Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Does the Joan Rivers look float your boat?

Not really, the look and the voice are too abrasive for me, If I'm going to look at a female, I would ask that they at least be pretty.

thedoc wrote: Well, "good" is a relative term and if you and she feel the same way about the situation, then I guess she would be good to you. That does explain a few things.

Are you trying to say something here or have you posted a clue to a cryptic crossword by mistake?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Actually I wasn't thinking of them, but since you mentioned it, they are scumbags and hypocrites. It's just a shame that when anyone tells the truth about kristian scumbaggery they get shousted down as 'vitriolic' and 'just like Hillary Clinton'. The truth is the truth, whether people like it or not.

Really and just who is shouting them down, certainly no-one that I know.

Harbal wrote:

thedoc wrote: Well, "good" is a relative term and if you and she feel the same way about the situation, then I guess she would be good to you. That does explain a few things.

Are you trying to say something here or have you posted a clue to a cryptic crossword by mistake?

Sorry that you seem to have missed it.

thedoc wrote:

Harbal wrote:

thedoc wrote: Do you know any women like that? VT and Hillary certainly don't qualify.

Hillary is just a face on a screen to me, I'm not interested enough in her to pay any attention to what she is. VT may express herself rather vigorously at times but I usually find that her underlying thinking is pretty similar to mine. Sorry to disagree with you, doc, but, as far as this forum is concerned, I see her as one of the good guys.

Well, "good" is a relative term and if you and she feel the same way about the situation, then I guess she would be good to you. That does explain a few things.

I'm sure I've agreed with you on occasion, but you are such a nasty old butt-hurt coot that you always manage to soil our beautiful times together.

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Does the Joan Rivers look float your boat?

Not really, the look and the voice are too abrasive for me, If I'm going to look at a female, I would ask that they at least be pretty.

You must trip up a lot in the street then.

Harbal wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:the stretched, wind-tunnel look, so favoured by yank females

That is one hell of a look, isn't it?

Incredible that they actually believe it's a good look. I imagine doc's wife as a wind-tunneler, with a kristian bee-hive 'do and huge teeth.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Incredible that they actually believe it's a good look.

The startled cat fish also seems to be quite popular (see Ma Stallone).

thedoc wrote:Who are the "end-of-timers" I don't think I know any.

Really? You are a Christian who does not believe in an end of times when 'God' and Jesus return to judge us all and have a big battle with the unbelievers to establish 'heaven' upon the earth.

All theist religions have such a scenario I thought?

osgart wrote:...
Evolution has not found one transitional species and proven a link to human ancestry. It is inferred philosophically.
...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils

You won't find a 'transitional species' as, one, you wouldn't be able to recognise it as one at the time, two they'll go extinct due to being a 'transitional species' and three, and this is the biggy, there are no singular ''transitional species' in the 'missing-link' sense you wish as all species are in effect 'transitional species' due to Evolution.

http://evolution-101.blogspot.co.uk/200 ... ecies.html

Harbal wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Incredible that they actually believe it's a good look.

The startled cat fish also seems to be quite popular (see Ma Stallone).

Yes! And those bloody trout mouths, (although I think that's an insult to trout). Women can be the stupidest creatures on the planet.


I think it's an old photo. She's about a hundred now.

Immanuel Can wrote:...
Meanwhile, why don't we sit down and enumerate all the institutions for public good that were started by the cause of Atheism....

And there's the nail and the head, as none are started for the cause of 'Atheism' but Oxfam, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières, The Red Cross, UNICEF, are good examples no? Whereas many Christian charities appear to be exactly to further the cause of Christianity rather than just to do the right thing.
p.s.
Oh! And Foundation Beyond Belief.

Arising_uk wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:...
Meanwhile, why don't we sit down and enumerate all the institutions for public good that were started by the cause of Atheism....

And there's the nail and the head, as none are started for the cause of 'Atheism' but Oxfam, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières, The Red Cross, UNICEF, are good examples no? Whereas many Christian charities appear to be exactly to further the cause of Christianity rather than just to do the right thing.

The idiot doesn't know the difference between secular and 'atheist'.

Arising_uk wrote:

thedoc wrote:Who are the "end-of-timers" I don't think I know any.

Really? You are a Christian who does not believe in an end of times when 'God' and Jesus return to judge us all and have a big battle with the unbelievers to establish 'heaven' upon the earth.

All theist religions have such a scenario I thought?

"No true Scotsman". Just shows how much you don't know, and haven't been paying attention.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I think it's an old photo. She's about a hundred now.

Thanks, (not) you know I can't unsee that now. You really are cruel.