The Bible encourages questioning

[tony1]

*Originally posted by tiassa
you were too smart for med school*

Thanks.

*I feel I should ask you about how those microorganisms became drug-resistant.*

The ones that weren't resistant died out, leaving the ones that were.

*Your question is a diversion*

Really?
Can you find any studies which indicate that a phenotype changes a genotype?

*Is this what you were afraid to admit to Cupric?*

No.
Cupric doesn't know what each and every witch is patterning him/herself after, either.
And neither do you.

*everyone else is going to ... the grave, or something stupid like that.*

Yeah, it's pretty stupid, all right.
Those cemeteries are an elaborate ruse maintained for centuries, just to fool you.

*I'm surprised you didn't point out the Vegas casino,*

It's not very big.

* I'm wondering why you spend so much time picking on scientific concepts if you're not a scientific type?*

Evolution hardly qualifies as a "scientific" concept.
It's more like a fairy tale for scientists.

*you have no clue*

So you are saying the Buddha is not in the crapper?

*And people who think God tells them what is best for other people help spread AIDS by preventing its education and by encouraging relevantly dangerous drug consumption patterns through supporting a drug war.*

You are amazingly unclear on the concept, here.
You drug consumption pattern appears to be very consistent, 100% stoned 100% of the time.

Spreading AIDS is done by the people who actually spread it, not by the people who don't.

*those perspectives would include those of:

* Pagans
* Women
* Catholics*

Since we were talking about your and FA_Q2's thoughts and feelings, I can only assume that you think you are a female, pagan Catholic and that you think FA_Q2 is too.

* And accurate, too*

Especially, the "in lieu of a question" comment.

*What, it's sad that you have to put some effort into learning about the Universe? Is that why you're comfortable with the superstitions your God teaches you?*

No, it's sad because the universe you are proposing is such a ridiculously unimaginative place.
Plus, it's hard to see in because of all the pot smoke.

*Originally posted by FA_Q2
And so far it has not caused the end of the world. It happens, and infrequently enough that it is workable. *

SO FAR!
Ha ha ha.
You're funny.

*So far you haven't gone with their assertion. You have made up your own. *

I got it from them.

*I also note your ability to spout crap and buzzwords without actually understanding any of it.*

Buzzwords to you.
Part of my job to me.

*The question is what would happen if we didn't have satellites at all? More people would suffer and die as a result. So they are saving people. *

Salvation by satellite?
The gospel by FA_Q2!

Are you aware that a lot of the behind-the-scenes activity leading up to the WTC disaster was facilitated by satellites?

*I can name at least 10 off the top of my head.*

I thought you were talking about real documentaries.

*Not spending money you dolt, uselessly causing things to cost way to much.*

Well, I have to hand it to you.
You ARE dead set on proving you don't understand.
Things can't cost too much unless someone spends the money.
Do you know the difference between cost and price?

And, when someone DOES spend the money, it's circulating.
That's not the way to crash an economy.

Notice the economic doldrums today?
It is happening because people are NOT spending money.

*Now that is crap. I guess those blood transfusions of those that got it from their spouses before the disease was discovered do not count in your tally.*

People who listen to God don't need blood transfusions.

You appear to be sharing a brain with tiassa.
He thinks not spreading AIDS is the way to spread it, and you think that not listening to God is listening to God.

Even secular scientists know that safe sex is the way to prevent HIV transmission.
What's safer than having sex with only one other person, your spouse?

 

[FA_Q2]

" Part of my job to me. "

Yea, spouting crap sounds like the perfect job for you.

" Salvation by satellite?
The gospel by FA_Q2! "

In other words, you were wrong and are now attempting to avoid getting caught.

" I thought you were talking about real documentaries. "

I am. It is the source that must be questioned and I question the source of the documentaries you are speaking of.

" Well, I have to hand it to you.
You ARE dead set on proving you don't understand.
Things can't cost too much unless someone spends the money.
Do you know the difference between cost and price?

And, when someone DOES spend the money, it's circulating.
That's not the way to crash an economy.

Notice the economic doldrums today?
It is happening because people are NOT spending money. "

You must have skipped the rest of my statement. Oh well, I expected something that hollow from you anyway.

" People who listen to God don't need blood transfusions. "

Why does somebody who listens to god suddenly not need blood? Just because you are not instigating violence does not mean you wont be caught in a drive by or get in a car accident.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by FA_Q2
Yea, spouting crap sounds like the perfect job for you.*

I take that to mean that you have no clue about risk analysis.

*In other words, you were wrong and are now attempting to avoid getting caught.*

Rapid backpedaling by FA_Q2.
You forgot that the terrorists were taking advantage of technology, like using cell phones, didn't you?

