1. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178961 by scooternyc on May 12, 2008 at 10:11 am

Peacebeuponme: in response to your question, morals may be shared but are still subjective.

Hitler most likely could say his philosophy about Jews was moral and it was shared by others, but it doesn't make it right.

Right and wrong are very subjective words, personally subjective to any one person's rationalizations, therefore useless in conversation regarding god, morals, good, bad, right, wrong, etc.

Many despise this reality, but right and wrong are clearly subjective. This is why many religious hate this idea because they want to take ownership of morality and you cannot do that if all morality is speculative, subjective and personal; it must come from god and be black/white in thinking.

Civil liberties are merely the freedoms to live your life as you choose without imposing anyone's personal subjective morals upon you in that pursuit of happiness.

Laws are (at least in the inception) created as consequences to someone who infringes on your civil liberty to live (not killing you) your life as you choose.

Almost like a mathematical formula, you should be able to apply the idea of civil liberty(freedom to choose) to the law and the consequence to someone who infringes on that freedom.

Where laws are legislating morality, regardless of whether it's shared or not, is the distortion that government has taken with regard to the Constitution.

Within the Constitution, the Bill of Rights isn't legislating morality, it's simply stating what your civil freedoms are within our society, in addition to how government should operate with regard to elections, etc.

It's very objective, as it should be and as all laws ought to be.

To reduce any particular potential law down to the simplest objective statement is best as it then embraces all human liberty.

2. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178825 by scooternyc on May 12, 2008 at 5:32 am

"As I said before, it is you lot who are side-stepping my questions. No one has come up with anything like a credible account of how reason and morality can be shown to have a naturalistic origin"

Morals and morality are personal and subjective, they come from the individual. How that person creates them or the process by which they are derived from, is his or her business.

Where such things come from means nothing and adds nothing to anyone's claim about a god's existence.

What possible difference does it make where it comes from except that you apparently want to take ownership of all morality, thereby forcing others to believe as you believe.

Your question is useless; existential; personal and subjective.

If you get your personal subjective morals from one book rather than another, fine and dandy.

However, your civil liberties to impose that personal subjective moral philosophy onto others ends where another's begins.

So long as one individual is not infringing on the other's civil liberties to freedom, choice, pursuit of personal happiness at no cost to you, then you can believe anything you want in life.

For all we know, Santa might be the deity we never thought possible. Who cares! LOL!

3. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178767 by scooternyc on May 12, 2008 at 2:41 am

I'm almost shocked at his antediluvian posts regarding the existence of god; I thought everyone already knew that god didn't exist, that we were merely just waiting for the religious to catch up.

4. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178765 by scooternyc on May 12, 2008 at 2:31 am

"Religious morality is objectively valid. It says so in the bible."


LOL! :)

And so early to be so sarcastic - I'm impressed and amused!

5. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178760 by scooternyc on May 12, 2008 at 2:25 am

Personal subjective terminology to describe the evolutionary process does not advance the discussion, it hinders it. (a subjective idea)

This may be one reason why the religious find it hard to swallow. Their morals are so subjective and in conflict with subjective terminology of evolution, it shuts down the conversation because both people are thinking themselves "right" - another subjective thought.

6. I Am Evolution

Comment #178757 by scooternyc on May 12, 2008 at 2:21 am

A responder to a post about religion and evolution on Townhall once wrote to me saying that, "if I was evolving, I'd think I would know it". To which my immediate response was, "clearly you're not as evidenced by your post".

My point: as this subject articulates, if we need to point to the obvious evidence of evolution, look no further than your own life existence.

Everything, everywhere, at all times is evolving and developing. Change and shift are constant and current, there is no stopping it.

Yet, this obvious fact of observation is lost on those who "believe".

"ACCEPT" is a good substitution for "believe" when speaking of evolution. Perhaps "development" might be a good substitution for "evolution".

7. $271 Million for Research on Stem Cells in California

Comment #178033 by scooternyc on May 10, 2008 at 10:11 am

Well, the religious wish to impose their personal subjective philosophy onto others, to the extent that abortion is abhorrent to them, this includes using embryos for stem cell research as they believe that conception is the moment when god infuses the soul and life begins.

