“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#569013 Dec 3, 2012
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
How should I know? Why should I care what people call themselves?
You said that there a very, very few homosexuals and the vast majority (you said cast majority. I fixed it for ya) of them are bisexual. That's where you're clueless. That's like saying the vast majority of men are women or the vast majority of trucks are motorcycles. Homosexuals are not bisexual.
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...
Women who call themselves lesbians are suffering from extreme hypocrisy.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#569014 Dec 3, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Really? If you lived in the U.S. you would learn how, quick enough.
So you've never heard of the new Black Panthers?
FBI agents have done interrogations and interviews with thousands of criminals here in America and many of the black convicts admitted when asked why/how they chose their victims that they had actively sought out a white citizen to assault. Does this satisfy your curiosity?
BTW, the BBC does show integrated tv programming contradicting your claim of them only showing "white" actors. I watched a BBC series called 'Survivors' a couple months ago that had more than one ethnic group represented in it; African, Arab and Caucasian to name 3. The Dr. Who program does the same and their movies like 28 Days Later and Children of Men.
You like to exaggerate, much like every other racist does.
True, those shows are very ethnically diverse.
Also don't forget about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#569015 Dec 3, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
All this time you've been talking about "damage" the church has caused you.
Nope. That's what you keep talking about. I talk about the damage the church does to the nation. The three link I provided you that you refused to read because they were on another thread each considered a different way that Christian antiscientism damages America and Americans.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The only negative impact that I can see about your boss deciding to have bibles in the exam rooms is that the patients might assume you like having the bibles there. Where's the damage?
It's a little late to feign concern. Your open contempt for the problems these superstitious throwbacks caused for me epitomizes the plight of all of us skeptics trying to negotiate life in a world of Christian bigots trained by your church to despise us.

But it's all good for me now. My interest in this matter is for others.

And I didn't have a boss. I was an independent agent contracted with a clinic to provide medical service. I earned what I generated according to a formula that compensated the clinic for what it supplied.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#569016 Dec 3, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Black Africans have kept fellow Africans as slaves far longer than the whites did in America; many years after the American Civil War was over.
" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_slave_tr... ;
Some still do.
I'm sure there are white women and children enslaved somewhere in the world. The media tends to call it "human trafiking" now. If the human mind can conceive an idea then it HAS been done by somebody.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#569017 Dec 4, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
False message
Bad example
tomaytoe
tomoahtoe
Hardly.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You didn't answer the question.
Why do you think having bibles in exams rooms at a place of business that isn't your set a bad example (false message) of you?
It's hard to believe that you need it explained. Ask somebody else.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
THIS is why we ramble on for days on end. Because you avoid questions. JUST like with this post.
You could've saved us both some time and simply say "I didn't say bad example, I said flase message. But the reason I said that is [insert reason here]..."
You don't seem to understand. This discussion is over now. You gave your opinion already - apathy and ridicule - which pretty much slammed the door shut. It's a little late to be collecting information about how I was damaged. I don't trust your motives.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#569018 Dec 4, 2012
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Because YOU are not a minority and because you are IGNORANT as to what it means to be in a minority, you simply can't comprehend why a WET station or a white history month is not needed.
You're pathetic.
I like to remind the people that get so much angst over Obama's color that he is the 44th consecutive American president to be at least half white. That's really an excellent record for whites when you stop to think about it.

http://sfist.com/attachments/SFist_Brock/Cott... [Walgreens celebrates Black History month]

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#569019 Dec 4, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
What's wrong with a white history month? We have our history too you know.
Did you know that George Washington Carver, who was named after a famous white American, was half white himself? Whites have always played an important part in the history of Western civilization.

Paradoxically, the inventor of White-Out was a white woman, and also the mother of a Monkee.

Now you know.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#569020 Dec 4, 2012
boooots wrote:
We learned a year or two later when we were again selling that home, from another realtor, that this guy had lost his real estate license for having broken some laws. We kind of figured after the fact that the Bibles, books, etc., were just a trick so people would think he was a real honest guy.
I won't do business with anybody who puts one of those Jesus fish on his card for exactly that reason.

