Post by Azrael on Jan 1, 2011 12:18:15 GMT -5
So, I was watching the latest VFX video, and I got linked to this one.
[glow=red,2,300]A brief digression for your amusement[/glow]: I ended up getting my comments removed and permabanned by VFX with a smug PM saying "Nice Try" when I agreed with him that one user's recommendation that humans can develop a perfect moral system once religion had been purged was Stalinist. VFX sent a nice little PM proving me right using a Hitler quote. I sent one back politely informing him I agreed with him, still no reply. I'm beginning to see why people do not like him.
As for the matter at hand, This video is absolutely disgustingly stupid. I've often heard that theists need to understand science better, however this is one Atheist that has absolutely no understanding of English. My long-standing war in the comments section shows an incredibly pointless attempt to teach an ignorant moron his first language.
Here's the issue at hand: This idiot (with over 10k views, to boot!) contends that the proper interpretation of the 1st Amendment is "Congress will make no laws positively regarding (respecting) the group (establishment) of religion." Get the laughter out of your system now. Let's get down to business.
The correct interpretation is "Congress shall pass no laws pertaining to establishing a religion." Why didn't they write it that way? Because all legal documents are written in passive voice. My high school English teacher always cautioned me against using passive voice as it is confusing, and I now see why.
Here's the deal: When the framers used the word "establishment," they were referring to the nominal (or turned into a noun) version of the infinitive verb "to establish." It referred to an action, a verb. It is a gerund: a noun that takes the place of a verb. It would be obvious if it wasn't in passive voice. Apparently, though, this dolt thinks passive voice is limited to "to be" verbs. Education simply isn't what it used to be. This gentleman happens to fancy himself a scientist as well as a historian. It's a shame he can't comprehend that stating "establishment isn't a verb" is like stating "steam isn't water." You are right in only the most obvious and stupid sense and absolutely wrong where it counts. Basically, only an idiot would think you are right.
Of course after getting squashed, this user decides the most sane thing to do is UNLEASH SOME SERIOUS FING LOGIC on me and turn on CAPSRAPE. Oh well, at least I managed to make an @$$ out of him. Well, sometimes getting trolled is just a failed attempt at education.
Turns out the moron makes a lot of YouTube vids and accepts donations for "what you think the videos are worth." Unfortunately Paypal does not let you make withdrawals. Didn't Atheists get pissed off when VFX did this? (Not that I'm his biggest fan.)
Here's another video choc full of intellectual fallacies (35k views. Ughh). I'll just debunk the first one.
The moron decides to make an appeal to ridicule by saying with regards to the claim that teaching Evolution is evil "How can a fact be good or evil?" Personally, I don't give a crap what people think about Evolution, but this is not a compelling reason against teaching it.
The presentation of a fact can be evil if we measure it by Utilitarian ethics or Consequentialism. History has shown us that the presentation of Evolutionary doctrine can lead to evil consequences such as eugenics. This is a bad consequence, therefore it is possible that the presentation of this information is bad.
What do you all think about this bs?
Edit: Even more stupidity has transpired.
[glow=red,2,300]A brief digression for your amusement[/glow]: I ended up getting my comments removed and permabanned by VFX with a smug PM saying "Nice Try" when I agreed with him that one user's recommendation that humans can develop a perfect moral system once religion had been purged was Stalinist. VFX sent a nice little PM proving me right using a Hitler quote. I sent one back politely informing him I agreed with him, still no reply. I'm beginning to see why people do not like him.
As for the matter at hand, This video is absolutely disgustingly stupid. I've often heard that theists need to understand science better, however this is one Atheist that has absolutely no understanding of English. My long-standing war in the comments section shows an incredibly pointless attempt to teach an ignorant moron his first language.
Here's the issue at hand: This idiot (with over 10k views, to boot!) contends that the proper interpretation of the 1st Amendment is "Congress will make no laws positively regarding (respecting) the group (establishment) of religion." Get the laughter out of your system now. Let's get down to business.
The correct interpretation is "Congress shall pass no laws pertaining to establishing a religion." Why didn't they write it that way? Because all legal documents are written in passive voice. My high school English teacher always cautioned me against using passive voice as it is confusing, and I now see why.
Here's the deal: When the framers used the word "establishment," they were referring to the nominal (or turned into a noun) version of the infinitive verb "to establish." It referred to an action, a verb. It is a gerund: a noun that takes the place of a verb. It would be obvious if it wasn't in passive voice. Apparently, though, this dolt thinks passive voice is limited to "to be" verbs. Education simply isn't what it used to be. This gentleman happens to fancy himself a scientist as well as a historian. It's a shame he can't comprehend that stating "establishment isn't a verb" is like stating "steam isn't water." You are right in only the most obvious and stupid sense and absolutely wrong where it counts. Basically, only an idiot would think you are right.
Of course after getting squashed, this user decides the most sane thing to do is UNLEASH SOME SERIOUS FING LOGIC on me and turn on CAPSRAPE. Oh well, at least I managed to make an @$$ out of him. Well, sometimes getting trolled is just a failed attempt at education.
Turns out the moron makes a lot of YouTube vids and accepts donations for "what you think the videos are worth." Unfortunately Paypal does not let you make withdrawals. Didn't Atheists get pissed off when VFX did this? (Not that I'm his biggest fan.)
Here's another video choc full of intellectual fallacies (35k views. Ughh). I'll just debunk the first one.
The moron decides to make an appeal to ridicule by saying with regards to the claim that teaching Evolution is evil "How can a fact be good or evil?" Personally, I don't give a crap what people think about Evolution, but this is not a compelling reason against teaching it.
The presentation of a fact can be evil if we measure it by Utilitarian ethics or Consequentialism. History has shown us that the presentation of Evolutionary doctrine can lead to evil consequences such as eugenics. This is a bad consequence, therefore it is possible that the presentation of this information is bad.
What do you all think about this bs?
Edit: Even more stupidity has transpired.