quote:
Could it be that your new discussion was removed, which I sincerely regret, because you called the belief of creationism stupid?
I certainly hope not, Bill, because that would reduce this forum to the intellectual level of laying sod. I have my doubts, however.
Now about using Ken Ham's name, albeit altered. So what? He's a public figure, and as such has no right nor expectation of privacy in the arena of the discussion of evolution. Whoever used a name close to his (it was not me, I assure you) did not insinuate that he was a loathesome character. He was not accused of anything, other than a ridiculous view of natural history, which is fair game.
Let's just say that the moderator found that offensive. Why not delete the postings, rather than the entire thread? Referring to the quote above, is it possible the mod has an axe to grind with respect to the discussion of Creationism? If that is the case, let us forego all future discussions of any gravity whatever and stick to kittens and knitting, if knitting is not too controversial.
What the he11 use is a forum on which controversial, strongly-held beliefs cannot be discussed, argued, and debated? My god, how dull as dishwater would that be, and what a waste of time.
Regarding "kenn hamm" again, that was funny. It's a lampoon of a guy with a fervent point of view. It was a send-up, a goof. I like to think I have a sense of humor, although I'll admit I'm not in a humorous mood at the moment. My "Creationism--Stupid and Dangerous" thread started with two quite funny, yet pithy, videos regarding Creationism. Apparently, they were a bit raw for the sensibilities of the forum censors. Is this what we've come to here, Hall Monitors protecting you and I from the sharp edges of adulthood?
Bob help us all, if that is what this place has become.
I appreciate your willingness to engage in open debate, but I refuse to stop using satire, irony, lampoonery, and ridicule to make my points. The dry, dusty refutation of bogosity by the exchange of factual evidence is only part of the free exercise of the debating arts. Yes, I realize that by using humor I am often fighting with the unarmed. Sorry. I'm not going to stop. Their tough bananas.
In fundy Islam, wives not only can be beaten, not only should they be beaten, but they must be beaten. Preferably with sticks. Shall I respect this barbarism because it is religion? Not only will I not respect this tenet of Islam, but I will do that which gives them the biggest of rashes; I will ridicule and belittle them for it. They deserve my disrespect and more, and they should be ready for it.
It's the same with Creationism. Should I argue against it seriously? It's not a serious argument; it's an absurd fabrication that deserves to be hit with every missile in my arsenal. Know that I have lots of laser-guided, GPS JDAM warheads ready for it, too. If that gets my threads deleted, I will start new ones until they kick me out of here.
Censorship is cowardice, it always has been. I wear others' censorship as a badge of honor, knowing I have crushed their feeble arguments or challenged their comfortable dogma.
As a side note, let me repeat e's question: Did you complain to the mods about "kenn hamm"? I will trust to your honesty in your reply.
DF