I've heard some concerns raised by some on the more conservative side of things about the Left "abandoning" its values. By way of example, they offer the rioting and protesting that has happened in places like colleges when conservative figures have arrived to speak.
For instance, those graduates who walked out rather than listen to Mike Pence address a graduation ceremony.
First of all, I would just say that I share some concerns about actions like rioting by those on the left and trying to block conservative speakers. Liberalism is about free speech, amongst other things and we need to be careful to not appear to quash that which we support... even when that speech is used to advocate detestable values or by rather repugnant people.
On the other hand, one can value and hold dear the right to free speech AND at the same time say, "But I have no interest in hearing this person speak and you can't make me listen to them..." especially when that person (Trump, for instance) has committed horrible acts or promoted atrocious policies. It can be an act of resistance to refuse to even listen to what that person has to say.
For instance, until such time as Trump admits his sexual predatory behavior and apologizes for that behavior (indicating recognition of the actual wrong he has done), and repents and turns away from that behavior, I have zero interest in listening to what he says. He is a sexual predator and pervert and that's enough.
[And I say that as someone who, in my real life, does have to deal with sexual predators and can do so with some good grace. But there is a difference between dealing with the marginalized and down and out on their road to recovery and giving a pass to a sexual predator who has ascended to the most powerful office in the land.]
At any rate, all of that is to say that valuing free speech does not mean that we should not resist, at times, listening to what an oppressor has to say. One person's right to free speech is not an indication that others have to listen to their speech. Only an actual snowflake would insist that they must be heard.
Still, there are lines that are being crossed by some very few on the Left that I disagree with. Your right to refuse to listen to someone does not mean that you have the right to deny others the opportunity to listen.
And, on the other hand again, that isn't to say that people don't have the right to protest, for instance, a candidate that shows up to give a speech.
Free speech all around. That IS a liberal value and we should be wary about crossing that line. For the most part, I do not see this as a problem on the left, but there are some few instances where lines have been crossed and, to the degree that it has happened, those few liberals are forsaking the ideal of free speech in seeking to balance resistance and supporting free speech. Be aware.
Now, having said all of that(!) I get to the point of the article linked above. There is serious concern that conservatives are being way too silent about those on their side who are abandoning basic decent values.
Trump IS a pervert and a sexual predator. By his own repeated admissions and boasting. Not a pervert in the sense of "ew! he does things my religion does not approve of...!" but a pervert in the sense of oppressor, of one who ogles teen aged girls who are half or all naked and then boasts and laughs about it publicly... in the sense of grabbing women by the pussy and boasting and bragging about what he can get away with because of his position of power. That is serious deviant and oppressive behavior. That shit should have been not a slight red flag, but a deal breaker. There should have been a line in the sand that so-called "family values" conservatives should not be willing to cross and, by and large, they did. Not just a few outliers, but in sufficient numbers to score an electoral win.
Beyond that, there is this common cause amongst some conservatives - including Trump and those in power - with those who are amongst our most serious threats. Several studies and reports from law enforcement types say that our greatest threats of violence comes from the Right Wing extremist types discussed in the article above. These are people who have been told (by Trump et al - now "main stream" conservatives), that the media is "the enemy!" that they tell "lies" and that those dark and foreign people - Muslims, Mexicans, black urban folk - are a threat to our way of life. As are "liberals" and the gays.
Mainstream conservatives are forsaking traditional values of humanity and liberty and truth-telling. This is a great concern and I hope to see, at some point, conservatives to start to speak out against it. Thanks to folks like John McCain and, at least temporarily, even Al Mohler, who have done so to some degree. May their tribe increase.
80 comments:
Just checking in and disappointed to find that you once again engage in absolute and blatant lying. Most obvious is your continued accusations that Trump grabs women by the crotch. For the umpteenth time, he never admitted to having done such a thing. The clip that has been available since Trump haters exposed it to run people off from their support, has clearly indicated that he spoke of the attitudes of women in the presence of a rich celebrity like himself...that he could grab them in that way and they'd let him because of his status. But YOU insist on perpetrating the lie that he actually does this, when he never claimed to and their is no evidence that he has. A true predator is Bill Clinton who accused by multiple people to have attacked them. While you now say you spoke out against that, I defy you to show you have ever raised the issue on your own without having been compelled to do so at the risk of being hypocritical for not doing so.
That Trump is lecherous is never disputed by those like myself who saw a greater danger in not seeing him succeed in the last election. It was either him or a woman who excused and enabled a far worse person whose speaking engagements are never subjected to the type of disruptions leftists perpetrate against conservative speakers (and I'm referring to both Clintons here). And these two are especially prone to lying about the facts in order to prop themselves up as superior people.
I'll get back your link later and a more detailed critique of that and your post in general. But a cursory look validates Craig's recent post regarding the left acting in opposition to their words. You're personally no better.
he never admitted to having done such a thing.
Except that he quite literally did.
"I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss.
I don't even wait.
And when you're a star they let you do it.
You can do anything ...
Grab them by the pussy.
You can do anything."
He literally said it. Not a lie, simple reality.
that he could grab them in that way and they'd let him because of his status.
He said he CAN do it, not hypothetically COULD do it. His words.
And yes, if you knew shit about sexual predators, they ALWAYS say that women let them do it. They WANT it. So perhaps the problem is that you are just ignorant about the behavior of sexual predators?
Or are you denying reality?
~Dan
"He said he CAN do it, not hypothetically COULD do it. His words."
There's no difference except in your fevered imaginings and hatred. More importantly, saying he can isn't the same as saying he has. It's hyperbole that you choose to regard as an admission of assault... because you're filled with hatred.
And as to the dames he kisses, he's not suggesting that he just randomly walks up to women and starts kissing them. He's referring to those who have some desire to meet or engage with him. And it's not as if he's plunging his tongue down their throats. As I said, you enjoy overstating the situation because you hate the guy. But that's no different than bearing false witness.
You don't know shit about wealthy people and people of power and how they think of themselves and how sycophants thing of them. Worse, you disregard people who abuse their power if they are leftists and overstate the behaviors of those who aren't.
I'm more than objective and truthful about reality. It is you who distorts it to push your hateful agenda. You can't deal with the reality that he beat whoever the loser was that you supported, so you "trump" up whatever you can to make the guy out to be far worse than he is, as if the reality of what he is isn't bad enough.
Well, thanks for making my case about Conservatives abandoning their values. You all have abandoned it so thoroughly that you don't even appear able to recognize it.
Tell me, Marshall, if B Clinton had said just this one thing, would you give him even one ounce of benefit of doubt? Would conservatives at large?
