Someone crashed three planes into two sky scrapers and the most heavily defended building in the west, killing over 3,000. Than they worked up the American people to bomb Afghanistan, a country they admitted had "no military targets". Then they went to Iraq, for reasons that have clearly become false. The use of DU ammo is prevalent in both war actions (that the UN has declared illegal...). That makes more and more people (including our soldiers) very sick with radiation, and babies come out with flippers for hundreds of years. If the gulf war did have a break from 92 to 02, than there are about 1-2 million dead iraqis. Another 1 million dead Afghans. If the war never stopped, since Clinton's office bombed Iraq weekly, than it stands as 3 million dead Iraqis.

So, in about 10 - 15 years, whoever is in charge has killed 2-4 million innocent brown people, on the other side of the world. That is slowly getting on Par with (shudder) Hitler. But, I interject, allow Rokcet to answer you himself.

Unless that half of Iraqs population were all in al Queda... Another thing that doesn't exist. al Queda is as real as the Axis of Evil.

Thanks,
-Pip

(August 23, 2009 at 12:13 am)Pippy Wrote: Someone crashed three planes into two sky scrapers and the most heavily defended building in the west, killing over 3,000. Than they worked up the American people to bomb Afghanistan, a country they admitted had "no military targets". Then they went to Iraq, for reasons that have clearly become false.

Fuck you. If you're seriously suggesting the government flew those planes into those buildings, you're a fucking idiot. This shit has been discussed to death already and you need a hobby.

So, in about 10 - 15 years, whoever is in charge has killed 2-4 million innocent brown people, on the other side of the world. That is slowly getting on Par with (shudder) Hitler. But, I interject, allow Rokcet to answer you himself.

Your head is just something you hang your hat on. Or is it because you come from a planet on the other side of the Andromeda galaxy.

Quote:Fuck you, you're a fucking idiot.

Hey, well put. Good point. Thank you for sharing. Congratulations on having an opinion about something.
-Pip

Meatball had a point, we've discussed this to death, shown where your evidence is wrong and provided good debunking evidence and you refuse to acknowledge the truth.

(August 26, 2009 at 9:32 pm)Pippy Wrote:

Quote:Fuck you, you're a fucking idiot.

Hey, well put. Good point. Thank you for sharing. Congratulations on having an opinion about something.
-Pip

Congratulations, you managed to quote mine from 2 small sentences. Impressive.

Meatball is drawing a ridiculous strawman conclusion (Pippy never said that) and then swears at Pip twice in a short sentence for it . Totally unjustified and illogical. I think Pippy's summation is accurate.

Thank you Frodo.

No we did not discuss this to death. There was a death of sorts, but no discussion. You rudely demanded I post other peoples articles to save you from having to google anything yourself, so I did with a little bit of chagrin because that is not how I like to debate. Then you snapped back at me, somehow belittling me for not linking the sites, even though you didn't want to google it yourself. I made a claim. You dismissed it. I said "look it up, it's easy to do". You said "I don't have to look it up,". I said "OK, I hate to do it, but here are some articles, all copied and pasted so you don't have to waste your time on the rest of the net. Then you said I had no point because I did not provide links so you could go read the article yourself. But if you wanted to read the articles yourself, you could have typed the topic into your google sidebar... It's a strange argument. I did not see the part where you proved me wrong either. Please do, I enjoy that more than name calling.

Two of the three quotes has the paper in them. The first was Associated Press. The third was NY Times I think, and dated too. Look them up if you think I made them up. Oh, you don't like to look stuff up.

Then you had the petty last word, and closed the discussion. A slight personal overuse of the moderation powers, if you ask me. But then again, no one asked me.

I am only trying to show how you look from over here. Please don't act like you "won" that argument. Arguments are not about winning, they are about learning (first person to try to win loses?). I don't think of this as a competition.

I still stand by the things I said about Obama. I think I have been more than patient with how you decide to treat me. The burden of proof trap certainly doesn't stand here, as we are talking about objective, black and white fact. Either his administration is from 3 think tanks, or it is not. I tried to show it was, because you thought I was just making it up. Hopefully we can figure out where we stand, because I hate to fight, it pains me. But I am a fickle human sometimes, and you offended me.

There. I said it. Can I start apologizing yet?
Thanks,
-Pip

Sigh (I wish I wasn't so mean sometimes...)
-Pip

I'm on the fence with this one.

eilonnwy Wrote:You miss the point completely. I shouldn't have to google and prove what you say to be true. If you want to convince me, YOU have to put in the effort, I'm not doing that stuff for you. So if you're going to complain about having to back up your claims, then not even bother to provide the links for your sources for me to actually look at them and judge for myself

There once was a time where theists would make claims and us atheists would say "hey, i've done the research and this is why you're wrong". Now that the topic has turned "controversial" the tone has changed to "you're wrong by default, now show me why you're right". Perhaps I'm completely misjudging or haven't kept a close enough eye on all of the threads in question, but that's how it has seemed.

When theists make scientific claims and we aren't sure whether they're true or not (we assume they're false of course), a lot of us (or at least me?) would go out of our way to find contradictory evidence so that they stfu spouting nonsense. If you think Pippy is wrong, the least you can do is present him/her with the evidence showing that everything s/he said is wrong instead of taking the lazy position of "I see no evidence, I hear no evidence".

On the other hand, Pippy could just provide a reading list and hopefully everybody will be happy.

Or Eilonnwy could provide me a link to a thread where somebody presented some research from the non-conspirital side of the "debate" and I'll go find a boot to eat.

Edit: if you hang on for a few minutes I'm gonna put together a little portfolio

(August 27, 2009 at 9:04 am)LukeMC Wrote: There once was a time where theists would make claims and us atheists would say "hey, i've done the research and this is why you're wrong". Now that the topic has turned "controversial" the tone has changed to "you're wrong by default, now show me why you're right". Perhaps I'm completely misjudging or haven't kept a close enough eye on all of the threads in question, but that's how it has seemed.

It's called the Burden of Proof, Luke. If someone makes a claim they need to back it up. This is the basic principal a logical argument. If you make a claim you have to back it up in order for the other person to believe you or accept your claim as true. This is how also how our court systems work.

(August 27, 2009 at 9:04 am)LukeMC Wrote: Or Eilonnwy could provide me a link to a thread where somebody presented some research from the non-conspirital side of the "debate" and I'll go find a boot to eat.

We already had a 9/11 thread where a lot of references were provided that debunked the 9/11 conspiracy theories. What the hell are you on about?