re: NSIAP: Bill Nye's Degenerate "My Sex Junk" children's singalong (NSFW)

quote:

---

That is the face of the progressives' anti-science wing.

---

Realityphobes

quote:

---

This is the only part that matters to my point. It's why you do it. It's why you all do it.

---

I thought you harped on cherry-picking in an earlier post. There's a reason why I said more than "yes and no", because I wanted to explain my answer rather than having my answer explained to me. You might be satisfied without explaining nuance but there is a lot of nuance to life and a lot of it needs explanation in order to have clarity of understanding.

I don't care what people think about me. I do care that the message of the cross is proclaimed. That's why I had to clarify my answer, but you found a way to ignore it anyway and interpret it how you wanted to.

quote:

---

That isn't what I said. I don't care about your beliefs and I won't have a debate with you about them. I'm also not going to let you drive the discussion in that direction. It isn't your fault. I realize your beliefs don't allow you to refrain from that. I just don't feel the need to participate

---

Incredible. So, in a public discussion forum where people are encouraged to participate in discourse, you don't want a poster to make points about their worldview (like everyone else does) because you don't want to debate the finer points of said worldview and its relevance to life and practice? Everyone else is essentially doing the same thing when they post, they just aren't getting into the nitty-gritty of their underlying assumptions that cause them to make their comments.

Instead of ignoring me completely, you respond with cryptic, short answers which aren't really answers and then go on to say it's because you don't want me to drive the discussion. What? Is that how intellectual discussions are supposed to work? I'd have more respect for someone ignoring me completely than playing that game (not that you care). Regardless. I will continue on because if anyone else reads these responses, I'd like for them to see that someone who holds to my worldview is perfectly capable of advancing their belief system in a rational way and that I'm more than happy to attempt an answer for charge you have, as that's how discussion is supposed to work.

quote:

---

It's a great place to be. I'm completely fine with you believing what you want to believe, right up to the point where you claim that those beliefs give you objective morality that only your religion is capable of providing

---

I seem to have hit a nerve, yet instead of shooting back a cogent rebuttal, you simply state that you don't like what I'm saying. Where is your defense? That's what I've been harping on as you say I'm wrong and then leave it at that. If you didn't care, you would ignore it like you've ignored the vast majority of what I've written. You seem to care enough to respond but you don't care enough to really respond; to give a cogent defense of why you are right and why I am wrong. It's why I said it's "strange". You care but you don't care.

quote:

---

That's how not participating works. I won't give you the validity you seek.

---

You have a strange (there it is again) way of expressing your non-participation by continue to participate, just without anything substantive to say. I'm not seeking any validity from you. I'm trying to have a discussion.

quote:

---

Indeed, and it went nowhere last time

---

My arguments weren't rebutted then, either, if I recall correctly. You continue participation in a discussion without really discussing anything. It's difficult to make progress that way.

quote:

---

Christianity only offers this in conjunction with faith. That alone removes objectivity from your views. It's dishonest to continue to make this claim.

---

If God exists, He does so whether you or I believe He does or not. That's what objectivity means: you don't have to believe it in order for it to be valid.

The argument I've been trying to make is this: you have a view on morality and I have a view on morality. If you are right, then there cannot be an objective moral standard. If I am right, then there is an objective moral standard.

If I'm wrong and there is no God, then no matter what else anyone believes, morality would be completely subjective and there would be no basis to judge one standard as better or worse than another except through the concept of "might makes right", which is what I said previously and to which you took exception. So as I see it, you have no rational basis for saying I (or anyone else, for that matter) is objectively wrong.

quote:

---

This is very good. The more degenerate the institutions of the republic become, the more clear the pathway for Caesar shall be.

---

Indeed. I also agree that the degenerate contempt that Democrats have for the way things are supposed to work are going to lead to the demise of the US Republic and the rise of a Dictatorship. However, that Dictatorship will probably be a Leftist/Democrat/Globalist dictatorship.

This process could take AT LEAST one-hundred years, IMHO, so it will be gradual.

quote:

---

I don't when I don't care if you agree with me or not. I could write you a novel, and you won't change your mind.

---

If you really wanted people to believe that you would actually say something substantive if you thought it would sway people's opinion, you'd acknowledge (at least to yourself) that the person to whom you're responding isn't the only person reading your posts.

A spectator can only assume that the extent of your ideas and thought processes do not go beyond simply saying "you're wrong."

I know you don't care, fwiw.

quote:

---

you are making quite the effort

---

You think so?

Responding to you takes little time, and I will not get into your beliefs. I'm happy to discuss anything you like, so long as you don't rely on your beliefs or your chosen mythology to make your points. Refrain from that, and we can move forward.

What's up, creeper.