Dan
To answer my own question, no, I wouldn't give Clinton any benefit of the doubt if he was caught on tape confessing to sexual assault, the way Trump was. But then, I have some scruples.
Dan
I guess it's easier to snipe from afar, than to respond to the post in question. I note you ignore the multiple instances of liberals using FORCE or the THREAT OF FORCE to prevent (not Trump) speakers that they disagreed with from speaking at private events. I also have to note that you've chosen to misrepresent or ignore multiple points I've made in favor of this "It's all Trump's fault because he's such a bad evil meanie" load of crap.
One last note, I have to laugh at the fact that your "proof" seems to suggest that these "right wing" nuts are getting caught and stopped before they act. Not only are the left wing mobs not getting caught, they're barely getting prosecuted.
But, a little double standard or inconsistency has never bothered you.
Since when is "Right wing nuts/Trump do all sorts of unpleasant things" an excuse for others bad behavior?
Did not abandon any values whatsoever. Choosing the lesser of two evils, when one is clearly worse than the other is adhering to one's values, not abandoning them. I'm well aware that some of my conservative brethren don't feel that way, but it doesn't make it less true.
And again, the clip to which you refer does not indicate he's admitting to anything more than being a horndog who, like teenage boys, brag about that which never happens in reality, or embellishes what does...all in order to enhance their own legend.
But you, in your hatred, choose to regard the clip as an admission of actual actions he takes with regularity, because you need to demonize him as badly as possible...to discredit him before he is able to act as president...to distract from the many shortcomings of those you support (and who again was your choice? Allow me to rip that person to shreds with actual facts rather than cheap accusations).
I never gave Trump the benefit of the doubt. Hillary or Sanders would have been unmitigated disasters. The Libertarian and Green Party candidates were clowns, neither of which had any real chance of winning...especially against Hillary. My conscience is clear, as my vote helped to prevent the worst possible outcome. You don't have a conscience because you supported the worst possible outcome, and then dare to suggest you have scruples...which, by the way, don't include defending against sexual immorality or the unjustified killing of millions of unborn (which proves you are the picture of that which you are trying to defend against...that your words don't match your actions---like libs in general).
Art,
But it's only 0.00001% of conservatives who engage in these tiny groups or individual acts, it's not like it's thousands of people chanting that cops should be fried "like bacon" or something innocent like that.
Craig...
Since when is "Right wing nuts/Trump do all sorts of unpleasant things" an excuse for others bad behavior?
I don't know. I don't think it is. Who's making that argument?
Is this a case of you reading my words and finding conclusions that I didn't state, didn't imply and don't believe? That is, is this a case of you failing to understand correctly the meaning of words written by others?
Did not abandon any values whatsoever. Choosing the lesser of two evils, when one is clearly worse than the other is adhering to one's values, not abandoning them.
Well, that sounds like abandoning values to me.
For me, IF (for instance) Trump had run as a Democrat, it doesn't matter if he was running against Satan in the GOP party, I STILL would not have voted for Trump. Why? Because he's an atrocity, entirely counter to my values and I could not vote for the lesser of an actual two sets of evil. It would be abandoning my values to do so.
Thanks again for making my case for me, in your repeated defense of a perverted oppressor whose repeated actions and words run counter to traditional values on nearly every front of his whole perverted campaign. But if you can live with that level of perversity, good for you, I guess.
Just don't say you stand for traditional conservative values.
Also, I'm still curious:
Tell me, Marshall, if B Clinton had said just this one thing, would you give him even one ounce of benefit of doubt? Would conservatives at large?
Or would that ONE claim by him (if he had said what Trump boasted) be sufficient to be a deal breaker, just in and of itself?
~Dan
it's not like it's thousands of people chanting that cops should be fried "like bacon" or something innocent like that.
So, you haven't read the linked article or any data about the serious problem of right wing extremists who are plotting actual acts of deadly violence?
Stormfront, estimated 300,000 right wing extremist members.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/stormfront
There are some thousands of members of the KKK...
https://www.attn.com/stories/6255/how-big-kkk-is-2016
And there are hundreds of others of these white extremists and they're on the rise...
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2016/year-hate-and-extremism
These hundreds of thousands of extremists are out there spewing their hate and some times, it leads to the deaths, assaults and planned murders and assaults.
So yes, keep telling me how very troubling it is that "thousands" (source, please?) of liberals are engaged in vandalism.
Or, perhaps, like me, you can say, certainly, some few liberals should not be engaged in vandalism, BUT EVEN MORESO, conservatives need to stop spewing hate and encouraging and supporting the Dylann Roofs, Gianfortes, Jeremy Christians, etc, etc, etc, the many conservatives who are killing and assaulting. AND, you need to step up and demand that your leaders stop spewing the same hatred that gives support and encouragement to these killers.
It sounds like you're straining out the vandals and swallowing the killers, so perhaps you can see how many have concern about conservatives abandoning their moral values.
But I doubt it. I hope, though, one day.
~Dan
I guess you're straining our those who engage in violence and public threats of violence and swallowing a few folks who might be planning violence.
It's interesting that we've had this very discussion before and you chose to ignore multiple sources that demonstrated the opposite of your claim, and clearly plan on placing this one article above anything else as it simply buttresses your preconceptions.
The difference between us is that I can, have, and will continue to denounce any and all who engage in extreme behavior, you haven't yet and likely won't.
Clearly, I have. Repeatedly. That you are unable to read and understand my words is part of your problem, not an indication that I haven't.
Dan
Yes, you have 2 or 3 times included some tepid language to cover yourself, but you've not been nearly as forceful as with others.
Where are your forceful denunciations of right wing conservatives like the ones that are our biggest threats? Of the mainstream GOP types who say things that spur on and support these acts of deadly violence?
I guess I've missed those posts?
Dan
And do you truly find it odd that I denounce murder and assault (almost always the weapons of the Right, not Left) more strenuously than I do vandalism?
Dan
Yet, you've excused it. You can't even acknowledge, let alone denounce the actual assaults and threats of assaults when they come from your side. Again, a couple of mealy mouthed, throw away lines to cover your self, but "denounce" not the left. The fact that you minimize looting, burning, and destruction as "vandalism", makes my point.
I see no reason to continue here, when the actual thread that's gotten your panties in such a wad is still open for comments.
My last thought here is that (once again) you could lay all of this to rest by admitting, acknowledging and specifically denouncing those on your side who engage in violence. Yet, for some reason you just won't do it. I can only assume that it goes against your narrative that all the bad things happen on the "right" and your liberal panacea actually exists.