* It is the source that must be questioned and I question the source of the documentaries you are speaking of.*

Argue sources of documentaries by yourself.
The people that had AIDS and don't anymore won't mind.

*You must have skipped the rest of my statement.*

I had to, it was just as nonsensical as the first part.
It's pretty clear that you have no clue how an economy works.

*Why does somebody who listens to god suddenly not need blood? Just because you are not instigating violence does not mean you wont be caught in a drive by or get in a car accident. *

That kind of thinking is for atheists.
People who listen to God don't get told to get into car accidents and drive-bys.

 

[FA_Q2]

You are getting stupider by the day tony.

Untill you actally answer something I will let you talk to yourself.

 

[tony1]

Starting to recognize your lack of knowledge?

 

[Tiassa]

Tony's Hateful Nothing: a primer in horsepucky

I stopped wondering, a long time ago, whether or not you had anything of worth to say, Tony1. I keep hoping the glimmer of potential expressed by your simple manifestation as a human being will eventually come through, but I think the human condition has adequately prepared me for the sight of someone like you actively choosing to wallow around in the muck of sacrificed intellect. Where the blood of your dying spirit of learning mixes with the fewments of religious faith, there is only this wallow of hatred and misery such as you find yourself amid.

The ones that weren't resistant died out, leaving the ones that were.

So if you have one organism that doesn't die, and one of the same species that does die, have you the same genetic code? Evolution is that subtle: a single trait at a time. You seem to think to locally, but this is a result of concerning oneself, via the sacrifice of the intellect, with only oneself. The world narrows according to your vision.

So, uh, how do the microorganisms become drug-resistant? Let me guess--it just happens. Am I right? Am I right? Isn't that what they taught you in Med School? The sad thing is that your reading comprehension lacks just enough that you can't appreciate the humor of your own pathetic idiocies.

Really?
Can you find any studies which indicate that a phenotype changes a genotype?

Can you ever hold an opinion that isn't based solely in your perceptions of the shortcomings of that which you have chosen to oppose?

Hmm ... I'll get back to you in five or six years when I've finished reading all the material I can find ( ), and in the meantime, why don't you develop a respect for the science you claim is so wrong that you're willing to use to enforce your argumentative stance. Give it up, Tony1, how can something you find invalid serve as valid evidence when you're merely attempting to exploit the value of its result?

*Is this what you were afraid to admit to Cupric?*

No.
Cupric doesn't know what each and every witch is patterning him/herself after, either.
And neither do you.

And once again we see you, Tony1 claiming knowledge that you cannot back up. I think that you are afraid of admitting you haven't a clue and that you're starting to feel like the idiot you've behaved as.

No, actually I don't. I haven't seen evidence yet that you're intelligent enough to perceive that you're backing a dead horse.

Because when we get right down to it, what this specific point is about is whether or not you have a basis for the things you say about other people. We've all realized, long ago, Tony1, that you were talking out of your ass!

Yeah, it's pretty stupid, all right.
Those cemeteries are an elaborate ruse maintained for centuries, just to fool you.

Who's fooled by what? You're the one who thinks you're going to heaven.

It's not very big.

Oh, there's an answer. Bright, Tony1, real bright.

Give me a call when the TA building is still standing after another thousand years.

Evolution hardly qualifies as a "scientific" concept.
It's more like a fairy tale for scientists.

If you're not a scientific type, then how can you judge scientific concepts? It might simply be that you think it's a fairy tale because there's something about evolution you don't understand. If you're not a scientific type, Tony1, how dare you judge scientific concepts? If it's so obviously beyond your comprehension, why do you look upon it with such hatred?

*you have no clue*

So you are saying the Buddha is not in the crapper?

No, Tony1, I'm saying that though the statement is valid, I believe you personally--based on your past and present input at this forum--are incapable of understanding the aspect of validity in question. It would be like a child throwing darts to be cute and hitting a bulls-eye. It's too bad you can't enjoy knowledge of what you've accomplished; hopefully someone will teach you so that you can have that little thrill.

You are amazingly unclear on the concept, here.
You drug consumption pattern appears to be very consistent, 100% stoned 100% of the time.

Come back to this one when you understand the nature of the drugs. Incidentally, this is another reason why I advocate you lay off the drugs, Tony1: you don't seem to understand what you're doing to yourself.

Spreading AIDS is done by the people who actually spread it, not by the people who don't.

Right.

Right.



Consider the early epidemic: the Reagan administration took no action because AIDS was thought of as a "gay measles". The people spreading it then didn't always know they were infected, and the politicians who could have helped control it by discussing prevention chose to throw the diverse options out the window in pursuit of a religious ideal.

I'll watch your daughter get run over in the street, tell you I knew it was going to happen, and then explain that I had no obligation to stop it or tell you about the situation because the only person responsible for your three-year-old daughter being in the street is your daughter.

