(04-22-2020 10:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Have a good one guys!
dodge the question and run away.
Here is lad's statement from post 11364:
"I see a two major policy planks that fall under the anti-science umbrella - either because they run counter to the general consensus established by the scientific community, or they are based more firmly on a religious basis:
1) Climate change and mitigation
2) Abortion access"
Never a word of explanation about #2, despite repeated requests. he keeps saying he has explained it, but he hasn't - all he has done is to list it and refer to a nonexistent post in which he explained it.
I know at least one lefty who would term this a "lie". But I am too nice to go there. I will just assume he is mistaken, that in his own mind he has given an explanation. But in reality, he has not. I would like an explanation in reality.
Yep, dodges your question and runs away.
Throws a snit at me for using 'hates science' instead of his much better 'consistently fights science' (Lolz.... again....), doesnt address a single substantive point in my response.
Quite the brave Sir Lad. Maybe his minstrels will write a song about his brave deeds.
I think this is what yo have in mind, Tanq. From one of my favorite movies, dude.
I though we were having a nice discussion until he ended it. maybe he had to work.
The brave sir lad is currently still opining in another thread. Apparently studiously avoiding any discussion of 'a position on abortion as being science'. Kind of par for the course I have come to expect.
And yes, OO, that is exactly what I was making an oblique reference to.
So I guess what we have in the course of this 'study in lad;' is:
a) he thinks that the right 'fights science' in a general manner (a rather ignorant as hell comment, and farcically funny when he is attempting to demean supposed ignorant people);
b) gets snitty about characterizing his comment about 'fight[ing] science' as 'hating science';
c) doubles down by noting that a moral stance on abortion is 'anti-science' in nature;
d) triples down on the apparent ignorance by conflating a moral viewpoint as being 'anti-science'--- because one might have a 'religious' viewpoint as the apparent sole rationale for that viewpoint;
e) snittily avoids your direct question on *why* a moral position on abortion is 'anti-science' with the turd-ass answer of 'look at my response';
f) refuses to engage in any substantive points that I brought up -- solely in able to focus on the utterly horrible characterization of his (in the first place rather ignorant) statement about the right 'fight[ing] science' as 'hating science';
g) then says 'toodles' as he merrily thumbs his nose as he walks out.
I just don’t think any of us are going to get anything positive out of the conversation. I see y’all already disagree with my perspective, so what is there to be gained from this? In this instance this is solely a matter of opinion - there isn’t a right or wrong answer.
I don’t think this is a brave response, I just don’t really care to engage this so deeply.
Sorry that this enraged you so much that spent this long typing out a reply.
(04-22-2020 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: dodge the question and run away.
Here is lad's statement from post 11364:
"I see a two major policy planks that fall under the anti-science umbrella - either because they run counter to the general consensus established by the scientific community, or they are based more firmly on a religious basis:
1) Climate change and mitigation
2) Abortion access"
Never a word of explanation about #2, despite repeated requests. he keeps saying he has explained it, but he hasn't - all he has done is to list it and refer to a nonexistent post in which he explained it.
I know at least one lefty who would term this a "lie". But I am too nice to go there. I will just assume he is mistaken, that in his own mind he has given an explanation. But in reality, he has not. I would like an explanation in reality.
Yep, dodges your question and runs away.
Throws a snit at me for using 'hates science' instead of his much better 'consistently fights science' (Lolz.... again....), doesnt address a single substantive point in my response.
Quite the brave Sir Lad. Maybe his minstrels will write a song about his brave deeds.
I think this is what yo have in mind, Tanq. From one of my favorite movies, dude.
I though we were having a nice discussion until he ended it. maybe he had to work.
The brave sir lad is currently still opining in another thread. Apparently studiously avoiding any discussion of 'a position on abortion as being science'. Kind of par for the course I have come to expect.
And yes, OO, that is exactly what I was making an oblique reference to.
So I guess what we have in the course of this 'study in lad;' is:
a) he thinks that the right 'fights science' in a general manner (a rather ignorant as hell comment, and farcically funny when he is attempting to demean supposed ignorant people);
b) gets snitty about characterizing his comment about 'fight[ing] science' as 'hating science';
c) doubles down by noting that a moral stance on abortion is 'anti-science' in nature;
d) triples down on the apparent ignorance by conflating a moral viewpoint as being 'anti-science'--- because one might have a 'religious' viewpoint as the apparent sole rationale for that viewpoint;
e) snittily avoids your direct question on *why* a moral position on abortion is 'anti-science' with the turd-ass answer of 'look at my response';
f) refuses to engage in any substantive points that I brought up -- solely in able to focus on the utterly horrible characterization of his (in the first place rather ignorant) statement about the right 'fight[ing] science' as 'hating science';
g) then says 'toodles' as he merrily thumbs his nose as he walks out.