Re: yet you've excused it...
1. Of course, I quite literally have not.
2. Rather than assume that you're lying, I would guess this is another of the ever-increasing instances of you reading into my words something I have not said.
3. The irony is you appear to be asking me to do something you have not done.
4. If it helps, I'll repeat what I've said before: I'm generally opposed to violence as a solution to just about anything. SO (and follow me closely here), if someone asks if I'm opposed to Muslim terrorists, or Christian terrorists, killing civilians to make their point, YES! I'm opposed to violence.
If someone asks if I'm opposed to liberal or conservative protestors engaging in vandalism - the violent destruction of property, YES! I'm opposed to violence, including that. With the caveat that violence against property is not as objectionable as violence against people. Indeed, even Jesus engaged in "violence" against property, so, I give more leeway to vandalism than to the deadly violence of right wing or other extremists, which I say is always wrong...
Dan
And, Craig, if you're not going to answer my questions then by all means take your conversation elsewhere.
Dan
First, whilst attempting to peruse the linked article, which wasn't easy given advertisements obscuring the text, I wondered about the reliance on sources like the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose credibility is very highly questionable. Seems I wasn't the only one, as this blogger had the same concerns.
I then came upon this article that, while comparing "right-wingers" to islamists, poses a question that has occurred to me regarding how extremists come to be labeled "right-wing". For example, while the KKK is a product of the Democratic Party, the left now somehow refers to all white racists as "right-wing". The same is true of so-called "neo-Nazis", as if Nazis weren't socialists. And then there are those who attack abortionists and abortion centers. Somehow they are always supposedly conservative Christians simply because of who their targeted victims are.
(Just because, here are two more: here and this one from 2010.
So all of this was to provide some perspective that shows the suggestion that "right-wing" violence is somehow more pervasive is foolishness at best.
Now for that which directly specifically in response to my previous comments:
"Well, that sounds like abandoning values to me."
That's because you need it to in order to continue the charade of moral superiority. But what you refuse to admit is that non-action is action, particularly in the case of choosing between the two flawed candidates, either of whom will become president. As bad as they both were (and are), they are not identical and as such will not bring about harm to the same degree (assuming they will both bring harm). As one who insists morality is based on "do no harm", logic would dictate that holding to that value would compel you to choose the flawed candidate likely to do less harm than the other. By refusing to choose, you risk the greater evil claiming victory and the most harm befalling the nation. I prefer, and feel it is my duty, to choose the person who will do less harm rather than more. That aligns with my values to the extent that my values can be implemented at all. My values have a definite progression of best to worst possible outcomes. I begin with no harm and in cases where "no harm" cannot be achieved, I do with the next best possibility of least harm. The same is true with evil. Where I cannot choose between evil and no evil, but have only evil and less evil to choose between, I choose less evil so that evil cannot do more harm.
But you refuse to choose in a false stance of morality. "Behold I reject harm of any degree!" But by not choosing, harm comes anyway and should there be not enough like me, and too many like you, the worst harm is more likely to befall us. Your self-satisfying refusal welcomes the worst harm to befall your fellow citizens, while my hard choosing works to mitigate harm to its least effective representative.
"For me, IF (for instance) Trump had run as a Democrat, it doesn't matter if he was running against Satan in the GOP party, I STILL would not have voted for Trump. Why?"
Because you're an idiot who is more concerned with how others perceive you than the reality of how your conceit manifests. It doesn't matter what letter follows Trump's name. It matters what policies he intends to try to implement versus that of his opponent in the election. What's more, you couldn't make a case that his lecherous nature has or will impact the policies that he intends to implement (unless he intends to force us to grab female crotch under penalty of arrest). Thus far, I've seen no indication that his high school attitudes about sex and women have had any manifestation in the job he's done and intends to do. Do you? In the meantime, we don't have Hillary further destroying the nation as Obama has done.
continued...
"Just don't say you stand for traditional conservative values"
But I do, and thus will continue to say it. My vote for Trump proves it, even though he is not the perfect representation of conservative values. This is what you purposely lie about. YOU insist that I can only have Jesus Christ on the ballot in order to avoid the risk of being accused as you accuse me now. It doesn't work that way. Honest and honorable people know that sometimes one must take the best possible option or risk the worst possible result. I won't risk the worst possible result in order to proclaim that I didn't dirty my hands for voting for a guy who isn't the perfect reflection of conservatism. Not when the perfect example of all that's wrong with America stands to win the presidency! Not when the doubling down of all the Obama did wrong is the likely outcome.
The truth is you simply wish to demonize. Trump provides the ammo to do so. But it's a lie you tell with joy and eagerness. The reality is that this bad actor was the best choice available. Not supporting the best choice is to support the worst outcome. You did that and pat yourself on the back as if you've done the nation good. In doing so you again validate the claim that the left says one thing while you actions result in the opposite.
"Tell me, Marshall, if B Clinton had said just this one thing, would you give him even one ounce of benefit of doubt?"
This presumes that I gave Trump the benefit of the doubt, whatever that's supposed to mean. I have to assume you mean that I ignored the incident, minimized it's craven quality, pretended it was meaningless in order to vote for him. That's idiotic. When you can find me the perfect candidate, let me know...but again, I don't see Jesus Christ running for office any time soon.
I wanted Ted Cruz for president, but I would never have suggested that he is without flaw. There is no such candidate available ever. With every vote we set aside such things when faced with the possibility that a greater of two imperfect people might win. But you're expecting that some ambiguous line of demarcation must be observed which, when presented with a person who is too imperfect by YOUR standards, the line is crossed if such a person got our votes. The reality here is that you simply preferred that no one vote for the GOP candidate. It wouldn't matter to you if the person was a perfect Christian because to you, conservatism is antithetical to your twisted understanding of Christianity. But Trump being terribly flawed (in a manner that makes you a hypocrite given your support of sexual immorality) simply provides for you, in your mind, a legitimate excuse to feign outrage.
No, Marshall. I would do it because when you choose a lesser of two literal evils, you are still choosing/voting for/endorsing evil.
I would not do this and do not encourage anyone else to do it.
So, literally speaking, by you opting to choose evil (even if it is a lesser evil), you are literally abandoning your values.
Consider: "We're here in a room and there are two evil dudes in here. One plans to rape a woman and one plans to rape a baby. You can only vote for one of these two despots. Who do you vote for? The man who's going to rape the woman or the one who'll rape the baby?"
Now, if you choose to vote for one of those, you are literally abandoning your values and voting for an evil.
