http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/10/24/2357245/dr-richard-dawkins-on-education-innocence-of-muslims-and-rep-paul-broun?sbsrc=md


"Dawkins: It's very evident that Representative Paul Broun is uneducated, ignorant, probably stu.pid, too, which is very sad. It's very sad that somebody as ill-qualified to hold high office as that has been elected. There was a rather amusing tweet I saw on Twitter, which went something like this. "Doctor, you say that brushing teeth is a good way to keep them healthy. I say smearing them with chocolate is. Let's teach the controversy!" And the fact is, there is no controversy about evolution. It's a fact, demonstrated beyond all possible doubt by scientific evidence. Every qualified person who looked at the evidence agrees that it's an absolutely secure fact. There is no controversy to teach."


With the bolded, if even he can be made to speak like that then how are us mere mortals are supposed to remain calm?

"Dawkins: I've only seen the trailer for that video. It's quite astonishingly badly done, as everybody agrees. So, the fact that the Islamic propagandists decided to pick on that one is extremely unfortunate. They should simply have ignored it. Everybody else would have ignored if they had. So, that's a deplorable incident. On the other hand, freedom of speech is very important. Freedom of speech is something that Islamic theocracies simply do not understand. They don't get it. They're so used to living in a theocracy, that they presume that if a film is released in the United States, the United States Government must be behind it! How could it be otherwise? So, they need to be educated that, actually, some countries do have freedom of speech and government is not responsible for what any idiot may do in the way of making a video."

Well, duh. So what was obama doing apologizing for that?? Even the danish presido refused to indulge the silly islamic delegations that sought to meet him after their own nonsense.

Meh, copy paste the whole thing. I like the last part, very delicious

"Slashdot: In a recent Gallup poll, it's been shown that the American population has shown no change over the past thirty years in their acceptance of evolution as truth. Why do you think that is?

Dr. Richard Dawkins: Well, I'm aware of that. It's a disturbing fact. This is Gallup poll results. It's slightly unfortunate in a way, that the way that they phrased the question in that particular Gallup poll is to say, on the one hand, mankind was created more or less in its present form some time during the last 10,000 years. Or.. the right answer.. evolution. Or, God had nothing to do with it. And, that "God had nothing to do with it" kind of puts people off. Nevertheless, that's the way Gallup phrased it. And, you're right that the poll hasn't changed. It's somewhere between 40%, 45% consistently.

I think religion is to blame. I mean, I can think of no other reason why, of all the scientific facts that people might disagree with or disbelieve, this is the one they pick on. Physics gets through OK. Chemistry gets through OK. But, not biology/geology and I think it's got to be because of religion.

Slashdot: Is that something you think can be easily remedied through education?

Dawkins: It should be. Education is the answer to the problem. I think that scientists are somewhat to blame for not getting out more and bringing their subject to people. So, I think we're not entirely blameless of that. The evidence is absolutely clear, isn't it? No doubt about it. It's not the sort of thing that one can be at all doubtful about, once you've seen the evidence. And, clearly, most people haven't seen the evidence. You've only got to talk to people who call themselves creationists to realize they haven't the faintest idea what the evidence is, or indeed, what evolution is.

Slashdot: Do you think there's a better way that people could be shown what the evidence is?

Dawkins: Well, there are books. There are plenty of television documentaries. There are plenty of websites that you can go look up Q & A and things. There's quite a lot of stuff out there. I'm not quite sure what that better way would look like, but I'd be grateful for any suggestions.

Slashdot: Earlier this year, the Tennessee State Legislature passed a law [allowing] public schools to teach the controversy with regard to evolution, global warming and a few other scientific theories. Much more recently, Representative Paul Broun, a Republican in Georgia, said that evolution, embryology, the big bang theory--are "lies straight from the pit of Hell." How does that tie in with the educational aspect? It seems to me, you're working at two problems. You have students who are not educated, with respect to evolution, the big bang theory, and similar things. And, those students grow up to be voters and legislators, who are now contributing the the problem.

Dawkins: It's very evident that Representative Paul Broun is uneducated, ignorant, probably stupid, too, which is very sad. It's very sad that somebody as ill-qualified to hold high office as that has been elected. There was a rather amusing tweet I saw on Twitter, which went something like this. "Doctor, you say that brushing teeth is a good way to keep them healthy. I say smearing them with chocolate is. Let's teach the controversy!" And the fact is, there is no controversy about evolution. It's a fact, demonstrated beyond all possible doubt by scientific evidence. Every qualified person who looked at the evidence agrees that it's an absolutely secure fact. There is no controversy to teach.

Slashdot: What is the effect, do you think, of this unwillingness to commit to science, on the production of scientists and engineers. In other words, if you suddenly could wave a magic wand and solve all these issues, do you think we would see more engineers and scientists come out of this country?

Dawkins: Yes. I mean, it's an odd fact that the United States is, beyond any doubt, the preeminent scientific power in the world. No doubt about it. Measure it with Nobel Prizes, with numbers of scientific papers published, and so on. It is the world leader. Yet, at the same time, it's being dragged backwards by nearly 50% of the population, who are anti- intellectual, anti-education, despise people who have education, and it's a big problem. Fortunately, the 50% who are doing the right thing are so good that they are still pulling the country in the right direction.

Slashdot: Is it important to focus on the United States and similar countries in this matter? Or, for example, South Korea recently had a win, actually, in which they kept the teaching of creationism out of their school textbooks. Is it more important to focus on the larger, more established educational systems, or to get into the smaller ones before that?

Dawkins: Yeah. I wouldn't say more important, but it sort of hits one in the gut, rather, that a country like the United States, which is so ahead of the field in half the country should be so way backward in the other half. It does rather stand out like a sore thumb in world statistics, but it's still important to teach in other parts of the world. Particularly, the Islamic part of the world, which is shrouded in darkness, really, educationally speaking, in this field.

Slashdot: Speaking of which: the recent controversy over the "Innocence of Muslims" video. Could you talk a little about that, and what you think the repercussions it's had throughout the world?

Dawkins: I've only seen the trailer for that video. It's quite astonishingly badly done, as everybody agrees. So, the fact that the Islamic propagandists decided to pick on that one is extremely unfortunate. They should simply have ignored it. Everybody else would have ignored if they had. So, that's a deplorable incident. On the other hand, freedom of speech is very important. Freedom of speech is something that Islamic theocracies simply do not understand. They don't get it. They're so used to living in a theocracy, that they presume that if a film is released in the United States, the United States Government must be behind it! How could it be otherwise? So, they need to be educated that, actually, some countries do have freedom of speech and government is not responsible for what any idiot may do in the way of making a video.

Slashdot: I want to read a quote from an article you wrote earlier this year. You said, "My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a "they" as opposed to a "we" can be identified at all." Now, nations can be conquered and nationalities can be merged. Racism is slowly getting eroded by education. Do you feel that religion can be educated in a similar way?

Dawkins: The context of the quote which you just read out was probably Northern Ireland, where I had been upbraided for suggesting that the Northern Ireland Conflict is about religion. People said, "no, no, it's about politics. It's about economics. It's about centuries of oppression." Which it is. But, when one group is said to be oppressing another, there has to be some label by which the groups can identify themselves. Now, in countries where there are racial differences, like South Africa, it's easy to see which group you belong to. In countries like Belgium, where there's a linguistic friction between those who speak French and those who speak Dutch, once again, language is the barrier, is the label by which people can identify the "them" or "us." But, in Northern Ireland — and I think probably in the Indian subcontinent — the predominant label, by far, is religion. So, that's how people identify the "them" and "us."

If you think about it, it's not surprising, because psychologists have shown that if you take, for example, children, and give them arbitrary labels — you arbitrarily divide the children into two halve — and give these ones orange t-shirts and those ones green t-shirts, and give them various other labels, they will develop loyalties to those of their own labeled group. And that happens very quickly. Now, if you imagine that you set up a rule, such that oranges only marry oranges, and greens only marry greens, and children of orange couples only ever go to orange schools, and children of green couples only go to green schools, and you carry that on for 300 years, what have you got? I mean, you've got a deep, deep division in society. And if it's possible for one of those two groups to oppress the other economically, they will. And then you'll get all sorts of vendettas and feuds developing."

I have a question:
being the agnostic he claims how can he honestly refer to the idea of God as a delusion"

F00028: I have a question:
being the agnostic he claims how can he honestly refer to the idea of God as a delusion"

You are supposed to ask him, not me or the thread, the question.

He doesn't claim to be agnostic. The delusion bit is a simple but long story, read the synopsis on wiki.


You aren't here simply because of that farce of a thread you opened, are you?

wiegraf:
He doesn't claim to be agnostic. The delusion bit is a simple but long story, read the synopsis on wiki.

In 2012, in a video recorded discussion with
Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury,
Richard Dawkins said he was 6.9 out of 7 of
sure that God does not exist and counted
himself as an agnostic.

wiegraf: You aren't here simply because of that farce of a thread you opened, are you?

no, I am not. why would you think that?

F00028:
In 2012, in a video recorded discussion with
Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury,
Richard Dawkins said he was 6.9 out of 7 of
sure that God does not exist and counted
himself as an agnostic.

He also more or else says that in his book, except he doesn't identify himself as agnostic. On a technical level, maybe so. But he also says the very vast majority of people who call themselves atheists are not full 7's, and he implies it might be impossible to be a full 7. His methodology is borrowed from alfred kinsey's scale designed for sexuality. In kinsey's scale, assuming 7 is fully homosexual and 0 is completely heterosexual, there is no one on the planet that is a full 7, or 0, everyone is bi. It's just a matter of degree, sort of apply that logic here. In other words, you're agnostic as well using this reasoning, we all are. Anyhow he assumes if you're 6.9 (in fact, from lower, like 5), for all intents and purposes you are an atheist. You live your daily life with a complete disregard for gods. I would say I'm 6.9 as well. He's an atheist, ask him for yourself.

F00028:
no, I am not. why would you think that?

Hmm, I would think because of your sudden interest in a somewhat dead thread. Why do you even pretend otherwise?




Edits

Part 2


Dr. Richard Dawkins: The central focus of our operation is
our website, www.richarddawkins.net, which gets a lot of
hits. It gets about a million hits a month, and lots of things
go on it. We are trying to serve as a sort of service to other
free-thinking, atheist, skeptical websites who perhaps
haven't made quite such a professional job of it, because
they tend to be run by volunteers, whereas we have salaried
employees to make a really professional website with a very
large number of hits. And we're trying to encourage, with
some success, other organizations to make use of our
facility, so that they will use our website, or have their own
websites which are based upon ours, have the same look
and feel and use the same infrastructure. So that's a big
project, which is expensive, and it's a big thing that we're
working on.
Another specific thing we're working on is the Good News
Club, which, I don't know whether you know about this, is
an extremely pernicious organization in the United States.
In fact there's a book about it by Katherine Stewart called
The Good News Club. She's an investigative journalist who
has uncovered it all. What it is, is a group of Fundamentalist
Christian organizations, who go into public schools after the
school bell has rung for the day. So that it's no longer
violating the Constitutional separation of church and state.
The school day's over, and they swoop in and, as it were,
carry on with their "club." But as far as the children are
concerned, they look just like teachers.
So when a member of the Good News Club tells children
"You're going to Hell because you're a Jew," or something
like that, which they do, or tell children to tell other children
they're going to Hell because they're Jewish or Catholic or
something, as far as the child is concerned, it sounds like a
teacher. And Katherine Stewart documents children who will
then go to their parents and say, "The teacher told us that
we or somebody else are going to Hell," and the parents are
bewildered because they know that the teachers shouldn't
be doing that. And it's actually the Good News Club people
masquerading as teachers, and they're being extremely
effective. They're very, very well-funded, as many Christian
organizations are, and very well-supported by local
organizations.
They're operating all over the country, and indeed, all over
the world. They've actually got branches in almost every
country of the world now. And we are going to try to help
organize some opposition to this. The Good News Club
happens to be concentrating next year on Denver, Colorado,
which is close to where we have one of our branch offices.
So we're going to try to move in to Denver to try to do
something about their assault on the children in the public
schools of Denver.
Slashdot: In a TED Talk you gave a few years ago, you
finished by speaking about how 9/11 changed you, and said
"Let's all stop being so damned respectful."
Dawkins: Yes.
Slashdot: How do you feel your approach differs from
people who are more apologetic, or more respectful?
Dawkins: Well, as I said, the appearance of my being not
respectful is greatly exaggerated by the presumption that
religion is owed respect. I didn't mean we should be
specifically disrespectful to religion. I just meant that we
should not treat religion as any more immune to disrespect
or ridicule or satire than anything else.
There's another thing I'd like to say, which arose after the
previous question you asked. To many people, clarity is
threatening. There are many people, we'll call them
apologists or accomodationists, who, as it were, go 'round
and 'round being so diplomatic you can hardly understand
what they're saying. And I do believe in "Let your yea be yea
and your nay be nay." I do believe in just speaking out
truthfully.
So without being particularly deliberately offensive or
insulting, just tell it like it is. Just be clear. And clarity, as I
say, can sound insulting. A good example of this was a few
years ago when I wrote a book review, I think it was in the
New York Times, about a book that I think was about
Creationism. I said "Anybody who claims to be a Creationist
is either stupid, ignorant, or insane. Probably ignorant."
Ignorance is no crime. There are all sorts of things I'm
ignorant of, such as baseball, but I don't regard it as
insulting if somebody says I'm ignorant of baseball, it's a
simple fact. I am ignorant of baseball. People who claim to
be Creationists are almost always ignorant of evolution.
That's just a statement of fact, not an insult. It's just a
statement. But it sounds like an insult. And I think that
accounts for part of what you've picked up about my
apparent image of being aggressive and offensive. I'm just
telling it clearly.
Slashdot: Is there anything that can be done to tone the
debate down, so that statements like that aren't considered
offensive to other people here?
Dawkins: I'm not sure toning it down is the right approach.
I think that the right approach is to raise consciousness to
the idea that there's nothing special about religion that
deserves respect; so whatever you would say about
something you disagree with. If you're having an argument
about which is the best baseball team, you can have that
argument and it's not taken as an insult to disagree with
something. People need to stop cosseting religion, as
though a disagreement in religion is something like a
personal insult.
If I say "I think you're wrong about your God," it's not the
same as saying, "I think you've got an ugly face," or "You
smell," or something. But there are people who think it is,
and I think we need to raise consciousness that it isn't a
personal insult. It's just simply an argument about the way
the cosmos is and the way morality is and so on.
Slashdot: Thank you for your time.
Dawkins: Thank you very much.



