151. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191540 by Quetzalcoatl on June 11, 2008 at 6:50 am

TXPiper-

you may not be aware of this, but you have a tremendous opportunity available to you. Many creationists have joined the site proclaiming that their position is true, but then proceeded only to pick holes in existing theories rather than proffering their own. Their arguments have been torn apart for this, and rightly so.

But you are apparently different. You say that your theological and doctrinal views are well developed. You say that you have evidence for the Flood, evidence that is not merely a litany of so-called faults with existing methods, but fresh evidence.

Let's hear it.

Since many posters have gone to great lengths to refute what you have posted in the past, I am sure it is obvious that attention is paid to what you write. If the evidence is as strong as you think, why not put it out there, and let everyone evaluate it? Even if it is rejected, at least you will have had the courage of your convictions, and perhaps your evidence will resonate with those who read the threads but do not post.

So go ahead, TXPiper, give us the evidence for the Flood. Now is your chance.

152. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191440 by Quetzalcoatl on June 11, 2008 at 1:25 am

ypostelnik-

do these include "gaping holes" such as your comments on planetary formation and gravity?

153. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #191281 by Quetzalcoatl on June 10, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Oh, give it up already.

154. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191258 by Quetzalcoatl on June 10, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Do you have nothing better to do with your time than to pretend to be Richard Dawkins?

155. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #191196 by Quetzalcoatl on June 10, 2008 at 11:09 am

_riverrun_-

Is now a good time to ask why you deleted almost all of your comments?

156. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #191075 by Quetzalcoatl on June 10, 2008 at 7:22 am

Compare and contrast:

Don't flatter yourself. I have no interest in you, al-rawandi. None at all. I'm only interested in what's posted

Nasty Bit 1: You are a liar. You lie at the drop of a hat just to score some silly point. Moreover, when you get caught in a lie, what do you do? You continue to shamelessly lie so you can cover up your previous lie. You are an incorrigible liar. Do try to stop, if for no other reason than the fact that you don't do it particularly well!

Nasty Bit 2: You are a hypocrite. It's astonshing how you can talk out of both sides of your mouth without swallowing your tongue. Not only have I caught you saying one thing in one thread and the opposite in another, but you actually had the chuztpah to do the same thing in back-to-back sentences in this thread. Remember Post 432?

"Ok. I said Israel is a racist state in determining citizenship and in the Occupied Territories. That doesn't mean it isn't a democracy . . ."

Hilarious. You know, you really must try to get your capacious head round the difference between a racist state and a democracy. Just because a state has accorded citizenship to its minority while according them second (or third) class status, one cannot call the state a democracy. What can I say, al-rawandi? You make it so easy for me. LOL

Nasty Bit 3: You are naive. Truly. I've never seen someone so easily persuaded as you. You swallow like a--- (damn nasty thought) : ) Do you really believe that Hezbollah actually said that Jews spread AIDS intentionally? Silly al-rawandi, don't believe everything you read. Try to have a healthy skepticism.

Nasty Bit 4: You are a racist. Post 354: "Arab shitholes". What an egregious thing to say. Disparaging an entire ethnic group is inexcusable. Surprisingly, no one else has called you on it. Do you feel the same way about other ethnic groups?

Nasty Bit 5: You are a halfwit, of the lazy kind. I'm sorry. I am simply calling a spade a spade. Who but a lazy halfwit cites Wikipedia as an authoritative source. The material can be modified by anyone---even a halfwit. The site itself cautions against citations. Unfortunately, you still don't get it: Wikipedia is about as reliable as asking your pet gerbil its opinions.

Don't despair, al-rawandi. You're still young. And like you've said, people do change.

157. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190778 by Quetzalcoatl on June 9, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Corylus-

I have yeti feet. I keep them on top of the television.

158. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190757 by Quetzalcoatl on June 9, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Great zombie Jesus! What kind of crap is this?