I do not choose to do that. There are other options and we MUST fight against evil, even if it's a losing battle. That means NOT choosing evil A or evil B. It means choosing Good Z.
Or at least for me.
As for me and my house, we will not vote for evil. Even if we perceive it to be a lesser evil.
~Dan
Absurd, and like others, even amongst my conservative brethren, there is no "not choosing evil" by not choosing between two. Your non-action is a choice, and the evil that remains is of your choosing by not choosing the other. That is, you let the evil that wins exist, while I helped to prevent the greater evil from succeeding. The benefit here is not merely less suffering should no further action be taken, but that the lesser evil is arguably easier to control and guide toward goodness than would have been the greater of the two. Whether that actually happens is irrelevant to the choosing as we cannot predict the future with absolute confidence.
Also of more and greater relevance is that if we're simply dealing with two who are varying degrees of sexual immorality, or different forms of evil with equally irrelevant impact on the nation (one can hate black people, for instance, but never endorse racist policies. As such, his evil has no impact, regardless of whether or not I would prefer him in the White House...I wouldn't). As such, the evil which concerns me as a voter is that which manifests in their policies. There were two scumbags with a legitimate chance of winning. One supported all sorts of policies and promises that are bad for the nation. The other supported some, if not many things that are good for the nation. I see that which harms the nation as an evil I cannot allow. Thus, the evil that might only manifest in Trump's personal life, but will not impact or influence his policy decisions, and thus the nation, is of no concern to me versus the bad that Hillary surely would have wrought.
With this in mind, not only is Trump's character flaws less problematic than Hillary's, his policies which impact the nation are even less so than Hillary's. Had I not voted because Trump's not the type of man I'd prefer for president, I could not have voted for Hillary. Thus, even if I had voted for a third party or write in, the actual and tangible result of my choice is that Hillary stands a better chance of winning. Had she won in that situation, I would have helped by not voting for the only candidate with an actual chance of beating her. I would have been been complicit in all the evil she would have perpetrated upon the nation through her leftist policies. It would have been the same had Sanders beat her out for the Dem nomination. The same dynamic would have existed without the Clinton level personal baggage.
Some say, Trust in God. I do not believe that means sit out elections and hope for the best. I believe God works through us, and allowing the greater of two evil prevail means we're hastening our own destruction and thus responsible for it. We may as well support the policies of the greater evil because by doing nothing, we invite the greater evil to succeed. Your conscience doesn't exist if you think it is clear.
YOUR problem, among so many others, is that you think that voting for Trump actually means promoting all the bad things he's done in his life, including those things you like to believe he actually did but never did. That's nonsense. For as I said, there are no perfect candidates...no Jesus Christ running for comptroller. All have sinned and by your logic, every vote we cast is our personal promotion of every sin the candidate of choice has ever committed. It's absurd.
BTW...your newest bad analogy suggest I have no choice but to choose. Indeed, you say I can only vote for one or the other, not that I can choose not to vote. So, I vote for the baby. Let the woman be raped. I'm not abandoning my values as my values clearly see raping the baby to be worse than raping the woman. It doesn't mean raping the woman is OK, but only that between the two it is less objectionable and less likely to do damage that can't be overcome.
So you and your house, assuming everyone in your house is bound to live by your so-called standards, are choosing evil regardless of whether or not you choose between the greater and lesser. It can't be helped.
Thanks Dan for excusing those on your side who engage in violence after your protest that you don't.
If you have questions about the original post ask them there.
I said I'm not investing significant time here when the original post is still active.
Art,
One way to look at it is that of the two flawed candidates, Trumps flaws were more "private" in that they don't deal directly with his fulfilling the official duties of the office. Hillary's flaws were much more directly related to her official duties and therefore more concerning.
Given the "Clinton Standard", that private sexual behavior doesn't have any bearing on ones ability to engage in the official duties of the office, then Trump's flaws "should" be excused as Bill's were.
But that would require consistency on the part of the Trump haters.
FYI, this is one reason why I didn't vote for either of them.
My God
Dan
Dan claims to not have supported Bill Clinton once he learned of his personal behavior. If that it true, then at least he is consistent in his attacks on Trump. As I continue to insist is true, not acting to prevent the greater evil from winning, as she surely would have were it not for all those who voted for Trump, is to choose that greater evil. It is a conscious decision with its own seriously negative consequences. The lecher, therefore, was the moral choice. It is from that point that I trust that God will prevail, as He works through a sinful man who at least promoted some good policies. She promoted no good policies. I don't believe God would ignore the intentions behind my decision simply because it involved voting for a lecher. There are no candidates who are not possessed of a sin nature, who are not guilty of having been in breech of God's Law to one extent or another. To pretend otherwise is folly.
Dan, if you really have a specific questions for me that you want answered, let me know and as usual I will answer them.
I want to go back to an earlier comment from Dan about sexual predators and that I don't know shit about them. Again, Trump's words on that video clip do not confirm he's an actual predator, unless you're defining the word very broadly (no pun intended). The radical feminist would insist even husbands are predators. But honest people see it as forcing one's self on a woman even after she protests in no uncertain terms. And while some, like Hillary Clinton, insist we should defer first to the woman who claims to be a victim of a predator (unless the predator is Bill Clinton, of course---those women are bimbos), we've seen too many case where there was no actual predatory behavior on the part of the man to consider the case closed. (I say this to put the focus purely on the video Dan believes is an admission of vile, rapist behavior rather than self-promoting bragging)
When I was in my teens, I worked as a busboy in a banquet department of a restaurant attached to what is now called the Arlington International Racetrack. There were three men who ran the department, plus one general manager type, all of whom had designs on the waitresses. I think it was the goal of most of them to see how many they could bed. Some of the waitresses, for whatever reason, were open to their advances. Others were not. Of those who were not, their desire to be left alone were not completely respected, but the advances never went to extremes. Yet, of that faction of women, they each (pretty much) had varying degrees of revulsion depending upon which man was doing the flirting. There was one man in particular who could be extremely blunt, even coarse, but had a way of doing it that did not give particular offense, even by these women who preferred to be left alone. They found him amusing (he was). The other men never got away with saying the same things this one fellow did routinely.
By today's standards, I would not be surprised if you would list them all as predators. It was all about gettin' some. But I never heard any of these guys accused of rape or anything close to it (by the actual definition of the word, not the ridiculously broad definition used by feminists).
I think Trump is likely more like these guys, maybe even like the one who could say anything and like the guy who could say anything, perhaps indeed because of his wealth and celebrity, is not rebuked in the strongest possible terms. No predator. Just a lecher. I have never seen any evidence that actually suggests anything worse to honest and objective observers. Go find another one and see what he says.