Mobile device copy/paste is troublesome, here's the link for better format:
http://www.science.slashdot.org/story/12/10/26/0230247/dr-richard-dawkins-on-why-disagreeing-with-religion-isnt-insulting?sbsrc=md

Ah the atheist... forever copying another man's viewpoint and using it as a crutch for his own confused state of unbelief.

davidylan: Ah the atheist... forever copying another man's viewpoint and using it as a crutch for his own confused state of unbelief.

lol...this coming from the fool that couldnt find out that murder is evil without the bible?

davidylan: Ah the atheist... forever copying another man's viewpoint and using it as a crutch for his own confused state of unbelief.

I thought we've been through this, he who is guided by a book which claims talking fires existed. And you bi.tch when I ask if you're trolling?

Logicboy03:


lol...this coming from the fool that couldnt find out that murder is evil without the bible?

After you accuse others of being abusive to you. apparently atheists use adhominems to hide their own insecurities.

Back to your post... i asked earlier - where cannibals wrong to eat their captives considering it was part of their culture?

davidylan:

After you accuse others of being abusive to you. apparently atheists use adhominems to hide their own insecurities.

Back to your post... i asked earlier - where cannibals wrong to eat their captives considering it was part of their culture?

There is no difference between illogical culture and fictional beliefs/religion.


Eating captives is wrong.

Logicboy03:


There is no difference between illogical culture and fictional beliefs/religion.


Eating captives is wrong.

What are you talking about? You sound confused.
Please assume religion didnt exist here... what was wrong with cannibalism? Afterall it was part of the culture no?

davidylan:

What are you talking about? You sound confused.
Please assume religion didnt exist here... what was wrong with cannibalism? Afterall it was part of the culture no?

So you really see nothing wrong in cannibalism without the bible?


As a biologist, you havent heard of Kuru?


What about survival of our speices?


What about doing unto others as they would do unto you? (the golden rule that existed centuries before christianity)

Logicboy03:


So you really see nothing wrong in cannibalism without the bible?


As a biologist, you havent heard of Kuru?


What about survival of our speices?


What about doing unto others as they would do unto you? (the golden rule that existed centuries before christianity)

You're floundering...

Again i ask, forget the bible, was cannibalism wrong since it was part of many popular cultures the world over?

2. Kuru and so what? that was pretty much restricted to the tribes of papau new guinea and they were not the only ones practicing cannibalism. This is quite a senseless example really... mad cow disease is transmitted by eating cows, does that mean eating cows is wrong?

3. What do you mean by "survival of the species"? Doesnt that also include natural selection for which cannibalism would be a part?

4. Doing unto others what they would do unto you? How does that make sense in the scheme of tribal culture that is ingrained and considered normal?

You seem to be grasping at straws here...

davidylan:

You're floundering...

Again i ask, forget the bible, was cannibalism wrong since it was part of many popular cultures the world over?

2. Kuru and so what? that was pretty much restricted to the tribes of papau new guinea and they were not the only ones practicing cannibalism. This is quite a senseless example really... mad cow disease is transmitted by eating cows, does that mean eating cows is wrong?

3. What do you mean by "survival of the species"? Doesnt that also include natural selection for which cannibalism would be a part?

4. Doing unto others what they would do unto you? How does that make sense in the scheme of tribal culture that is ingrained and considered normal?

You seem to be grasping at straws here...

Lmao....see this guy! I am floundering? You must be joking


1) Did I mention the bible? Did I used the bible

2) Kuru is one great reason not to be a cannibal. Any meat can give you disease. The more closer the species, the more chance of getting diseases from the meat. Common sense. Humans to cows aint the same as human to human.


3) Survival of the species- if everyone killed each other, would we survive. Natural selection and survival of the fittest doesnt mean kill each other. Nature selects those who have characteristics to adapt to the emvironment. Futhermore, killing only makes sense when it is necessary for your survival.

4) Are you seriously arguing for a backwards culture? Their culture was wrong. Who cares if it is ingrained? Argument ad populum! It was wrong


5) Do unto others? Why eat others when you dont want to be eaten?

Logicboy03:
2) Kuru is one great reason not to be a cannibal. Any meat can give you disease. The more closer the species, the more chance of getting diseases from the meat. Common sense. Humans to cows aint the same as human to human.

First off, its just plain ignorant to say that "the more closer the species, the more chance of getting disease from the meat". That is nonsensical fallacy that has no basis in reality. It appears you have not been taking your elementary science classes seriously.
Secondly, tapeworms are a good reason not to eat pork, mad cow disease are a good reason not to eat beef...

It appears here that you are simply spinning and have no idea what to say.

Logicboy03:
3) Survival of the species- if everyone killed each other, would we survive. Natural selection and survival of the fittest doesnt mean kill each other. Nature selects those who have characteristics to adapt to the emvironment. Futhermore, killing only makes sense when it is necessary for your survival.

this makes no sense. Cannibals didnt eat each other, they only ate captives from other tribes. It is simply a case of survival of the fittest. By the way this is the same means by which animals cull populations in the wild... is it your claim that lions should be prevented from hunting lest they hunt buffalo to extinction?

Confused.

Logicboy03:
4) Are you seriously arguing for a backwards culture? Their culture was wrong. Who cares if it is ingrained? Argument ad populum! It was wrong

The question is simple - ON WHAT BASIS is it wrong?

Logicboy03:
5) Do unto others? Why eat others when you dont want to be eaten?

This is senseless. so lions should not eat deer just in case something comes along to eat the lion too?

Do unto others is a moral injunction that is not applicable in this case since cannibals didnt consider eating their captives as morally wrong. Actually it was part of the ritual in many tribes to eat human flesh.

davidylan:

First off, its just plain ignorant to say that "the more closer the species, the more chance of getting disease from the meat". That is nonsensical fallacy that has no basis in reality. It appears you have not been taking your elementary science classes seriously.
Secondly, tapeworms are a good reason not to eat pork, mad cow disease are a good reason not to eat beef...

It appears here that you are simply spinning and have no idea what to say.

a) As a biologist, you should know that diseases and parasites pass easier from humans to humans than from animals to humans. You have always been fake biologist

b) Human meat comes with more consequences than other meats especially when not cooked properly

davidylan:
this makes no sense. Cannibals didnt eat each other, they only ate captives from other tribes. It is simply a case of survival of the fittest. By the way this is the same means by which animals cull populations in the wild... is it your claim that lions should be prevented from hunting lest they hunt buffalo to extinction?

Confused.

Survival.....tribal wars they killed people in defense of their own tribe. Why kill humans unnecessarily? Dont be silly. It makes sense

Lions and Buffalo aint the same species. Dumbazz

davidylan:
The question is simple - ON WHAT BASIS is it wrong?

Do unto others? Survival of your own species?

davidylan:
This is senseless. so lions should not eat deer just in case something comes along to eat the lion too?

Do unto others is a moral injunction that is not applicable in this case since cannibals didnt consider eating their captives as morally wrong. Actually it was part of the ritual in many tribes to eat human flesh.

Lions and Deer are now the same species? Are you trolling?

Do unto others is an applicable principle here. I would kill anyone that is detrimental to my survival and I dont expect someone to spare me if am detrimental to the persons survival


Now, eating captives. Why would I kill captives by eating when I wouldnt want to die by being eaten

Whatisthisidonteven where did cannibals come from?

