Smut for Smut

[Pippy]

Hey,

Thanks both for sharing.

That's actually EXACTLY what you did:
(Today 01:44)Pippy Wrote: So I repeat, could you post links that would dissuade me from belief?

If you'll read slowly and out loud, I very carefully posed it as rhetoric. The point of rhetoric is that the answer should be alluded to in the question, and you don't actually have to answer the question. The point was that I cannot post links to change your beliefs, and I was establishing that point with rhetorical question. I apologize if that went over your head. So may I repeat, I did not ask you to provide links and then laugh at them. I specifically asked you not to provide links. For the second time.

An ecosystem doesn't have interdependent parts? Really?

You didn't mention the ecosystem, just the piece of lonely driftwood.

You would rather write gibberish than write things that have evidence to back up their claims. I didn't provide the link, I didn't make the link, nor do I support the link.

Last time I checked I am speaking legible english. I don't count whywontgodhealamputees.com as evidence. You did provide the link. You did support the link. I acknowledge that it may not be your website though...

Evidence for this claim please. It's a pretty bold claim. Lied to by whom? What lies are they telling? How do you know?

Because the officla Commission did such a terrible job that the "official" story cannot be true. Figure it out for yourself. One point out of millions. America's defense systems (on which they spend billions of dollars) failed catastrophically that morning. But they were still able to release the photos and names of every suicide bomber (that were not on passanger manifests) within 2 hours. And what are the chances that during the attack there were military training drills about the same attack. See 7/7 and other false flag examples for the pattern of military training while a 'terrorist; attack occurs. But simpky put, the official story is representative of such a terrible and flawed investigation, that my saying it is untrue is almost unarguable.

Right in time? Does that make any sense to you? I'm on the side that has evidence and peer reviewed and well-respected scholarly journals.

So when we are old men you won't be telling your grand children anything different than you now think about 9/11. The story will not be any clearer, or get refined any more. the version of 9/11 you believe in is perfect and will never change. I'm telling you that in history I am on the right side of this debate (methinks). you are of course allowed to think whatever you like.

I used to be a 9/11 truther.

Let me guess. You watched a couple homemade documentaries, and were made a believer. Then you watched a couple shiny pieces by Pop Mechanics and others, and flopped back. Good for you. I don't get why people say "i used to be a truther", well you wer'nt much of one if you 'used to be' one. I knew the game, and the part America played in it, long before that fateful day.

Actually it isn't. I said you asserted that you knew the truth, exactly what you said.
(Today 01:44)Pippy Wrote: It's not like after Loose Change I 'woke up' to the 9/11 truth, (b)ut that from day one I knew.

Please try harder. IT"S NOT LIKE AFTER LOOSE CHANGE I 'woke up' TO TRUTH. (emphasis mine)
BUT THAT FROM DAY ONE I KNEW. This doesn't mean, as it seems you assume that from 'day one' of watching loose change I 'woke up' to the truth. Day one was not the first day you watched the film. Say one was in 2001. God damn you're thick. Stop telling me what I did say after I have clarified what I already did say. Thanks.

You need to learn how to form your sentences a bit better.
(oday 01:44)Pippy Wrote: It's not like after Loose Change I 'woke up' to the 9/11 truth, (b)ut that from day one I knew.
This would mean that before Loose Change, you did not know.

Hey, let's do it again! No, you are mistaken. That would mean that before loose change, the movie that did not create my opinion, I already held an opinion. Deep breaths...

You need to learn how to form your sentences a bit better.

Try, as i suggested, reading slowed and may be out loud.

Stop right there. You said earlier that you believed in a God that did not interfere. So she loves us, but not enough to actually do anything? Why is that?

The reason god dosn't interfere is because she loves us. God loves us enough to know not to interfere. This is a giant learning machine. A kind of matter based simulation. How would the learning machine function if you had a mommy making sure nothing happened to you?

You don't believe that, so stop wasting your time with drawn out replies, since it's completely irrelevant to the conversation.

I appreciate that you heard and responded to me. I did say I don't represent people who beleive in faith healing, and you understood. Thank you.

As tavarish pointed out, yes, you did.

And Thor, the god of thunder who doesn't believe in gods. Do you beleive in thunder? As I have pointed out over again, no I did not. I'm sorry if my rhetoric confused you guys, but it made good sense to me when I wrote it.

The flagellan motor was rebutted in the Dover trial.

And the Dover Trial was rebutted by me when I just read that the opening argument defined ID as 'fish made with their scales already on'. That is not the argument or theory of ID I support, that is kindergarten level stupid.

We're being lied to about 9/11? Lied to about what?

How, why, who. Where and when are kinda out there in the open though.

So you DON'T believe that "God" miraculously cures people?

Nope, and certainly that we shouldn't expect her to, or wait on her.

But apparently this deity doesn't love anyone enough to restore a missing limb.

What is more important to the being in charge of everything? You're stupid litte arm and your whining about it, or that causality and free will are allowed to function?

Nope. I'm talking about the fact that this deity has NEVER regenerated a missing limb (or eye, or severed spinal cord) for ANYONE.

Nope. Not once, did you think she would? A hint, those crazy fundamentalists are wrong you know.

If this isn't the worst analogy I've ever encountered, it's certainly one of the top five.

I appreciate that, I made it special for this occasion. I tried to make one on par with comparing interdependent complexity with a piece of driftwood, which you were not involved in.

Wow, this is a juvenile argument. If this deity does one thing for you, he has to do everything for everybody?

Is it not juvenile to argue that god should fix only your legs and no on elses? If I am juvenile, you think the universe revolves around you. I don't actually think that, but I also don't think I am juvenile.

This just makes no sense whatsoever. It's a "miracle" that we can lose our limbs? This is simply asinine.

Oh, keep stewing over it though. It's a great thing, and something to be thankful for, that we live in a world with causality, consequence and free will. Unfortunately, 1 out of 1000 of you may lose a limb. We're sorry. If you'd like to not live in a world with these rules, you know where the door is.

Thanks.
-Pip