Consider commenting on what you think about Stan's blog of June 5, regarding how to read Genesis.
~ Hiram
Hiram,
I guess I have to wonder why you would ask people to make off topic comments here, when there's no reason why you can't comment at Stan's and ask him your questions.
I don't want to speak for Dan, but I believe that Dan would argue quite emphatically that, in his opinion, Genesis (much of the OT) is myth.
I would agree with Stan in that I've seen no compelling evidence, data, or facts that would cause me to disagree with 2000 plus years of Christian and Jewish understanding. In cases like this I believe that the onus is on the side challenging the status quo to demonstrate that their position is supported well enough to reach a different conclusion. Given the fact that I've not been shown any objective data to support the "myth" opinion, I don't find it compelling. However, objective evidence could persuade me if it was presented.
Re: why not ask Stan...? I don't know what Hiram's answer is, but I suspect...
1. Because sometimes Stan opts not to address questions raised. And
2. Sometimes (often, some would say), even when he addresses questions, he does not answer them.
Dan
I guess those are some excuses for Hiram not even attempting to ask questions at Stan's. If he never asks, he'll never know. But I get how strange it is to go to the source for answers.
In this case, I think saying that you disagree with Stan is a safe bet.
How do you know he hasn't asked the questions? ...and that Stan has opted to not post them?
Beyond that, rather than putting down a complete stranger (talking down to him, saying "how strange it is to go to the source for answers...), I would take Hiram at his word. That is, I would assume that Hiram is curious as to MY opinions on the questions STAN raised. And you know why I think that?
Because Hiram said, "Consider commenting on what you think about Stan's blog of June 5, regarding how to read Genesis."
Like me, Hiram comes from a conservative background. Perhaps he has a good idea what Stan's answers (or non-answers) are and he's just curious as to my opinion on this topic. Is that not a reasonable thing to ask about, if he's so inclined?
~Dan
Hiram, I'll try to answer that at some point. I imagine you have an idea of what I might say (and it's not "I would argue quite emphatically, Genesis AND MUCH OF THE OT, is myth...")
In short, of course, Stan is welcome to his opinions about the topic. My concerns would fall around his suggestion that his opinion is not his opinion, but just "what the Bible says..." and that he errs in his attempt to describe what progressive types and other non-evangelicals believe about Genesis and thus engages in the logical fallacy of beating down straw man arguments.
~Dan
I don't know beyond not ever seeing comments from Hiram at Stan's. As far as him asking what you think, I'd guess it's pretty obvious what your opinion is, so it seems strange that anyone would ask. Of course, I'm not putting down anyone, just wondering why the off topic request about a topic where your views are known.
I'm intrigued that you've changed your mind about Genesis being myth. I guess this also helps give you a reason not to respond to Bubba also. It's a win/win.
re: "your views are known..."
Apparently not. You did not know that I do not consider the evidence shows that all of Genesis is mythic. To that end, re: "You've changed your mind..."
Nope. I have literally never made a claim that I think all of Genesis is mythic. Hasn't happened.
What I have said is, where Stan makes an unsupported claim that (IN HIS OPINION, although he doesn't say so) all of Genesis is written in an historic narrative style, I think (and many literary scholars agree) that Genesis appears to be written in several styles, from various human hands. The early part of Genesis literally reads in a mythic style (ie, in a style that is similar to other myths, especially from that time period). Other parts of Genesis, I have said, read more like legend or epic genres. I've noted in the past that just because Genesis comes from a time prior to the era of modern history telling and appears on the face of it to be told in these figurative styles, does not perforce mean that the stories are not based on reality at any level.
Epic and legend stories can be told based in part on real people and events. It's just that they're not told with a modern eye towards scientific/factual/linear history. They're products of their time and, as such, can be partly based on real people and events, but also with some embellishments. This is another area in which I think Stan's argument is missing a basis in reality as to what our arguments actually are.
~Dan
Ok, if that makes you happy, great. You are simply making a semantic argument (myth v. legend, v. epic styles), while still arguing that Genesis is anything but historical. I understand that you throw out (based on real...), but the essence of your argument is that Genesis is not history. If semantics is really what you want to hang your hat on, go for it.
You are simply making a semantic argument ...
Except I'm not. Genre matters. That's fundamental to literary understanding of any texts.
while still arguing that Genesis is anything but historical
Except I'm not. Genesis is written in the styles they told history in that time period. Clearly, some of the people, places and stories have at least some factual historicity to them.
Clearly, the Israeli people ARE a people who came from some place. I have no reason to doubt the factual historicity of such characters as Moses, Abraham or Joseph, nor do I feel a need to insist upon their historicity. Stories just weren't told in ancient cultures as they are now. It is modern hubris and chauvinism to insist that ancient peoples must have told history in our way and a bit specious to insist that all ancient people did not tell history as we do... except for those involved in compiling the Bible.
The essence of my argument is and has been specifically that we have no rational or biblical reason to insist upon the notion that Genesis (or the rest of the OT) is told in a modern historical narrative style.
It's not semantics. It's the specifics of what I'm actually saying. And points that you seem to still not understand. Hopefully this clarification helps with that.
~Dan
As I just tried to say, I'm not going to impede you any further, you've got an amazing opportunity to demonstrate that both Stan and Bubba are wrong by simply providing some of the apparently vast amount of objective fact and data at your disposal. It's been amusing, but I don't want to stand in the way of more serious pursuits.
Craig, the thing is, I suspect we agree upon the principle. I don't know how many ancient documents telling ancient stories there are, but let's say there are 100. We almost certainly agree that 99 of those stories/collections are NOT told in an historic style, in the modern sense of factually accurate history.
Now, your side (formerly my position, until I could no longer reconcile it with the Bible or reason) says that ONE of those texts - the Bible - is unique in that it is told in the modern history style that everywhere else appears to start showing up closer to 500 BC - 500 AD. I'm fine with you all believing that.
But, if you want to insist that this one text is uniquely told in a modern style, then the onus is on your side to offer some evidence of it. ANY evidence. But merely citing "Well, Jesus mentions Adam, therefore, he was attesting to Adam's factual historicity and a literal understanding of Genesis creation stories..." or "If we don't accept a literal history, then everything we believe is undone..." are not rationally compelling stories.
The onus is on your side to make your case IF you want others to accept it, seems to me. And many others.
~Dan
In fact, I would consider the Scriptures to be unique. That view is completely consistent with virtually the entirety of Church history.
