You know who.
Censorship he cries, expecting us to believe that allowing him to cram my blog full of identical straw men when I've already allowed a hundred or so copies in is somehow "censorship."
It's a good thing comments don't allow images, otherwise, we'd be drowning in a Kilikian flood of animated gifs, pictures of Magic: The Gathering cards, and so forth as evidence for psi.
And one last bit of his diatribe, he complains that we don't know what ID is. Well, duh. He never talked about it, even though his very first post here more or less required for him to define it, to separate his version from all the arguments from ignorance, incredulity, and faux information theory that are floating out there.
Question for my dear readers to consider: Would painting over tasteless, repetitive graffiti on my house be considered "censorship"?
20 comments:
The link seems to be brok'd.
You mean Cocksnack right?
This is what I hate about ignorant A-holes that troll blogs.
Cocksnack is almost certainly complaining that he has been "banned" when all he did was ruin comments for everyone.
Cocksnack: If you want to participate again, all you have to do is post a comment that does not contain a lie or is strictly an insult.
Again, I can say this and it would not be considered an ad hominem:
ID/Creationism is not science; it is based on a logical fallacy - appeal to deity. So if you believe it, you're a Dumb Aaaaace.
Yup, Ryan.
The reason I've cut off Weapon isn't because of his "devastating truths": It's because he's not interested in debate. He's only interested in stifling argument by playing out his scripted battle with imaginary opponents our grandparents already knocked down. (Literally! My grandmother taught biology, specializing in botany, IIRC.)
Feels kind of like a M*A*S*H episode I half-watched where they have a bomb fall in the camp without exploding. They try to have someone walk them through defusing it, only to find out that no one knows the design. They mess up, and the bomb goes off... spraying contentless propaganda pamphlets. The "devastating" bomb turns out to be nothing but a bunch of litter that's annoying to clean up. Nothing new whatsoever.
If it weren't for Weapon, we'd be having a real conversation (or at least enjoying pleasant silence) instead of telling a prospective mental patient that the voices he hears are only in his head.
Well, my grandfather taught curriculum design. There's a chance he talked down someone trying to push Creationism into curriculums (curricula?) at some point (ID didn't exist back then).
And no, he wasn't a monkey.
Yeah, I've been having it out with Cocksnack for no real reason; I suppose it gives me something to do to avoid my other things I need to do. And it's nice to argue with someone whose every response is predictable, and whose rhetorical ability is nonexistent. But I think I'm finally done. I was hoping to get an answer to why he thinks "chimps" are worse ancestors than "inbred sailor hicks," but apparently it has something to do with "hybrids," and suddenly I find that the woo is a lot deeper than it looked on the surface. I'm climbing out while I still can.
And it's nice to argue with someone whose every response is predictable, and whose rhetorical ability is nonexistent.
I dunno. Sometime's he's unpredictable. Like, I never would have seen this gem coming:
P1. Humans turn to dirt when they die.
P2. Humans do not turn to monkeys when they die.
C1: Therefore, humans were made from dirt, not monkeys.
But the fact that he cannot recognize your restatement as his own claim proves that he really does have no rhetorical ability. This guy has to be, quite literally, the dumbest fucking person I have ever come across.
Wow, he actually said:
If at one point [the Bible] is false, then the the atheists are right... the whole thing is a sham.
Of course, I don't agree with this. A book could easily be correct on some points and wrong on others, but if this is the game he wants to play, he's just making it easier for us. Of course, I pointed out a ton of biblical inconsistencies for him a while back and he just pretended I didn't.
Akusai: I dunno. Sometime's he's unpredictable. Like, I never would have seen this gem coming:
Okay, you're right, that one threw me for a loop. But I expected some measure of incoherence from him, so it was only the content, and not the sheer idiocy, that was unexpected.
Infophile: Of course, I don't agree with this. A book could easily be correct on some points and wrong on others, but if this is the game he wants to play, he's just making it easier for us. Of course, I pointed out a ton of biblical inconsistencies for him a while back and he just pretended I didn't.
I've always been astounded by the ability of Christians to justify away the obvious contradictions in the Bible. I've been entirely mystified by their ability to live life ignoring the vast majority of the doctrines and rules therein (like staying away from menstruating women, for instance) and then claiming that it's all the literally true inspired word of God. That's not the sign of strong faith, it's the sign of untested blind faith. The most respectable Christians I've ever met are the ones who can reconcile the fact that the book was written by people for a specific time, but that there are good important parts which still have relevance, and the faithful have to sort one from the other. Unfortunately, most of the foam-at-the-mouthers back themselves into the "literal" corner, and don't realize how untenable that position is.
Hey, BD, if you're ever looking for a guest Doggerel on "literal," I'm your man.
As for "literal" I find it funny how it's drifted from actually meaning "literal" in many cases. Nowadays, it's used exactly the wrong way, as a strengthener for metaphors ("He signed the treaty with a gun literally to his head," as one infamous president remarked).
I once entertained the idea of writing up Doggerel entries with weird numbers (Doggerel #i) just to complain about misused words that didn't really have much to do with skepticism or woo cliches.
"Literally" when they obviously don't mean it literally is one of my big annoyances.
HA!
"Cocksnack" That's so fucking funny.
Janie and I have bumped into him before.
Asshole.
I suppose it is a little removed from the general skepticism. I've got a post waiting in the wings on the subject at some point, mainly how useless a term like "literal" is when talking about literature, including (and perhaps especially) the Bible. There's debate over whether or not Hamlet really went insane, and that story was written in English only four hundred years ago, and people expect a single interpretation of a book written centuries before that, in other ancient languages? Give me a break.
Cocksnack's been paying us a visit at UDoJ, but commenting under the name "Christian".
I've added a post to the googlebomb.
I submitted Cocksnack's comment to Fundies Say The Darndest Things, and he's scoring a perfect 5.0 so far!
(He was commenting under the name "Christian" at the time. See Kate's post here.)
Go Vote for Cocksnack!
Actually that was not me, but I appreciate the compliment.
I have better things to do than to mess around with people who are confused about their gender.
Well, considering that both of them used opposite = same arguments before, I definitely see the resemblance. Therefore, they aren't the same.
No, it wasn't him...BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
holy crap, that's funny!!!
If anyone wasn't sure before, they will be now.
crap, I'm laughing so hard I can hardly type.
Christian/Cocksnack is on my blog now. I came across your thread here googling his email address. He was on our blog months ago but stopped abruptly. Now he has come back... I guess since you guys blocked him. He posts under the name Genghis Cohen. Please feel free to stop by at knowthyneighbor.blogs.com to say hi...
Aaron Toleos
Director, KnowThyNeighbor.org
Since he's not being verbose or copy-pastey, I'm letting him. Takes far less time to point out the absence of content that way.
Post a Comment