Since: Dec 12

Lampang, Thailand

#569021 Dec 4, 2012
I just came into this first. Happy to be a member.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#569023 Dec 4, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:

That was a response to my quote acknowledging that birds would not have evolved wings as they serve no purpose unless they're wings.
And it was debunked with some speculations of the many ways that incremental changes in limbs leading to flight could easily confer a competitive advantage before the advent of flight itself, and could provide a pathway to the evolution of flight through natural selection. This was your original comment:

RiversideRedneck wrote: "Why would a creature begin to evolve a wing? A wing stub wouldn't make a bird better adapted to its environment. The wing stub would be much too small for it to fly. Why would a bird evolve a completely useless "winglet"? A bird with even a half size wing is at a disadvantage to its environment. Why would a bird continue evolving a useless "wing" for millions of years? Answer: Accirding to natural selection, it wouldn't. If evolution happened the way Darwin first suggested, the earth would have no birds."

Sorry, but you pulled all of that right out of your ass in a classic argumentum ex culo. So, I gave you information on the uses for incomplete wings that helped transitional forms between reptiles and birds survive.

Then you complained that my, "research showed opinions of avian wing growth. NOT fact. But in your arrogance, you missed that."

I don't need to provide a blueprint for how the evolution of wings actually occurred to rebut your original claim that it is impossible, do I? To rebut a claim that something is impossible, it is sufficient merely to show that there are possibilities that you haven't considered or excluded.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#569024 Dec 4, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>

But the scientific method fails evolution theory.
Sorry amigo.

Wrong there. Very, very wrong.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#569025 Dec 4, 2012
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Why did you combine two separate posts to make them look like one?
Because your words were in one post [1] and my response was in another [2]. Then you responded to that in a third post [3], and I responded to that in a fourth [4]. They are consecutive pieces of one thread of conversation:

[1] RiversideRedneck wrote: "No first human? This is your opinion?
Wouldn't there need to be a first?"

[2] IANS wrote: "When was the first instant of daylight today?"

[3] RiversideRedneck wrote: "Today? That is relative. For me it was around 6:30 AM."

[4] IANS wrote: "You make my point with the use of the word "about". There was no first instant of morning, and there was no first man, either. Some things appear without a distinct beginning."

Look! I just did it again! I combined the words from four different posts. How dishonest of me!

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#569026 Dec 4, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
And it was debunked with some speculations of the many ways that incremental changes in limbs leading to flight could easily confer a competitive advantage before the advent of flight itself, and could provide a pathway to the evolution of flight through natural selection. This was your original comment:
RiversideRedneck wrote: "Why would a creature begin to evolve a wing? A wing stub wouldn't make a bird better adapted to its environment. The wing stub would be much too small for it to fly. Why would a bird evolve a completely useless "winglet"? A bird with even a half size wing is at a disadvantage to its environment. Why would a bird continue evolving a useless "wing" for millions of years? Answer: Accirding to natural selection, it wouldn't. If evolution happened the way Darwin first suggested, the earth would have no birds."
Sorry, but you pulled all of that right out of your ass in a classic argumentum ex culo. So, I gave you information on the uses for incomplete wings that helped transitional forms between reptiles and birds survive.
Then you complained that my, "research showed opinions of avian wing growth. NOT fact. But in your arrogance, you missed that."
I don't need to provide a blueprint for how the evolution of wings actually occurred to rebut your original claim that it is impossible, do I? To rebut a claim that something is impossible, it is sufficient merely to show that there are possibilities that you haven't considered or excluded.
Yo, mi amigo!

Como Estas?

Can you do me a favour, and link me to the RR's post you mention?

Gracias, amigo

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#569027 Dec 4, 2012
sapacafe wrote:
I just came into this first. Happy to be a member.
Welcome. I recommend that you read a bit, find out who's who.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#569029 Dec 4, 2012
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
Really? Not hanging any religious symbol in a place of public business in respect to client is "bigoted"? In other words...you feel that there should be bibles in every office or the business is bigoted? LOL!
Just for the record, and because I refused to discuss this with RiversideRedneck, the problem with the bibles in the exam rooms was not that they were there. It was that I was immediately tainted in the eyes of what were potentially going to be my new partners.

We had a year to look one another over and decide if we were compatible. The die was cast on day one. I was in an environment that was hostile to my religious skepticism. My wife and I had packed up and moved from California to Missouri for that opportunity, and there we were on day one regretting it because of a collection of superstitious busy bodies.

The entire year was much less for me than it should have been. I simply wasn't accepted, and was made to feel that way. I had signed a non-compete clause, meaning that if I didn't stay on in the clinic, I would have to leave town to practice a year after moving there. I didn't care for those options. Thank you, Jesus!