They believe that not only did whole planets appear spontaneously, but also believe that the fact that these planets do not collide as meteors do

Is this guy retarded? From this one sentence you can tell that he knows utterly nothing! Appear spontaneously? No, that would be what you think, that God did it! Planets do not collide as meteors do? How the hell does he think planets formed in the first place? Where did the Moon come from? Oh wait, that's right. A PLANETARY COLLISION!

Even if all the planets somehow formed themselves, all somehow staying in perfect orbit and possessing gravity

Perfect orbit? He thinks Earth is in a perfect orbit. Marvellous. And "possessing gravity"? Possessing it? Gravity is not something that gets added in afterwards, it is an essential property built into the Universe, into matter itself! You could not have a planet like Earth without gravity! Could this man be any more ignorant?

159. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190749 by Quetzalcoatl on June 9, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Has anyone else noticed that txpiper was "too busy" to lay out the evidence for the Flood, but has somehow found the time to produce another half-dozen posts? If only he had used one of those to explain how the Flood really, truly does make sense. Ah well.

160. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189989 by Quetzalcoatl on June 8, 2008 at 4:26 am

oh dear Q " wrong again

"Again"? When was I wrong before?

161. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189864 by Quetzalcoatl on June 7, 2008 at 11:50 am

SharonMcT-

The World Wildlife Fund has wrestlers? Cool. :)

Pandas and marmosets. The cage fights are vicious.

162. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189837 by Quetzalcoatl on June 7, 2008 at 10:52 am

Juxta-

I fired the elves, they were spending too much time in the brothel and not enough time fixing things. Of course no lightning bolt protection was needed, that yellow-eared poltroon Yahweh would never dare zap one half of the God-God!

163. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189830 by Quetzalcoatl on June 7, 2008 at 10:42 am

Juxtamonkey-

My esteemed god side kick! Muah!

How you been, Juxta? You don't call, you don't write, then you reappear one day with a strange lump on the side of your mouth. What's up with that? :)

164. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189822 by Quetzalcoatl on June 7, 2008 at 10:29 am

Juxtamonkey-

Why is it that the Christians (or religious) will come into these posts, say something, then leave? It fascinates me...utterly

Because that way they can feel smug about sticking it to the godless atheists, without hanging around to see their arguments ripped apart like tissue paper.

165. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189814 by Quetzalcoatl on June 7, 2008 at 10:21 am

thewhitepearl-

he makes me want to slit my throat with a butterknife

Be careful- too much exposure to him and you'll be trying it with a wooden spoon. I'm still picking the splinters out of my neck...

Steve-

he may have heard of the Atheist Handbook, but he doesn't know where to get a copy. NOBODY TELL HIM!

166. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189736 by Quetzalcoatl on June 7, 2008 at 5:51 am

Obecalp-

Would love to read a reply from 'clearthinker' - the only 'queer' person here, if you ask me

Not going to happen. The illustrious David Robertson now confines himself to making hit and run comments in which he merely repeats all his old favourite claims without bothering with something as insignificant as substantiating them.

Clearthinker-

as you might have guessed, I am unsurprised by the quality of your latest "contribution" to the site. Although I must applaud you for not using the phrase "atheist fundamentalists". I don't suppose you'd care to list atheist tenets and beliefs in the meantime?

-Deafening silence-

167. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189716 by Quetzalcoatl on June 7, 2008 at 3:26 am

I'm obviously discussing ideas above everyone's head. It doesn't matter. I'm quite done here.

Yeah, sure you are. You'll be back, with the same old arguments.

168. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189534 by Quetzalcoatl on June 6, 2008 at 12:35 pm

rod-the-farmer

No, that's just the galaxy.

169. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189515 by Quetzalcoatl on June 6, 2008 at 11:46 am

thewhitepearl-

I googled "colliding universes" and found this:

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19426034.200-is-the-evidence-for-alien-universes-all-around-us.html

Is this what you had in mind?

170. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189484 by Quetzalcoatl on June 6, 2008 at 10:47 am

This seems to be a summary of an article that I read recently in Scientific American, written by Professor Sean Carroll. The article can be found here:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-cosmic-origins-of-times-arrow

It's interesting, but in places there seem to be a lot of assumptions made without evidence.

171. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189399 by Quetzalcoatl on June 6, 2008 at 7:34 am

al-rawandi-

The UK doesn't have the death penalty, so that won't happen! Deportation won't help for radicals born in the UK. The problem is that it can be argued that sharia supporters have the right of free speech to argue for sharia to be implemented. Arguments would be made comparing sharia supporters to supporters of socialism, for instance. I know the two are by no means the same, but that wouldn't prevent the argument from being made.

172. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189395 by Quetzalcoatl on June 6, 2008 at 7:22 am

So no deportation of terror and shariah supporters? That is what Fanusi suggests. Plus a ban on immigration of Muslims for several years.

A reduction in the immigration of Muslims would probably be achieved as a consequence of tighter immigration laws and better screening, which is something that is long overdue in my opinion. A ban is never going to happen.

Terror supporters could be deported- but it depends on precisely what they have done. It's a fine line between free speech and glorification of terrorism. Needless to say, if they actually support it by providing materials/training/radicalisation then they should be out on their ear. As for sharia supporters- I don't know.

173. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189385 by Quetzalcoatl on June 6, 2008 at 6:51 am

Cartomancer-

perhaps bracelets bearing the phrase "WWSZWD" might be fashioned?

174. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189372 by Quetzalcoatl on June 6, 2008 at 6:24 am

Epeeist-

not unless the case you want to make revolves around Princess Diana. Then the Daily Express is definitely the paper for you. :(

175. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189341 by Quetzalcoatl on June 6, 2008 at 4:35 am

Hungarianelephant-

Quetz - I think that is a (deliberate?) misinterpretation of something Rachel Holmes and I both said. I'll get to that later too

Do you mean that Appleby misinterpreted, or that I did? If it was me, then I apologise- can you point out where I've gone wrong?

176. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189328 by Quetzalcoatl on June 6, 2008 at 3:48 am

Appleby-

And if you admit that the "harm" supposedly caused by sex with animals is not unequivocal, how can you so easily dismiss it as impermissible? Who's being inconsistent now?

Not me. I didn't admit that harm caused by sex with animals is not unequivocal, but since you quoted me as saying that it was, I wanted you to point me to the specific point where I said that.

Just like there *is* legitimacy in bestiality and it's up to you to show otherwise. This sums up my arguments very nicely, actually. Perfectly, even

It does sum up your arguments, but not in the way that you think. Your constant attempts to equate homosexuality with bestiality have failed. They do not equate. Nor would homosexuality and necrophilia, for instance. Your arguments have been shown to be inadequate by many other posters here, yet you seem unable to see that. Perhaps there is a communication problem after all.

177. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189302 by Quetzalcoatl on June 6, 2008 at 1:57 am

Appleby-

I feel like this debate is winding to a close, since your arguments have been thoroughly dismembered by everyone here, but there are one or two points from your last comment to me that I wanted to address.

Comment #189081 by Quetzalcoatl

Animals are not capable of giving consent or withholding it. Given that that is the case, as I have said before, it seems to me that it would be reasonable NOT TO HAVE SEX WITH THEM.

This seems to be the accepted ethical point of view. Does that mean it cannot be challenged? How do you think homosexuality was viewed (and still is in many parts of the world) in the past?

You do seem to have difficulty maintaining a consistent position, why is that? You have repeatedly claimed that consent applies only to humans and not animals, yet in ther above you attempt to introduce homosexuality into a discussion about CONSENT! Homosexuality was obviously not viewed as something for which parties were incapable of giving consent.

This issue about consent and sex (conveniently applied to animals, it would seem) sounds suspiciously rooted in religion, if you'll forgive my saying so.

No, I'm afraid not. Hi, I'm Quetzalcoatl (except not really), and I'm an atheist.

You can't go around claiming sex with animals unequivocally causes harm unless you can prove it (for said animal) using science. Just like a woman who claims she was raped is required to undergo a (scientific, not just ethical) examination to substantiate that claim

Again, consistency is not your strength- weren't you the one claiming that rape is not relevant? It's good to see that you are capable of changing your mind. And please point to where I claimed that it unequivocally causes harm.

