They are already made of real chicken. The ingredients are white boneless chicken, water, salt, sodium phosphates, and seasoning which is made of yeast extract, salt, wheat starch, natural flavoring, safflower oil, lemon juice solids, dextrose, and citric acid.
Oh, and your links aren't biased? Give me a break.
So you don't like my source, how about we go straight to the person who the supposed claim is based off, John Bates. In an interview with ScienceInsider he said, “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” he told reporter Scott Waldman. And Bates told ScienceInsider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change. But it was important for this conversation about data integrity to happen, he says. “That’s where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people,”
He just called you out!
This article explains that NOAA's results are consistent with numerous other independent studies.
"For many years, climate scientists were puzzled by an apparent plateau in global temperature rise from 1998 to 2012 as ocean temperatures stayed consistent. The 2015 research paper addressed the issue when it found there was no pause because the method to collect ocean temperatures was flawed.
Since then, multiple independent studies have confirmed NOAA's findings, including one published last month in Science Advances.
That study replicated NOAA's findings by accounting for different methods of temperature collection over time. For instance, data collected in the engine rooms of ships show slightly elevated levels of warming compared with those collected by buoys. When researchers accounted for that discrepancy, the so-called global warming pause disappears, researchers found.
The American Geophysical Union, which represents thousands of scientists who study climate, pointed out that the results of the 2015 study had been discussed in peer-reviewed journals and that multiple studies had independently backed up the findings."
As expected you just resort to an ad hominem by attacking the source instead of actually addressing the argument that there is a valid reason to make adjustments in the data and that without the adjustments it would show even more warming.
I know you're just trolling, but I'll reply just so people who are actually interested in the topic can see the other side.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/
Here are some snippets from the article, but I highly recommend reading the whole thing.
"Since ocean temperature data used in the Science study came from two different sources — buoys and ships — the full data set needed to be adjusted to accommodate for differences in how each source measures temperature.
Several studies have noted that 'ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data' and that buoy data are 'more accurate,' the researchers write. Since buoys have increased in use over time and ships have decreased in use, there is a “time-dependent bias” in the global ocean temperature record"
"Karl and his co-authors point out that “it is also clear that the long-term trend would be significantly higher … without corrections” to the raw data. In other words, compared with the raw data, the adjusted data show less warming over the long-term."
You figured out the script that I posted a debate about?! Brilliant work there Sherlock. You mom would be so proud of you.
I definitely misunderstood then. For some reason I thought you were referring to the last 4 in the top portion of the list, which at the time consisted of AtheistChimp, GrittyWorm, StiflersMom and Subcreature, so if my comment didn't make much sense, that's why.
Ignore. Duplicate post. I really wish Andy would fix the site.
Did you change your comment? I could have sworn it originally said something about some of the names in the top list. Maybe I just misread it.
Yes, I upvoted both yours and mine with my alt accounts (JCsMom, Upvote4U, and Upvote4U2) to counter Brontos alt accounts. I created the Upvote4U accounts a long time ago to upvote all the people JC was mass downvoting with all of his alt accounts. Even after that there were some downvotes, so it looks like Bronto undid some of his downvotes.
See edit #3 of the debate description. I got screenshots of all of the downvotes from his accounts.
I noticed that too, but I no longer think they are the same person. See my edit to the debate description.
Now he's trying to bury this debate by creating a ton of debates in hopes that no one will scroll down through all of his nonsense to see it.
1. All those accounts were created this week
2. All of those accounts have the same downvoting patterns
https://www.createdebate.
https://www.createdebate.
https://www.createdebate.
https://www.createdebate.
https://www.createdebate.
https://www.createdebate.
3. They all comment in each other's debates
4. All of those accounts are obviously trolling
5. He created a debate called "We should war with atheists and make America Christian." I made a comment about him creating multiple accounts and within minutes he used all of those accounts, (except Subcreature since that account wasn't created yet) to downvote my comment.
6. He created a debate called "How is Brontoraptor leading in points this week?" which has been deleted now, but still shows up on his points page. If you look at his recent debates, like this one, you can see he has large numbers of upvotes, and we all know the only person that is going to upvote him is himself.
7. His GrittyWorm account created a debate called "Cartman has 7 different accounts." Brontoraptor has made that claim numerous times. I commented in that debate that he had multiple accounts, so he deleted the debate. However, you can see that it was created because it shows up in his downvote list here
You created that debate right after I accused you of being GrittyWorm. It's an obvious attempt to discredit my claim. Nice try.
Then you need to clean the wax out of your ears.
Why bother creating another account (grittyworm) when it's just the same persona as your current one? Aren't you creative enough to come up with a different persona?
