"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

King Mob

Dougla2 wrote: »

stop bolding words its irritating as all ****

But how else is he supposed to ... emphasise certain words... ?

... I imagine William Shatners voice ... reading out his post.

coffee_cake

J C wrote: »

As a woman, Bluewolf, is that all you can contribute to this debate on the right of women to dress in a T-shirt and jeans ... and not be leered at?

I don't see any debate, I see someone who wasn't there getting up in arms about the subject. I do think a lot of women show up to be looked at and leered at in this sense as they seem to have done in this case. Being paraded like the gorrilla guy.
If they were everyday women walking along and not looking for attention then I may have a problem

... or does the fact that Robin is an Evolutionist ... mean that no matter how insulting his remarks, you tolerate them?

No I reserve the right to disagree with anyone on any topic regardless of what else we agree on

... you are not doing Robin ... or women ... or indeed Evolutionists ... any favours by supporting him by your silence on this issue.

This issue has nothing to do with "evolutionists"

robindch wrote: »

Yep:

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/25807/128007.jpg

Enjoy!

Nope, "invalid attachment specified" showing up
I'm curious to see now what all the fuss is about

p.s. I'm amazed you knew I was female given our usual lack of interaction

darjeeling

Dades wrote: »

I also think it's safe to assume that the girls were hired as eye-candy, unless, JC, you can offer some other suggestion as to why they were there?

Mr May certainly has form:

TheDaily Mail wrote:

Ireland's science minister pulls out of launch of book branding evolution a hoax as it emerges author owned sex magazine
[...]
Mr May, a self-proclaimed marriage counsellor, writer, poet and philosopher, has presented on various radio stations and once owned a public relations company.

But the ex-Christian evangelist teacher was also the one-time editor of Ireland’s first magazine devoted to sex.

The Dublin writer lost thousands of euros on the failed publication, called SIN, when it folded after only two issues.

link

robindch

J C wrote: »

Do you leer at women (and men) working in your local supermarket if they happen to be wearing a t-shirt with a slogan?

JC, grow up, stop obsessing about breasts and try contributing to the debate.

Dougla2

robindch wrote: »

JC, grow up, stop obsessing about breasts and try contributing to the debate.

hes committing the sin of lust , hes going to hell

J C

Dougla2 wrote: »

stop bolding words its irritating as all ****

... talk about 'sweating the small stuff'!

... you are very sensitive about irrelevancies ... while ignoring whole herds of 'elephants' metaphorically parked firmly on you sitting room carpet!!!

J C

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't see any debate, I see someone who wasn't there getting up in arms about the subject. I do think a lot of women show up to be looked at and leered at in this sense as they seem to have done in this case. Being paraded like the gorrilla guy.
If they were everyday women walking along and not looking for attention then I may have a problem

So do you think it is OK to leer (and describe them as 'four tits') when the women are working as models (as in this case)??

bluewolf wrote: »

p.s. I'm amazed you knew I was female given our usual lack of interaction

I have a 'long' memory!!

... it shouldn't even come down to the fact that you are a woman ... I would equally expect that women would condemn somebody who dismissed a man as a 'penis' ... because Men (and women) are much more than any part of their anatomy ... and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.

coffee_cake

I guess I'll never get to see what the fuss was about

The "tshirt and jeans" reminds me of yer one at the football game locker room? I think there was a thread in AH about it. "could those jeans GET any tighter?!" :pac:

coffee_cake

J C wrote: »

So do you think it is OK to leer (and describe them 'two tits') when the women are working as models (as in this case)??

If they show up expecting and intending to be gaped at and are subsequently gaped at, then yes

... it shouldn't even come down to the fact that you are a woman ... I would equally expect that women would condemn somebody who dismissed Robin as a 'penis' ... because Men (and women) are much more than any part of their anatomy ... and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.

Depending on context, absolutely, @ condemnation
And of course they do, if they act with it
But robin being cynical about what they were there for isn't exactly insulting

now can we move on? Start a humanities thread if you want to discuss human beings and respect

robindch

J C wrote: »

women) are much more than any part of their anatomy

Perhaps these two excellent ladies should start behaving as though they were more than just their breasts. Though given that they were at an event named "Gorillas and Girls" hosted by a man who used to run some kind of sex magazine really says all you need to know.

