Wilders Trial: Not A Hater Say the Judges

[SilverWingedSeraph]

This has been disproven. Resoundingly. The majority of scientists are in fact religious - prolly somewhere between 51% to 66%. And since you used these very figures yourself, you're acknowledging this as fact.

So you lose. Resoundingly. Because you debate by speaking out of your ass instead of getting some hard numbers first.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

I linked you to this study. It has hard numbers. Fucking read it. A sample of 1000 scientists in the U.S. The study was performed once in 1918, 1933, and 1998. In 1914, 52% expressed a personal disbelief in a God. 68% in the 1933 study. 72.2% in the 1998 study. Oh my derp I pasted the study incorrectly last time, so yes, you missed it. So no, you have not dismissed my point resoundingly.

Furthermore, religion is irrational. Religion is founded entirely on appeals to emotion, appeals to tradition and appeals to authority. It has no rational basis. Religion is, irrational, and even you conceeded this earlier. Yes, people can have irrational beliefs and still function in society, I EVEN SAID THAT MUCH IN MY FIRST POST. But by holding those irrational beliefs they are inherently dimishing their own capacity for judgement. If they're willing to believe one irrational thing, what makes it any different from any number of irrational things? There are religious scientists, and yes, they believe in something irrational, but fortunately most of them don't let that get in the way of their job which requires them to examine things rationally. Most of them have to ignore their religion's teachings to progress, not embrace it.

I never said they weren't grown ups, that's Metahive's position.

Can you cite that for me please

I did.
1.
without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2.
without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.

If either of those are considered good things I'd be really surprised.

[Metahive]

Moreover - for the confused - why is this distinction important?

Because by Metahive's definition, the 51% of scientists who believe in God/Higher Power believe in irrational things. Therefore, they are part of the group of people who Metahive describes as "believing in Santa".

Really? Half the scientists in the world aren't grown ups? They aren't our best and brightest? What kind of fucking moron willfully ignores that people can, in fact, function as responsible adults even when they believe in some irrational things? Even if they believe in things (God) that is supposedly contradictory to their chosen profession?

Morons like Metahive and SWS, that's who.

OK, and now quote me where I assert that people who are irrational on some things can't also be rational on other things. Come on, do it. Let's put up some evidence, you know, the evil "e" word. Just a moment ago you were smugly waving the debating rules in my face, let's see if you manage to abide by them yourself.

BTW, concession accepted on the rest you've quietly dropped by now, Santa. Like your lie that I ignored your Santargument.

I never said they weren't grown ups, that's Metahive's position.

Neither did I. I called adherence to certain beliefs and convictions childish and infantile though and my point about "children that need to grow up" was in relation to the Santa Claus analogy.

[Zinegata]

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

I linked you to this study. It has hard numbers. Fucking read it.

No you didn't. You linked me this:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.htm

And only now did you link me this:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

A sample of 1000 scientists in the U.S. The study was performed once in 1918, 1933, and 1998. In 1914, 52% expressed a personal disbelief in a God. 68% in the 1933 study. 72.2% in the 1998 study.

Secondly, I already addressed this in my previous post:

although if it does exist it's likely because they interviewed only a specific type of scientist - check out the Live Science article for details - apparently different kinds of scientists have different levels of religiosity.

And I was correct, because the article says...

Leuba sent the 1914 survey to 400 "biological and physical scientists", with the latter group including mathematicians as well as physicists and astronomers

So really, 70% of certain kinds of scientists are non-religious. Which is already covered by the Livescience Survey which says that it varies by the field - and their data also shows scientists in these same fields as being more likely to be non-religious.

In short, your study is a subset of the study I showed. And in no way invalidates my data, while condemning yours to irrelevancy.

Moreover, it's kinda hard to take a study seriously when it operates with a bias, as opposed to pure data-gathering. Note this passage:

Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented on our 1996 survey, "You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge." [4] Such comments led us to repeat the second phase of Leuba's study for an up-to-date comparison of the religious beliefs of "greater" and "lesser" scientists

Really? Comments that "You can't really be a scientist if you believe in God" convinced you to run this study? That's pretty clear bias right there.

