jakee 1,611 #26 July 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI just get the impression that many kids take on this "promise" in an effort to appease/please/impress their parents. As a parent, that's fine if it helps the kid learn what's really important. Where else should kids learn their morals? Surveys say that most people who make abstinence pledges break them a few years later. One study showed pledgers were 3.5 times more likely to remain virgins by age 25 than those who did not pledge. Really? Other studies have shown they are several times more likely to have oral and anal sex. 'Cos that, y'know, like, doesn't count, right?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #27 July 17, 2007 The reason most pledges don't work ... I took the pledge but only because I was forced to attend church and the church youth group had everyone take the pledge. I took the D.A.R.E. pledge but only because I was forced to attend public school and the public school had everyone take the pledge. PS: Like you, I was the guy in highschool that always ended up as a friend and never a lover ... didn't really need the pledge either."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #28 July 17, 2007 Quote Quote Surveys say that most people who make abstinence pledges break them a few years later. One study showed pledgers were 3.5 times more likely to remain virgins by age 25 than those who did not pledge... Really? I'd love to see that study (and specifically, who funded it). All my research says that those things don't work. Your bias is showing. The findings I posted came from a 2005 study by Bearman and Brueckner. I believe it's the same one you referenced above. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #29 July 17, 2007 I actually posted this because of the comments on the Have Your Say, which seemed to be so surprisingly anti-Christian. someone even posted that religion should be "banned" from society as a whole, although the poster did not explain how you could actually do that. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #30 July 17, 2007 I think I figured it out ... if you want to prevent your child from having sex you can break their nose when they are born and have it set awkwardly, then it will be less likely that anyone will want to have sex with them (more for boys than girls) ... later in life when you believe they are ready to have sex you can pay for them to have surgery (and probably counseling)."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #31 July 17, 2007 QuoteI think I figured it out ... if you want to prevent your child from having sex you can break their nose when they are born and have it set awkwardly, then it will be less likely that anyone will want to have sex with them (more for boys than girls) ... later in life when you believe they are ready to have sex you can pay for them to have surgery (and probably counseling). No braces. No acne medicine, either. and they have to buy their own clothes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #32 July 17, 2007 Quote I think I figured it out ... if you want to prevent your child from having sex you can break their nose when they are born and have it set awkwardly, then it will be less likely that anyone will want to have sex with them (more for boys than girls) ... later in life when you believe they are ready to have sex you can pay for them to have surgery (and probably counseling). I think you may be on to something. My fortunes changed after my nose surgery to correct a deviated septum and take out a hump!(last year of high school) Warning: a crooked nose will not curtail furious masturbation. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #33 July 17, 2007 Quote Really? I'd love to see that study (and specifically, who funded it). All my research says that those things don't work. Your bias is showing. The findings I posted came from a 2005 study by Bearman and Brueckner. I believe it's the same one you referenced above.How is asking the funding of a study showing a bias? Looking at the source of information is an important part of critical thinking to judge the reliability of said information. Studies funded by groups with little to nothing to gain from results either way are probably more reliable than studies funded by groups who want the studies to support their ideas. For example, a study on abstinence pledges sponsored by the Christian Coalition is probably less reliable than one sponsored by UCI, and a study on gun violence sponsored by Rosie O'Donnell is probably significantly less reliable than one sponsored by ATF. What it comes down to is does the source of money behind a study have something to gain from the study if the results turn out to favor their already formed opinion? Do they have something to lose if the study contradicts their opinion? There are easy ways to skew samples. For example, if I polled 400 people in Los Angeles as to whether they liked cello music and 90% said they did, if I wanted to inflate the perceived popularity of cello music, I wouldn't tell you that I took the survey as people were leaving a Rasputina concert. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ian84 0 #34 July 17, 2007 Parents should indeed be the main source of their children's moral/ethical understanding. I can see why you, as a parent, would appreciate a potential delay in sexual activity due to a pledge or a ring. To me though, the utilisation of a pledge that has been shown to be broken so consistently has no real educational/health/social benefit. The study that Nightingale referenced seemed to draw some fairly negative conclusions. It may however serve as a powerful personal symbol to those who choose to live up to the promises they make (talking about the ring here) and I would never wish to belittle those people for whom this is the case. I'm not a parent though, in fact I'm only 22 so my opinion is based on the reasonably fresh memories of the myriad broken promises my mates made to their parents in school. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Channman 2 #35 July 17, 2007 > someone even posted that religion should be "banned" from society as a whole, although the poster did not explain how you could actually do that. Hitler, sorry the damn name just keeps coming up...however I digress, he used extermination as a tool. Many here in the future may feel that is a legitimate method to rid the world of those backward thinking Christians. The Germans did'nt seem to loss much sleep over it, I doubt Progressives will either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #36 July 17, 2007 QuoteQuote2. Convincing a 14 or 15 year old to wear a ring as some kind of promise not to have sex till marriage is a meaningless gesture that will mean little or nothing to that kid whe he/she is 17 or 18. The ones who abstain from sex are the ones who probably would have done so anyway. Or just do anal instead.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites headoverheels 334 #37 July 18, 2007 QuoteOne study showed pledgers were 3.5 times more likely to remain virgins by age 25 than those who did not pledge. Maybe people who would remain virgins until age 25 are 4 times as likely to pledge. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #38 July 18, 2007 Quote Quote One study showed pledgers were 3.5 times more likely to remain virgins by age 25 than those who did not pledge. Maybe people who would remain virgins until age 25 are 4 times as likely to pledge. Maybe not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,611 #39 July 18, 2007 Quote Quote Quote One study showed pledgers were 3.5 times more likely to remain virgins by age 25 than those who did not pledge. Maybe people who would remain virgins until age 25 are 4 times as likely to pledge. Maybe not. You don't think there would naturally be a difference between those who want to remain virgins, and those that don't?Still waiting on a serious answer from you in the other thread BTW.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #40 July 18, 2007 QuoteStill waiting on a serious answer from you in the other thread BTW. You mean the one where you took on a decidedly antagonistic tone because I don't wholeheartedly embrace your beliefs? Did you know honey is a preferred way to attract flies? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #41 July 18, 2007 Quote Quote Maybe people who would remain virgins until age 25 are 4 times as likely to pledge. Maybe not. I think it's logical to speculate over how many people would have abstained regardless of any particular pledge. Do either of you have any actual data? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,611 #42 July 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteStill waiting on a serious answer from you in the other thread BTW. You mean the one where you took on a decidedly antagonistic tone because I don't wholeheartedly embrace your beliefs? Did you know honey is a preferred way to attract flies? OK. I would be very grateful if you could see your way to answering my question. It is something I am genuinely very curious about and I would appreciate an answer.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #43 July 18, 2007 QuoteI think it's logical to speculate over how many people would have abstained regardless of any particular pledge. Kind of like it's logical for people to automatically question the backer of a study if it's findings run counter to their previously held beliefs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #44 July 18, 2007 Quote I would be very grateful if you could see your way to answering my question. It is something I am genuinely very curious about and I would appreciate an answer. Which question? You kind of launched a barrage of them at me? And how about responding in the relavent thread, so we don't continue to tie up this one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #45 July 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteI think it's logical to speculate over how many people would have abstained regardless of any particular pledge. Kind of like it's logical for people to automatically question the backer of a study if it's findings run counter to their previously held beliefs? I question the background of any study, regardless of my personal beliefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,132 #46 July 18, 2007 >I would be very grateful if you could see your way to answering my question. Oh, like that's going to work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #47 July 19, 2007 Quote Oh, like that's going to work. What a load of fucking hypocrisy. You have warned (and even banned me for saying much less), yet you seem to think it's okay for you to make these little PAs. For the most part, I address questions head on. I answered several of Jakee's questions, all the way up until he started doing a little George Carman impersonation. You accuse me of ducking questions, yet you jump to the defense of those who consistently dodge questions... sometimes you have no clue what it is your defending!!! If you're going to penalize those who break the rules, you should try following them yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,611 #48 July 19, 2007 QuoteFor the most part, I address questions head on. I answered several of Jakee's questions, all the way up until he started doing a little George Carman impersonation. Bullshit! On the one hand you have such a need for precision that you needed me to clarify what exactly the question I was posing in these posts was, and yet on the other hand you think that a link to the howstuffworks potted overview of evolution is a clear and concise explanation of the reasons you oppose it! There's your fucking hypocrisy. And for the record, I was asking you those questions out of genuine curiosity, not a desire to insinuate something. You should know that if I had wanted to call you a "mindless sheep" I would have just come out and said it. Too bad your over the top defensiveness has ruined another conversation.