You forgot dumb.

 

-----signature-----

I'm glad we did it. I'm glad we were able to do it. I'm sad they made us do it.

 

-----signature-----

Very convincing rebuttal. I'm sorry you couldn't remember july comes after june and august comes after july. I'm not sure that makes me the idiot, though.

I should have amended that to say fundamentalist religious people are not sane people. I know a great many sane religious people. Every fundie I've come across in the news or in my personal life is not someone I want to be around or near and question their sanity. You are a fundie.


So what your saying is basically you opinion and personal preference, that you choose to not be near or around those whose sanity you hold in question. Do you have any way to prove they lack what you would call sanity? Or is it simply the fact that you cant see how people could believe opposite of you? Or those who hold science in a lesser regard than you? Because there are both religious and non religious people whose sanity could be in question if we use that approach. But to test your theory we would need what you would call a sane person first, then compare them to a person that is lacking in sanity from your point of view. Which should give just about everyone a good laugh because its merely your point of view vs ours that were comparing. And I'm sure you would do exactly what you said, divide people up by their set of beliefs and it would look like fundies on one side, the middle being people who dont know or care and on the other end would be people such as yourself. Those that you consider sane would hold the same beliefs as you, while those that you say aren't sane would have views such as mine. Your test means nothing as does your opinion on the matter itself. At least outside of this discussion.

Yes I am a fundie. A proud one may I add. And as far as my sanity, you couldn't prove one way or another. Its opinion and everyone has one. So the opinion of one, even one as biased as yours, is worth nothing.

 

-----signature-----

Which is why everybody America doesn't like wants nukes themselves. It's the only way to be sure they won't end up on the wrong end of an American attack.

Or you could not rape and kill a billion innocent chinese and island peoples. But you are right. indiscriminate nukings by americans are a historic reason to be paranoid.

 

-----signature-----

More 'if's, keep going.





It's no more absurd than to think that use of nukes is the first thing on the table and that creating a contingency plan = "inches away from using" them. And, that the only thing that has ever stopped us is other countries having them. Besides, Macarthur was a lone crank (or at least a crank) quite a few times.





Except no one said that. We're only refuting the statement "And we woulda happily gone on nuking people if other countries hadn't gotten the technology too.", which is completely and over the top absurd.

 

-----signature-----

If you had actually read the thread you would have noticed it's not that Iran is afraid of being nuked randomly. It's that having nukes is the only way to make sure it isn't the target of a more conventional invasion.


You're the guy who bought up the counterargument that we're still happy to nuke people.

You should reread my posts and yours if you think I brought up that line of argument. I hope you aren't this tiresome in real life. I don't mind having a debate. Even one where people use strawmen and make stuff up. but don't pretend like something that happened in the thread din't happen.

 

-----signature-----

I forgot that one, thanks.

 

-----signature-----