@BrianK
Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Thread Please remember insulting people, not cool. Attack the ideas. They have no feelings and deserve a beating!

Good advice to a point, except where the people are spawning such intolerant and dangerous doctrine, they need a proverbial clip 'round the ear. They believe in all that stuff and stand by in the the name of what's going around in their head, so until they are certified insane, I think they are fair game...

Correction it seems like just BigD is on about this now all alone, so unless Bilsey rises from the Amigaworld dead, he is fair game as I see it.

_________________
Amiga A1200, 3.1 ROMs, Blizzard 1230 MKIV 64MB & FPU, 4GB DoM SSD, Workbench 3.1

(Blow) (blow)


(Tap)


Is this thing on?


(Tap, tap, tap)

Might not be working. Maybe that's why he didn't hear my questions?

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Blow this way dude, shame to waste it!

Heh sorry too far I know :) (too far away that is haha)

_________________
Amiga A1200, 3.1 ROMs, Blizzard 1230 MKIV 64MB & FPU, 4GB DoM SSD, Workbench 3.1

This thread would make an excellent book, it really would :o)

We just have to work out the target audience...

_________________
Fraggle

- insert profound text here -

Great advice...

@BrianK

DANG... I hate Ricky Gervais (well I don't actually hate him personally cos I don't know him but I hate the fact he's the worst comedian ever, you know what I mean)...

He's so rubbish that I\d rather listen to Twisty than anything he has to say... that's how bad I hate him... (well not personally as I said before but you get the idea)...

_________________

@BrianK & Thread

It's a terrible cliché to say "I'm not racist/bigot/homophobe/(insert minority or ethnic group you are about to attack), but" or "I'm not racist because I have black friends", but I'm going to go ahead anyway and say "I have religious friends".

In fact one of my best friends as I think I've previously mentioned is a minister for the Church of Scotland. I don't have any issue with religious people, most people I know have varying beliefs in a deity of one sort or another. My problem is with religious organisations (and those that follow that distorted mantra absolutely - as in the case of Twisty), because none of the main ones measure up to the standards they expect their members to do.

That's not to say I believe the majority of the clergy are corrupt, I believe the opposite is true. But the very nature of human being makes them very easily corrupted by power. There have been many scientific experiments to prove this, so this is not random speculation, it's just a fact, power breeds corruption.

My number one pet hate of all time is ignorance. We are all born that way, and depending on how we live our lives depends on what that level is as we age. 2000 years ago, the common man was denied education, mostly by the very religious groups that claim to have their best interests at heart.

There was a time, quite recent in fact, when the simple act of owning a Bible written in English was a crime punishable by death. Had this forum taken place just a few hundred years ago, BigD would be burning at the stake with the rest of us for daring to quote passages in English like he has. None of it was about saving our souls, it was all about controlling us.

Today thankfully, we have more education at our fingertips than anyone could have dreamed of during the period we call "the Enlightenment" Yet today, we have people like BigD that (choose to?) ignore this. People like him hold us all back, because instead of continuing to forward our understanding unhindered, we are forced to hold back to defend what we know to be true.

It's like when I was in Maths at school. At the time, I didn't know I was dyslexic, so didn't understand why it was that even though I knew the answers, I still kept getting them wrong. I ended up being stuck with the "thickies" in the remedial class.

Conversations with BigD, Billsey and all the rest like them is exactly like that. I feel like I'm talking to children that haven't yet developed the part of the brain that controls reason. Most of my anger comes about because of my impatience in having to deal with people like that. It's made worse with an adult because you are never quite sure if it's because they are choosing to ignore the reasoned part of their brain, or they are unable to access it (because of a stroke, mental illness, etc).

I suspect BigD is unable to access it. It's why I brought up the idea of dropping the thread many pages ago. I suspect he is as much a victim in this as anyone with an illness or disability. But then he goes and posts an argument that sounds thought out, or to put it another way, a reasoned argument. Completely and utterly wrong, as is quickly shown by another member, but the fact that he has done so makes me think he's purposely chosen to ignore reason, and that's where I loose my temper with him.

Now though, I'm faced with another notion. Now that I've called him out on his understanding of something he claimed to have an advanced knowledge of in a way that he can't resolve easily with Google, I wonder if these "reasoned" arguments he came up with are not simply a cut and paste job from another debate he's found and that he has no more understanding, or perhaps a better word is comprehension of them than he has of geology and if so, perhaps he is simply unable to reason? If so, then we are effectively bullying a disabled person.

Thoughts anyone?

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

Now that I've called him out on his understanding of something he claimed to have an advanced knowledge of in a way that he can't resolve easily with Google, I wonder if these "reasoned" arguments he came up with are not simply a cut and paste job from another debate he's found

I have suspected this since his original 'I'm a Geologist!' post. It had far too much holy rapture about it, and far too little knowledge of the basic vocabulary of the field, to seem genuine to me.