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #49 July 19, 2007 Quote Quote For the most part, I address questions head on. I answered several of Jakee's questions, all the way up until he started doing a little George Carman impersonation. Bullshit! On the one hand you have such a need for precision that you needed me to clarify what exactly the question I was posing in these posts was, and yet on the other hand you think that a link to the howstuffworks potted overview of evolution is a clear and concise explanation of the reasons you oppose it! There's your fucking hypocrisy. And for the record, I was asking you those questions out of genuine curiosity, not a desire to insinuate something. You should know that if I had wanted to call you a "mindless sheep" I would have just come out and said it. Too bad your over the top defensiveness has ruined another conversation. Right. It's me. Can't figure out why I'd be annoyed at questions and statements like: Lets face it, who but a doublewide dwelling couch potato high school dropout could possibly take seriously an piece which does not tackle any scientific ideas or challenge any experts, but instead interviews the layman off the street and shows a man gurning with a chimpansee before trying to take it on board a commercial flight? ---------------------------------------------------------- Me: There's the Jakee I know. Jakee: Tell me I'm wrong ---------------------------------------------------------- You seem to be labouring under the mistaken view that there is actually a serious debate to be had here - there isn't... With the kind of arguments that the anti science crowd present here there is no 'need' to resort to ridicule, it is simply the most fitting path to take. --------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, that was "Pandas and people" or something, wasn't it? And of course there was a trial back in the 80's I think where one of the expert witnesses for ID told the judge that UFO's were sent by God as harbingers of Armaggedon -------------------------------------------------------- Genuine curiosity indeed. Oh yeah. Your claim is BULLSHIT!!! It's really fun how people can be aggressive and condescending and then whine when others don't care to participate. I'm constantly amazed how people seem completely unaware of the impact of their own behavior. Yesterday, someone posted "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own." Does that apply here? Who is to say? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,611 #50 July 19, 2007 Uh, dude? None of that was directed at you and you know it. If you do take WOTM's "Gurning chimpansee" video seriously then I have seriously overestimated your intelligence. As it is though, I am quite sure that you are more than intelligent enough to see through them if you saw them. My challenge still stands by the way, watch a few of WOTMs anti-evolution videos and then tell me if I'm wrong in my assessment of their target audience. In the questions I directed at you I was perfectly civil. If you happen to think that the derogatory comments I direct at Pajarito's mindless fanaticism reflects on you too simply because you are both Christians then you have something of a victim complex. I've noticed that you do something like this whenever you are asked a direct question about your beliefs or opinions. If you don't want to answer then just refuse, don't try and look for excuses to twist your way out of it.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Butters 0 #27 July 17, 2007 The reason most pledges don't work ... I took the pledge but only because I was forced to attend church and the church youth group had everyone take the pledge. I took the D.A.R.E. pledge but only because I was forced to attend public school and the public school had everyone take the pledge. PS: Like you, I was the guy in highschool that always ended up as a friend and never a lover ... didn't really need the pledge either."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #28 July 17, 2007 Quote Quote Surveys say that most people who make abstinence pledges break them a few years later. One study showed pledgers were 3.5 times more likely to remain virgins by age 25 than those who did not pledge... Really? I'd love to see that study (and specifically, who funded it). All my research says that those things don't work. Your bias is showing. The findings I posted came from a 2005 study by Bearman and Brueckner. I believe it's the same one you referenced above. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #29 July 17, 2007 I actually posted this because of the comments on the Have Your Say, which seemed to be so surprisingly anti-Christian. someone even posted that religion should be "banned" from society as a whole, although the poster did not explain how you could actually do that. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #30 July 17, 2007 I think I figured it out ... if you want to prevent your child from having sex you can break their nose when they are born and have it set awkwardly, then it will be less likely that anyone will want to have sex with them (more for boys than girls) ... later in life when you believe they are ready to have sex you can pay for them to have surgery (and probably counseling)."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #31 July 17, 2007 QuoteI think I figured it out ... if you want to prevent your child from having sex you can break their nose when they are born and have it set awkwardly, then it will be less likely that anyone will want to have sex with them (more for boys than girls) ... later in life when you believe they are ready to have sex you can pay for them to have surgery (and probably counseling). No braces. No acne medicine, either. and they have to buy their own clothes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #32 July 17, 2007 Quote I think I figured it out ... if you want to prevent your child from having sex you can break their nose when they are born and have it set awkwardly, then it will be less likely that anyone will want to have sex with them (more for boys than girls) ... later in life when you believe they are ready to have sex you can pay for them to have surgery (and probably counseling). I think you may be on to something. My fortunes changed after my nose surgery to correct a deviated septum and take out a hump!