses toward liberalism, conservatives will only retard the inevitable. The future generations will regard present day Republicans with the same scorn as present day people regard the slave owners of the past. The grandchildren of Republicans will have to endure the pain of seeing their grandparents placed alongside Osama bin Ladin, George W. Bush, and Hitler as the great evils of the previous generation. [/b]
Where did you learn to think?

The nature of current conservative thought considers the long term consequences of our choices now...

a world free of tyranny and oppression will benefit our country, mankind and individuals. Liberalism versus Conservatism has little to do with the greater scheme of things, and the choices made the administration on the world stage.

A liberal allowance of the freedoms of the terrorists and the groups they represent, would infringe the freedoms of many. The future will oh-so-grateful that George was in office on 9-11 and your children, if you are so lucky to reproduce, will thank him too.

The narrow minded, self serving, aggrandizing interests of the liberal mindset is recognized as just that, and we cannot now, or in our future afford to be so selfish.

Wake up and smell the Coffee Room
Posted by: yhabpo

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 04:37 PM

To Penny:
Here's my advice: please read my other posts.
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 04:38 PM

Here's some advice: Keep up that tone of superiority and name-calling. I'm sure that's going to work for you and the Democratic Party.[/b]

It's done great for them so far. If the "world progresses toward liberalism" any farther the way it has up to now they might manage to get someone elected dog catcher.
Posted by: MLT

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 04:39 PM

To Penny:
Here's my advice: Dont bother reading any other of yhabpo's posts, they are all mediocre.

Kirk
Posted by: apple*

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 04:40 PM

That sure elicited mucho responsos.
Posted by: yhabpo

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 04:46 PM

 Quote:
a world free of tyranny and oppression will benefit our country, mankind and individuals. Liberalism versus Conservatism has little to do with the greater scheme of things, and the choices made the administration on the world stage.

A liberal allowance of the freedoms of the terrorists and the groups they represent, would infringe the freedoms of many. The future will oh-so-grateful that George was in office on 9-11 and your children, if you are so lucky to reproduce, will thank him too.

The narrow minded, self serving, aggrandizing interests of the liberal mindset is recognized as just that, and we cannot now, or in our future afford to be so selfish.
No, my children will not thank you for the American corporate monopoly of essential public services in Iraq. They will not thank me for the puppet democratic governments serving foreign interest over the needs of the people. They will not thank me of the violent behaviour of a nation governed by mob rule of the brainwashed masses.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll continue my "narrow minded, self serving, [and] aggrandizing interests" of funding universal healthcare, welfare, and unemployment insurance.
Posted by: Penny

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 04:58 PM

Oh, be sure to recommend the phrase "brainwashed masses" as part of a slogan for the 2008 campaign.

penny

p.s. to Kirk, I agree! But as another likes to say here: "point still being proven!" ;\)
Posted by: apple*

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 05:07 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by yhabpo:
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll continue my "narrow minded, self serving, [and] aggrandizing interests" of funding universal healthcare, welfare, and unemployment insurance. [/b]
no..... we will fund them or at least earn the money to serve the common good.
Posted by: reblder

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 06:38 PM

Posted by Jeffrey:
 Quote:
I just joined this thread. UBL will try to kill all non-muslims whenever he gets the chance.[/b]
Not entirely true. If you happened to see the videotape of him right before election day, he specifically "exempted" Sweden from those he might wish harm on. And that of course is because Sweden by maintaining its neutralist stance has not positioned itself militarily in the Middle East.
Posted by: apple*

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 06:45 PM

Calling all American Chickens to kneel in subjugation to Ossama \:\)
Posted by: Jeffrey

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 07:28 PM

reb - "Not entirely true. If you happened to see the videotape of him right before election day, he specifically "exempted" Sweden from those he might wish harm on. And that of course is because Sweden by maintaining its neutralist stance has not positioned itself militarily in the Middle East."

You assume that a man willing to murder thousands of innocent people, might not, *gasp*, actually lie to the infidels he considers worthy of death. Who would put such infamy past him? He's a mass murderer and all, but to actually lie in a propaganda video to confuse, split and disorient his enemies? Surely he wouldn't do such a nasty thing. No, I shall assume, with you, that he speaks the truth and nothing but the truth in his videos. His mother taught him morals and he would not lie.

Tell me, reblder, how many actual, full, translated documents of Al Qaida ideology and theory have you actually personally read? I have read quite a lot of them. I can tell you *for a fact* that you are projecting your worldview on Al Qaida.
Posted by: reblder

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 09:02 PM

Posted by Jeffrey:
 Quote:
You assume that a man willing to murder thousands of innocent people, might not, *gasp*, actually lie to the infidels he considers worthy of death. Who would put such infamy past him? He's a mass murderer and all, but to actually lie in a propaganda video to confuse, split and disorient his enemies? Surely he wouldn't do such a nasty thing. No, I shall assume, with you, that he speaks the truth and nothing but the truth in his videos. His mother taught him morals and he would not lie.[/b]
To be honest I'm going by what was said in that video which means you need to ask yourself why Sweden(among other countries)has not been attacked by Al Queda. It didn't join the U.S. nor Israel when Lebanon was attacked in 1982, an action which Bin Laden revealed was the original source for his desire for revenge(the buildings in Beirut which I wasn't even aware of). And I have read from a number of sources that he went ballistic after the U.S. stationed a military base in Saudi Arabia on land he considered sacred to the Muslims.

This means that you cannot automatically assume that everything he's saying is a lie just by virtue of his having committed mass murder.
Posted by: David Burton

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 09:11 PM

Sweden eh?

I wonder if Osama is planning on hanging out (hiding out) in the cold long nights of Sweden this winter? Maybe heís getting some special medical treatment there for his numerous reported medical conditions. Who knows?

This thread sure has been a hoot to read. Some people are trying to act so Peter Jenningsish concerned, while others are just playing around.

Seriously though, a superior attitude (as evinced for the bulk of John Kerryís career), will get you (outside of Massachusetts where apparently they fall for this stuff pretty often), absolutely nothing. So keep it up lefties. Otherwise, the right will be in power here for a very long time.
Posted by: Jack Frost

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 09:25 PM

Are there any lefties on this thread? Where?

jf
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 09:33 PM

Surely you, jf.
Posted by: NAK

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/05/04 10:13 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Ben D.:
 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
 Quote:
Originally posted by Ben D.:
quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
yahpaapapabo,
...
THAT is why you are a moron. [/b]
I'm staying out of this thread, but I must say that if the pot calling the kettle black. Or, in this case, the black pot calling the blue kettle black. [/b]
Ah yes, another informative post by our friend Ben.

Seriously, where DO you get all those facts? I mean, I try and post facts, and sometimes I post opinion, but WOW!!!!

You are just bubbling over with facts and evidence....seriously, you should be a lawyer.

Because you know, lawyers use facts to support their argument, and with all those facts and examples that you displayed, you'd win every case.

Are you giving a seminar soon on how to support your arguments, because when you said that cute lil 'pot calling blue kettle, etc.' line, I said to myself, "WOW! this guy not only says what he thinks, but he shows why he thinks it and then supports it with an overwhelming amount of evidence." [/b]
Sorry, but I couldn't help it. It was too easy. You tried to respond to my post with sarcasm, but it didn't work because it wasn't funny or insulting. You basically said my post was stupid because it was opinion. So was the post of yours that I quoted. Silly winger... next time you get pwned don't reply to it \:\( .
For once, I have to agree with Ben. 89th, that was just terrible.
Posted by: Jeffrey

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/06/04 06:59 AM

reb - So, again, I ask you: how many actual Al Qaida internal theory documents have you yourself read? It seems from your last post that you have read none (or else you would have cited them), and therefore, as usual, know absolutely zip about what you are talking about. You just like elements of his videotape that agree (!) with what you yourself already think.

Bin Laden wants to split and confuse and then conquer all Western powers, including Sweden. He regards it as meritorious to kill or convert every non-muslim, and seeks total world domination under the Islamic Caliphate. Anything less is a sin in the eyes of Allah. I did not get this from GWB, or the National Review, I got this from reading about a dozen or so translated theory manuals and documents written by Al Qaida theorists, including Bin Laden, but also many others. My views on their goals, comes from reading what they say, over and over again, they want to do: murder all non-muslims. Evidence of this was Zarqawi's recent murder of 50 Iraqi police officers. You probably view this as some sort of weird anti-imperialism. Zarqawi said he killed them because they were Shias (i.e. non-muslims, in his view).

Reb - their is no point in arguing with someone who won't even look at undisputed hard facts and evidence, such as Al Qaida's own actual documents.
Posted by: justme

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/06/04 07:09 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by yhabpo:
 Quote:
I bet you if someone had kidnapped you and your family, holding them hostage in your basement, and you watch as the attacker kills your brother because he spoke up....and you and your family are sitting there helpless in the basement, and I come in and kill the attacker, thus making you and your family free....afterwards you would get mad at me and call me a murderer?
If we are going to argue silly hypothetical situations, I suggest we contemplate a more relevant question:
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/Tissues.htm
Please reply with an answer to the question and the alternative question because discussing imaginary, obtuse, and silly situations is a great discourse. But, I will grant you an answer: yes, you will be a murderer.

The surprising fact about Republicans is that while the individual may be considered scholarly in an academic field, the Republican cannot logically deduce that they have the same mindset as terrorists: the philosophy of violent retaliation. The most disgusting characteristic of these fanatics, a characteristic that places them far below terrorists on the morality scale, is the imperialistic desires and personal greed that influence their politics. While terrorists may commit acts of violence in protest to injustice, for example US funding of the Israeli occupation, Republicans wage war, not just in retaliation of the World Trade Centre, but for corporate and religious interests. The Iraq war was not retribution for the annihilation of the skyscrapers, but purely an imperialistic conquest initiated by fanatics, funded by the greedy scum, and supported by the ignorant.

The narrow-minded nature of the Conservatives inhibits them from seeing consequences of their political agenda. The very nature of conservative politics will guarantee that while the world progresses toward liberalism, conservatives will only retard the inevitable. The future generations will regard present day Republicans with the same scorn as present day people regard the slave owners of the past. The grandchildren of Republicans will have to endure the pain of seeing their grandparents placed alongside Osama bin Ladin, George W. Bush, and Hitler as the great evils of the previous generation. [/b]
Here's some advice. Please, tell us who you are quoting. You never do. And for unintelligent, lazy conservatives like myself it's frustrating having to keep going back through the various threads.
Posted by: Renauda

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/06/04 09:33 AM

justme: Wahabbi or whatever its face is called, isn't quoting anyone. Its pure nothing but NDP spew and slogans.
Posted by: reblder

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/06/04 09:39 AM

Jeffrey....

While I haven't read those documents or manuals, my "counter" source would be the recent book "Imperial Hubris" by an anonymous CIA agent whose twenty year service for the agency involved a thorough investigation and research of Bin Laden and Al Queda. Possibly you know of the book itself since you're rather well read. Morever, I've referred elsewhere to this book.

The point he makes repeatedly in the book is that Bin Laden and Al Queda are in fact revulsed by Western culture in all its forms and would gloat at the prospect of the world converting to their brand of Islam but what they really are up in arms about(and in fact what has been the REAL motivating catalyst behind their attacks)is U.S. foreign policy in the Mid East.
They're not about to shed their blood over what they perceive as the decadent West. But over something like the stationing of military bases in Saudi Arabia, the collusion with the House of Saud, support for Israel, and most recently the attack of Iraq have really gotten them worked up more than anything else you could dream of.
Posted by: Jeffrey

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/06/04 10:18 AM

reblder: "They're not about to shed their blood over what they perceive as the decadent West"

That is exactly what they intend to shed blood over. I have cited my sources, not some government employee with a book contract, but the actual Al Qaida documents, going back over a decade. Is that book your only source? You need to read different points of view. Like travel, it broadens the mind. I have argued elsewhere that the Iraq war was a mistake and that what we will gain from it, will not outweigh the costs.
Posted by: lb

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/06/04 10:49 AM

Jeffery

reblder hasn't had time to read extensivly or travel, he has been busy making wedding plans, but now that the election has stopped his marriage maybe he will get the chance.

lb
Posted by: reblder

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/06/04 11:15 AM

Posted by Jeffrey:
 Quote:
That is exactly what they intend to shed blood over. I have cited my sources, not some government employee with a book contract, but the actual Al Qaida documents, going back over a decade. Is that book your only source? You need to read different points of view. Like travel, it broadens the mind. I have argued elsewhere that the Iraq war was a mistake and that what we will gain from it, will not outweigh the costs[/b]
I'm rather surprised at you, Jeffrey. For a man who "prides" himself on how well read or informed he is based on statistics and wut knot, it's baffling why you'd be so quick to dismiss my source who has himself painstakingly for twenty years read all kinds of documents related to Al Queda and Bin Laden. He has also travelled to the area and I think this readily qualifies him as a long time pro at this whereas neither you nor I can hardly make that claim. Therefore I would trust his judgement on this far more than what any of perceptions are 'telling' you about OBL's intentions even they are written in these "documents" you cite.

BTW, I'm awaiting your review of the book I recommended by the Columbia Prof.
Posted by: yhabpo

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/06/04 02:17 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by justme:
 Quote:
Originally posted by yhabpo:
 Quote:
I bet you if someone had kidnapped you and your family, holding them hostage in your basement, and you watch as the attacker kills your brother because he spoke up....and you and your family are sitting there helpless in the basement, and I come in and kill the attacker, thus making you and your family free....afterwards you would get mad at me and call me a murderer?
If we are going to argue silly hypothetical situations, I suggest we contemplate a more relevant question:
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/Tissues.htm
Please reply with an answer to the question and the alternative question because discussing imaginary, obtuse, and silly situations is a great discourse. But, I will grant you an answer: yes, you will be a murderer.

The surprising fact about Republicans is that while the individual may be considered scholarly in an academic field, the Republican cannot logically deduce that they have the same mindset as terrorists: the philosophy of violent retaliation. The most disgusting characteristic of these fanatics, a characteristic that places them far below terrorists on the morality scale, is the imperialistic desires and personal greed that influence their politics. While terrorists may commit acts of violence in protest to injustice, for example US funding of the Israeli occupation, Republicans wage war, not just in retaliation of the World Trade Centre, but for corporate and religious interests. The Iraq war was not retribution for the annihilation of the skyscrapers, but purely an imperialistic conquest initiated by fanatics, funded by the greedy scum, and supported by the ignorant.

The narrow-minded nature of the Conservatives inhibits them from seeing consequences of their political agenda. The very nature of conservative politics will guarantee that while the world progresses toward liberalism, conservatives will only retard the inevitable. The future generations will regard present day Republicans with the same scorn as present day people regard the slave owners of the past. The grandchildren of Republicans will have to endure the pain of seeing their grandparents placed alongside Osama bin Ladin, George W. Bush, and Hitler as the great evils of the previous generation. [/b]
Here's some advice. Please, tell us who you are quoting. You never do. And for unintelligent, lazy conservatives like myself it's frustrating having to keep going back through the various threads. [/b]
You're right. Sometimes I forget to press the "reply with quote" and instead, copy and paste.
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/06/04 02:28 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by reblder:
"Imperial Hubris" by an anonymous CIA agent [/b]
Imperial Hubris was written by Michael Scheuer.
Posted by: Tom--K

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/06/04 02:32 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by gryphon:
 Quote:
Originally posted by reblder:
"Imperial Hubris" by an anonymous CIA agent [/b]
Imperial Hubris was written by Michael Scheuer. [/b]
Outed! \:\( Damn. \:D
Posted by: reblder

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/06/04 04:09 PM

Posted by Gryphon:
 Quote:
Imperial Hubris was written by Michael Scheuer
I know, I saw that recently somewhere so somehow his "anonymity" got leaked out and apparently not that big a deal to him either.
Posted by: Stainweggie

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/06/04 04:53 PM

somehow his "anonymity" got leaked out[/b]

Ooooooh, that happened to my sweet Taquisha once! She leaked anonymity all over the place! Right there in the middle of the supermarket!
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/07/04 09:38 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by justme:
89th, you did ask for it! ;\) You gotta answer. If not Nunatax wins by default! [/b]
The harsh rules of debate... ;\)
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/08/04 06:50 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by yhabpo:
 Quote:
I bet you if someone had kidnapped you and your family, holding them hostage in your basement, and you watch as the attacker kills your brother because he spoke up....and you and your family are sitting there helpless in the basement, and I come in and kill the attacker, thus making you and your family free....afterwards you would get mad at me and call me a murderer?
I will grant you an answer: yes, you will be a murderer.[/b]
Thank you. Thank you for displaying your ignorance so clearly. The fact that you would have called me a murderer just after saving your life, makes you lose all credibility. Its like saying terrorists would rather fight Kerry, or that the sun is cold.