I never said they weren't grown ups, that's Metahive's position.

So stop poking your nose into my debate with him, because it's Metahive's BS argument that I'm addressing. This is why the forum discourages dogpiles.

You wanna debate about "irrationality"? Go address Duckie.

[Zablorg]

Are you stating that a willingness to believe IRRATIONAL THINGS is not a INHERENTLY FLAWED thing? Irrationality is, by definition, a bad thing.

Can you cite that for me please

I'd be interested to know why you'd question that, because I've always understood rationality as being a reasoning tool, which helps uncover truths. Surely if all other things were equal, being deprived of reasoning really would be a bad thing? The only argument I've ever seen for irrationality works with the assumption that being rational removes the romantic aspects of life, like art appreciation or love or whatever, but I've never really bought into that, because I'd argue there's a difference between willfully believing objectively silly things, and indulging in "irrational" experiences like not being a robot.

[Metahive]

So stop poking your nose into my debate with him, because it's Metahive's BS argument that I'm addressing. This is why the forum discourages dogpiles.

So far you haven't actually addressed one single of the arguments or opinions I've made known here. What you did was crying bloody murder over arguments you cooked up in your twisted mind and then put in my mouth. You've also one by one dropped any accusations against me to concentrate on SWS, so I guess he isn't doing much poking here. Also, again with the backseat modding. I guess you can't figure out any other way to be taken sufficiently seriously otherwise, huh? Not that it works, mind you.

[Zinegata]

OK, and now quote me where I assert that people who are irrational on some things can't also be rational on other things.

Again, this is now Metahive grasping at semantic straws because his argument got burned to the ground, and salt was sown on the earth. Let's read what I actually said again shall we?

Really? Half the scientists in the world aren't grown ups? They aren't our best and brightest? What kind of fucking moron willfully ignores that people can, in fact, function as responsible adults even when they believe in some irrational things? Even if they believe in things (God) that is supposedly contradictory to their chosen profession?

It don't have to quote you, because I never even said that you asserted that you said "people who are irrational on some things can't also be rational on other things". I instead directly addressed the contradiction of 51% of scientist "not being adults" BY YOUR DEFINITION.

Secondly, I never dodged any of your arguments. Unless you're seriously counting your "Santa analogy explanation" as an argument. That wasn't an argument. That was just you confirming that you are a moron who made an intolerant fuckwit argument, which I've been addressing the whole time.

Thirdly, pretending that you ragging on the Dutch was a joke? That's called a "cop-out", and hence was ignored. You condemned an entire people over serving you rotten food once. That makes you an intolerant fuckwit.

So really, stop lying. Like most dishonest shits on this board, you can claim to win all the time. But that just makes you little better than a religious fundamentalist like the say, the Taliban. Except instead of worshiping God what you worship if your own deluded high opinion of yourself.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Really? Comments that "You can't really be a scientist if you believe in God" convinced you to run this study? That's pretty clear bias right there.

Ah, crying "omg bias". They collected numbers. Any personal opinions expressed by anyone involved has zero bearing on the numbers they collected. And that's not even accurate! Someone made a comment that "I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge", and because of that other people decided to repeat the study... and that somehow indicates a clear bias! That's like dismissing a study on global warming because someone said "I think global warming happens" and someone decided to do a study because they heard that.

Fucking retard logic here.

But alright, I'll step out and prevent this from turning into a dogpile.

[Zinegata]

So far you haven't actually addressed one single of the arguments or opinions I've made known here.

No. That's what you claim.

The truth is, you're attempting to sieze the "debate initiative" by pretending the other side hasn't addressed your arguments.

To achieve this, you take snippets - out of context - from your opponent's argument and pretend that it's the entire argument.

Like how you were challenging me to "quote me where I assert that people who are irrational on some things can't also be rational on other things."... when I in fact said no such thing in the passage you quoted.