In any case, the question of whether he can't or just won't use reason seems to matter little, when in the end the result is the same. We have here someone who cannot be reasoned with. The only purpose to arguing at all is to prevent unsuspecting internet trawlers from mistaking his opinions for a mainstream view. Job done?

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

Now though, I'm faced with another notion. Now that I've called him out on his understanding of something he claimed to have an advanced knowledge of in a way that he can't resolve easily with Google, I wonder if these "reasoned" arguments he came up with are not simply a cut and paste job from another debate he's found and that he has no more understanding, or perhaps a better word is comprehension of them than he has of geology and if so, perhaps he is simply unable to reason? If so, then we are effectively bullying a disabled person.

I am not being "called out" by you because I refuse to accept that you are my intellectual superior as you keep trying to make out. I attained my geology degree from a reputable UK university and was graded by unbiased professors in their subject. You sir are not my judge and I have no intention of proving my credentials to you. You have attempted to twist and undermine my comments, regularly misquoting them for your own ends and I have no assurance you would do anything different should I spout geology theory at you!

What I will do is continue the "reasoned argument(s)" you kindly credit me with. Ponder on what the next 'Redefinition of Marriage' will be after this one! Legalising polygamous marriages will be almost a certainty as their is no logical reason why if you can redefine our cherished institution for homosexuals why you couldn't do the same for other spurious family units.

BBC - Three Person Civil Union Sparks Controversy in Brazil

Last edited by BigD on 29-Aug-2012 at 09:27 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

Ponder on what the next 'Redefinition of Marriage' will be after this one! Legalising polygamous marriages will be almost a certainty as their is no logical reason why if you can redefine our cherished institution for homosexuals why you couldn't do the same for other spurious family units. BBC - Three Person Civil Union Sparks Controversy in Brazil

So nothing new here then. For your information polygamy has been part of the Judaeo-christian ethic for three millenia, as has torture, genocide, oppression, and hypocrisy.

It was the Romans who imposed monogamy on the early christians, and had you been around at the time you would be claiming that the Emperor did not have a mandate to modify the sacred institutions of marriage in direct contravention of what your deity said.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BigD

Edit: I have made changes to this post to reflect the post that follows.


See, there you go sounding like a rational person again, so why is it you seemingly turn off your rationality when talking about certain subjects (most notably, failing to comprehend why you are a bigoted hypocrite)?.

I realise I've humiliated you by asking you the geology questions, it wasn't my original intention, I simply wanted to know if you had an understanding of the subject you claim to have a degree in, because you keep using it as some kind of anchor point to make the rest of your posts sound balanced and grounded in science, when clearly they are not.

(See the following post for why this is important)


You keep claiming I'm twisting your words, yet you feel no such problem in twisting other peoples words and your own answers to fit the matter at hand. I'm not the one the came up with your nickname "twisty".

You keep blaming others for doing things you keep doing yourself and you do this without any apparent irony. You consistently make judgement of other people and yet when I treat you with the same regard, suddenly you find it unacceptable.

EVERYTHING I've ever said to you in a posts in all the topics on this forum has been in reply to you. You treat others with contempt, so I treat you with contempt. My natural state with strangers is to treat them as a friend. If I treat somebody other than that, it's because that's how they behaved to me or others in my presence. If you think the manor in which I talk to you is unacceptable, rude or any other kind of derogatory manor, then perhaps you should reconsider how you talk to me and others in this thread.

I know for a fact that there are members of this forum that are gay, but that shouldn't really matter. This is not a private forum and can be read by anyone. I would not wish anyone to think that this forum considers your bigoted views to be acceptable. You can see by the number of different posts by members who have openly stated their contempt of you that I am not alone in this.

IF you wish to have a well mannered debate on this or any other forum, then talk to others as you would like to be talked to in return. If you want to be respected, treat others with respect. You have utterly failed to treat anyone that differs from your opinion with any.




From your first post in this thread,

"This argument has nothing to do with equality but is rather fuelled by an aggressive 'agenda' from a small minority of people"

That can be equally applied to you. It has been the backbone of your claims all the way through this thread (The "gay agenda"), but when it is pointed out to you by numerous members of this website that this is exactly what you are doing, you claim we are being unfair, or that we must be part of an agenda ourselves.

Why are you unable to comprehend this?



Quote:

What I will do is continue the "reasoned argument(s)" you kindly credit me with. Ponder on what the next 'Redefinition of Marriage' will be after this one! Legalising polygamous marriages will be almost a certainty as their is no logical reason why if you can redefine our cherished institution for homosexuals why you couldn't do the same for other spurious family units. BBC - Three Person Civil Union Sparks Controversy in Brazil

I saw that article and immediately thought of you. Not because of what actually happened, but because due to your very selective reading, I knew you would not be able to resist posting it.

