If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Drudge readers bring insightful comments to a science article   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 65
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

12009 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jan 2013 at 10:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-21 09:38:56 AM  
TFA: "And although drilling two metres on Earth would be a fantastic technological achievement...."

It seems I could accomplish a fantastic technological achievement by visiting my local Home Depot and spending a couple of hours in my back yard.
 
2013-01-21 09:54:17 AM  
Nothing brings the derp like Drudge readers.
 
2013-01-21 10:12:36 AM  
In other news, people who go to Drudge can read!
 
2013-01-21 10:14:10 AM  
dailykenn.com makes Drudge look like a centrist
 
2013-01-21 10:15:24 AM  

UberDave: TFA: "And although drilling two metres on Earth would be a fantastic technological achievement...."

It seems I could accomplish a fantastic technological achievement by visiting my local Home Depot and spending a couple of hours in my back yard.


I wonder if the original quote said "drilling two meters of earth", Either way, way to screw up a quote mr reporter.
 
2013-01-21 10:15:57 AM  
The Daily Telegraph is rapidly trying to out-right-wing the Daily Mail when it comes to its story choices and reportage. Not a day goes by without them railing against Europe, immigrants, gays, global warming, or science.
 
2013-01-21 10:23:13 AM  
If ignorance is bliss shouldn't belligerent ignorance be more blissful? These folks don't seem to be very happy.
 
2013-01-21 10:35:40 AM  

oldfarthenry: If ignorance is bliss shouldn't belligerent ignorance be more blissful? These folks don't seem to be very happy.


No, belligerent ignorance takes lots of effort.  Regular ignorance involves rampant apathy.
 
2013-01-21 10:37:54 AM  
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
― Isaac Asimov

Sadly Isaac cast his net too narrow. He should have said: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States wherever religion thrives, and there has always been."

The idiot's answer to everything: "God did it ... now stop looking for answers!!!"
 
2013-01-21 10:42:57 AM  
Ahhh, I see. The troglodytes were directed towards the telegraph from Drudge Report. It did seem curious to me that they would be there in the first place.
 
2013-01-21 10:46:40 AM  
It is to weep.

Farking Canuck:
The idiot's answer to everything: "God did it ... now stop looking for answers!!!"


If we had all the answers today, what would we do tomorrow?

For one thing, it would be really hard to get research funding.
 
2013-01-21 10:47:33 AM  
cdn.dealbreaker.comcdn.dealbreaker.comcdn.dealbreaker.com

DRUDGE REPORT STILL ANUS OF INTERNET. DEVELOPING...


cdn.dealbreaker.comcdn.dealbreaker.comcdn.dealbreaker.com
 
2013-01-21 10:54:53 AM  
You mean incite-ful.
 
2013-01-21 11:00:41 AM  

drxym: The Daily Telegraph is rapidly trying to out-right-wing the Daily Mail when it comes to its story choices and reportage. Not a day goes by without them railing against Europe, immigrants, gays, global warming, or science.


It always was, to be fair.

It is an actual real newspaper though, unlike the Daily Mail, which is essentially a tabloid with better magazine supplements.
 
2013-01-21 11:10:16 AM  

Farking Canuck: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
― Isaac Asimov

Sadly Isaac cast his net too narrow. He should have said: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States wherever religion thrives, and there has always been."

The idiot's answer to everything: "God did it ... now stop looking for answers!!!"


Don't be too quick to judge. There's only slightly fewer idiots out there whose knee-jerk reaction to any reference to God is "Well you're a farking idiot and your opinions are invalid. Science explains everything!" yet can't comprehend basic science like how pure oxygen is lethal or how human reproduction works beyond "Rod D into slot V". I'm not saying there aren't plenty of religious r-tards out there too but derp flows both ways.
 
2013-01-21 11:46:22 AM  

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Don't be too quick to judge. There's only slightly fewer idiots out there whose knee-jerk reaction to any reference to God is "Well you're a farking idiot and your opinions are invalid. Science explains everything!" yet can't comprehend basic science like how pure oxygen is lethal or how human reproduction works beyond "Rod D into slot V". I'm not saying there aren't plenty of religious r-tards out there too but derp flows both ways.


