RationalWiki:What is going on at ASK?/May 2009

May 2009
GENTLEMEN! I have arrived to announce ...that there will be no more Gentlemen? Philip finds a reliable source on atheist morality. Update Say, have you met my straw man? While I like the suggestions for the accuracy section on the Dawkins article that doesn't deal at all with his actual work, I'd like it to smear him and all other non-Christians more. Do you think you could manage that? aSK's public relations arm swings into action. Theresa was right Bradley, you really are a worthless tit. Seriously Philip, that would have been a perfect example. What's good for the goose... Update Philip uses the debating skills he learned at CP to deal with valid criticism. 🇰🇪 accuses RatWikians of being obsessed with his Homosexuality article, in a conversation (hell, in a page) where no one had mentioned it. Seriously Ken, Cineplex projects less than you do. A RationalWiki mole and signatory to the Moles Declaration writes a fun essay on religionists' morality. To give it a wider reading, the mole then proceeds to splatter it all over the Wiki. The mole is banhammered for a week. I don't normally compare PJR to Andy, but these first couple of lines are pure CP shitheel. Way to go, Philip. Shorter LowKey: ''I'm not saying anything negative about Richard Dawkins. I'm just saying he can't tell true from false and probably doesn't even know deceit is bad. Who'd see that as an insult?'' This lovely bit of prose deserves to be enshrined somewhere. Substantial reply pending.Update: Glad we cleared that up. Gulik thinks that only some people can take trustworthy photographs. Lowkey reacts by seemingly calling Gulik a troll. Classy. Update: " Oops. To be perfectly clear." Mr. Reasonable valiantly resists defining meaning despite it being a central pillar of his argument. Apparently he just feels it in his gut. PJR gives us the chance to watch someone who doesn't understand Shannon information lecture someone about...Shannon information. Ominouser and ominouser! If you haven't seen it yet, Timsh posted a beautiful takedown of Philip's "genes are just like english" nonsense and a number of other topics. Don't expect Philip to concede a cm though, since that's how he rolls. <vote poll=ask87 closed="yes">PJR on MOAR PSIANZ: "Even if I grant that duplication 'allows for' increases, it's not itself an increase, so citing it as one is incorrect." PJR also states that Andy made incorrect statements about Obama, but no one can show how PJR is wrong about Dawkins. <vote poll=ask86 closed="yes">RationalWiki is a "...place of filthy and blasphemous language, replete with name-calling, smearing, innuendo, hypocrisy, and other undesirable attributes." according to PJR. High praise indeed. <vote poll=ask85 closed="yes">Thanks for writing, Theresa, you ignorant slut. <vote poll=ask84 closed="yes">Philip refines the art of character assassination: "Dawkins doesn't believe in God The Almighty and thus has no absolute basis for morals, so he might be a filthy, deceitful liar!" But, uh, I'm not saying that he actually is a filthy, deceitful liar, you know?" <vote poll=ask83 closed="yes">Point of etiquette, Phil. You shouldn't ask someone to "please explain" right before you block them for a week.  Especially for saying what we're all thinking. <vote poll=ask82 closed="yes">Not like CP: This is incivility, this is not. Can you figure out the difference? <vote poll=ask81 closed="yes">Mr. Reasonable has had it up to here with civility. GOAT: PJR becomes Andy: "I do expect readers to understand what atheism is about, and have no in-principle concern with them finding out that direct from the atheists." Also Assfly quality: "They have enough of their own platforms in the education system, the media, and the like, from which the biblical worldview is effectively barred, so why should we give them a platform here?" <vote poll=ask80 closed="yes">"I am NOT like Andy Schlafly," little Philip screamed, stamping his little foot. "I'M NOT, I'M NOT, I'M NOT!" <vote poll=ask79 closed="yes">OMFG, Ungtss: "However, religious believers do not typically support personal freedom in the areas of sexual behavior, abortion, and other criminal activities, because they believe that in those cases, the interests of others outweigh the interests of individual freedoms." Update: Ungtss reads WIGO. <vote poll=ask78 closed="yes">While the rats are away, the...uh...what's lower than a rat? <vote poll=ask77 closed="yes">Mr. Reasonable tells us that you can't say the Bible supports men owning women, that would be sexist. Husbands owning wifes[sic], on the other hand, that's just fine! <vote poll=ask76 closed="yes">Science hater Ungtss declares materialists use science to prove the non-existence of god. The usual "science can't explain free will" and other creationist arguments pop up. And that science can't test history! Glad to know creationists are redefining science in order to point out its shortcomings to other creationists. <vote poll=ask75 closed="yes">PJR alllllllmost has an epiphany. Too bad it's only to point out why something sounds like parody. <vote poll=ask74 closed="yes">Captain, the article canna take any more quotes! They're almost half the article as it is! <vote poll=ask73 closed="yes">PJR's quote policy: Any old crap by a creationist is okay, no matter how little evidence. Anything from an actual scientist, so long as we have the slightest excuse to call it "opinion" is banned. A little closer to Andy every day. <vote poll=ask72 closed="yes">PJR: "We don't condemn Mormons. The Bible does."