15 Sep 15
Originally posted by Proper KnobSigh clearly you have never been taught the art of public speaking. In a lecture you have no need of citing every single one of your sources during the lecture, its useless and detracts form the flow of the natural flow of the discourse. If anyone wants your sources you can give them after the discourse is over. There is no moral compulsion to cite every single reference that you based your lecture on during the discourse and to think otherwise is simply silly.
Look I appreciate for a man as mentally challenged as yourself this might be hard to understand, but anyone with more than a couple of brain cells, who has read more than one science book, has no trouble understanding this really quite rudimentary point.
If someone references 'scientific studies', then you cite them. End of. Period. Full stop. Tab. New paragraph.
You know it, I know it, we all know it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy are you always sighing? Are you that out of shape? Has your obesity finally began to catch up with you?
Sigh clearly you have never been taught the art of public speaking. In a lecture you have no need of citing every single one of your sources during the lecture, its useless and detracts form the flow of the natural flow of the discourse. If anyone wants your sources you can give them after the discourse is over. There is no moral compulsion to cit ...[text shortened]... ence that you based your lecture on during the discourse and to think otherwise is simply silly.
He's not 'public speaking' is he you fool? He's made a YouTube video, there is a space in the description as you well know. The scientific literature should be cited there. You cite and reference websites and people in your YouTube videos so why should Joe Dallas be any different?
15 Sep 15
Originally posted by sonhouseAgain. They??
And therein lies the problem. They cannot accept the absolute fact that probably at least half of all gays are NOT choices but some kind of biological edict that points a person's sexuality one way and not the other. Of course some gay's get that way say, by example of a relative, or first sexual contact and so forth but there is undeniably a genetic compon ...[text shortened]... t pork, NEVER become gay, you will go to hell, It's ok for women to be worth less than men, etc.
Next are you going to say something about "you people"?
15 Sep 15
Originally posted by FMFIt's far from this conversation only, and it's also far from a minority view. Wedge driving is all you're about.
If you choose to label the observations and questions ~ that I insert into holes in the ghastly ideology that some religionists here peddle ~ as "wedges", all that really means is that you disagree with my views.
Originally posted by sonshipIn case you miss Biffo's reply. Here it is sonship -
Prove it.
That would be evidence from their OWN websites or their own advertising.
While you're gathering up your proof some others can view this, perhaps.
[b] Greg Koukl: The Intolerance of Tolerance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG_R9e60Wp4[/b]
http://www.joedallas.com/services.cfm?id=10
$225 for 3 x 50mins sessions.
A two day course will set you back $1000-1200.
http://www.joedallas.com/services.cfm?id=9
15 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieExactly what do the JWs think they are "saving" people from, then?
Dude I do not profess belief in hell, jehovah's witnesses for the last 150 years have not professed belief in hell.
Like a lot of what you profess, this renders "salvation" kinda moot, right?
15 Sep 15
Originally posted by Proper Knobhe is giving a lecture that just happens to be recorded, of course he is public speaking that's what giving a discourse is, man you must be baked dude, good and proper this time.
Why are you always sighing? Are you that out of shape? Has your obesity finally began to catch up with you?
He's not 'public speaking' is he you fool? He's made a YouTube video, there is a space in the description as you well know. The scientific literature should be cited there. You cite and reference websites and people in your YouTube videos so why should Joe Dallas be any different?
Originally posted by SuzianneSaving people from going down at Armageddon, saving people from drug abuse, alcoholism, prostitution, abject poverty, illiteracy, saving people to enter as one of the great crowd holding palm branches in their hands (Rev 14) to Gods New world of a restored paradise earth, many things. No it doesn't render salvation moot, your statement is logically fallacious as the conclusion is not supported by the premise.
Exactly what do the JWs think they are "saving" people from, then?
Like a lot of what you profess, this renders "salvation" kinda moot, right?
15 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat will teach me for not watching the video. Anyhow, my point still stands. If you reference, you cite. You do it on your Youtube videos, Joe Dallas can do it.
he is giving a lecture that just happens to be recorded, of course he is public speaking that's what giving a discourse is, man you must be baked dude, good and proper this time.
What do you make of Joe Dallas charging quite a lot if money for 'Christian counselling'?
15 Sep 15
Originally posted by Proper KnobIn my opinion, it shows another layer of motivation that leads one to think it may be his prime motivation. Timothy said, "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
That will teach me for not watching the video. Anyhow, my point still stands. If you reference, you cite. You do it on your Youtube videos, Joe Dallas can do it.
What do you make of Joe Dallas charging quite a lot if money for 'Christian counselling'?
Some might be thinking he has "erred from the faith", and so might not take him at his word. Your local priest or minister doesn't get paid anything extra to counsel you for this very reason.
15 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" -- Matthew 16:26
Saving people from going down at Armageddon, saving people from drug abuse, alcoholism, prostitution, abject poverty, illiteracy, saving people to enter as one of the great crowd holding palm branches in their hands (Rev 14) to Gods New world of a restored paradise earth, many things. No it doesn't render salvation moot, your statement is logically fallacious as the conclusion is not supported by the premise.
15 Sep 15
Originally posted by sonhouseNicely put !
And therein lies the problem. They cannot accept the absolute fact that probably at least half of all gays are NOT choices but some kind of biological edict that points a person's sexuality one way and not the other. Of course some gay's get that way say, by example of a relative, or first sexual contact and so forth but there is undeniably a genetic compon ...[text shortened]... t pork, NEVER become gay, you will go to hell, It's ok for women to be worth less than men, etc.
15 Sep 15
Originally posted by Proper KnobI do it because i have used third party sources directly and want to give attribute to the authors, that is something different than mentioning 26 studies and drawing conclusions from those twenty six studies. Charging for christian counselling is both scripturally and morally reprehensible, but again that is something different from the logic and conclusions based on the scientific data.
That will teach me for not watching the video. Anyhow, my point still stands. If you reference, you cite. You do it on your Youtube videos, Joe Dallas can do it.
What do you make of Joe Dallas charging quite a lot if money for 'Christian counselling'?