I just don’t think any of us are going to get anything positive out of the conversation. I see y’all already disagree with my perspective, so what is there to be gained from this? In this instance this is solely a matter of opinion - there isn’t a right or wrong answer.
I don’t think this is a brave response, I just don’t really care to engage this so deeply.
Sorry that this enraged you so much that spent this long typing out a reply.
Amazing bravery to drop in an implied ad hom (another one, mind you) that 'religion of any sort == fighting science.' Double brave to run away from that characterization.
As brave as your basic 'right studiously fights science' claptrap.
Now, I would suggest that you get maddy poo that I used the word 'studiously' instead of a direct quote, which seems to be your part and parcel of evasion today.
To summarize -- you are brave enough to toss those general statements and ideas, but too much of chickenshit to defend them. Sounds fun.
Yep, you are definitely a real arbiter of ignorance with those positions. I would posit damn near a fing expert.....
(This post was last modified: 04-22-2020 02:12 PM by tanqtonic.)
(04-22-2020 10:29 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Yep, dodges your question and runs away.
Throws a snit at me for using 'hates science' instead of his much better 'consistently fights science' (Lolz.... again....), doesnt address a single substantive point in my response.
Quite the brave Sir Lad. Maybe his minstrels will write a song about his brave deeds.
I think this is what yo have in mind, Tanq. From one of my favorite movies, dude.
I though we were having a nice discussion until he ended it. maybe he had to work.
The brave sir lad is currently still opining in another thread. Apparently studiously avoiding any discussion of 'a position on abortion as being science'. Kind of par for the course I have come to expect.
And yes, OO, that is exactly what I was making an oblique reference to.
So I guess what we have in the course of this 'study in lad;' is:
a) he thinks that the right 'fights science' in a general manner (a rather ignorant as hell comment, and farcically funny when he is attempting to demean supposed ignorant people);
b) gets snitty about characterizing his comment about 'fight[ing] science' as 'hating science';
c) doubles down by noting that a moral stance on abortion is 'anti-science' in nature;
d) triples down on the apparent ignorance by conflating a moral viewpoint as being 'anti-science'--- because one might have a 'religious' viewpoint as the apparent sole rationale for that viewpoint;
e) snittily avoids your direct question on *why* a moral position on abortion is 'anti-science' with the turd-ass answer of 'look at my response';
f) refuses to engage in any substantive points that I brought up -- solely in able to focus on the utterly horrible characterization of his (in the first place rather ignorant) statement about the right 'fight[ing] science' as 'hating science';
g) then says 'toodles' as he merrily thumbs his nose as he walks out.
I just don’t think any of us are going to get anything positive out of the conversation. I see y’all already disagree with my perspective, so what is there to be gained from this? In this instance this is solely a matter of opinion - there isn’t a right or wrong answer.
I don’t think this is a brave response, I just don’t really care to engage this so deeply.
Sorry that this enraged you so much that spent this long typing out a reply.
Just pointing out your bone head answer that 'moral positions on abortion' == fighting science. One that you studiously run away from.
Amazing bravery to drop in an implied ad hom (another one, mind you) that 'religion of any sort == fighting science.' Double brave to run away from that characterization.
As brave as your basic 'right studiously fights science' claptrap.
Now get maddy poo that I used the word 'studiously' instead of a direct quote, which seems to be your part and parcel of evasion today. Kind of pathetic overall.
Yep, you are definitely a real arbiter of ignorance with those positions. I would posit damn near a fing expert..... Sorry, just calling garbage hypocrisy for what it is.
To summarize -- you are brave enough to toss those general statements and ideas, but too much of chickenshit to defend them. Sounds fun.
Gets mad at ad homs but uses them profusely. Really good job here.
(04-22-2020 10:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I think this is what yo have in mind, Tanq. From one of my favorite movies, dude.
I though we were having a nice discussion until he ended it. maybe he had to work.
The brave sir lad is currently still opining in another thread. Apparently studiously avoiding any discussion of 'a position on abortion as being science'. Kind of par for the course I have come to expect.
And yes, OO, that is exactly what I was making an oblique reference to.
