You Don't Own A Gun ? You're Breaking...
ChatterBank4 mins ago
A subject for tomorrow's discussion?
59 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well that sums up the trouble with the reliance on science.
For the record I do trust it.
He posted a question about honour killings, right off the scale, he's posted on threads that I've been involved in without his usual humour.
He was lamenting the other week about a visit from some Jehovah's Witnesses, I suppose they can have that effect on people, sometimes.
For the record I do trust it.
He posted a question about honour killings, right off the scale, he's posted on threads that I've been involved in without his usual humour.
He was lamenting the other week about a visit from some Jehovah's Witnesses, I suppose they can have that effect on people, sometimes.
Everton What an odd thing to say. Why should I rely on something I don't trust? I don't trust MMR, but I wouldn't trust your God to prevent my child from contracting diseases either. On this occasion I don't believe science has got it right - but as I said, that's only my opinion.
That's the Wizard thread I was talking about, but was confused because you said threads like that belong on R&S - and it is on R&S. I thought you meant another thread posted elsewhere.
That's the Wizard thread I was talking about, but was confused because you said threads like that belong on R&S - and it is on R&S. I thought you meant another thread posted elsewhere.
I fear it's you who does'nt understand.
If memory serves it went before the GMC (or some medical tribunal disciplinary thing) Richard Dawkins (I think you like him) railed against the notion in a series he presented ("Enemies of Reason" I think it was called) the tribunal found against him.
Or do you doubt them too?
I remember it quite well there was a woman stood outside with a placard bearing the legend "Don't stifle uncomfy science" (obviously not a climatologist) if I'd have known in advance I'd have brought one saying "Buy a bigger placard, mingebag!"
If memory serves it went before the GMC (or some medical tribunal disciplinary thing) Richard Dawkins (I think you like him) railed against the notion in a series he presented ("Enemies of Reason" I think it was called) the tribunal found against him.
Or do you doubt them too?
I remember it quite well there was a woman stood outside with a placard bearing the legend "Don't stifle uncomfy science" (obviously not a climatologist) if I'd have known in advance I'd have brought one saying "Buy a bigger placard, mingebag!"
I don't know anything about that, so can't comment, but I don't see what that has to do with the concept of truth anyway. Let's put it this way. You talk about philosophy, so forget things like MMR and try to look at this in a bigger, more philosophical way, and perhaps you'll get my gist. It's quite simple. Basically, if something isn't proven, and doubts exist, then it cannot be considered ultimate 'truth'.
Everton What is it with you and MMR? What point are you trying to make? And why are you saying, yet again, that I don't like answering questions. You did this on another thread, and frankly it's becoming just a tad tedious. I've answered your questions - all your questions - as far as I'm aware. I've indulged you, as you asked, by googling MMR, and I've told you that I wouldn't trust it, so clearly I don't believe it's 100% safe, but I've also said that it's only my opinion. Years ago parents were assured that Thalidomide was safe, and look what happened there. What do you want me to say? How else can I answer your question? And what does MMR have to do with the concept of truth from a philosophical point of view anyway?
Is MMR safe?
I'm asking you to "consider the question, look at any evidence that may be available" if I could do the cut and paste thing then I would the practice of pasting a link to prove one's point is a discussive style you use often, so "no need for anger". You do often have to be asked more than once, is that creosote I can smell? ;-)
Unless you're in the habit of offering "untruthful" opinions then to espouse that MMR is unsafe by your own "yardstick" (I'd have thought you'd have gone metric by now!) is rather poor form.
MMR was doubted by a scientist with qualifications that you recognise, in a school of thought you agree with and with the sort of scrutiny you admire. A body of scientists with qualifications that you recognise, in a school of thought you agree with utilised the sort of scrutiny you admire poo pooed his contention. The accessability to this information is quite easy but you refuse to access it even though you say it would help to "decide in our own minds the most likely explanation" it's sad that "you appear to find that impossible to understand".
The truth is always where you find it, dare you look again?
I'm asking you to "consider the question, look at any evidence that may be available" if I could do the cut and paste thing then I would the practice of pasting a link to prove one's point is a discussive style you use often, so "no need for anger". You do often have to be asked more than once, is that creosote I can smell? ;-)
Unless you're in the habit of offering "untruthful" opinions then to espouse that MMR is unsafe by your own "yardstick" (I'd have thought you'd have gone metric by now!) is rather poor form.
