Quote:
Originally Posted by glitch
I've gotta totally agree with Blade on this one. You don't make up your own definition of terms on a board and then expect everyone to use your definitions. That would be the ultimate in pretentious stupidity. You use the dictionairy definition - period.
|
Glitch, you're a
fool with that attitude, buddy.
That's what I've been trying to tell you, friend.
You're just being
stupid assailing me with that "orthodoxy" crap.
I'm tellin' ya bud - listen very carefully now -
==> your model doesn't work.
Your "orthodox" model, is
incorrect -
invalid -
non-operational.
If you're sittin' there tellin' me it's the "natural order of things", I'm gonna come right and tell you: "
BS, and I can prove it".
So don't sit there and feed me any of that "orthodoxy' BS.
You come to the table with
evidence, or don't bother coming at all.
And specifically, keep your stinkin' morality
out of the world of science.
We don't
like conjecture and arbitrariness.
We like
evidence, and things that are
real, and that
work.
(*)(*)(*)(*) moralists..... they're gonna be the death of mankind.
Moralists are
dangerous people.
And here, you have direct evidence.
Glitch is trying to tell me I'm supposed to be restricting my behavior on the basis of a
LIE.
He's got
no evidence -
nothing to back it up - and he's gonna sit there and try to coerce my behavior over some idiotic moral standard.
Case in point? You bet!