Killing a terrorist and killing an innocent victim is the same thing: killing. Yes...BUT, since you cant seem to distiguish between the two, I dont know what else I can do to help you.

If terrorists kill 3,000 Americans because of their hate of freedom and democracy, that is murder, obviously. But when we go and take out those terrorists, we are slowly eliminating violence from the world.

But you obviously cant see that, since you equate someone who killed your brother and someone who killed the person who killed your brother, as having done the same murderous act. Stop reading the NY Times and live in reality.

This is the danger of having those in power with similar ideological beliefs as you, yahababaoo. You wouldn't have taken on Hitler, or Saddam, or Osama...they would all still be running free as you clutch on to your copy of "Fahrenheit 9/11".
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/09/04 12:13 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Tom--K:
 Quote:
Originally posted by justme:
89th, you did ask for it! ;\) You gotta answer. If not Nunatax wins by default! [/b]
Yea 89th, get in there and slap that Mr. Benelux...[/b]
Apparently, he doesn't have anything to slap me with...
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/09/04 06:21 AM

Jeez, Nunatax, give it a rest. If you read my last post in that thread, it very clearly summarizes my point of view and how we are just going in circles.

It's opinion vs. opinion...although I can go on forever debating homosexuality, trust me.

But after hundreds of posts on the topic, you know my point of view, and I know yours.

If you have some crazy evidence all of a sudden that shows the homosexuality is genetic, I'm all for it! But the only evidence people ever show are these articles talking about the psycho-analysis of animals.

Honestly. Furthermore, the debate isn't even about whether or not they are born that way...its about the selective discrimination of those who want to legalize homo marriage, but criminalize polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, and other 'actions' that dont 'hurt' anyone.


If you want to get back on that pointless carousel, fine by me, but you will be riding alone.

If you magically come up with some facts showing a LEGITIMATE argument against my views, then you are more than welcome to start a new thread and show me. But I know there are no facts out there to refute my opinions, and visa versa.

Stop acting like a child and trying to drag me back into a debate, especially one where you ignore logic and facts, distract from the main debate, and one that you simply CANT WIN.
Posted by: sarah_blueparrot

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/09/04 06:35 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:

It's opinion vs. opinion...although I can go on forever debating homosexuality, trust me.

[/b]
Well I'm not sure that you could. You couldn't even last long in the other thread, 89th. You were going round in circles and repeating yourself, whilst making 'points' that had no relevance to the debate at all, and insulting a lot of people. The only point I remember you making was that you regarded homosexuality as a pyschological disorder, and you gave no reasoning.
Unfortunately, you can't just step down from a debate when you're tired of it.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/09/04 07:14 AM

When did I "insult a lot of people"? Either they made a basless insult first, or didn't like my opinon, but I didn't personally insult anyone. Check your facts.

I COULD go on forever, but no one was refuting anything I was saying with anything but opinion! And thats not going to go anywhere, and you know that.

Any points that I made that were "off topic" were simply in reaction to someone else's argument that already went off topic, thus I had to address their flawed logic and then get back on track.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again, IF you can find some factual evidence to support your opinion, I'll be more than happy to continue...but there is none, and all you want to do is debate opinion.

It's like us debating whether or not orange is the best color, or what the best food is...it wont go anywhere.
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/09/04 07:58 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
Jeez, Nunatax, give it a rest. If you read my last post in that thread, it very clearly summarizes my point of view and how we are just going in circles. [/b]
Why should I give it a rest when you don't even bother to read my last post there. Like I said, it's rude and selfish.

I and other people in that thread have given you legitimate arguments for things on which you base your general opinion, yet you just ignored these arguments.
I can have respect for your general opinion, but only if it is based on arguments that I can respect too. So far you've only given arguments that were based on flawed reasoning, but no matter how hard everyone tried there to point that out to you, you just kept saying the same foolish things (the engine driving your carroussel :rolleyes: ). It seems that it is very hard for you to admit mistakes.

That's in short what I tried to say to you in my post there...
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/09/04 08:56 AM

I appreciate your effort to show me 'legitimate arguments', but you have to admit that they weren't relevant to the issue.

We could talk about the 'origin' of homosexuality all day, but in the end, there has been no conclusive evidence on either side, that is what I am talking about regarding the 'endless cycle' of the debate. It is a debate of opinion.

The issue is NOT about the ORIGIN. It's about civilized freedom. Its either, let everything be free...or have rules that will keep order.

Please address the issue at hand rather than talking about my opinion.

I respect your opinion about the 'origin' as well, we agree to disagree...but that's not productive. The real issue I was talking about was about selective discrimination, and since no one would address that issue, I left the thread.
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/10/04 09:19 AM

Your ďevasive manoeuvresĒ do not cease to surprise me :rolleyes:

 Quote:
I COULD go on forever, but no one was refuting anything I was saying with anything but opinion! And thats not going to go anywhere, and you know that.
[/b]

I have been refuting a lot of what you have been saying with arguments rather than just opinion (CHECK YOUR OWN FACTS FOR ONCE), only you never gave me arguments in return. Instead you basically tell me that your comments to which I gave these arguments are beside the point. So, that means if you say something in a debate that is, according to me, wrong, I cannot give my arguments when the comment you made is (according to you) beside the point? Pretty odd, no?

 Quote:
The issue is NOT about the ORIGIN.[/b]
Oh, OK! Let me show you a line from your first post in that thread :

I think alcoholism, homosexuality, animal cruelness,(anything along those lines is my point), is simply a subconscious psychological disorder that can be treated, reversed, cured, etc...[/b]

You raised the origin of homosexuality as an issue in your very first post in that thread.

But whatever, keep digging, youíll never admit your mistakes anyway :rolleyes:
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/10/04 11:27 AM

You are right nunatax, I apologize. I was used to the other 400 post thread about the economic and legislative issues regarding homos that I was still in that mind set. So I did mention the 'origin' first...but it wasn't up for debate.

Opinion vs opinion doesn't go anywhere, and I can debate your opinion all day, but we all know it is pointless.

Thats why the issue still remains, I mentioned how I think it's a subconcious psychological disorder that can be treated. You think the pudding tastes one way, I think it tastes another way...who cares!

Again if you want to show me evidence refuting my position, thats fine, but no more rare animal behavior articles; it has nothing to do with how superior humans are supposed to behave.

In the end, there is NO solid evidence supporting either origin theory[/b].

Thats why I wanted to talk about the selective discimination that homophiles have in their legislative stances, but all anyone could talk about was how one male chicken played with the other's "feather". Thus, I stopped talking in the debate because everyone was avoiding my selective discrimination topic.

Show me evidence, address my topic, or shut up...but stop taunting me with empty comments.
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 03:30 AM

*sigh*

Final attemptÖ

Go back to that thread and try to find my opinion. You won't find it, because I never really gave it to you, I just challenged some things on which you based your opinion (which is not a bad way of having a discussion, or am I wrong?).

You raised the origin of homosexuality as an issue, and when arguments came up and you had to defend yourself, it became clear that you knew (know) practically NOTHING about the genetical aspect (and you probably don't know much about psychology either). You've said more than one foolish thing in your posts there, but no matter how I and some others tried to point those out to you, we never got arguments in return, instead you started whining that we were giving "empty comments", that we were not adressing the issue, that we should "check our facts", that "opinion vs. opinion" doesn't get us anywhere and so on and so onÖ I truly hope you can find the emptiness in your own posts :rolleyes:

I agree with what Jbryan said to you in another thread : I also value intellectual honesty, but I can't seem to find yours...
Posted by: Moonbat

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 05:13 AM

 Quote:

In the end, there is NO solid evidence supporting either origin theory
There is evidence, i gave you some, you choose to ignore it.

Given what is known, the current best bet is that homosexuality has a genetic component.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 05:34 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Nunatax:
I just challenged some things on which you based your opinion ([/b]
Nunatax,

I said that being homosexual is a psychological disorder, that is my opinion from studying and debating this topic for many years. I *DO* know about genetics and psychology, I have studied those subjects before and know a lot more about it than you give me credit for.

Once again, I say its a psychological disorder, but you haven't challenged anything that I have based my opinion on. You and others have shown me articles about rare animal homosexual behaviors, but that doesn't challenge my 'disorder' theory, not at all.

I dont understand what is so hard to realize, you haven't shown me ANYTHING that is solid evidence regarding your theory, and visa versa, thus...that discussion is pointless. I will continue debating it if you would like, I dont mind, I have done it for years.

That is why I was trying to talk about the selective discrimination that some people have when they support homosexual marriage, but no one is addressing that issue!

Again, show me some proof behind your theory or stop talking about it, because in the end, opinion vs opinion is an interesting discussion, but it goes nowhere.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 05:42 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbat:
 Quote:

In the end, there is NO solid evidence supporting either origin theory
There is evidence, i gave you some, you choose to ignore it.

Given what is known, the current best bet is that homosexuality has a genetic component. [/b]
Do you realize what you just said?

You said you gave me solid evidence, but then you said that it is the "best bet" considering what is known.

You cant have evidence, and then gamble on it.

Evidence is evidence, and you have none.

If I found evidence (such as a scientific reading) that the sun is hot, im not going to say that "it is the best bet that the sun is hot, given our knowledge". No, the sun IS[/b] hot. Thats what evidence is: proof...not a loose correlation.

Please address the issue that has substance, about why you think its ok to selectively discriminate against other segments of the population who have lifestyles that 'dont' hurt anyone, yet you support the "illegal status" of their activities.

You either have rules or chaos. Allow certain, normal, things...or allow everything.
Posted by: sarah_blueparrot

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 05:43 AM

There is proof that homosexuality is NOT a pyschological disorder, and that is from the millions of homosexuals who are so confused at the age of 12 or 13, and try and try to feel attracted to the opposite sex, but it just doesn't work. They keep looking at the same sex. And do you know why? It's because at 12 or 13 years old puberty kicks in, and that's where they start to notice. And no matter how hard they try not to be, no matter how much they push it down, it doesn't work. What if you wanted ginger pubes instead of black pubes when they started to appear at that age? You can't go to a pyschiatrist and say, 'I don't see my pubes as being ginger - there's something wrong with me.' And do you know why? It's because both situations are genetic - and personally I do not consider homosexuality to be a disorder. Yes, in the Bible it says you'll go to hell for it, but God does not deal with disorders. Why would he, omnipotent and all, make a mistake? He hasn't. God didn't write the Bible.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 05:50 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by sarah_blueparrot:
There is proof that homosexuality is NOT a pyschological disorder, and that is from the millions of homosexuals who are so confused at the age of 12 or 13, and try and try to feel attracted to the opposite sex, but it just doesn't work.[/b]
Thats why I say its a *subconscious* psychological disorder. It's the same thing as how most retarded kids dont realize that they are retarded.
Posted by: sarah_blueparrot

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 05:56 AM

You can't just turn it off, 89th. If a gay person 'knew' that his/her sexuality was a subconscious pyschological disorder, it would become conscious, and therefore supposedly easy to treat. However, it doesn't work like that. Give me an example of someone who has 'realised' in a situation like this, and has turned. I don't want some scrawled, made up story. I want proof that a) they were definitely gay in the first place, and b) they had treatment and were 'cured'.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 06:06 AM

Well you see it all the time in AA meetings, but thats besides the point.

But yes you can "turn it off"; I have friends at church who were gay, realized they gave in to the immoral and sinful behavior, and prayed for forgiveness and correction. Now they have a wife and kids.

It happens all the time. ANY sinful behavior can be corrected. Just as I used to steal and lie alot when I was younger, I have worked hard on that fixing that lifestyle and haven't done any of those things in years.
Posted by: sarah_blueparrot

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 06:09 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by sarah_blueparrot:
Give me an example of someone who has 'realised' in a situation like this, and has turned. I don't want some scrawled, made up story. I want proof that a) they were definitely gay in the first place, and b) they had treatment and were 'cured'. [/b]
Proof please? "It happens in AA meetings all the time" - I don't believe that the AA targets homosexuals..
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 06:16 AM

Sarah, here is another story:

http://www.desertstream.org/healing%20homosexuality.htm

I would highly recommend that everyone who is skeptical about the possibility of healing homosexuality read this article.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 06:17 AM

The AA comment was because alcoholics who realize they have a problem and a sinful lifestyle go, get help, and are "fixed" at AA meetings.

Just liked homosexuals are sometimes "fixed" if they seek out the help.
Posted by: sarah_blueparrot

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 06:38 AM

The AA is for people who are addicted to alcohol, who really need help because of their state of health.
The person in this story no doubt feels happy that he changed. I question the fact that he was actually gay in the first place. All he wanted was a cuddle with a guy. In my opinion, God does not really have a lot to do with sexuality, as he apparently considers it to be a sin, and at the same time says he will accept everyone who believes. What about people who haven't even heard of God? They don't have a chance. What about those homosexuals who are devout Christians? According to the Bible, God would simply turn his back on them, and I don't believe he is that cruel.
I think the only reason the Bible mentions anything about homosexuality is because it was written by men, a long time ago, who believed that they were superior to women and to gay people, among other such prejudices. I think most of it is a euphemism and a load of ****, to be quite honest.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 06:41 AM

Haha, that was quite honest indeed. \:\)

(even though I dont agree)
Posted by: sarah_blueparrot

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 06:44 AM

\:\)
Posted by: apple*

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 06:46 AM

89th - many people are homosexual.. a significant percentage of our population. I can't tell you how offensive I find your attitude.

If you are going to be judgemental; (out of politeness and why not), why would you share that judgement with those who might be gay. HAVE GOOD MANNERS is not a commandment, but it is as important a mandate as THOU SHALT NOT LIE.
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 06:47 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
I said that being homosexual is a psychological disorder, that is my opinion from studying and debating this topic for many years. I *DO* know about genetics and psychology, I have studied those subjects before and know a lot more about it than you give me credit for.[/b]
If you knew anything about genetics, then you would not have posted utterly foolish things like :

 Quote:

a. The reasons gay people are even here are from heterosexual parents....you dont see a black couple having a white baby....do you?

b. A species can not survive with homosexual behavior. Period.

c. No one can deny that being homosexual (if you argue that it is natural) is a is a natural deformity/abnormal behavior; it is simply not how humans are 'supposed' to be.
Being blind, retarded, homosexual, deaf, bad eyesight, etc. are all unfortunate abnormal human characteristics. I'm not saying that they are bad, so dont get me wrong; just not normal human characteristics.

d. Let's put 100 homosexuals on an island, and see how long they last. How long nunatax?
[/b]
a. Ever heard of recessive alleles?

b. I think I've given plenty of arguments for that statement.

c. The Nature article shows that homosexual behaviour is not necessarily a natural deformity or abnormal behaviour since it states that it seems to lead to an increased birth rate (which would make it a naturally evolved mechanism in order to increase birth rate), in this case "boosting female reproduction". Yet you say that no one can deny it.

d. Shows that you know nothing about scientific research and population ecology, the setup for your little experiment is ridiculous. Everyone but you realised that.

 Quote:
You and others have shown me articles about rare animal homosexual behaviors, but that doesn't challenge my 'disorder' theory, not at all.[/b]
No I haven't, go check your facts.
I have given you one historical article in which the word animal never even occured and I have shown you an excerpt from a book about altruistic behaviour to show you that seemingly unnatural behaviour can lead to an increase in birth rate. (Notice that it is extremely important that the altruistic allele is recessive in order for it to survive.)
I have also used the Nature article that was posted by Nina, it isn't about animals either.

 Quote:
I dont understand what is so hard to realize, you haven't shown me ANYTHING that is solid evidence regarding your theory, and visa versa, thus...that discussion is pointless. I will continue debating it if you would like, I dont mind, I have done it for years.[/b]
My theory? What exactly is my theory?

I have done nothing more than providing you with arguments for the foolish statements of yours that I quoted above. Statements you used to back up your opinion about the origin of homosexuality.

I don't care whether you think its origin is psychological or not, there are reasons to believe so, there are reasons to believe otherwise. But I have never seen such a poor defender of the psychological disorder theory as you.

When someone makes such foolish statements in a debate like the ones I quoted above, I think it's pretty normal that someone comes in to refute them. That's what I did, I showed you were you were wrong, only you refuse to acknowledge that you were wrong. That's what I'm trying to point out to you, and that what you don't seem to get or don't want to get.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 07:16 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by apple*:
89th - many people are homosexual.. a significant percentage of our population. I can't tell you how offensive I find your attitude. [/b]
Homosexuality and marriage are very valid issues to talk about, especially given the pending legislation.

I dont mean to be offensive, my thoughts and opinions on the topic are honest. Gay people shouldn't take them personally. If you told me that you think eating pie is disgusting or sinful, I'll say "Ok, thats your opinion, it doesn't bother me."

