Bitterness and politics after the jump. You have been warned.
It is now the 21st Century. People living in the developed world in this day and age who sincerely believe in Creationism and/or “Intelligent Design” (aka CREATIONISM) are not quaint, cute, old-fashioned, etc – they are mentally-unwell and/or mentally-deficient, and should be classified and regarded as such.
Politicians who pander to the type of people described above are contributing to the degradation of their nation’s intelligence. I don’t know that that’s a crime, but it ought to be.
Persons and/or groups who spread provable untruths about abortion causing cancer, certain forms of birth control being dangerous, etc, should be ROTTING in jail for reckless endangerment. So should Jenny McCarthy and every other committed zealot of the vaccines-cause-autism insanity.
Serious question: Let’s just pretend for a minute that ALL of the reputable science is wrong and Climate Change is simply a natural-cycle that man plays no part in. If we proceeded to implement ALL of the carbon-curbing, pollution-reducing regulations intended to put a dent in it ANYWAY… what of genuine long-term value would we LOSE? As in, even if completely overhauling the energy industry, cleaning up the air, reducing emissions, fast-tracking solar, wind, whatever power etc does NOTHING to impact Climate Change, wouldn’t it still have been worth-doing?
If it came out tomorrow that Barack Obama (or ANY non-GOP president) was guilty of Nixon/Watergate-level shady dealings, I would STILL rather keep him where he is than elect a Republican; and I would make that decision EXCLUSIVELY in the interest of making sure that only pro-choice judges are nominated for the Supreme Court and federal judgships.
I do not consider it a problem that a small percentage – usually less than half – of Americans tend to vote in a given national election. I consider it a problem that too much of said small-percentage is made up of nincompoops with no business making decisions that will effect the course of a country. If I had the power I’d arrange it so that a major NASCAR event, a UFC title-bout, the opening of the next Michael Bay movie and the finale of “American Idol” ALL took place on the same day as the next presidential election. Let’s give “Government By Consent Of The Not-Easily-Distracted” a try for a change.
MOVIEBOB CENTRAL 
Look, you seem like a person who really cares about history and politics, so I think you should probably read something not created by people like Levin, whose mission in life is to distort those things to meet up with their right-wing agenda. Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh also do not count as sources.
I don't really know how you deal with the kind of cognitive dissonance it would take to accuse me of being sexist (because I said something critical of a woman you like) and your opposition to the Ledbetter Act, which is pretty clearly a real case of discrimination; Ledbetter lost in the Supreme Court because they ruled that the discrimination happened too long ago for her to have standing, not that it didn't exist, so the ability to look at comparative pay levels is a protection against that kind of discrimination. It's the kind of rule that encourages meritocracy rather than cronyism – why would you oppose that unless you a) like cronyism or b) dislike Democrats so much you can't think straight.
I think the problem is b). I think so because you tend to respond to succinct argument by ignoring what you can't respond to and throwing a lot of distracting nothing at everything else. I also think you have a deeply distorted understanding of what slavery was, a fairly narcissistic outlook on your own truth-claims (“I haven't read anything about this, but it's, obvious you're just brainwashed…”), and a significant problem with confirmation bias.
The facts are not hard to find: the Conservative Movement is, by nature, homophobic, nationalist, authoritarian, and, on occasion, flatly racist.
When the Conservative Movement opposed the ERA, for example, it did so by claiming that the ERA would lead to lesbianism. When the Conservative Movement campaigns against Gay Marriage, they claim that homosexuality is a disease called 'sexual dysfunction', and that it will lead to bestiality. When guys like Rick Perry (falsely) claim that Creationism is taught in public school, they are deliberately trying to attract the vote of ignorant people by claiming to push bad science on children. When the Movement wants to talk about its ideological opponents, it calls the “domestic enemies of the constitution” and brings up “second amendment solutions”. Dinesh D'Souza writes about the utility of “rational racism”. Republicans sponsor bills backed by the prison industry designed to arrest increasing numbers of illegal immigrants by legally obligating police officers to use racial profiling. And when the Conservative Movement campaigns against the EPA, the Department of Education, etc. they do so knowing perfectly well that reducing Federal oversight and funding for those areas will make it harder to protect schools and the environment by shifting the burden of cost to the states and, in the case of the EPA, creating a “race to the bottom” by putting state policy in conflict with states' need to increase their tax base by attracting business – nobody likes regulation, after all.