Such claims are extreme but are nonetheless inhibiting this important research.

To make a claim by which you infringe on the civil liberties of others compels the religious to prove their claim by which they are implicitly attempting to take ownership, of not just our nation, but our behavior, as well.

If, however, you're being sarcastic and I'm approaching this much to seriously, then you're right, it has nothing to do with the subject and I'm simply typing for practice. ;)

8. $271 Million for Research on Stem Cells in California

Comment #177951 by scooternyc on May 10, 2008 at 3:51 am

Well, "theocracy" evidence I'm not sure. ;)

However, I think a case can be made that the greater the level of religiosity the more likely it is that an implicit theocratic culture exists whereby bigotry and ignorance abound.

Personally, I take no issue with anyone wanting to believe in their version of god to which they derive personal subjective morals to live life.

I do take issue when those beliefs infringe on the civil liberties of others.

In the case of this subject, research, which does not infringe on the civil liberties of another, is being thwarted by nothing more than someone's personal subjective philosophy of life rooted in a concept of behaving as though he or she thinks they know something.

To assign "soul" to an embryo is to stretch the religious philosophy, but philosophy it is, nonetheless and subjective at that.

It's a blastocyst and does not possess a soul. To assign it such, one would have to prove "a god" followed by "their specific god" further revealed that it is "his word" that deems this blastocyst a soul.

Then we've only scratched the surface of opening the discussion for dialogue, it doesn't render the decision over.

All life is equal across the board, deciding one life is more important over another is subjective.

Religion decided that embryos are more important. That's fine, for them.

Again, if an individual doesn't want her embryos used for this research, then deem it so. However, deciding that others need follow that same choice is infringing on the civil liberties of others and is against our Constitutional Law.

9. $271 Million for Research on Stem Cells in California

Comment #177800 by scooternyc on May 9, 2008 at 6:00 pm

mordacious1 - well, sadly, none of its good, but you have managed to find the silver lining, I admit and concur. LOL!

10. $271 Million for Research on Stem Cells in California

Comment #177773 by scooternyc on May 9, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Podaar, actually this Pew Research shows a significant lack of income and education among those that have strong religious beliefs.

http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons

You can further research for yourself that the United States in general is second to last, before Turkey, in nations that don't believe in Evolution, which has obvious scientific implications.

Sadly, the level of education is no more than high school, at 50% of the national total it's disturbing.

Also, in this research, places like Texas are at greater percentages of the evangelical slant. utah shows a strong percentage, as well.

http://religions.pewforum.org/maps

Check it out for yourself and see what your thoughts are on the data. It's highly disturbing when you compare what has happened to Persia all these centuries ago by admonishing mathematics, thus science, and only seeking their version of their god; it really has stunted their evolutionary process. Now they're just insane but with oil - dangerous combination.

11. Trouble ahead for science

Comment #177227 by scooternyc on May 8, 2008 at 7:32 pm

I just saw Miller at the Natural History Museum here in New York giving a terrific lecture on evolution, if you can find it on the web somewhere after tonight, don't miss it.

12. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170821 by scooternyc on April 28, 2008 at 4:11 am

Personal experience of anything negates all discussion of science and objectivity.

While personal experience might be an interesting tale it does not further a discussion about any or all things science; it is a manipulation of emotion to elicite shared emotion.

"Belief" itself is a subjective connotation, personal to the individual, thereby rendering it useless in discussions of science.

It's why values and morals are purely subjective to the individual.

A plethora of individuals who agree on any one value does not credential it as value it only reveals that a group of people agree on a particular idea. To which we say, "so what?".

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus" - Christopher Hitchens

13. Teacher Expelled Over Religion

Comment #162563 by scooternyc on April 17, 2008 at 4:26 am

BTW - The climate is changing, it's been happening since the beginning of the universe and we observe it every year with the change of seasons.


Before those of you who have accepted gorebal warming on faith go on a tantrum, ask yourself why the climate models and those who input the data/run them, will not subject them to public scrutiny?

If you have nothing to hide then bring it out for public debate.

