nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 110:
Line 110: + − i dont really expect an honest reply, but let's see is someone can give a good answer to all of those points.+ Line 131:
Line 132: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Liberal tricks (view source)
Revision as of 03:03, September 30, 2008
, 03:03, September 30, 2008→some points: Reply to michaeljw
5."if you dont like it, dont watch it-whale killing" can someone please tell me how something inappropriate on tv amounts to the slaughter of a vital and extremely endangered species? i don't know if folks grasp this concept, but as fafr removed from nature as our society is, it still relies heavily on it. if species continue to go extinct at the rate they are, there is a potential for complete ecological collapse. forget global warming.
5."if you dont like it, dont watch it-whale killing" can someone please tell me how something inappropriate on tv amounts to the slaughter of a vital and extremely endangered species? i don't know if folks grasp this concept, but as fafr removed from nature as our society is, it still relies heavily on it. if species continue to go extinct at the rate they are, there is a potential for complete ecological collapse. forget global warming.
i dont really expect an honest reply, but let's see is someone can give a good answer to all of those points.
{{unsigned|michaeljw}}
:''i dont really expect an honest reply'' is a splendid example of the 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic, and anyone who suggests that using that well-worn phrase is an apologist for domestic violence is an imbecile. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:''i dont really expect an honest reply'' is a splendid example of the 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic, and anyone who suggests that using that well-worn phrase is an apologist for domestic violence is an imbecile. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:00, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:00, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Michaeljw, allow me to also add my comments. I tend to stay away from pages such as this, as I don't consider them encyclopaedic, but on this one I did add a couple of points including one that you have queried. I also think that some of the points on the page may not be well expressed, but have some basis for being there.
# "When did you stop beating your wife", as Bugler pointed out, is a well known example of the logical fallacy known as a ''loaded question''. "i dont really expect an honest reply" is not the same thing; for one thing it's not even a question. It may be an example of ''poisoning the well'', though.
# Contrary to Bugler, atheism does not equal low intelligence, at least as we normally understand and measure intelligence. This is obvious from the fact that some very intelligent people have been atheists. But then that is not what the page says. Rather, it appears to be (this is one that's not well written) rejecting the ''opposite'' idea, that anybody who is ''not'' an atheist has low intelligence. Atheism and theism depend on ''beliefs'', not intelligence. Having said that, I will agree that atheism is at the very least logically dubious.
# If you put restrictions on praying, such as in school, then you have indeed stopped people praying ''freely''.
# I'm inclined to agree with you on this one, although perhaps it just gets back to that poor wording I mentioned. I don't ever recall anyone saying "it doesn't hurt to try" in connection with abortion.
# This is the one that I contributed, and I don't agree with Bugler's answer. As Christians, we should look after the creation that God has given us, being good stewards of it. So I support the preservation of endangered species. However, much of the opposition to whaling is from an ideological point of view, and is not based just on preserving endangered species. The minke whale, for example, is only "endangered" by drawing a long bow. But do environmentalists say that we should not kill whales that are really endangered, but other whales are okay to kill (even if in limited numbers so that they don't become endangered)? No, they are against killing whales ''at all''.<br />Your argument is that there is no real comparison between (a) an unimportant thing like something "inappropriate" on television, and (b) a very important thing like the "slaughter of a vital and extremely endangered species". Part of my answer is that (b) is not as important as you make it out to be. The other part of my answer is that (a) is more important that you make it out to be. The stuff on TV that many object to is stuff that helps lower the moral standards of our society, standards which forbid robbery, murder, rape, and so on. So keeping that stuff off TV would do a lot of good for society. But liberals have the dismissive attitude that if we don't like it, the solution is to simply not watch it. The point is that they don't apply this standard to killing whales because ''they'' consider that important, but dismiss our concerns that ''we'' consider important.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:03, 29 September 2008 (EDT)