Yes, he's definitely a troll. Most of the zealots on this site (Brontoraptor, FromWithin/NowASaint, Outlaw60) are just trolls. I made a script to make them disappear, so I don't have to listen to their idiocy any more.
but you're taking it out of context...or misinterpreting it....or you've been blinded by the devil...or it's just a metaphor...or we just don't understand god's mysterious ways...or so and so apologist can do some really impressive mental gymnastics to make it not a contradiction. ;)
Update for Trump Voters
1. He told you NATO was “obsolete,” claiming it doesn’t fight terrorism. You bought it. Now he says NATO is “no longer obsolete.”
2. He told you he’d “bring down drug prices” by making deals with drug companies. You bought it. Now the White House says that promise is “inoperative.”
3. He said he’d close “special interest loopholes that have been so good for Wall Street investors but unfair to American workers." You bought it. Then he picked a Wall Street financier Stephen Schwarzman to run his strategic and policy forum, who compares closing those loopholes to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
4. He said that on Day One he’d label China a “currency manipulator.” You bought it. Then he met with China’s president and declared "China is not a currency manipulator."
5. He said he’d “renegotiate NAFTA” on Day One. You bought it. He hasn't.
6. He said he wouldn’t bomb Syria. You bought it. Then he bombed Syria.
7. He said he’d build a wall along the border with Mexico. You bought it. Now his secretary of homeland security says “It’s unlikely that we will build a wall.”
8. He said he’d clean the Washington swamp. You bought it. Then he brought into his administration more billionaires, CEOs, and Wall Street moguls than in any administration in history, to make laws that will enrich their businesses, along with former lobbyists, lawyers and consultants who are crafting new policies for the same industries they recently worked for.
9. He said he’d repeal Obamacare and replace it with something “wonderful.” You bought it. Then he didn’t.
10. He said he’d use his business experience to whip the White House into shape. You bought it. Then he created the most chaotic, dysfunctional, back-stabbing White House in modern history, in which no one is in charge.
11. He said he’d release his tax returns, eventually. You bought it. He hasn’t, and says he never will.
12. He said he’d divest himself from his financial empire, to avoid any conflicts of interest. You bought it. He remains heavily involved in his businesses, makes money off of foreign dignitaries staying at his Washington hotel, gets China to give the Trump brand trademark and copyright rights, travels to promote his properties at taxpayer expense, manipulates the stock market on a daily basis, and has more conflicts of interest than can even be counted.
13. He said Clinton was in the pockets of Goldman Sachs, and would do whatever they said. You bought it. Then he put half a dozen Goldman Sachs executives in positions of power in his administration.
14. He said he’d surround himself with all the best and smartest people. You bought it. Then he put Betsy DeVos, opponent of public education, in charge of education; Jeff Sessions, opponent of the Voting Rights Act, in charge of voting rights; Ben Carson, opponent of the Fair Housing Act, in charge of fair housing; Scott Pruitt, climate change denier, in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency; and Russian quisling Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State.
10. He said he’d faithfully execute the law. You bought it. Then he said his predecessor, Barack Obama, spied on him, without any evidence of Obama ever doing so, in order to divert attention from the FBI’s investigation into collusion between his campaign and Russian operatives to win the election.
15. He said he knew more about strategy and terrorism than the generals did. You bought it. Then he green lighted a disastrous raid in Yemen- even though his generals said it would be a terrible idea. This raid resulted in the deaths of a Navy SEAL, an 8-year old American girl, and numerous civilians. The actual target of the raid escaped, and no useful intel was gained.
16. He called Barack Obama “the vacationer-in-Chief” and accused him of playing more rounds of golf than Tiger Woods. He promised to never be the kind of president who took cushy vacations on the taxpayer’s dime, not when there was so much important work to be done. You bought it. He has by now spent more taxpayer money on vacations than Obama did in the first 3 years of his presidency. Not to mention all the money taxpayers are spending protecting his family, including his two sons who travel all over the world on Trump business.
17. He called CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times “fake news” and said they were his enemy. You bought it. Now he gets his information from Fox News, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, and InfoWars.
A thread created by you in an attempt to bash your competition and praise DebateIsland. Even the comments are just shill accounts. Come on dude, give it up. You're not fooling anyone.
Here to plug your website again I see, and now instead of just creating a bunch of fake accounts with random characters on your website, you're copying CreateDebate user names, like JoeCavalry, in an attempt to make it look like people are switching over to your website.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but DebateIsland is a terrible website for debating. There are hardly any real debaters, just your shill accounts trying to make it look active and talk it up. It doesn't have threaded conversations, which is an absolute necessity for a debate website, so it's very difficult to follow who is talking to who and which comment they are responding to. The vast majority of the comments are just one or two sentences with next to no thought in them, most likely because they are just your shill accounts.