Why won't gore debate the liberal hero Bjorn Lomborg and others?

Or is this subject, as the religious believe about their own deity, over since the majority agree?

14. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #162561 by scooternyc on April 17, 2008 at 4:20 am

Questions to the religious:


"Why not then teach ALL religions in every corner of education by which everyone can observe/read the history and thereby be informed before making a decision?"


"What would be your objection to such teaching and education?"

15. Teacher Expelled Over Religion

Comment #162559 by scooternyc on April 17, 2008 at 4:17 am

Here's another contradiction of it all:

If science and it's objective methods are valid, as in the study of evolution, for which all agree about the debunking of religion on this site and others and for which I concur...

...then why would it be that the same strict methods are not applied to gorebal warming?


If the religious have claimed god is real, the debate is over, the consensus agrees...

...and gorebal warmers have claimed gorebal warming is real, the debate is over, the consensus agrees...

How does the rational mind subvert reality to accept one and not the other; to act in denial?

...other than your own personal self-interest and personal agenda, of course. ;)

You cannot make claim to one area of study as factually correct while claiming the other area is not, when both are rooted in the same foundational propositions: test of hypothesis, observation of data, replication of data, outcome to elevation of theory.

Consensus is not science in religion or gorebal warming or anything else science.

If evidence is not observed in an objective manner outside the purview or influence of politics and personal self-interest, it cannot be taken seriously.

Religion or Gorebal Warming - pick your poison.

16. Science Debate 2008

Comment #160833 by scooternyc on April 14, 2008 at 12:55 pm

So, with this information, should we presume that those of opposition on this subject will be voting for McCain?

If this be your most important issue, then John is your answer:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080414/NATION/952356185/1001

17. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159371 by scooternyc on April 12, 2008 at 3:31 am

Davis isn't sorry she said it, she's sorry she let it out of the bag and got caught, as with most people who apologize for such behavior.

You can't hide forever what is inherently within you.

If she is a representative of the people, then the people have a right to vote her out of office, firing her.

Calling for resignation subverts the people's vote. Just because you're "offended" doesn't mean anything - get over it.

ALWAYS question the motives of a person who seeks to be offended or decries being offended.

If her job is decided by vote then it should be vote that determines her worth of remaining or not.

It would be more useful to speak about the observation of her behavior and how it, along with other patterns of such, reveal the type of person she is and whether or not she ought be in her position.

Clearly, some of her constituency agree with her statement since she was voted in.

You base your vote on the plus column vs. the minus column - no one person holds all the cards.

Certainly this current Presidential election reveals that with all this religious pandering from both parties.

18. Commentary: Democrats finally getting religion on religion

Comment #159363 by scooternyc on April 12, 2008 at 2:58 am

Why pick on Texas, it's such a friendly state, after all, look at all the open doors from Katrina.

Of course, their crime rate did go up...but who cares about that fact.

Let's not hate Texas, how about Ohio or Florida or Washington or Oregon....

19. Commentary: Democrats finally getting religion on religion

Comment #158740 by scooternyc on April 11, 2008 at 1:58 am

The Republicans must be seething in silence.

All these years of screaming how vulnerable they are and that their savior is jesus, "come to me and I will save you from yourself".

Now, Obama comes out, telling everyone how vulnerable they are, "come to me for comfort & safety"(and everyone else's dollars) and I will save you from yourself" and the numb minded are flocking to him from both parties.

It's just amusing and ironic to watch.

It would be funnier if it weren't so tragic.

Apparently the Democrats are beating the Republicans at their own religious game.

Jesus - Obama

Obama - Jesus

Who can tell the difference

Lots of rhetoric - no substance - completely imaginary.

Now that's real religio...err...politics.


http://www.slate.com/id/2188414/

20. Commentary: Democrats finally getting religion on religion

Comment #158100 by scooternyc on April 10, 2008 at 4:23 am

Pandering to the right of me

Pandering to the left of me

And no sense of balance in between

NEWSFLASH TO CANDIDATES: Shut up about your religion, it's like your sex life - boring, useless and nobody cares!

