RE: The Queen Who Stares at Boats
June 5, 2012 at 3:53 pm
(This post was last modified: June 5, 2012 at 3:56 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(June 5, 2012 at 3:40 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: I'd like to see where the fucking overhead of a Royal family somehow negates the costs of their cultural artifacts, like Buckingham Palace.
Have you ever seen the Buckingham Palace? Do you really think a dreary uninspired lump of a sodden building as the Buckingham Palace would draw any visitors or generate any revenue for its own upkeep without a living exhibit of the queen in it?
Come now, of course the queen offsets the cost of Buckingham palance.
(June 5, 2012 at 3:40 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: And metric by US war cost is fucking ridiculous -- The James Webb Space Telescope costs 8$billion and another Nimitz-class vessel costs 6$billion. Were we to argue relative costs, having another redundant cruiser is more preferable.
Well, I understand the annual public expenditure on the royals wouldn't even pay for 2 F-35 fighters, much less a cruiser.
(June 5, 2012 at 3:42 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:(June 5, 2012 at 3:35 pm)Chuck Wrote: It is enough that I know for myself which arguments are sound. There is no need to restrict myself to sound arguments if unsound ones would work just as well.
Nice reversal. However, it is ridiculous to state. In a small, hard to consider sense, a Creationist may know which of their arguments are sound while presenting unsound arguments that just work well.
Do you like the Gish gallop? Because it works "just as well"...
"Just as well" is a shitty reason.
Whether it is a shitty reason depends on either 1. how serious I am, or 2. how little respect I have for my opponents.