While they pull this crap, the Conservative sends out people like Mark Levin to talk about “The Death of the West” and “The Attack on Traditional Values” and “The Left's War on Boys” an on and on…a litany of false victimization designed to justify and insulate a large scale defense of income and privilege. I've never met a conservative who will admit that white privilege, male privilege, or heteronormativity even exist…but if I threaten one of them (for example, by suggesting that a black Spider-Man would be cool), they all know I'm out to get them.
I guess what I'm saying is…post all the transcripts of all the right-wing propagandized reinterpretation of history you want. The truth remains pretty straightforward to anyone bothering to look for it.
LikeLike
>post all the transcripts of all the right-wing propagandized reinterpretation of history you want.
OK. Will do. In fact, “propagandized reinterpretation of history” leads nicely into the next wall-o-text.
Around the 43 minutes mark: “Now, George Stephanopoulos -The idea that a guy like this can be a so-called journalist tells you everything you need to know about the old media, everything. This guy was a hatchet man for Bill Clinton,”(who signed the only balanced budget in my lifetime, after the body actually responsible for taxes and spending under our constitution created it under the leadership of a certain “willing shill for religious nuts and corporate douche bags”*) “[George Stephanopolous is] a vicious in-fighter. Left-wing hatchet man: doing opposition research, leaking it to his favorite media people, and now he is a prominent journalist -a prominent personality with ABC. So all the clothes are off, we see it there and it is very ugly… I want you to listen how stupid George Stephanopoulos is -how illiterate he is when it comes to American history, just like so many of the rest of the journalists, and liberal politicians as a matter of fact. They want you to believe, they want you to believe that the founding fathers to a man where committed to slavery. They want you to believe that this is an awful society; that the constitution is an awful document. This is why it must be destroyed, this is why the country must be transformed: because the founding was so defective; the founders where so awful. How dare we stand on their shoulders, and these TEA party neanderthals, as the argument goes, are out there waving the constitution -a document written by slave owners! Right?
And of course, they are members of a party that fought to the bitter end to defend slavery, I might add. (Am I allowed to do that? 😉 It was under the flag of their party that we had these racists segregationist governors like Orval Faubus and George Wallace and others; and their sheriffs, and their judges. I don't believe [] those where republicans.
That's their party.
That's their party that supported the Dredd-Scott decision.
That's their party that supported the Plessy decision.
That's their president: FDR, that rounded up Japanese-Americans, one-hundred and ten thousand of them, and put them in camps.
And the Korematsu decision: That's the decision of the FDR court!
That's their history, it's not mine, and it's not yours!
How come George Stephanopoulos doesn't want to talk about that?”
LikeLike
And as you sorta-said:
“History is a funny thing. They can try to re-write it all they want, but we won't permit that, won't we?
Now here is George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America today… You should listen to the whole thing, as infuriating as it will be…”
>Cognitive Dissonance
The likes of MSNBC and ABC have been piling on the likes of Palin or Bachmann; it is not your sexism I am talking about. It's your overexposure to cable television news.
Oh, and John Quincy Adams was far more literate at age eight than you or I at age eight.
LikeLike
It is now the 21st Century. People living in the developed world in this day and age who sincerely believe in Creationism and/or “Intelligent Design” (aka CREATIONISM) are not quaint, cute, old-fashioned, etc – they are mentally-unwell and/or mentally-deficient, and should be classified and regarded as such.
It is now the 21st century. Which was directly preceded by the 20th century, which was largely defined by the actions of the self-describedly “rational,” “scientific,” and “intellectual” (note ironic quotes) to control, denigrate, and oppress those they considered “deficient” by reason of philosophical difference just as readily as by reason of imagined genetic deficiencies.
These actions are widely agreed to be the worst atrocities yet perpetrated by the human race, and yet many people still feel that if it were only their principles guiding the systematic dehumanization of dissenters, it would be totally okay. They have either failed to learn the key lesson of the 20th century, or have their heads stuck too far up their own assholes to realize what the hell they're saying.
(Additional irony may be found in the fact that some of them consider themselves “Libertarian” or “Libertine” or anything else to do with liberty and yet consider anyone who differs significantly enough from their own beliefs to be subhuman, retarded trash.)
LikeLike
Dude.
MB isn't doubling down on her JQA gaffe. Don't do it for her. It makes you look even sillier than she is.