So again, continue with your delusions and prove how intolerant fuckwits don't need religion to be irrational tools. It's fun watching them whine and beg.

[Zinegata]

Really? Comments that "You can't really be a scientist if you believe in God" convinced you to run this study? That's pretty clear bias right there.

Ah, crying "omg bias". They collected numbers. Any personal opinions expressed by anyone involved has zero bearing on the numbers they collected. And that's not even accurate! Someone made a comment that "I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge", and because of that other people decided to repeat the study... and that somehow indicates a clear bias! That's like dismissing a study on global warming because someone said "I think global warming happens" and someone decided to do a study because they heard that.

Fucking retard logic here.

But alright, I'll step out and prevent this from turning into a dogpile.

Actually, I never dismissed the study. Check what I wrote.

I said the study was rendered into irrelevancy. Because it's only focusing on a subset of scientists as opposed to the whole population. In fact, the LiveScience study corroborates the data presented in your study.

I merely found it useful to point out that there was, also, apparently bias in running the study - as the study was motivated to "prove" that to be a real scientist, you had to disbelieve in God.

If I was more of a conspiracy nut, I would say that they deliberately only interviewed a specific segment of the scientific community so they can get a higher figure of non-religious folk, but I'm not. So I left that bit of bias there instead as a warning of the shenanigans that may have happened behind the study.

[Metahive]

You know, there's audacity and then there's full speed charging into a spiked wall.

It don't have to quote you, because I never even said that you asserted that you said "people who are irrational on some things can't also be rational on other things". I instead directly addressed the contradiction of 51% of scientist "not being adults" BY YOUR DEFINITION.

So you actually insinuated something way stupider? Blame me for overestimating your wits then, ZineSanta. BTW, what's my definition of adult? Can you find it anywhere in this thread? Calling adherence to certain beliefs childish does not equal calling people children.

Secondly, I never dodged any of your arguments. Unless you're seriously counting your "Santa analogy explanation" as an argument. That wasn't an argument. That was just you confirming that you are a moron who made an intolerant fuckwit argument, which I've been addressing the whole time.

Correct, it wasn't an argument, it was an analogy which you then twisted into me saying that all irrational people are bad and children. Man, got lost within your own web of lies here, didn't you?

Thirdly, pretending that you ragging on the Dutch was a joke? That's called a "cop-out", and hence was ignored. You condemned an entire people over serving you rotten food once. That makes you an intolerant fuckwit.

You call it a joke? That's a mighty callous and disrespectful insult you're hurling here at my precious tastebuds that were villainously hurt by the malevolent Dutch.

So really, stop lying. Like most dishonest shits on this board, you can claim to win all the time. But that just makes you little better than a religious fundamentalist like the say, the Taliban. Except instead of worshiping God what you worship if your own deluded high opinion of yourself.

That's quite a nice projector you've deployed there. I bet you could illuminate the whole bright side of the moon with it.

The truth is, you're attempting to sieze the "debate initiative" by pretending the other side hasn't addressed your arguments.

Pretend nothing. All your accusations against me where shown to be dishonest distortions, not one of them you were able to prove with a quote of my own. Why would I need to claim victory in such lop-sided circumstances?

BTW, here's the quote that presumably drove you to shit bloody bricks:

That's frankly none of my concern. Eventually children have to be told that Santa isn't real and be allowed to grow up. Religion with its promotion of infantile magical thinking is there only a hindrance.

Everyone who isn't a deluded fool can see it's an analogy about the need to eventually abandon childish delusions. Like children who stop believing in Santa.

Still waiting for that groveling apology.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

as the study was motivated to "prove" that to be a real scientist, you had to disbelieve in God.

They don't say that anywhere in the paper that the study was motivated to prove anything. They said that someone stating that compelled them repeat the study for updated statistics. Which orifice are you pulling that piece of information from?

[Zinegata]

So you actually insinuated something way stupider? Blame me for overestimating your wits then, ZineSanta. BTW, what's my definition of adult? Can you find it anywhere in this thread? Calling adherence to certain beliefs childish does not equal calling people children.