If the drug war worked to reduce drug use, you might have a valid point.

In the meantime, it prolongs the situation, discourages addicts from receiving help, and generally makes the situation more dangerous. Efforts to reduce harm while getting a handle on the overall situation have met wide disapproval from conservative religion.

Those conservatives need to stop complaining about the problem and actually try to solve it. Sure, there's a way to control the situation, but that's like saying that a nuclear war will solve humanity's problems: sure, it might work, but nobody seems to be willing quite yet. Sure "just don't" smoke/shoot up/drink/eat/screw/drive fast/&c. sounds good, but people haven't gotten hang of the idea yet. You ought to try learning what you can about why this is, instead of simply assuming that you know why this is. If you learn, you might accomplish something beneficial. If you continue to assume, you're just another Christian dragging society down by its legs, ears, hair, tits, &c.

Since we were talking about your and FA_Q2's thoughts and feelings, I can only assume that you think you are a female, pagan Catholic and that you think FA_Q2 is too.

Sorry, Tony1, your cheap attempt to restrict the subject won't cut it. You forget the issue you're involved in here:

*you would be able to understand a little more about the perspectives you're so afraid of.*

And those perspectives would be...?

Restrict away, Tony1, but that's just the point. Some people are talking about something that's larger than your own quest for redemption. FA_Q2 has a sense that there is a world full of people around him to learn from; your offerings show that those people are there for you to condemn. The perspectives you're afraid of are those related to you by any other people at this forum. You like to close down the debate so that when one relates an idea to you that you cannot grasp, you can universally condemn the idea and all associated with it. Your relation of ideas is such that indicates that you like to box in ideas with your own superstitions so that you can respond to a version of your debating opponent that isn't actually there. I understand that tilting windmills is more satisfactory than actually getting to the issue itself, but you really are a stupid distraction to most of the threads you include yourself in. That you fear other ideas is obvious, but what else is obvious is that your fear extends from your inability to understand those ideas, and that incomprehension rises definitively from the superstitions of your greed, which have numbed your empathies to other people until you can only project them as being unfeeling in the same manner you are. You paint people to be what you fear in yourself, Tony1, and the weakness of your neurosis shows. Let go of your hatred before it consumes you, no matter how post-Jedi that sounds.

Especially, the "in lieu of a question" comment.

You see? If you were capable of perceiving others' perspectives you would have understood the sarcasm there. What more evidence do you need that you have no clue? Of course, what amount of evidence will convince someone as greedy as you?

No, it's sad because the universe you are proposing is such a ridiculously unimaginative place.
Plus, it's hard to see in because of all the pot smoke.

If the Universe was as unimaginative as your retorts, I would have shot myself by now. Don't blame your lack of vision on your hatreds, and don't let your lack of vision be an excuse. If you haven't seen the dazzling Universe around you, I would suggest that opening your damn eyes is the first thing you need to do. It's kind of hard to miss once you do that.

Oh, and Tony1 ... in lieu of a question? How many times must I ask before you screw your courage to anything and answer the damn question: Many a Christian have found a place for knowledge beside their faith; why can't you?

I'd look forward to your answer, but I don't expect one.

You're an industry leader in fertilizer and vitriol, Tony1 ...

,
Tiassa

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by tiassa
someone like you actively choosing to wallow around in the muck of sacrificed intellect.*

I'm debating you, what can I say?

*So, uh, how do the microorganisms become drug-resistant?*

They already are; the ones that aren't die off.

*how can something you find invalid serve as valid evidence when you're merely attempting to exploit the value of its result?*

It is valid to you.
Besides, I don't think the data is invalid myself, merely the conclusions.

*And once again we see you, claiming knowledge that you cannot back up.*

What?
I said "One shudders to think what witches pattern themselves after."
I don't see how that is a claim to any kind of knowledge at all, let alone the kind that has to be backed up.
Is the hash unusually high in THC content today?

*a dead horse*

I'll say.

*Who's fooled by what?*

You seemed to think cemeteries were an elaborate ruse.

*If you're not a scientific type, then how can you judge scientific concepts?*

Evolution isn't a scientific concept.
Simple.

*I'm saying that though the statement is valid, I believe you personally--based on your past and present input at this forum--are incapable of understanding the aspect of validity in question.*

So, you're saying the Buddha's not in the crapper?

*Right.*

You do admit that AIDS is spread by those who do spread it, as opposed to those who don't?

*The people spreading it then didn't always know they were infected*

Based on this, you expect me to believe you if you say other people did?
Is that the normal course of events, tiassa?
You get sick, but someone else knows before you do?

*Sure "just don't" smoke/shoot up/drink/eat/screw/drive fast/&c. sounds good, but people haven't gotten hang of the idea yet.*

People haven't gotten the hang of not doing something?
How long do you think it will take people to get the hang of NOT doing something?