If you want to promote your site by creating debates on other debate websites that talk about the differences between the debate sites, that's fine, but when you create a bunch of fake accounts on those sites to talk it up you cross the line and just make people not want to go to your website. Then when you copy other debate sites user names in an attempt to make it look like they switched to your site you've really crossed the line. Look, I get that you want to promote your site, but this is not the way to do it. All you're doing is tarnishing the site's reputation. I for one will never use DebateIsland due to the way you've chosen to promote it.
/r/Politics is a great place to debate, although I prefer /r/NeutralPolitics. They have a team of moderators to keep the trolls at bay. You can actually have constructive and civil debates there, unlike the immature snarky assholes that seem to frequent sites like this. It has a great threaded format so it's easy to follow the conversations.
It's not my opinion, it's your God's opinion if you believe the Bible is his inspired word. Those verses are from the very same Bible you are using to justify your views on gay marriage. If you think those verses don't say what I've claimed they said, then please explain why. Don't just dismiss my arguments without even attempting to come up with a counter-argument. This is a debate site after all.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but it's very frustrating when hardly anyone on a debate site seems to be willing to engage in debate. You rarely, if ever, answer my questions or offer counter-arguments. You'll never get better at debating if keep doing that, and will never know if your beliefs are true if every time someone asks you a tough question you bolt instead of taking the time to really think about it and come up with an answer.
So you either have to admit there is a contradiction or find a way to resolve the contradiction. Here is a way to resolve the contradiction. Christ rules over the church, so husbands ruling over their wives would be similar to Christ loving the church. Can you resolve the contradiction without husbands ruling over their wives?
I already explained to you in your other debate that Biblical marriage is more than just one man and one woman. It's...
•One man and one or more women who were sold to the highest bidder (Exodus 21:7-11)
•One man and the virgins he decides to keep as spoils of war (Numbers 31:17-18)
•One man and the hot woman whose family and friends he recently slaughtered (Deut 21:10-14)
•One man and one or more women whom he raped (Deut. 22:28–29)
•One man and many women and concubines (Gideon had at least 1 concubine, Nahor: 1, Jacob: 1, Eliphaz: 1, Caleb: 2, Manassah: 1, Saul: 1, David: at least 10, Rehoboam: 60, Solomon: 300, Belshazzar: more than 1)
•One man and the woman his deceased brother was married to (Gen. 38:8–10). If he won't get his brother's wife pregnant he is to be put to death.
Why do you ignore those verses?
After reading what I said, do you still think granting gays the right to marry is in any way equivalent to allow pedophiles to marry their victims?
Do you believe you have a right to force everyone to live by the tenets of your religion?
Did monogamists have the right to redefine marriage so that it excluded polygamy?
Did the people who wanted an interracial marriage have a right to redefine marriage?
They both "used the Supreme Court to force this redefinition down everyone's throat." So if redefining marriage is wrong, then you must support polygamy and think interracial marriage should be against the law.
Here are some quotes from you:
People who resist gay marriage "are bigots who wish to force their bigotry on other people."
"I personally disagree with same sex marriage, but I choose to vote it to be legal anyway because same sex couples have the right to freedom of belief."
What made you change your mind and think they no longer have the right to freedom of belief?
Straight marriage is between consenting adults.
Gay marriage is between consenting adults.
Pedophila is not between consenting adults. That's the big difference.
Children are not mature enough to understand the ramifications of marriage, and children who have sexual contact with adults are usually emotionally damaged by the experience. The same can't be said about gay marriage. The only difference between straight marriage and gay marriage is the shape of their genitalia. Telling someone they can't get married because their genitalia are the same shape is like telling someone they can't get married because their eye color is the same.
Trump orders the dropping of one 16 million dollar bomb that kills 36 Isis fighters; FromWithin jizzes in his pants.
Obama order the dropping of over 24,000 bombs, killing approximately 45,000 Isis fighters; FromWithin calls Obama a pacifist.
"I find it quite easy to debate the trolls."
Sure it's easy, but why bother?
"The only power they have over you and this site is the power granted to them by not opposing them and by letting them think they got under your skin."
We grant power to trolls by engaging them, because that's exactly what they want. The best way to take away their power is to ignore them. I think of them like spam in my inbox. I have no interest in reading what they have to say, so I would rather just have my spam filter delete it. That's what the troll filter is for, to remove the stuff I have no interest in reading.
How does it not solve the problem? It makes those people disappear.