For some reason you seem to think that the dominant historical view needs to be justified, while this new novel interpretation doesn't.
I'll simply reiterate.
You have the golden opportunity to prove your opinion is correct and prove Stan wrong. All you lack is providing objective facts and actual factual data. If there is so much out there, then your task should be easy. Which makes me wonder why you don't/haven't done so.
You also have the opportunity to decisively demonstrate that Bubba is wrong as well.
You could, engage the substance of multiple posts at my blog.
Or, you could provide Hiram the explanation he wants.
Instead, you decided to argue about the distinction without a difference between myth, legend, and epic styles. The fact is that you can't demonstrate your hunch to even the tiniest degree of objective standards and all you hang your hat on is "it sounds like". As I told Hiram, I'm willing that examine any actual objective, scholarly, evidence if any is ever offered.
In my youth I was surrounded by authority figures who were cut from the same theological cloth as Stan, so if I ask Stan questions, I would expect his answers to be ones I've heard numerous times before. That's the primary reason I bring questions here to Dan's page-- to get a fresh (to me) perspective on Christianity.
Thanks all.
~ Hiram
Dan:
The claim that Genesis seems written in a "mythic style" isn't very substantive and isn't at all persuasive in the absence of details about the text.
I could claim that Fido is a cat because he has "feline characteristics," but no one else can evaluate that claim unless I go into details: maybe I mean Fido cleans himself with his paws and buries his scat (characteristics that ARE fairly distinctive cats), or maybe I mean Fido just walks on all fours and likes to eat meat.
There are other religious texts that have a creation narrative and a flood story, but that doesn't prove anything, since (in the absence of an a priori bias against the miraculous) it's possible that Jewish Scripture has the trustworthy account of astounding BUT HISTORICAL events that the writers of other religious scriptures distorted, either accidentally because of transmission errors or deliberately for polemical purposes (or both).
...or if those other competing, supernatural accounts makes (the first part of) Genesis mythical, you'd still have to explain why you accept Luke as historical, since the fragmentary remains of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter also includes the Resurrection, but has the angels and Jesus becoming giants as they walk out of the tomb.
It's not the least bit clear that your position on the Bible's historicity is the result of a careful, well-reasoned, unbiased approach to the text. Your arguments come across as post-hoc rationalizations, and you seem unwilling to go into details because you know your arguments wouldn't hold up to close scrutiny.
Your writing isn't clear, it isn't even consistent, because one big question is why exactly you distinguish between Genesis (or the first part of Genesis) and the rest of the narrative of events relayed in the Bible.
As I've said before, the angelic appearances and miraculous births in Genesis are no more astounding than the angelic appearances and miraculous births in Luke, but it seems you treat the latter as reliable history.
Likewise, the deluge in Genesis 7 is astounding, but so too are the plagues and the parting of the sea in Exodus, Elijah calling down fire in I Kings (after the life of David), and Daniel's friends surviving the fiery furnace unscathed (during the Babylonian exile). If the date is important, it appears that the entire canon was essentially complete by the fifth century BC before the supposed emergence of the genre of modern history.
And I'll reiterate that that dating is due to texts that focus on human activity and naturalistic events in the absence of miraculous acts of one or more deities.
You say, "It is modern hubris and chauvinism to insist that ancient peoples must have told history in our way," but it is also hubris to insist that they must NOT have been scrupulous about historical accuracy because their stories include miracles.
And you tell us what "many" scholars agree upon, but it's not as if you care about the broad, historic consensus regarding the Biblical conception of marriage as the union of man and woman -- and when it suits you, you have no problem questioning authority, so this particular appeal to authority comes across as self-serving.
On the one hand, you try to distinguish the early part of Genesis from everything else, but then you say "we have no rational or biblical reason to insist upon the notion that Genesis (or the rest of the OT) is told in a modern historical narrative style." [emphasis mine]
You're clear as mud, Dan.
And, Dan, you DO seem to have time to write, so I would appreciate a timely and substantive response to my arguments and questions in the prior thread.
In the meantime, I'd like to point out the following:
"The early part of Genesis literally reads in a mythic style (ie, in a style that is similar to other myths, especially from that time period)."
Texts do not read, and they certainly do not "literally" read.
Just as a text does not teach, a text does not read.
Hiram,
Thanks
Dan
I just noticed something you said several days ago about what we agree on. The reason why we don't agree is that you're focused on the literary style and not on the substance of what's being communicated. You're making determinations about the truth or accuracy of the content of the information based on your perception of the limitations imposed by the style.
Craig, before one can assess meaning/substance, one needs to try to determine genre/style/the actual text.
I could try all day to glean some scientific meaning out of Winnie the Pooh stories, but until I first realize that it's a piece of children's fiction (and not a scientific treatise, for instance), then any scientific conclusions I might reach would be just silly. Can you imagine?
"My goodness! I had no ideas that bears could talk or that they were so, well, lacking in intellectual depth! And who knew how depressed donkeys were? Is Eyeore's depression typical for donkeys or is it isolated to him? This bears more research. When's the next Pooh research paper coming out?!"
Do you see how one must determine matters such as genre, writing style and tools, etc before one can meaningfully reach conclusions on the subject.
In other words, I strive to determine genre BECAUSE I wish to understand the substance, not instead of.
Understand?
Bubba, some questions are easier to deal with than others. (This response to Craig being a perfect example). I will get back to your comments on the other post as I have time. If you don't like my timing, well, I'm sorry, you don't get to dictate to me when I do and don't respond. I hope you can appreciate that.
I didn't pressure you to be faster with your response when you've taken time to respond, I expect the same respect.
~Dan
Dan,
Unfortunately, your biases get in the way on this one. The style of the writing does not dictate the accuracy of the information presented. For example, it is clearly possible to present accurate history in poetry for example.
In this case, I believe that my point stands, in that you are so focused on the literary style, you show minimal interest in the accuracy of the information being communicated. Clearly identifying literary style is one part of the process, but style does not dictate or limit the accuracy or truthfulness of the information being communicated.
Again, if responding to my comments is in any way preventing you from providing a substantial and complete response to Bubba, then by all means, respond to Bubba. He's posed numerous and significant questions and made many excellent points that you've not dealt with, so please, go for that.
Dan:
I look forward to your timely response, and I hope you can understand why I'm somewhat impatient in waiting.
--
For one thing, I don't understand what makes my question more difficult than Craig's: it is surely easier to address the clarity of three short passages than it is to argue about the supposed changes of genre within the Old Testament in general, within the Torah in particular, and especially within the single book of Genesis.