The anti-science movement is primarily driven by religious conservatives.
 
2013-01-21 11:50:18 AM  
Okay, I'll get flamed but here goes anyway?

What do you have against Drudge?

He aggregates links to news stories. How is that piss you off? Are you Index-haters?
 
2013-01-21 12:01:44 PM  

Farking Canuck: GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Don't be too quick to judge. There's only slightly fewer idiots out there whose knee-jerk reaction to any reference to God is "Well you're a farking idiot and your opinions are invalid. Science explains everything!" yet can't comprehend basic science like how pure oxygen is lethal or how human reproduction works beyond "Rod D into slot V". I'm not saying there aren't plenty of religious r-tards out there too but derp flows both ways.

The anti-science movement is primarily driven by religious conservatives.


Apparently you don't know how to read
 
2013-01-21 12:11:52 PM  

drxym: The Daily Telegraph is rapidly trying to out-right-wing the Daily Mail when it comes to its story choices and reportage. Not a day goes by without them railing against Europe, immigrants, gays, global warming, or science.


Indeed. They have some utter, barking nutters writing for them: Delingpole and Monckton are the most prominent and the most nutty. This is what UKIP looks like.
 
2013-01-21 12:23:31 PM  
Since this is a British newspaper, aren't there supposed to be pics of topless women somewhere?
 
2013-01-21 12:31:12 PM  
Globewalker
1 minute ago
Out of 900 comments, there are zero examples of documented proof of a missing link, or any other relivent proof of evolution.
However there is hundreds of examples of personal ad hominem attacks that don't have anything to do with the subject of evolution. Typical liberalism!

Evolution, like liberalism, are both cult religions that are 100% intolerant of all other religions.


I want to know what this one is smoking so that I can stay far, far away from it.

/laughter OL at calling anything a "cult religion" from where s/he's standing
 
2013-01-21 12:33:29 PM  

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Don't be too quick to judge. There's only slightly fewer idiots out there whose knee-jerk reaction to any reference to God is "Well you're a farking idiot and your opinions are invalid. Science explains everything!" yet can't comprehend basic science like how pure oxygen is lethal or how human reproduction works beyond "Rod D into slot V". I'm not saying there aren't plenty of religious r-tards out there too but derp flows both ways.


Being unable to comprehend things still sounds a whole lot better than flat-out refusing to even acknowledge that there might be science behind things.
 
2013-01-21 12:57:51 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: Okay, I'll get flamed but here goes anyway?

What do you have against Drudge?


He unironically misrepresents the contents of the articles to add a right-wing spin, and under-represents news that discredits his right-wing spin.
 
2013-01-21 12:58:54 PM  

duffblue: Apparently you don't know how to read


Why ... because I have my own opinion?

Welcome to Fark.
 
2013-01-21 01:01:49 PM  
Well who let the Drudges out without their Cephalyx Overlords?

/damn Cryx tryx I tell you...
 
2013-01-21 01:03:59 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: Clemkadidlefark: Okay, I'll get flamed but here goes anyway?

What do you have against Drudge?

He unironically misrepresents the contents of the articles to add a right-wing spin, and under-represents news that discredits his right-wing spin.


Translation- He makes liberals look bad and they don't like it
 
2013-01-21 01:05:47 PM  
Farking Canuck
There is a cult of ignorance wherever religion thrives

Counterexamples to argue against your conjecture. This is just a cursory list of some of the most famous institutions and people who are very strongly tied to religion working to dispel ignorance.

But don't let that dent your confirmation bias or narrow your broad generalizations. Maybe you should have said 'extremism' or 'fundamentalism' or something...

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/
http://www.ajcunet.edu/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbey_of_Saint_Gall
http://vaticanobservatory.org/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/science/13prize.html?_r=0
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rj a &ved=0CEUQtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DfrecTW zgJHk&ei=wHb9UKPPIIz0igLu_4GQCQ&usg=AFQjCNFMmKdvbfYIjLjcmSsBBgAD2vp1Aw &bvm=bv.41248874,d.cGE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
 
2013-01-21 01:08:05 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Don't be too quick to judge. There's only slightly fewer idiots out there whose knee-jerk reaction to any reference to God is "Well you're a farking idiot and your opinions are invalid. Science explains everything!" yet can't comprehend basic science like how pure oxygen is lethal or how human reproduction works beyond "Rod D into slot V". I'm not saying there aren't plenty of religious r-tards out there too but derp flows both ways.