Things worked out very well for me in the end. I beat them and their non-compete clause by myself without a lawyer, and opened a successful private practice right next door, where I worked and saved for the next ten years prior to leaving it all.

In that private clinic, I was free to set my hours again, and practice as I saw fit, seeing the kinds of patients that I chose, not the rejects that none of the senior members of the clinic wanted to see.

Just as sweet, I led the way for a dozen others to leave that clinic and do the same. Unbelievably, they all thought that physicians couldn't survive independently. Nobody in that town even tried except the doctors that weren't acceptable to either of the two large clinics in town, and they barely survived. Many well wishers in the clinic I left were worried when I announced my plan to go independent.

I was amazed at this attitude. What I envisioned goes on in just about every city and town in the nation. But these people seemed to have never heard of it. Once they saw that a doc could not just survive independently, but thrive, the clinic began hemorrhaging doctors.

But it could have been a personal disaster if I had had to honor that noncompete clause or continue to work with people that thought that atheists were an abomination unto the Lord, and all because I wanted those bibles out of my exam rooms. Why should I have had to deal with that superstitious crap?

In the end, they financed my relocation to the town that I chose to practice in, and underwrote my first year in practice during which I accumulated a patient base. That was also at their expense, since most of my patients followed me. I think that I got the last laugh.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#569030 Dec 4, 2012
OCB wrote:
The Christian god is:
1. Angry
2. Jealous
3. Wrathful
4. Vengeful
5. Vindictive
6. Petty
7. Manipulative
8. Spoiled
9. Violent
10. Sadistic
11. Insecure

With the last being the only exception, the rest is all some of the very WORST of what we find in humanity.
12. Capricious
13. Murderous
14. Judgmental
15. Filicidal
16. Genocidal
17. Needy
18. Egomaniacal
19. Intolerant
20. Megalomaniacal
21. Pestilential
22. Panty sniffing

“Think BIG!”

Since: Dec 12

National City, CA

#569031 Dec 4, 2012
God Is In The Mind :)
That's like saying, prove there is 'mind'....lol

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#569032 Dec 4, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats not the only thing that is in conflict with "evolution".

Natural selection is itself in conflict with evolution. In-animate forms are more durable that living structures; so evolution should never allow anything to exist except empty space, because space is the most durable, enduring and indestructible physical thing.

Diversity is also in conflict with "evolution"; I mean, there are is a definite set of characteristics which make an organism more durable; so why weren't those traits the only ones that evolved or were selected for?

Feeding relationships are in conflict with evolution; because the absence of the need to feed would make an organism superior to one that has to feed.

Reproduction is in conflict with evolution theory; creatures that dont need reproduction would be better than those that do, because an indestructible form has no need to be multiplied, and is therefore superior to one that needs to reproduce...

Evolution makes no sense as a means of defining reality as it relates to life; its merely a convenient way for them to look at things.
Home schooling, huh?

Durability is not a feature selected for by natural selection apart from having sufficient longevity to reproduce.

Nonliving things are not competing for scarce resources, and this aren't subject to natural selection.

Biological evolution requires a gene pool as its substrate, which in turn requires living organisms. These need to feed and reproduce. Thus, these are essential for evolution, not in conflict with it.

And diversity is predicted by evolution as well as by an understanding of biological niches, symbiotic and related relationships, and ecosystems. Predators cannot exist without grazers, which in turn require vegetation. Eventually, predators require scavengers and saprophytes - hence diversity.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#569033 Dec 4, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
was his pard strait?
Huh?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#569034 Dec 4, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
They enjoy the crickets for their chirp, or whatever their sound is called.
And the have contests, racing and jumping.
They gamble big-time.
A crack cricket can be a financial boon.
I went to the cricket market on a bycicle--and I'm still alive!
Well done! That sounds pretty cool.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Keystone pipeline wins Senate vote in victory f... 13 min Le Duped 29
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 17 min WasteWater 267,595
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 32 min Robert F 568,629
female working girl. 45 min minxy781 2
Why do white men hate white women who want blac... (May '11) 1 hr Paul is dead 2,968
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 1 hr cheer the f up 120,777
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 1 hr RiccardoFire 38,070
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr Here For Now 607,255
Scientific proof for God's existence 2 hr let your brother rip 647
More from around the web