Originally posted by StarValleyWyI hear tell that "Pedigree" is made from my former minor appendages. This explains why all chickens have only three claws per foot instead of 8.
Shoot. All these years thinking "Pedigree" was just dog food. Hunh! My incestors are better than yours. 😀 What do you meen by "webbed" ones? Don't all fingers got those flabby thingys?
Originally posted by royalchickenYeah, and i think we're getting real, real close to a brand new explanation of "Scratch And Sniff". Oooo Oooo I got an idea. But ain't gunna tell till i perfect it. What if you put smells on paper in magazines and adverts... and like when you scratch them they smell? Cool.
I hear tell that "Pedigree" is made from my former minor appendages. This explains why all chickens have only three claws per foot instead of 8.
<In best creationist hillbilly accent> What's this "magazine" you speak of? Isn't that the thing I shove in my gun before I go off to hunt liberals? And there's only one thing I use paper for.....once a month whether I need to or not. Good for sniffin', but scratching ain't necessary.
Originally posted by royalchicken🙂😠🙄
<In best creationist hillbilly accent> What's this "magazine" you speak of? Isn't that the thing I shove in my gun before I go off to hunt liberals? And there's only one thing I use paper for.....once a month whether I need to or not. Good for sniffin', but scratching ain't necessary.
I gather myself from the floor, trying to envision the "hunt" as described! 😕 I think that all things being equal...paper... scratchin' in that context is preferable to sniffin'.... 😏
Mike, come quick! The cops are on to our hijacking scheme! Split up! Burn the evidence! 😛
Seriously, Ivanhoe, a discussion of this type (pitting scientific principles against faith) is always pointless. Those defending the scientific position will attempt an argument of the first type outlined by Acolyte in the thread "The Art of Debating". This of course will fall on deaf ears if it does not agree with the dictates of faith because faith does not have its basis in reason (and therefore cannot convert those defending the scientific position). Furthermore, the people observing it (who, for example, rwingett tries to sway in a debate) will already be in either camp, and will not change their minds. It is easy to see why the situation is different when the entire debate can be encompassed by reason (two arguable positions in opposition), but when the split is this fundamental, and when people have emotional stakes in it, the conversation is fruitless.
Originally posted by royalchickenDon't look at me! The hill-billy is on his own on this one. Ain't gunna touch it... unh uh! Bye...😛 Good luck my fine pulchreous pultry. I'm out a here!
Mike, come quick! The cops are on to our hijacking scheme! Split up! Burn the evidence! 😛
Seriously, Ivanhoe, a discussion of this type (pitting scientific principles against faith) is always pointless. Those defending the scientific position will attempt an argument of the first type outlined by Acolyte in the thread "The Art of Debating". T ...[text shortened]... is this fundamental, and when people have emotional stakes in it, the conversation is fruitless.
Originally posted by royalchickenThat may be so, but that's hardly the point, royalchicken.
Mike, come quick! The cops are on to our hijacking scheme! Split up! Burn the evidence! 😛
Seriously, Ivanhoe, a discussion of this type (pitting scientific principles against faith) is always pointless. Those defending the scie ...[text shortened]... people have emotional stakes in it, the conversation is fruitless.
It is unacceptable in my view that a discussion or debate
is constantly interrupted by people who have only one aim, one goal
in mind and that is to sabotage the debate. Would you appreciate that in a debate you are interested in ?
IvanH.
I apologize, ivanhoe 😳. What I said is hardly the point, except inasmuch as it is my contribution to the debate. Questions frequently have three choices, namely answering in the affirmative, the negative (each if they can be phrased in support of a particular view, as this one can), or "unasking" them. My point was that this should be "unasked", in the same way that some supported an evolutionary view and others a creationist view. In my mind, I support the former but believe it not only a tactical, but also a basic logical error to argue this point with someone whose faith dictates that they not listen to reason under these circumstances.
So, yes, I shouldn't have hijacked. But you should not pointlessly belittle my position in the argument either.
Originally posted by royalchicken
I apologize, ivanhoe 😳. What I said is hardly the point, except inasmuch as it is my contribution to the debate. Questions frequently have three choices, namely answering in the affirmative, the negative (each if they can be phrased ...[text shortened]... hould not pointlessly belittle my position in the argument either.
You admitted that you were wrong.
That is the right thing to do and a noble stance to take.
I except your apology.
IvanH.