"You must have put a lot of effort into creating it, thank you."
You're welcome. It actually didn't take much effort. Is a very small script.
"I actually sometimes enjoy the arguments though"
That's why I added the option to just color their debates instead of hiding them completely. That way you can easily identify and ignore them when you're not in the mood for their nonsense, or engage them when you are.
"Honestly, I don't know why people would bother to log onto a debate website just so they could pretend its most active and vocal posters aren't there."
It's a debate website. The most active posters aren't here to debate. They are here to troll, preach, or spam their blog. I come here for debate, so I only want to see posts by people who are also here for real debate.
It took the same amount of work to write that comment as it does to install it, unless you want to customize the settings, which is a little more work, but still very easy. It's only 4 clicks to use the default settings. It's up to you though. I just wanted people to have the option since this site is overrun with trolls.
Only 16-18% of liberals think guns should be banned for everyone except law enforcement. The vast majority support the right to own a gun. (source)
He's doing it intentionally. He's just another troll trying to irritate people.
Once he has completed Hooked on Phonics and can finally read, we can get him this book.
If we're talking about the man-hating kind with a victim complex, then yes, they definitely have a screw loose.
If we're talking about the dictionary definition, "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities," then no, it's definitely not a mental illness.
"I HATE deception and have no problem ignoring or banning obvious deception."
Me too. Goodbye
When you've got nothing more to do than troll, you have entirely too much time on your hands.
Yes, how dare I let the people of this community know that there is a troll among us. I guess I should just keep my mouth shut and let him continue to troll people instead of warning them. http://i.imgur.com/3ywmpjW.gif
"Again the arrogant judgemental Progressives"
Do you even think before you speak, or do you just spew the first thing that comes to mind like Trump. Nearly everything you post is arrogant and judgemental.
"Where did I say anything about transgender? I said men who identify as a woman."
Okay, replace the word transgendered in my argument with men who identify as women.
"And yes it does give certain men an unfair advantage in the restroom or locker room. Ones who are not ashamed and have the courage to go into a restroom or locker room have an unfair advantage when it comes to meeting women to ask out on a date. They have more of an opportunity to meet women by being around them more."
Men who identify as women aren't interested in meeting women to ask out on a date. They are interested in men. So according to your statement, letting them use the men's restroom would be giving them an unfair advantage.
"The men do not have to mean it when they say they identify as a woman, as per Obama's comments. All they have to do is say it and it is allowed."
Which is why I oppose that bill.
"Obama opened this can of worms and it needs to be revised."
I agree
YOU ARE AMAZING! Either you purposely play totally ignorant to the words i write, or you are dumber than rocks. I just got done explaining that when your voting choices are between a stinking pile of shit and another stinking pile of shit, no matter which party you vote for you still end up with a stinking pile of shit. Just because I chose to go with the stinking pile of shit that smells slightly less disgusting, doesn't mean I agree with or support everything that stinking pile of shit does. If your only choices are between Hitler and Stalin, I would expect you to choose the one that is going to cause the least amount of damage, but I wouldn't assume you supported everything they stand for, because I realize you had no choice but to choose the lesser of two evils.
You're also ignoring the fact that the abortion issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court, so regardless of which candidate is selected that's unlikely to change. Are you really naive enough to think abortion is going to be outlawed now that Trump is president?
Another fact that you're ignoring is there is no way to predict everything that a candidate or party is going to do after the election. All politicians lie compulsively, so there is no way to know where they truly stand on issues. Trump has already broken a long list of promises. He broke 64 promises in his first month!
Yet another fact you're ignoring is that people don't get to vote for the politicians that run every state, they only get to vote for the ones running their state, so don't blame them for what the other 49 states do.
So you're just another troll. There were a few times I suspected you might be, especially when you said, "I've always been a mean, cruel, nasty person, and am not any example for your children," but I just couldn't believe anyone would put that much time and effort into trolling. What a sad life you must have if your primary source of entertainment is pretending to be a religious nut job online. Are you also Outlaw60 & FromWithin/NowASaint? Outlaw is definitely a troll, and I think there is a very strong possibility that FromWithin/NowASaint is too.
Just as I thought, excuse after excuse for Republicans, but not an inch of slack for Democrats. "We have a tendency to grant amnesty to people we agree with and to overly demonize people we don't." - John Stewart
1) Obama's administration isn't in control anymore.
It makes no difference who is in control now. It doesn't change the fact that Republican politicians don't care any more about obeying the law than Democrat politicians.
2)Not "cracking down on prison rape" is a broad declaration. Now prove how they are "not cracking down on prison rape," and that it's illegal.
