So... the girl didn't do anything wrong, just a lot of people don't like it?
Too bad, get over it.
got to admit that when some of these screechers get wound up, ive felt the same as the young lady.. http://www.9news.com.au/world/2014/11/06/08/34/girl-tells-street-preacher-to-shut-up.
.
.
So... the girl didn't do anything wrong, just a lot of people don't like it?
Too bad, get over it.
got to admit that when some of these screechers get wound up, ive felt the same as the young lady.. http://www.9news.com.au/world/2014/11/06/08/34/girl-tells-street-preacher-to-shut-up.
.
.
Excellent idea, Simon.
everyone has an opinion on things.
oftentimes, we ask for help or want the view of the board in a matter.
but just remember, the comments are simply personal views.
got to admit that when some of these screechers get wound up, ive felt the same as the young lady.. http://www.9news.com.au/world/2014/11/06/08/34/girl-tells-street-preacher-to-shut-up.
.
.
Could you please show me where I said that anyone had been rude to me?
No.
By my standards it was rude of me to tell you to shut up, but as stated I was responding to you in language that you endorse, defend, and approve of.
So no one was rude to you, but YOU decided to be rude? Not much a standard you have if, unprovoked, you decide to break it and then weasel out of it.
Your language didn't bother me in the least, at worst it was background noise.
It was a surprisingly liberating experience, so I must thank you for affording me the opportunity. Perhaps I will do it more often, just to win your approval.
Lashing out instead of acting rationally often is emotionally satisfying. Feel free to act the fool again as often as you wish and to use me as your target, your impotency in lashing out at makes you harmless.
"truth is one, paths are many.
" - gandhi.
gandhi also said, "i like your christ.
Living by the 5 ways to imitate Jesus as outlined in the OP would be a very stupid way to live...
got to admit that when some of these screechers get wound up, ive felt the same as the young lady.. http://www.9news.com.au/world/2014/11/06/08/34/girl-tells-street-preacher-to-shut-up.
.
.
How you got all that about women and female children submission, I'll never know. Everyone who is familiar with my past history on this forum knows I'm a pretty radical feminist.
Interesting that you felt stung by that comment since I never addressed it to you.
Along with others, I have politely stated my personal opinion about the way the street preacher was treated. Now you attempt to label us as sexist in order to suit your own separate agenda.
No one has been rude to you. Your ignorant and false accusation is rude, however.
I see that polite reasoned debate is lost on you. Let me respond to you in language that you endorse, defend, and approve of.
None are so blind as those that think they see.
SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!
So far that's the most well thought out point you've made.
got to admit that when some of these screechers get wound up, ive felt the same as the young lady.. http://www.9news.com.au/world/2014/11/06/08/34/girl-tells-street-preacher-to-shut-up.
.
.
So, the issue is that it's a child and a female speaking this way. Interesting.
What can I say except that the that you have your own subjective views of how females and children should submit, be seen and not heard, not stand up to man, etc. Unfortunately for people that have that attitude, the world is changing and those people now have a voice.
we are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural .
selection to account for the complexity of life.
careful examination of the .
So Cofty, Where did the DNA code language come from?
Chemical interactions. It's not a code or a language, as such, with intelligence backing it. It's simple chemical interactions based on physics.
in my intimate conversations with many of my atheists friends i have found that their real problem is the human rights abuse of the religious fanaticssomething which god hates (not the lack of proof for gods existence) (means when the religions went to one extreme, their opponents go to another extremethus god is not at all an element in religious fanaticism and atheism alike) atheists shun, belittle or resist proofs for the existence of god, because they fear it will only further strengthen the religion from which the fanaticism arisethus object of atheists attack is fanaticism (not god) .
hence what atheists do is really a service to the humanity (while fanaticism is a crime against humanity).
hence when the atheists ask for proof for the existence of god, one need not take it seriously.
There is an easy way—go to New York Times office, and tell them you wish to see their first issue published on September 18, 1851. You are taken to the archive department and shown that first issue kept in glassed frame. Now ask them: What is the issue preceding to this? And experience FIRST-HAND the heat of real logic being practiced in the world.
You're attempting to use some that has a known cause to support the idea that there is an uncaused cause, a not-A A.
It's just as dumb of an example usingbad logic and incorrect analogies.
in my intimate conversations with many of my atheists friends i have found that their real problem is the human rights abuse of the religious fanaticssomething which god hates (not the lack of proof for gods existence) (means when the religions went to one extreme, their opponents go to another extremethus god is not at all an element in religious fanaticism and atheism alike) atheists shun, belittle or resist proofs for the existence of god, because they fear it will only further strengthen the religion from which the fanaticism arisethus object of atheists attack is fanaticism (not god) .
hence what atheists do is really a service to the humanity (while fanaticism is a crime against humanity).
hence when the atheists ask for proof for the existence of god, one need not take it seriously.
How would you feel about logic behind that question?
That the person asking, like you, doesn't understand logic.
We understand better when we are in the receiving end of the logic someone uses.
Your questions in no way use any logic that suggest there is a an uncaused First Cause. That's like saying there is a not-A A.