Many people call 'believing in God or the Bible' a waste of time, ignorant, etc...and I dont take what they say personally; and neither should gays.
Posted by: The Laughing Cavalier

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 07:26 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
If you told me that you think eating pie is disgusting or sinful, [/b]
Depends on the pie.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 07:30 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Nunatax:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by The 89th Key:
[qb]
a. The reasons gay people are even here are from heterosexual parents....you dont see a black couple having a white baby....do you?

b. A species can not survive with homosexual behavior. Period.

c. No one can deny that being homosexual (if you argue that it is natural) is a is a natural deformity/abnormal behavior; it is simply not how humans are 'supposed' to be.
Being blind, retarded, homosexual, deaf, bad eyesight, etc. are all unfortunate abnormal human characteristics. I'm not saying that they are bad, so dont get me wrong; just not normal human characteristics.

d. Let's put 100 homosexuals on an island, and see how long they last. How long nunatax?
[/b]
a. Ever heard of recessive alleles?

b. I think I've given plenty of arguments for that statement.

c. The Nature article shows that homosexual behaviour is not necessarily a natural deformity or abnormal behaviour since it states that it seems to lead to an increased birth rate (which would make it a naturally evolved mechanism in order to increase birth rate), in this case "boosting female reproduction". Yet you say that no one can deny it.

d. Shows that you know nothing about scientific research and population ecology, the setup for your little experiment is ridiculous. Everyone but you realised that. [/b]
----------------------------------------

a. I have studied recessive alleles, and say what you want, you will NOT see two white parents have a black kid, period.

b. You have given me arguments that haven't meant anything. It's simple, you cant survive as a species from homosexual behavior. Thats an elementary fact.

c. As you said, the nature article says its "not necessarily a natural deformity". Thats great, so it says its theory but doesn't disprove the 'deformity' argument.

d. I used that situation to show you how "b" was true. You might hate the situation, but its true, if you had only homosexuals in the truest sense of the word, they wouldn't survive by themselves on an island. We are only surviving as a species from heterosexuals.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont understand what is so hard to realize, you haven't shown me ANYTHING that is solid evidence regarding your theory, and visa versa, thus...that discussion is pointless. I will continue debating it if you would like, I dont mind, I have done it for years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My theory? What exactly is my theory? [/b]

Your theory is that my theory of 'disorder' is wrong.


And finally you said it best:

I don't care whether you think its origin is psychological or not, there are reasons to believe so, there are reasons to believe otherwise.[/b]

Exactly, hence I ask you to address my selective discrimination issue, that you are avoiding.
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 08:40 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
a. I have studied recessive alleles, and say what you want, you will NOT see two white parents have a black kid, period.

b. You have given me arguments that haven't meant anything. It's simple, you cant survive as a species from homosexual behavior. Thats an elementary fact.

c. As you said, the nature article says its "not necessarily a natural deformity". Thats great, so it says its theory but doesn't disprove the 'deformity' argument.

d. I used that situation to show you how "b" was true. You might hate the situation, but its true, if you had only homosexuals in the truest sense of the word, they wouldn't survive by themselves on an island. We are only surviving as a species from heterosexuals. [/b]
a. Sheesh, man, do I have to explain everything into the tiniest detail in order for you to understand? That was not what I meant. By comparing the possible genetic cause of homosexuality with the fact that two black parents will never have a white kid, you implied that if the cause for homosexuality is genetic, the allele is dominant. It's much more nuanced than that. That made your comment to be very ignorant. Besides, remember one of my previous quotes in which I said that in order for the altruistic allele to survive, it has to be recessive?
Is there any chance you might want to explain that to show me that you DO know something about (population) genetics?

b. The carrousel keeps on turning...
Yet again you twisted the words. Your original statement was that a species cannot survive with[/b] homosexual behaviour.
Here's a piece of what I posted in the original thread :
By the way, you have some way of twisting words. I never said that a species of homosexuals could survive, I said that a species with homosexual behaviour could survive. It's not because a species is a species with homosexual behaviour, that all the individuals of the species are homosexual, that's what you make of it, but that's not what mankind is either. We're not a population that consists only of homosexual individuals, we consist mostly of heterosexual individuals.
What I've been trying to tell you, and the only reason it didn't get through to you is because you don't know a damn thing about genetics and biology, is that a species of which the populations have a small percentage of homosexual individuals, are capable of surviving, and there's probably not even a negative effect from the homosexual individuals, possibly even a positive effect. It's what is written in the Nature article, it's what I tried to tell you with the altruistic behaviour part. [/b]

So, let us rephrase to clear it up :
A species can survive without homosexual behaviour. But : homosexual behaviour is not causing the species to become extinct since the populations of the species do not consist of only homosexual individuals like in your experimental setup. As implied in the Nature article, homosexual behaviour can lead to an increase in birth rate which would make it a natural mechanism to increase the chances of survival. But, that doesn't mean that the species is able to survive ONLY because of homosexual behaviour.
I'm really not going to explain this any further to you as it would take way too much of my time.

c. And yet you state that no one can deny that it is a natural deformity.


d. Yes, but once again, your hypothetical situation is ridiculous. I could also tell you to put 100 altruistic individuals on an island, since they don't reproduce, they won't survive either, and yet it has been proven that they make a contribution to the survival of the population and species.


 Quote:
My theory? What exactly is my theory? [/b]

Your theory is that my theory of 'disorder' is wrong.
[/b]

No, that's not my theory. I never told you whether I believe it is either psychological or genetical. What I did was pointing out the flaws in your reasoning, the reasoning you used to come to your opinion. I repeat : I have never seen such a poor defender of the psychological disorder theory as you.


 Quote:
And finally you said it best:

I don't care whether you think its origin is psychological or not, there are reasons to believe so, there are reasons to believe otherwise.[/b]

Exactly, hence I ask you to address my selective discrimination issue, that you are avoiding. [/b]
You really don't get it do you. I don't care about your selective discrimination issue, I just showed you the flaws in the reasoning you used to come to YOUR conclusion that homosexuality is a psychological disorder. There are people who come to the exact same conlusion as you do (and who knows, maybe I'm one of them), only, they base them on much more knowledge and common sense than you do.
Posted by: reblder

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 08:42 AM

89th Key:

The fact that you've persisted in labelling homosexuality a "disorder" when it is simply a sexual preference or lifestyle reflects nothing other than your stubbornly clingling to judgemental views which have turned off just about everybody who even "bothers" to commmunicate with you on the subject.

Should you ever "evolve" to the point where you somehow acquire more compassion, you'll reject the jaundiced views you hold now. At that time you'll also be much more secure with your own identity as well.
Posted by: lb

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 09:07 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by reblder:
89th Key:

The fact that you've persisted in labelling homosexuality a "disorder" when it is simply a sexual preference or lifestyle [/b]
So it is just a choice!! This is what I always thought.

lb
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 09:34 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Nunatax:
You really don't get it do you. I don't care about your selective discrimination issue, I just showed you the flaws in the reasoning you used to come to YOUR conclusion that homosexuality is a psychological disorder. There are people who come to the exact same conlusion as you do (and who knows, maybe I'm one of them), only, they base them on much more knowledge and common sense than you do. [/b]
Ok so you dont want to address the selective discrimination issue, thats fine, and least I know that you dont want to talk about that.

Secondly, you need to state what your thoughts are on the origin of homosexuality before we contintue...if you agree with me, then say so. If you think they are born that way, then say so...but arguing about how I came up with my opinion is pointless if you already agree with it.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 09:39 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by reblder:
89th Key:

The fact that you've persisted in labelling homosexuality a "disorder" when it is simply a sexual preference or lifestyle reflects nothing other than your stubbornly clingling to judgemental views which have turned off just about everybody who even "bothers" to commmunicate with you on the subject.

Should you ever "evolve" to the point where you somehow acquire more compassion, you'll reject the jaundiced views you hold now. At that time you'll also be much more secure with your own identity as well. [/b]
Who said I didn't have compassion? I never make any personal attacks toward anyone. I am only talking about the issue and situation of homosexuality.

I am sure you disagree with many lifestyles that 'dont hurt anyone', just as I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. Should I call you judgemental, stubborn, compassionless, holding 'jaundiced' views, and insecure?

No.

Dont be a hypocrite.
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 10:06 AM

Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 01:50 PM

Sorry nunatax, I'm leaving work right now and I dont have time to respond, but I will as soon as I get a chance. It got real busy here the last few hours, so dont think I am ignoring your question...have a good one.
Posted by: JOE SCHMOE

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 03:27 PM

Actually, there I heard somewhere that their brain is slightly different in one section - just what I've heard... this is not in anyway shape or form against homosexuality, it's just what I've heard.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 06:12 PM

Nunatax,

Its good to know that you dont have a position on the origin of homosexuality, it makes our debate alot more productive when I know where you are coming from. So saying that, I digress...

A)I know about population genetics, alleles and all that. I have studied genetics, but whether you like it or not, two white parents are not going to have a black kid, recessive genes, dominant genes, doesn't matter. The reason I brought that up was because it is one reason showing why homosexuality is not genetic. Two heterosexual parents aren't going to have a homosexual kid...in the end, there isn't any proof on either side, because the genetic origin of homosexuality is still a THEORY.

B) We are both arguing the same thing. I said that a species can not survive WITH homosexual behavior, as in, using homosexual behavior. You were arguing that a species can survive WITH homosexual behavior, as in, with homosexuals in the population.

We agree with each other there, so that point is done.

C) I didn't say you cant deny that it is a natural defection, people can have any opinion they want.

D) Look at B.

Finally, you haven't pointed out any flaws in my base. You have twisted my words, and misunderstood my words, but every rationale I have used is a legitimate base for my opinion.

Also, I wish you would address the selective discrimination issue, but I can see why you wont: no one can. There is hypocritical, selective discrimination going on all the time, and no one wants to talk about it. Many people are jumping on the homosexuality band wagon, calling it 'tolerance'. You support homos or you are a bigot is the message I usually hear. And that is hypocritical to the Nth degree.

There is a glimmer of hope, and that is that every state that had the homosexual marriage issue rejected it on an average of 70%.

I would appreciate it if you didn't personally cut me down, because when you do it temps me to drop to your level, and it also shows you have run out of intelligent talking points.

Some people believe homos are born that way, some thing its a disorder. You know my stance and I have given you many reasons why I believe that way, without even addressing the biblical aspect.

Anything else?
Posted by: David Burton

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 06:24 PM

I thought this was a thread about terrorism and the consequences of re-electing GWB not another thread sidetracked onto issues concerning homosexuality. Can't that be a different thread?
Posted by: Renauda

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/12/04 08:38 PM

Apparently not. :rolleyes:
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/13/04 05:05 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
A)I know about population genetics, alleles and all that. I have studied genetics, but whether you like it or not, two white parents are not going to have a black kid, recessive genes, dominant genes, doesn't matter. The reason I brought that up was because it is one reason showing why homosexuality is not genetic. Two heterosexual parents aren't going to have a homosexual kid...in the end, there isn't any proof on either side, because the genetic origin of homosexuality is still a THEORY.

B) We are both arguing the same thing. I said that a species can not survive WITH homosexual behavior, as in, using homosexual behavior. You were arguing that a species can survive WITH homosexual behavior, as in, with homosexuals in the population.

We agree with each other there, so that point is done.

C) I didn't say you cant deny that it is a natural defection, people can have any opinion they want.

D) Look at B.
[/b]
a.

OK, I'll walk you through this step by step.
You know why a black couple will never have a white baby? Because the two loci of the gene that codes for their skin colour, are both taken by the allele that codes for black skin colour. There IS no allele that codes for white skin colour there. OK, I guess you can easily follow up until now.
What happens to a black male/white female couple :
He has 2 alleles that code for black skin colour, she has two that code for white skin colour. All their offspring will have one that codes for black and another that codes for white skin colour. Their skin will have a mix of both colours. This is called co-dominance. This is why a black person has per definition NO allele coding for white skin colour.

(Sidenote : This really is oversimplified genetics, because many phenotypes are under control of more than one gene which can make the patterns which arise in the distribution of a certain characteristic in the offspring much more complicated than this. But let us assume that IF homosexuality has a genetic cause, that it is coded by only ONE gene.)

So again, why can't a black couple have a white baby? Because there simply IS not allele in any of the parents that codes for white skin colour.

Here comes in another mechanism : recessive vs. dominant.
Let us assume that the allele coding for black skin colour is dominant, the one coding for white skin colour is recessive. A couple in which the parents are both heterozygote for the characteristic skin colour, will have a black skin, since that allele is dominant. Now what possible skin colours could their offspring have (and this should look familiar if you know anything about genetics):
B is the dominant allele coding for black colour
b is the recessive allele coding for white colour

P: Bb x Bb

F1: BB 2Bb bb

Now, the BB and Bb offspring will all have a black skin, the bb offspring will have a white skin (surprise, surprise...).

So, this makes it perfectly possible for two heterosexual parent to have a homosexual child if its cause would be genetic, no?

Want more examples?
My mother has brown hair, my father has black hair, I have blond hair. My parents also both have brown eyes, I have blue eyes, in fact, three of us four kids have blue eyes, the fourth has brown eyes like our parents.

So you see, it is perfectly possible for offspring to have a certain characteristic that is absent in both the parents (actually, absent in their phenotype but present in their genotype), which makes your comparison with the black couple wrong, you just oversimplified it and made a big mistake as a result.

And I have also said that in order for the altruistic gene to survive, it MUST be recessive, any idea why?

b. I could live with it being just a misunderstandment. However, the whole statement and the island scenario is R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S. BECAUSE : we are NOT a population that consists of ONLY homosexual individuals. PLUS, I have pointed out to you that it is not because heterosexual individuals are the only ones that reproduce, that homosexual individuals cannot have a positive contribution to the birth rate. I'll say again : we, as a species, do not survive BECAUSE OF homosexual behaviour, but it is NOT MAKING US BECOME EXTINCT EITHER. It could help increase our CHANCES OF SURVIVAL without being just THE CAUSE of our survival. You really need to stop looking at this in black and white.

c. Yes you have, here's an exact copy of something you wrote in that thread :
 Quote:
Well first, there was nothing wrong with your comparison to being retarded. No one can deny that being homosexual (if you argue that it is natural) is a is a natural deformity/abnormal behavior; it is simply not how humans are 'supposed' to be. Being blind, retarded, homosexual, deaf, bad eyesight, etc. are all unfortunate abnormal human characteristics. I'm not saying that they are bad, so dont get me wrong; just not normal human characteristics.
[/b]

d. Look at b

 Quote:
Finally, you haven't pointed out any flaws in my base. You have twisted my words, and misunderstood my words, but every rationale I have used is a legitimate base for my opinion.
[/b]

Yes I have, you only have a hard time admitting it.

 Quote:
Also, I wish you would address the selective discrimination issue, but I can see why you wont: no one can. There is hypocritical, selective discrimination going on all the time, and no one wants to talk about it. Many people are jumping on the homosexuality band wagon, calling it 'tolerance'. You support homos or you are a bigot is the message I usually hear. And that is hypocritical to the Nth degree.
[/b]

Why do I have to address that issue? I haven't addressed it before, I never intended to do so either.
I was just READING that thread in order to learn[/b] something when I found I had to comment on those statements of yours. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 Quote:
I would appreciate it if you didn't personally cut me down, because when you do it temps me to drop to your level, and it also shows you have run out of intelligent talking points.
[/b]

I'm not trying to cut you down personally, it's a shame you think so, I'm trying to make you see that you are wrong at some crucial points in your thinking. It's also a shame that you think that in order to get to my level you need to "drop".
Posted by: Moonbat

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/13/04 07:09 AM

 Quote:

You said you gave me solid evidence, but then you said that it is the "best bet" considering what is known.

You cant have evidence, and then gamble on it.

Evidence is evidence, and you have none.

If I found evidence (such as a scientific reading) that the sun is hot, im not going to say that "it is the best bet that the sun is hot, given our knowledge". No, the sun IS hot. Thats what evidence is: proof...not a loose correlation.
You don't know what you're talking about.

Science does not produce proofs, science ONLY EVER produces the best bet. For every single scientific theory there is the possibility that evidence that contradicts the theory will arise.

With certain theories for example heliocentricity (planets go round the sun, germ-based theory of disease (viruses and bacteria cause desease), or evolution, the "bet" is considered such good odds that one can effectively consider it true. But they are still not proofs. From what i have read there is not so much evidence that the genetic theory of homosexuality is as strong as the above mentioned theories (though i could be mistaken) but it still constitutes the best bet.

I gave you direct quotes from abstracts of papers published in peer reviewd scientific journals, what more can you possibly want?

 Quote:

Please address the issue that has substance, about why you think its ok to selectively discriminate against other segments of the population who have lifestyles that 'dont' hurt anyone, yet you support the "illegal status" of their activities.
Your logic is flawed, even if one accepts your assertation that i discriminate against other segements of the population that does not alter the argument regarding homosexuality. Your current 'refutation' of my stance, could be applied to any argument regarding discrimination.