Ok. I hadn't totally understood your problem. This one-hour rant by a conservative ideologue is the only history lesson you've ever heard, isn't it? So you think you've discovered the mother lode. Next you'll bring up the fact that – OH MY GOD! Abraham LINCOLN was a REPUBLICAN!!! And he was obviously way into freedom and civil rights! So obviously, by your/Levin's nonsensical political-history-by-association game, ALL Republicans are like Lincoln…except they're not, and the guys calling themselves Democrats and Know-Nothings back then were the guys calling themselves Republicans now. Anyone with even a tiny amount of American political history knowledge understands the ideological shift that went on during the 1960s, when the Democratic party coalition fell apart because of Civil Rights, and the Republican party picked up the South for a really long time, because – big shock – suddenly all the racists wanted to vote for them.
Levin's argument, as I understand it, is that Liberals like George Stephanopolous have infiltrated the media in order to convince liberals that the Constitution is evil so that it can be destroyed so that we can institute Godless Communism and lord over all whilst wearing Darth Vader masks. And his evidence for this is that, in the past, the Democratic party contained racist leaders who did stupid shit.
His conclusion is at odds with reality [liberals don't want Godless Communism or to jettison the Constitution – there's a difference between “evil” and “flawed”] and his historical points are a non-sequitur, since the people he's talking about all did what they did before the split in the Democratic party and the rise of the Conservative Movement in the wake of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan and…you know what? I'm not going through all of this for you. Crack a book.
For Christ's sake…Fox News employs Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and lots of other Conservative Movement Celebrities to say all kinds of ridiculous nonsense. Levin himself worked for Reagan. Why is Stephanopolous a problem?
The Levin argument is such obvious red-meat bullcrap. Liberals don't want to destroy the Constitution or remake it or whatever. Republicans are the party, of late, that has members talking about repealing the 14th Amendment and the Commerce Clause.
You must just like making people sad. I am sad when I read your arguments. They are not related to what I am saying, but there are words in them that sound like you think you're refuting my points or pointing out flaws in my thinking. I'm not overexposed to cable news, my friend. You are underexposed to common sense, reputable sources, and reality. We're done here.
LikeLike
I think the issue Bob is getting at on ID/Creationism is a combination of things.
1) It is scientifically unprovable at our current level of understanding (and saying that that's part of the point is hypocritical).
2) That people genuinely believe it in spite of gathered evidence.
3) These same people want to get these ideas into public school lesson plans, while having the scientifically provable methods removed.
4) While publically denied, it is openly known that ID/Creationism is NOT poly-religious, BUT specifically Christian creation myth, minus the word God.
5) The US allows freedom of religion, but government requires both separation of Church and State. This means that anything even remotely religious in government back institutions has to be non-denominational (as much as it may be disliked), and ID/Creationism is not non-denominational.
Remember, this entire debate is why we have the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster after all, and if I'm gonna be forced to learn a faith-based version of the creation myth, why learn about wrathful, fire and brimstone God, when I can learn about beer-pirate-hooker Spaghetti Monster?
LikeLike
oy bob, oy.
i mean, obviously the substance i agree with, but man, the WAY YOU SAY IT….
the problem is, when you act like a dick, it makes all this logical stuff get outright rejected by the people you should be trying to educate.
I know, I know. Don't be a pussy, like the Democrats and so many others like them. But jesus man, you aren't converting anybody when you say it like that, right? I mean, half these posts that are against you say nothing of the issues, but just badmouth you and your… badmouthing.
LikeLike
@nadesico33: Well, that's certainly not what Bob was saying in the post, so either he's implying that people who choose to believe something not supported by the majority of the available evidence are mentally retarded, or he somehow managed to say that while not intending to.
LikeLike
I agree with every damn thing being said here.
1: Intelligent Design IS Creationism, or at least all it does is serve the purpose of creationists.
Let's throw the bone that an intelligent species did in fact seed everything on this planet.
Okay…so where did THAT come from?
All I.D. is, is a smokescreen that wants REAL scientists to give up on evolution in favor of not asking any questions beyond, “but just WHO could this 'creator' be, I wonder? Oh, you'll NEVER guess…”
2: As to global warming, I've long stopped caring one way or another. Regardless, we DO need to pollute less and run our planet more efficiently. It's in EVERYONE'S best interest. Whether or not we're killing the planet by not doing it is a non-issue. We need to do it for the sake of having clean water, air, and enough power and resources to provide for our massive populations.
