Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (82104)	1/7/2010 6:11:26 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 82486

<Link or lie!> ROFMAO!!! Coming from the biggest misquoter liar on the thread. Give us all a break. If you can't see any Strawmen in that article you're just dumb... THE WHOLE ARTICLE is ONE BIG cascading Straw man argument, repleate with words like "cult" and any other word or idea he can think of as "evil" and unworthy... keep head banging, but please be careful and try and use it properly now and then. DAK

To: Greg or e who wrote (82104)	1/7/2010 6:18:06 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Greg. I have asked you to link to allegations you've made about me repeatedly, because you've said that I've claimed things, which I have not. Or because you have represented statements I made in ways that are not genuinely representative of my comments, and because you've said things about me that are unjust and untrue. On occasion, I've used the prompt, Link or lie. You've done neither. I don't want you to think I've forgotten and you are just off the hook for your falsehoods, now numbering quite a few. In single posts I have enumerated them for you. To my recollection you have not made any effort on such occasions to make amends. For that reason, your honor and integrity is on very thin ice with me. Now in this last post to me you are using the intro 'Link or Lie!' Apparently you now think such things are just playful gambits to be used to gain points in a debate. If so, you and I are thinking about things very differently. Surely, you understand that when someone holds religion, any religion, up as a standard for their conduct, others view them and their conduct according to the standards of truth proclaimed by the religion. When such a person errors in their honesty, most people are willing to over look that as 'only human.' When it is a pattern, however, it is viewed as a much more serious problem. I am asking you to consider this very seriously going forward. With regards to the current topic (the religious article), I do understand the point being made by the preacher. The fact is, he did create a Strawman of the people and groups of people he used to make his argument. I am not willing to justify this means to allow him to achieve his ends. Simple as that.

To: Greg or e who wrote (82104)	1/7/2010 10:34:30 PM
From: LLCF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 82486

<You are making the same error that atheists make all the time. When theists point out that atheism provides no basis on which to ground an objective morality, they almost always miss the point and reinterpret the challenge as saying that atheists are immoral people.> You go round and round and round, tripping over the rope that keeps you in your tight little mental circle. How can ANYONE not have 'basis on which to ground objective morality" if EVERYONE has the innate ability do tell good from bad... good from evil? Look out... you're approaching the pole your rope is tied to... then BONK! You'll hit your head again. FWIW, even a microbe knows to run away from poison and towards food. To the board: I NO LONGER consider PopeGreg (in my personal category of) A WACKO! Wacko's are similar but not nearly as dangerous. PopeG OTOH is an intolerant, bigoted, RADICAL VIOLENT CHRISTIAN. From now on RVC. CONGRATS PopeGreg! DAK