Ie:

You: we should descriminate against people who are black.

Me: No we shouldn't heres why....

You: Aha but you think nakedness in public should be illegal, ahah!.

Me: That doesn't address my argument at all.

Furthermore, i answered your queries, beastiality can be viewed as abusing animals, furthermore as someone else pointed out beastilaity carries a risk of transfering diseases to man, diseases that cross the species barrier are the most dangerous.

Do i support keeping nakedness in public illegal? As i said earlier i don't really care that much, are there lots of people who really want to be naked all the time, is their quality of life seriously reduced? I don't think so.

Furthermore there is a difference here, nudity in public is choice, homosexuality irrespective of whether its genetic or environmental roots is NOT choice.

 Quote:

You either have rules or chaos. Allow certain, normal, things...or allow everything
Bollocks, you can choose your rules. Not descriminating against someone who happens to find members of the same sex attractive is not going to lead to chaos.
Posted by: David Burton

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/13/04 07:31 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbat:
Science does not produce proofs, science ONLY EVER produces the best bet. For every single scientific theory there is the possibility that evidence that contradicts the theory will arise. With certain theories for example heliocentricity (planets go round the sun, germ-based theory of disease (viruses and bacteria cause disease), or EVOLUTION, the "bet" is considered such good odds that one can effectively consider it true. [/b]
Evolution at least as described by Darwin and his followers is VERY FAR from being proved, see Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton. And it was pretty funny to see the results of DNA taken from a supposed Cro-Magnan man which turned out to be from a dog, from a pig and from a modern human. Evolution is nothing more than a bad theory that allows philosophical materialism to be accepted in other areas of human life. There is likewise no solid evidence for Creationism as a literal interpretation of the Bible has it. The truth is WE DON'T KNOW.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbat:
Bollocks, you can choose your rules. Not discriminating against someone who happens to find members of the same sex attractive is not going to lead to chaos. [/b]
It's a bit more than finding members of the same sex attractive.

But what does any of this have to do with terrorism of GWB?
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/13/04 07:42 AM

There is a sort of gravitational principle that causes all threads, no matter how orthogonal, to inevitably spiral into a discussion of homosexuality. It may take more pages for a topic like planting roses than for one began as a discussion of terrorism but it is the black hole, so to speak, about which everything else on this board revolves and, inevitably, enters .
Posted by: David Burton

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/13/04 07:52 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by JBryan:
There is a sort of gravitational principle that causes all threads, no matter how orthogonal, to inevitably spiral into a discussion of homosexuality. It may take more pages for a topic like planting roses than for one began as a discussion of terrorism but IT IS THE BLACK HOLE, so to speak, about which everything else on this board revolves and, inevitably, enters . [/b]
LOL
Posted by: Moonbat

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/13/04 09:38 AM

 Quote:

Evolution at least as described by Darwin and his followers is VERY FAR from being proved, see Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton. And it was pretty funny to see the results of DNA taken from a supposed Cro-Magnan man which turned out to be from a dog, from a pig and from a modern human. Evolution is nothing more than a bad theory that allows philosophical materialism to be accepted in other areas of human life. There is likewise no solid evidence for Creationism as a literal interpretation of the Bible has it. The truth is WE DON'T KNOW.
In science proof doesn't exist, atleast not beyond reasonable doubt, and evolution is beyond reasonable doubt.

I can understand why you might disagree given the amount of nonsense spewed on the subject (especially and rather shamefully in the US, where one expects better). But you are mistaken, evolution has mountains of evidence supporting it, is inevitable given the properties of cellular replication and genetics, and acts as the unifiying theory of biology, "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the context of evolution"

The book you site and those like it by Behe, Dembski et al. have all been completely demolished by the scientific community, most raise the same tired arguments that were shot down decades ago. They are motivated by those who view evolutionary theory as a threat to their religious ideology, rather than by objective analysis of the theory and the data available.

It is highly telling of the quality of the arguments presented that there is no record within peer reviewed scientific literature.

For reference here is a review of one of Milton's earlier books by an evolutionary biologist - Dawkins (granted if you know him and you're religious chances are you hate him, but his views are typical with regards to the validity of creation "science" vs. evolution).

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/Worl...the_myths.shtml

Infact just flicking through that review it's obvious that even with my A-level biology i could refute the arguments presented in that particular book, that should give you an idea of how informed many of these authors are.

A review of the book you mention can be found here:

http://www.2think.org/darwinism.shtml

Both of these links provide highly critical reviews i am sure that you will find just as many positive reviews (though invariably by people who do not understand evolutionary biology) that might be worth reading for a comparison.

If you wish to continue a discussion about evolution we should really make a new thread since this one already has already been derailed once. \:\) .
Posted by: David Burton

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/13/04 11:18 AM

This is supposedly a thread about terrorists and GWB. It has wavered into various topics that have nothing to do with either.

Like evolution.

I am on record as doubting both evolution and Creationism, the big bang theory, the so called third law of thermodynamics, that the world is running out of oil or is overpopulated, and many other things that are passed off as "beyond reasonable doubt." I am far more skeptical about a great many things.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbat:
In science proof doesn't exist, atleast not beyond reasonable doubt, and evolution is beyond reasonable doubt. [/b]
NOT. Even Dr. Crick doubts there has been enough time for evolution to have produced the results we can all see around us. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Can you tell me anything you know about evolution for certain that can be proved by standard experiment? Any one thing --- that is absolutely true, that you would stake your life on? Anything about it that is absolutely beyond doubt? I frankly doubt it. For most scientists belief in evolution is accepted as a matter of faith not facts.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbat:
I can understand why you might disagree given the amount of nonsense spewed on the subject (especially and rather shamefully in the US, where one expects better). But you are mistaken, evolution has mountains of evidence supporting it, is inevitable given the properties of cellular replication and genetics, and acts as the unifying theory of biology, "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the context of evolution"[/b]
Unifying theory? Here are just a few problems:
1. extrapolating generalizations from limited artificial selection research to megaevolution: that a new species or class of organisms can evolve from another species. Not proven, and not likely to be. No evidence.

2. the observed hierarchy found in nature is the reverse of that expected by evolutionary theory; simpler animals were found to reproduce in greater numbers and were more resistant to variations in the environment.

3. Individual survival after birth tends to be mostly the result of chance; in most cases natural selection eliminates only the sick and the deformed.

4. Environmental variations which cause evolution-temperature, the population of other animals, and the surrounding plant life, all of which have been fairly stable for eons-can result in only very limited degrees and types of changes, not one species from another.

5. The natural selection hypothesis involves circular reasoning; an extant species survived because it was fit, and must be fit because it obviously has survived. It does not answer where life came from nor does it explain diversity of species.

6. The commonality of apparent over design, or the existence of complex mechanisms that do not effect survival, but may add much to the quality of life, also creates a severe problem for the natural selection theory.

You can't successfully refute any of these criticisms. And I'll add one more, the most important one, geological evidence of mass extinction events combined with fossil records which indicate a profusion of not just single organisms but whole ecosystems within the blink of an eyelash in geological time following such events. Evolution were it possible would not have had enough time to proceed and in any case the fossil evidence is against it.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbat:
The book you site and those like it by Behe, Dembski et al. have all been completely demolished by the scientific community, most raise the same tired arguments that were shot down decades ago. They are motivated by those who view evolutionary theory as a threat to their religious ideology, rather than by objective analysis of the theory and the data available. [/b]
It is in fact rather the reverse. Nothing the "scientific community" as you call it can completely demolish the questions which threaten to topple its own materialist ideology. Aristotle was a dolt and you are following in his errant footsteps.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbat:
It is highly telling of the quality of the arguments presented that there is no record within peer reviewed scientific literature. [/b]
Indeed. Peer review is a form of inquisition or censorship which keeps disturbing ideas from being discussed in the open where they might be easily refuted. It would be beneficial to science (and the rest of us) to dispense with all of it.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbat:
For reference here is a review of one of Milton's earlier books by an evolutionary biologist - Dawkins (granted if you know him and you're religious chances are you hate him, but his views are typical with regards to the validity of creation "science" vs. evolution). [/b]
I'm quite familiar with Dawkins. He is a self professed "turd slinger" who says he will do anything to preserve the status of the evolutionary theory. That doesn't mean he will or can succeed.

The question of how "informed" or "indoctrinated" many of these authors are should be more open to debate.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbat:
A review of the book you mention can be found here:
http://www.2think.org/darwinism.shtml
[/b]
The author or authors of this very poor, jeering review, full of irrelevancies was never identified. I\m not impressed.

It is always and everywhere convenient to say to someone who dismisses a popular theory that just doesn't understand it. Moreover it is usually stated in a condescending way. Fine. I'll just say that \I understand enough to have made up my mind that the theory has no basis in fact and isn\t worth pursuing further. Same with Creationism, the big bang, etc.

Now how about getting more about terrorists and GWB.
Posted by: Moonbat

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/13/04 12:35 PM

 Quote:

This is supposedly a thread about terrorists and GWB. It has wavered into various topics that have nothing to do with either.

Like evolution.
Fair enough.

 Quote:

I am on record as doubting both evolution and Creationism, the big bang theory, the so called third law of thermodynamics, that the world is running out of oil or is overpopulated, and many other things that are passed off as "beyond reasonable doubt." I am far more skeptical about a great many things
Ok... uh you should probably know that there is no 3rd law of thermodynamics.... And if you're talking about the 2nd law then you've chosen probably the most solid element in ALL of science.

 Quote:

NOT. Even Dr. Crick doubts there has been enough time for evolution to have produced the results we can all see around us.
Hmm.. Crick was an ardent defendant of evolution and also happened to be highly critical of religion i find it quite hard to believe that he doubted its viability. A much more likely explanation is you have read a fabrication or misquote of him. Do you have a reference?

 Quote:

Can you tell me anything you know about evolution for certain that can be proved by standard experiment?
That mutation can cause phenotypic change, and that beneficial traits spread through a population, that mutation can confer new functionality. That's a reasonable start.

 Quote:

Any one thing --- that is absolutely true, that you would stake your life on? Anything about it that is absolutely beyond doubt?
There is no absolute truth in science, there nothing that is 'absolutely' beyond doubt. There is only beyond 'reasonable' doubt. I would say that the theory of common descent achieved via a process of variation and selection is beyond reasonable doubt.

 Quote:

I frankly doubt it. For most scientists belief in evolution is accepted as a matter of faith not facts.
My experience with scientists runs contrary to that. (Edited to remove arrogance ) Most scientists seem to buy into evolution because it makes perfect sense and its backed by evidence, from the genotype from the fossil record, from lab based experiments.

 Quote:

Unifying theory?
Indeed.

 Quote:

Here are just a few problems:
1. extrapolating generalizations from limited artificial selection research to megaevolution: that a new species or class of organisms can evolve from another species. Not proven, and not likely to be. No evidence.
That's not a problem. Artificial selection is indeed evidence but its not the only evidence, more over it is a valid approach. It is reasonable to expect that if lots of successive small changes occur the end result is equivalent to a big change.

 Quote:

2. the observed hierarchy found in nature is the reverse of that expected by evolutionary theory; simpler animals were found to reproduce in greater numbers and were more resistant to variations in the environment.
See immediately by this statement you demonstrate that you don't understand what evolution actually says. I don't mean to sound aggressive or patronising. But it is so key because it's ALWAYS the case that those who doubt evolution don't understand what it actually says.

Evolutionary theory does NOT "expect" more complex organisms to be necessarily more reproductively successfull.

If there is selective pressure pushing an organism to become more complex then that's what will happen, but the reverse is true as well, if there is selective pressure favour simplicity then that will be favoured.

Whether having lots of complex functionality is worth the increased metabolic cost and lower reproductive rate is dependent on the ecological niche (the 'environment') the organism is in.

Damnit i'm not being clear enough. It's hard you see to explain evolutionary theory over a message board \:\) .

 Quote:

3. Individual survival after birth tends to be mostly the result of chance; in most cases natural selection eliminates only the sick and the deformed.
It is true that chance plays a large factor but it doesn't matter as long as there is very small bias in favour of certain traits then statistically speaking they will be more likely to spread than other traits. An organism with a usefull mutation will have a higher probability of reproducing than an organism without said mutation. That is all one needs for evolutionary theory.

Some usefull mutations will die out through chance but those that don't those that make it through several generations will spread through the population.

 Quote:

4. Environmental variations which cause evolution-temperature, the population of other animals, and the surrounding plant life, all of which have been fairly stable for eons-can result in only very limited degrees and types of changes, not one species from another.
1. Temperaturess vary widely across evolutionary timescales (ice ages) and across geometry (The saraha is hot, the poles are cold).

2. Environment in an evolutionary context also incorporates the surrounding organisms ie. the ecosystem. A bunch of animals from somewhere else turning up can thus create a completely new environment complete various selective pressures.

3. (And most importantly)

You raise another well known misunderstanding

Namely that to go from one species to another one needs a "big" change, you don't, there are no big changes, only small ones.

The point at which the ancestors of cats and dogs were considered seperate species was the point at which they became reproductively incompatible. If you have two groups within a species that are diverging (due too differing pressures), then at some point they become so dissimilar they can no longer interbreed. Bingo new species. (Though they will still look very similar). As time goes by the two species will become more and more distinct due to continuing environmental differences and genetic drift.

It is important to note though that the point of speciation is just another tiny phenotypic change.

 Quote:

5.
The natural selection hypothesis involves circular reasoning; an extant species survived because it was fit, and must be fit because it obviously has survived. It does not answer where life came from nor does it explain diversity of species.
Evolution does not seek to explain where life came from that is the field of abiogensis, evolution is equally compatible with a God snapping his fingers creating the first organism, or it emerging through complex chemical reactions on prebiotic Earth.

Evolution on the other hand DOES explain diversity, evolutionary principles show EXACTLY how biological diversity can arise. The mechanism of selection and variation can be shown to produce functionality through simulations (as a result computer programmers use "genetic algorithms" to solve problems, mirroring the process of evolution).

 Quote:

6. The commonality of apparent over design, or the existence of complex mechanisms that do not effect survival, but may add much to the quality of life, also creates a severe problem for the natural selection theory.
There are no severe problems for evolutionary theory, but its interesting that you mention over design, overdesign has easily advantages namely redundancy.

But what is interesting is that evolutionary theory is blind, it doesn't know where its going so whilst we would expect it to be able to produce fantastic complexity given its power, we would also expect examples where it looks stupid from a human point of view. And that's exactly what we find, there are numerous examples of "bad design" found in nature, from the position of the urethra causing prostate problems, to the wiring of nerves and the height of trees wasting resources.

 Quote:

You can't successfully refute any of these criticisms.
But you see, i can.

 Quote:

And I'll add one more, the most important one, geological evidence of mass extinction events combined with fossil records which indicate a profusion of not just single organisms but whole ecosystems within the blink of an eyelash in geological time following such events. Evolution were it possible would not have had enough time to proceed and in any case the fossil evidence is against it.
I can only assume you are talking about the Cambrian explosion. There is very very simple answer to the Cambrian explosion: If you have life merrily evolving away, but that life lacks an exoskeletal (ie. its soft). Then it can't leave any fossils, so what do you expect to see when exskeletons first evolve? Suddenly you will find massess of fossils and none before. Because for the first time the organisms can leave fossils!

To claim that the fossil record speaks out against evolution is folly of great measure. The reason why all paleontologists believe in evolution is because the field that they actual spend their lives studying shows it so clearly. They spend as much time arguing with creationists as biologists do!

 Quote:

It is in fact rather the reverse. Nothing the "scientific community" as you call it can completely demolish the questions which threaten to topple its own materialist ideology. Aristotle was a dolt and you are following in his errant footsteps
Ok...

 Quote:

Indeed. Peer review is a form of inquisition or censorship which keeps disturbing ideas from being discussed in the open where they might be easily refuted. It would be beneficial to science (and the rest of us) to dispense with all of it.
Peer review is a great asset it means we are able to seperate usefull science from nonsense. I will grant you that truly revolutionary ideas can be delayed by peer review because scientists tend to be quite conservative. But if they are sound ideas they always get through, relativity compeletely changed people's ideas, it wasn't rejected. Quantum theory didn't just our change our ideas it smashed them to bits.

 Quote:

I'm quite familiar with Dawkins. He is a self professed "turd slinger" who says he will do anything to preserve the status of the evolutionary theory. That doesn't mean he will or can succeed.
Ok.. so you don't like Dawkins \:\) . (though i'd disagree with your discription of him)

 Quote:

It is always and everywhere convenient to say to someone who dismisses a popular theory that just doesn't understand it
But with regards to evolution they NEVER EVER do. I know because i've read what they have to say on numerous occasions and i've debated with them on numerous occasions.