3: On Republicans, I could never vote for one. I don't care what they have to say on taxes or the debt, or health care. If they run their campaign or their office like prayer rally, they can say goodbye to my vote. America is NOT a Christian nation, nor should it ever be. I vote for secularism, because when you can't justify your actions with the abject will of some ethically defunct sky-man, your decisions have to stand on their own merits. And for that to happen, they need to make be logical, reasonable, and informed.
LikeLike
I think we can all agree that people with Borderline/Avoidant/Schizoid personalities, or with ADD, ADHD, Asperger's, or Autism are all “mentally-unwell and/or mentally-deficient, and should be classified and regarded as such.”
…Which nullifies the opinions of about half the comments in here.
LikeLike
@Ryan
>This one-hour rant by a conservative ideologue is the only history lesson you've ever heard, isn't it?
Actually, after I was thoroughly brainwashed by Alpha Omega's homeschool curriculum ;-p , I took a couple semesters of history at Clayton State University… one of the professors was very liberal, but very interesting. In all honesty I didn't do to well. I am more of a math/tech kind of guy.
Nice of you to discover Mark Levin actually worked in the Ronald Reagan's administration. Maybe you also learned that he held actuall cabniet positions, not PR positions like Mr. Steff Infection, and he graduated with honors.
The likes of Mike Huckabee, Rachel Maddow, Mark Levin, etc… run commentary shows. They do not pretend to be journalists. Last I checked Mrs. Palin does not have a show on “faux nooes.”
I'll agree with you on one thing: Mr. Savage is an idiot.
Anyway, it's been fun. I appoligize to everyone for not redirecting this massive off-topic tangent to another blog. Hopefully I can take the time to address some of your other arguments sometime in the future.
>Moviebob
In the U.S., and in many developed countries for that matter, are already either near or below replacement rate. Just about all the population growth in the U.S. comes from immigration.
Our economy has already survived the birthpains of the industrial revolution and the exporting of some economic freedom (thank God) along with lots of manufacturing jobs to China. As I have mentioned before, the U.S. economy already leans more towards “knowledge workers” than agriculture or manufacturing, like many other developed nations.
LikeLike
I just realized what your becoming Bob, Your like Brain from Family Guy.
You started out really intelligent and humorous (about geek culture) and that's why people liked you.
But you saw that people liked your stuff and decided to use your little soap box to push your agenda, I get that and am largely fine with it (to a point).
But look Bob you really need to cool it on your extremely Nazi-like hate speeches or else you run the risk of alienating the same fans that helped you get those nice gigs at The Escapist and Screw Attack.
LikeLike
@ criticisms of intelligent design
Ok, I didn't want to respond Bob's obvious trolling, but I've got to comment on this. The pseudo-intellectual Christian's bane is that many beliefs I hold are often extremely poorly argued in the popular discussion, so I'm going to give you all the benefit of the doubt that you've never heard intelligent design properly argued and not simply reciting straw-man arguments you've heard from other atheists.
Yes, the concept that many aspects of our universe are better explained by the existence of an intelligent creator is neither a provable or falsifiable idea and is really more of a broad philosophy than it is scientific. In much that same way that the concept that our universe is a product of natural processes and is wholly understandable and quantifiable is neither a provable or falsifiable idea and is really more of a broad philosophy than it is scientific.
To argue intelligent design scientifically one has to apply it to something specific. While there are a few good examples out there, my personal favorite punching bag is, of course, abiogenesis.
Right now every shred of evidence we have suggest that naturally occurring abiogenesis is impossible. Scientists have been struggling with this issue for a century and a half (unless you count spontaneous generation, in which case it's been several centuries, but I don't) and have yet to come up with any theory that can pass experimentation. I'm not going to argue odds or probability like other skeptics. Until science shows other wise, it is entirely reasonable to assume that it can not happen naturally. Yes, we may discover how it can happen eventually, but “we'll find the evidence some day!” is hardly evidence in and of itself. (and if anyone even thinks the phrase “but you can't prove abiogenesis didn't happen”, I will throw the giant flying spaghetti monster at you SO hard)
With this being as important question as it is to answer, I think scientists should at least entertain the possibility that the origin of life on Earth may have been an unnatural occurrence (and I'm not going to even begin to postulate what that may have been). Right now they're only experimenting with models that could have plausibly occurred on Earth… with the success rate so far, I don't think they should be limiting themselves like that. I'm not calling for scientists to “give-up”. I'm calling for them to widen their possible solutions. They should be trying harder, because this is easily one of the most important question man kind has yet to answer, but they are unnecessarily handicapping themselves. I don't think the ramifications of understanding how life first came about could possibly be over emphasized, whether natural or unnatural.