*Your relation of ideas is such that indicates that you like to box in ideas with your own superstitions so that you can respond to a version of your debating opponent that isn't actually there.*

You mean you aren't really there?

*If the Universe was as unimaginative as your retorts, I would have shot myself by now.*

Let it not be said that you lack a sense of humor.
This is hard to type, I'm laughing so hard.

*It's kind of hard to miss once you do that.*

LOL
Thanks, tiassa, I wasn't sure where to look.

*Many a Christian have found a place for knowledge beside their faith; why can't you?*

OK, OK, stop.
My sides are hurting too much.
Have you ever thought of a comedy career?

*You're an industry leader in fertilizer and vitriol,*

I have to admit you're an industry leader in comedy.
I haven't had such a good laugh in a while.

 

[Tiassa]

We understand, Tony1. And it's okay ....

I'm debating you, what can I say?

Yeah, such debates have reduced you to gibberish, but inasmuch as I can tell from reading your other debates, that's pretty much stock performance for you. But it would be wise for you to babble less. Since you're preaching in lieu of having a point, it's kind of stupid.

They already are; the ones that aren't die off.

Don't you wish science was valid so you could prove that? Or is this one of those sciences you would believe since you think you agree with it already? Too bad about that fundamental distrust. Let me know when the research project ends; I'll be quite interested in your findings.

It is valid to you.
Besides, I don't think the data is invalid myself, merely the conclusions

Your assessments of the conclusions are highly suspect, given that you distrust the proper scientific process. Your considerations of science are therefore mere superstitions. When you finish your biology class and can give us a valid theory and points of logic to back it up, you're welcome to present your thesis. However, what credibility do you expect us to award your superstition regarding something you openly admit you distrust and oppose? You're asking a chicken/egg question, and you'd realize it. Dorsal fins, dolphin noses, human tails ...

I'll say.

Well, finally you admit it. Then why do you bother? Is this one of those childish things where you think people will like you if you're obnoxious?

You seemed to think cemeteries were an elaborate ruse.

They are. Cemeteries throughout society have been part of the religious structure; every culture has its death-rites. We can just as easily burn the corpses, yet we choose to give them pretty decent real estate merely because we have religious sentiments.

Evolution isn't a scientific concept.
Simple.

Sounds to me like you're casting an opinion regarding scientific concepts. Sorry, you're not qualified, by your own admission. Since you're unscientific, we can conclude that you wouldn't understand the science of a concept anyway, and thus are unqualified to speak of its scientific veracity. Oh, if only it wasn't for that fundamental distrust of yours, Tony1 ... it colors in your intentional vagaries so nicely.

So, you're saying the Buddha's not in the crapper?

You really are incapable of understanding the concept ... we're not surprised though.

You do admit that AIDS is spread by those who do spread it, as opposed to those who don't?

If you want to reduce it to that idiot simplicity, yes. If you want to examine the actual issue of AIDS, though, Tony1, you're going to have to do better.

Hey, wait a minute ... you don't trust medicine and you don't trust science: how can you assert that anyone spreads AIDS?

Stop talking out of your ass, boy.

Based on this, you expect me to believe you if you say other people did?
Is that the normal course of events, tiassa?
You get sick, but someone else knows before you do?

Tony1, your intense, religious-inspired focus on your self is the problem here. Take heroin, for example. We know from its statistical result that two things about heroin relevant to the current point are true: 1) People seem to do the drug, and 2) Practices such as needle-sharing are dangerous, and elevate disease transmission.

Furthermore, recognizing addiction as a disease, we criminalize the ill, force them into the underground, and leave them with their vices. Given your distrust of everything, how can you logically conclude that the addict A) understands that he is sick, B) understands that he is spreading disease, and C) is capable of understanding A or B?

Thus, recognizing that users are addicted, and will use the drug, and that underground, prohibitionist conditions are resulting in sick people compelled to make unhealthy, disease-encouraging decisions, it is encouraging the spread of AIDS to criminalize attempts to engage the problem.

Needle exchange is a temporary fix: it reduces the amount of needle sharing and is documented to lower the HIV transmission rate. When one opposes needle exchange, they must understand that the natural result under the present conditions is an increase in disease transmission.

Make it easier? Decriminalize so that the addicts aren't confessing to felonies when they crawl up for help. Educate the public responsibly, so that they understand what they're really doing to themselves. Work toward economic equity, for stratification encourages addiction patterns. Economic stability lowers drug addiction rates. In the meantime, these criminals whose guilt is illness won't be spreading as much disease if you give them clean needles.

Do you think you're not responsible for the things that happen in your community? What share of the burden will you accept?

Yet people think they're helping the situation by encouraging the draconian policies of the drug war which create poverty, destroy education, and encourage the spread of disease.

If you can't understand the contribution you have to the spread of HIV, then we need not wonder why you make such stupid assertions about the organism and its accompanient disease.

People haven't gotten the hang of not doing something?
How long do you think it will take people to get the hang of NOT doing something?

Well, perhaps they're not supposed to not do it. THC, for instance, is a longtime companion of humanity on this planet. No matter when you think the world began, humanity has only been separated from the plant for the last 64 years or so. Marijuana is a long and rich part of the human heritage.

Psilocybin? Hey, humans aren't the only ones who use this. And coca grows on trees ....

You mean you aren't really there?

No, it means you're usually projecting your own opponent to argue against in lieu of the poster you're actually responding to.

Let it not be said that you lack a sense of humor.
This is hard to type, I'm laughing so hard.

Well?

Thanks, tiassa, I wasn't sure where to look.

Well, you look so hard for it in the Bible ... really, it's there in the moss and trees, in the passing headlights, in the stars the moon and sky ... seriously, just open your eyes and look at the Universe without your ugly cynicism.

OK, OK, stop.
My sides are hurting too much.

Then take a deep breath and answer the question: Many a Christian have found a place for knowledge beside their faith; why can't you?

I have to admit you're an industry leader in comedy.
I haven't had such a good laugh in a while

I gotta admit, it's one of the earthly benefits of not being Christian: the entertainment's a lot better. Believe me, I've seen that idiot Carman ... I skipped Stryper, DC Talk, and Michael W Smith in school in the name of sanity. Speaking of comedy, I saw Mike Warnke (I think is how one spells his name) once, too. The Vegimite bit was pretty good, and the stuff that pertained to the sillier dignities of religion (Grandma getting out of the grave to smack you with her cane), but like Carman, his show melted into stock-and-standard preaching with no real surprises, innovations, or passions, and all of the traditional "errors" of the Christian Way which lead me to disagree with it. Hmmm ... now that I'm recalling those shows, it's a simple comparison:

* DC Talk or Public Enemy? I'm not a fan of rap in general, but PE put on a solid enough set. I never did feel the PE passion, but they definitely came off better than DC Talk.

* Stryper/King Diamond? Instead of invoking the bands I see today, all of whom put Stryper to shame, I thought to go with something more contemporary to the yellow and black attack. Hmm ... throwing Bibles at a crowd come to see Def Leppard? Or an over-the-top, creepy horror show with no real message to preach?

* Michael W Smith/??? I used to note that Richard Marx wanted badly to be Tommy Shaw, the latter formerly of Styx. Michael W Smith wanted badly to be Richard Marx, and at that point, it becomes almost unforgiveable. People complained that Twisted Sister encouraged rebellion (Now's the time to stand tall, start your life anew; freedom lies in your heart, now's the time for you), but you'll notice nobody saw anything wrong with "telling kids" that they're not capable, and need to rely on other people to "find a place in this world". And besides, MW was ripping off the top 40, anyway.

It's no wonder, with such crappy entertainment among your brethren, that I'm capable of making you laugh. Not that this is a bad thing, but it's like watching Dogma with my atheist brother: he laughed at the wrong jokes.

But thanx for the nice words, and for inviting that stroll down the avenue of my youth ...

--Tiassa

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by tiassa
gibberish*

I've just sunk to the level of the competition.

*Don't you wish science was valid so you could prove that?*

I don't care to prove it; scientists already say as much, so I'll take their word for it.

*we can conclude that you wouldn't understand the science of a concept anyway*

I challenge you to find anyone who understands the theory of evolution and can prove it without arguing against the prima facie meaning of the words they're using.

*You really are incapable of understanding the concept ... we're not surprised though*

So, you're saying the Buddha is in the crapper?

*If you want to reduce it to that idiot simplicity, yes.*

If that's the only kind of simplicity you understand, then you should expect more of the same.

*how can you assert that anyone spreads AIDS?*

I didn't.
You asserted it.

*Given your distrust of everything, how can you logically conclude that the addict A) understands that he is sick, B) understands that he is spreading disease, and C) is capable of understanding A or B?*

Given your powers of reasoning, how can I conclude that you understand the issue?
See next.

*If you can't understand the contribution you have to the spread of HIV*

No contribution, since I'm not going around spreading it.

*it means you're usually projecting your own opponent to argue against in lieu of the poster you're actually responding to. *

I have an ordinary computer.
It is not a projector.

*Many a Christian have found a place for knowledge beside their faith; why can't you?*

Many a satanist has converted to Christianity, why can't you?

*It's no wonder, with such crappy entertainment among your brethren, that I'm capable of making you laugh.*

It's the contorted reasoning.

 

[Tiassa]

Do you have a point, Tony1? Oh, of course not.

