A Challenge
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 22508
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2976
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am
Methinks I see a little bit of bias in your position, Br Inks, and in those who think like you among the ministers of Scieigion (that's a word I've made up to express how science is just another religion, and you are one of it's high-priests).
1. Why can't you admit that bias is coloring your analysis of the kitten/woodchipper question?
2. The cracks are showing.
3. Don't ask me to get to the point, because I don't have to have one.
4. I know where you live and what car you drive. Does my heavy breathing make you paranoid?
1. Why can't you admit that bias is coloring your analysis of the kitten/woodchipper question?
2. The cracks are showing.
3. Don't ask me to get to the point, because I don't have to have one.
4. I know where you live and what car you drive. Does my heavy breathing make you paranoid?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 16721
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am
The Dude wrote:Methinks I see a little bit of bias in your position, Br Inks, and in those who think like you among the ministers of Scieigion (that's a word I've made up to express how science is just another religion, and you are one of it's high-priests).
1. Why can't you admit that bias is coloring your analysis of the kitten/woodchipper question?
2. The cracks are showing.
3. Don't ask me to get to the point, because I don't have to have one.
4. I know where you live and what car you drive. Does my heavy breathing make you paranoid?
I have to confess that I always read his moniker as meaning one of two things:
1. He hated BYU.
2. He represented the sum total of hate emanating from BYU.
Now I know he just hates you. ;-)
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5604
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm
Channeling DCP:
While I am quite certain that, in certain circles, such as Dr. Shades' Obsession Board and the oddly named Recovery Board, I will be pilloried as being the offensive and lying swine that I am, after considerable deliberation with my colleague and friend, the esteemed Professor Hamblin, I have come to the conclusion that, while kittens are demonstrably nice, they are, in fact, appropriately holy woodchipper fodder. This is not to say, of course, that the negation of not knowing the illusory nature of this non-trial of nothingness is doctrinal, per se.
Then again, as I am frequently reminded by a certain Canadian rock musician, I am a donut-addicted slob and a liar.
While I am quite certain that, in certain circles, such as Dr. Shades' Obsession Board and the oddly named Recovery Board, I will be pilloried as being the offensive and lying swine that I am, after considerable deliberation with my colleague and friend, the esteemed Professor Hamblin, I have come to the conclusion that, while kittens are demonstrably nice, they are, in fact, appropriately holy woodchipper fodder. This is not to say, of course, that the negation of not knowing the illusory nature of this non-trial of nothingness is doctrinal, per se.
Then again, as I am frequently reminded by a certain Canadian rock musician, I am a donut-addicted slob and a liar.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4247
- Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am
You are all guilty of presentism. You are reading your twenty-first century conceptions of kitten-chipping back onto the 19th century. In the 19th century, cats had a much shorter lifespan, so they ceased to be considered "kittens" at a much younger age. Therefore, tossing a six-month-old cat into a wood chipper would not have been considered kitten-chipping in the 19th century. So Joseph Smith is not guilty of kitten-chipping.
-Nighthawke
------------------------------
Nighthawke,
Regardless of whether we define a six-month old cat as a "kitten," wouldn't throwing any cat into a wood chipper have been considered immoral by all 19th-century people?
-CaliforniaKid
------------------------------
CaliforniaKid,
The topic was kitten-chipping. Why are you confusing the issue with your logic? You are reading your twenty-first century conceptions of kitten-chipping back onto the 19th century. In the 19th century, cats had a much shorter lifespan, so they ceased to be considered "kittens" at a much younger age. Therefore, tossing a six-month-old cat into a wood chipper would not have been considered kitten-chipping in the 19th century. So Joseph Smith is not guilty of kitten-chipping.
You obviously harbor an anti-Mormon bias. Why are you so determined to slander an innocent man? We don't criticize you and your filthy rock-music churches, so why do you criticize ours?
-Nighthawke
-Nighthawke
------------------------------
Nighthawke,
Regardless of whether we define a six-month old cat as a "kitten," wouldn't throwing any cat into a wood chipper have been considered immoral by all 19th-century people?
-CaliforniaKid
------------------------------
CaliforniaKid,
The topic was kitten-chipping. Why are you confusing the issue with your logic? You are reading your twenty-first century conceptions of kitten-chipping back onto the 19th century. In the 19th century, cats had a much shorter lifespan, so they ceased to be considered "kittens" at a much younger age. Therefore, tossing a six-month-old cat into a wood chipper would not have been considered kitten-chipping in the 19th century. So Joseph Smith is not guilty of kitten-chipping.
You obviously harbor an anti-Mormon bias. Why are you so determined to slander an innocent man? We don't criticize you and your filthy rock-music churches, so why do you criticize ours?
-Nighthawke
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4247
- Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am
The Dude wrote:Methinks I see a little bit of bias in your position, Br Inks, and in those who think like you among the ministers of Scieigion (that's a word I've made up to express how science is just another religion, and you are one of it's high-priests).
1. Why can't you admit that bias is coloring your analysis of the kitten/woodchipper question?
2. The cracks are showing.
3. Don't ask me to get to the point, because I don't have to have one.
4. I know where you live and what car you drive. Does my heavy breathing make you paranoid?
5. Say hello to your zebrafish for me.
YnotH8
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2455
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm
The Dude wrote:CaliforniaKid wrote:5. Say hello to your zebrafish for me.
YnotH8
LOL. I'm glad you and Runtu could tell who I was channeling.
Man, I must be RRRREEEAAALLLL SSSLLLLOOOWWW. I was wondering wtf you guys were talking about.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4627
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am
Who Knows wrote:Man, I must be RRRREEEAAALLLL SSSLLLLOOOWWW. I was wondering wtf you guys were talking about.
You weren't the only one.
FYI for the smart guys: You have to put (channeling *name) so that we get the joke.
(channeling charity)
You would know if you had the Spirit Bond. As it is you don't so you don't know any of the special things I know. How many fingers am I holding up? You don't know because you don't have the Spirit.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6215
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm