Fish In A Barrel

Taking Marty To SchoolOr, Fundy Troll Hunting in our own back yard….

So we got a visit a little while ago over at UDoJ, from the [son of the] Director of Missions for the Baptist Association of Greater New Orleans, some guy named Marty McKeever, and we’re toying with a new mouse. Fundies are soooooo dumb.

34 Comments

  1. Sometimes even a troll finds a hungry little fishy…

    thanks for biting.

    (Ouch, I’m “sooo dumb” and that really hurts. But I’m still waiting for someone to explain why mom’s gender bias is a good reason for little susie to be fatherless.)

  2. PS: Your post is incorrect — the “Director of Missions for the Baptist Association of Greater New Orleans” is a sweet old 65 year-old man — my father — not me. I’m just his webmaster.

    He’d probably appreciate the clarification.

  3. Consider it corrected. Perhaps if fundies were actually more literate and could express themselves a little more clearly….

    But much to the amusement of the rest of the world, it’s all too common in those circles.

  4. Why are you obsessed with Susie’s father’s pecker? Why is Susie inherently better off because one of her parents has outside plumbing?

    The answer, as explained by the APA, is that she is not.

    Sorry that galls you (not really), but that’s life.

  5. You’re the one reducing her father to a mere “pecker”. As if susie cares about that part of her dad…

    I happen to think a man — a dad — is much more that just a penis.

    You are welcome to disagree. Thanks for the correction.

  6. No prob, with the correction.

    Why is it that you feel Susie is better off with one male and one female parent? What makes you so sure?

    Science says she’s not any better off either way, so why is it that you insist that one of her parents be male?

    It’s a bald assertion with no evidence. In fact, it’s a bald assertion with contrary evidence.

    Which means your agenda has nothing to do with Susie’s well-being, which is the only thing that should matter. Your agenda is to continue to enforce your religious opinions on me, on Janie, and on Susie.

  7. Why is it that you feel Susie is better off with one male and one female parent? What makes you so sure?

    Because that’s how children are made — it’s how YOU were made. It’s the natural state of humankind to have and know one’s own family. “Blood is thicker than water” is not some blase’ cliche — it’s how wars are begun and graveyards are maintained.

    YOU can say that’s a “bald assertion with no evidence”, but then, you’re the one who’s going against the natural state of humankind, not me.

    Fatherlessness and Motherlessness only happens through tragedy.

    Sure, gaining an extra Mother must be something of a blessing to a child, but at the cost of her own Father? What child (or sociologist) could answer that one, having never known a Father in the first place? And what kind of Mother would have them ask such a foolish question — because of her own aversion to a penis? Or is there more to manhood — to Fatherhood — than just a person’s genetalia, Kate?

    Help me understand why gender bias is an acceptable reason for Susie to be fatherless.

  8. Your argument doesn’t make sense. The premises do not support the conclusion.

    It’s like saying

    Cars have wheels.
    Cars have radios.

    Therefore, cars are blue.

    “Gender bias”?

    “That word -I do not think it means what you think it means.”

  9. And no Christian WOMI Genghis Cohen ninja black belt of logic Cocksnack, you may not comment here, either.

    Did you really think we would have allowed you to?

    Fundies are such paragons of honesty, integrity, and love.

    …or not.

  10. Sorry i can’t spell it out for you any clearer Kate.

    It’s more like:
    All cars have 4 wheels, therefore, you cannot honestly call a bicycle (2 wheels) a car.

    All humans are the product of 1 man and 1 woman in sexual integration. You can tell a little girl that she has no father — that she only has mommy #2.

    But you can’t blame her for knowing that she’s being lied to — that somewhere out there she DOES have a father. And for knowing that the reason she will never likely know him is NOT because mommy loves women (something that has nothing to do with procreation), but because mommy doesn’t like men.

    I call that gender bias, don’t you?

  11. It’s more like:
    All cars have 4 wheels, therefore, you cannot honestly call a bicycle (2 wheels) a car.

    No, it’s not. Logic isn’t your strong suit, but keep trying.

    Because there is one male and one female involved in the conception of a baby, does not mean that that male and that female are the best qualified people to raise that child.

    The fact that those two people conceived the child bears not one whit on whether that child will be loved or cared for.

    Taking your argument to it’s logical conclusion, if a heterosexual couple can not conceive a child, then they should not be permitted to raise a child, because they are also not that child’s biological parents.

    Your premise does not support your conclusion.

    But you can’t blame her for knowing that she’s being lied to — that somewhere out there she DOES have a father.

    She isn’t being lied to. See, in the reality that exists outside of your church’s walls, honesty is a good thing, and so is information. Teaching a child what makes a good parent, and teaching a child what makes a biological parent, and both the shared portions and the differences between the two sets, is called education.

