Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape

Recent Posts

In other words: do you have any evidence that Henry of Burgundy, say, introduced French to his subjects? Or evidence that he introduced it to his aristocracy, and that the aristocratic language is what became Portuguese? Anything beyond who the ruler was?
Or that Henry of burgundy even spoke French? I have no idea but it isn't a given.
Probably more likely that he spoke Aztec.  Ya know ... since ya'll are through the looking glass on so many other topics, why not this one too?
But you are not able to give any specific reasons as to why you think so.
But I have.
Over and over.
As have others.
Many others.
Over and over.

So there's really not much left to say, but "Good God, you're an idiot"

Unless and until someone else comes along and says "No, Dave is right. Here's why...  [gives reasons why]_"

The thing is, raging narcissists will rage.

That's what you do.
That's what people call you on.

over and over? Some musical relief for you Dave.......
:no: White coffee is an abomination unto Nuggan.
Well, maybe Dave, but I likes it. Nobody's perfect. :-)
 :no: White coffee is an abomination unto Nuggan.
The arrogance here is mind-boggling.

"I'm a medical doctor so that means I'm smarter than anyone... I know more about goats then even a lady who has a farm with perhaps 100 animals including goats and chickens and cows and rabbits."

I don't think Faid said these quotes, I think ol' crazy Dave is getting his lie on.
So you guys are biased as hell against my goat system just based upon your own  uninformed speculation. You have no appreciation for the experimental process involved in creating something new for rabbits - a mobile colony which I'm not sure has ever been done by anyone anywhere.  And you are freaking out over my loss of a piglet which was an honest mistake due to brand new experimental systems.

So not only do you guys suck at science yourselves, but you are total hypocrites because you accuse me of sucking at science while committing even worse scientific misdeeds than I do.

In short, you are complete assholes.

And it's good that I'm finding this out. Because 11 years ago I was under the impression that people with advanced science degrees were generally decent human beings.  Boy was I wrong!
!! years ago, you were a millionaire in a big house and delusions that you knew anything about science.
Now you're a penniless hobo with rotting teeth, BUT AT LEAST YOU RECOGNIZE YOU SUCK AT SCIENCE.
So, progress, over all. :smug:
The omnibus admission:
Dave admits that Trump was wrong, Dave admits his retarded 11 year old BS about Portuguese=Spanish + French is wrong, and Dave alludes that there is no proof of creationism that stands any level of scrutiny. 
 :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:
 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
What's interesting about the Portuguese thing is the window into the mindset of "educated people" who have decided to become members of the anti-creationist Darwin Club ... it's similar to the mindset of the Trump hating media ...

Trump said "I was wiretapped" which is not exactly accurate but gets the point across ... the media spends untold energy hollering and screaming about Trump's lack of accuracy and missed the whole big picture which was essentially that Trump was right about surveillance being out of control and he will probably be proven right that Obama was committing political espionage.

Same thing here.  I made a statement that was not exactly accurate but got the large point across (at least to a normal person) but you guys spend untold energy "proving me wrong."

Sick minds.
So creationism is not exactly accurate, but it gets the point across, but science spends too much energy proving it wrong?
Also, appeal to truthiness?
Also, shittiest confession of being wrong ever:  "not exactly accurate"  is Dave has to be Rightism for admitting you are wrong, when your giant ego can't let you be wrong.
Why bother, y'all?  ---the deluded will inherit the Earth, they always have.  :sadcheer:  :stareicide:
Regardless, it's amusing to goad the twit right now. Just to see how foolish he can make himself.

No offence intended cobber, but maybe you need a life! :-)
Perhaps, but I like laughing at Bluffy.
And it is my life.
Is your commenting on my enjoyment of laughing at Bluffy any more socially admirable?
Nah. A pointless comment by moi. As to bluffy, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Well, you can claim it is your life, but can you prove it? :-)

I found it in a ditch and there was nobody around and I put up a poster nothing I had found a life in a ditch and was looking for whomever had lost it to return it to them. But nobody responded, so I waited the obligatory time and now it's mine, mine I tell you, all mine.

It is your choice of course, but I would certainly be sceptical about life found in a ditch-you don't know where it has been. It could be a case of reincarnation. Carnation milk is OK though. It is packed in a sterile can or tube, and is OK for a morning coffee before a long march in full kit. [Come to think of it the coffee was pretty gross, but it was warm and woke me up, and I do so hate black coffee]. Something unnatural about black coffee. If we were meant to take our coffee black, then why did god invent cows???
GIA wrote:-

You show a lot of negatives within religions. I see a lot of dislike for them in what you put so eloquently above. I have to wonder why you have not let your justified dislike move to hate.

Because hate takes something away from you. Hate can eat you up, so if I do hate, I hate sparingly [if at all]. Second, I only try to hate the act or the thing, not the person.

Lastly, although I believe religions are a net negative, I do not deny they can motivate people to do acts of kindness, generosity etc.

Some religious groups can be less unlikable than others: Quakers for example, or some Buddhists. As far as individuals go, there is huge variation.
Unlike Dawkins, I don't think that religions are the root of all evil. As social animals, we behave well, and sometimes behave appallingly.

Although we don't need science [and in fact can't use science] to answer ethical questions, knowing the facts is certainly going to aid one more than just faith is some old mumbo-jumbo.

For example, persecuting, abusing, harming LGTBQI folks just because they are different makes no sense from basic humanistic principles.  It just happens to be icing on the cake that science now informs us that such people are as normal as anyone else, and it is just a part of natural variation, and not some dysfunction, disease or sin.