21. Commentary: Democrats finally getting religion on religion

Comment #158096 by scooternyc on April 10, 2008 at 4:17 am

" ...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. "

22. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #157229 by scooternyc on April 8, 2008 at 6:33 pm

"What this state was built upon"

Another idiot who has no idea about America's history.

The question to her should be, "why is it so important to you that America be founded as a christian nation".

The answer: ownership

She couldn't be more ANTI-AMERICAN if she tried.

23. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #155537 by scooternyc on April 4, 2008 at 5:23 pm

I find it interesting that in a pluralistic society which abounds in pluralistic religions, this woman thinks herself anointed as such to know something for which she couldn't possibly know - the mind of god; the word of god.

Additionally, that in a country that set its Constitution as the rule of law endorsing individual civil liberties and freedoms, these religious types think that their personal philosophy of life should be forged on greater society, whereby our minds should become forfeit to no other.

What brain rot.

24. Vatican: Islam surpasses Roman Catholicism as world's largest religion

Comment #152937 by scooternyc on March 31, 2008 at 6:24 pm

This is such a great scare tactic for Catholics to indoctrinate more people and have more children.

Very subtle, yet very effective.

Nothing like being manipulated.

25. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #148824 by scooternyc on March 24, 2008 at 2:34 am

Loved PZ's responses and calling out the topic change - that shows the fraudulent nature of it all to begin with.

I thought it was HILARIOUS when PZ said that this guy was "ignorant" and "infantile" and he gets upset, wants to be offended and requests that PZ not engage in such exchanges. LOL!

Is reality too difficult for this guy!

Did anyone on this thread have a problem with PZ calling this guy ignorant and infantile?

I certainly didn't. He called it like he saw it.

26. Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled

Comment #148100 by scooternyc on March 22, 2008 at 4:07 am

"Breathtaking Inanity"

Once again the religious, who scream freedoms of our Constitution, are silencing the voices of others and deeming themselves the deity over all to decide who should or should not see, hear, comment on something.

A very disturbed group of people they have proven themselves to be once again.

27. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147517 by scooternyc on March 20, 2008 at 7:40 pm

"He calls on secular liberals to stand up for reason and science, the separation of religion and state, freedom of belief, personal autonomy, equality, toleration, and self-criticism"

So, as suspected, this movement seeks to disenfranchise other political constituents who do not hold the same liberal ideology as the author and his followers.

Too bad, the movement can use all the support it can get.

This shouldn't be surprising given that this site along with others of such persuasion have not addressed the Obama debacle of his relationship with the Rev. Wright.

Either this is an issue for which those involved are fully committed, no exceptions, or it is not.

In which case, it's just this movement's "faith card" being flung about whenever convenient.

28. Survey shows Non-Religious Outnumber Those of Every Single Faith (But One)

Comment #139542 by scooternyc on March 6, 2008 at 3:42 am

What I find more interesting is the educational and financial profiles of the religious.

Large percentages tend to be less educated and earn less money.

I wonder how many people who "gave up" religion and/or god still fall into the "less educated and earn less" categories.

If the mindset of the religious is ignorance and victimization by which their savior will rescue them - then it must be asserted that a great many people who "gave up" religion perhaps still hold on to that ideology just in a different sheep's clothing.

29. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137176 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 1:30 pm

"Just to make it clear. I wasn't blaming you for starting this"

I never thought you did, nor thought you were. Thanks for the clarification, though, I appreciate your sound approach.

30. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137175 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 1:27 pm

"if for example someone gained control of something necessary for life, for example a water supply"

This statement implies a limit of resources.

Does one not have opportunity and freedom to seek those resources elsewhere for self and others?

31. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137172 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 1:24 pm

"Does one not have the personal freedom to do whatever s/he wants? If Stryrer or Steve or SharonMcT or Cartomancer or Frankus feel it is their business to tell you we think you are way out of line with your vicious vehement vitriol why do you feel that we do not have that right?"

Great! If they want to take on the personal choice of defending someone then be prepared to engage in the fight and not cower into "he's insulting me".

I love it! I'm a nutter because????? You disagree? You find my website links to be full of lies about data?