If you wish you could understand evolution, there are lots of popular books around that explain it, i would reccommend one of Goulds if you dislike Dawkins.

 Quote:

The author or authors of this very poor, jeering review, full of irrelevancies was never identified. I\m not impressed.
Disregarding style i thought the substance of that review is quite good. It does correctly refute some of the arguments (the same arguments one sees again and again in creationist literature) presented.

 Quote:

Fine. I'll just say that \I understand enough to have made up my mind that the theory has no basis in fact and isn\t worth pursuing further
But you see i know, i catagorically KNOW that you don't understand it, because i've just read what you think about it. \:\) I can help you understand it if you wish, or (and i would recommend this) you could get out a pop. sci. book from library.

I hope i haven't come off as too patronising.

Regards
Moonbat
Posted by: MusicMagellan

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/13/04 01:33 PM

I'm taking a break from my Saturday chores again. I'm glad I popped in here.

Dave,

I personally very much appreciate your post. I am an R&D Engineer by profession and believe strongly in skeptical inquiry. Further, by belief, I am not a scientific reductionist.

Besides Quantum theory as cited by Moonbat, there's the celebrated Godel's Theorem which I imagine you're familiar with. It's hard to accept any scientific theory at face value after that Theorem surfaced.

In any event, a pure scientist judges a theory by utility alone, ready to replace it when something with more utility comes along.

Interestingly, there's a theory being promulgated now that proposes to replace the big bang theory with the notion of an infinitely cyclic process of expansions and compressions.

But I just want to alert you that you have a kindred spirit in Moonbat. My view is that you two are just brainstorming, devil's advocating each other along the way, as Moonbat and I did on another thread. I found that dialogue to easily be one of the most satisfying of those I've had in the Coffee Room to date because we were just brainstorming, neither one looking to win an argument per se.

Please don't either of you stop discussing such issues out of a personal misunderstanding.

Moonbat,

A few points regarding our other dialogue. My projection example was misleading. I agree that the input space is unknowable. I merely believe that our output spaces are (to use suggestive terminology from Linear Spaces) homomorphic to the input space as well as to each others' output spaces. That, to me, enables consistency between our observations of the input space: that is, the "real world."

I trust you had Linear Spaces at least back in College. If not, you'll find isomorphisms and homomorphisms defined early in any textbook on the subject. I find it very useful for discussing such philosophical questions, as long as it's not taken too literally (for example I am NOT implying that the transformations are linear).

Isomorphism is easy to explain. It means that for every object in the input space there is an equivalent object in the output space. Further there is an equivalent operation between objects in the output space for each of the operations in the input space. A simple example is real numbers together with the multiplication operation in the input space and logarithms together with addition operation in the output space.

Homomorphism, which is what's pertinent here, is not nearly as easy for me to explain in words without leading to misunderstandings.

Among other things, these notions, by implication, address the idea that out worlds, including our qualia, need only be equivalent in some broad sense for people to have meaningful (that is, non-chaotic) interaction within it.

To be continued another time. I don't want to divert this thread more than I have already.
Posted by: David Burton

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/13/04 05:22 PM

I believe this thread has now gone into outer space...
Posted by: Moonbat

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/14/04 05:16 AM

MusicMagellan thanks for the input, i'll have to go read up about homomorphism now.
Posted by: johnmoonlight

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/15/04 01:59 AM

Welcome back! We missed your insightful posts.
Posted by: sarah_blueparrot

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/15/04 02:41 AM

I'm sorry, what the hell was that about? Why is he posting in here?
Posted by: computerpro3

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/15/04 07:33 PM

 Quote:
No matter how powerful a pen, it cannot legalize the murder of a human by its dispensation of ink.
incorrect

ever heard of partial-birth abortion that Kerry holds so dearley (in front of pro-abortion crowds anyway)? You know, where they take the baby halfway out of the mother, slit its head open while it's crying, suck its brains out with a high powered medical vaccum, crush the skull, and deposit the corpse of the infant in a sterilized garbage?

Apparantly not.

And besides, to the thread starter, if you're worried about the terrorists rejoicing and sitting there unhindered in their murderous efforts, why the hell don't you get YOUR country to do something about it? :rolleyes:
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/16/04 09:15 AM

Well, 89th key, it seems that you switched back to "ignore mode"... I hope I was able to make you see where you were wrong.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/16/04 09:20 AM

Oh jeez nunatax, I came back here after the weekend and saw that this thread lost interest, and anyone reading it could see we were going in circles.

You dont disagree or agree with me, and you couldn't disprove any of my 'reasons' for my position...so it wasn't going anywhere, if you would like to continue, I'll be more than happy...

My opinion + your indecision = well, you figure it out.

After all, you chose to ignore the main reason I disagree with homosexual marriage, the selective discrimination...if you would like to continue, please address that issue. We all have our unproven theories about the origin of homosexuality, but since they are here, we might as well be pragmatic and discuss relevant issues.
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/16/04 09:31 AM

Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/16/04 10:06 AM

Look at everything you are saying! Here are the facts:

A) A pure white couple will NOT have a black kid.
B) A species cant survive from homosexual behavior
C) Nature articles about animals and altruistic "lifes" have no relevance to homosexuals, especially when they are all theories anyway!
D) If you have an island full of homos, you cant survive, refer to B.

What is so hard? Those are all true. You are dodging the issue, look at those 4 quick points i just made and tell me how any of those are wrong.

And why are you dodging the selective discrimination issue, because you dont 'care' about it? I thought you said thats not a good reason to stop debating...

Hmmm....
Posted by: sarah_blueparrot

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/16/04 10:21 AM

It's like a dog trying to catch its tail.. :rolleyes:
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/16/04 10:24 AM

Exactly my point sarah! \:\)

(even if that was pointed at me, haha)

We're going in circles and she wont address the issue with substance to it.

Lunch time! Is it dinner time in England?
Posted by: sarah_blueparrot

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/16/04 10:26 AM

Nearly.. I'm so tired though, I just want to sleep! Curry tonight \:\)
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/16/04 10:43 AM

Gee, I wonder why we are going in circles... :rolleyes:

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
Look at everything you are saying! Here are the facts:

A) A pure white couple will NOT have a black kid.
B) A species cant survive from homosexual behavior
C) Nature articles about animals and altruistic "lifes" have no relevance to homosexuals, especially when they are all theories anyway!
D) If you have an island full of homos, you cant survive, refer to B.
[/b]
A. Exactly, and you used that to "prove" that a heterosexual couple cannot have a homosexual child if it would be genetic, and that therefor it is impossible that homosexuality has a genetic cause. And THAT is plain wrong, THAT is what I pointed out.

B. Did you even read what I posted in my previous message? Or was it just too complicated for you to understand?

C. The Nature article was not about animals, it was about PEOPLE (more proof that you didn't read it, or perhaps you only "skimmed" it? :rolleyes: )

And the altruistic "theory" is actually not really a theory anymore, but a widely accepted natural mechanism.

D. Please READ what I wrote about it.

Something extra :
Put one hundred altruistic individuals on an island, and theoretically speaking, they won't survive either. Fact is, that's not how it is in real life. In real life, a population has a limited number of altruistic individuals. Natural mechanisms prevent that a population gets too many altruistic individuals.

 Quote:
What is so hard? Those are all true. You are dodging the issue, look at those 4 quick points i just made and tell me how any of those are wrong.
[/b]

It is you mister, who is dodging the issue. You are dodging practically everything I'm saying here. Your "4 quick points" are true, but the conclusions you draw from those points are RIDICULOUS[/b], and that's what I'm pointing out, I think that is pretty clear if you read my posts.

 Quote:
And why are you dodging the selective discrimination issue, because you dont 'care' about it? I thought you said thats not a good reason to stop debating...
[/b]
Please clarify, I don't see a connection here to anything I have said in the past.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/16/04 12:17 PM

Im not dodging anything you are saying, they are good arguments for your side, but at the same time, they dont refute any of those 4 points I made.

Those 4 points came up by the way through out many hundreds of posts on this topic, so some might seem random, and im not completely basing my theory on any of them...just in case you were wondering why they were so random.

But you admit that they are true, and I say that because I dont feel like going over and over, over them. That brings me to your last sentence...

...you were making fun of me earlier in that other post when I said I didn't feel like talking about it anymore because of the 'carosel' effect, and then when you said you dont want talk about the selective discrimination issue because you dont care...and I said that is unfair. I dont mind if you dont want to talk about it, but you were making fun of me earlier for not wanting to talk about the homo-argument in that other thread.

If those 4 points are done, and you dont want to talk about the selective discrimination issue, then I dont know what else we have to talk about.

But I do thank you for an intelligent conversation thusfar about the issue, most people (no matter what the stance) will not hold an intelligent conversation about such a controversial subject. \:\)
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/17/04 05:29 AM

*astonishingly deep sigh*

Iíll keep this post short...

You said the following :
 Quote:
the reasons gay people are even here are from heterosexual parents....you dont see a black couple having a white baby....do you?
Now, after all Iíve told you, do you still think that that is a flawless comparison?
A simple yes or no answer will do.
And please, act like a man this time and donít delete that first part of your statement again.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/17/04 05:33 AM

No, its not flawless, but I think its a legitimate viewpoint.

Just one of many reasons why I dont think its natural.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/17/04 05:35 AM

"Delete that first part?" What are you talking about?
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/17/04 05:49 AM

After all I have told you, you don't think that that comparison was one HUGE, TREMENDOUS MISTAKE?????????

If so, then I have no further comments... I've made it as clear and simple as I could. If you still don't understand it then I'm afraid even the best scientists couldn't get you to understand...
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/17/04 05:53 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
"Delete that first part?" What are you talking about? [/b]
In your "4 quick points" list you said that the statement "a black couple can never have a white baby" was true. That was not what I had been trying to refute since that is indeed true. What I was refuting was your ENTIRE quote, WITH the first part, only you "deleted" that part in your "quick points" list.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/17/04 09:16 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Nunatax:
If you still don't understand it then I'm afraid even the best scientists couldn't get you to understand... [/b]
Thats quite alright with me, the best scientists cant explain A LOT of things, so its all good.

They dont know where homosexuality comes from, neither do you or I, so my theory is it's a subconscious psychological disorder. Fair enough?
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/17/04 11:53 AM

I don't care about your theory or opinion about the origin. I'll start caring about it when you come up with some decent arguments to defend it with instead of these thoughtless ones.

But since you try to avoid all the valid arguments I give you, I'll probably never care about your opinion.

Your way of debating here was pathetic.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/17/04 12:01 PM

You threw out all these 'facts' that had nothing to do with what I was talking about...you dodged the main topic and you never looked at the big picture.

Why dont you do your own research and form an theory about the topic before you continue to attack my opinion.

But look...

...in the end it doesn't matter no matter what we say. There will always be people who claim to be a homo and the origin of their abnormal sexuality is a moot point. What you have to do now, is stay on an intelligent course of discussion and talk about relevant issues, such as their push for marriage, and the selective discrimination that it brings about.
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/17/04 01:31 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
You threw out all these 'facts' that had nothing to do with what I was talking about...you dodged the main topic and you never looked at the big picture.
[/b]

You are hopeless...

For the last time :
It's very simple. You made some statements that were scientifically completely ridiculous. I gave arguments because I realised they were ridiculous. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that.

If you cannot admit that you were wrong, I don't have ANY reason to debate the main topic with you, because I feel that debating with you is senseless since you'll never accept any of my arguments anyway.

 Quote:
Why dont you do your own research and form an theory about the topic before you continue to attack my opinion.
[/b]

I never attacked your opinion. I attacked those statements you made, and those were no opinions, they were flawed science, whether you like it or not.

Show me that you are willing to admit mistakes, especially when they are as obvious as the ones you made here, then I'll consider you a worthy opponent in debate. Fair, no?
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/17/04 01:39 PM

I admit, you attacked my rationale, not my opinion, my fault...

But in the same sense, look at it from my point of view: Just as you think i'm being stubborn and not admitting im wrong, I just as easily see your arguments as invalid and you wont admit to their own fallacies...see what I mean?

We agree to disagree, haha.
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/17/04 02:08 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
I admit, you attacked my rationale, not my opinion, my fault...
[/b]



 Quote:
But in the same sense, look at it from my point of view: Just as you think i'm being stubborn and not admitting im wrong, I just as easily see your arguments as invalid and you wont admit to their own fallacies...see what I mean?

We agree to disagree, haha. [/b]
For that first point there is no doubt that you were wrong. If I'd show that statement (that entire statement :rolleyes: ) to the professor who taught me genetics two years ago, he'd be rotflhao... You quite simply FORGOT one of the main principles of genetics when you formulated that argument and therefor it is one gigantic mistake...

If you don't see a simple fact like that then I feel no need to further argue about the other points... Please show some basic common sense, because that's really all you need for this point.
Posted by: NAK

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/17/04 04:20 PM

Posted by: snap_apple

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/17/04 05:44 PM

haha
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/17/04 07:23 PM

Haha, I agree NAK, but I told Nunatax that if she wanted to continue, I would...I'm never one to turn down a challenge.

We are arguing opinion, since nunatax doesn't want to address the only homosexual issue with substance and practicality.

I think she said before she doesn't want to address it...
Posted by: NAK

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/17/04 09:17 PM

Wait. Nunatax is a girl?
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 03:20 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by NAK:
[/b]
Lol!!! \:D
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 03:21 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by NAK:
Wait. Nunatax is a girl? [/b]
No... I'm not a girl.
Don't know where he got that...
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 03:25 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
Haha, I agree NAK, but I told Nunatax that if she wanted to continue, I would...I'm never one to turn down a challenge.

We are arguing opinion, since nunatax doesn't want to address the only homosexual issue with substance and practicality.

I think she said before she doesn't want to address it... [/b]
Hey wait, I thought you just agreed that I wasn't attacking your opinion...

Flip-flop 89th key...

You're right, I don't want to address it, certainly not when you can't admit a very obvious mistake... Arguing with someone like that is fruitless...

You just killed the thread...

Ignorance can be lethal you know...
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 05:36 AM

I didn't say you attacked my opinion Nunatax, get your facts straight. We'll leave that flip-flopping up to Kerry.

Yeah, after I said "she", I was trying to figure out why I thought nunatax was a girl, I think from the first time I saw HIS name, I just assumed in the back of my mind. Maybe it was the 'nuna'...that sounds kinda female. Anyway:

Admit a mistake?

Answer this, very simply. I already know your answer, becuase you have said it before, but just for the record, *just say YES or NO*.

Can two white parents have a black kid?
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 05:55 AM

Not giving up, huh?

OK, let's try this your way...

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
Answer this, very simply. I already know your answer, becuase you have said it before, but just for the record, *just say YES or NO*.

Can two white parents have a black kid? [/b]
No.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 06:13 AM

Exactly. Thank you. \:\)
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 06:20 AM

Great, we're getting somewhere
:rolleyes:

Now it's your turn to give me a yes or no answer to my question.

Knowing that a white couple cannot have a black baby, is that reason enough to say that a heterosexual couple cannot have a child that is homosexual because of genetic reasons?
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 06:31 AM

No.

Not reason enough, *but* I think it is a legitimate point of view to consider when there is no evidence pointing to either a genetical or psychological disorder.

Listen, I respect your facts and point of view about this nunatax, I really do. I just think it's valid enough to be one of many reasons why I dont think it would be genetical. Ya know?
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 07:04 AM

You really are priceless, 89th key!


Foolish boy. Your entire argument loses ALL of its value when you realise the following :
A man and a woman who both have brown eyes can have a child with blue eyes.

It's not a point of view, it's not something I use to defend my point of view or opinion, it's a fact, and it completely destroys your argument.

Man, I would love to see you defending your argument in a debate on TV! You'll be literally shredded to pieces! \:D
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 07:33 AM

Thats like saying if the kid can have a different eye color, it can have a different skin color, or a different sexual orientation.

Thats just not true, and you know.

Had I been on TV, there would have been enough intelligence to realize that a debate should address an issue with substance, such as homo marriage.

But you obviously lack that intelligence and want to dodge that issue. You want to talk about the rationale for my opinion, when you dont even HAVE an opinion in the first place.

So either:
1) form an opinion
or 2) talk about the real issue
or 3) shut up.

Those are your options.
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 07:57 AM

I'll make you a promise :
If you acknowledge the obvious (and thus show me that you are not unreasonable), I'll stop "dodging" what you consider to be "the issue". ;\)
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 08:20 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
Thats like saying if the kid can have a different eye color, it can have a different skin color, or a different sexual orientation.[/b]
Nice edit...