Being unable to comprehend things still sounds a whole lot better than flat-out refusing to even acknowledge that there might be science behind things.


The issue I take is that "I'm right because I agree with God/scientists." philosophy. Contrary to popular (see: most vocal) opinion there are a good deal of mostly sane and rational religious types (of many different creeds) who DON'T oppose science. The flat-out refusal is just as bad either way as well, the outspoken and foolish religious side has it's "Because it is HIS word" stance when the him they refer to isn't God but someone who sent them an e-mail/link to some nutbar claiming "God said this/interpret the Bible this way/America is the great evil" etc. Meanwhile the "science believer" stance reads something like "It's been proven in our studies, the studies you read are tainted" or " clearly established it and if you don't believe it you're an idiot".

The only real difference is PERSPECTIVE, some people just have a better one than others. Believe it or not, religion and science CAN coexist so long as the more aggressive advocates of each aren't struggling to beat each other senseless in "No, YOU'RE wrong!" debates.
 
2013-01-21 01:09:55 PM  

Farking Canuck: duffblue: Apparently you don't know how to read

Why ... because I have my own opinion?

Welcome to Fark.


I believe duff meant because you either disregarded or egregiously misunderstood my statement when you responded to it.
 
2013-01-21 01:27:14 PM  
Drudgereport is Fark without the user comments.
 
2013-01-21 01:35:30 PM  

foxy_canuck: Farking Canuck
There is a cult of ignorance wherever religion thrives

Counterexamples to argue against your conjecture. This is just a cursory list of some of the most famous institutions and people who are very strongly tied to religion working to dispel ignorance.

But don't let that dent your confirmation bias or narrow your broad generalizations. Maybe you should have said 'extremism' or 'fundamentalism' or something...


Yes fine ... there are some religious based groups working against the anti-science movement. I never said there wasn't.

I am discussing the groups that are behind the current anti-science movement in the US.

Take a close look at who makes up the school boards in Texas who are pushing creationism into science classes? Who are the people attacking the opinions of educated people calling them 'elitist' and proudly declaring that they don't need no science because their gut feeling or bible tells them what is right.

Which groups are anti-green because they believe that either (a) god gave them this planet to destroy as they please or (b) man can't possibly destroy something that god created so "yehaw ... let's go start some tire fires!!!"

I did not discuss any groups trying to help protect the scientific process ... I explicitly named those attacking the scientific process.

P.S. Even though the catholic church is fairly good on science issues ... their pedo protecting and enabling policies exclude them from even being considered in a positive light on any subject.
 
2013-01-21 01:42:08 PM  

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Don't be too quick to judge. There's only slightly fewer idiots out there whose knee-jerk reaction to any reference to God is "Well you're a farking idiot and your opinions are invalid. Science explains everything!" ...


I have never, ever, met anyone who claims that science explains everything. This particularly applies to professional scientists, perhaps not least because they would all be out of a job if science explained everything.

For that matter, I don't think think I have ever met, or heard of, anyone who believes that science can explain everything, and that goes for professional scientists as well.

It's a uniquely fundamentalist religious position - perhaps by definition so - to believe that a book of iron age myths / camel herder biography / low quality sci-fi can and does explain everything.

By the way, please note that I am not saying that all religious believers claim to know all the answers.
 
2013-01-21 01:47:55 PM  

orbister: I have never, ever, met anyone who claims that science explains everything.


Yeah ... anyone who has even a passing understanding of science knows that pretty much the opposite is true: Science is our best tool to gain understanding but it never claims 100% knowledge of anything.
 
2013-01-21 02:19:27 PM  

orbister: GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Don't be too quick to judge. There's only slightly fewer idiots out there whose knee-jerk reaction to any reference to God is "Well you're a farking idiot and your opinions are invalid. Science explains everything!" ...