Did you ever think that perhaps your paradigm of life may be limited? Do you ever reflect that someone may have a perspective of life you've never considered?

Do you even know or think you know the definitions of the concepts I've presented?

Have you ever asked in order to understand another's perspective?

Fantastic!

32. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137169 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 1:15 pm

AtheistJon - "Is there something that could be done or said?"

Certainly, those that disagree with my ideas could come to the thread and discuss why, if they have information or evidence to provide, show it; I enjoy the exchange of ideas.

Lobbing emotional-molotov-cocktails as intellectual relevance will not further any discussion.

Coming on to simply call me a cunt, doesn't do anything for the discussion.

But this behavior has been encouraged by others by joining in or not addressing any one individual to say, "hey, make your points without your insults as it does nothing for all of us".

This statement comes at me, though, as if I'm supposed to ignore their attempted insults and just make my points.

In the past, I've attempted to ignore such statements and address only those of intelligent discussion, but that didn't work as each time I've come onto the thread the same people want to behave in this manner - always the same people.

I've exampled perfectly interesting conversations with others where no such exchanges of disrespect occurred, so it would be observed by those individuals who created this "insult" exchange: "gee, he speaks to this person or that person without lobbing an insult at them, yet every time I approach him I make some snide comment or insult and he then tells me to fuck off - perhaps I should NOT approach him this way and speak about the topic, instead"

Does this happen?

No.

However, like you, I enjoy speaking my ideas and hearing others as they support development of self in these discussions and arming self with facts, not emotion, about issues where others seek to abscond our freedoms.

Even when I come on and don't address any of the said emotional-molotov-cocktail types, they insist on engaging and begin by insult or name calling.

That's fine if they wish to continue this behavior, but then they must TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND BE ACCOUNTABLE for the outcome of reaction toward them.

33. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137162 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Styrer - since you photoshop the statements to prove only your side of the story, you leave out that:

Sharon's first lob at me was unprovoked to her in her statement # 178

I've already proven the statements about Steve

Cart started his problem on post #203, for which, if reviewed, I initially played along, then he wanted to get ugly

And then, of course, there's the famous D and the calling me a cunt in post 261

I don't care if people want to approach me in this manner, I would never silence someone's freedom of speech.

But get off your sanctimonious soapbox as though these people had my vitriol inflicted upon them at no provocation.

Did you post those statements that preceeded mine?

No, you did not.

And why not, would be the question.

34. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137151 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Styrer - no one is going to save you from reality that each statement given was directly a result of his/her personal attack toward me. You get what you give.

Again, if you don't like someone telling you to fuck off, then perhaps don't start a conversation with someone by telling them fuck you.

If I make a statement of liberal fascists on this site and it doesn't apply to you, then why are you so upset? Perhaps it applies to others? Why is it your business to defend others who can speak for themselves and defend their own ideas?

Again, mind your own business. Did these people ask for you help? Did these people ask for your defense? Why would you or anyone be so arrogant to think that another person was incapable of taking care of him/her self?

That's the biggest insult of all.

35. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137146 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 12:25 pm

"If you don't repeat it like a mantra, don't tell people to "never breed", and call those who disagree with you "over-emotional liberal fascists", why should I?"

Since when is it your fucking business to defend others?

Who the hell put you in charge of that role?

You behave just like the religious who think they corner the market on morality and feel compelled to butt into other people's business.

Mind your own business. If I directly addressed you, then address me. If I didn't, then you ought to think twice about your approach to me if you don't want back what you give.

36. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137144 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 12:22 pm

So, steve, let's review, by evidence, this statement you made of me before any "name calling" as you state, occurred:

"I should particularly apologise. I have a tendency to wind up people like scooter, as I feel it is fair to try reveal the motivations behind what can appear a reasonable viewpoint. In this case there has been some deeply unpleasant collateral damage."

Mind reading? Who was mind reading? Oh that was you.

See, you end up in the same place every time because you were lazy, by requesting me to give you stats to refute your position yesterday. That is lazy. It is what it is.

Then in statement 186 you admit to your lazy ways.