BTW, the book was published by originalwriting.ie, a small vanity publishing house based in Smithfield:

http://originalwriting.ie/bookshop/non-fiction/bodymindspirit/the-origin-of-specious-nonsense/

J C

robindch wrote: »

Perhaps these two excellent ladies should start behaving as though they were more than just their breasts. Though given that they were at an event named "Gorillas and Girls" hosted by a man who used to run some kind of sex magazine really says all you need to know.

BTW, the book was published by originalwriting.ie, a small vanity publishing house based in Smithfield:

http://originalwriting.ie/bookshop/non-fiction/bodymindspirit/the-origin-of-specious-nonsense/

Perhaps you should start behaving as though you are more than just your penis!!!!

... and I object to you describing any group of women as the sum of their tits!!!

... you are giving Evolutionist men ... and women, a bad name!!!!

... and the 'jury is still out' on John May, as far as I am concerned ... I still haven't got my hands on his book yet.

J C

MagicMarker wrote: »

If they're hot? Well.... yeah, although I wouldn't call it leering.

I'd even have sex with them without being married!! :eek:

I might even use a condom:eek::eek:

BOLD WORDS

No mention of love ... or commitment ... spoken like a true Evolutionist!!!

... you obviously belong to the 'find them ... have sex with them ... and forget about them' school of behaviour!!!!

... and of course, you are supported in this behaviour by your evolutionist beliefs that you are here to reproduce to the maximum extent possible ... or if that might cost you too much in child maintenance ... to just have as much sex as possible before succuming to VD and the accumulated 'viral load' of multiple sexual partners into an early grave and oblivion!!!

MagicMarker

J C wrote: »

No mention of love ... or commitment ... spoken like a true Evolutionist!!!

... you obviously belong to the 'find them ... have sex with them ... and forget about them' school of behaviour!!!!

... and of course, you are supported in this behaviour by your evolutionist beliefs that you are here to reproduce to the maximum extent possible ... or if that might cost you too much in child maintenance ... to just have as much sex as possible before succuming to VD and the accumulated 'viral load' of multiple sexual partners into an early grave and oblivion!!!

lol, your trollish behaviour is laughable.

J C

robindch wrote: »

JC, grow up, stop obsessing about breasts and try contributing to the debate.

... the obsession is entirely on your side of this debate.

J C

robindch wrote: »

JC, ....... try contributing to the debate.

OK

The following are the 7 reasons why John May rejects and detests Evolution:-

1: It teaches us to be satisfied with - not understanding origins.

2: It promotes the dangerous nonsense of no first cause - no supreme scientist and suggests order came from disorder.

3: It is a mataphysical speculation, a doctrine dressed up in scientific garb.

4: Anyone who teaches evolution is either ignorant or deliberately suppressing the known scientific facts.

5: It is a toxic poisonous mind virus which destroys the hearts immune system against hope and common sense.

6: It is an anaesthetic against reason.

7: It cripples sanity, promotes myths, obscures reality and elevates matter above a maker.

Discuss....

Dougla2

what's gods first cause? the first cause argument is completely invalid

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

OK

The following are the 7 reasons why John May rejects and detests Evolution:-

1: It teaches us to be satisfied with - not understanding origins.

That's what abiogenesis is for.

2: It promotes the dangerous nonsense of no first cause - no supreme scientist and suggests order came from disorder.
Actually it doesn't. My guess is that he is referring to some bollocked notion of entrophy.

3: It is a mataphysical speculation, a doctrine dressed up in scientific garb.
Nope.
4: Anyone who teaches evolution is either ignorant or deliberately suppressing the known scientific facts.
LOL!
5: It is a toxic poisonous mind virus which destroys the hearts immune system against hope and common sense.
The heart has no immune system.
6: It is an anaesthetic against reason.
Even thought the understanding of anaesthesia is based heavily on evolution?
7: It cripples sanity, promotes myths, obscures reality and elevates matter above a maker.
Well yeah the lego is always cooler than the guy who made it.

Discuss....

:):rolleyes:;):p:o:mad::(:pac:

ColmDawson

J C wrote: »

OK

The following are the 7 reasons why John May rejects and detests Evolution:-

[...]

7: It cripples sanity...

You used to be an evolutionist, yeah?

:pac:

Galvasean

I spent the last 4 pages reading about Robin's penis. What the hell guys?!?!?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

OK

The following are the 7 reasons why John May rejects and detests Evolution:-

1: It teaches us to be satisfied with - not understanding origins.

