Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Commentary on "Last Man Standing"!

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    fitz0 wrote: »
    Wait a minute, having a rib removed to allow a man to gain pleasure? Didnt Michael Jackson have that done?
    Was it not the guy from guns 'n' Roses?

    MrP


  • Options
    #93
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    I was getting a bit confused by the April Fools Day declarations of love.

    Nice to see normal bitter service being resumed and true colours shining through.


  • Options
    #94
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    JimiTime wrote: »
    There was love around here?


    Yeah....think it was banned for trolling. There's a time and a place, like...


  • Options
    #95
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Lad's save the smartness for some other thread. Cheap jibes at one of the debators isn't becoming of anyone.


  • Options
    #96
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Oh lighten up. It's not actually a requirement of atheism that you have to read every thread on this forum.

    Thank you sir. you ahve just saved me three hous per day.

    ...I can ride a bike again! :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Oh lighten up. It's not actually a requirement of atheism that you have to read every thread on this forum.

    but this is all pdn ever does is derail a thread by getting into an obscure argument over the semantics of some religious text im sure he'll get a hard on over it but if you all want to be his fluffers go ahead.


  • Options
    #98
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Please. You are arguing with a person that believes an infinitely powerful, infinity good and all knowing super sky wizard built a perfect being from dirt, built him a fcuk buddy from one of his ribs, stuck a tree in the middle of a garden and said "by the way, don't touch that," and then, when he inevitably did (which of course the sky wizard knew in advance he would... see all knowing) he damned him to mortal imperfection and fcuked every single human descended from him, they obviously don't do the whole "sharing knowledge" to avoid a person making a mistake.

    MrP

    LOL, ah its tweedle dum to brighten up the place.
    lostexpect wrote:
    but this is all pdn ever does is derail a thread by getting into an obscure argument over the semantics of some religious text im sure he'll get a hard on over it but if you all want to be his fluffers go ahead.

    PDN, you must be doing something right. They seem to be queueing up to attack you. I think you have made them doubt
    themselves.:)

    Anyway, I think I've outstayed my welcome here.


  • Options
    #99
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Was it not the guy from guns 'n' Roses?

    MrP

    I heard it was The Artist Formerly Known as Prince back when he wasn't Formerly Known.


  • Options
    #100
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Dades wrote: »
    Lad's save the smartness for some other thread. Cheap jibes at one of the debators isn't becoming of anyone.

    Yes lads try only to use sanctioned insults as pioneered by "those who can do no wrong" ... observe ...
    JimiTime wrote:
    PDN, you must be doing something right. They seem to be queueing up to attack you. I think you have made them doubt
    themselves.

    Tool.


  • Options
    #101
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    See...this is why Dawkins doesn't do public debates. :(


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Love, not hate!


  • Options
    #103
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    I don't really understand what's happened in this thread...


  • Options
    #104
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    JimiTime wrote: »
    LOL, ah its tweedle dum to brighten up the place.

    You're welcome. I presume I didn't miss anything in my brief summation of your idiotic beliefs? Admittedly, I did leave out a lot of the really really silly stuff.

    MrP


  • Options
    #105
    Bduffman
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭Bduffman


    JimiTime wrote: »

    PDN, you must be doing something right. They seem to be queueing up to attack you. I think you have made them doubt
    themselves.:)
    Or maybe its because he comes across as someone who vastly overrates his own debating skills?


  • Options
    #106
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    but this is all pdn ever does is derail a thread by getting into an obscure argument over the semantics of some religious text

    No offence, but thats sort of par for the course with any of the Abrahamic religons....'What Sayeth the Bible?' (Koran/Torah/Hadiths etc)


  • Options
    #107
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Bduffman wrote: »
    Or maybe its because he comes across as someone who vastly overrates his own debating skills?
    Hmmm, this is starting to remind me of Lord of the Flies.

    I have made no claims about my debating skills whatsoever. Nor have I made any predictions as to the outcome of the debate. In fact it is Dumbledore who has loudly declared his confidence in his debating skills, and it has been atheist posters who seem to be presenting this as some kind of David & Goliath thing (as a Christian I would obviously much prefer the David role than that of Goliath).

    As far as I can see most of the personal abuse appears to be because a Christian actually dares to engage atheists in debate here on the A&A forum. If the common stereotype of believers as being irrational imbeciles were true then it should be quite simple for you all to put me in my place with a few well chosen words of enlightened reason. Instead, even before the debate actually begins (and I'm hoping it does kick off soon) we get a rather tiresome litany of puerile personal abuse, and even sexual innuendo, even after your own mod asks for it to stop.


  • Options
    #108
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    im sure he'll get a hard on
    JimiTime wrote: »
    ah its tweedle dum
    pH wrote: »
    Tool.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    your idiotic beliefs?
    PDN wrote: »
    irrational imbeciles [...] puerile personal abuse [...] sexual innuendo
    Look ladies, it's a lovely Thursday morning -- the sun is shining, the birds are singing, life is bursting out of the earth and the trees on what looks like the first decent day of summer. And we all love each other.

    Now cut out the belly-aching and give each other a big virtual hug before your friendly mods start reaching for their black caps.