Now you post here that you don't like be outed as lazy?

Then on post 260 you lay into some diatribe doing all the very things you accuse me of, but I did none of toward or about you, at me.

You're either recklessly ignorant or stupid.

If you don't even know what you're saying to others then you're just recklessly ignorant.

If you do and you take the victim stance, then you're just stupid.

37. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137141 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Once again Steve, you won't take personal responsibility for situations which you create.

So be it.

38. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137140 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Sharon, your post 291 is similar to Steve advocating that insult is just fine. Well, I disagree. I don't need to insult anyone for any reason, especially if I disagree.

What kind of a person is it that needs to insult others to advance their position?

If you don't like the response you get why not change the way YOU approach.

It's always about the other person, though, isn't it. It's never about your personal approach or choices.

39. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137136 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 12:08 pm

"'personal freedom above all' cannot rule supreme"

I disagree. Do you have a specific example by which to examine this idea that you would label as such?

40. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137025 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 6:48 am

"My theory is that scooternyc takes great pleasure in pushing the buttons of the more left leaning part of the crowd."

Not a well thought out or decent observation.

Why?

Because when I come onto any thread I comment about the topic and place my ideas before the group for discussion.

Your observation should reflect that those who disagree love to lob insult and name calling because of how Atheist Jon rightly points out - I won't/don't tow the political line of liberals or conservatives. Tough shit.

Any subject of interest isn't about politics or any particular political party as it is more important to address issues that are important to ALL people.

There were many conservatives at the CFI conference I attended in November who felt very strong about church/state separation, who wanted to fight this fight with fellow atheists, but who stated their sense of disenfranchisement when politics attributing liberalism and atheism would correlated. It's bullshit.

This issue affects EVERYONE, regardless of politics. But those who want to divide will always seek to label. I point out liberal fascists as sarcasm about how divisive the attitude is, but the sarcasm is lost because everyone would rather lob insults, name call and be victims rather than saying, "gee, am I dogmatic about my political views to the extent that I disenfranchise others?"

Why, that would be too evolved to do.

41. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137023 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 6:40 am

"But not always directly so. Your personal freedom dogma is an example. Sometimes you may need to forgo certain personal freedoms for your greater good."

"That does not necessarily mean they are selfish interests"

All actions are of self-interest.

You can claim an altruistic action is for someone's greater good, but the action is still rooted in your personal self interest of whatever your personal agenda is about.

All actions are self-interest as they are about whatever you are getting from the choice - be it a "good feeling" about yourself, etc.

No one likes thinking that their actions are self motivated because of the social stigma of such labels; shift your paradigm of the term and suddenly it opens up understanding that ALL actions are of self-interest due to the action itself giving you, the individual, some sort of satisfaction, feeling, accomplishment, et.al.

42. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136978 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 4:47 am

Scooter: "It's just like a victim to provoke and then be hurt/upset when they get back what they implicitly are asking for.

Of course, you NEVER stop to evaluate your own approach as though you MIGHT be wrong - it's always about the other person. No biggie."

Steve:"You seem to have a short memory. I admitted you were right about me demanding evidence on the matter of "crime fighter" statistics"

You missed the entire point of my response and then went off in some other direction that had nothing to do with my statement.

You don't even address your own behavior as being the cause of reaction from others. Unbelievably hilarious!

43. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136974 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 4:44 am

"If you at some stage get back to the point, you might be worth talking to."

Well, at least you took a stand there for personal choice and decided I'm not worth talking to - great.

I can then be on the threads without emotional interruption from you so I can discuss interesting topics with those who don't need insult to further their points of view.

44. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136970 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 4:41 am

"A fundamentalist tends to ignore evidence."

You're right, you do tend to ignore evidence.

45. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136969 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 4:41 am

""all interest is personal interest" without solid evidence to back this up."

ARE YOU SERIOUS???? LOL!!!!!

Pal, you better read the statement again -

ALL INTERESTS ARE PERSONAL INTERESTS

Please tell me where this statement is wrong - ON ANY LEVEL?

There is no interest that is NOT personal self-interest.

You name any situation and break it down, it will always come down to the individual making a choice because of some personal self-interest.