MMR was doubted by a scientist with qualifications that you recognise, in a school of thought you agree with and with the sort of scrutiny you admire. A body of scientists with qualifications that you recognise, in a school of thought you agree with utilised the sort of scrutiny you admire poo pooed his contention. The accessability to this information is quite easy but you refuse to access it even though you say it would help to "decide in our own minds the most likely explanation" it's sad that "you appear to find that impossible to understand".
The truth is always where you find it, dare you look again?
Everton I'm not angry - just confused. I don't think you've read my answer. You asked me to google MMR, and I told you I had, but you're saying I haven't. You asked me to answer your question on MMR and I have, but the answer doesn't satisfy you. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you're talking about when you refer to 'creosote', and as usual, we aren't speaking for very long before you begin to hurl personal insults. I've told you before that once that happens, I consider the debate at an end.
Au revoir. See you on another thread no doubt.
(By the way, to copy and paste, put your cursor on the post you want to copy, and left click quickly three times. This will highlight the whole post. Press Control and C together. Have a new Word document open, so flick onto that and click onto it, and then right click and select 'paste' - and the whole post will be pasted into your Word document. You can then delete the bits you don't want, add your own comments, and paste the whole lot into your new post on AB. Hope that's clear, but if not, for more information look at the AB Tutorial. Now you have no reason not to demonstrate your meaning when you say I don't answer questions).
Bye bye.
Au revoir. See you on another thread no doubt.
(By the way, to copy and paste, put your cursor on the post you want to copy, and left click quickly three times. This will highlight the whole post. Press Control and C together. Have a new Word document open, so flick onto that and click onto it, and then right click and select 'paste' - and the whole post will be pasted into your Word document. You can then delete the bits you don't want, add your own comments, and paste the whole lot into your new post on AB. Hope that's clear, but if not, for more information look at the AB Tutorial. Now you have no reason not to demonstrate your meaning when you say I don't answer questions).
Bye bye.
I've often heard it said of creationists on here that we ignore facts that are uncomfortable to us.
Assuming that you're opinions are truthful, you have to bear in mind the that the weight of science, logic and evidence make nonsense of your contention. Those 3 things formulate the pillars of your "wisdom" as you constantly remind us.
The reality (or rather irony) is that your opinion is based entirely on the "truth of that message and faith in that messenger" we're not a bit alike, are we eh?
P.S.
Stop being such a thin skinned whingy southerner you dish it out from time time ("skyplus"?) and you enjoy it when the jokes on others ("oh Waldo you do make me laugh sometimes") people who live in glass houses should'nt throw stones.
Cheerio. :-)
Assuming that you're opinions are truthful, you have to bear in mind the that the weight of science, logic and evidence make nonsense of your contention. Those 3 things formulate the pillars of your "wisdom" as you constantly remind us.
The reality (or rather irony) is that your opinion is based entirely on the "truth of that message and faith in that messenger" we're not a bit alike, are we eh?
P.S.
Stop being such a thin skinned whingy southerner you dish it out from time time ("skyplus"?) and you enjoy it when the jokes on others ("oh Waldo you do make me laugh sometimes") people who live in glass houses should'nt throw stones.
Cheerio. :-)
Everton You tell us how full of Christian kindness you are, but we rarely see evidence of it. When you struggle to win an argument, time and time again you resort to insults and abuse. Yes, Waldo does make me laugh at times, as do many other people, but when I typed 'Skyplus', it was a genuine mistake and one I rectified immediately, as you well know. That was totally uncalled for - it was wrong - and I would have thought it was beneath any intelligent person to behave in such a manner. No, clearly we are nothing alike - thank goodness.
I did'nt actually read the original skyplus incident all I read was afterwards when you said "it made Waldo laugh though" (hardly contrite) I don't believe it was an accident either, but lets be honest do we really care? I certainly don't.
In terms of similarity we're not alike in too many ways (I agree) I can laugh at myself (a man who can't laugh at himself is'nt fit to judge to others) but the truth is were we find it. Which is pretty much were I came in.
You find that MMR is unsafe (or "untrustworthy") despite the reams of evidence to the contrary the position you espouse flies directly in the face of every piece of reasoning, logic, science, evidence and "verifiable" proof available, even the British Medical Research Council can't convince you. Are they dishonest, or wrong? That's a question by the way.
