This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
A Question for All of you Climate People (Now about Other Stuff!)
Return to board index
Post by
Skyfire
As for this vicious circle, how did you come to that conclusion? I'm confused about how we jumped from a question of "the third parties" to "oh, !@#$ that!".
Because in real life it is an endless viscous cycle? Each party has their own agenda and no one wants to compromise.
Why would you think that it's a bad idea for each group to have an agenda? Note that I nowhere said that they could not compromise; only left you the idea that they might have issues with it.
Btw, Skyfire, I want to marry you. You're %^&*ing awesome.
Ok... not quite sure why I deserve "you're !@#$ing awesome", but thanks for the compliment.
Post by
123022
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
Why would you think that it's a bad idea for each group to have an agenda? Note that I nowhere said that they could not compromise; only left you the idea that they might have issues with it.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea for them to each have a separate agenda, and yes it is possible for them to compromise, but are seriously going to believe that they will?
Edit - Hmm...Skyfire..If your on here i'm just wondering if you got some supa-dupa way to seperate Laihendi and Queggy / Get them a room.?
Jeedar you have to admit that I've at least tried to be civil.
Post by
Laihendi
Sorry for being honest.
Wow, just wow . . .
Now now, queggy, don't feed the troll.
What's wrong with being honest? Feel-good lies aren't as great as they're made out to be.
Post by
123022
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skyfire
Why would you think that it's a bad idea for each group to have an agenda? Note that I nowhere said that they could not compromise; only left you the idea that they might have issues with it.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea for them to each have a separate agenda, and yes it is possible for them to compromise, but are seriously going to believe that they will?
This is problematic. First, why the cynicism? Second, just look at America. It works (if poorly, sometimes), doesn't it?
Hmm...Skyfire..If your on here i'm just wondering if you got some supa-dupa way to seperate Laihendi and Queggy / Get them a room.?
I can only ask Laihendi to back off a bit. You're coming off not only as pretentious, but also as a jackass, mon.
Half the things you say are things I want to say, but can't find words for.
And the other half are things I wish I wanted to say, but I never even thought that far.
(Sorry if that doesn't make any sense, my english has taken a beating from speaking too much finnish.)
The first part takes practice. The second part takes classes where they tell you to think that far. The third part is understandable, as I've learned two languages other than my native English. :)
Post by
Queggy
This is problematic. First, why the cynicism? Second, just look at America. It works (if poorly, sometimes), doesn't it?
That's my point. It can work some of the time, but other times it just fails completely.
Post by
123022
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
And Skyfire..jackass..me? i dont get it... (its a running swedish joke, I dont know how well known it is in the US..)
He's talking about Laihendi.
Post by
Skyfire
EluraE..Finnish? And Skyfire..jackass..me? i dont get it... (its a running swedish joke, I dont know how well known it is in the US..)
Not you. The other guy. Queggy's acted respectably, but for the fact his argument has essentially consisted of "God said so" or "I said so". :)
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skyfire
This is problematic. First, why the cynicism? Second, just look at America. It works (if poorly, sometimes), doesn't it?
That's my point. It can work some of the time, but other times it just fails completely.
It hasn't yet failed completely, which means that we've got a perfect track record for presence...
Anyway, this extended metaphor didn't go quite where I wanted it to. If you haven't figured it out yet, religion was the government, and science was the double checker...
Post by
123022
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
Queggy's acted respectably, but for the fact his argument has essentially consisted of "God said so" or "I said so". :)
Not to be nitpickity or anything, but have not the other arguments against religion been "So-and-so said that blah, blah, blah." I mean, you guys haven't actually performed any of the experiments yourself, or gone and dug up fossils from the ground. You are accepting
on faith
that what the scientists tell you is true and that they are not screwing with any info or facts.
If you haven't figured it out yet, religion was the government, and science was the double checker...
Yeah, I kind of saw that.
Post by
123022
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skyfire
Queggy's acted respectably, but for the fact his argument has essentially consisted of "God said so" or "I said so". :)
You are accepting
on faith
that what the scientists tell you is true and that they are not screwing with any info or facts.
Incorrect. Whereas your faith is essentially homogeneous, science is not. Every scientist for himself, so-to-speak. If you can prove a certain model exists as a scientist, cool beans. If you can
disprove
a certain model exists, that's even better, because that means the first guy got it wrong.
This is how research progresses: I say something, I back it up with my own findings, I write a paper about it. 20 other scientists read my paper, do the experiment, and report back that I'm wrong, or right, or half-right, because my conclusion disagrees with theirs. Or whatever. Then we experiment on some path that held promise toward the "right" findings. So on and so forth.
And this is another place where my metaphor comes in. There isn't just one group telling the government it's wrong, right, somewhere in the middle; there are thousands. And when the thousands say, "you're wrong, and we can back it up with these arguments (experiments)," then it's quite probable that you're wrong.
Now, furthermore, the only reason the government (religion/Christianity) thinks its done its reporting right is because the President (God) told it so. Doesn't that seem circumspect? I don't know about your attitude toward Republicans and Democrats, but the Presidency is typically an office of secrecy, and we just left the past 8 years full of secrecy. Did you trust George Bush? Do you now trust Barack Obama? Why do you (dis)trust these people and not your own faith/God? They told you so, but then, the guys keeping watch about what the government is doing said they're wrong. Why do you trust the President?
Post by
Queggy
I trust the president based on his actions. That's also one of the reasons I trust in God.
Post by
Laihendi
What actions of god?
Post by
L33tsauce
Last post in this thread for Laihendi.
http://trevorburrus.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/05/1345329-10-reasons-why-christianity-is-wrong
Guess this is my last post too. Without Laihendi making poorly-supported, overly-partisan posts that I can retort, I got no reason to be here.
Take the bait, Laihendi, take eet...
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.