(last year of high school) Warning: a crooked nose will not curtail furious masturbation. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #33 July 17, 2007 Quote Really? I'd love to see that study (and specifically, who funded it). All my research says that those things don't work. Your bias is showing. The findings I posted came from a 2005 study by Bearman and Brueckner. I believe it's the same one you referenced above.How is asking the funding of a study showing a bias? Looking at the source of information is an important part of critical thinking to judge the reliability of said information. Studies funded by groups with little to nothing to gain from results either way are probably more reliable than studies funded by groups who want the studies to support their ideas. For example, a study on abstinence pledges sponsored by the Christian Coalition is probably less reliable than one sponsored by UCI, and a study on gun violence sponsored by Rosie O'Donnell is probably significantly less reliable than one sponsored by ATF. What it comes down to is does the source of money behind a study have something to gain from the study if the results turn out to favor their already formed opinion? Do they have something to lose if the study contradicts their opinion? There are easy ways to skew samples. For example, if I polled 400 people in Los Angeles as to whether they liked cello music and 90% said they did, if I wanted to inflate the perceived popularity of cello music, I wouldn't tell you that I took the survey as people were leaving a Rasputina concert. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ian84 0 #34 July 17, 2007 Parents should indeed be the main source of their children's moral/ethical understanding. I can see why you, as a parent, would appreciate a potential delay in sexual activity due to a pledge or a ring. To me though, the utilisation of a pledge that has been shown to be broken so consistently has no real educational/health/social benefit. The study that Nightingale referenced seemed to draw some fairly negative conclusions. It may however serve as a powerful personal symbol to those who choose to live up to the promises they make (talking about the ring here) and I would never wish to belittle those people for whom this is the case. I'm not a parent though, in fact I'm only 22 so my opinion is based on the reasonably fresh memories of the myriad broken promises my mates made to their parents in school. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #35 July 17, 2007 > someone even posted that religion should be "banned" from society as a whole, although the poster did not explain how you could actually do that. Hitler, sorry the damn name just keeps coming up...however I digress, he used extermination as a tool. Many here in the future may feel that is a legitimate method to rid the world of those backward thinking Christians. The Germans did'nt seem to loss much sleep over it, I doubt Progressives will either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #36 July 17, 2007 QuoteQuote2. Convincing a 14 or 15 year old to wear a ring as some kind of promise not to have sex till marriage is a meaningless gesture that will mean little or nothing to that kid whe he/she is 17 or 18. The ones who abstain from sex are the ones who probably would have done so anyway. Or just do anal instead.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 334 #37 July 18, 2007 QuoteOne study showed pledgers were 3.5 times more likely to remain virgins by age 25 than those who did not pledge. Maybe people who would remain virgins until age 25 are 4 times as likely to pledge. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #38 July 18, 2007 Quote Quote One study showed pledgers were 3.5 times more likely to remain virgins by age 25 than those who did not pledge. Maybe people who would remain virgins until age 25 are 4 times as likely to pledge. Maybe not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #39 July 18, 2007 Quote Quote Quote One study showed pledgers were 3.5 times more likely to remain virgins by age 25 than those who did not pledge. Maybe people who would remain virgins until age 25 are 4 times as likely to pledge. Maybe not. You don't think there would naturally be a difference between those who want to remain virgins, and those that don't?Still waiting on a serious answer from you in the other thread BTW.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #40 July 18, 2007 QuoteStill waiting on a serious answer from you in the other thread BTW. You mean the one where you took on a decidedly antagonistic tone because I don't wholeheartedly embrace your beliefs? Did you know honey is a preferred way to attract flies? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #41 July 18, 2007 Quote Quote Maybe people who would remain virgins until age 25 are 4 times as likely to pledge. Maybe not. I think it's logical to speculate over how many people would have abstained regardless of any particular pledge. Do either of you have any actual data? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #42 July 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteStill waiting on a serious answer from you in the other thread BTW. You mean the one where you took on a decidedly antagonistic tone because I don't wholeheartedly embrace your beliefs? Did you know honey is a preferred way to attract flies? OK. I would be very grateful if you could see your way to answering my question. It is something I am genuinely very curious about and I would appreciate an answer.