Document the absurdities:
- Over at Conservative Life, "ferrethouse" (the preferred nom de blog of Blogging Tory co-founder Craig Smith when he wants to write something particularly idiotic) gets his snark on:
Peter Mansbridge just announced with total disbelief that Saddam was "taunted" prior to his death. In case you haven't been paying attention for the past five years, taunting is a form of torture according to liberals (they could probably even find a convention in the Geneva Conventions to support their contention).
Yes, Craig thinks it's just a total, fucking hoot that people made fun of Saddam before hanging him. Luckily, there are actually some smart people who understand the real consequences here. - Steve Janke gets all uppity over the total non-effectiveness of raising the minimum age for smoking, concluding that this kind of effort is an utter waste of time.
You know, Steve, it turns out that abstinence-only education also has no effect. Are you ready to draw the same conclusion there? - "Common Sense" takes time off from calculating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin to produce even more appalling Christian apologetics. Dude -- learn some science. Please.
- And over at Halls of Macadamia, Neo Conservative still can't pull his head out of other peoples' crotches.
12 comments:
You can't click on the link to Conservative Life. A message comes up that says you are 'referer spam'. Are you? :) BTW isn't Conservative Life an oxymoron?
A smorgasbord of ass-scratching wingnuts. Hey, career-retard Alberta Girl has shown up and Halls of Nuts, intoning portentously about "slippery slopes."
...You've got to admire her aggressive fatuousness.
Actually, "Common Sense" has a remarkably good post - until he hits his final conclusion, wherein he falls deep into the pits of demonstrating what he doesn't know.
"A smorgasbord of ass-scratching wingnuts..."
yup... if you don't have a rational argument, you can just call people names... a strategy endorsed by third graders worldwide.
and cc... what's with all the homo-erotic imagery? you've certainly been energised over this topic.
just wondering.
if you don't have a rational argument, you can just call people names.
You didn't even start with a rational argument, so who the hell are you to demand better from anyone else?
Neo con wrote:
"and cc... what's with all the homo-erotic imagery? you've certainly been energised over this topic."
"Crotch" is homo-erotic? Wow, your standards ever buttoned-up pretty tight. Do show the other instances of homo-eroticism on this blog. And don't spare the delicious details!
And what type of science would you have me learn? I'm trying to defend scientific principles in such a way as religious people can see them as non-threatening...the comments on the post are religious people trying to crucify me for not acknowledging the literal truth of the Bible!
Grog, you're right, the final paragraph that I wrote was kinda tacked on...point well taken.
jeffg writes:
"And what type of science would you have me learn?"
Good science. Proper science. In short, science that refuses to make accommodations for people's whiny, religious insecurities.
"I'm trying to defend scientific principles in such a way as religious people can see them as non-threatening"
Whether religious people are "threatened" by science is not science's problem. If some of the devout find the concept of an old earth or biological evolution that frightening, that's their problem. It's not science's job to validate their scientific illiteracy. It's time for them to grow up.
Good and proper science, eh? So, relying on things like General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and The Origin of Species to make arguments is not good or proper science? What alternatives do you propose?
After looking at the "Common Sense" site, I can only beg you not to give him too hard a time. I wish I could get my fundie mom to come as far along the path of understanding evolution, geology, etc as this blogger is. I know you want to mock him because he believes in God, but seriously man, there are bigger, juicier targets out there. I'd rather not discourage the ones that have started using their brains for critical thinking - I like to think there is still hope for them.
deanna:
I'm not mocking him because he believes in God. I'm mocking him because he insists that science be presented in as unthreatening a way as possible so as not to terribly, terribly upset the devout.
If the devout can't handle reality, that's their problem. People whose entire ideological worldview is based on nothing but faith really don't have the intellectual high ground to start asking science to be gentle.
Smith didn't have the balls to keep conservative life going so he pulled the plug. Seems pretty typical of Canuck "conservatives". Most of whom are just warmed over moderates without a spine.
Post a Comment