So I guess what we have in the course of this 'study in lad;' is:
a) he thinks that the right 'fights science' in a general manner (a rather ignorant as hell comment, and farcically funny when he is attempting to demean supposed ignorant people);
b) gets snitty about characterizing his comment about 'fight[ing] science' as 'hating science';
c) doubles down by noting that a moral stance on abortion is 'anti-science' in nature;
d) triples down on the apparent ignorance by conflating a moral viewpoint as being 'anti-science'--- because one might have a 'religious' viewpoint as the apparent sole rationale for that viewpoint;
e) snittily avoids your direct question on *why* a moral position on abortion is 'anti-science' with the turd-ass answer of 'look at my response';
f) refuses to engage in any substantive points that I brought up -- solely in able to focus on the utterly horrible characterization of his (in the first place rather ignorant) statement about the right 'fight[ing] science' as 'hating science';
g) then says 'toodles' as he merrily thumbs his nose as he walks out.
I just don’t think any of us are going to get anything positive out of the conversation. I see y’all already disagree with my perspective, so what is there to be gained from this? In this instance this is solely a matter of opinion - there isn’t a right or wrong answer.
I don’t think this is a brave response, I just don’t really care to engage this so deeply.
Sorry that this enraged you so much that spent this long typing out a reply.
Just pointing out your bone head answer that 'moral positions on abortion' == fighting science. One that you studiously run away from.
Amazing bravery to drop in an implied ad hom (another one, mind you) that 'religion of any sort == fighting science.' Double brave to run away from that characterization.
As brave as your basic 'right studiously fights science' claptrap.
Now get maddy poo that I used the word 'studiously' instead of a direct quote, which seems to be your part and parcel of evasion today. Kind of pathetic overall.
Yep, you are definitely a real arbiter of ignorance with those positions. I would posit damn near a fing expert..... Sorry, just calling garbage hypocrisy for what it is.
To summarize -- you are brave enough to toss those general statements and ideas, but too much of chickenshit to defend them. Sounds fun.
Gets mad at ad homs but uses them profusely. Really good job here.
Frequently calls specific people ignorant, and calls out several groups as ignorant overall.
Doesnt seemingly realize that his own actions of:
a) painting a moral stance on abortion as anti-science, with zero backing of any scientific issue in abortion being implicated;
b) calling a political persuasion as generally 'fighting science'; *and*
c) stating that someone's moral position on a subject is anti-science *because* the person is religious
is somehow indicative of an underlying truth.
Really good job here as well. Smashing good one I would say.
(04-22-2020 01:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I see y’all already disagree with my perspective, so what is there to be gained from this?
I don't KNOW your perspective, so how can I disagree with it, and how can you know I disagree with it?
The could be questions about fetuses, which I outlined in my response before Lad made his. Questions such as, When is it a human being? But Lad said ACCESS. Access is a political question, not a scientific one. And lad never gave us a single word in explanation, despite being asked numerous times. His excuses above are hollow.
So I will ask yet one more time, how is abortion access a scientific question? I guess as a corollary, how would a different position on access be anti-scientific?
(04-22-2020 10:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Here is lad's amazing and deep rationale why abortion is included:
"or they are based more firmly on a religious basis"
That is a rationale?
Why not include 'not eating meat on Friday during Lent' as another example of being anti-science? Fits your supposed deep reasoning.
What a crock of ****: People are against abortion moralistically because of religion. Because of that viewpoint "based .... firmly on a religious basis", those people are anti-science.
That is biggest logical disconnect I have seen in years.
Noting lad's bowing out of the issue above by refusing to further delineate --- kind of pretty good douche points there lad. Bravo.
Some people are against abortion because of science -- specifically because advances in medicine have made unwanted pregnancies almost completely preventable and early-term fetuses impressively viable. Arguably, that combination has changed abortion from something that seems somewhat tolerable to something that seems somewhat indefensible. The policy of "abortion anywhere, anyhow, anytime" seems more at odds with science.
(04-22-2020 05:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: Well, I guess lad is going to run and hide rather than explain himself. No clearer proof that he cannot. And it is untrue that he has already done so.
(04-22-2020 10:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Here is lad's amazing and deep rationale why abortion is included:
"or they are based more firmly on a religious basis"
That is a rationale?
Why not include 'not eating meat on Friday during Lent' as another example of being anti-science? Fits your supposed deep reasoning.
What a crock of ****: People are against abortion moralistically because of religion. Because of that viewpoint "based .... firmly on a religious basis", those people are anti-science.
