Rug Burn Junky on 21/3/2006 at 23:23
Quote Posted by Nicker
And playground invective does exactly what to promote respectful discussions? Welcome to Double Standardsville.
It's not a double standard. When you venture into tinfoilzone, other people have every right to call you out on it.
Respect must be earned, and if you're going to keep saying stupid shit, you've forfeit the right to ask for the discussion to remain respectful.
Epos Nix on 21/3/2006 at 23:51
...at which point otherwise brilliant people are allowed to resort to middleschool-esque wall pissing in a vain attempt to make someone feel stupid.
They should have this stuff in the FAQ.
Rug Burn Junky on 21/3/2006 at 23:57
I don't think anyone expects that the insults will change the nutjobs' minds. But at least the disinterested readers can say "Hey, most of the smart people are mocking this guy. I probably shouldn't bother taking his shit too seriously."
If the target eventually has the self realization to to figure out why they're getting poo flung on them, that's just gravy.
TheGreatGodPan on 22/3/2006 at 02:03
Quote Posted by Nicker
Transubstantiation and resurrection are articles of faith. To mock, as superstitious, those who believe in one while holding the other to be true, is hypocrisy. Though I suppose if you sincerely believe there is a qualitative distinction between the two, it may appear to be merely irony.
For one thing, it wouldn't be hypocritical, and for another, I didn't mock any religious beliefs. On the subject of whether certain Christian beliefs are more credible than other's, you might find sections 3.4 and 3.8 of Koenraad Elst's (
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/books/pp/ch3.htm) Psychology of Jesus interesting. As you would expect from the fact that I'm a Christian, I don't buy his version of events, but it was still a great read.
Goblin on 22/3/2006 at 09:31
From all the evidence available, I'm well and truly satisfied that the buildings were hit by commercial jetliners and nothing else.
Some other shit sits rather iffy with me though.
1. The flight manuals in Arabic found the very next day, in the boot of a car in Canada. How fucking convenient. I don't buy that shit for a second.
2. The passports of the hijackers found intact after the fuel explosion. Another deus ex machina answer there, supersleuths.
3. At least one of the hijackers identified by said passports having an unbreakable alibi. Namely being ALIVE TO THIS DAY.
4. Bin Laden couldn't make up his mind. His first "admission" to 9/11 didn't sit right with me. Mostly because it had a surprising lack of anything that could be taken as an admission. He said he was happy about it, praised the people responsible, but he didn't say anything like "my plan" or "my victory against you stupid americans" or "my lads done good yeah?". Sure he outright admitted to it later, but how many times did Khadaffi claim respondibility that had nothing to do with him? Claiming responsibility obviously seemed like a good move, whether he had anything to do with it or not.
Based on all of this, I could jump to conclusions about the US DONE IT TO THEMSELVES or IT WERE JEWS, but I'm not going to.
My best conclusion is that the U.S investigators still to this day haven't the slightest idea who stole and crashed the planes. Sure, it was probably Arabs. Hell, it's even quite likely that Osama was involved. But I wouldn't say that's any better than just a good hypothesis.
Nicker on 22/3/2006 at 10:00
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
For one thing, it wouldn't be hypocritical, and for another, I didn't mock any religious beliefs.
But earlier...
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
There's too much stupid here to deal with, so I figured I'd point out that only Catholics are supposed to believe in transubstantiation and I doubt the majority actually do believe in it.
Not mocking? What are you doing then if you aren't equating the “stupid” you see in this thread with the “stupid” of believing in transubstantiation?
To not be hypocritical you would have to prove (not simply accept) that one Christian belief is more credible than another. Otherwise you are simply displaying a prejudicial preference for one miracle over another.
Unfortunately all my dictionaries are pre-millennial English so I don't have the benefit of the revised definition of hypocrisy, in which intellectual duplicity plays no part.
Myoldnamebroke on 22/3/2006 at 10:07
There's too much stupid in this thread to deal with, what with all you wackos who think the US done did it, so I figured I'd limit myself to pointing out that only Catholics, not all Christians, are supposed to believe in transubstantiation and I doubt the majority actually do believe in it.
It also doesn't seem a massive problem for a Christian to reject transubstantion whilst believing in the Resurrection, since the basis for their belief is not one of physical probability but theological coherence. It's also really rather easy to demonstrate that the wine isn't actually turning to blood, whereas evidence that there wasn't a resurrection is a little more contentious.
Rug Burn Junky on 28/3/2006 at 16:14
Isn't it a bit too much of a coincidence that the ineffectual shoe bomber and the one guy that they arrested were both supposed to be on the same plane?
Don't you think that the government coerced him to say that so that they can prosecute Richard Reid too?
Sheez, you just don't understand how these conspiracy theories work, do you? Come on, man, that proves nothing. Your tin foil hat must be defective.
BEAR on 28/3/2006 at 16:15
Quote Posted by jprobs
So what doesn't add up?
4 passenger planes missing the morning of 9/11
1 hit tower 1
1 hit tower 2
1 left a big hole in a field
1 left a dent in the side of the pentagon
4-4=0 No planes left.. Mystery solved.
omg, why didnt i see this before!!1
I mean really, do you even know what the controversy is about? Did you read any of the thread at all?
From what I gather, huge ass passenger planes should leave a little more than a "dent" in the sides of buildings.