Wow. Metahive is seriously splitting hairs between "not adults" and "children" in the context of the belief in Santa Claus.

This must be a new record. A molecular-fine edged hair split.

Correct, it wasn't an argument, it was an analogy which you then twisted into me saying that all irrational people are bad and children. Man, got lost within your own web of lies here, didn't you?

Are you on crack? Let's see your explanation again, shall we?

That was brought up by me as an example of people needing to put childish delusions behind them eventually.

You are calling Santa a childish delusion (an extremely negative context), and yet your are claiming that "I didn't mean that made you a bad person!"

The fact is Metahive, you got caught. And you started peddling this "But I didn't mean they became bad people!" horseshit when you realized your argument was full of shit.

You call it a joke? That's a mighty callous and disrespectful insult you're hurling here at my precious tastebuds that were villainously hurt by the malevolent Dutch.

Right. Since you confirm it's not a joke, then you admit to intolerant fuckwittery.

I have precious little sense of humor for intolerant fuckwits anyway.

Pretend nothing. All your accusations against me where shown to be dishonest distortions, not one of them you were able to prove with a quote of my own. Why would I need to claim victory in such lop-sided circumstances?

I just did. I really didn't have to, but I did it again. You're now just relying on a molecular-thin hair-split to convince yourself that you're still a rational person, rather than just another self-important intolerant fuckwit asshole on the Internet.

[Zinegata]

as the study was motivated to "prove" that to be a real scientist, you had to disbelieve in God.

They don't say that anywhere in the paper that the study was motivated to prove anything. They said that someone stating that compelled them repeat the study for updated statistics. Which orifice are you pulling that piece of information from?

SWS, stop being a lying fuckwit.

Again:

Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented on our 1996 survey, "You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge." [4] Such comments led us to repeat the second phase of Leuba's study for an up-to-date comparison of the religious beliefs of "greater" and "lesser" scientists

The motivation for the study was the above comment. It's what led them to repeat the study. Are you disputing this statement?

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Yes, the statement was the motivation for their study. How does that mean they were setting out to prove it? Someone made a statement, said statement motivated them to repeat their study. That does not mean they were aiming to prove that statement, you just made that shit up.

[Metahive]

Wow. Metahive is seriously splitting hairs between "not adults" and "children" in the context of the belief in Santa Claus.

Refuting dishonest distortions of my words is not hair-splitting. Also, I'm not arguing about "not adults" and "children" anyway, that's another of your lies that you of course are not supporting with relevant quotes and evidence.

Are you on crack? Let's see your explanation again, shall we?

Yesl, let's!

You are calling Santa a childish delusion (an extremely negative context), and yet your are claiming that "I didn't mean that made you a bad person!"

The fact is Metahive, you got caught. And you started peddling this "But I didn't mean they became bad people!" horseshit when you realized your argument was full of shit.

Are you saying now that holding delusional beliefs makes you a bad person? That's your insinuation here, not mine.

Thanks for tripping up yourself, dimwit.

Right. Since you confirm it's not a joke, then you admit to intolerant fuckwittery.

I have precious little sense of humor for intolerant fuckwits anyway.

Yep, I hereby condemn the Dutch to become couch-hopping Tom Cruises and be shot at with Hungarian Goulash Cannons for the rest of eternity. And there's nothing you can do, HAW HAW HAW.

I just did. I really didn't have to, but I did it again. You're now just relying on a molecular-thin hair-split to convince yourself that you're still a rational person, rather than just another self-important intolerant fuckwit asshole on the Internet.

Actually, what you did was confirming that YOU believe delusions make people bad persons. I never once said that. People can hold chidlish delusions and be decent people, that however doesn't make those beliefs any less childish or delusional, but hey, you've already expressed that you consider accurate assessments of people's arguments and opinions to be something unnecessary and annoying, like "relying on molecular-thin hair splits".