That is biggest logical disconnect I have seen in years.
Noting lad's bowing out of the issue above by refusing to further delineate --- kind of pretty good douche points there lad. Bravo.
Some people are against abortion because of science -- specifically because advances in medicine have made unwanted pregnancies almost completely preventable and early-term fetuses impressively viable. Arguably, that combination has changed abortion from something that seems somewhat tolerable to something that seems somewhat indefensible. The policy of "abortion anywhere, anyhow, anytime" seems more at odds with science.
But the policy of "abortion anywhere, anyhow, anytime" isnt "based more firmly on a religious basis", so the moralistic basis for "abortion anywhere, anyhow, anytime" stance is 'pro-science', simply because only those moralistic stances according "based more firmly on a religious basis" are anti-science. That is the gospel (haha, joke) according to lad (Book of lad 4212020:11364, more specifically)
And when I describe the policy of "abortion anywhere, anyhow, anytime" not being "based more firmly on a religious basis", I guess I should actually change that to not being "based more firmly on a organized, 503-c non-profit religious basis".
The reasoning being that there is a good argument that many adherents to the concept of "abortion anywhere, anyhow, anytime" are making that attachment *in* a "firm[] religious basis".
(This post was last modified: 04-22-2020 06:11 PM by tanqtonic.)
(04-22-2020 05:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: Well, I guess lad is going to run and hide rather than explain himself. No clearer proof that he cannot. And it is untrue that he has already done so.
In Lad's view, presumably the abolitionism of William Wilberforce and Henry Ward Beecher, the resistance to Nazism of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and the civil rights advocacy of Martin Luther King were anti-science.
Every one of these policy activists was not merely deeply religious (three were ordained clergy and the other a sponsor of missionaries) but, in the modern leftist view, the worst type of religionist: a Protestant.
(For what it's worth, the last two men paid with their lives.).
(04-22-2020 06:17 PM)georgewebb Wrote: In Lad's view, presumably the abolitionism of William Wilberforce and Henry Ward Beecher, the resistance to Nazism of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and the civil rights advocacy of Martin Luther King were anti-science.
Every one of these policy activists was not merely deeply religious (three were ordained clergy and the other a sponsor of missionaries) but, in the modern leftist view, the worst type of religionist: a Protestant.
(For what it's worth, the last two men paid with their lives.).
As would be the anti-violence protesting of Ghandi against colonialism --- again a deeply religious figure.
I would figure that the charity work of Mother Theresa would also be on the table using that very deep and perceptive benchmark.
That is, apparently when a basis of a moralistic belief is "more firmly on a religious basis", then the work done under that is ipso facto categorized as "falling under the anti-science umbrella".
Quite the enlightened (haha, joke again) point of view.
Why did it take 20 days for Congress to pass money for small-business owners that could have been passed in a small fraction of that time? Everyone knew that round 1 was a stop gap and more would be needed.
How does Nancy skate being asked on why the nearly three week passage of time?
In that 21 days, some clients got approved and funded. Others got approved and got thrown into limbo. My count in this very small portion of the world on the delays is, at a first hand basis, 95 jobs got tossed in the crapper by Pelosi for that.
What did she get out of it? The first bill proposed was a 'naked bill'. Pelosi's three weeks gained this: 75 billion for hospitals (which undoubtedly would have passed eventually) and 25 billion for increased testing capabilities (again, which undoubtedly would have been appropriated eventually).
What urgent items from Pelosi had to be scratched? 90 billion to bail out state pension funds. That is funds like Illinois that were so amazingly underwater even at the beginning of the crisis that Illinois was discussion means of a bankruptcy-type situation. Three weeks, probably at least 300,000 jobs. Poof.
That is the Democratic Party --- pay off their stalwarts in high debt blue state governments, and the 300,000 can keep a hope of their jobs.
Disgusting.
Again, how does Nancy avoid the **** smell around her creation?
(04-22-2020 05:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: Well, I guess lad is going to run and hide rather than explain himself. No clearer proof that he cannot. And it is untrue that he has already done so.
Very disappointed in you Lad.
Sorry dad!
He has time to give a flippant answer, but not time to explain himself or to defend his own words. He has never, I repeat, never, explained to us how Abortion access is a matter of science. Instead he is leaving it to others to explain for him, and the explanations do not support his thesis. If he had anything to say before this, he missed his window.
Just give us the number of the post where you allegedly showed why abortion access is a matter of science. Just 5 digits. Less keystrokes than "sorry dad'.