My judgement is clear, thank you. Feel free to try and prove otherwise.

I'd say the onus is on you to first prove it is so. And don't cherry-pick my seemingly negative statements about homosexuality in these thought experiments. Much of it is subject to your false interpretations. I've also said positive things with regard to gays.

What a very theistic response. It's up to me to prove to you that my judgement is clear, rather than for you to point out where it isn't? How very stupid. And there's nothing "seemingly" negative about your statements regarding homosexuality- your constant attempts to equate it with bestiality are proof enough of that. I wonder why so many other posters share these "false interpretations". Would you like to claim conspiracy, or political correctness again?

they might argue they have some legitimacy in at least coupling with the "opposite" sex, unlike homosexuality

There is legitimacy in homosexuality, and it's up to you to show otherwise. But I think it's obvious by now that you can't. If your arguments against homosexuality were based on anything other than your own personal prejudice, you would have been able to show that by now. Your attempts to equate it with bestiality have amply demonstrated that your case against homosexuality does not stand.

Your arguments are prejudiced and bigoted, and so are you. We have not had to assassinate your character, you have done an excellent job of that all by yourself.

178. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189128 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Diacanu-

there seems to be a degree of gayness there, perhaps it's their opportunity to do something they're too repressed/afraid/repulsed to do "directly".

I find the whole idea quite gross, but that's just my gut reaction.

179. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189081 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2008 at 11:26 am

Appleby-

Because, you idiot, as mentioned above, the "consent" argument DOES logically apply to humans (this means if they can't give consent then no sex) but NOT animals. We do not need the consent of animals, and ONLY animals, to have sex with them. Is that really so difficult to understand?

You really do seem determined to prove that consent is not required to have sex with animals. Is this what they told you during your brief stint in the porn industry?

Animals are not capable of giving consent or withholding it. Given that that is the case, as I have said before, it seems to me that it would be reasonable NOT TO HAVE SEX WITH THEM.

Let's take a second and look at your "justification" for this viewpoint.

Did we apply morals and ethics when deciding it was okay to slaughter and hunt animals (without their consent) but not to have sex with them unless given consent (which couldn't be obtained in any case)? And "harm" to animals on account of sex is difficult to prove (scientifically), especially given how many kinds of animals there are. This inconsistency leads to the conclusion that the "consent" argument is only valid when applied to humans (whom we don't typically slaughter and hunt).

Firstly, nobody decided that it was okay to slaughter and hunt animals but only have sex with them unless given consent. That is ridiculous, since, as you say, they are INCAPABLE of giving consent. Therefore, morals and ethics were used to decide that it was not okay to have sex with them. In this comment you spend your time attacking a strawman argument that you have raised for that very purpose- hardly the actions of someone with a good case for his position.

As for the "harm" point- this is equally absurd. And what do you mean by "scientifically"? Physical damage is easy enough to see. Is it your position that the sex is acceptable if there is no physical harm? What if (I know you won't like this) that argument were applied to rape- that it was okay provided there was no physical damage? And what does the fact that there are "many different" breeds of animal have to do with anything? Are you claiming that it is more acceptable to, for instance, have sex with a cow than a cat? Or vice versa? What is your point there?

This inconsistency leads to the conclusion that the "consent" argument is only valid when applied to humans

An inconsistency that, as I said, you created. Perhaps you could clarify something else- if, as you assert, we do not need consent to have sex with animals, what do we need to decide not to have sex with them?

I suppose your judgement is so clouded with the idea that I'm a homophobe, it must have slipped right by you.

My judgement is clear, thank you. Feel free to try and prove otherwise. And your constant efforts to equate homosexuality with bestiality have proven the accuracy of the idea that you are a bigot quite independently of anyone else's assertions.

Your arguments are riddled with flaws.

Also, you never clarified this statement of yours:

At least with bestials, the sex is "straight"

Even with male animals?

180. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189045 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2008 at 9:20 am

Appleby-

More cherry-picking. The only ethical issue that doesn't apply to ANIMALS with regard to SEX is consent, as logically explained in: Comment #188950. It applies just fine to humans.