Absolutely my final attempt at stopping this madness :

There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between the skin color and the eye color characteristic. Skin colour alleles are co-dominant, eye color alleles follow the recessive-dominant principle (WARNING : oversimplified for your convenience...).
That means, if you have a black skin color, then you don't have alleles coding for white skin color in your genetic material, otherwise your skin would not be black but brown... Two black people can therefor have no white children.
If you have brown eyes (and brown is dominant over blue), then there are two possibilities :
a. you have two alleles coding for brown eyes (homozygote)
b. you have one allele coding for brown eyes, the other codes for blue eyes (heterozygote)

Two parents that are heterozygote for eye colour can have a child that has blue eyes.

And no, that's not saying that a kid can also have a different skin color then, because skin color is just determined by a whole other mechanism : co-dominance (which I explained earlier).

Now, pay attention, because the following is VERY IMPORTANT :

Without the blink of an eye, you put homosexuality under the same mechanism as that which determines skin color, but you forgot that if it has the mechanism of eye color, then it is perfectly possible that two heterosexual parents have a homosexual child.

Consequence : your whole argument is flawed to the highest degree. [/b]
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 08:31 AM

You are missing the whole point. I dont base my opinion that it is a psychological disorder simply on the fact that I dont see two heterosexual parents having a homosexual kid.

There are MANY reasons why I believe its a psych disorder, and that is just one of them. After all, there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic at all, thus talking about the genetical composition and behavior when two parents mate, is irrellivant. Your analysis of eye color, skin color, etc doesn't matter because the homosexual "gene" is an entirely different platform. Lets say, just for kicks, that it is genetical. It could be under the mechanism that determines eye color. Consequence: You're right. It could just as easily be under the mechanism that determines skin color. Consequence: I'm right. I just dont see two heterosexual parents having a homo kid. MOVE ON.

I'd love to talk about selective discrimination with you, but you seem to have no opinion on anything, so tell me what your stance is with homo marriage, IF you want to continue with that aspect of the debate.
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 09:29 AM



 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
You are missing the whole point. I dont base my opinion that it is a psychological disorder simply on the fact that I dont see two heterosexual parents having a homosexual kid.

There are MANY reasons why I believe its a psych disorder, and that is just one of them. After all, there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic at all, thus talking about the genetical composition and behavior when two parents mate, is irrellivant.[/b]
I'm not the one who brought up the origin in the discussion and I don't care who did! The fact is, it WAS brought up and you made a wrong statement!

 Quote:
Your analysis of eye color, skin color, etc doesn't matter because the homosexual "gene" is an entirely different platform. Lets say, just for kicks, that it is genetical. It could be under the mechanism that determines eye color. Consequence: You're right.[/b]
OK, let's hold it right there.
I don't use my argument to prove that it is genetical (I have never even claimed that it is genetical)... I simply can't use it to prove that it is genetical, and I would never use it to support that idea either. I only used it to disprove your logic.[/b]
You used your argument to defend your opinion that it is psychological. See for yourself :

 Quote:
the reasons gay people are even here are from heterosexual parents....you dont see a black couple having a white baby....do you?
Everyone who has a minimum of intelligence interprets this as : since a black couple cannot have a white baby, two heterosexual parents cannot have a homosexual baby, thus it is impossible that homosexuality is genetical.
I think that statement sounds pretty conclusive. The problem is, you cannot draw that conclusion, you cannot use that argument to support the idea that it is psychological, but that is what you did and keep doing. The analogy you made there is simply UNJUSTIFIED.
Furthermore, by saying that that statement is wrong, I'm not trying to refute that it is psychological, I'm trying to indicate that you CANNOT USE IT TO SUPPORT YOUR IDEA THAT IT IS PSYCHOLOGICAL.[/b]

 Quote:
so tell me what your stance is with homo marriage, IF you want to continue with that aspect of the debate. [/b]
My stance on homosexual marriage is already here in another thread. Everyone ignored it, probably because they didn't like what I had said. Someone else brought it back up and said that it didn't get the attention that it deserved. Still no responses.
I should go back and check it out to be sure, but if I'm not mistaken you were among those who ignored what I had said.
I can dig it back up if you want.
Posted by: Moonbat

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 09:32 AM

 Quote:

no evidence pointing to either a genetical or psychological disorder
There is evidence suggesting a partial genetic basis. I gave you some, which for some you reason you choose to ignore.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 09:50 AM

Nunatax, how many times do I have to tell you? I just dont see a homosexual baby coming from heterosexual parents. You have all this jargon about recessive alleles in dealing with skin color and eye color. THAT DOESN'T MATTER! No one has any evidence to prove that homosexuality is genetic, thus talking about it's behavior as a gene is pointless! I simply dont see it, thats my opinion, I think it is like the black/white parent kid thing, in which it is impossible for certain traits to magically appear! Eye color uses a completely different mechanism in the behavior of genes, and in my opinion homosexuality isn't EVEN a gene, thus this is a pointless issue. There is no evidence on either side so drop it, it is my opinion, and when you show me that it is genetical, THEN you can start talking about the genetical behavior issue. BUT YOU HAVEN'T, thus my opinion is EXACTLY as valid as yours. Its not that hard to understand!

And why wont you just say your stance on homo marriage instead of making me go and find it. You used 6 sentences to talk about how you had one, but it would of taken you one sentence to just say what IT is.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 09:54 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbat:
 Quote:

no evidence pointing to either a genetical or psychological disorder
There is evidence suggesting a partial genetic basis. I gave you some, which for some you reason you choose to ignore. [/b]
I'm sorry, I think I read every post, and I saw none offering evidence that it is genetical. I read an article the other day about how the scientific community recently had a large investigation about it, met in san fransisco, and officially said there is still no evidence for a genetical rationale.

The genetical disorder theory is just as valid as a psychological disorder theory. In fact, it was classified as a psychological disorder for the longest time until it was declassified because of political pressure.

I dont understand why people have a problem with my support of the psychological theory. I dont have a problem with your genetical theory, if you have that stance. I would appreciate the same mutual respect. I would like to talk about the selective discrimination aspect, but since no one will address that, I'll just let it slide off the table for now...
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 10:46 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
Nunatax, how many times do I have to tell you? I just dont see a homosexual baby coming from heterosexual parents. You have all this jargon about recessive alleles in dealing with skin color and eye color. THAT DOESN'T MATTER! No one has any evidence to prove that homosexuality is genetic
[/b]

You have this fixed idea that I'm trying to prove that it is genetical. I'm not.


 Quote:
, thus talking about it's behavior as a gene is pointless! I simply dont see it, thats my opinion, I think it is like the black/white parent kid thing, in which it is impossible for certain traits to magically appear!
[/b]

What kind of nursery class science is that???????

The blue eyes "magically appear" and eyecolor is an inheritable, genetical trait. Conclusion : a genetical trait CAN "magically appear" :rolleyes:
Is homosexuality therefore genetical without a doubt? NO, AND I NEVER SAID SO, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO PROVE THAT IT IS GENETICAL EITHER! WHEN WILL YOU GET THAT???

 Quote:
Eye color uses a completely different mechanism in the behavior of genes, and in my opinion homosexuality isn't EVEN a gene, thus this is a pointless issue.There is no evidence on either side so drop it, it is my opinion, and when you show me that it is genetical
[/b]

For the 1000th time [/b] :
I'm NOT trying to show you that it IS genetic. I'm trying to point out to you whether it COULD[/b] be genetic.
You dismissed that the possibility that it is genetic with that statement. I correctly pointed out to you that you cannot draw that conclusion from that statement[/b]. That is ALL I am saying!

Repeat after me :
Nunatax is NOT trying prove that homosexuality is genetically determined.
Nunatax is NOT trying to refute that it is psychological.
Nunatax is just trying to point out to me that I CANNOT draw the conclusion that it is impossible that it is genetically determined, from that statement that I made.[/b]

Now get that short-term memory of yours fixed, will ya?

 Quote:
And why wont you just say your stance on homo marriage instead of making me go and find it. You used 6 sentences to talk about how you had one, but it would of taken you one sentence to just say what IT is. [/b]
Here it is : http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/10/6281/12.html

In short :
Cut the BS and allow it.

Happy now?
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 12:13 PM

Why are you freaking out?

I never said that you were trying to prove its genetic, calm down sunshine...look over those quotes of me that you just posted, I never said you said it was genetic.

I'm simply saying that since no one knows whether its genetic or not, I say that I dont think it could be, because ONE of my reasons is that I dont see two hetero parents having a homo baby.

Calm down.

You were showing me all this genetic info about how it COULD happen...and yes it COULD happen, but it also COULD NOT happen, since its 50/50 right now, and I say it doesn't happen.

There's nothing incorrect about my "magically appear" statement. A black kid wont magically appear from white parents (unless the mother is hookin up with stainweggie), and in the same sense, I dont see a homo baby magically appearing from hetero parents.

You said:
"For the 1000th time :
I'm NOT trying to show you that it IS genetic. I'm trying to point out to you whether it COULD be genetic.
You dismissed that the possibility that it is genetic with that statement. I correctly pointed out to you that you cannot draw that conclusion from that statement. That is ALL I am saying!"[/b]

Calm down! I never said that you were trying to show me it was genetic, you were arguing on the assumption that if it was genetic, then your comparisons are valid...and since its an easy 50/50 spilt, you are wasting your time since its a flip of the coin, there's no reason to wet your pants trying to prove one way, since its unknown.


And I assume since you want to cut the BS you want to allow incest marriage and polygamist marriage? Shoot, will you support me if I want to get "married" to my best friend just to get the tax breaks? In come the 100 person weddings, the mom and dad also being brother and sister, howd that happen? And the college roommates getting married for tax breaks since they live in an apt and want to save money. Why not walk around naked? Why not have sex in public? Well since we are doing that, we might as well have a hetero-male bathroom, a hetero-female bathroom, a homosexual-male & homosexual-female bathroom combined. What else is there that "doesn't hurt anyone"? Hmmm..

OH THATS RIGHT! We opened a box full of "freedoms" that will lead our country right down to chaos.

There has to be a rule set somewhere, might as well be with homo marriage!
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 12:52 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
There's nothing incorrect about my "magically appear" statement. A black kid wont magically appear from white parents (unless the mother is hookin up with stainweggie), and in the same sense, I dont see a homo baby magically appearing from hetero parents.[/b]
Tell me, what is YOUR explanation for the "magical appearance" of blue eyes from two brown-eyed parents???

If blue eyes can "magically appear", then why wouldn't "homo babies" be able to "magically appear"???

There are FACTS here, I thought you liked facts??? There are FACTS, PROVEN FACTS that state that traits CAN "magically appear" and yet you keep claiming that you don't see how a homo baby could "magically appear"??? That makes your claim to be OUTRIGHT RIDICULOUS! Don't you see that??????

Somebody, PLEASE, hammer some common sense into this guy's head. I'm practically out of energy \:\(
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 01:02 PM

IF homosexuality is genetic, (the 'if' already lowers the end probability percentage), then it is STILL a 50/50 shot:

I've said that this whole time, if homosexuality is genetic, then it could behave similarly to skin color, or it could behave like eye color...HENCE it is a 50/50 shot and you and I have the SAME percentage at 'being correct'.

It's 50/50, and I believe one side...what are you trying to prove? I'll pick heads, you can have tails.

Next I'm sure you're gonna tell me that a quarter always lands on tails, eh?
Posted by: Kincaid

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 01:45 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Nunatax:
Foolish boy. Your entire argument loses ALL of its value when you realise the following :
A man and a woman who both have brown eyes can have a child with blue eyes.
[/b]
Nunatax,

you seem to know what you are talking about regarding genetics. Although this is something like a non sequitur, I'm glad to read this information. My wife and I were unable to conceive and finally did so by artificial insemination using donor sperm. My wife's eyes and my eyes are both hazel-brown. Our oldest (naturally conceived) daughter has dark brown eyes. Our twins (yes, we were also on fertility meds) have beautiful blue eyes. We chose not to tell them of the process of their birth. I've been wondering if some day in science class they'd read something and come to the realization that I am not the biological father. You have put to rest that concern. Thanks!

Now, I hope you two are almost done!
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 01:50 PM

I'm gonna let you in on a secret that is likely to turn your world upside down... :rolleyes:

By stating that homosexuality cannot be inherited like skin color, you actually imply that if it is genetic, it HAS to be inherited like eye color... (There goes your 50/50 chance :rolleyes: ) THAT should be your conclusion, NOT that it CAN'T be genetic.
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 02:01 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Kincaid:
 Quote:
Originally posted by Nunatax:
Foolish boy. Your entire argument loses ALL of its value when you realise the following :
A man and a woman who both have brown eyes can have a child with blue eyes.
[/b]
Nunatax,

you seem to know what you are talking about regarding genetics. Although this is something like a non sequitur, I'm glad to read this information. My wife and I were unable to conceive and finally did so by artificial insemination using donor sperm. My wife's eyes and my eyes are both hazel-brown. Our oldest (naturally conceived) daughter has dark brown eyes. Our twins (yes, we were also on fertility meds) have beautiful blue eyes. We chose not to tell them of the process of their birth. I've been wondering if some day in science class they'd read something and come to the realization that I am not the biological father. You have put to rest that concern. Thanks!

Now, I hope you two are almost done! [/b]
Kincaid,

You are most welcome!
I'm glad that what I wrote here was able to ease your mind \:\)
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 02:05 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Nunatax:
I'm gonna let you in on a secret that is likely to turn your world upside down... :rolleyes:

By stating that homosexuality cannot be inherited like skin color, you actually imply that if it is genetic, it HAS to be inherited like eye color... (There goes your 50/50 chance :rolleyes: ) THAT should be your conclusion, NOT that it CAN'T be genetic. [/b]
I never implied that it cannot be inherited like skin color, check again.

Gotta go home now...see ya tomorrow, bright and early! ;\)
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 04:09 PM

Hm, perhaps I'm getting a bit sleepy here...


OK, forget that one, I was too quick... What a lack of energy can do to a man... Or perhaps it's sea sickness, I sometimes get that on a carousel...

Now, to get back to your reply...

 Quote:
IF homosexuality is genetic, (the 'if' already lowers the end probability percentage), then it is STILL a 50/50 shot:
[/b]

That's not what this is about and you know it. At this point, I'm absolutely NOT interested which mechanism it will inherit by IF it is genetic. That's a discussion for later.
The question is : CAN it be genetic?
THIS is the question BECAUSE THAT is what YOU are DISMISSING...
To support that dismissal you used that almost pianoworld famous quote of yours.

You went on :
 Quote:
I've said that this whole time, if homosexuality is genetic, then it could behave similarly to skin color, or it could behave like eye color...
[/b]

Let me finish your quote for you :
...or it could behave like eye color, and then it is perfectly POSSIBLE for a heterosexual couple to have a homosexual child without it just "magically appearing". So I was wrong in DISMISSING the POSSIBILITY that it can be genetic with that foolish statement I made.

And that's what you did, you dismissed the possibility, I can't explain it any better than this. Don't get me wrong, you MIGHT be ABLE to dismiss it, only NOT with that statement.
It is simply scientifically incorrect.

Then you said :
 Quote:
It's 50/50, and I believe one side...what are you trying to prove? I'll pick heads, you can have tails.

Next I'm sure you're gonna tell me that a quarter always lands on tails, eh?
[/b]

Is that the way you do science??? Flipping coins??? Count me out of that one!!!

You can be of the opinion that it is psychological, many people are, at this point, I don't care. What I DO care about at this point, is the fact that you dismiss the possibility that it is genetic with an unscientific statement. Doing that is just plain wrong. If you still don't realise that then there is nothing more I can do...

To be honest, I'm really getting tired of your zigzagging...
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/18/04 04:10 PM

BTW, you might not see me back until tuesday...
(Well, in fact you might not see me back here at all, that will entirely depend on your next post...)
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/19/04 05:58 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Nunatax:
 Quote:
IF homosexuality is genetic, (the 'if' already lowers the end probability percentage), then it is STILL a 50/50 shot:
[/b]

That's not what this is about and you know it. At this point, I'm absolutely NOT interested which mechanism it will inherit by IF it is genetic. That's a discussion for later.
The question is : CAN it be genetic?
THIS is the question BECAUSE THAT is what YOU are DISMISSING...
To support that dismissal you used that almost pianoworld famous quote of yours.
[/b]
You have already apologized a number of times to me for false statements.

I'd rather not call you out on it again, but look...I have said it before, I KNOW there is a chance that it is genetic, I have said that this whole time!

BUT, since it's a 50/50 shot, I just personally dont think it is.

It's the same way as how I am a Christian. I acknowledge the fact that yes, I could be wrong about believing in God...but I personally dont think I am.

I believe 100% in Christ.
I believe 100% that homosexuality is not genetic.

I know I *could* be wrong, but since its a 50/50 shot for either example, you cant get mad at me for wholeheartedly believing in one side of the issue.
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/20/04 04:16 AM

Hmm, I see another opportunity here to make you see...