If you would like to go back and read the article all the way through, you will see this was the actions of a church, not politicians, not a "gay agenda". It has already been stated that this is not a legal civil partnership. I quote "Ms da Silva, who is president of the Commission for the Rights of the Family within the Institute of Lawyers, says the union will not be allowed to remain in place."

The very system that you claim will break down society is the very system that is saying this has no legal basis and protecting the "sanctity of marriage" as you have put it.

You have argued repeatedly that the churches have the moral high ground and the government is some interfering meddler that will take away your religious values and yet, here we have an actual case of the exact opposite happening! And you were the one that brought it to our attention!

BigD, you are priceless.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 30-Aug-2012 at 02:18 AM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 30-Aug-2012 at 01:55 AM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 30-Aug-2012 at 01:51 AM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 30-Aug-2012 at 01:51 AM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 29-Aug-2012 at 10:34 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 29-Aug-2012 at 10:31 PM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@BigD

Hmm, something was nagging me after writing my last post. I was thinking about the whole bullying thing and lost where I was going with my original motivation for questioning about your geology qualifications.
Now I've remembered.

Quote:

I attained my geology degree from a reputable UK university and was graded by unbiased professors in their subject. You sir are not my judge and I have no intention of proving my credentials to you.

AndyC posted back in #627
Quote:

We are not special, we were not molded from the clay, the heavens and the earth were not created in 6 days. To think otherwise is morally questionable given the weight of evidence.

To which you replied in #638

Quote:

What weight of evidence? I have a degree in Geology and the calculation to age date rocks involves multiplying by a constant to give the calculation the correct degree of magnitude. When I asked where this constant had come from the lecturers could not answer!

You were the one that introduced your geology degree in this thread. You used it to give weight to your argument and the subsequent arguments that followed. You have also used this claim to give strength to your claims in other threads when sciences were discussed.

You were the person that introduced your superiority to others in this thread by claiming to have a degree in one of the most (excuse the pun) rock solid of all the sciences and you used your "superiority" to belittle AndyC and the science of geology (not to mention your lecturers).

For a person who is basically saying, "I have no reliable evidence for anything I'm saying, but trust me" (is anyone reading this that disagrees with that?), being able to back up a claim such as this is highly important.

Many, many times in this thread, you have asked me to back up my claim that you don't speak for the majority of British voters and other subjects. All I am doing is asking you to back up your claim of having an understanding of geology.

If you do provide the answers, then of course that doesn't prove you have a degree, but it will at least show you did at least understand the subject. That would be sufficient for me to know that I am talking to somebody that understands the scientific principle and the importance of evidence when making a claim. That is the totality of what I wish to achieve. I am not trying to trick you.



So I ask again.

1 What is the eventual fate of Greece?

2 Why was the Tibetan plateau regarded as a paradox?

3 Why does Peru resemble Scotland?


If you do not answer, then as you'll know being a scientist yourself, you will have failed to provide sufficient evidence to support your claim. If that is the case, then I ask you to withdraw your claim that you have a geology degree and ask that you do not use this statement to give false credence to any future argument in these forums.

To claim a qualification to which you are not entitled to is immoral and unjust You would be doing a disservice to geologists who have actually earned their degree through hard work and you would be devaluing the whole education system which governs it. This is not a petty matter.

Were you to falsely make this claim in a job interview for instance, you would be committing a criminal act.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 30-Aug-2012 at 02:03 AM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 30-Aug-2012 at 01:57 AM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@T-J

Quote:

The only purpose to arguing at all is to prevent unsuspecting internet trawlers from mistaking his opinions for a mainstream view. Job done?

Not as long as he keeps posting them...

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 30-Aug-2012 at 02:08 AM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7575137/Bill-passes-first-reading

@BrianK

That is fantastic and what's more, the woman talked complete sense throughout which alone is also amazing given she is a politician.

I don't often clap my computer, but I just did.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

If you do not answer, then as you'll know being a scientist yourself, you will have failed to provide sufficient evidence to support your claim. If that is the case, then I ask you to withdraw your claim that you have a geology degree and ask that you do not use this statement to give false credence to any future argument in these forums.

Your not my superior. Get that into your head. You have no right to demand I PROVE my academic qualifications! Next you'll be wanting me to scan and post pictures of the certificates!

Let me get one thing clear I am not in the business of lying to further my opinion on this matter on this forum. You're the one that is untrustworthy on than score. Posting deliberately false summaries of my posts! People can be assured that they can trust me but they certainly can't trust you.

I certainly won't be retracting the claim that I hold a geology degree as it's the truth, I'm just not answerable to you.