As for issues of evidence… If scientists find that the origin of life must have been under unnatural circumstances, than it's reasonable proof in favor of intelligent design. If scientists find that the origin of life could have happened under entirely natural circumstances, than it's a reasonable proof against (Occam's Razor suggestion that if something could have occurred naturally, it probably did). There's your provability and falsifiability.
I would also point out that the abiogenesis issue is really only one life as we know it on Earth has. It's entirely plausible that other forms of life else where in the universe could have entirely come about through natural abiogenesis.
LikeLike
I think a lot of people who take umbrage with his first point are thinking of creationism differently than he is: that is, I'm assuming that Bob means “God created the world in 6 days less than 7000 years ago, literally” when he says “Creationism.”
And in that, I agree. The only people who continue to believe that in today's age are either very ignorant (as in, uneducated), or frighteningly illogical, to the point where I would not want them anywhere near a ballot box.
I don't care how smart they are in other respects: the cognitive double standard of that level of blind belief in direct opposition to overwhelming evidence is scary.
As for the whole “God created everything, then it all evolved on its own from that point,” meh. People of faith will re-interpret their scriptures to fit anything they previously contradicted; it's just the nature of the beast. It's happened multiple times over the ages, in everything from a geo-centric to a helio-centric universe to “miracles” of modern science. Hell it'll probably happen again if humans are contacted by intelligent alien life. *shrugs* Whatchagonnado.
LikeLike
@TheAlmightyNarf:
Nothing in science will ever tell you there WAS no creator. The possibility does exist.
However, the problem is, who created the creators? Either way you have SOME form of infinite regress in play, and logically, I find it best to assume there WAS no creator, and try to understand how abiogenesis could have occurred.
For me, it's simply a matter of time and repetition. The odds are astronomical against in any given scenario, but given the vastness of the Universe and the doubtless number of places were the conditions are right, it only seems inevitable that the odds were beaten SOMEWHERE.
Point is, either the creators formed as they were, naturally, or they started out as something impossibly primitive and slowly increased in sophistication via natural selection over a longstretch of time. One of these is undoubtedly more likely than the other.
LikeLike
@ JDude
“However, the problem is, who created the creators? Either way you have SOME form of infinite regress in play, and logically, I find it best to assume there WAS no creator, and try to understand how abiogenesis could have occurred.”
Well, like I said, the abiogenesis issue only applies to the sort of life we have on Earth. We have no clear transition from inorganic to proto-life to living organisms here… in fact, just about all the proto-life that exists on Earth now is generally considered to have come about after life did. However, there is no reason to assume that such a transition doesn't exists elsewhere for other forms of life.
Some form of abiogenesis must have happened at some point. We just shouldn't assume that it happened here or for us.
“For me, it's simply a matter of time and repetition. The odds are astronomical against in any given scenario, but given the vastness of the Universe and the doubtless number of places were the conditions are right, it only seems inevitable that the odds were beaten SOMEWHERE.”
Until science can show other-wise, I don't concede that there are any odds at all. For all we know there are inherent issues with the chemistry that make it completely imposable under natural circumstances.
LikeLike
@Narf:
And yet, here we are.
Personally, while I don't consider it impossible, I certainly don't consider 2nd degree life-seeding as the most likely origin of life on Earth. We don't understand how abiogenesis occurred, but nor should we be expected to have understood, let alone recreated this astonishingly rare phenomenon so early in our cosmic self-education.
Forgive me for not having read previously what you may or may not be arguing for, but I'll say that I have no issue with schools providing children with all the viable theories and hypothesis', including extra-planar seeding of planets, so long as they understand that in any case, anything intelligent enough to do so would HAVE to have come about through a gradual process, be it evolution or something else we cannot as of yet imagine. Sky-hooks are not good science.
LikeLike
@JDude
“Personally, while I don't consider it impossible, I certainly don't consider 2nd degree life-seeding as the most likely origin of life on Earth.”
To quote Arthur Conan Doyle… “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth“.