What can we conclude?

ZineSanta thinks delusions make people bad.
ZineSanta thinks accuracy is a superfluous waste of time.
ZineSanata thinks he doesn't need to support his arguments with evidence
ZineSanta is a lying fuckwit.

[Zinegata]

Refuting dishonest distortions of my words is not hair-splitting.

.

Again, let's review:

You are claiming that when you say that people are "not adults" for believing in Santa, then you are in fact not calling them children.

And you are claiming that this is not hair splitting.

*laughs at Metahive for having zero intellectual honesty*

Are you saying now that holding delusional beliefs makes you a bad person? That's your insinuation here, not mine.

Are you that much of a lying shithead?

There are numerous other words that you could have used. The word "fantasy" for instance.

Yet you use the word "delusion". Which is in fact a word with a strictly negative context.

Let's see...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/delusion

delusion (d-lzhn)
A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness, as in schizophrenia.

I'm not the one who insinuated anything. You did that by using the word "delusion" instead of other words that could have had a neutral connotation, or even positive connotation.

And since you keep insisting that your words are always precise and not up for negotiation, then one doesn't even have to "assume" that you meant to say delusional people are bad people. It's clear as night and day.

That's the problem when you get caught pushing a stupid argument and then backpedal by picking on technicalities. It's like saying "this spot on the floor is clean so I'm innocent!" while behind you is a murdered man with a knife in his chest.

ZineSanta thinks delusions make people bad.

Of course I would. Because delusions, by definition, often connote actual mental illnesses and other actual bad things.

So Metahive is seriously mocking me for knowing the definition of the word delusion? Is he that much of a fuckwit?

Clearly, Metahive is either a lying fuckwit or a delusional fuckit. But hey, who wants to bet he's gonna play the "So what if I have a shitty vocabulary?" defense next just so he can keep on claiming that he didn't make an intolerant fuckwit argument?

[Zinegata]

Yes, the statement was the motivation for their study. How does that mean they were setting out to prove it? Someone made a statement, said statement motivated them to repeat their study. That does not mean they were aiming to prove that statement, you just made that shit up.

Let's print the "shit I made up" again, alright?

You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge

That was, by the article's own admission the statement that motivated this study. Are you going to claim that there is ZERO bias in this statement?

Are you going to deny that this statement - while acknowledging a fact ("You can clearly be a scientist and have religious beliefs") - actually goes out of its way to state an opinion that the fact is actually "wrong" because they have a different definition of who should or should not be a scientist? ("But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word")

Put up, or shut up.

-----

And again, this study showed 70% of scientists as non-religious. This was contradicted by two other studies, and close examination of your study will show that they targetted only a specific subset of scientists.

So really, this is just you being butthurt and hurling personal attacks because 1) Your study was rendered into irrelevancy by the two studies I posted, and 2) I pointed out that there was a bias behind the motivation of the study.

Bluntly, one could accuse you and your study of lying. You claim that 70% of scientists are non-religious. The study in fact does not prove this, because it targetted only a specific subset. That's like doing a survey of New York city residents and claiming that they represented the entire population of the United States.

These are all hard facts. I have repeated them several times. Which you aren't refuting except with baseless whining about how "Zine makes shit up".

You're a delusional lying fuckwit too. Ignoring facts won't make them go away. It just makes you a delusional lying fuckwit.

[Zablorg]

Just because Metahive thinks holding delusions is a bad thing (as given by the context of the word, like you pointed out), it doesn't neccessarily follow that he thinks it makes someone a bad person for holding them. In the same way, individual behaviours can be childlike, but they don't neccessarily reduce the people demonstrating them to the overall level of a child. It's assuming that someone's character is defined by a single trait.

[Zinegata]

Just because Metahive thinks holding delusions is a bad thing (as given by the context of the word, like you pointed out), it doesn't neccessarily follow that he thinks it makes someone a bad person for holding them. In the same way, individual behaviours can be childlike, but they don't neccessarily reduce the people demonstrating them to the overall level of a child. It's assuming that someone's character is defined by a single trait.