I have never, ever, met anyone who claims that science explains everything. This particularly applies to professional scientists, perhaps not least because they would all be out of a job if science explained everything.
For that matter, I don't think think I have ever met, or heard of, anyone who believes that science can explain everything, and that goes for professional scientists as well.
It's a uniquely fundamentalist religious position - perhaps by definition so - to believe that a book of iron age myths / camel herder biography / low quality sci-fi can and does explain everything.
By the way, please note that I am not saying that all religious believers claim to know all the answers.


It's not particularly fair to judge a position based on the dimmest bulbs that shine through while citing your examples from the pool with reasoned positions. The position is not "professional scientists vs. religion's online white knights", it's the entire groups on both sides and for some reason the reasonable religious types don't often take the time to comment on news articles and threads. When I used "science explains everything" I'm citing those same people who don't even have a solid grasp on the basic principles they want to stand for. With the full sample pool, discounting troll-factor, on both sides you should have 1) Enlightened opinions 2) Poorly phrased yet reasonable opinions 3) Misunderstood facts/stats/texts/quotes 4) Blithering idiots who it's baffling to imagine are capable of surviving.

Three & four are where you find the "Science can explain it, I can't" and "God did it" positions, sometimes they slip into #2 as well. All I'm trying to say is that there are idiots on both sides. If you'd like I could find one of each in the article this thread is running off to further represent this.
 
2013-01-21 02:23:56 PM  

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: The My Little Pony Killer: GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Don't be too quick to judge. There's only slightly fewer idiots out there whose knee-jerk reaction to any reference to God is "Well you're a farking idiot and your opinions are invalid. Science explains everything!" yet can't comprehend basic science like how pure oxygen is lethal or how human reproduction works beyond "Rod D into slot V". I'm not saying there aren't plenty of religious r-tards out there too but derp flows both ways.

Being unable to comprehend things still sounds a whole lot better than flat-out refusing to even acknowledge that there might be science behind things.

The issue I take is that "I'm right because I agree with God/scientists." philosophy. Contrary to popular (see: most vocal) opinion there are a good deal of mostly sane and rational religious types (of many different creeds) who DON'T oppose science. The flat-out refusal is just as bad either way as well, the outspoken and foolish religious side has it's "Because it is HIS word" stance when the him they refer to isn't God but someone who sent them an e-mail/link to some nutbar claiming "God said this/interpret the Bible this way/America is the great evil" etc. Meanwhile the "science believer" stance reads something like "It's been proven in our studies, the studies you read are tainted" or " clearly established it and if you don't believe it you're an idiot".

The only real difference is PERSPECTIVE, some people just have a better one than others. Believe it or not, religion and science CAN coexist so long as the more aggressive advocates of each aren't struggling to beat each other senseless in "No, YOU'RE wrong!" debates.


Is the air thin way up there on your pedestal?
 
2013-01-21 02:36:00 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: The My Little Pony Killer: GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Don't be too quick to judge. There's only slightly fewer idiots out there whose knee-jerk reaction to any reference to God is "Well you're a farking idiot and your opinions are invalid. Science explains everything!" yet can't comprehend basic science like how pure oxygen is lethal or how human reproduction works beyond "Rod D into slot V". I'm not saying there aren't plenty of religious r-tards out there too but derp flows both ways.

Being unable to comprehend things still sounds a whole lot better than flat-out refusing to even acknowledge that there might be science behind things.

The issue I take is that "I'm right because I agree with God/scientists." philosophy. Contrary to popular (see: most vocal) opinion there are a good deal of mostly sane and rational religious types (of many different creeds) who DON'T oppose science. The flat-out refusal is just as bad either way as well, the outspoken and foolish religious side has it's "Because it is HIS word" stance when the him they refer to isn't God but someone who sent them an e-mail/link to some nutbar claiming "God said this/interpret the Bible this way/America is the great evil" etc. Meanwhile the "science believer" stance reads something like "It's been proven in our studies, the studies you read are tainted" or " clearly established it and if you don't believe it you're an idiot".

