Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynosure
I used the word "serious" in that question because I wanted to point out that I was describing a literal (albeit hypothetical) situation, and not using hyperbole or something like that.
|
It looks like "literally" would have been a better word than "seriously..."
Quote:
But then I said the question was rhetorical because I (and probably everyone else here) already knew what your answer would be: If it were a literal situation, if you really did have to choose between saving a church full of Creationists or a barn full of animals, then you would choose to save the Creationists. Of course you would. You'd be inhuman – or at least, crazy – if you did not.
So, no, I would not be surprised if you saved the Creationists.
|
Oh, okay. A lot more could have been said if you had thought differently...
Quote:
|
Because, when it comes right down to it, even a church full of "idiot" Creationists, who you hold in such great contempt, are more worthy of saving than a barn full of animals.
|
...and do you think this is a testament to their intellect? I'd save them so therefore they're smart?
Quote:
|
There. I answered those questions. (Really, I thought the answers to them were rather obvious, and thus not worth my while. Already, I've spent too much of my time in this thread, which I saw nearly two days ago was becoming pointless. And yet still I'm here. Groan.)
|
Those ones, yes. You still edited my post and selectively answered questions...
Quote:
|
Not at all. If anything, I think I pretty much know where most if not all of your questions are ultimately leading. It's become obvious to me what your agenda is, here and in other threads of a topic similar to this one (i.e. any thread involving belief in the supernatural and/or the divine). As I said in this thread and elsewhere: You have an ax to grind.
|
You say that like it's a bad thing...
You said all this while still evading the question. What the hell?
I highly doubt you know where this is heading since my axe to grind is against Creationism and this is not heading there. I asked you about language being instinctual 'cause your opinion on that would determine whether this was a semantic argument or not. This is valuable information in terms of the debate but you persist on pretending the question was never posed. I have no idea what this sort of denial is about...