Well, it looks like Vox Day is once again sending me a bunch of new visitors. I’m afraid the poor fellow hasn’t quite forgiven me for my critique of his sad little book. He has become wise enough not to try any specific refutations of my rebuttals, at least. Stick to the vague, disparaging dismissals, that’s the safest thing.
Eh, Vox?
Hey, I just had a stray thought. I know how we can settle this whole gay rights controversy in a way that should please gays, liberals, and even conservative Christians. Let’s use Biblical justice to punish gays for being gay. No, not that whole “stone them with stones” thing. That went out with bronze chariots. I mean that bedrock of moral principle at the bottom of God’s Old Testament Law, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”
Since gay people sin against us by falling in love differently than we do, we should punish them by falling in love differently than they do. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth! Let’s see how they like a taste of their own medicine, eh? They want to walk down the street with a same-sex lover? We’ll show them: we’ll walk down the street with opposite sex lovers. Hah! They want to marry same-sex partners? Let ‘em. But we’ll make ‘em pay. We’ll marry opposite sex partners. Legally! Take that, gays! You want to be different from us? Fine, then we’re gonna be different from you. And it serves you right.
Yeah, none of this merciful, New Testament, God-loves-sinners crap. Paul knew how to deal with sinners. Give ‘em old-fashioned Moses-brand justice, and do to them exactly what they’re doing to us, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. 100% Biblical justice, old school. Then everyone will be able to see just how much harm you can do to someone else by falling in love differently than they do.
Via Good Math, Bad Math comes this delightful bit of news.
[O]ver at the Disco Institute, resident Legal Eagle Casey Luskin has started posting an eight-part series on how the Kitzmiller case (the legal case concerning the teaching of intelligent design in Dover PA) was decided wrong.
Dr. Chu-Carroll proceeds to disassemble Luskin’s rather pathetic argument (as does Dr. Wesley Elsberry), and I recommend following the links and reading their analyses. What caught my eye, however, was the way Luskin not only bungles his case, but inadvertently pulls the rug out from under one of William Dembski’s main arguments.
(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...Chuck Colson has a new column about women in the military. It’s a little odd, though, because the text is full of typographical errors that make it sound like he’s talking about gays. Fortunately, his arguments make it quite plain what he’s really saying, so I’ve taken the liberty of correcting all the typos, below. (Corrections indicated by boldface.)
(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5) Loading ...I was just thinking: suppose we made financial decisions the way some people would have us make decisions about our souls…
You know you’re being spammed by a carelessly programmed computer when the comment starts like this:
I just wanted to break in and say howdy to everyone. I needed to acquaint myself, my name is Christine. Hello everyone, my name is Keith.Hello to all, I am recent here and my name is Bill.
Just to make it extra fun, the service being spammed was offering to help people with their computers. Oo, sign me up, I can’t wait to let these guys get to work on my PC!
Yes, comment spam is a nuisance, but every now and then it does provide a certain surreal entertainment. Like this:
[Spammer's Service] is a assemblage of get rid of pore toed crush people whose objective is to be dressed a upholster expand profits making investments.
Um, yeah, sounds like just the sort of people I’ve been wanting to do business with.
Just time for a quick post today, so I thought I’d share the story of the greedy bank manager.
Once upon a time, there was a bank manager who managed to lose quite a large sum of the bank’s money, through a series of bad investments. Concerned about the impact of the loss on the local community and on the bank (and, well, on his own career), he concealed the full extent of the losses by means of some rather creative accounting. But his conscience bothered him, and finally, he decided to pray about it.
In the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes, a couple of con men exploit people’s vanity by pretending to be tailors whose work is so exquisite that only the truly wise can see it. The emperor, not wanting people to doubt his wisdom, ends up parading around nude in public, and all the courtiers and nobles convince themselves that they, too, can see his fine new clothes, and are therefore not stupid. The charade comes to a humiliating end when a child too young to be vain about his intellect asks, “Mommy, why is that man naked?”
Of course, nobody would try to pull a scam like that today, would they? Well, not unless they were selling apologetics and scholarship instead of trousers and jackets. And speaking of which, here’s an excerpt from JP Holding’s attempt to deal with last week’s Toons.
Dumplin’ just shows how stupid he is when he says that my observation was “trivial and superficial.” Dumbass, it’s the key to Paul’s whole argument! You’re just too stupid to understand the relevance of appeal to the example of an ingroup leader within the context of a collectivist society.
Yes folks, JP has an argument so refined and so sublime that only the truly wise can see it. You can’t find any fault with it. You can’t even point out any shortcomings. If you criticize it at all, you’re just proving that you are not wise. Obviously so, since you cannot perceive the brilliance of JP’s argument, which as we mentioned before is so refined and so sublime that only the truly wise can see it. And I don’t care what dangly bits you happen to see hanging out.
(5 votes, average: 3.60 out of 5) Loading ...