Friday, August 8, 2014

Arguing on the Internet


In this discussion topic, I argue that what is true about science is not undone by how science is abused, but that at the same time, what is false about religion remains false no matter how nice the intentions. This has descended into a testy exchange with the religious desperado "Fidel" who is having an argument with himself about the evils of corporate science. Occasionally he makes windy, but entirely meaningless claims for religion out of nowhere. I and three others have been trying to re-state the original point several times, to no avail.

Here at Dr. Dawg's, Mandos is trying to argue the obvious point that the current disasters occurring in Iraq are yet more fall-out from the original bad decision to invade that country in the first place. Surprisingly, two stupid assholes are contesting this inarguable truth. Not surprisingly, one of them is the pompous and deceitful "Peter1." (I've only read the first few words in each of his offerings, with no intention to read more. What would be the point?) The other nit-wit calls itself "Daddy Warhola" and he's one of those people gifted with the ability to make their curse of sheer stupidity appear articulate and reasonably sane.

It's all so fucking pointless isn't it?




3 comments:

liberalandlovingit! said...

Yes. Pointless.
I read the Dawg for a long time, in the beginning,
but found some of the more 'wordy'
commenters clouded the whole issue for me, and I couldn't get that time invested- back.

thwap said...

LALI,

Dawg's a great thinker. But his toleration of that vile, racist, lying, monstrosity K-Z, is inexcusable.

And Peter1 is a fraud. He lies. That's what makes "debating" with him a waste of time. And he uses his lies to defend the indefensible; like torture, election fraud, wars.

It's a waste of time and energy.

liberalandlovingit! said...

I agree, Dawg is. The others, because i'm a liberal Christian, i listened to and tried to see their view-point.
Impossible. Deliberately convoluted to poison the well of debate; where they, as you said, defend the indefensible.