What's the "Singer thread"?
Split thread: Does the Bible speak out against slavery?
What's the "Singer thread"?
It's the thread in the Religion Section with the title:
"The Troubling beliefs of an Influential atheist"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105421
SezMe
post-pre-born
Hey, DOC, good to see you following this thread. Care to answer my question: Why do you hang out here? Does CapelDodger's pop-psych hypothesis have any merit?
Last edited:
This quote is deceptive and false in at least 6 ways.
1 0ne it doesn't give the name of the person your talking -- some people will know who you talking about; some won't
2 the word conceded is falsely used
3 the word refrains is misleading
4 the word fear is falsely used
5 the individual stated that conceivably it could be addictive to the animal, yet your implication is that he was concerned about his own addiction.
6 and the last line is a false assumption
Last edited:
I haven't read many of the posts for time reasons and just went to the last few.
SezMe
post-pre-born
That's understandable. I too often can't keep up with the posting pace here. That said, since I repeated my question in the very post you responded to, why didn't you answer the question?
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Hi DOC, that's the second time in the past 12 hours that I've seen you adopt my posting style. Thank you for the compliment. It's a solid indication that you while you may not respond, you do read my posts.
This is neither deceptive or false. It's simply ambiguous.
I'll give you this one. Conceded implies that you previously were claiming to only have religious reasons for not having sex with animals. There was no reason to make that assumption.
Not at all. To refrain from doing something means you don't do it.
no, it's usage is correct.
"the individual"(you mean you), did mean that. As such, you are completely correct.
true, you never claimed atheists were beastly. Simply amoral indviduals who would create a society filled with horrors. But you never did say atheists were beastly.
bokonon
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 4,438
Sorry, I had in mind this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3400318#post3400318
bokonon
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 4,438
Wow, you know, that's how I read it at first, then I figured it must just be an unfortunate ambiguity unintentionally introduced by your obvious struggles with the English language.
So, sort of a King Kong/Fay Wray kind of thing, huh?
Disciple of Christ, I apologize for that one, the "deception" was unintentional.
I don't think any of your other 5 points are valid.
bokonon
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 4,438
I wasn't the first one to figure it out, but I don't know who gets the credit.That's what DOC stands for? Never occurred to me before
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
I claim credit for it. At least until someone comes along with proof that it wasn't me.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
I claim credit for it. At least until someone comes along with proof that it wasn't me.
Bzzt! Your claim, your burden of proof.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Why are you attacking the messanger. I'm simply providing information. What you do with it is your own business.Bzzt! Your claim, your burden of proof.
Last edited:
Nogbad
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 2,566
That's what DOC stands for? Never occurred to me before
I thought it meant he was an MD.kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
/me GUZZLES the brain bleach
Don't say things like that! There are some of us who cannot handle that kind of shock.
SezMe
post-pre-born
I thought it meant he had a Ph.D. in stupidology.