Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Good point, Claudia

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    ... I didn t interpret that to be bashing debating , but rather a simple, factual statement that a debate can be more about the audience than the debaters.
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 2, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry McDonald" <jerry@...> wrote:

      > I guess if I had backed out of a
      > debate that I insisted on, I might,
      > too, be tempted to post something
      > that bashes debating.

      I didn't interpret that to be "bashing debating", but rather a simple, factual statement that a debate can be more about the audience than the debaters.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@> wrote, quoting:

      | Claudia says (March 31, 2011):
      |
      | Debates don't get the people engaging in them to admit
      | they were wrong on the spot, particularly when they
      | involve deeply held beliefs that are based in emotion
      | and not rationality. However people who are watching (or
      | reading) the debate and are maybe less invested in the
      | belief, and don't have their pride on the line because
      | they're lurking, can be open to persuasion or at least
      | planting the seed of doubt. People brought up
      | creationist can and do come to their senses in many
      | cases, and they do in part because those of us on the
      | side of scientific thought don't write them off as lost
      | cases and fight creationism.

      Thank you for the reminder, Claudia.

      - Todd Greene
    • Jerry McDonald
      You wouldn t. jdm
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 2, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        You wouldn't.
        jdm
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry McDonald" <jerry@> wrote:
        >
        > > I guess if I had backed out of a
        > > debate that I insisted on, I might,
        > > too, be tempted to post something
        > > that bashes debating.
        >
        > I didn't interpret that to be "bashing debating", but rather a simple, factual statement that a debate can be more about the audience than the debaters.
        >
        > Sincerely,
        > Robert Baty
        >
        > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@> wrote, quoting:
        >
        > | Claudia says (March 31, 2011):
        > |
        > | Debates don't get the people engaging in them to admit
        > | they were wrong on the spot, particularly when they
        > | involve deeply held beliefs that are based in emotion
        > | and not rationality. However people who are watching (or
        > | reading) the debate and are maybe less invested in the
        > | belief, and don't have their pride on the line because
        > | they're lurking, can be open to persuasion or at least
        > | planting the seed of doubt. People brought up
        > | creationist can and do come to their senses in many
        > | cases, and they do in part because those of us on the
        > | side of scientific thought don't write them off as lost
        > | cases and fight creationism.
        >
        > Thank you for the reminder, Claudia.
        >
        > - Todd Greene
        >
      • rlbaty50
        ... Looks like Jerry got out on cranky side of the bed this morning! Sincerely, Robert Baty ... I didn t interpret that to be bashing debating , but rather a
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 2, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry McDonald" <jerry@...> wrote:

          > You (Robert Baty) wouldn't.

          Looks like Jerry got out on cranky side of the bed this morning!

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty

          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry McDonald" <jerry@...> wrote:

          > I guess if I had backed out of a
          > debate that I insisted on, I might,
          > too, be tempted to post something
          > that bashes debating.

          I didn't interpret that to be "bashing debating", but rather a simple, factual
          statement that a debate can be more about the audience than the debaters.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty

          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@> wrote, quoting:

          | Claudia says (March 31, 2011):
          |
          | Debates don't get the people engaging in them to admit
          | they were wrong on the spot, particularly when they
          | involve deeply held beliefs that are based in emotion
          | and not rationality. However people who are watching (or
          | reading) the debate and are maybe less invested in the
          | belief, and don't have their pride on the line because
          | they're lurking, can be open to persuasion or at least
          | planting the seed of doubt. People brought up
          | creationist can and do come to their senses in many
          | cases, and they do in part because those of us on the
          | side of scientific thought don't write them off as lost
          | cases and fight creationism.

          Thank you for the reminder, Claudia.

          - Todd Greene
        • Todd Greene
          This is Jerry McDonald demonstrating his typical inability to comprehend straight English. LOL! - Todd Greene
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 2, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            This is Jerry McDonald demonstrating his typical inability to comprehend straight English.

            LOL!

