Sorry for the late response lucky, as I found myself getting angry at some posters and took a chill pill. To answer the question--yes Knox does make that distinction. In fact he takes great pains to do so because he isn't trying to make women seem like they deserve it. In fact he explains all the discrimination women go through.

And the level of violence does matter--or I would have left it out. I don't hide facts to further my point of view...

As someone with an abusive mother and a loving father, I gotta say I don't agree that my dad put up with the abuse to himself or to us for so long...I can also see why my brother is abused by his wife, or why my other brother was in a mutually abusive relationship (Although he always took it way further.) If you haven't lived with abuse...please don't speak like an expert. If you have, then you have all the right in the world.

Take a chill pill, guy.

I didn't say that that link was ABOUT you, I said it made me think of your comment.

I agree. It was your response. And your response resonated in my mind when I read this PARODY PIECE.

I took the two as complementary, companion pieces, not as call and response.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

"Someone" needs a chill pill

Gadzooks! SOMEONE [or thing] needs a chill pill pronto =oD

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^VoodooV:
Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

Sigh... I won't put you under the atheist umbrella but to put it that I am not making a sane choice is rather petty.
But since we are being petty, here is a my argument. He (Neil) says he is a scientist but isn't going to make a claim either way. Okay, so he doesn't know if God exists and won't deny (take a stand) about something if it hasn't been unproven (So un-scientist-like; no leap of faith here...)
In other words he doesn't even know if science works at all. After all, God could snap his fingers and science could be turned on its head and cease to function. Neil is saying this is 100% possible that science is fucking useless and God is all important. He is also saying that this scenario may not be the case...
How scientific of him to take this position. Now you might argue my point is more hyperbole or illogical but really it isn't. It is just that the "safe" route is ridiculed for a reason... George Carlin I miss your jokes old man


We're talking about who or what created life, the universe, and everything. So yeah, I don't think I'm going out on a limb much when I say, "I don't know." However, asserting that you do know what did, or didn't does seem to be quite insane. Someday maybe we will know, but that day isn't today.

If you want to think that's petty, fine, but you seem to be projecting, IMO. Same with your "insights" into NDT's thought process. You seem to be putting a lot of words and thoughts into NDT's head that he didn't make...or assert to. These assertions that NDT and agnostics are cowardly is insulting and unfounded and again, if I dare say so, seem to be projecting your own insecurities onto NDT. And again, you're conflating the idea of god with religion. Atheists continue to make this flawed claim that if god does somehow exists, that obviously the theists are correct on religion and that god is this petty douchebag that likes to play with peoples lives and do shit like changing the laws of science for shits and grins. If god does exist, I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that god is nothing like Q from Star Trek.

I think it's quite the opposite of being cowardly and "not taking a stand" when one comes out publicly "takes a stand" to correct atheists that he is not an atheist. Obviously, if agnostics are the cowards you claim them to be, NDT wouldn't be coming out on this issue. Talk about being petty. Again, you doth protest too much. Atheists like to throw accusations of cowardice a lot for some reason....I'm sure that would be an interesting psychological study.

"It is just that the "safe" route is ridiculed for a reason..." I don't understand why you feel the need to ridicule it in the first place. You can't really cry foul about being petty when you make a statement like this. Again...no better than theists in this regard, you're one and the same. And really, if agnostic is subject to ridicule. Is it really the safe route? I'm sorry you feel you have to crush those who blaspheme against YOUR religion.

@Boise_Lib is quite right on this. Atheists really need to take a chill pill. The defensiveness, and quite frankly anger, when it comes to the atheist reaction to agnostics only serve to illustrate that you're no better than theists. Atheism always seemed to be more about getting revenge on theists instead of being logical and rational.

Try loving instead of hating, you'll live longer.

>> ^VoodooV:


It's really rather disturbing watching atheists play the same "change the definitions" game that the right wing plays. The mental gymnastics required to rationalize agnostics as part of atheists is staggering.


The "changing definitions" parts of these arguments are what really make my head explode--along with it's weaker sister--the "No, No don't pay attention to the Primary definition, it's obvious that the Secondary definition is the correct one here." (correct because it reflects the meaning they want it to).

Atheists, take a chill pill and step away from the lectern for a minute or two--take a deep breath. We are with you on separation of church and state. Take "In God We Trust" off US money. Take "Under God" out of the Pledge. Why fight so hard over something which has no impact on you, or our common cause.

Take a chill pill.

>> ^legacy0100:

>> ^Stingray:
I don't get why parents would leave their children in the car. I know it happens hundreds of times each year, but I still don't understand why.