I've just sunk to the level of the competition.

Tony1, that's quite a step up for you. Besides, your perception is no more reliable than your theology; you've demonstrated that you don't understand what you're reading of other people's words, so your criticism is hardly effective. It is, actually, quite laughable.

I don't care to prove it; scientists already say as much, so I'll take their word for it.

Ah, so if you think the science already agrees with you, it's valid? That's about the standard we expect of a superstitious bunch like Christianity.

*we can conclude that you wouldn't understand the science of a concept anyway*

I challenge you to find anyone who understands the theory of evolution and can prove it without arguing against the prima facie meaning of the words they're using.

Cool. First things first: Document the Theory of Evolution to which you respond. Without that, I might as well be asking Christians to justify Hindu logic on the grounds that I think they're both religions. So when you assemble the version of the Theory of Evolution that you want explained, we'll see what we can do.

So, you're saying the Buddha is in the crapper?

Yes, Tony1, the Buddha is in the crapper. I'm becoming curious about your fixation on human defecation. Coprophilia is ... a little strange, I admit ... but if that's what's motivating the guilt that causes you to behave so strangely, I would encourage you to get comfortable with who you are, or else ask a professional psychotherapist for help.

In the meantime, I don't understand why you're so dedicated to making a point that you clearly don't understand. If you understood, Tony1, you wouldn't be so enthralled by defecatory issues.

If that's the only kind of simplicity you understand, then you should expect more of the same.

Um ... Tony1 ... that doesn't make sense. After all, you're the one reducing the issue to idiocy. It would seem, then, that you are the one whose understanding is limited to idiocy. I can even cite your inability to comprehend the statement you responded to as evidence of that idiocy.

I didn't.
You asserted it.

You're right. You never noted that people with AIDS are spreading AIDS?

Now, just to try to keep you focused on the relevant point, why:

1) Are you asserting that you never asserted something that you have, in the past asserted, and,
2) Trusting science when you already don't trust science?

It seems to me that you're not actually out to discuss issues, but rather to gain some cheap psychological compensation for a self-perceived lack of knowledge and integrity by simply sidetracking all discussons at Sciforums with your empty, meaningless banter. How do you justify your complaints about medicine and science when you use them argumentatively? If they're not valid, they're not valid, eh? So what is it, Tony1? How can you assert anything which science identifies? Why rely on something you believe is errant?

Given your powers of reasoning, how can I conclude that you understand the issue?
See next.

I did see the next. You missed entirely.

Many a satanist has converted to Christianity, why can't you?

This is your latest cowardice? You've resorted to your classic turnabout because ... what? You have no answer? Answer the damn question, Tony1 ... why are you so incapable of this? What is it about science that you're so afraid of? What is it about the world that scares you so badly that you merely project onto people everything your faith compels you to fear in yourself?

And, since you've bothered to ask, you might recall that Satanism was the exit from Christianity; this was a beneficial step. Why would I want to go back to an evil that led me to another evil? Of course, it would have been nice to have skipped Christianity altogether, but some things we can't change.

I have an ordinary computer.
It is not a projector.

I'll assume illiteracy.

On the other hand, that may be what you want. It seems there's no point in discussing Christianity with you. I should, in all wisdom, ask these questions of a Christian.

It's the contorted reasoning.

Maybe if you got out and enjoyed the diversity of human life a little more, you would understand those things you perceive as contorted. Just because you're too lazy to think things through doesn't mean the rest of the world is obliged to join you in your illusion of bliss.

I wonder why you even bother. But don't worry, I won't actually ask you that question. It seems questions are problematic to you, and it would be cruel of me to give you any more of those to avoid at once.

--Tiassa

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by tiassa
Ah, so if you think the science already agrees with you, it's valid?*

I don't need to worry about things like that.
Science, being the collection of long lists of numbers, is acceptably valid.

If a number or two is incorrect, no big deal.
In any case, they don't say what you're saying, so that goes a long way toward establishing the credibility of a list of numbers.

*I might as well be asking Christians to justify Hindu logic on the grounds that I think they're both religions.*

That is what you're doing when you trot out your list of Catholic evils and ask for a Christian explanation.

* the Buddha is in the crapper.*

It took a while but you have finally allowed your mind to quiet down.

*Coprophilia is ... a little strange, I admit ... *

That's what gays are into, isn't it?
Mind you, they prefer the "copro" in its original wrapper, unless they're eating it.

*You never noted that people with AIDS are spreading AIDS?*

I would have thought that was as plain as the nose on your face, but now I'm wondering if you have a nose, or a face.

