Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The politics of assassination
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 121 of 150 (237406)
08-26-2005 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Theodoric
08-26-2005 2:47 PM


Re: Well, I cannot defend Rev. Robertson, Faith
Theodoric writes:
Anyone have any clue what he is talking about?
In another thread someone mentioned a paper about fruitflies and a gene that can be turned on and off that influences their mating behavior. Basically, Tal has no friggen clue about science and/or cannot read a scientific paper and undertsand what it means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Theodoric, posted 08-26-2005 2:47 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Tal, posted 08-26-2005 3:17 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 122 of 150 (237407)
08-26-2005 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Tal
08-26-2005 1:50 PM


Re: Well, I cannot defend Rev. Robertson, Faith
Ok I think I may have figured Tal out a little. This is only explanation that would account for his idea that his "evidence" proves something.
Born Again= Christian
In order to be Christian must be born again. Therefore, if founding fathers were christian they must be born again. Is that how it goes Tal?
Other side of that is that people that are not born again but call themselves christians are not truly christians. Is that correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Tal, posted 08-26-2005 1:50 PM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by FliesOnly, posted 08-26-2005 3:18 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 123 of 150 (237409)
08-26-2005 3:12 PM


Faith writes:
According to NewsMax,....
Now there's a reliable source. Whatever follows must be true.

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 124 of 150 (237411)
08-26-2005 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by FliesOnly
08-26-2005 3:04 PM


Re: Well, I cannot defend Rev. Robertson, Faith
FliesOnly writes:
Basically, Tal has no friggen clue about science and/or cannot read a scientific paper and undertsand what it means.
You mean Rahvin has no friggin clue.
Rahvin writes:
You didn't read my previous posts. Experimentation with flies has shown that certain gene will turn otherwise normal flies into homosexuals. Switch the gene, and bam! they act like they are the opposite gender, and attempt to mate with other flies of their own sex.
Rhavin's Source
Gay gene zapper all the way baby.
This message has been edited by Tal, 08-26-2005 03:18 PM

Tired of the opposite sex? Want to turn your favorite football player into a raging homsexual? Then purchase your Gay-Gene Cattle Prod! One Zap from the GGCP will turn the Gay Gene off or on at your whim. So if you want your wife to get some hot girl on girl action, the Gay-Gene Cattle Prod is for you! *not intended for use on children*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by FliesOnly, posted 08-26-2005 3:04 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Rahvin, posted 08-26-2005 3:43 PM Tal has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 125 of 150 (237413)
08-26-2005 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Theodoric
08-26-2005 3:05 PM


Re: Well, I cannot defend Rev. Robertson, Faith
Just in case you want to try to follow Tal's twisted logic, his ridiculous quote is based on a post by Rahvin (post 81 I believe) in the now closed "Focus On Family Will Keep Your Kid From Being Gay" thread. Tal starts his rant in post 104. You should read a bit of it, just to see how truly pathetic Tal can be.
Edited to add: Amazing as it is, I see that Tal himslef has linked to the post.
This message has been edited by FliesOnly, 08-26-2005 03:19 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Theodoric, posted 08-26-2005 3:05 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Tal, posted 08-26-2005 3:20 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 126 of 150 (237414)
08-26-2005 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by FliesOnly
08-26-2005 3:18 PM


Re: Well, I cannot defend Rev. Robertson, Faith
Already posted it for review in message 124.
lol, you edited too quick.
Look, if you guys have a problem with the gay gene switch, take it up Rahvin, not me. It wasn't cited by me as evidence, it isn't my argument.
This message has been edited by Tal, 08-26-2005 03:22 PM

Tired of the opposite sex? Want to turn your favorite football player into a raging homsexual? Then purchase your Gay-Gene Cattle Prod! One Zap from the GGCP will turn the Gay Gene off or on at your whim. So if you want your wife to get some hot girl on girl action, the Gay-Gene Cattle Prod is for you! *not intended for use on children*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by FliesOnly, posted 08-26-2005 3:18 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Theodoric, posted 08-26-2005 3:24 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 129 by FliesOnly, posted 08-26-2005 3:33 PM Tal has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 127 of 150 (237418)
08-26-2005 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Tal
08-26-2005 3:20 PM


Ok Tal
Maybe I am slow, but what is the point you are tryig to make. Because I don't see how you are finding any justififcation for you signature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Tal, posted 08-26-2005 3:20 PM Tal has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 128 of 150 (237421)
08-26-2005 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Theodoric
08-26-2005 1:59 PM


Jefferson and the Deists
Theo writes:
yes they were more or less christian but they were not fundies. As proven by their lives and correspondence.
Well Jefferson took the Gospels and actually cut out the parts that he thought didn't represent the actual teachings of Jesus. He compiled what was left into the Jefferson Bible. Enough to give a fundamentalist a heart attack.
The Jefferson Bible
Many of the founders were considered to be Deists. I am quite certain most would have been appalled at the pronouncements of Robertson, Falwell et al. as well as many current politicians including G.W. Bush.
http://www.deism.org/foundingfathers.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Theodoric, posted 08-26-2005 1:59 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by robinrohan, posted 08-26-2005 4:00 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 129 of 150 (237425)
08-26-2005 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Tal
08-26-2005 3:20 PM