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
I believe 100% in Christ.
I believe 100% that homosexuality is not genetic.
[/b]
You CAN believe for 100% that homosexuality is not genetic. At this point I really couldn't care less. However, you CANNOT back up that belief by making that statement because it DOES NOT EXCLUDE AT ALL that it is genetic.

Important part coming up! Please do not ignore!
If you are arguing with someone who knows even less about genetics than you do (if such a thing is possible) and he or she has not thought about whether it could be genetic or not, then they will believe that it is impossible that it is genetic if you give them that statement. I cannot let you do that, because that statement DOES NOT make it impossible that it is genetic. You withhold valuable information, information that is VERY important in order to be able to come to an objective and scientifically valid conclusion. Therefore it is misleading to the highest degree. (You should try a career as politician :rolleyes: )
The conclusion should be that you cannot use that statement in order to throw light on whether homosexuality is genetic or not.

I also think that you should finally show that you have "studied genetics". You have accused me of using "all that jargon" while in fact all the jargon I used was taught to me in secondary school. If you are not familiar with these words then it is safe for me to say that you know nothing about genetics.
I'll make it easy for you to prove that you have some knowledge of genetics: I have made a little exercise for you to make, and even if you were only taught genetics in secondary school, you should be able to solve it easily...
To keep it familiar, I'll be using the trait eye color...

Imagine three alleles coding for eye color. Blue, brown and grey. (There are more but let's assume that these are the only ones occuring in a certain population.) Blue is completely recessive. Brown and grey are co-dominant, a mix of them both gives light brown eyes.
Now, imagine the following couple :
The man has grey eyes.
The woman has brown eyes.

Knowing that both are heterozygote for the trait eye color :
1. What are all the possible eye colors that their kids could have?
2. Calculate the percentage of "magical appearances".


My crystal ball tells me you are going to try to dodge this question :rolleyes:
Posted by: Moonbat

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/20/04 12:47 PM

 Quote:

BUT, since it's a 50/50 shot, I just personally dont think it is.
Saying you think a genetic basis for homosexuality is 50/50 and then saying you don't think there is a genetic basis for homosexuality is a complete and utter contradiction.

By saying you don't think that homosexuality is genetic you are by definition saying you think the odds of it being genetic are lower than the odds of it not being genetic.

You should really sit down and think about your reasoning process.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/20/04 10:32 PM

For both nunatax and moonbat,

Have you read anything I said, especially recently? How many times do I have to say it in order for you to understand?

Right now, since there is no proof on either side, its a 50/50 shot. I personally don't believe it is genetic, not because its a 50/50 shot, but because *if* it was genetic, I see it as too important, critical, and identifiable a gene to be controlled by the same mechanism that controls say, eye color. I see it being controlled by the same type of mechanism that controls the behavior of say, skin color.

Again, the fact that I 'just don't see it happening' is only one of many reasons why I think its a psychological disorder as compared to the alternative belief that it is a genetic disorder.

This is the SAME way as how I believe in God. There is no evidence (that is universally supported) that God exists, yet I believe it is. In the end its a 50/50 shot with that too, but I am wrong to believe one side of the coin?

You cant hold double standards as I'm sure you, nunatax and moonbat, have many beliefs in unsubstantiated topics that you simply believe one side of. That would be hypocritical, as would your selective discrimination that you have of other segments of the population that you wont let marry, nunatax. And since you dodged talking about that topic, I will return the favor and dodge your genetics quiz. I didn't major in genetics, but I have studied it and debated it for years. And its also 1:30am, and I don't feel like entertaining your hypocritical quizzing of some topics when you fail to engage in certain discussions that I want you to put your input in. Then again, you are used to selectively entertaining certain notions while ignoring others. After all, you don't even HAVE an opinion about the topic of psychological or genetical disfunction as the origin of homosexuality.
Posted by: NAK

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/21/04 12:57 AM

STOP KICKING THIS THREAD UP!
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/21/04 04:24 AM

NAK, your wish is about to come true ;\)
(BTW, no one is forcing you to read this...)

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
Have you read anything I said, especially recently? How many times do I have to say it in order for you to understand?
[/b]

Yes I have, I have also told you that I didn't care (at this point), because it didn't matter (at this point). Your statement is simply misleading and incorrect.

 Quote:
but because *if* it was genetic, I see it as too important, critical, and identifiable a gene to be controlled by the same mechanism that controls say, eye color. I see it being controlled by the same type of mechanism that controls the behavior of say, skin color.
[/b]

Right... You didn't major in genetics, you seem to understand nothing of the most basic jargon, you dodge a simple exercise and yet you have no problem making statements like that...
Too important, critical and identifiable a gene to be controlled by a mechanism like that of eye color? Man, your statements are becoming more ridiculous everyday... I have no further comments :rolleyes:

It will probably come as a surprise to you when I say that the two mechanisms that I explained to you here are just the tip of the iceberg...


 Quote:
Again, the fact that I 'just don't see it happening' is only one of many reasons why I think its a psychological disorder as compared to the alternative belief that it is a genetic disorder.
[/b]

Like I have told YOU numerous times : AT THIS POINT I DON'T CARE WHY[/b] YOU THINK IT IS PSYCHOLOGICAL!!! AT THIS POINT I ALSO DON'T CARE THAT[/b] YOU THINK IT IS PSYCHOLOGICAL!!!

What I care about is that you back up that belief with that statement and that is MISLEADING, WRONG, RIDICULOUS, BAD SCIENCE, etc... You must be utterly foolish if you don't see that...

 Quote:
This is the SAME way as how I believe in God. There is no evidence (that is universally supported) that God exists, yet I believe it is. In the end its a 50/50 shot with that too, but I am wrong to believe one side of the coin?[/b]
You are if you don't know anything about the other side of the coin... And you obviously don't... :rolleyes:

 Quote:
You cant hold double standards as I'm sure you, nunatax and moonbat, have many beliefs in unsubstantiated topics that you simply believe one side of. That would be hypocritical, as would your selective discrimination that you have of other segments of the population that you wont let marry, nunatax. And since you dodged talking about that topic, I will return the favor and dodge your genetics quiz.
[/b]

Incest couples have a high probability of having children with handicaps >>> unethical >>> no marriage...
Polygamists >>> they can always marry two by two >>> no special arrangements necessary ;\)

Now it's only fair that you answer my "quiz"...
(Uh oh, my crystal ball tells me you are going to come up with yet another farfetched argument in order to dodge it... \:\( )

And by the way, your pandora's box still hasn't opened here in Belgium... So far the consequences of allowing gay marriage have only been positive. Feel free to keep an eye on Belgium to see whether eventually this issue causes utter chaos and death here... ;\)

 Quote:
psychological or genetical disfunction as the origin of homosexuality. [/b]
Ah, so now you're also sure that if it is genetic, it is a disfunction without a doubt???
You really need to expand your thinking urgently...

If I don't get a decent answer (read : if you don't show you can use your brains and your next post turns out to be yet another fabulous dodge) then I'm giving up...
I'm sick and tired of your ignorance. However, I want you to know that if I see you trying to mislead anyone with another one of your ridiculous statements, then I'll be there... ;\)
(With which I do not[/b] mean that I think most of the people here are unable to see through foolish statements like that themselves...)
Posted by: Moonbat

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/21/04 06:01 AM

 Quote:

Right now, since there is no proof on either side, its a 50/50 shot. I personally don't believe it is genetic, not because its a 50/50 shot, but because *if* it was genetic, I see it as too important, critical, and identifiable a gene to be controlled by the same mechanism that controls say, eye color. I see it being controlled by the same type of mechanism that controls the behavior of say, skin color.
You don't understand the words you are using, there is not "proof" in science only evidence and based on the evidence the odds are stacked in favour of atleast a partial genetic basis.

Furthermore you seem to be labouring under the impression it is an "either or" scenario simpy genetic or psychological, it's not, there are many other possible hypothesis for example the hormonal environment in the womb.

Finally IF your argument regarding genetics were valid then the probability of a genetic cause would definitively fall below 50%. IF given the nature of genetics and given the pattern of inheretance displayed by the homosexual phenotype it were impossible for homosexuality to have genetic roots then by definition the probability would be zero, if instead homosexuality was unlikely to have genetic roots again the probability falls below 50%.

You cannot claim the odds are 50/50 on a genetic basis and then say but you don't think it has a genetic basis without contradicting yourself.
Posted by: David Burton

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/21/04 09:38 PM

This thread, which I have skimmed (why read carefully about an argument that is irrelevant to the objective in mind? Homosexual marriage), was supposed to be about terrorists and GWB.

But it isn't now. OK, so be it.

People who are going to stand in the way of homosexual marriage DO NOT CARE why someone is homosexual.

People who DISBELIEVE in the claims of ANY theory that postulates as all but proved that one species can EVOLVE from another, don't care about genetics, and in fact a few of us think that genetics offers less proof for natural selection as a mechanism than more evidence for design and in any case is irrelevant to a discussion of evolution, and NO I'm not interested in debating Darwinism here or anywhere else. The fact is that I do not have to believe it and I have a right to dissent and claim that it is nothing but a bad theory used for deliberate reasons (from its very inception) to foist a view of life that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

To quote the Emperor, "you are passionate Moonbat, but you do not persuade."

As to homosexual marriage it is analogous to giving a blind man (or woman) a driver's license. There are people who society deems unworthy of certain key responsibilities. Marriage has a specific definition, always has and always will, and homosexuals are disqualified. Now a suitable political settlement can be reached whereby society offers a limited kind of union to homosexual couples. But if they are not willing to be reasonable, then they may end up getting nothing.
Posted by: NAK

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/21/04 09:57 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by David Burton:
To quote the Emperor, "you are passionate Moonbat, but you do not persuade."[/b]
Great movie. \:D Anyone wanna guess which movie that quote is from?
Posted by: JBryan

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/22/04 04:27 AM

Amadeus.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/22/04 05:24 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Nunatax:
Incest couples have a high probability of having children with handicaps >>> unethical >>> no marriage...
Polygamists >>> they can always marry two by two >>> no special arrangements necessary ;\)

Now it's only fair that you answer my "quiz"...
(Uh oh, my crystal ball tells me you are going to come up with yet another farfetched argument in order to dodge it... \:\( )

And by the way, your pandora's box still hasn't opened here in Belgium... So far the consequences of allowing gay marriage have only been positive. Feel free to keep an eye on Belgium to see whether eventually this issue causes utter chaos and death here... ;\)

 Quote:
psychological or genetical disfunction as the origin of homosexuality. [/b]
Ah, so now you're also sure that if it is genetic, it is a disfunction without a doubt???
You really need to expand your thinking urgently...

If I don't get a decent answer (read : if you don't show you can use your brains and your next post turns out to be yet another fabulous dodge) then I'm giving up...
I'm sick and tired of your ignorance. However, I want you to know that if I see you trying to mislead anyone with another one of your ridiculous statements, then I'll be there... ;\)
(With which I do not[/b] mean that I think most of the people here are unable to see through foolish statements like that themselves...) [/b]
I told you before that I will answer your quiz as soon as you answer my selective discrimination question. Fair is fair and I asked you first, we need to stay in order here! ;\)

Incest marriage doesn't necessarily mean having kids, it just means marriage, are you going to allow that or not? Fair is fair!

Your polygamous answer? Two by two? What are you talking about...will you or will you not let them marry as many people as they want? Fair is far, nunatax.

You didn't answer any of the other "rights" that a small segment of the population wants that "dont hurt anyone." Please address that.

and when you said:

 Quote:

Ah, so now you're also sure that if it is genetic, it is a disfunction without a doubt???
You really need to expand your thinking urgently...[/b]
It's obviously a disfuction, disorder, whatever you want to call it. A disorder isn't always "bad", but being a homosexual is certainly without a doubt a disorder. If you are blind, you have a sight disorder. If you are retarded you have a mental disorder. If you are attracted to the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what humans are supposed to be attracted to, its a disorder.

So answer my questions that I posed first before I entertain your little quiz. Fair is fair.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/22/04 05:29 AM

NAK, you dont like E.T. but you thought Amadeus was a "GREAT MOVIE"???

I guess you are entitled to your opinion... ;\)
Posted by: Moonbat

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/22/04 05:30 AM

 Quote:

To quote the Emperor, "you are passionate Moonbat, but you do not persuade."
Fair enough, though i would add that in order to persuade one has to have an audience who is persuadable.
Posted by: reblder

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/22/04 07:11 PM

Posted by the 89th key:
 Quote:
It's obviously a disfuction, disorder, whatever you want to call it. A disorder isn't always "bad", but being a homosexual is certainly without a doubt a disorder.[/b]
Even though you've been told(by at least me and I should think at least one or more here)that the American Psychiatric Association long ago DROPPED THAT DESIGNATION.

So why you persist in holding on to that archaic viewpoint is beyond us!

Unless of course, you suffer some kind of newly classified "judgement" disorder. :rolleyes:
Posted by: gryphon

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/22/04 07:43 PM

Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 05:56 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by reblder:
Posted by the 89th key:
 Quote:
It's obviously a disfuction, disorder, whatever you want to call it. A disorder isn't always "bad", but being a homosexual is certainly without a doubt a disorder.[/b]
Even though you've been told(by at least me and I should think at least one or more here)that the American Psychiatric Association long ago DROPPED THAT DESIGNATION.

So why you persist in holding on to that archaic viewpoint is beyond us!

Unless of course, you suffer some kind of newly classified "judgement" disorder. :rolleyes: [/b]
The APA dropped it as a 'psychological disorder' in the late 70's or sometime, but only from political pressure. Here's another nugget of info: There still is no evidence showing it is genetic, which is still on the record to this day as scientific organizations keep coming out and stating that they still have no evidence that it is genetic.

And the whole point of the my post, that you were just replying to, was the fact that someone was saying calling it a genetic disorder is wrong. When, whether it's genetic or psych, it is obviously a disorder. Read the rest of that post if you want more information please.
Posted by: Moonbat

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 06:25 AM

 Quote:

There still is no evidence showing it is genetic, which is still on the record to this day as scientific organizations keep coming out and stating that they still have no evidence that it is genetic.
That is such nonsense, there is quite clearly documented evidence in the scientific literature.

Amongst others this abstract is of relevence:

 Quote:

Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation

Qazi Rahman, and Glenn D. Wilson

Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK

Received 26 November 2001; revised 1 April 2002; accepted 27 April 2002. ; Available online 9 June 2002.

Abstract
Sexual orientation is fundamental to evolution and shifts from the species-typical pattern of heterosexuality may represent biological variations. The growth of scientific knowledge concerning the biology of sexual orientation during the past decade has been considerable. Sexual orientation is characterised by a bipolar distribution and is related to fraternal birth order in males. In females, its distribution is more variable; females being less prone towards exclusive homosexuality. In both sexes homosexuality is strongly associated with childhood gender nonconformity. Genetic evidence suggests a heritable component and putative gene loci on the X chromosome. Homosexuality may have evolved to promote same sex affiliation through a conserved neurodevelopmental mechanism. Recent findings suggest this mechanism involves atypical neurohormonal differentiation of the brain. Key areas for future research include the neurobiological basis of preferred sexual targets and correlates of female homosexuality.
Stop saying there is no evidence WHEN THERE IS.
Posted by: Moonbat

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 06:33 AM

Infact here's some more:

 Quote:

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers
52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, ďA genetic study of male sexual orientation,Ē Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.
 Quote:

Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters
48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual
Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), ďFamilial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,Ē American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.
Note that it is NOT evidence for a solely genetic basis (infact it is evidence against that) but it IS evidence for a partial genetic basis.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 06:57 AM

Moonbat, did you read what you wrote?

"It may have", "suggests"...

The scientific community has many pieces of evidence for many areas that are TRUE. Temperature, heart disease, animal cloning from DNA, etc...

But they simply do not have any evidence that will say that homosexuality IS genetic. There is tons of evidence supporting a theory of a genetical or psychological disorder, but neither have any concrete facts.

If it is genetic, and they cant help it, how come they have girlfriends while in highschool before coming out, or have wives later on after reorientation and reject their sinful desires?

You see, I dont care HOW against the norm it is to be attracted to and have physical relations with a woman it is. I simply could NOT force myself to have sex with a man, just because society says its better? Thusly, homosexuals shouldn't be able to have sex with women at points in their life, when at other points claim to be gay. It doesn't add up.
Posted by: Moonbat

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 07:18 AM

 Quote:

Moonbat, did you read what you wrote?

"It may have", "suggests"...
You do not understand the words being used, science almost always talks in terms of may have and suggests because there is NEVER EVER absolute proof.