*How do you justify your complaints about medicine and science when you use them argumentatively? If they're not valid, they're not valid, eh? So what is it, Tony1? How can you assert anything which science identifies? Why rely on something you believe is errant?*

You think it is valid, so let's see if your definition of validity stands up.
I don't need to argue solely what I believe; I can argue what you believe also.
I could limit myself to what you argue, just to prove its worthlessness, but I can't stoop so low as to crank out crap like you do.

*And, since you've bothered to ask, you might recall that Satanism was the exit from Christianity; this was a beneficial step.*

Here you go again.
From what I recall, your exit was from Catholicism.
You did mention Lutheranism, but how is that different from Catholicism except for the name of the pope?

*Maybe if you got out and enjoyed the diversity of human life a little more, you would understand those things you perceive as contorted.*

The problem for you is that I do understand them, and I understand them to be contorted.
You're the one looking at life through the curlicues of pot smoke.
You're the one thinking those curlicues are normal for everything else, too.

 

[Tiassa]

Ahhh, affirmation

Tony1, you seriously don't understand what you're talking about. It's entirely possible that your utter lack of courtesy is, in fact, caused by stupidity, and not Christianity. Of course, we must then wonder what inspires that stupidity, and in that case we find Christianity at the root.

But you're very convincing in this respect.

Next time, please illustrate that you understand any concept you're writing about.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by tiassa
Tony1, you seriously don't understand what you're talking about.*

This is a strange response.

I take it then that you agree...
1) that the Buddha is in the crapper?
2) that gays are into coprophilia?
3) that people with AIDS spread AIDS?

 

[Tiassa]

Is that really the best you can do?

Then take some more time.

1) What is your obsession with defecation? The only reason the Buddha is in the crapper is that you insist that he should be.
2) I'm sure some gays are into coprophilia specifically. Just like some heterosexuals. But what is more interesting is what your hangup with shite is.
3) In one sense, no, people with AIDS don't spread AIDS. Although bad blood screenings are rare in this country, it can still happen. However, your continued demonstratoin of your lack of understanding of the HIV crisis is a further testament to the power of Christian knowledge.

--Tiassa

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by tiassa
1) The only reason the Buddha is in the crapper is that you insist that he should be.*

You just don't get it.

*2) I'm sure some gays are into coprophilia specifically. Just like some heterosexuals. But what is more interesting is what your hangup with shite is.*

Well, when kids are new, they shit pretty much randomly.
I see you doing the same.
When a kid is new, he or she has to be taught how to shit properly.
While they are being taught, the parent looks like they have an inordinate "interest" in shit, especially to the untrained kid, who feels that he should be able to shit anywhere, any time.

I am simply attempting to teach you to control the flow of shit out of your mind, similar to the way I hope you control your physical shit.

*3) In one sense, no, people with AIDS don't spread AIDS.*

See, there's that flow of random shit again.
A person who doesn't have AIDS actually can't spread AIDS.

*However, your continued demonstratoin of your lack of understanding of the HIV crisis is a further testament to the power of Christian knowledge.*

I understand it perfectly.
I don't have an HIV crisis.
If everyone were in the same boat I'm in, nobody would have an HIV crisis.

 

[Tiassa]

I'd say you're fixated on other people's shite, Tony1

1) The only reason the Buddha is in the crapper is that you insist that he should be.*

You just don't get it.

Then why don't you explain it to me, O Wise Buddha?

I am simply attempting to teach you to control the flow of shit out of your mind, similar to the way I hope you control your physical shit.

I think you're giving my shit just a little too much attention. Should I start e-mailing you status reports on my bowel movements for your godly analysis?

A person who doesn't have AIDS actually can't spread AIDS.

True, and a person who builds a bad mine doesn't actually murder anyone when it collapses. Take Ronald Reagan, for instance: he chose not to inform the United States about AIDS because he thought of it as a "gay measles". He helped spread AIDS by not telling people it was there. I've always found it interesting that Doonesbury beat CDC to recognition of the AIDS crisis. Surgeon General Koop, in his memoirs, notes that Reagan did not use the terms HIV or AIDS until the sixth year of his office.

Take needle exchanges, for instance. We know that by giving clean needles to heroin addicts, we reduce the transmission rate of HIV. Now consider the GOP; the Republican Party advised state legislators in Colorado that they would be refused campaign funds if they did not vote against needle exchanges on the legislative floor. In the name of politics, Republicans helped spread AIDS by suppressing harm reduction and education. Needle exchanges are shown to reduce both disease and addiction by providing sanitation and information. When one opposes such a measure based on a long-standing, arbitrary position in the drug war, doesn't it seem strange to choose pride over human life?

I understand it perfectly.
I don't have an HIV crisis.
If everyone were in the same boat I'm in, nobody would have an HIV crisis.

The preceding arrogance was brought to you by Jesus Christ ....

You'd be funny Tony1, if your hatred and arrogance weren't so sickening to witness.

--Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

For the benefit of Tony1

I continued to look at the flowers, and in their living light I seemed to detect the qualitative equivalent of breathing--but of a breathing without returns to a starting point, with no recurrent ebbs but only a repeated flow from beauty to heightened beauty, from deeper to ever deeper meaning. Words like "grace" and "transfigu- ration" came to my mind, and this, of course, was what, among other things, they stood for. My eyes traveled from the rose to the carnation, and from that feathery incandescence to the smooth scrolls of sentient amethyst which were the iris. The Beatific Vision, Sat Chit Ananda, Being-Awareness-Bliss-for the first time I understood, not on the verbal level, not by inchoate hints or at a distance, but precisely and completely what those prodigious syllables referred to. And then I remembered a passage I had read in one of Suzuki's essays. "What is the Dharma-Body of the Buddha?" ('"the Dharma-Body of the Buddha" is another way of saying Mind, Suchness, the Void, the Godhead.) The question is asked in a Zen monastery by an earnest and bewildered novice. And with the prompt irrelevance of one of the Marx Brothers, the Master answers, "The hedge at the bottom of the garden." "And the man who realizes this truth," the novice dubiously inquires, '"what, may I ask, is he?" Groucho gives him a whack over the shoulders with his staff and answers, "A golden-haired lion."

It had been, when I read it, only a vaguely pregnant piece of nonsense. Now it was all as clear as day, as evi- dent as Euclid. Of course the Dharma-Body of the Buddha was the hedge at the bottom of the garden. At the same time, and no less obviously, it was these flowers, it was anything that I--or rather the blessed Not-I, released for a moment from my throttling embrace--cared to look at. The books, for example, with which my study walls were lined. Like the flowers, they glowed, when I looked at them, with brighter colors, a profounder significance. Red books, like rubies; emerald books; books bound in white jade; books of agate; of aquamarine, of yellow topaz; lapis lazuli books whose color was so intense, so intrinsically meaningful, that they seemed to be on the point of leaving the shelves to thrust themselves more insistently on my attention. (Aldous Huxley, The Doors of Perception)

I figure that you should at least know what it is you're trying to explain, Tony1. Of course, that's never stopped you before, so consider it an exercise in civility on my part.

--Tiassa

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by tiassa
Then why don't you explain it to me?*

OK, the Buddha's in the crapper.

*I think you're giving my shit just a little too much attention. Should I start e-mailing you status reports on my bowel movements for your godly analysis?*

No need. You're doing a fine job just posting here.

*He helped spread AIDS by not telling people it was there.*

In that case, I am left with doing my duty to the American public and the world.
Sadly, I must inform the world that there is idiocy rampant in the world today, and tiassa has the most flagrant case I've ever seen.

There. Now you can never accuse me of spreading idiocy.

*I figure that you should at least know what it is you're trying to explain*

Of course the Dharma-Body of the Buddha is in the crapper.

 

[Tiassa]

Are you proud of yourself, Tony1?

OK, the Buddha's in the crapper

If that's your best explanation, then you've not much to be proud of. Is it some masochistic act on your part to repeatedly embarrass yourself this way? You'd think that someone as cocksure as you would have something a little more to go on.

No need. You're doing a fine job just posting here

Ah, the zenith of the Christian faith. If you're done, then, investigating people's feces, perhaps you'd like to return to the realm of debate? Oh, wait ... return? How silly of me. For you to return to the realm of debate would mean that you had been there previously.

In that case, I am left with doing my duty to the American public and the world.
Sadly, I must inform the world that there is idiocy rampant in the world today, and tiassa has the most flagrant case I've ever seen

Ah, there's the good Christian. When he has nothing else to say, he shows the wrath of the Christian tongue. Such hatred does not suffice in lieu of actually having a point.

There. Now you can never accuse me of spreading idiocy.

I don't think you're qualified to assess that.

Of course the Dharma-Body of the Buddha is in the crapper.

It's too bad your childish fascination with feces is obscuring from you the fact that you've dug yourself quite the hole. You have claimed to understand a philosophy of which you are apparently incapable of demonstrating any knowledge or familiarity. This kind of presumptuousness among Christians has long marked the Western search for God as haughty and undignified.

What's the matter, was the reading too hard for you?

,
Tiassa

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by tiassa
If that's your best explanation,*

You still don't get it.

*If you're done, then, investigating people's feces, perhaps you'd like to return to the realm of debate?*

Your side of the debate is feces.

*...in lieu of actually having a point.*

In lieu of having a point, you were insisting that the people who spread AIDS are the ones who don't have it.

*I don't think you're qualified to assess that.*

You may be right, which is why I applied your standards to the issue.
As you just proved, you take exception to your own standards.

*... you've dug yourself quite the hole.*

And the Buddha is in that hole.