Perhaps it's because the babies are heavy and physically tire out the mom. Strollers are an option but it's a bit of an hassle to load the babies if you're dropping off some mail or depositing a check for less than 5 minutes. Hence why parents choose to leave the kids behind in the car.
Leaving the kids behind the car for a short period of time isn't such a terrible thing, but being careless and rushing things often makes it much worse. The parent forgot to check her keys nor leave her windows cracked open.
I don't know who the parent was but I'm assuming they were rushing to complete a task in panic mode, forgot to take the necessary safety measures and locked the babies in the car. Then he/she came back to the car with the same mentality as he/she was dealing with his/her task. Perhaps the high-strung parent should take a chill pill and do things one at a time.


really? your reason to leave kids in the car is "because theyre too heavy and this will take just a minute"?! please dont have kids please dont have kids please dont have kids please dont have kids please dont have kids please dont have kids please dont have kids

>> ^Stingray:

I don't get why parents would leave their children in the car. I know it happens hundreds of times each year, but I still don't understand why.


Perhaps it's because the babies are heavy and physically tire out the mom. Strollers are an option but it's a bit of an hassle to load the babies if you're dropping off some mail or depositing a check for less than 5 minutes. Hence why parents choose to leave the kids behind in the car.

Leaving the kids behind the car for a short period of time isn't such a terrible thing, but being careless and rushing things often makes it much worse. The parent forgot to check her keys nor leave her windows cracked open.

I don't know who the parent was but I'm assuming they were rushing to complete a task in panic mode, forgot to take the necessary safety measures and locked the babies in the car. Then he/she came back to the car with the same mentality as he/she was dealing with his/her task. Perhaps the high-strung parent should take a chill pill and do things one at a time.

Haha, way to overreact Issy. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of yanks and their puritanical bullshit laden psychology regarding a fucking four letter word. Take a chill pill sister

Yogi was fairly calm and collected in all his statements, even after GenjiKilpatrick called him a "sick fuck" and said he was worse than an animal abuser. And you say yogi is flailing and frothing like a toddler? I don't entirely agree with his viewpoint, though he has some valid points, but he's not the one who needs a timeout.

I disagree. Perhaps I should have kept from responding to his reaction after Genji's post, but you can't claim that Yogi was being calm and collected in light of his response. You just can't. I'm not going to quote it because I trust that you've read it already, but he blasted anti-CoS as intellectually invalid by comparison to 9/11 conspiracies, and then blasted GenjiKilpatrick, claiming that he would amount to nothing altruistically, in a clear attempt to degrade his opponent. Both of these points stem from an underlying disdain for those who oppose his proposition, and a desire to reduce the potency of both the arguments and one of the people making them.

That's not calm and collected, that's common and seedy. It happens too much, and I see it too often, in all kinds of debates. I'm sorry, but I don't think it's acceptable for you to defend tactics like that.

It's all very well to infiltrate, plant a comment and exfiltrate, but if you want to be involved, be involved. Don't do a drive-by assessment and leave it hanging in the troposphere.

To that end, a question : which points of his are valid ones, that still endure after being responded to?

Edit : I done broked the comment system. I hope you'll be alright with italics.

I'd also like to add that I perceived the "calm and collected" statement, as well as the idea that someone here needs to take a time-out, as a derision of my commitment to the argument, as if I need to sit down and take a chill pill. Well, I'll not apologize for my passion on this issue and I'll have no-one else apologize on my behalf. I expect that my opposition can suffer the intensity of a proper argument. The thrashing and flailing comment was a low-point, I confess. None of the rest of it has received any response whatsoever.

If she doesn't want her crotch filmed, she shouldn't wave it around in public. She's free to do it and the cameraman is free to that pictures. These people who run in and fuck with the cameraman remind me of scientologist "why are you enturbulating here?"

@Throbbin I think you're really out of line insinuating that @dannym3141 is a child molester over this. You guys both need to take a chill pill.

That woman is insane, and lacks any sense of humor.
Sure... they were jet lagged, and tired, but shit.... She was acting like he had caused some serious property damage. He just piled drinks everywhere lady. Take a chill pill.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
^dude, take a chill pill! It is actually a joke he would say to lighten the mood...sounds like you need some levity my friend! So I present this as a offering to teh funnies! http://www.27bslash6.com/p2p2.html


Maybe he was joking to? For his sake I hope he was.

^dude, take a chill pill! It is actually a joke he would say to lighten the mood...sounds like you need some levity my friend! So I present this as a offering to teh funnies! http://www.27bslash6.com/p2p2.html