2: It promotes the dangerous nonsense of no first cause - no supreme scientist and suggests order came from disorder.

3: It is a mataphysical speculation, a doctrine dressed up in scientific garb.

4: Anyone who teaches evolution is either ignorant or deliberately suppressing the known scientific facts.

5: It is a toxic poisonous mind virus which destroys the hearts immune system against hope and common sense.

6: It is an anaesthetic against reason.

7: It cripples sanity, promotes myths, obscures reality and elevates matter above a maker.

Discuss....

So the reasons he rejects evolution is not because he has a clear understanding of it and has clear evidence against it, but because he hold misunderstandings that have been long long debunked and metaphysical faff?

Seems about right.

mohawk

Dougla2 wrote: »

what's gods first cause? the first cause argument is completely invalid

In one interview that May gave he said that Gods first cause was irrelavent to his book .

Anyways I don't think this book will make any impact.

Ghost Buster

Dougla2 wrote: »

what's gods first cause? the first cause argument is completely invalid

............. he/she/it was always there dontch know.........:rolleyes:

J C

Dougla2 wrote: »

what's gods first cause? the first cause argument is completely invalid

... everything has a prior cause ... and this means that if were to trace all causes back ... we will theoretically reach the ultimate cause of everything ... and whatever that is ... it will have no cause itself and therefore it will be transcendent and omnipotent i.e. The God of The Bible.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

I spent the last 4 pages reading about Robin's penis. What the hell guys?!?!?

Randy doesn't even begin to describe him!!:)

He seems to be suffering from an acute surge of Testosterone at present ... it might be something to do with riding his bike up to Buswells the other night!!!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... everything has a prior cause ... and this means that if were to trace all causes back ... we will theoretically reach the ultimate cause of everything ... and whatever that is ... it will have no cause itself and therefore it will be transcendent and omnipotent i.e. The God of The Bible.

So not everything has a prior cause...?

Do you read your own posts or just post them as soon your brain ****s them out?

ColmDawson

J C wrote: »

... everything has a prior cause ... and this means that if were to trace all causes back ... we will theoretically reach the ultimate cause of everything ... and whatever that is ... it will have no cause itself and therefore it will be transcendent and omnipotent i.e. The God of The Bible.

Haha! More like "i.e. any fictional deity one could care to invent".

J C

How about the 10 Commandments of Logic ... according to John May


We must not accept myths -- In defiance of science.

We shall not reject laws -- That show a first cause.

We shall not deny acts -- That confirm known facts.

We shall practise reason -- In every season.

We should taste the fruit -- Of visible truth.

We must cast off bias -- With its seed in lies.

We shall use the mind -- And not be blind.

We must never accept tradition -- over scientific ammunition.

We must refuse to choose -- A pseudoscientific ruse.

We must respect the relevance -- Of testable evidence.


... any chance that you guys would start to obey these commandments ... in your deliberations on Evolution?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

How about the 10 Commandments of Logic ... according to John May

I wouldn't call a self educated ex-magazine publisher authoritative enough to make up "Commandments of Logic".
Doubly so when they are put in the form of a silly poem.
Doubly doubly so when each and every one of those "commandments" applies to his nonsense.

mohawk

J C wrote: »

How about the 10 Commandments of Logic ... according to John May


We must not accept myths -- In defiance of science.

We shall not reject laws -- That show a first cause.

We shall not deny acts -- That confirm known facts.

We shall practise reason -- In every season.

We should taste the fruit -- Of visible truth.

We must cast off bias -- With its seed in lies.

We shall use the mind -- And not be blind.

We must never accept tradition -- over scientific ammunition.

We must refuse to choose -- A pseudoscientific ruse.

We must respect the relevance -- Of testable evidence.


... any chance that you guys would start to obey these commandments ... in your deliberations on Evolution?

Rhyming Commandments!! Need I say more?

J C

King Mob wrote: »

I wouldn't call a self educated ex-magazine publisher authoritative enough to make up "Commandments of Logic".
Doubly so when they are put in the form of a silly poem.
Doubly doubly so when each and every one of those "commandments" applies to his nonsense.

... normally you would be right ... but in this instance we are dealing with somebody who seems to be a literary and scientific prodigy!!!