Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Imho, those who contradict themselves the most are the most idiotic.
Liberals: "We will be tolerant only of those who are tolerant."
Conservatives: "We want our 'freedoms', but will not allow you yours if it doesn't meet our own 'morality test.'
But I think THE WORST type of political zealot are those who are on entitlements and yet, against entitlements!
Hypocrisy and insincerity are two huge deal-breakers in both politics and my personal life.
I know way too many people like this in real life. It's like they want to be the recipient of the last check ever cut. (And i live in New England so i can only imagine this level of hypocrisy in the red states....)
Now, you listen bud .... the Darwinian theory is about as scientific as palm reading. While the majority have accepted that nonsense as some form of scientific fact, it is only through the power of propaganda and repetition, and the decades of systematic dumbing down that has facilitated that sad reality.
Wow. LOL What gives you an authority to call Darwin's theory unscientific? Are you an established biologist or simply an anti science religious zealot?
Imho, those who contradict themselves the most are the most idiotic.
Liberals: "We will be tolerant only of those who are tolerant."
Conservatives: "We want our 'freedoms', but will not allow you yours if it doesn't meet our own 'morality test.'
But I think THE WORST type of political zealot are those who are on entitlements and yet, against entitlements!
I think that's a shortsighted way of looking at things. If people are against entitlements, then they didn't vote for those entitlements, but their taxes are still going to support those entitlements. So why shouldn't they take advantage of them while they exist? I don't see you saying the worst type of hypocrite is the liberals who advocate for higher taxes but don't donate money to the government. They're exactly the same. If you want higher taxes, nothing is stopping you from overpaying your taxes.
Quote:
Hypocrisy and insincerity are two huge deal-breakers in both politics and my personal life.
And yet you just demonstrated that you are guilty of the same thing you're complaining about.
Quote:
I know way too many people like this in real life. It's like they want to be the recipient of the last check ever cut. (And i live in New England so i can only imagine this level of hypocrisy in the red states....)
What's so difficult to understand here? The red states didn't vote for the entitlements, so there's no hypocrisy in them receiving them. It's not rocket science.
The hypocrites in the situation are people like you, who vote in the entitlements and then complain when the people who get those entitlements aren't people who share your opinions. If you don't want the red states getting all that federal aid, then don't vote in favor the federal aid. You voted in those entitlements. You set the criteria for receiving them. Then you complain about people getting those entitlements, when those people voted No on the entitlement in the first place. You want to talk about hypocrisy? Look in the mirror.
Wow. LOL What gives you an authority to call Darwin's theory unscientific? Are you an established biologist or simply an anti science religious zealot?
Hahaha ... you all really drool when the bell rings. Pavlov's dogs. This is what is referred to "conditioned response".
What gives me the "authority" to call Darwin's theory unscientific? Without going too far off track here, let me just point out that I don't need the assistance of some self proclaimed expert to tell me what to believe, nor do I need a membership card in the club of biology to make that claim. One needs only the basic understanding of what constitutes a "scientific theory to understand that Darwin's Theory does not satisfy that standard, and particularly so in the context of origin of life, because the criteria for such scientific theory requires it to be demonstratable and repeatable. I'd also point out to those like yourself who are so preoccupied and impressed with "authorities", that there are many credentialed scientists and biologist who agree with me.
Now, if you'd care to start yet another thread on Darwinian Evolution, I'd be happy to correct your flawed understanding of the matter, and show you what a load of nonsense you've accepted as scientific fact.
Oh yes, let me make another point clear .... the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Evolution and religion are two totally separate debates, and neither constitute a scientific theory ... they both are just theories in the general sense, and are also not mutually exclusive.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 10-06-2014 at 09:22 AM..
Hahaha ... you all really drool when the bell rings. Pavlov's dogs. This is what is referred to "conditioned response".
What gives me the "authority" to call Darwin's theory unscientific? Without going too far off track here, let me just point out that I don't need the assistance of some self proclaimed expert to tell me what to believe, nor do I need a membership card in the club of biology to make that claim. One needs only the basic understanding of what constitutes a "scientific theory to understand that Darwin's Theory does not satisfy that standard, and particularly so in the context of origin of life, because the criteria for such scientific theory requires it to be demonstratable and repeatable. I'd also point out to those like yourself who are so preoccupied and impressed with "authorities", that there are many credentialed scientists and biologist who agree with me.
Now, if you'd care to start yet another thread on Darwinian Evolution, I'd be happy to correct your flawed understanding of the matter, and show you what a load of nonsense you've accepted as scientific fact.
Oh yes, let me make another point clear .... the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Evolution and religion are two totally separate debates, and neither constitute a scientific theory ... they both are just theories in the general sense, and are also not mutually exclusive.
The fly in your soup is that Evolution does not require you to Believe in it to be true, facts do not require Belief. Religion on the other hand requires blind belief and facts are not even required and if there is no Belief there is no Religion. You really do not understand how science and scientific theories work and that is obvious, but as you said that is a different topic.