 Quote:

The scientific community has many pieces of evidence for many areas that are TRUE. Temperature, heart disease, animal cloning from DNA, etc...
Wrong, there is no such thing as evidence that is "true", there is only evidence, there evidence from planetary measurements that suggest that heliocentricty is correct, the evidence from various intereupted chemical reactiosn suggest are certain mechanism is correct, the plaeontological, morphological and genetic evidence suggests species evolved, its all the same thing. Nothing is ever certain nothing is ever question, but the more evidence behind an idea the more likely it is to be correct.

 Quote:

But they simply do not have any evidence that will say that homosexuality IS genetic
There is fundamentally no such thing, and can never be such a thing, for any topic EVER because absolutle proof does not exist, one can only gather evidence that seems to favour one hypothesis over another.

 Quote:

There is tons of evidence supporting a theory of a genetical or psychological disorder, but neither have any concrete facts.
There is no such thing as concrete facts in science, nothing is ever concrete, everything can be questioned.

 Quote:

If it is genetic, and they cant help it, how come they have girlfriends while in highschool before coming out, or have wives later on after reorientation and reject their sinful desires?
You really do not know what you're talking about. "Reorientation" spectacularly fails in the majority of cases.

Girlfriends in highschool? Because they try really hard not be gay by doing straight things because they are made to feel that what comes naturally to them is wrong.

And again no one is saying its _completely_ genetic only that it has genetic basis, look at the twin studies for heavens sake.

 Quote:

You see, I dont care HOW against the norm it is to be attracted to and have physical relations with a woman it is. I simply could NOT force myself to have sex with a man, just because society says its better?
Male-male homophobia seems to be very strong in our society ie. the revulsion you feel for being with a man, is probably not felt by a gay person being with a woman, just like women do not feel the same revulsion at the thought of being with another woman.

I mean you are at least in part the product of your upbringing, you have been told it homosexuality is wrong, it's etched onto your soul that homosexuality is wrong, you of all people are going to feel extreme revulsion at the thought of it, conversely a homosexual brought up the same mannor will just feel horribly confused.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 07:49 AM

 Quote:
You do not understand the words being used, science almost always talks in terms of may have and suggests because there is NEVER EVER absolute proof.
Or they will say that the sun IS hot. Or that plate tectonics IS happening. But when it's still a theory, they will say "the big bang MAY HAVE happened" or "homosexuality MIGHT BE genetic."

 Quote:
Wrong, there is no such thing as evidence that is "true", there is only evidence, there evidence from planetary measurements that suggest that heliocentricty is correct, the evidence from various intereupted chemical reactiosn suggest are certain mechanism is correct, the plaeontological, morphological and genetic evidence suggests species evolved, its all the same thing. Nothing is ever certain nothing is ever question, but the more evidence behind an idea the more likely it is to be correct.
Refer to what I just said above.

There are also layers of certainty in theories. The theory of plate tectonics is very very†valid. As you can see from your evidence that you posted, the theory of a genetical base for homosexuality is very very†WEAK.

 Quote:
There is fundamentally no such thing, and can never be such a thing, for any topic EVER because absolutle proof does not exist, one can only gather evidence that seems to favour one hypothesis over another.
Now, please refer to my other two statements just said above.

 Quote:
There is no such thing as concrete facts in science, nothing is ever concrete, everything can be questioned.
Refer to everything I just said above.

 Quote:
You really do not know what you're talking about. "Reorientation" spectacularly fails in the majority of cases.

Girlfriends in highschool? Because they try really hard not be gay by doing straight things because they are made to feel that what comes naturally to them is wrong.

And again no one is saying its _completely_ genetic only that it has genetic basis, look at the twin studies for heavens sake.
My reply in my last post covered this topic very, very well, please read it.

 Quote:
Male-male homophobia seems to be very strong in our society ie. the revulsion you feel for being with a man, is probably not felt by a gay person being with a woman, just like women do not feel the same revulsion at the thought of being with another woman.

I mean you are at least in part the product of your upbringing, you have been told it homosexuality is wrong, it's etched onto your soul that homosexuality is wrong, you of all people are going to feel extreme revulsion at the thought of it, conversely a homosexual brought up the same mannor will just feel horribly confused.

First, I wouldn't call it homophobia, unless you want me to refer to you as a homophile.

And I dont care how much society accepts or rejects it...homosexuals are not attracted to woman, not in the least bit. They should be repulsed by the thought of kissing a girl. Yet they go shopping, hold hands, etc. all the time. It doesn't add up.
Posted by: reblder

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 08:20 AM

Posted by the 89th key:
 Quote:
Thusly, homosexuals shouldn't be able to have sex with women at points in their life, when at other points claim to be gay
Oh yeah, well my closest friend who is gay has had alot of sexual relations with women when he got horny and no guy happened to be around. The thing is he has never IDENTIFIED with being gay though his preference is for other men. So by not IDENTIFYING that meant he didn't stop himself when the opportunity arose.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 08:29 AM

I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic reblder, but it sounds like he is bisexual?

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make or just making a side comment...
Posted by: Moonbat

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 10:11 AM

 Quote:

Or they will say that the sun IS hot. Or that plate tectonics IS happening. But when it's still a theory, they will say "the big bang MAY HAVE happened" or "homosexuality MIGHT BE genetic."
You have no idea what you're talking about, you don't know what the word "theory" means in a scientific context, you don't understand even the basic principles of scientific investigation, i was going to point you towards Karl Popper but it would be so far above your head i don't think you would benefit from it.

 Quote:

There are also layers of certainty in theories. The theory of plate tectonics is very very valid. As you can see from your evidence that you posted, the theory of a genetical base for homosexuality is very very WEAK.
Nonsense it's widely accepted that homosexuality has a partial genetic basis, the idea that it's totaly genetic is not accepted because the evidence contradicts it, the idea thats completey agenetic is not accepted because the evidence contradicts it. The idea that there is a partial genetic basis is strong, strong enough that people are talking about where the genes are not if they are.

 Quote:

First, I wouldn't call it homophobia, unless you want me to refer to you as a homophile
If i'm heterophile then i guess i'm a homophile too, but you are defintively homophobic in the classic sense you're other post made that crystal clear.

 Quote:

And I dont care how much society accepts or rejects it...homosexuals are not attracted to woman, not in the least bit. They should be repulsed by the thought of kissing a girl. Yet they go shopping, hold hands, etc. all the time. It doesn't add up.
How do you know!? That is so ridiculous: the idea that if you feel a certain way therefore everyone in the entire world must feel the same way. Just because you feel repulsedd when you think of kissing a man does not mean a gay man would feel repulsed at the thought of kissing a woman. Straight women do not feel the same repulsion as straight men, which immediately disproves you're assertation.

Like i said earlier you need to take a course on logic.
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 10:12 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by David Burton:
People who are going to stand in the way of homosexual marriage DO NOT CARE why someone is homosexual.
[/b]

Fine, I donít care that you donít care why someone is homosexual.
Does that forbid me to intervene when someone makes a false statement about it?

 Quote:
People who DISBELIEVE in the claims of ANY theory that postulates as all but proved that one species can EVOLVE from another, don't care about genetics, and in fact a few of us think that genetics offers less proof for natural selection as a mechanism than more evidence for design and in any case is irrelevant to a discussion of evolution, and NO I'm not interested in debating Darwinism here or anywhere else. The fact is that I do not have to believe it and I have a right to dissent and claim that it is nothing but a bad theory used for deliberate reasons (from its very inception) to foist a view of life that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.
[/b]

Yes, you have the right to dissent and claim that it is nothing but a bad theory etc. If you donít want to debate Darwinism here or anywhere else thatís fine by me too, I donít care.
89th key can believe that the origin of homosexuality is psychological. It can be that the origin doesnít matter to him while he is asking himself the question whether homosexual marriage should be allowed or not. I donít really care.
What he canít say though, is that the origin of homosexuality canít be genetic because a black couple will never have a white baby. That is just dead wrong and I think you know that too.

 Quote:
As to homosexual marriage it is analogous to giving a blind man (or woman) a driver's license.[/b]
Uh?
How exactly is homosexual marriage going to kill anyone??? And thus, in what way is allowing homosexual marriage as irresponsible as giving a blind man a driverís license????

 Quote:
There are people who society deems unworthy of certain key responsibilities. Marriage has a specific definition, always has and always will, and homosexuals are disqualified. Now a suitable political settlement can be reached whereby society offers a limited kind of union to homosexual couples. But if they are not willing to be reasonable, then they may end up getting nothing.
[/b]

I must say I completely disagree with this. But as 89th key would say, this is just a matter of opinion...


89th key,

Thatís not what I call a decent answer.
For one, you completely ignored the first half of my post. I donít really wonder why though :rolleyes:

 Quote:
I told you before that I will answer your quiz as soon as you answer my selective discrimination question. Fair is fair and I asked you first, we need to stay in order here![/b]
Nope, not gonna work...
You can start a new thread about your selective discrimination issue if you want. Iíll be there with all the answers you want from me ;\)
In here, itís about your false statement(s) and about whether or not you know anything about genetics (since you claimed that you ďhave studied and debated it for many yearsĒ but apparently donít even understand the most basic jargon and most simple exercises), and since my last post, you yet again dodged that issue. If what you said here in your last post is all you have left to say about this, then thereís nothing more I have to add here and Iíll not further bother NAK and others.
Posted by: NAK

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 11:35 AM

tfgfjvgb drfil gue ilge gh (banging head on keyboard).
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 12:49 PM

 Quote:
You have no idea what you're talking about, you don't know what the word "theory" means in a scientific context, you don't understand even the basic principles of scientific investigation, i was going to point you towards Karl Popper but it would be so far above your head i don't think you would benefit from it.
Once again you are completely LYING in order to make your point. You dont know me and you have no idea about my knowledge.

Do you know the difference between a theory and a law? Aww...not everything is a 'theory' now is it?!?? Thus there are certain things out there that are constant, fact, a law. And there are certain things out there that are a hypothesis, a guess, a theory.

 Quote:
Nonsense it's widely accepted that homosexuality has a partial genetic basis, the idea that it's totaly genetic is not accepted because the evidence contradicts it, the idea thats completey agenetic is not accepted because the evidence contradicts it. The idea that there is a partial genetic basis is strong, strong enough that people are talking about where the genes are not if they are.
And yet the scientific community says over and over every year that there isn't any evidence showing its genetic, just theoretical applications. Hmmmm....when they find out that it IS genetical, just as how they know that there IS DNA, then we'll go from there, but they wont, I dont think that will ever happen, since it's a psych disorder in my opinion, not a genetic disorder.

 Quote:
If i'm heterophile then i guess i'm a homophile too, but you are defintively homophobic in the classic sense you're other post made that crystal clear.
Well if you think because I do not approve of homosexuality, that I am AFRAID of them, then you are destroying your credibility more and more. You might want to take a class in latin or basic suffixes (sp?) before you starting saying I am AFRAID of homos.

 Quote:
How do you know!? That is so ridiculous: the idea that if you feel a certain way therefore everyone in the entire world must feel the same way. Just because you feel repulsedd when you think of kissing a man does not mean a gay man would feel repulsed at the thought of kissing a woman. Straight women do not feel the same repulsion as straight men, which immediately disproves you're assertation.
I dont know if you are a guy or girl, but tell me, would you have sex with a member of the same sex? Yes or no, and why.

Thank you in advance for proving my point. \:D
Posted by: Eusebius

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 12:51 PM

Nunatax,

I commend you for your determination and your perseverence. But your arguments are rebounding, bouncing, ricocheting all over the place; the thick skull at which they are aimed will not allow them to penetrate. And there's nothing you are anyone else can do about it.

Let this thread DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 12:55 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Nunatax:
 Quote:
I told you before that I will answer your quiz as soon as you answer my selective discrimination question. Fair is fair and I asked you first, we need to stay in order here![/b]
Nope, not gonna work...
You can start a new thread about your selective discrimination issue if you want. Iíll be there with all the answers you want from me ;\)
In here, itís about your false statement(s) and about whether or not you know anything about genetics (since you claimed that you ďhave studied and debated it for many yearsĒ but apparently donít even understand the most basic jargon and most simple exercises), and since my last post, you yet again dodged that issue. [/b]
Why start another thread? Just keep it in here.

I asked you about your selective discrimination before you asked me about genetics.

Fair is fair, address my topic before I address yours. And your assumption that I dont know the simplest of jargon regarding genetics because I am not yet answering your question is an ignorant statement.

I am not entertaining your quiz yet because you have failed to address my topic that I mentioned before your quiz. That is how a simple civilized debate works.

Go ahead answer it. And refer to the "seperation of church and state" thread if you want to read up on my responses so far, its been quite active and verbose in there with moonbat.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 12:57 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by Eusebius:
Nunatax,

I commend you for your determination and your perseverence. But your arguments are rebounding, bouncing, ricocheting all over the place; the thick skull at which they are aimed will not allow them to penetrate. And there's nothing you are anyone else can do about it.

Let this thread DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!! [/b]
Dont read it if you dont want to.

And if you have something to say, E, then say it or stay out.
Posted by: Nunatax

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 01:19 PM

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
 Quote:
Originally posted by Eusebius:
Nunatax,

I commend you for your determination and your perseverence. But your arguments are rebounding, bouncing, ricocheting all over the place; the thick skull at which they are aimed will not allow them to penetrate. And there's nothing you are anyone else can do about it.

Let this thread DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!! [/b]
Dont read it if you dont want to.

And if you have something to say, E, then say it or stay out. [/b]
Eusebius has said what he had to say, and he's damn right!

For me this thread has just been buried ;\)
See ya!
Posted by: NAK

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 01:27 PM

Hallelujah!
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 01:39 PM

Well nunatax, I'll take from your refusal to address my issue, and your walking away from the debate, that you are conceding!!


It was fun, let me know if you ever want to address the topic, and I'm all for it!

Bye bye!
Posted by: reblder

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 05:55 PM

No, for the 89th time, he realized YOU were a losing cause so why should he spend time wasting words on an impenetrable fool!

Someday, you'll hopefully acquire the wisdom to see this.
Posted by: minime

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/23/04 06:02 PM

funny ha ha 89th time I get it!!!!!
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/24/04 06:09 AM

 Quote:
Originally posted by reblder:
No, for the 89th time, he realized YOU were a losing cause so why should he spend time wasting words on an impenetrable fool!

Someday, you'll hopefully acquire the wisdom to see this. [/b]
Or...I asked him a question, he didn't want to address it. Thus he knew that he didn't have anything else to say since he didn't want to address the current issue. Fine with me! \:D

Some people will just stop talking, which is rude, at least he said something when he forfeited the debate.
Posted by: Moonbat

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/24/04 06:29 AM

 Quote:

And there are certain things out there that are a hypothesis, a guess, a theory.
Like i said you have absolutley no idea what you're taling about, a theory is NOT a "guess". Heliocentricity is a "theory", germs causing diseases is a "theory". If you don't even understand the words being used what hope have you got for understanding the underlying science.

Go onto google and look it up.


Edit:
Infact here i'll give to you:

 Quote:

In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified slightly.

Theories start out with empirical observations such as ďsometimes water turns into ice.Ē At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations.

Some examples of theories that have been disproved are Lamarckism and the geocentric universe theory. Sufficient evidence has been described to declare these theories false, as they have no evidence supporting them and better explanations have taken their place.

Often the statement "Well, it's just a theory," is used to dismiss controversial theories such as evolution, but this is largely due to confusion between the scientific use of the word theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e. it

is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and
is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.
This is true of such established theories as evolution, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics (with minimal interpretation), plate tectonics, etc.


from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

 Quote:

And yet the scientific community says over and over every year that there isn't any evidence showing its genetic, just theoretical applications
You have no idea what the scientic community says you don't even know what "evidence" or "theory" means. I on the other hand do know what the scientific community says because i read the periodicals, regularly talk to both scientists and Phd students, have a degree in science and am devoting my life to the study of it.

There IS a concensus that a partial genetic basis is most likely.

 Quote:

I dont know if you are a guy or girl, but tell me, would you have sex with a member of the same sex? Yes or no, and why.

Thank you in advance for proving my point.
It is actually painful reading this nonsense, i am not attracted to members of the same sex, the idea does not appeal but **** it if would bring world peace, if it would save a million lives, then yea i would.

To just recap since i am abandoning discussing with you as completely pointless:

You have no idea what the words "evidence" or "theory" mean, you have no idea how the scientic process works, you have no idea what the scientific community thinks, what's more you don't seem to understand what the phrase "partial genetic basis" means.
Posted by: The 89th Key

Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected! - 11/24/04 07:28 AM

Aww, moonbat, you know its not good to lie, right?

I have no idea what evidence or theory means eh? Yet, lets look at some official definitions:

'Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.'

or

'An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.'

Since you lied about me again, I'll wait for your apology. You can just copy and paste one of your other apologizes that you have made to me...it might be faster that way. ;\)