These Naomi are the parameters of reason you place upon yourself (You can view that last statement as an insult, if you wish) the position you now espouse is more similar to my reasoning in such cases "you have it your way and I'll have it mine" does it not? That's another question by the way. ;-)
I'm not that bothered about MMR as a vaccine (there's an alternative to it) it was merely a vehicle to demonstrate that your version of what constitutes "truth" is erroneous (via your own expressed standards) even Thalidomide can be questioned as to it's safety and it appears to be of benefit to HIV and cancer sufferers amongst others.
Ironically I respect your stance on MMR (to each their own) but please don't talk about possessing a logic or a reasoning superior, more succinct and objective to any creationist when that planly is untrue.
Even if you don't (won't) admit it.
TTFN.
In terms of similarity we're not alike in too many ways (I agree) I can laugh at myself (a man who can't laugh at himself is'nt fit to judge to others) but the truth is were we find it. Which is pretty much were I came in.
You find that MMR is unsafe (or "untrustworthy") despite the reams of evidence to the contrary the position you espouse flies directly in the face of every piece of reasoning, logic, science, evidence and "verifiable" proof available, even the British Medical Research Council can't convince you. Are they dishonest, or wrong? That's a question by the way.
These Naomi are the parameters of reason you place upon yourself (You can view that last statement as an insult, if you wish) the position you now espouse is more similar to my reasoning in such cases "you have it your way and I'll have it mine" does it not? That's another question by the way. ;-)
I'm not that bothered about MMR as a vaccine (there's an alternative to it) it was merely a vehicle to demonstrate that your version of what constitutes "truth" is erroneous (via your own expressed standards) even Thalidomide can be questioned as to it's safety and it appears to be of benefit to HIV and cancer sufferers amongst others.
Ironically I respect your stance on MMR (to each their own) but please don't talk about possessing a logic or a reasoning superior, more succinct and objective to any creationist when that planly is untrue.
Even if you don't (won't) admit it.
TTFN.
You should get out more.
If you actually read the answer I said that you were "hardly contrite" (which is why I don't think your being entirely truthful, more like mischievous) I also went onto say that I don't care whether you meant to say it or not, and I still don't. It's a froth and bubble website who cares particuarly what one thinks of whom? You've even said so yourself.
It's surprising for someone that grew up in a poor part of the East End of London you should be so sensitive, I imagined you'd encountered much worse on your many travels. You would'nt last 5 minutes in my job, smak-heads have the foulest filthiest mouths you can imagine, and don't get me started on the teenaged hoody stoners..
But there are still 2 questions unanswered that deal succinctly with your reasoning in your dismissal of The British Medical Research Council's findings.
FYI I've never seen you correct anyone for their spelling other than yourself.
Dr Filth you are right I have never seen a Vulcan or a Romulan at Goodison Park but then of course I would'nt know what one looks (though I do now know how to test for them, thanks for that, I think) which only serves to demonstate 2 things:- 1) I actualy go the match and 2) that I actually have a life.;-)
Shine on you crazy diamond.
If you actually read the answer I said that you were "hardly contrite" (which is why I don't think your being entirely truthful, more like mischievous) I also went onto say that I don't care whether you meant to say it or not, and I still don't. It's a froth and bubble website who cares particuarly what one thinks of whom? You've even said so yourself.
It's surprising for someone that grew up in a poor part of the East End of London you should be so sensitive, I imagined you'd encountered much worse on your many travels. You would'nt last 5 minutes in my job, smak-heads have the foulest filthiest mouths you can imagine, and don't get me started on the teenaged hoody stoners..
But there are still 2 questions unanswered that deal succinctly with your reasoning in your dismissal of The British Medical Research Council's findings.
FYI I've never seen you correct anyone for their spelling other than yourself.
Dr Filth you are right I have never seen a Vulcan or a Romulan at Goodison Park but then of course I would'nt know what one looks (though I do now know how to test for them, thanks for that, I think) which only serves to demonstate 2 things:- 1) I actualy go the match and 2) that I actually have a life.;-)
Shine on you crazy diamond.
Latest Posts
Crosswords6 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
News20 mins ago
ChatterBank26 mins ago
ChatterBank27 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.