In other news;

BBC Quote
Quote:

Ms da Silva, who is president of the Commission for the Rights of the Family within the Institute of Lawyers, says the union will not be allowed to remain in place.

She is one lawyer, we will see if the ruling is upheld in the coming months. As I said their is no logical reason why once redefined to encompass same-sex couples why it can't be redefined to include polygamous relationships. This would be a complete subversion of marriage and constitutes its destruction!!

The reassurances and safeguards that the government spout will not prevent this happening just as Ben Summerskill of Stonewall claimed the Sexual Orientation Regulations would not mean that Christian B&B owners would be disciplined for refusing a double room to a homosexual couple! Mr Summerskill's mantra at the time before the law was changed was that they could just go to the next B&B down the road. Now when the law has changed he's encouraging homosexuals to sue these people out of a livelihood!

Guardian: Persecution These Christian Hoteliers have no idea

Last edited by BigD on 30-Aug-2012 at 07:50 AM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

Your not my superior. Get that into your head. You have no right to demand I PROVE my academic qualifications! Next you'll be wanting me to scan and post pictures of the certificates!

I have made it clear in my post the the simple answer of the questions would be sufficient to display you have a basic grasp of the subject you claim to be an expert in. I have not asked for any further evidence and I made it clear in my post that I was not going to.

You have again twisted my words, as you have done many times is this thread to various posters to avoid answering a question to which you clearly have no answer for.

You have claimed to have a qualification in a subject of which the very first post you made this claim wrote "I have a degree in Geology and the calculation to age date rocks involves multiplying by a constant to give the calculation the correct degree of magnitude."

If you had such a qualification, you'd know that geology and radiocarbon dating are separate sciences and the calculation of the age of the earth and it's rocks are not dependant on radiometric results.

Furthermore, I have every right to ask that you prove your academic qualifications. You have used them as a basis for your own arguments. I'm simply following the rules of the scientific principle and indeed, your own arguments that you use when you ask us to provide evidence to support our claims. But that's not even what I'm asking. I'm asking for you to prove you have a basic level of understanding of the subject.

I'm sure if I claimed I had a degree in religious studies to overrule your position on religious matters, you would want some kind of evidence to support that claim, particularly if I made claims that you knew to be false, or that were nonsensical.

You have claimed humans and dinosaurs walked the Earth together. Proven by science to be false.
You have claimed the Earth is 6000 years old. Proven by science to be false.
You have claimed your God created the Earth 6000 years ago in it's current state. Proven by science to be false.

All of the sciences involved are the very science in which you claim to be an expert in.

So yes, I have every right to demand you prove that you have a basic understanding of the subject. I have not asked for your qualifications and I have made clear that answering the questions was only to prove your basic comprehension, not to prove you had a degree. Though it is obvious to all that if you lack even basic understanding of the subject, the chances of you having a qualification would be, to put it mildly, remote.




I shall bookmark this thread and your continual failure to provide evidence and link to it in any future thread where you again make this claim.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 30-Aug-2012 at 01:22 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 30-Aug-2012 at 01:20 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 30-Aug-2012 at 01:15 PM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@BigD

I think you meant to say "you are", or "you're", not "your", which is obviously incorrect.

Also, SpaceDruid has as every right to demand that you prove your academic qualifications, given that you have used this as the basis of some of your arguments.

Had you kept this fact to yourself, it would not have been subject to confirmation. Given that everything you have said contradicts accepted geological wisdom, then one can only conclude that you are not being entirely truthful.

Quote:

I certainly won't be retracting the claim that I hold a geology degree as it's the truth, I'm just not answerable to you.

If you are implying that you are only answerable to God, then Let me remind you of His ninth commandment:

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour".

Might I suggest that you take time to reflect on this before asking God for forgiveness?

Thanks.

AndyC

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

That is fantastic and what's more, the woman talked complete sense throughout which alone is also amazing given she is a politician. I don't often clap my computer, but I just did.

Still more hoops to go before this is fully implemented. But, it's good to see this go forward.

@BigD

Quote:

I said their is no logical reason why once redefined to encompass same-sex couples why it can't be redefined to include polygamous relationships.

Like it or not it's a reality that marriage has changed over the eons. And even now in the UK you have laws removing the necessity of 'for life' conditions. If we allow gays to marry or if we allow more than two people to marry are seperate questions and one isn't dependent on the other. So, good for looking out for the slippery slope but the government already has it's natural law making provisions in place to ensure we as a society have that discussion if it were to occur.

Previously you claimed this would lead to people marrying inanimate objects. That is even farther down the line. Toasters don't have any rights as a human and therefore cannot partake in human laws. The idea you have there is far fetched hyperbole and unworthy as being part of the consideration.