I don't know how it could be any clearer. It literally says, "nearly two weeks after the May 15 deadline, Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, and Florida are still not complying with the law—and several GOP governors say they're ignoring the law on purpose."
3)Nobody has done anything that counters Roe vs Wade in an illegal fashion.
"Republican Party Chairman Tells State To Ignore Roe v. Wade"
He told them to ignore the law, just like the people who created sanctuary cities are doing.
4)Challenging the Supreme Court is not illegal.
You didn't read the whole article. It says, "it is Staver who, earlier this spring co-authored a pledge not to obey any Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality, and he told a gathering that he expected every GOP candidate for president to sign it.
Mike Huckabee has already done so. So has Rick Santorum, another perennial White House hopeful."
They are making a pledge to ignore the law.
5)A claim of "flirting with law breakers" is just that, a claim, and not illegal.
"Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and others rushed to defend Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk jailed for refusing to obey federal law." They may not have broke the law themselves, but they supported the breaking of said law.
There are many more examples of both parties refusing to obey the law, but it's pretty obvious that you'll just make excuses for your preferred party.
"Hey folks, here's the tolerant, open minded, inclusive Left doing what they always do. DEMONIZING ANY CHRISTIAN, CONSERVATIVE, OR PROLIFE PERSON WHO SHINES A LIGHT ON THEIR EXTREMISM, THEIR SUPPORT OF THE INHUMANITY OF NO RESTRICTION ABORTIONS..."
What extremism? You don't even know what I believe on most subjects, because you've never once asked me. You just make assumption after assumption and assume anyone who disagrees with you on any issue automatically believes the same things as your ridiculous little stereotype. I've pointed this out to you time and time again, but you just can't seem to get it through your thick skull.
"...AND THEIR RADICAL IDEOLOGY WHEREBY THEY BELIEVE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE US ALL TO THINK LIKE THEM."
Name one thing I have done to force you to think like me?
Give me an example where I demonized someone for being pro-life? See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You assume I fit your stereotype, but I can guarantee you that you won't be able to find any example of me demonizing someone for being pro-life, because I never have.
"Most people on this site are not so paranoid and intolerant to try and demonize others by name."
Unlike you who demonizes millions of people instead of addressing the source of the problem.
"Only the judgemental insecure people that actually agreed and responsded to your judgemental attacks would spend all that time reading your deceptive analogy."
And yet here you are, a judgmental insecure person responding to my judgemental attacks after you read the analogy.
"I do not speak for the other's you are attacking by name."
Yes you do, you speak for SaintNow, because you are the same person.
"I do not say every single Liberal or Progressive thinks exactly alike on the issues I speak to. I'm saying the VAST VAST MAJORITY DO, BECAUSE THE VAST MAJORITY OF PROGRESSIVES AND LIBERALS VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT PARTY (or other Left leaning Parties) THAT DO SUPPORT THE ISSUES I ADDRESS!"
You don't seem to get that when your voting choices are between a stinking pile of shit and another stinking pile of shit, no matter which party you vote for you still end up with a stinking pile of shit.
"Are you trying to say the majority of Liberals vote for Republicans most times?"
No, because the Republican pile of shit smells slightly worse than the Democrat pile of shit, but just because they chose the pile of shit that you like the least doesn't mean they support everything the pile of shit they voted for stands for. Do you support every piece of legislation that Republican politicians have tried to pass?
"bla bla...abortion...bla bla...gay marriage...bla bla...the Democrat Party whose final goal is taking our guns"
Okay, now you've just gone off the deep end. If you think the Democratic party's file goal is to take your guns, then you're either incredibly ignorant or just delusional. Only 16-18% of liberals think guns should be banned for everyone except law enforcement. http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/
"You are doing just the opposite with your rantings. Your analogy of lableing groups by the actions of a few is ABSOLUTELY LAUGHABLE!"
It's exactly what you do!
"People like you on this site do exactly what you are claiming we are doing. They many times use the Westboro Church to try and paint most Christian Churches as hating Gays."
Show me where I said most Christians are like the WBC? I won't wait, because it's not gonna happen.
"Or they bring up events from thousands of years ago to try and judge Christians today."
I don't judge Christians of today based on the events from thousands of years ago, I try to get them to read what their god supposedly said thousands of years ago, so they can see what a monster he really is.
"You are saying I lump all Liberals and Progressives together because of the actions of a few. NO!!!!! I am lumping Liberals and Progressives together because of the actions of THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM! The vast majority vote for this new age extreme Liberal Democrat Party. Those are the facts!"