Sure. That's totally reasonable.

The problem is Meta hasn't ever actually said "delusions does not make you a bad person".

He's instead denying he ever said "delusions make you a bad person". Which is why I actually had to dig up him using the word "delusion", and demonstrating that it does not have a neutral context.

It's a subtle difference. But this line of argument pretty much implies that Metahive isn't willing to admit that delusions (and let's not kid ourselves - by this he means religion) does not make you a bad person.

Because otherwise, he should have agreed with my argument in the first place:

Children may have to someday admit that Santa doesn't exist. But they'd often choose to hold on to that belief anyway because of a variety of self-justified reasons (i.e. "Santa personifies the spirit of charity"), and doing that doesn't make them bad people. Only somewhat irrational maybe,

Which is almost exactly what you are saying now - one trait does not define an entire person's existence.

But nope. Instead of just saying "I agree with this", he goes through semantic gymnastics to avoid having to say this.

[Metahive]

You are claiming that when you say that people are "not adults" for believing in Santa, then you are in fact not calling them children.

In ZineSanta's world adults are apparently incapable of holding childish beliefs. Also missing, quote by me saying that people holding childish beliefs are "not adults". Conclusion, ZineSanta is lying again.

Also, here are the two other definitions of "delusion" from freedictionary which you suspiciously failed to quote

1.
a. The act or process of deluding.
b. The state of being deluded.
2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/delusion

Doesn't look like it's necessarily an insinuation of mental illness, huh? Or are you also denying that sane people could ever hold false beliefs, children or adults? ZineSanta, I say right now that I'm tired of your dishonesty.

Of course I would. Because delusions, by definition, often connote actual mental illnesses and other actual bad things.

That's you cherry-picking definitions to suit your needs.

So let's review your actions in this thread. You barge in here insulting me, erecting strawmen and making this debate all personal and completely off topic. You refuse to present evidence when prompted and brush off corrections of your distortions as "hair-splitting". You deliberately lie about the usage of delusion even if it should have been clear what definition I've been using since I explained that several times. You're obviously not interested in any reasonable debate but in childish (there's that word again) and belligerent flame-warring.

This allows two conclusions: You either have a severe attitude problem combined with stubborness and a grand portion of dishonesty or you're a freakin' troll doing this shit "for the lulz". In any case, either way makes you a bad person.

I'm still waiting for that apology.

[Metahive]

Just because Metahive thinks holding delusions is a bad thing (as given by the context of the word, like you pointed out), it doesn't neccessarily follow that he thinks it makes someone a bad person for holding them. In the same way, individual behaviours can be childlike, but they don't neccessarily reduce the people demonstrating them to the overall level of a child. It's assuming that someone's character is defined by a single trait.

Correct. Unfortunately ZineSanta, dishonest POS he is, won't accept this.

He's instead denying he ever said "delusions make you a bad person". Which is why I actually had to dig up him using the word "delusion", and demonstrating that it does not have a neutral context.

Not only were you selectively quoting from Freedictionary, that's also completely horseshit. I never denied that I consider holding delusions to be bad thing, just not that holding delusions necessarily makes you a bad person as you falsely and dishonestly accused me of!

It's a subtle difference. But this line of argument pretty much implies that Metahive isn't willing to admit that delusions (and let's not kid ourselves - by this he means religion) does not make you a bad person.

FUCKING LIE!

People can hold chidlish delusions and be decent people, that however doesn't make those beliefs any less childish or delusional,[...]

I can't believe this. You fucking piece of trolling cowpoop. Do you think people can't read? Do you think I or anyone else here are complete fools who can't scroll up and read the entire exchange? Were you dropped a few times to often by your mother as a child or where come these misconceptions from?

I think that's about enough. I think there doesn't need to be anything added to this discussion. Not that it ever was a any sort of discussion, mind you. That would have required two people to, you know, be willing to discuss, which you rather obviously are not.