  • Options
    #109
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    PDN wrote: »
    Hmmm, this is starting to remind me of Lord of the Flies.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVIqDknfC4E


    Oh, you meant the book. That's good too. Film, not so much.


  • Options
    #110
    Dumbledore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 149 ✭✭Dumbledore


    I am not going to comment on the previous arguing as it is not my argument. Just posing to say I will be finished what I had to do in a few hours, and after that will begin work on my opening statement.
    We will be looking at around Saturday evening or Sunday for the first post. Anyone who's enthusiasm is so that they are unable to wait until then, I suggest you start your own debate.


  • Options
    #111
    Bduffman
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭Bduffman


    PDN wrote: »
    I have made no claims about my debating skills whatsoever. Nor have I made any predictions as to the outcome of the debate. In fact it is Dumbledore who has loudly declared his confidence in his debating skills, and it has been atheist posters who seem to be presenting this as some kind of David & Goliath thing (as a Christian I would obviously much prefer the David role than that of Goliath).
    I never said you did directly claim anything about your own debating skills - only that you come across as someone who overrates your own skills. One critical requirement of good debating is to carefully read / listen to your opponents views.
    Regarding Dumbledore, our lack of faith in him is purely based on his age & lack of form on this forum. But he might surprise us.
    PDN wrote: »
    If the common stereotype of believers as being irrational imbeciles were true then it should be quite simple for you all to put me in my place with a few well chosen words of enlightened reason. Instead, even before the debate actually begins (and I'm hoping it does kick off soon) we get a rather tiresome litany of puerile personal abuse, and even sexual innuendo, even after your own mod asks for it to stop.
    I think believers are irrational - not necessarily imbeciles. Therefore no amount of 'words of enlightened reason' is going to change that. And btw, you're not so bad at the puerile personal abuse yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Give it a rest lads. We don't want to have to lock this thread because of bickering.


  • Options
    #113
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Whatever happened to my lovely thread?.....

    I should have titled it *Atheist Only*!


  • Options
    #114
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Bduffman wrote: »
    I never said you did directly claim anything about your own debating skills - only that you come across as someone who overrates your own skills.

    Do you see what you're doing there? You make any charge against another person with zero evidence and then hide behind a dishonest smokescreen that you're only saying they come across as that.

    You can say that someone comes across as being arrogant, as being uneducated, as being a bigot, or as being an insecure deviant with paedophile tendencies. If the person you are attacking, quite understandably, protests that they have never said anything to that effect, then you can respond by saying, "I never said you claimed to be a paedophile, only that you come across as being a paedophile. You really need to listen to me more carefully."

    Your attack on me is a subjective slur, phrased in such a way as to evade any responsibility. I find that to be despicable.

    Any confidence I have concerning the proposed debate is entirely down to the subject matter than to any debating skills I may, or may not, possess.


  • Options
    #115
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Dumbledore wrote: »
    I am not going to comment on the previous arguing as it is not my argument. Just posing to say I will be finished what I had to do in a few hours, and after that will begin work on my opening statement.
    We will be looking at around Saturday evening or Sunday for the first post. Anyone who's enthusiasm is so that they are unable to wait until then, I suggest you start your own debate.

    Dades and Robin, will there be a re-jigging of the rules? Or does the 24 hr rule still apply after the first correspondence?


  • Options
    #116
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    I think he said his Irish Oral exam is on today so Id say that takes preference over fighting debating on the internet


  • Options
    #117
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    fitz0 wrote: »
    I think he said his Irish Oral exam is on today so Id say that takes preference over fighting debating on the internet

    Tiocfaidh ár lá. :)


  • Options
    #118
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mod note to the hard-of-reading: Next person who shows up on a high horse will be taking a week's gardening leave.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    will there be a re-jigging of the rules? Or does the 24 hr rule still apply after the first correspondence?
    Rule 1, subsection 3: Last man standing.


  • Options
    #119
    Bduffman
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭Bduffman


    PDN wrote: »
    Do you see what you're doing there? You make any charge against another person with zero evidence and then hide behind a dishonest smokescreen that you're only saying they come across as that.

    You can say that someone comes across as being arrogant, as being uneducated, as being a bigot, or as being an insecure deviant with paedophile tendencies. If the person you are attacking, quite understandably, protests that they have never said anything to that effect, then you can respond by saying, "I never said you claimed to be a paedophile, only that you come across as being a paedophile. You really need to listen to me more carefully."

    Your attack on me is a subjective slur, phrased in such a way as to evade any responsibility. I find that to be despicable.

    Any confidence I have concerning the proposed debate is entirely down to the subject matter than to any debating skills I may, or may not, possess.


    Would love to comment on this but I have decided its best to leave my high horse out to graze.


  • Options
    #120
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    robindch wrote: »
    Rule 1, subsection 3: Last man standing.

    Will there be a penalty if Dumbledore doesn't respond in a certain time? To be fair the debate should just be left open until one of them concedes. I think creating an arbitrary time limit to respond would be a bad thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Well, instead of having an open-ended debate, why not put a bit more structure into it. The time limit is already in place (a good thing IMO), but why not a set number of posts for each participant? This way we don't have debate that could turn into a war of attrition and each response has to be measured and direct.


Advertisement