(04-22-2020 10:29 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Yep, dodges your question and runs away.
Throws a snit at me for using 'hates science' instead of his much better 'consistently fights science' (Lolz.... again....), doesnt address a single substantive point in my response.
Quite the brave Sir Lad. Maybe his minstrels will write a song about his brave deeds.
I think this is what yo have in mind, Tanq. From one of my favorite movies, dude.
I though we were having a nice discussion until he ended it. maybe he had to work.
The funniest part of this is that your analysis is basically anti-science. In that clip, Sir Robin is still "riding" toward danger, not running away (notwithstanding the song of his minstrels). So the evidence from the video is contrary to what you are accusing lad of.
(04-22-2020 10:29 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Yep, dodges your question and runs away.
Throws a snit at me for using 'hates science' instead of his much better 'consistently fights science' (Lolz.... again....), doesnt address a single substantive point in my response.
Quite the brave Sir Lad. Maybe his minstrels will write a song about his brave deeds.
I think this is what yo have in mind, Tanq. From one of my favorite movies, dude.
I though we were having a nice discussion until he ended it. maybe he had to work.
The funniest part of this is that your analysis is basically anti-science. In that clip, Sir Robin is still "riding" toward danger, not running away (notwithstanding the song of his minstrels). So the evidence from the video is contrary to what you are accusing lad of.
Yet at the finale of the saga of Sir Robin, well, there is a different story... and a different wording of the song by the minstrels....
Sometimes all of the evidence is the best picture.
(This post was last modified: 04-22-2020 11:46 PM by tanqtonic.)
Why did it take 20 days for Congress to pass money for small-business owners that could have been passed in a small fraction of that time? Everyone knew that round 1 was a stop gap and more would be needed.
How does Nancy skate being asked on why the nearly three week passage of time?
In that 21 days, some clients got approved and funded. Others got approved and got thrown into limbo. My count in this very small portion of the world on the delays is, at a first hand basis, 95 jobs got tossed in the crapper by Pelosi for that.
What did she get out of it? The first bill proposed was a 'naked bill'. Pelosi's three weeks gained this: 75 billion for hospitals (which undoubtedly would have passed eventually) and 25 billion for increased testing capabilities (again, which undoubtedly would have been appropriated eventually).
What urgent items from Pelosi had to be scratched? 90 billion to bail out state pension funds. That is funds like Illinois that were so amazingly underwater even at the beginning of the crisis that Illinois was discussion means of a bankruptcy-type situation. Three weeks, probably at least 300,000 jobs. Poof.
That is the Democratic Party --- pay off their stalwarts in high debt blue state governments, and the 300,000 can keep a hope of their jobs.
Disgusting.
Again, how does Nancy avoid the **** smell around her creation?
(04-22-2020 11:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Yet at the finale of the saga of Sir Robin, well, there is a different story... and a different wording of the song by the minstrels....
Sometimes all of the evidence is the best picture.
Yeah, my bad. The clip that OO linked cut out the actual scene where he buggered off, which confused my memory of the saga of Brave Sir Robin.
Why did it take 20 days for Congress to pass money for small-business owners that could have been passed in a small fraction of that time? Everyone knew that round 1 was a stop gap and more would be needed.
How does Nancy skate being asked on why the nearly three week passage of time?
In that 21 days, some clients got approved and funded. Others got approved and got thrown into limbo. My count in this very small portion of the world on the delays is, at a first hand basis, 95 jobs got tossed in the crapper by Pelosi for that.
What did she get out of it? The first bill proposed was a 'naked bill'. Pelosi's three weeks gained this: 75 billion for hospitals (which undoubtedly would have passed eventually) and 25 billion for increased testing capabilities (again, which undoubtedly would have been appropriated eventually).
What urgent items from Pelosi had to be scratched? 90 billion to bail out state pension funds. That is funds like Illinois that were so amazingly underwater even at the beginning of the crisis that Illinois was discussion means of a bankruptcy-type situation. Three weeks, probably at least 300,000 jobs. Poof.
That is the Democratic Party --- pay off their stalwarts in high debt blue state governments, and the 300,000 can keep a hope of their jobs.
Disgusting.
Again, how does Nancy avoid the **** smell around her creation?
One guess would be because of Nancy's demands of everything under the sun at that time. (student loan forgiveness, requirements relating to minorities on boards, airline carbon emissions, increased union bargaining power). That was discussed here at that time.
(This post was last modified: 04-23-2020 02:23 AM by tanqtonic.)
