You’re the one who raised the issue, aren’t you? You claimed that my assertions about the effect of liberalism had been disproved, and I simply countered that by showing that they hadn’t.
Yeah, he got tagged here - in this thread! But neither he nor most of the board’s other raving lefties come in for the sort of criticism I do for saying essentially the same thing only in political reverse.
I have never said anything remotely like this. I know perfectly well why I get dumped on, and swearing has nothing to do with it. Where swearing comes in is in comparison with posters whose behavior in that regard is much worse than mine yet I get tagged for being abusive. There are posters on this board who can scarcely start a post without insulting the intelligence of whoever they’re talking to and call their opponents every name in the book (except those no longer allowed) and yet no one ever calls them abusive. I don’t do that and generally strike a less personally insulting tone, and yet I’m the one who gets tagged for being abusive. Again, it all boils down to politics.
And there was nothing wrong with that. We could have thrown cites back and forth all day showing what this guy said or that guy did and gotten exactly nowhere. So I showed that Google easily found tons of instances where liberal comments on evolution had led people to confuse evolution with abiogenesis, and that was the end of that.
Nope, it was neither silly nor assholish. It was simple, quick and conclusive, and it proved my point about as perfectly as it could be proved.
Well, I think I’ve done an adequate job of taking on all comers this evening, but I was getting tired of all this before GIGObuster and Robot Arm showed up and I’m not about to start a new round with them. I’m out for the night.
Only that it was not, I also pointed there that your Google Vomit was a very stupid tactic as even I posted that your first link from that Google search actually showed the opposite of what you tried to demonstrate.
All it showed is that you ignored even a demonstration of why that tactic was stupid.
But I’m not complaining much, the objective there was to show how dumb that was, the fact that you are still trying to tell others that it was still one your “finest hours” is direct evidence of your delusion.
And I’m just saying, you need to find better examples to comment about, otherwise I will have to assume you are not finding anything wrong on what SA is doing.
I don’t remember what the first link said, but I do know it doesn’t matter in the slightest. I said in that thread that lots of people had been confused over the years by liberal comments on evolution, comments which gave rise to a fairly widespread belief that evolution, presented as the alternative to creationism, explains the origin of life. Google found lots of hits to support that contention and it doesn’t matter a whit what the first link says.
That’s not actually true, as you know, because you’ve been given plenty of cites that disprove all of those claims, repeatedly. You are, of course, correct that no single cite can prove all of those claims. Because those claims are all false. Which you know.
And then you also ignore then why the other links were suspect, you see, on a Google Vomit you also got (more often than not) creationist tripe that attempted to pass as science, in other words: worthless citations.
Keep digging SA, the point I also tried to make there and here is that you are indeed still deluded into thinking that was a winning strategy.
Also, this point was missed on that sad example of defending ignorance: you do need to check the citations if only to demonstrate to others that you understand even the basics of the subject. You are indeed wrong in assuming that you gave “plenty of cites that disprove all of those claims” because you never did check what you got in the Google Vomit I did though.
When you are not being able to identify the good sources from the bad is clear evidence for all that you are not being capable of discriminating the good information from the bad, or that you are an incompetent or a partisan tool.
Really? one quarter of all high-school age females in the United States is infected with a STD? That’s not what the CDC says. The highest rate for high-school-age females (for gonorrhea in African American females aged 15-19 in the cited 2009 study) is 2.6 percent, not 25 percent.
Even without that, what rational person could possibly believe that 25% of all high-school age girls in the United States have sexually-transmitted diseases? Do you really believe this would go completely unreported or undiscussed?
You keep bringing this bizarre factoid up, to a point where frankly it comes off as creepy. Are you trying to get us to believe that there is some sort of epidemic of grade-school age blow jobs going on, taking place in the schools themselves? Have you a single reference that demonstrates that this is a common or widespread issue?
No, no they are not; I remind you you haven’t even got your facts straight, much less linked them in any substantive way to ‘liberalism’. You saying they are is pure opinion, based, as we see above, on ‘facts’ that you, in the most charitable interpretation, have misrepresented.
OK, so we’re agreed that launching baseless anti-conservative rants is bad behavior, right? So, assuming this agreement, launching baseless anti-liberal rants in response is:
a) bad behavior
b) perfectly justified by the circumstances; ‘I give as good as I get’
c) a justifiable means of punishing any members of this board who I deem to be unfair to conservatives
d) well, it’s really just trolling, but I seem to be able to get away with it in this form and it garners me the attention I crave.
For me, I’m pretty sure that only one of the above answers is correct for a person who claims to have any personal integrity.
BTW, nice screen name. Not intended as a partisan jab al all, I’m sure.
I do believe that is the first time in years (perhaps ever) that i have seen you present relevant and accurate information to support a factual claim. I acknowledge that you were correct about the 1 in 4 figure. Here is the original CDC press release.
See, that really wasn’t very hard, was it? Despite all your retarded bleating and whining and pathetic excuses, straightforward factual claims generally can either be supported or they can’t. If they can, you’ll generally find that people are willing to look at the evidence honestly.
Of course, there are different orders of fact and interpretation, and one of your big problems is your completely ahistorical outlook, and your constant obsession with drawing extremely problematic and unjustified causative chains. Even if 1 in 4 teenage girls has an STD, the idea that this was caused by liberalism is so completely stupid as to defy all logic and reason.
Take the sexually transmitted diseases issue. Sure, it’s possible that the rise in STDs might be traced, in some small measure, to what you call “liberal values and liberal social engineering.” But the idea that it can be “directly traced” is completely absurd, and shows a total lack of understanding about the complexities of historical change. Also, if we’re looking for proximate causes, it seems to me that it is just as logical to blame the increase on conservative opposition to proper sex education in America’s schools.
You will, of course, poo-poo even the possibility, and will no doubt fall back on some version of “Well, it’s only under liberalism that teenagers want to have sex all the time.” And that is part of your dishonesty. Even when you’re right about particular facts and issues, your interpretive framework is not one of rationality and historical understanding; it is simply an attempt to shoehorn everything into your ideological obsessions.
Very noble sounding - except of course you fail to come up with examples. What “socially conservatives” beliefs are neither malignant, bigoted, nor tyrannical? That blacks are inferior? That women shouldn’t be allowed in leadership positions? That sex is evil? That Christianity is the One True Religion and should be enshrined in law? That homosexuality should be outlawed? That it isn’t rape if she’s your wife?
You say I shouldn’t condemn someone because of the label “social conservative”, but then don’t given any details of the actual social conservative beliefs he has - because it would then become obvious why I condemn him from the phrase “social conservative”, or that he actually isn’t a “social conservative” at all.
Got me curious, too. In the last few centuries, the liberal democracies have gradually (at times grudgingly) accepted that women aren’t stupid, blacks aren’t stupid, nonChristians aren’t evil… what “socially conservative” values did you mean, El_Kabong? I’m a little hard-pressed to think up a “conservative” value that has been “lost” that didn’t deserve to be lost since it no longer served a useful function and/or came to be seen as serving a negative function.