It seems to me the only real difficulty in our discussion is that I'm insisting you move from glib assertions to to an actual examination of the texts in question.
I have stated that, in Luke 1:34, Mary doesn't use the Greek word parthenos which (it is claimed) can also be translated as "young woman" rather than "virgin;" instead, the verse uses an umistakable euphemism for coitus, with Mary saying that she "does not know a man."
- Am I right? It's a trivially easy task to check the Greek words found in the text.
- If I *am* right -- and I am -- is there any reason to dismiss the claim as irrelevant or to otherwise mitigate the claim in reasserting the text's fundamental ambiguity?
- If there's no reason to dismiss my point, what should an honest and humble person do in response to a newly discovered truth that obliterates his previously held belief that the text is ambiguous?
I don't think these are hard questions in the least, and so I think your delay suggests less that you CANNOT answer, and more that you simply do not WANT to answer.
--
Beyond that, our conversation in the previous thread includes the very topic you're now discussing here, namely the concept of treating Genesis as myth.
As I wrote on May 25th, I do not believe the distinction you're making between Genesis and Luke can withstand "any sort of close scrutiny."
Your substantive responses in that thread pretty much dried up on that very day, and the following week you published this new post, and now you'd have me believe that there's nothing fishy about your discussing Genesis-as-myth here, with Craig, while putting off discussing THE VERY SAME TOPIC in the previous thread, with me.
--
I'd dispute the claim that you've never been pushy about quick responses, but you're right that I'm being insistent.
But it's now been more than two weeks since you've produced a substantive reply to me in that other thread, other than re-asking questions that I had already answered -- and going on to re-ask your second question without so much as acknowledging the first question and my answer to it.
And, going by your input in this thread, it's clear you have plenty of time to read and write online.
I don't think I'm unjustified in wondering what the hold-up is, and I wonder whether you think your delay demonstrates the grace and courtesy and humility that you so frequently uphold -- and just how far you think others should trust that you're acting in good faith, in the teeth of mounting evidence to the contrary.
All that said, I do look forward to your continuing our discussion in the very near future.
The trouble, Bubba, is that you have now written many paragraphs on several topics and finding a place to take a bite of and dealing with takes more effort and time than merely responding to a one paragraph comment or question. I'm more often on my phone than at my computer and I really need to be at the computer to thoroughly read what you're writing, asking, seeing if and how it relates to what I've said, etc. So again, be patient or go sit on a fork, I don't care.
Dan
That's a criticism I've already addressed, Dan.
- If I write brief sentences ("the Bible is clear"), you draw conclusions about my position that I find absurd.
- If I write longer sentences ("the Bible is clear beyond reasonable, good-faith disagreement"), you excerpt one part to ask questions that the other, omitted part actually addresses.
- And if I write at even greater length, you ask questions that were answered by what I wrote, as if I wrote nothing at all -- and now you act as if I write too much for you to possibly comprehend.
Instead of continuing to try to justify your lack of response, you could be spending your time and energy rectifying that lack of response.
In my last comment in that prior thread, I made myself abundantly and emphatically clear: If you have time to only address one thing, I'd prefer it be Luke 1:34.
Limit yourself to that last comment and (if you would) the comment immediately prior to it. It's a simple enough subject that you should be able to provide a substantive response in a legitimately timely manner.
You can go a long way to persuading me that an unlimited range of disagreements are possible even among reasonable people acting in good faith, by demonstrating that you're a reasonable person acting in good faith.
I just saw this item on a new discovery of a bird in amber--
https://www.yahoo.com/news/99-million-old-bird-fossil-153525133.html
Stan's June 5 blog emphasizes that if he ever becomes convinced that our biosphere got this way through evolution, he is going to drop the Bible like a hot rock.
Should Stan be praying that God will stop allowing things to be unearthed which can be taken to point toward old-earth evolution?
Because one fossil of a fully developed species is all that the Darwinian naturalists needed to completely confirm their position beyond any doubt.
But, if you want to talk bird fossils instead of respond to Bubba, you go right ahead.
Once again, Dan sides with the anti-theism crowd against the theists. No wonder you e spent so much time arguing against Bubba's assertion.
Craig, that I "side with" those who affirm what the scientific data shows - including HUGE numbers of theists - is not a sign that I'm siding against theists. That I disagree with your group is not the same as disagreeing with God or God's people. Your group is a subgroup of believers in God, not the whole group. You should not conflate your side with the one and only one on God's side.
Bubba, thanks for the offer to deal with the one question, I shall when I have time on the computer. But pointing that out does not magically change the reality that I still have not had time to sit at the computer and actually respond to it.
Again, if you can't wait til I have time, well, sorry, you'll just have to get over it.
~Dan
I've pointed this out a few times before:
In order to derive general principles from specific observations, scientists *MUST* assume that the universe is a closed system governed by uniform laws, at all times and at all places. This assumption can NEVER be proven: it is an underlying premise of the scientific method, and so it is itself beyond the reach of what that method can prove. While Christians can and do believe that the cosmos is GENERALLY governed by uniform laws, we must also leave room for the occurrence of the miraculous, that is, supernatural interverntions that result in a temporary and localized suspension of those laws.
Indeed, a dogmatic belief that the findings of science are always reliable -- and that therefore the underlying assumptions of science are true and trustworthy -- doesn't preclude every form of theism. It certainly allows for the deist's belief in a cosmic watchmaker who set the universe in motion but then left it completely alone, to run its inevitable course based on its starting conditions and its governing physical laws.
What it most certainly DOES NOT allow is the belief in Yahweh, the God who has revealed Himself to man and has raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.
After all, "the scientific data shows" that a human being could not possibly survive being scourged, crucified, and impaled evidently through the heart and a lung; that a person who could survive some portion of what Jesus endured on Good Friday could not possibly enjoy a seven-mile hike the next Sunday; and that (as a form of entropy) death is an irreversible process.
Never mind facing down the threat of physical torture and martyrdom: I get the distinct impression that Dan wouldn't firmly and unambiguously stand behind the bodily resurrection of Jesus if it meant bearing the stigma of being anti-science.
--
Dan, I genuinely appreciate the reply and the reassurance.
I do understand that we all have other commitments, so as I have in the past, I will be as patient as possible, but I do hope that you do not abuse that patience in order to put off the discussion and perhaps get away with having it die from neglect.
"I like reading conservative Christian commentary. Call me crazy, but I do. It helps me to think through positions and invariably raises questions."
I would like to believe that, and so I look forward to your giving a substantive response in as timely a manner as circumstances permit.