Even if it were part of a culture, I fail to see how that makes it right, at all. Do you think the mayans were upstanding humans?

It is wrong because it effects more harm than good. Don't need no book, especially a 2000 year old one, telling one otherwise. Even if your book claims it's wrong, and it would be right, credit goes to the HUMANS that wrote it.

wiegraf: Whatisthisidonteven where did cannibals come from?

Even if it were part of a culture, I fail to see how that makes it right, at all. Do you think the mayans were upstanding humans?

It is wrong because it effects more harm than good. Don't need no book, especially a 2000 year old one, telling one otherwise. Even if your book claims it's wrong, and it would be right, credit goes to the HUMANS that wrote it.

The guy likes shifting the debate....he even went as far as lying about transmission of disease between species and also misusing natural slection.

Logicboy03:

a) As a biologist, you should know that diseases and parasites pass easier from humans to humans than from animals to humans. You have always been fake biologist

Unbelievable. Just plain unbelievable! And these are the "scientists" we have to debate? Lets take the very simple example... you are 1000000 times more likely to get plasmodium from a mosquito than you are from your mother even if you suck her breastmilk while she's sick with malaria.

Logicboy03:
b) Human meat comes with more consequences than other meats especially when not cooked properly

Actually pork is the most dangerous. You really should stop pulling bull from thin air just to desperately save face.

Logicboy03:
Survival.....tribal wars they killed people in defense of their own tribe. Why kill humans unnecessarily? Dont be silly. It makes sense

and they ate those they captured.

Logicboy03:
Lions and Buffalo aint the same species. Dumbazz

you do realize that male lions cull the young when they take over a new pride right? and you do know that has never been singled out as a potential threat to lion existence right?

Logicboy03:
Lions and Deer are now the same species? Are you trolling?

obviously you're too naive to understand my point there but see above.

Logicboy03:
Do unto others is an applicable principle here. I would kill anyone that is detrimental to my survival and I dont expect someone to spare me if am detrimental to the persons survival

Now, eating captives. Why would I kill captives by eating when I wouldnt want to die by being eaten

I dont know, maybe you shld ask the cannibals.

davidylan:

Unbelievable. Just plain unbelievable! And these are the "scientists" we have to debate? Lets take the very simple example... you are 1000000 times more likely to get plasmodium from a mosquito than you are from your mother even if you suck her breastmilk while she's sick with malaria.

Five species of Plasmodium can infect and be [size=14pt]transmitted[/size] by humans. The vast majority of deaths are caused by P. falciparum while P. vivax, P. ovale, and P. malariae cause a generally milder form of malaria that is rarely fatal. The zoonotic species P. knowlesi, prevalent in Southeast Asia, causes malaria in macaques but can also cause severe infections in humans. Malaria is prevalent in tropical and subtropical regions because rainfall, warm temperatures, and stagnant waters provide habitats ideal for mosquito larvae. Disease transmission can be reduced by preventing mosquito bites by distribution of mosquito nets and insect repellents, or with mosquito-control measures such as spraying insecticides and draining standing water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria



As usual, your ignorance of basic biology is testament to your false claimns of being a biologist. Plasmodium can be transmitted between humans.

You are foolish to deny the common fact that disease and parasites spread fromnhumans to humans easier than animals to humans.

davidylan:
Actually pork is the most dangerous. You really should stop pulling bull from thin air just to desperately save face.

Epic fail! So you bought the muslim propaganda against pork? Even there are fish deadlier than pork.

Wrong! Human meat is worse. You will get all kinds of diseases from human meat, especially if the person was infected befor.

davidylan:
and they ate those they captured.

And the captured were enemy tribes.

What is your point?

davidylan:
you do realize that male lions cull the young when they take over a new pride right? and you do know that has never been singled out as a potential threat to lion existence right?

Thank goodness that I watch the discovery channel. They cull the young of the exiled males so that they dont grow up against them and also because they will mate with the women and have their own children whom they dont want to compete with the other children.


You fail again

davidylan:
obviously you're too naive to understand my point there but see above.

Fail

davidylan:
I dont know, maybe you shld ask the cannibals.

Foolish retort

^^ Man, could you really be this dumb?

Ihedinobi: ^^ Man, could you really be this dumb?

Please, please,

You ask people not to insult and be abusive but you come here to troll. You add nothing to the argument and make no rebuttal but you come here to tel me that I am dumb?



Make your argument.


Davidylan made the argument that it is only religion that can make cannibalism seen as bad-- without religion cannibalism isnt bad.