    It’s the antithesis of ignorance, which is what you are spewing.

    And for knowing that the reason she will never likely know him is NOT because mommy loves women (something that has nothing to do with procreation), but because mommy doesn’t like men.

    You can keep saying it over and over, but it doesn’t make it The Truth. You are pushing your fantasy religion based on bigotry and exclusion, nothing more.

  12. Teaching a child that blood kinship is irrelevant (that being “loved and cared for” is the only thing that matters) so that you can feel better about severing that child’s blood kinship for your own gain — because of your own inability to “love and care for” a member of the opposite sex — is wrong.

    Her loss is your gain.

    [churchlady]how convenient![/churchlady]

  13. From what I see, “bigotry and exclusion” appear to be the only reasons Susie is going to be fatherless.

  14. That’s because that’s all you want to see, and you’ve turned off your brain, closed and locked the door, and threw away the key.

    You can insinuate that I hate men all you like, but

    A. It’s irrelevant
    B. I don’t. For the eight hundred thousandth time, I have no sexual preference.

    It’s a messed up reality you live in, where because of biological heritage, instead of having a child raised by two loving women, you’d rather have that child raised by a male and female alcoholic….

    or worse, fundies like you.

    Here’s a very good example of what people like you do to innocent children.

  15. We’re not talking about “you” Kate, but about the idea you’re defending. We may as well say “Mary Cheney” instead of “you” in the examples, because for the moment she appears to embody that same idea you defend:

    That children have no particular right or claim to their blood relations, certainly nothing that trumps mom’s sexual preference (or bias, as it were).

    Susie’s fatherlessness is no less tragic than if he had been killed in a traffic accident before she was born.

  16. Susie’s fatherlessness is no less tragic than if he had been killed in a traffic accident before she was born.

    You are a sad individual, if you really do believe such garbage.

  17. That children have no particular right or claim to their blood relations, certainly nothing that trumps mom’s sexual preference (or bias, as it were).

    Strawman. The only thing that should be considered a trump card is the well being of the child in question.

    The only one here trying to trump that is you and your bronze age mysoginistic mythology.

  18. Hi Lover!

    How’s your little troll today? Still sending you pornographic suggestions like a good little Christian?

    Kisses!

  19. No, only a couple little attempts at commenting so far today.

    I see you’re still toying with the Preacher’s boy. At least he doesn’t seem to be as quick to violence as my little whack job.

    It’ll come eventually, though.

  20. It always does, when people stand up to them and refuse to knuckle under, doesn’t it?

  21. It’s all really a control thing. Funny how it’s all different behind the closed doors of their personal lives.

    “Do as I say, not as I do.”

  22. I was just going to mention Ted “I Art no homo” Haggard, but you sort of beat me to it.

    😛

  23. That’s one creepy looking dude. He really looked deranged when Dr. Dawkins interviewed him.

    (shudder)

  24. The masseur, though.

    That guy can rub me anywhere, anytime!

  25. Maybe we should make an appointment for ourselves…

    😛

  26. I was just looking at your dashboard and notice that the link from Trolly the Perv is gone.

    Guess they don’t really want everyone to see what was going on after all, do they?

  27. For all their screeching, it turns out they don’t really want the world to see what idiots they are.

    Too funny. I noticed it this morning and had a chuckle. I forgot to tell you about it, though.

  28. you and your bronze age mysoginistic mythology

    Ironic isn’t it? That you would accuse me of misogyny, while you sit here and defend misandry. And fatherlessness.

    You’re the one claiming that “separate is equal”, not me.

  29. I’m defending no such thing. Stop lying for Jesus.

    It’s shameful and pitiful.

  30. I haven’t mentioned Jesus once.

    I keep asking you about fatherlessness and gender bias, but you keep trying to change the subject to my religion.

  31. It isn’t only Christians who believe that kids need and deserve both a mother and a father (regardless of either’s orientation).

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=421672&in_page_id=1879

  32. I haven’t mentioned Jesus once.

    Neither has Dembski. Oh wait.

    Both Kate and I have pointed out several times how inane your argument is, you just keep repeating the same argument over and over.

    It isn’t only Christians who believe that kids need and deserve both a mother and a father (regardless of either’s orientation).

    …and the Intelijunt Deeziner could be a space alien!!!!!

  33. Both Kate and I have pointed out several times how inane your argument is, you just keep repeating the same argument over and over.

    Yes, I’m well aware how inane you and Kate think my argument is — you’ve told me that over and over. What you’ve failed to address — and why i keep repeating the question — is exactly why my argument is inane.

    “Because I’m also a Christian” is not a valid reason.

  34. No, but “your premises do not support your conclusion” is quite a valid reason, and “yuh-huh” is not a valid rebuttal.


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s