“We don't understand how abiogenesis occurred, but nor should we be expected to have understood, let alone recreated this astonishingly rare phenomenon so early in our cosmic self-education.”
That is the worst fucking cop-out I have ever seen. We can't expect science to have figured it out yet? Seriously?! That's what you're going with?
No, that's bullshit.
Science makes theories based off of evidence. That's how it works. We have plenty of evidence to make reasonable theories regarding the origins of life and the means of testing them… And those tests have consistently pointed in one direction. That life on Earth can not be the product of natural abiogenesis.
“Forgive me for not having read previously what you may or may not be arguing for”
I only made those last 2 posts… and a post way early on calling Bob out on being a troll.
“but I'll say that I have no issue with schools providing children with all the viable theories and hypothesis', including extra-planar seeding of planets, so long as they understand that in any case, anything intelligent enough to do so would HAVE to have come about through a gradual process, be it evolution or something else we cannot as of yet imagine.”
I take the stance that with us having absolutely no real viable theories about the origin of life, we really don't have anything to teach in schools. Our education system should be teaching science, not conjecture.
LikeLike
@Narf:
Cop-out? Hardly.
For as much as we currently know, we've only been at this a few hundred years, and only one that has been anywhere close to utilizing pure secular reasoning with no religious desires muddying the issues.
We are talking about an entire planet's worth of churning seas of water and chemicals stirring, frothing, boiling and mixing over the course of millions of years, until one, perhaps ONLY one, proper combination of chemicals triggered the existence of the functioning DNA (or RNA) molecule.
In all that, the factors only needed to come together once.
The problem I have with your reasoning is that you say the evidence suggests heavily that it was impossible for it to have occurred here, but I argue that we can only know so much, at present, about primordial earth. We know a great deal, certainly, but absolute knowledge, we have not.
Yes, at present, it doesn't make sense to us. But I see no reason to assume that will always be the case. A failure to replicate a phenomenon in which the variables include several unknowns does not fault the capacity for the phenomenon to occur, only our understanding of the phenomenon.
Anyway, I don't see how any of it is pressing, so long as we, like you said, teach science (and not fairy tails, if I might add).
But I confess myself confused when you ask not to teach conjecture. It is perfectly honest to admit ignorance to something. Flatly saying, “I don't know” is entirely defensible. But I also think it is fine to discuss the possibilities, whether certainty exists or not. It seems entirely intellectually beneficial, where I sit. When I was in school, we were taught the different theories for the origin of the Moon, and I find myself enriched for it. Science being what it is, it seems like a serious handicap to not engage the possible as well as the certain.
LikeLike
@ JDude
See, the problem is that “we might discovery how it happened someday!” is absolutely a corollary of “you can't prove it didn't happen” in that I can just as easily respond with “some day science may discover the flying spaghetti monster created life on Earth too“.
We can't make theories based on evidence we might some day discover. We have to look at the evidence we have today.
On that note, this discussion has actually piqued my interest on the subject again, so I've been doing some research to see if any new science has come about since the last time I've argued this… turns out there has. There have actually been a few successful experiments in creating proto-life like self-replicating molecules. The experiments of Professor Ghadiri and Julius Rebek being particularly interesting. The one thing that all these experiments had in common was that the self-replicating molecules had to be created in an incredibly unnatural environment. Now, they are pretty far off from creating anything we may call life, so I don't consider this as having met the “provability” condition I established. But, I do think it's interesting that that is the direction science is going in right now.
LikeLike
Bitterness and politics, indeed.
This is my last post/visit to any of MovieBob's sites/movies.
It was good while it lasted, but upon learning that Bob is a psychotic bigot, I just can't support his various internet ventures anymore.
Bob's certainly entitled to his opinions, but I just don't want to listen to it anymore. So I'm out.
All the best,
Sam Robards, disappointed former fan
LikeLike
Bob, you tell me, at what stage of development do we go from being blobs of flesh to humans?
That's the worst thing about the entire pro-choice belief world. The arbitrary lines that are drawn.
You know I could go on trying to argue about this shit, but everyone who's reading; let's think about something.
Why did Bob write and post this article NOW? Really, did he just feel like making such huge statements one morning? I'm guessing he met some old family member of his.
I don't know if the day will ever come that–like the guy above me–I finally have enough of Bob's inconsistent, hate-filled bullshit, drop out and never return, but I feel like he's pulling me closer to the edge every week.
LikeLike
I completely agree with the post.
LikeLike