Re: Well, I cannot defend Rev. Robertson, Faith
Tal writes:
Tired of the opposite sex? Want to turn your favorite football player into a raging homsexual? Then purchase your Gay-Gene Cattle Prod! One Zap from the GGCP will turn the Gay Gene off or on at your whim. So if you want your wife to get some hot girl on girl action, the Gay-Gene Cattle Prod is for you! *not intended for use on children*
Ok, so this is your oh so clever quote. But in message 119 you said:
Tal writes:
Been waiting for you say this. This evidence was presented by YOUR SIDE.
The problem Tal, is your quote in no way reflects what was said by Rahvin, nor what is claimed by the paper to which Rahvin was referring. So as I see it, your are either A) a complete moron; B) incapable of reading and understanding a scientific paper; C) a liar; or D) purposely just being an asshole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Tal, posted 08-26-2005 3:20 PM Tal has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 130 of 150 (237426)
08-26-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Theodoric
08-26-2005 2:47 PM


Re: Well, I cannot defend Rev. Robertson, Faith
He's claiming his tag isn't bigotted but is a statement of "evidence" created by proponents of ToE.
I don't understand his thinking, but that's what he's saying.
However, this doesn't belong in this string, it belogs in the "Tal signature" thread instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Theodoric, posted 08-26-2005 2:47 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 131 of 150 (237427)
08-26-2005 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Tal
08-26-2005 3:17 PM


Re: Well, I cannot defend Rev. Robertson, Faith
You mean Rahvin has no friggin clue.
Excuse me? Read the paper, and tell me that genetics have no role in the gender behavior of fruitflies.
The paper does NOT say that you can "poke somebody with a cattle-prod" and turn them gay. I never said that either - I only said that this study along with others provides evidence that genetics play a role in determinging sexual orientation - not that genetifcs are the only factor.
You're the only one who made that asinine assertion.
ABE: This is all off-topic, as has been pointed out. To Holmes: which paper did you read? The link provided by Tal was not provided or referenced by me - that study is from 1996, as I recall. I will try to find my original source again, and I'll take it up with you in the genetics/homosexuality thread, where this discussion belongs. Sorry for the off-topic.
This message has been edited by Rahvin, 08-26-2005 06:40 PM

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Tal, posted 08-26-2005 3:17 PM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by deerbreh, posted 08-26-2005 3:53 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 142 by Silent H, posted 08-26-2005 6:05 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 132 of 150 (237433)
08-26-2005 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Rahvin
08-26-2005 3:43 PM


Re: Well, I cannot defend Rev. Robertson, Faith
You are trying to reason with someone who isn't reasonable, Rahvin.
You are better off ignoring Tal. I think if we all did he would eventually go away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Rahvin, posted 08-26-2005 3:43 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 150 (237435)
08-26-2005 3:57 PM


topic
*Ahem* The politics of assassination.

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 150 (237436)
08-26-2005 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by deerbreh
08-26-2005 3:26 PM


Franklin
Many of the founders were considered to be Deists
They were, but there are distinctions to be made. Thomas Paine, for example, was a radical Deist. Franklin was a very moderate Deist.
Here's a little summary of the development of Franklin's religious ideas, which I obtain from his Autobiography:
1. Franklin was raised a Presbyterian. However, at the age of 16, he says, he became a "thorough Deist." He says he was convinced by a book he read that was arguing AGAINST Deism. The arguments appeared to him weak, and the Deistic position strong.
2. Later, at the age of 20, while in London, he wrote a pamphlet in which he argued that there can be no such thing as evil. The idea is that since God is all good and all-powerful, anything He does or permits to be done has to be good. We just think something is evil because we don't see the big picture. This is rather an extreme view.
3. He says that publishing this pamphlet was an error. Here we get to his qualifications about his Deistic beliefs. He began to believe, that though Deism might be true, it was not very useful (typical Franklinian pragmatism). He decided that such ideas might pervert weak-minded people.
4. He continued to give donations to the church, though he did not like the way services were conducted. The minister kept urging him to come, and so one time he did out of curiosity. This is what he says about it:
Had he been, in my opinion, a good Preacher perhaps I might have continued, notwithstanding the occasion I had for the Sunday's Leisure in my Course of Study; But his Discourses were chiefly either polemic Arguments, or Explications of the peculiar Doctrines of our Sect, and were all to me very dry, uninteresting and unedifying, since not a single moral Principle was inculcated or enforc'd, their Aim seeming to be rather to make us Presbyterians than good Citizens.
Franklin remained a moderate Deist for the rest of his life.
edited for spelling.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 08-26-2005 03:01 PM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 08-26-2005 03:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by deerbreh, posted 08-26-2005 3:26 PM deerbreh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Chiroptera, posted 08-26-2005 5:14 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 150 (237481)
08-26-2005 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by robinrohan
08-26-2005 4:00 PM


not really about the politics of assassination
quote:
He began to believe, that though Deism might be true, it was not very useful (typical Franklinian pragmatism). He decided that such ideas might pervert weak-minded people.
If one looks at the total of statements about religion made by the founding fathers, one can get the impression that the founding fathers did not exactly believe in Christianity, but felt that relgious doctrines might be useful in keeping the masses in line. (Ooh, did someone say, "Discovery Institute -- wedge document?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by robinrohan, posted 08-26-2005 4:00 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024