            - Todd Greene


            --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote:
            >
            > I guess if I had backed out of a debate that I insisted on, I might, too, be tempted to post something that bashes debating.
            > jdm
            >
            > --- In Maury_and_Baty, Todd Greene wrote:
            >> While checking out the "Google Realtime" search engine, I happened to read the following page
            > >
            > > This Must Be What They Teach At Creationism School
            > > by Hemant Mehta
            > > (Blog: Friendly Atheist, 3/30/2011)
            > > http://friendlyatheist.com/2011/03/30/this-must-be-what-they-teach-at-creationism-school/
            > >
            > > which shows the typical manner in which creationists make a illogical point based on their own lack of comprehension/ill-defined thinking and the manner in which they dig right into that lack of comprehension and ill-defined thinking even when someone attempts to carefully explain to them what's wrong with it.
            > >
            > > Same old, same old.
            > >
            > > But down in the comments I read the following comment, which is what I wanted to share here.
            > >
            > > | Claudia says (March 31, 2011):
            > > |
            > > | Debates don't get the people engaging in them to admit
            > > | they were wrong on the spot, particularly when they
            > > | involve deeply held beliefs that are based in emotion
            > > | and not rationality. However people who are watching (or
            > > | reading) the debate and are maybe less invested in the
            > > | belief, and don't have their pride on the line because
            > > | they're lurking, can be open to persuasion or at least
            > > | planting the seed of doubt. People brought up
            > > | creationist can and do come to their senses in many
            > > | cases, and they do in part because those of us on the
            > > | side of scientific thought don't write them off as lost
            > > | cases and fight creationism.
            > >
            > > Thank you for the reminder, Claudia.
            > >
            > > - Todd Greene
            > >
            >
          • Todd Greene
            ... Okay, now I m outta here for awhile. Going to treat myself to a nice breakfast, with coffee, at the truck stop restaurant down the road. - Todd Greene
            Message 5 of 8 , Apr 2, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Just to clarify further, the reason Claudia's comment happened to stick out to me was because of another (very long) post I've been working on (it's one Robert Baty has been consistently egging me on to write about), in which in the current version (again, I haven't finished it, so what I'm copying here will probably change, or not, in the final version I post) I had written the following:

              | This is why most people won't even deal with young earth
              | creationists and their profuse, interminable, obstinate
              | nonsense. You have to wade through reams of irrelevant
              | crap, lies, fallacies, innuendo, and so on - and you're
              | typically dealing with people who are utterly
              | close-minded, who have less than zero intention of
              | changing anything they think based on actual, good
              | evidence, based on genuine science, people who have
              | every intention of continuing to believe what they
              | believe, and pushing bogus claims and using fallacious
              | arguments, no matter what the facts are. Why waste your
              | time dealing with known frauds, when you have better
              | things to do?
              |
              | Of course, observers such as myself have people like
              | Ishmael Abrahams and his cohorts at Answers in Genesis,
              | and so many other young earth creationists across the
              | United States, and elsewhere, to thank for demonstrating
              | the inherently irrational and corrupt nature of the
              | fundamentalist Christian mind.

              Okay, now I'm outta here for awhile. Going to treat myself to a nice breakfast, with coffee, at the truck stop restaurant down the road.

              - Todd Greene


              --- In Maury_and_Baty, Todd Greene wrote:
              > This is Jerry McDonald demonstrating his typical inability to comprehend straight English.
              >
              > LOL!
              >
              > - Todd Greene
              >
              >
              > --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote:
              > >
              > > I guess if I had backed out of a debate that I insisted on, I might, too, be tempted to post something that bashes debating.
              > > jdm
              > >
              > > --- In Maury_and_Baty, Todd Greene wrote:
              > >> While checking out the "Google Realtime" search engine, I happened to read the following page
              > > >
              > > > This Must Be What They Teach At Creationism School
              > > > by Hemant Mehta
              > > > (Blog: Friendly Atheist, 3/30/2011)
              > > > http://friendlyatheist.com/2011/03/30/this-must-be-what-they-teach-at-creationism-school/
              > > >
              > > > which shows the typical manner in which creationists make a illogical point based on their own lack of comprehension/ill-defined thinking and the manner in which they dig right into that lack of comprehension and ill-defined thinking even when someone attempts to carefully explain to them what's wrong with it.
              > > >
              > > > Same old, same old.
              > > >
              > > > But down in the comments I read the following comment, which is what I wanted to share here.
              > > >
              > > > | Claudia says (March 31, 2011):
              > > > |
              > > > | Debates don't get the people engaging in them to admit
              > > > | they were wrong on the spot, particularly when they
              > > > | involve deeply held beliefs that are based in emotion
              > > > | and not rationality. However people who are watching (or
              > > > | reading) the debate and are maybe less invested in the
              > > > | belief, and don't have their pride on the line because
              > > > | they're lurking, can be open to persuasion or at least
              > > > | planting the seed of doubt. People brought up
              > > > | creationist can and do come to their senses in many
              > > > | cases, and they do in part because those of us on the
              > > > | side of scientific thought don't write them off as lost
              > > > | cases and fight creationism.
              > > >
              > > > Thank you for the reminder, Claudia.
              > > >
              > > > - Todd Greene
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • rlbaty50
              ... Uh, oh! Robert
              Message 6 of 8 , Apr 2, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote, in part:

                > ...(it's one Robert Baty has been
                > consistently egging me on to
                > write about)...

                Uh, oh!

                Robert
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.