The only real difference is PERSPECTIVE, some people just have a better one than others. Believe it or not, religion and science CAN coexist so long as the more aggressive advocates of each aren't struggling to beat each other senseless in "No, YOU'RE wrong!" debates.

Is the air thin way up there on your pedestal?


You think I'm putting myself on a pedestal by saying there are reasoned positions and irrational positions on both sides? I'm not saying I'm of either. I tend to upset both sides in these discussions because I think it's stupid to compare a grapefruit to a Buick Skylark.
 
2013-01-21 03:10:59 PM  
I like Matt Drudge. He's been trolling the MSM for 15 years.
 
2013-01-21 03:20:27 PM  
My long dry spell is over.

/celebratory pookie dance.
 
2013-01-21 04:05:02 PM  
The death of our society is so clear here.

Most right wing religious people and most people in general have no idea how science works.

Almost everyone that posts here from the left thinks that anyone that isn't from the left is a religious right nutjob.

Things are not that clear cut.

People that think the bible is 100% literal truth are crazy and willfully ignorant.

All religious people are not crazy.

Liberals are not the only people that think religion is getting scarier though.

Last... Everything on the Drudge Report is not always bad.
 
2013-01-21 04:19:51 PM  

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Don't be too quick to judge. There's only slightly fewer idiots out there whose knee-jerk reaction to any reference to God is "Well you're a farking idiot and your opinions are invalid. Science explains everything!" yet can't comprehend basic science like how pure oxygen is lethal or how human reproduction works beyond "Rod D into slot V". I'm not saying there aren't plenty of religious r-tards out there too but derp flows both ways.


lol, wut? Did you just say "both sides are bad" when it comes to religion versus science? It may be that there are rude assholes on both sides, but the big difference is - one side is right.

And no one who knows science claims that it "explains everything". Take your straw man and go home.
 
2013-01-21 04:20:11 PM  

joker966: Almost everyone that posts here from the left thinks that anyone that isn't from the left is a religious right nutjob.


This is not true.

We think that everyone who ...

- tried to put religion into public schools (yes ID is religion)
- tries to make religious based laws
- discounts evidence based reasoning (aka. science) because their magic book disagrees

,,, are religious nutjobs.

If you are religious but support the separation of church and state, which protects both religions and the rights of individuals, then get vocal and join the fight.

Don't just sit there and whine because you are getting caught in the crossfire.
 
2013-01-21 04:20:20 PM  
Farking Canuck
If your point was to argue about the anti-science movement in the the US then you suck at arguing, because what you did was alter and Asimov quote that quite effectively highlighted that point exactly, and made it a generalization about all religion. Since that's a clearly indefensible position you are back pedalling, (pretending you were arguing only about the American movement after a clear and explicit attack on all religion) and resorting to ad-hominem attacks (Unless you have a direct link between the paedophilia scandal, the vatican observatory, the pontifical academy of science, the priests who helped come up with the big bang theory, argued for the acceptance of science by those of faith, and helped lay the foundations for modern genetics, and a monastery with a world famous library).

I thought science types were supposed to accept contrary evidence, revise their hypothesis, and move forward, not ignore evidence and pretend they never said anything wrong to begin with.
 
2013-01-21 04:22:37 PM  
An Asimov quote... note to self, preview first.
 
2013-01-21 04:34:31 PM  

foxy_canuck: Since that's a clearly indefensible position you are back pedalling, (pretending you were arguing only about the American movement after a clear and explicit attack on all religion)


You are confusing a snarky comment with a concise argument. When you went after it I was not back-peddaling, I was narrowing the snarky comment into a more concise argument to address your concerns. I do not have time to place all the necessary constraints on every two second fark comment I post ... but when questioned I am happy to clarify.

My comments about the pedophile protection society (aka the catholic church) are not and 'ad hominem' because I was not arguing with them - I had already conceded that they were one of the best religions from a scientific point of view. You cannot commit the ad hominem argument fallacy if you are not actually in an argument.

No, I was straight-up insulting that scumbag organization. They are proven criminals who have only evaded world-wide criminal prosecution because of their power and money. It is said that a society can be judged on how they treat their weakest members. The weakest members of the catholic church are the children and that organization put their profits ahead of the well being of the children. They are scum.
 