Very few, if any, of your debates target liberals and progressives for who they voted for. They target them for every single issue you disagree with. For example, you have a debate titled, "The Left believe's sanctuary cities can ignore fed laws..." I consider myself more left than right, but I oppose sanctuary cities. Debate after debate and comment after comment from you say "Decocrats do this" and "Liberals do that". If you don't want to get accused of stereotyping entire groups of people, there's an easy way to fix that, insert the word "some" or "many" in front of the words Democrats, Liberals, or whatever group you're whining about.
"You twist facts to try and demonize those who do not think like you."
Says the guy who has created nearly 800 debates doing exactly that
Because being transgendered doesn't give you an unfair advantage in the restroom, but it does in certain sports. However, in my opinion, the restroom bill is far too broad and needs to be revised.
"I've always been a mean, cruel, nasty person, and am not any example for your children."
Then why don't you change that, or at the very least stop preaching to people if you're not willing to at least try to practice what you preach. Do you really think you're going to win people over to Christ acting like that? All you're doing is pushing people away from Christianity.
"You can paint people within a group with the same brush if that group defines its beliefs and those beliefs are generally agreed upon. I've never met a Pro Choice Conservative, for example. I've never met an anti gay marriage liberal."
Just because you haven't met them doesn't mean they don't exist. I know people who fit both of those examples, and here are many more.
https://www.google.com/
https://www.google.com/
There are over 319 million people in the U.S. alone. You can't judge millions of people based on the handful of people you've met.
"If the right behaved like Dems, as if the law doesn't matter, we wouldn't have a country."
The right does behave like the law doesn't matter.
Now go ahead and make your excuses for why it's okay for the right to do it, but not okay for the left to do it. Both parties are wrong for doing it and it needs to stop.
This is where atheists are going, and Christians, and Muslims, and Hindus, and Buddhists, and so on.
He said, "else I'd say you belong in the list as well." He didn't say he has the ability to put you on the list.
I just did, it's all right there in your profile. I know you're just trolling and trying to get me to waste time. Well, I'm done playing your games. Have fun trolling someone else.
"I'm not a good Christian, nor a good Republican, or even a decent human being for that matter, nor an example for the masses"
It looks like you learned some humility from our little talk the other day. Good
"this debate is moot and makes no point with any effectiveness."
It very clearly makes the point that your logic is flawed and you should stop trying to paint all liberals, or any other group, with the same brush. The whole left vs. right black & white thinking is flawed. I agree with the left on some issues, and I agree with the right on some issues. I oppose the left on some issues, and oppose the right on some issues. That's the reason I refuse to identify with either party. Political parties do nothing but divide us and create stereotypes.
“The moment when someone attaches you to a philosophy or a movement, then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you. And when you want to have a conversation, they will assert that they already know everything important there is to know about you because of that association. And that's not the way to have a conversation.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson
"do you have facts for the assumptions you make made."
Once again you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Nowhere in the debate description did I say you were a Republican or a Christian, although I do believe that you are a Republican. You're anti-gay, anti-liberal, anti-feminist, pro-fossil fuels, anti-environmentalist, anti-Muslim, racist, pro-gun, obsessed with other people's sex lives, don't believe in climate change, spend all day bashing the left, and love Breitbart. That's pretty much the definition of an extreme right-wing Republican. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Why, is there a law against copying and pasting things that I've posted in previous debates?
Religion and right and wrong are two different subjects. Religion doesn't own right and wrong. It doesn't get to define it any more than Joe Blow down the street does.
I've said multiple time that "Muhammad was a pedophile, wife beater, thief, murderer and rapist, and Islam is a festering blight upon humanity." If that's your idea of showing Islam love, then you have a seriously twisted idea of what love is. Although I don't like Islam, I'm not naive enough to think that all Muslims are bad people, because as I've also said, "just like all the other religious people, they pick and choose the parts of their holy books they agree with and ignore the rest. The good Muslims follow the peaceful parts of their holy books, and the bad ones follow the violent parts." That's the part that you can't seem to get through your head. Just like there are good and bad Christians who pick and choose which parts of the Bible they follow (like you do), there are good and bad Muslims who pick and choose which parts of the Quran they follow. I'm not going to judge the good Muslims by the actions of the bad ones, just like I'm not going to judge the good Christians by the actions of the bad ones.
My profile pic isn't a typical Fennec Fox. It's a rare breed called Fennecus Giganticus. You can't tell from the photo because it doesn't show anything for size comparison, but it's actually 30 feet tall and shoots laser beams out of its eyes.
It's actually a Fennec Fox, but they both belong to the biological family Canidae, so close enough.
Correct. I'm demonstrating how ridiculous their "logic" is by using their own "logic" against them.
