Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)

[houseofcantor]

(17-01-2014 08:28 PM)Chippy Wrote:  

(17-01-2014 07:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  Or do you actually think these four arrived at atheism without having thought seriously about it?

I think that those four are intellectual giants and comprise the intellectual engine of the forum. They are pole stars in a constellation of intellectual greatness and we are privileged to have them on the forum.

Fucking Chippy.

And Chas, I'm gonna hafta start calling you "hobbyist atheist" rather than poopyhead since it seems to really rustle those jimmies.

[Cathym112]

(17-01-2014 08:28 PM)Chippy Wrote:  

(17-01-2014 07:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  Or do you actually think these four arrived at atheism without having thought seriously about it?

I think that those four are intellectual giants and comprise the intellectual engine of the forum. They are pole stars in a constellation of intellectual greatness and we are privileged to have them on the forum.

No one is smarter than claptrap chippy. Don't you know that? His intellectual prowess is something I masturbate to on a daily basis. Those kiwis really get me going...

[Chippy]

(17-01-2014 08:59 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  

(17-01-2014 08:28 PM)Chippy Wrote:  I think that those four are intellectual giants and comprise the intellectual engine of the forum. They are pole stars in a constellation of intellectual greatness and we are privileged to have them on the forum.

No one is smarter than claptrap chippy. Don't you know that? His intellectual prowess is something I masturbate to on a daily basis. Those kiwis really get me going...

Have you read The Methodology of Positive Economics yet?

[Cathym112]

There is something about impotent men that just get it going for me....maybe it's the challenge.

No reason to be phallically obessed if you lack the ability to get it up. So the only way to compensate is either through your choice of automobile or your lame attempt to force intellectual dominance by force or by insinuation of intellectual inferiority to your counterpart.

Either way....soooo sexy

[Chippy]

(17-01-2014 09:19 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  There is something about impotent men that just get it going for me....maybe it's the challenge.

No reason to be phallically obessed if you lack the ability to get it up. So the only way to compensate is either through your choice of automobile or your lame attempt to force intellectual dominance by force or by insinuation of intellectual inferiority to your counterpart.

Either way....soooo sexy

What was the title of your master's thesis and which podunk university awarded it to you? Maklelan's masters thesis is freely downloadable--BuckyBall posted a link, so defaming him as you have shows not only that you are morally bankrupt but that you are intellectually spent. You are a flickering low-wattage lightbulb in the broom-closet of the building that displays the atheist marquee.

[GirlyMan]

(17-01-2014 09:33 PM)Chippy Wrote:  What was the title of your master's thesis and which podunk university awarded it to you?

MSCS in AI from the podunk Johns Hopkins University. ... oh, and with High Honors, I always forget that.

[docskeptic]

(17-01-2014 06:21 PM)Chippy Wrote:  

(17-01-2014 08:25 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  That's ironic. Chippy using an ad hominem attack to accuse the Rev of an ad hominem fallacy.

Doc

You don't understand the fallacy of ad hominem. You are yet another clown that thinks it means to insult someone.

That's ironic. Chippy using an ad hominem attack and then claiming it isn't one.
Doc

[Hafnof]

(17-01-2014 11:41 AM)maklelan Wrote:  

(17-01-2014 11:25 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I explained to her how to quote chapter and verse from her scriptures.

And scriptures don't mean anything apart from their interpretation. Your interpretation may not match those of people who have an emic and informed perspective, meaning just quoting scripture doesn't really help.

So we had better hide what the scriptures say until those who might criticise them are properly indoctrinated. Religions such as yours and such as the one I left quote scripture when it is convenient to them. Inconvenient passages are somehow figurative while those that are convenient are to be taken literally. Forgive me if I think that not being able to answer for your holy book paints an entire religion as a house of cards.

[GirlyMan]

(17-01-2014 09:59 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  

(17-01-2014 06:21 PM)Chippy Wrote:  You don't understand the fallacy of ad hominem. You are yet another clown that thinks it means to insult someone.

That's ironic. Chippy using an ad hominem attack and then claiming it isn't one.
Doc

I like Chippy. He's a proper prick. He's the Jungian Prick. He's smart as fuck and knows his shit, but why he feel like he gotta prove it by calling Girly and everyone else who engages with him an idiot? Dude ain't in my rating chain and I don't give a shit how smart anyone is answering questions I couldn't give less of a shit about. I do give a shit about how much of a prick someone is.
...

Might be some sorta overcompensation?

Chippy: I'm smarter than you fatboy. How come I don't make more money than you?
GirylMan: Maybe 'cause you're a prick?

Oh and I almost forgot, "Suck My Balls, Chippy."

[docskeptic]

(17-01-2014 02:41 PM)maklelan Wrote:  

(17-01-2014 02:07 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  Mak,
I have refrained from directly addressing you so far, but now you have deliberately misquoted Cathym who never said anything like the above.

I look forward now to your post criticizing Cathy for directly misquoting me. Here's the post, and here's what she altered my post to say:

Quote:how does this


turn into this


Cathy specifically stated that Atheism is NOT the remission of cancer . . .

So she's challenging the ostensible claim that I made that she equated remission with cancer. And here's what I actually said:

Quote:Cathy suggested that the conceptualization I proposed was that atheism is represented by the remission of cancer, i.e., rejection.

So she claimed I insisted she thought atheism was represented by remission in her analogy, and then chewed me out for it. Of course, she had to edit my post and remove the portion where I explicitly stated it was a position she was attributing to me. She left that rather critical portion behind ellipses. Please do reprimand her as you did me, given your concern for misquoting people.

Cathym,
Shame on you for editing Mak's post and altering the meaning. You made me lose face. As a colored person, I didn't have much to start with and you made me lose even that.

Mak, you sly dog, you. I was all set to apologize for misrepresenting your position when I went back and re-read all the posts. You went back and edited your original reply to Cathym, didn't you? Your original reply is nested within Cathym's reply to you. I knew I had read it different from the way it is posted now. So, no apology necessary, I take it? No hard feelings, eh?

Regards

Doc