[Zinegata]

You said, ONLY A FEW POSTS BEFORE, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION:

People can hold chidlish delusions and be decent people

When in my ORIGINAL POST, I SAID:

But they'd often choose to hold on to that belief anyway because of a variety of self-justified reasons (i.e. "Santa personifies the spirit of charity"), and doing that doesn't make them bad people.

So, MORON, why the fuck have you been arguing against me the whole time?

Oh, I know...

I'm still waiting for that apology.

It's because you got all butthurt being called an intolerant fuckwit (STILL true, given how you deliberately ignored that delusion does in fact have a negative connotation and your stupid condemnation of the judge over non-trivial things).

You are not only an intolerant fuckwit. You're a fucking crybaby. If you can't stand the heat, go to some fucking corner and cry your eyes out.

[Metahive]

So, MORON, why the fuck have you been arguing against me the whole time?

I have been arguing against the lies and distortions you produced of my arguments, you pus-filled splinter.

It's because you got all butthurt being called an intolerant fuckwit (STILL true, given how you deliberately ignored that delusion does in fact have a negative connotation and your stupid condemnation of the judge over non-trivial things).

I never ignored that, that's another lie. Delusion does have negative connotations, why do you think I used that word for something that needs to be overcome in the first place you prancing gobshite? You however were the one who selevtively quoted only the worst definition of it as a cheap ploy to distort my argument into something more extreme.
Also, where in this thread have condemned any judge? Of the Wilder's case or otherwise? Oh, that's right, you've been caught lying again!

So even though all his accusations against me were shown to be lies, does the ZineSanta cut his losses, admit his wrongdoing and apologize? No, he rather ignores the first rule of holes and goes digging himself in deeper, augments his arguments with further lies and baseless insults. ZineSanta, you are a mental leper, you flake off rotten thoughts everywhere you go. You don't belong in any civilized society. You should go and live with the chimpanzees, they won't mind you flinging poop everywhere.

You are not only an intolerant fuckwit. You're a fucking crybaby. If you can't stand the heat, go to some fucking corner and cry your eyes out.

The only tears I'm going to shed here is about the fact that your mother didn't abort you abomination when she had the chance and spared the world of your disingenuity.

[K. A. Pital]

Children may have to someday admit that Santa doesn't exist. But they'd often choose to hold on to that belief anyway because of a variety of self-justified reasons (i.e. "Santa personifies the spirit of charity"), and doing that doesn't make them bad people. Only somewhat irrational maybe

I'd like to intervene after being formally asked by Metahive to do so. I've read three pages of this thread in great detail.

First of all, Metahive never said that believing in Santa makes one bad or evil. It makes one childish. And children are gullible and stupid people with a non-developed brain, who often lack empathy or commit irrational actions. Despite this we don't think children are "evil".

So you started with an attack on Metahive's comments which never held anything you ascribe them having, and after that it turned into mudslinging between you two and SWS.

He's instead denying he ever said "delusions make you a bad person".

Because he never said that delusional Santa-beliefs make you a bad person, unless, of course, you can quote.

Besides, I'd like to note the massive failure of logic in the heads of some debaters, who kept on wondering just why someone considers irrationality bad per se - do you really fucking want to pursue that question, you bunch of worthless trolls? I'm going to drive one little point in your brains - it is perfectly normal for a human to consider irrationality a bad quality, because it leads to unpredictable and potentially harmful actions and reactions which cannot be entirely explained by the circumstances. Yes, you might legitimately point out that irrationality doesn't cause the world to collapse but for the sake of Pete, do not rail against someone like a pack of mad dogs just because he doesn't like irrationality. It is normal - especially for someone following a rationalist philosophy - to dislike irrational behaviour, humans don't like unpredictable actions as a matter of fact, you know.

I'll leave the question of whether this pile of shit is worth throwing over to the HOS for now, but it's hanging on a thread.

[bobalot]

Reading aroung the giant turd zinegata left in this thread, I'm curious to what the public's general reaction to Wilder's aquittal is.