It didn't take long at all. Many of the links are from other debates. The rest were found in just a few minutes by just searching for terms like "Crazy Preacher" or "Racist Republican"
I'm a little confused. You seem to be arguing for the other side of the debate, in which case I agree with you. Did you read the first two sentences of my post? It says, "Using the "logic" of Brontoraptor, Outlaw60 & FromWithin/NowASaint, let's examine what Christians and Republicans are like. Obviously I don't believe any of this stuff. I'm merely pointing out the ridiculousness of the zealots on this site." The whole point of my post was to show how stupid it is for the above mentioned users to stereotype and demonize entire groups of people based on the actions of a few.
New Bathroom Bill to ban Priests from using public bathrooms.
http://thegoodlordabove.com/
It makes perfect sense. Since priests are molesting kids, we should assume all Priests are pedophiles. We need to protect our children from these perverts.
Pointing to other verses doesn't make the verse I posted go away. It creates a contradiction, a contradiction that I can easily resolve, but you can't without twisting what it says and ignoring the context.
"it says he won't come back until the gospel is preached across the entire world"
They didn't know how big the world was. They thought the only people that existed were Noah's descendants.
"there is a mass falling away from the faith"
It doesn't say mass falling away, it just says apostacy. The word apostacy just means forsake or falling away. You're exaggerating by adding the word "mass" in there. The exact same word is used in Acts 21:21 "...you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses..." Plus, there is no reason to think people couldn't fall away before the apostles died. There, contradiction resolved. Let's see you resolve it without ignoring the context and twisting what it says.
"a beast system arises"
Why can't a beast system arise before the apostles died?
"and the world becomes like Sodom and Gomorrah."
The verse doesn't say that. It says, "they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying." Not a day has gone by since Jesus supposedly said that when that wasn't the case.
You like it when I'm dirty, don't you? You want me to be your dirty boy. You sick pervert!
How do you know what I smell like? Oh, that's why the underwear has been disappearing from my hamper. You've been stealing it so you can sniff it! You sick pervert!
I checked some of the numbers and was surprised by how much variation there is. I think a lot of the variation is due to where each study was done. Some countries probably have a higher incidence of these things than others. I've included the various numbers I found.
Complete Androgen insensitivity syndrome
1 in 13,000
1 in 20,000
1 in 99,000.
Most of the sources said 20,000
Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome
1 in 2,000
1 in 20,000
1 in 130,000 births
Late onset adrenal hyperplasia
1 in 60
1 in 66
1 in 1000
1 in 5000
1 in 12,600
Klinefelter (XXY): 1 in 1,000 births
1 in 500
1 in 800
1 in 1,000
Ovotestes
1 in 12,000
1 in 14,500
1 in 83,000 births
Vaginal agenesis: 1 in 6,000 births
1 in 5000-7000
1 in 6000
Most sources said 5000
Then you should probably stop being such an ass to them, because you're just increasing the likelihood that they will treat you and your descendants the same way you treat them.
LOL, if conservatives can't even stand up to wussbags, that would make them even bigger wussbags. Seriously Brontoraptor, you need to start thinking things through before you post them, because you're just embarrassing yourself. Although it's kind of hilarious, it's also kind of sad.
It's not just Islam, the symbolism is everywhere, which is clearly definitive proof that there are Devil worshipers everywhere. They're in South Carolina, most of Malaysia, Sesame Street and Sailor Moon! They're everywhere! You should run and hide before the evil Satanists get you!
That's pretty funny coming from the guy who has created over 100 debates bashing millions of people.
Republicanism is the worship of the Hindu god Ganesha. The Republican symbol is an elephant. Ganesha has the head of an elephant. Oh, what's that you have there as your profile pic?
Why did you change the title of your debate? Are you trying to save face after being shown how you lack humility and don't actually follow the teachings of Jesus? Apparently you forgot that I already quoted the original title in one of my replies. The original title was, "Brontoraptor movement destroys Atheist apologist on facebook in epic throwdown."
Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with morality. It's the answer to a single question, "do you believe in a god?" Your question is no different than asking, "Are you admitting out loud that Christianity is a moral system with the 'moral highground' on not believing in the tooth fairy..." It's a ridiculous question.
It doesn't have to specifically mention movements. It's about pride in general. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" doesn't specifically mention movements either, so according to your "logic" I guess it's okay to to commit adultery as long as you do it with a bunch of other people as part of a movement. As expected, you're just making excuses because you don't really care what Jesus said.
http://i.imgur.com/VJNn5G4.jpg
I see a Christian fish and a cross in there. So according to your "logic" that proves that Christianity is the worship of Satan.