2 2 = 4

46. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136964 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 4:35 am

"I just don't see a problem with them personally as long as they contain more than just insult."

Interesting observation of personal perspective about life on two very different worlds

I see reasonable dialogue and discussion without insult as educational and useful, no need to insult others

You see insult as worthwhile

My point about being a victim is finally proven about you - you're fine being insulted, thus feeling abused by others (you even use the word abuse)then crying about it


"You seem to think that challenging your views and not playing by you rules is throwing some kind of punch."

Who distorts now? That would be you.

In MANY previous posts, on this thread and others, I've welcomed the challenge to my views without borders.

Apparently you've never been properly socialized to understand how mature adults disagree with one another when presenting ideas for discussion; you think that insult is the manner by which to do this.

I recall about a month ago I was having a perfectly good interaction with another blogger about determinism and you decided to drop your emotional-molotov cocktail and insult into the discussion - now you want to call the person who defends and insults you back, the abuser.

It's just like a victim to provoke and then be hurt/upset when they get back what they implicitly are asking for.

Of course, you NEVER stop to evaluate your own approach as though you MIGHT be wrong - it's always about the other person. No biggie.

I discuss respectfully to those who have shown respect; those that don't, enter at your own risk.

47. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136959 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 4:24 am

"Because, as I explained a few posts back, you support fundamentalist beliefs. You post dogma. You distort evidence."

Contempt prior to investigation.

Did you even read any of the sites I listed with their plethora of data - especially the one from the National Academy of Sciences? Probably not.

Your view is that advocating personal freedom is fundamentalism? Great, thanks for revealing that.

Dogma, is once again, espousing personal freedom of choice? Got it.

What evidence did I distort? Oh, that's right - NONE - I posted sites by which data and evidence can be reviewed and decided upon by the individual - those are science and research principles in case you didn't go to college.

And by the way, living in the United States, an amazing nation for all it's good and bad, is about FREEDOM - read the Declaration of Independence and learn something. Perhaps where you're from it's a nanny state and you're just jealous not just of our freedom but our penis', as well.

48. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136954 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 4:18 am

"Steve - I think it is a case of penis envy."

I can understand why he would be jealous; mine is rather amazing, thanks for the compliment epeeist.

49. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136953 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 4:17 am

"I'm afraid I don't really have the strength of emotional responses you seem to think."

So what?

"I just believe that bullies like you do positive harm to this site."

You've self anointed yourself as the webmaster, have you?

"My impression is that this is supposed to be a place where people with different views can express them."

Wow, that's what I thought, as well. It's awfully strange how often I post thoughts and get insults from emotionally unstable individuals rather than reciprocal intellectual dialogue and usually from the same old people like you and the witch along with a couple of others.

"Sure, we get insults, but those normally at least contain some content, or have an actual point."

See, this is your problem, you think that insults further a discussion when in fact they do not. I prefer NOT to go in that direction, I prefer to exchange ideas, but you along with your posse find yourselves self-anointed to "protect" some abyss of individuals for which no one appointed you, but that's fine you do whatever you want cause I believe in a person's individual freedom to live his/her life as they wish.

But don't try and place yourself in some sanctimonious self-aggrandized position as though you have anything of relevance to contribute when you start throwing insults at others, cause, 'in my opinion', you don't have anything to contribute.

Perhaps if you weren't willing to fight you shouldn't have thrown the first punch.

50. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136946 by scooternyc on March 2, 2008 at 4:08 am

Steve, you're such a victim, why do you keep engaging in posts at/toward me, why not just abstain from response.

I have been able on many threads in the past, have perfectly reasonable and congenial dialogue with others where there was a mutual reciprocity and exchange of ideas. Some influence me and I them, it's perfectly enjoyable.

Your subjective opinion of me is just that, your subjective opinion, so what? Clearly you want to live your consequence free lifestyle and I don't agree, so stop responding.

No one is forcing you nor have they ever, to respond to my posts, especially when the posts were not directed at your comments and have nothing to do with you.

Who's minding your business while you're so busy minding everyone else's.

Get over your victim self.