2013-01-21 04:35:19 PM  
Oh, and since you are in Ontario, I should point out, Canada doesn't have separation of Church and State. That is a republican (in the sense of the foundation of the government, not the political party). We are a constitutional monarchy that doesn't allow the government to discriminate against religion, and does allow the government to support religious organizations. In fact, its the rights of the minority religion in each province are guaranteed in the constitution.

Here's an explanation from our current chief justice.

Link

Its okay to have religion in schools and religion in laws in Canada in some contexts. Heck our head of state is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and the Government had a role in the official creation of the United Church of Canada! If you really think people who support any religion in public schools or laws are religious nutjobs, then you must have a very low opinion of many of the founders of Canada.
 
2013-01-21 04:39:45 PM  
Farking Canuck
So just for clarification, when I call you out on an untrue snarky comment, and you claim you weren't arguing the the point of the comment, that's not back pedalling, and when you claim that the paedophilia scandal automatically excludes them from being considered in a positive light on an unrelated subject that's not ad-hominem.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Makes perfect sense.
 
2013-01-21 04:58:11 PM  

karmachameleon: GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Don't be too quick to judge. There's only slightly fewer idiots out there whose knee-jerk reaction to any reference to God is "Well you're a farking idiot and your opinions are invalid. Science explains everything!" yet can't comprehend basic science like how pure oxygen is lethal or how human reproduction works beyond "Rod D into slot V". I'm not saying there aren't plenty of religious r-tards out there too but derp flows both ways.

lol, wut? Did you just say "both sides are bad" when it comes to religion versus science? It may be that there are rude assholes on both sides, but the big difference is - one side is right.

And no one who knows science claims that it "explains everything". Take your straw man and go home.


That is not what I said. As I have now stated several times since my Boobies THERE ARE VOCAL BUT UNINFORMED MORONS ON BOTH SIDES. I did not say that "both were bad" but as you say the next sentence "there are rude assholes on both sides". This is not a straw man argument, because it isn't an argument. I'm establishing a fact.
 
2013-01-21 05:00:58 PM  
This is a giant circle jerk of anti religious sentiment.

You could say Drudge readers do the same thing, just take away the anti part.
 
2013-01-21 05:01:01 PM  

foxy_canuck: Farking Canuck
So just for clarification, when I call you out on an untrue snarky comment, and you claim you weren't arguing the the point of the comment, that's not back pedalling, and when you claim that the paedophilia scandal automatically excludes them from being considered in a positive light on an unrelated subject that's not ad-hominem.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Makes perfect sense.


Wow ... that's some pretty nifty back-flips there.

Let's clarify your position, shall we:

- snark and jokes are no longer allowed on fark unless you can back them up with data (everyone will need to consult with foxy_canuck to determine what evidence is sufficient)

- calling out people for logical fallacies where they don't apply is now allowed.

As for the pedo protection society: for the third time in three posts, I admit that they are the most progressive religion when it comes to science. What more do you want?!? They are scum. I will not now, nor will I ever kiss their asses ... they use alter boys for that!!!
 
2013-01-21 05:23:12 PM  
Farking Canuck

Lighten up Francis, you said something, I proved it wrong, you claimed that's not what you meant, I showed using your own words that you weren't being honest, you hide behind 'its just snark' and then put a bunch of words in my mouth.

Here's the thing, when you make broad generalizations about a group of people, occasionally someone from that group will use logic, reason and evidence to make you look like an idiot, because generalizations are rarely true, and never universally true. Its best at that point to just move on or admit it was wrong, not pretend that that particular part of what you said isn't important and isn't fair game for criticism because it was 'just snark'. You can say whatever the fark you want without running it by anyone, just don't get all butthurt when someone else calls you on it if you're being a prejudiced ass.

Finally, for the xth time in x posts, the paedophilia thing is irrelevant to the conversation and I don't give a shiat what you think about the institution of the Church as a whole. The only point germane to the conversation is the part about science.

You are a disgrace to the moniker 'Canuck'
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report