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #43 July 18, 2007 QuoteI think it's logical to speculate over how many people would have abstained regardless of any particular pledge. Kind of like it's logical for people to automatically question the backer of a study if it's findings run counter to their previously held beliefs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #44 July 18, 2007 Quote I would be very grateful if you could see your way to answering my question. It is something I am genuinely very curious about and I would appreciate an answer. Which question? You kind of launched a barrage of them at me? And how about responding in the relavent thread, so we don't continue to tie up this one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #45 July 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteI think it's logical to speculate over how many people would have abstained regardless of any particular pledge. Kind of like it's logical for people to automatically question the backer of a study if it's findings run counter to their previously held beliefs? I question the background of any study, regardless of my personal beliefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #46 July 18, 2007 >I would be very grateful if you could see your way to answering my question. Oh, like that's going to work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #47 July 19, 2007 Quote Oh, like that's going to work. What a load of fucking hypocrisy. You have warned (and even banned me for saying much less), yet you seem to think it's okay for you to make these little PAs. For the most part, I address questions head on. I answered several of Jakee's questions, all the way up until he started doing a little George Carman impersonation. You accuse me of ducking questions, yet you jump to the defense of those who consistently dodge questions... sometimes you have no clue what it is your defending!!! If you're going to penalize those who break the rules, you should try following them yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #48 July 19, 2007 QuoteFor the most part, I address questions head on. I answered several of Jakee's questions, all the way up until he started doing a little George Carman impersonation. Bullshit! On the one hand you have such a need for precision that you needed me to clarify what exactly the question I was posing in these posts was, and yet on the other hand you think that a link to the howstuffworks potted overview of evolution is a clear and concise explanation of the reasons you oppose it! There's your fucking hypocrisy. And for the record, I was asking you those questions out of genuine curiosity, not a desire to insinuate something. You should know that if I had wanted to call you a "mindless sheep" I would have just come out and said it. Too bad your over the top defensiveness has ruined another conversation.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #49 July 19, 2007 Quote Quote For the most part, I address questions head on. I answered several of Jakee's questions, all the way up until he started doing a little George Carman impersonation. Bullshit! On the one hand you have such a need for precision that you needed me to clarify what exactly the question I was posing in these posts was, and yet on the other hand you think that a link to the howstuffworks potted overview of evolution is a clear and concise explanation of the reasons you oppose it! There's your fucking hypocrisy. And for the record, I was asking you those questions out of genuine curiosity, not a desire to insinuate something. You should know that if I had wanted to call you a "mindless sheep" I would have just come out and said it. Too bad your over the top defensiveness has ruined another conversation. Right. It's me. Can't figure out why I'd be annoyed at questions and statements like: Lets face it, who but a doublewide dwelling couch potato high school dropout could possibly take seriously an piece which does not tackle any scientific ideas or challenge any experts, but instead interviews the layman off the street and shows a man gurning with a chimpansee before trying to take it on board a commercial flight? ---------------------------------------------------------- Me: There's the Jakee I know. Jakee: Tell me I'm wrong ---------------------------------------------------------- You seem to be labouring under the mistaken view that there is actually a serious debate to be had here - there isn't... With the kind of arguments that the anti science crowd present here there is no 'need' to resort to ridicule, it is simply the most fitting path to take. --------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, that was "Pandas and people" or something, wasn't it? And of course there was a trial back in the 80's I think where one of the expert witnesses for ID told the judge that UFO's were sent by God as harbingers of Armaggedon -------------------------------------------------------- Genuine curiosity indeed. Oh yeah. Your claim is BULLSHIT!!! It's really fun how people can be aggressive and condescending and then whine when others don't care to participate. I'm constantly amazed how people seem completely unaware of the impact of their own behavior. Yesterday, someone posted "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own." Does that apply here? Who is to say? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #50 July 19, 2007 Uh, dude? None of that was directed at you and you know it. If you do take WOTM's "Gurning chimpansee" video seriously then I have seriously overestimated your intelligence. As it is though, I am quite sure that you are more than intelligent enough to see through them if you saw them. My challenge still stands by the way, watch a few of WOTMs anti-evolution videos and then tell me if I'm wrong in my assessment of their target audience. In the questions I directed at you I was perfectly civil. If you happen to think that the derogatory comments I direct at Pajarito's mindless fanaticism reflects on you too simply because you are both Christians then you have something of a victim complex. I've noticed that you do something like this whenever you are asked a direct question about your beliefs or opinions. If you don't want to answer then just refuse, don't try and look for excuses to twist your way out of it.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