Until then...
The philosophical and methodological naturalism that has taken over much of the scientific establishment completely excludes theism. As opposed to the foundation of modern science which was predicted on an orderly universe, created by God, which allowed the scientific method to be applied in many areas.
But please, keep this up.
BTW, how many of the hundreds killer since the beginning of Ramadan or over the last few years in places like Chicago have come at the hands of these alleged white conservative "threats"?
Bubba,
Of course science isn't quite so sacred when it comes to things like gender and biology and such.
Bubba...
a dogmatic belief that the findings of science are always reliable
This isn't science. Science holds that data that can be tested, retested and the findings consistently supported is reliable until such time as other data demonstrates a need to change an opinion. And indeed, if group A tests a chemical and finds it is hazardous to human life in quantities larger than X, and other groups can perform the same tests and get the same results, over and over - regardless of biases or religious views or whatever - then that data IS reliable, wouldn't you agree? And we can count on that reliability until such time as other data disproves it, at which point scientists gladly accept the new findings.
It's all about data and whether or not it can be reliably proven and replicated by others.
If you think that we SHOULDN'T trust data that has been tested and re-tested, the onus is on you to demonstrate why not, and saying, "Because I don't think God thinks it is the case..." is not sufficient to support reconsideration.
Bubba...
it most certainly DOES NOT allow is the belief in Yahweh, the God who has revealed Himself to man and has raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.
Of course, science does not speak out about what it can't prove or disprove. So, science is not hostile to "belief in Yahweh," although some scientists may say that they find data lacking to believe in a risen Jesus or a 6,000 year old world, and that is the place for scientists to reasonably stand. But they are not "hostile" to it. They just may say, "I see no data for a 6,000 year old world, a risen Jesus or purple unicorns..." and if you want to insist that others MUST accept any of these, the onus is on you to support it.
But indeed, many scientists say that there is sufficient data to accept the possibility of a risen Jesus, it's just that it can't be proven as a known fact.
~Dan
The philosophical and methodological naturalism that has taken over much of the scientific establishment completely excludes theism.
Define "taken over." There are, of course, scientists who accept science and yet, who are theists. Liberal, conservative and in between.
My point stands, that some people disagree with your hunches does not mean that scientists can't be theists or that I am siding with anti-theists, when the reality is that I'm siding with some anti-theists and some theists.
Just noting reality, what the data actually says.
~Dan
So, what exactly is the "data that can be tested and retested" that consistently and reliably support a naturalistic presupposition? Where is the "data that can be tested and retested" that overwhelmingly demands that Darwinian theory accurately reflects the truth?
I'd suggest that when those in positions of power within the scientific community commit to limits based on preconceived notions is taking over. I'd suggest that when there are organizations that define evolution in ways that exclude theism, that's taking over.
In this case, it seems that the data shows that you're more interested in having this digression, than in answering Bubba's question. Even after he shrunk it down to ONE question, you still manage to head down this off topic rabbit hole.
You'll have to take those questions up with a scientist, I'm not one. I just recognize what most scientists have said and have no reason to think, "Well, most scientists think A, but these theologians think NOT A, therefore, I should go with the theologians..."
~Dan
I'm confused, you're "just noting what the data says", yet when pressed for this data you're "noting" you offer "I'm not a scientist".
I guess "I don't have time to comment" means "I only have time to comment on off topic digressions".
In this case, all I can do is look at the data and draw conclusions from that data.
It'd probably be too much to ask to see the data to back up your claims about what "most" scientists or "most" theologians believe.
No, Craig, I will pass on demonstrating to you that most scientists, for instance, think that a 6,000 year old earth is not supported by the data. Or that the earth was created in six literal days. Or that the earth was once totally covered in water that magically disappeared.
As you note, it's not the topic of the post, for one thing, and for another, it's rather obvious.
I am curious, though: Do you actually think there's a chance that most scientists DO disagree fundamentally about these three things? Do you think you can actually provide data that says most scientists DON'T agree on these three ideas?
~Dan
I'm impressed by your insistence on changing the subject.
The problems you have here are yours alone. Your first problem is that when you misrepresent what I've said in an attempt to avoid providing the data you claim you've been "noting". Your second is that you've introduced this off topic digression, now you want to try to blame that on others. Your third is what the data in this thread shows.
I look at data, I reach a conclusion.
Part of your problem is "I will pass on demonstrating to you", is a pattern. For example you say something is "demonstrable", yet won't demonstrate when asked. So for you to say that you won't demonstrate something is for you to act as expected.
Craig, I will ask you what seems like a reasonable question to me:
IF someone were doubting you when you said that unicorns can't fly... indeed, that there is no evidence for unicorns of any sort and scientists are united in agreeing upon this, if they went on to demand that you demonstrate to you with data that scientists do in fact agree with your point, would you bother doing so?
It is, of course, demonstrable that scientists are probably united in their doubt in the existence of unicorns, but it would probably require setting up a survey and a good bit of work to prove it. That does not mean it isn't demonstrable, it just means that it's not worth the effort to demonstrate it.
Do you disagree?
Do you really think that scientists by and large disagree with the points I'm making?
~Dan
And you continue to avoid demonstrating what you say you can demonstrate.
But I'm impressed, you've taken this thread off topic into ancient birds and non existent animals. It's an interesting move.
Oh, FYI, if your going to ignore the claims I've actually made in favor of things I've never said, at least be willing to admit it.
Craig, I have no idea what you are speaking about. The only one to bring up ancient birds is you. And I brought up unicorns to give you an analogy to help you understand and make your case or understand my point.
You continue to ignore questions that would help further the conversations and appear to be showing up to just snipe and criticize in unhelpful ways.
Helpful criticisms are always welcome. Mindless sniping can just go away.
Which will it be?
~Dan
Really, I was the one that posted the link to the ancient bird? Really? Do you just randomly post stuff then pretend you didn't?
I get the desire to move the conversation away from areas where things aren't going your way, but to try to deny the reality that all you've got is ancient birds and unicorns is simply denying reality.
If there are questions specifically directed to me that I've missed let me know.
Mostly it's just enjoyable watching this play out.
Oh, I at least see what you're speaking about regarding the bird. That was from an anonymous person (perhaps Hiram), not me. A reasonable mistake. No harm, no foul.
The rest, not so much.
~Dan
I forgot to end my bird link comment with my name. Sorry for the confusion.
~ Hiram
Sorry, when I see anonymous I assume Dan, I apologize.
Threats from the right are what we should be concerned about?
Post a Comment