Again with that comment. You actually spent most of it telling me that other posters were laughing at me for being wrong. The next point of my argument that you highlight was actually a response to that comment, so you respond by referring me back to the original comment? Ridiculous. Speaking of which.....

Once again, you are fruitlessly trying to drag me into the deep waters of "women" and "rape" when all we're talking about is the probable legitimacy of bestiality as an acceptable sexual orientation. You don't like the implications that may have on homosexuality because you're steeped in political correctness and mindless obedience to the dictates of modern Western society. Here's some advice: It's okay not to agree with your teacher every once in a while. You might learn something that way.

Firstly, what's with the quotation marks around women and rape? Anyway. In a comment I made yesterday, I think, I suggested that since, as you say, animals are incapable of giving consent, that that might be an excellent reason to NOT have sex with them. Others have commented that the mentally ill, coma victims, and small children are incapable of giving consent, yet you would not claim that it is acceptable to have sex with them, would you?

In addition, if bestiality has any "implications" for homosexuality (and you have so far provided almost no evidence that it does), then by the same reasoning it would have the same "implications" for heterosexuality, would it not? And yet somehow these implications aren't causing me doubts about my sexuality. If these implications don't apply to heterosexuality, perhaps you could explain the distinction.

As for the rest:

because you're steeped in political correctness and mindless obedience to the dictates of modern Western society. Here's some advice: It's okay not to agree with your teacher every once in a while. You might learn something that way

Do you have any idea how stupid the above quote makes you sound? Clearly you know nothing about me if you think I give a shit about political correctness. And "mindless obedience"? If that were true then clearly you should have been able to defeat all us drones by now. Because, you, apparently, aren't steeped in it. You're some kind of free-thinker, a rebel. You're cool.

Right.

181. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189030 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2008 at 8:31 am

Appleby-

you claimed that the premise is flawed, but in fact it is not. It was you who claimed that moral/ethical issues are inappropriate for basing laws upon, and consent is a fundamentally moral/ethical issue. It is unreasonable to say that because, in your opinion, ethical issues have not been applied to slaughter and hunting, that they therefore no longer have to be applied to ANY aspect of our treatment of animals.

By that logic I could claim that, since ethical issues have not always been applied to women, leading them to sometimes be treated as mere breeding machines with no access to education or independent lives, that ethical issues should therefore no longer be taken into consideration on the issue of consent. You see how daft that sounds? Yet that is your position regarding sex with animals.

That is why the question is appropriate. If you think the question is wrong, then don't tell me that it is flawed, answer it anyway, and by that method demonstrate the "flaws" for all to see.

Go ahead.

182. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189021 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2008 at 8:08 am

Appleby-

What have you got to say to that?

I say that that isn't an answer to the comment I was referring to. Here it is. Again.

You have claimed that moral and ethical arguments are inappropriate grounds to base laws on. If that is true, and consent is a moral/ethical question, then surely it cannot be used as an argument against rape? You have claimed that ethics and morals are inappropriate for judging bestiality, while the scientific method should apply to both bestiality and human sex. Why should ethical bases be appropriate for forbidding rape of a woman if they are not appropriate for forbidding the rape of a cat or a dog or a sheep? Do you therefore condone rape, Appleby? If you don't, what makes it different that you oppose it?

That;s the one I want the answer to, and have done for over a day now.

As for your other comment:

Actually, I think slaughtering or hunting an animal to death (without its consent), humane or not, is worse than just having sex with it (which isn't necessarily harmful).

Not necessarily.

183. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189014 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2008 at 8:01 am

Appleby-

you didn't answer it, you just claimed I had it out of context and asked me to stop mentioning it (1202). Or are you thinking of another comment?

184. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189008 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2008 at 7:56 am

Appleby-

Well sometimes, I think you might choose not to so that your friend isn't embarrassed in front of say someone like me, who you are trying to gang up against.

Hey, don't worry about me. I don't mind being told when I am wrong. How about you?

Comment 1184.

185. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #188998 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2008 at 7:07 am

Al-

It's difficult to see what could be done to guard against that.

186. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #188995 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2008 at 6:58 am

ThoughtsonCommonToad-

Just because it has been declared that Sharia will never be implemented doesn't mean that the fundies will stop trying to get it implemented.

187. The Great Evangelical Decline

Comment #188988 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2008 at 6:43 am

Emmet-

Yes, but what does a church emit when it decays? Two prayer groups and an atheist?

Two prayer groups, an atheist and a sex scandal.

188. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188974 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2008 at 5:03 am

Brian-

only if you think I am! I think Calcanei Puppa has had its day. Besides, I can easily just switch to another avatar.

189. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188953 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2008 at 3:11 am

Appleby-

Actually, no. Most don't bother and a few get some perverse pleasure out of letting you make an even bigger fool of yourself for all to see. As long as they remain silent, they can continue to derive this pleasure with impunity (because they could be wrong about you, after all).

If that were true, then I don't think anyone would be challenging you, would they? There are plenty of people who would correct me if I were mistaken, and have done in the past, both on this site and on my blog.

Did we apply morals and ethics when deciding it was okay to slaughter and hunt animals (without their consent) but not to have sex with them unless given consent (which couldn't be obtained in any case)?

There is a considerable difference between slaughtering animals for food and having sex with them, and you know it. We have applied ethics to the slaughter of animals, in setting guidelines for how they should be slaughtered so as to attempt to minimise suffering.

190. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188951 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2008 at 3:04 am

Hungarian Elephant-

PM for you.

191. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188944 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2008 at 2:51 am

Appleby-

sigh. If I was that badly wrong, don't you think someone else would have told me by now? I've asked several times for anyone to say if I've gone wrong- nobody has. EDIT- I now renew that offer. Someone please tell me if I've gone wrong. Thanks.

Let me put it another way. In previous comments you have criticised the use of morals and ethics as arguments against bestiality, and emphasised the scientific approach. But why should we not apply moral and ethical reasoning in our treatment of animals if we do with our treatment of humans? Rape is a moral and ethical question.

192. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188936 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2008 at 2:34 am

Appleby-

comment 1184 still needs answering!

193. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188927 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2008 at 2:22 am

Mordacious-

hmm. Steve's twin. Tell us, how do you feel about Appleby?

194. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188923 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2008 at 2:13 am

mordacious1-

it must be the hat he wears when he minces after Appleby.

195. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188917 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2008 at 2:05 am

Steve-

you forgot the part where "gayers" often feel the need to be photographed wearing extravagant hats. :)

196. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188899 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2008 at 12:51 am

Appleby-

You have claimed that moral and ethical arguments are inappropriate grounds to base laws on. If that is true, and consent is a moral/ethical question, then surely it cannot be used as an argument against rape? You have claimed that ethics and morals are inappropriate for judging bestiality, while the scientific method should apply to both bestiality and human sex. Why should ethical bases be appropriate for forbidding rape of a woman if they are not appropriate for forbidding the rape of a cat or a dog or a sheep? Do you therefore condone rape, Appleby? If you don't, what makes it different that you oppose it?

If I have misunderstood your argument, tell me where.

197. The Great Evangelical Decline

Comment #188786 by Quetzalcoatl on June 4, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Padster-

the prominence of creationism could be a combination of things: they see that things are declining, and want to make them appear otherwise. Or it might be because there is now more resistance to creationism than before, which gives it a greater profile by default.

198. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188754 by Quetzalcoatl on June 4, 2008 at 1:41 pm

For the love of Darwin.

Appleby-

Comment 1015.

I'm beginning to think that you don't have an answer.

But surely that's not right?

199. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188624 by Quetzalcoatl on June 4, 2008 at 9:29 am

Appleby-

I've got to go now, but I'll be back in a few hours. Perhaps you can answer comment 1015 in the meantime? I've only asked about thirty-five times now!

200. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188609 by Quetzalcoatl on June 4, 2008 at 8:52 am

Steveroot-

good joke. :)

Appleby-

still waiting.