Hahaha ... you all really drool when the bell rings. Pavlov's dogs. This is what is referred to "conditioned response".
What gives me the "authority" to call Darwin's theory unscientific? Without going too far off track here, let me just point out that I don't need the assistance of some self proclaimed expert to tell me what to believe, nor do I need a membership card in the club of biology to make that claim.
In other words you believe that you don't have to be a scientist to call a scientific theory "unscientific".
Hilarious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
One needs only the basic understanding of what constitutes a "scientific theory to understand that Darwin's Theory does not satisfy that standard, and particularly so in the context of origin of life, because the criteria for such scientific theory requires it to be demonstratable and repeatable. I'd also point out to those like yourself who are so preoccupied and impressed with "authorities", that there are many credentialed scientists and biologist who agree with me.
Now, if you'd care to start yet another thread on Darwinian Evolution, I'd be happy to correct your flawed understanding of the matter, and show you what a load of nonsense you've accepted as scientific fact.
Oh yes, let me make another point clear .... the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Evolution and religion are two totally separate debates, and neither constitute a scientific theory ... they both are just theories in the general sense, and are also not mutually exclusive.
Sure. Virtually all the scientist are wrong and a guy who hasn't spend a day studying biology knows better.
Aren't we a little bit delusional? Lol
Imho, those who contradict themselves the most are the most idiotic.
Liberals: "We will be tolerant only of those who are tolerant."
Conservatives: "We want our 'freedoms', but will not allow you yours if it doesn't meet our own 'morality test.'
I would agree with this to a certain extent, as neither side is free of hypocrisy. However, what many think of as the right imposing morality on the left, it's important to understand that all societies need rules or laws. The best case scenario will always be that the fewer the laws, the greater the freedom, as long as there are enough laws in place to protect that freedom. There is a fine balance that is often difficult to maintain.
Likewise, when it comes to morality. All societies need to reach agreement on what is morally right and wrong ... in fact, that should be the only measure of right and wrong. Nobody shoukd want immoral laws, true?
The error appears when the definitions of morality becomes too narrow or too broad. And most humans (not all) have an innate ability to recognize what is right and what is wrong. Most would agree that it is wrong to kill, rape, steal, etc. These are easy, common moral judgments that most people ought to agree with. Then there are the finer definitions of what constitute these acts such as killing. It's not cut and dry, but it shouldn't be as controversial as it has become, or more bluntly, the wrongness of killing should not be as diluted as it has become. Killing in the act of self defense is morally justifiable, while killing indescriminently, or for personal or political reasons, or for convenience is not.
The biggest problem we face as a society can be tied back to moral relativism. The left insists that morality is relative to each individual's personal definition, and that is poison which will kill us all. Just consider the result of universal acceptance that killing is wrong, except in the act of self defense? The vast majority of wars and murder would cease immediately, and we would be far closer to universal peace on earth than we have ever been.
But the moment you broaden that moral standard to include preemptive killing, or killing as a means of settling disputes, or killing for convenience ... which now defines our world, you wind up with the results we see now. And it could not unfold the way it has, if we observed a universal standard prohibiting such killing for non defensive reasons.
Now, can you guess which issue the left most often uses to accuse the right of imposing it's moral standards relative to killing for non defensive reasons? Yes, abortion. And this issue extends far beyond the termination of pregnancies, representing the justification by means of rationalization for unnecessary non defensive killing as rationalized by leaders, dictators, politicians, etc. This is the slippery slope that cannot be avoided when believing that morality is a dirty word, or that morality is subject to individual interpretation.
The fly in your soup is that Evolution does not require you to Believe in it to be true, facts do not require Belief. Religion on the other hand requires blind belief and facts are not even required and if there is no Belief there is no Religion. You really do not understand how science and scientific theories work and that is obvious, but as you said that is a different topic.
Sure it does .... it requires one to believe that all of the countless billions of different species of plant, fish, amphibian and mammal that exist and have ever existed share one common ancestor, which was a single, self replicating cell. And there is no compelling evidence of that, while there is much evidence to the contrary.
In fact, the very idea of speciation as a result of genetic mutation and natural selection is perhaps the most preposterous idea ever accepted as reasonable, let alone scientifically provable.
And still the question remains ... where did that first self replicating cell come from, even if all else could possibly be correct?
Sure it does .... it requires one to believe that all of the countless billions of different species of plant, fish, amphibian and mammal that exist and have ever existed share one common ancestor, which was a single, self replicating cell. And there is no compelling evidence of that, while there is much evidence to the contrary.
Hypocrisy is the foundation of both the "left" and "right". Both laughably say that they are for "freedom" while advocating initiations of force against their "enemies", their fellow man, which is exactly what it means to be anti-freedom. One is only free when they are free from initiations of force.
Live and let live
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