Whether it's pride in yourself or pride in your so-called movement, it's still pride. Read it again. "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud."
Do you honestly think that "Brontoraptor movement destroys Atheist apologist on facebook in epic throwdown." is showing love, or is it being boastful and proud. I think you know the answer to that, but go ahead and make your excuses. We all know that you and most of the so-called Christians on this site have no desire to actually follow the teachings of Jesus. You just use your religion to judge and act superior to people like the Pharisees did.
This is where I got the numbers from http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency
I'll spot check them later tonight when I'm off of work.
I never said I supported the policy. I'm actually against the policy, because I think it's far too broad. I was simply pointing out that gender isn't a black and white issue, and that Brontoraptor's claim that, "If you were born with the chromosomes of a man, you shouldn't need me to tell you which bathroom is yours." is fallacious because it assumes that the only chromosome combinations are XX and XY.
You didn't answer the question. Which ones of those are male and which ones are female, and what criteria did you use to make that determination?
Thanks for providing evidence supporting my claim. Your link says, "Humans, as well as some other organisms, can have a chromosomal arrangement that is contrary to their phenotypic sex; for example, XX males or XY females (see androgen insensitivity syndrome). Additionally, an abnormal number of sex chromosomes (aneuploidy) may be present, such as Turner's syndrome, in which a single X chromosome is present, and Klinefelter's syndrome, in which two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome are present, XYY syndrome and XXYY syndrome.[2] Other less common chromosomal arrangements include: triple X syndrome, 48, XXXX, and 49, XXXXX."
If you're going to call yourself a Christian, maybe you should actually read your Bible once in a while.
Proverbs 27:2 Let someone else praise you, and not your own mouth; an outsider, and not your own lips.
Proverbs 8:13 To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.
Proverbs 16:5 The LORD detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished.
Proverbs 26:12 Do you see a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them.
Proverbs 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.
Proverbs 11:2 When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom.
Philippians 2:3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves,
Proverbs 29:23 Pride brings a person low, but the lowly in spirit gain honor.
1 Corinthians 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
James 4:6 But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.”
Jeremiah 9:23 This is what the LORD says: “Let not the wise boast of their wisdom or the strong boast of their strength or the rich boast of their riches,
Romans 12:16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
LittleMisfit destroys theist nut job on CreateDebate in epic throwdown!!!
Not XX and not XY: 1 in 1,666 births
Klinefelter (XXY): 1 in 1,000 births
Androgen insensitivity syndrome: 1 in 13,000 births
Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome: 1 in 130,000 births
Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia: 1 in 13,000 births
Late onset adrenal hyperplasia: 1 in 66 individuals
Vaginal agenesis: 1 in 6,000 births
Ovotestes: 1 in 83,000 births
Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause): 1 in 110,000 births
Complete gonadal dysgenesis: 1 in 150,000 births
Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft): 1 in 2,000 births
Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis): 1 in 770 births
Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female: 1 in 100 births. That's 75 million people.
"If you were born with the chromosomes of a man, you shouldn't need me to tell you which bathroom is yours. "
Which chromosomes make you a man? It it just people with an XY chromosome?
What about people who have XY chromosomes, but have complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, which means their bodies don’t respond at all to male hormones, so they are born with female bodies and usually live their lives as females.
What about people who have XX chromosomes, but have congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which causes an unusually high level of virilizing hormones in utero, causing them to develop masculine sexual characteristics, including masculinized genitals.
What about women with Turner syndrome who only have one X chromosome? They have less-developed female sexual characteristics than other women.
What about people who have XX chromosomes in some cells, and XY in others? People with more than 90% XY (male) genetic material have given birth.
What about people with Klinefelter syndrome, which causes them to have extra X chromosomes, like XXY, XXXY, or XXXXY. They have low levels of testosterone, causing them to have less-developed masculine sexual characteristics and more-developed feminine characteristics.
What about people with extra Y chromosomes?
So tell me, which ones of those are male and which ones are female, and what criteria did you use to make that determination?
Look, I totally get your concern, and agree with it to a certain point. If a person is not living their life as the gender they claim to be, then they have no business going into the bathroom of the gender they don't live as. IMO, if you look like a male, then use the male bathroom, and if you look like a female, use the female bathroom. Gender is a very tricky issue, both genetically and psychologically. It's definitely not as black and white as you seem to think.
I'm pretty sure you're just trolling and/or joking, but I'll play along.
"So they made war against Midian, just as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed every male."
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.
It's also worth nothing that the Hebrew word that was translated into "the girls" literally means female children. So gods followers would go on massive killing sprees, then kidnap and rape the young girls.
