Slashdot Mirror

That list includes the Slippery Slope fallacy, which although it is *technically*, in *absolute* terms, a fallacy, it fails to apply historical reasoning.

For example, your Social Security Number was never meant to be used as a personal identifier when it was created during FDR's socialist reign in the 1930s. Today, the SSN is used to get a job, to file your taxes, even to buy a goddamn cellphone -- all because the people who run these programs want to personally-identify you. Yet, the SS card itself originally had a statement printed on it which read "Not for ID".

The slippery-slope argument -- which in theory would be a logical fallacy -- was that the SSN's use would be expanded to beyond the purposes of collecting Social Security. And you know what? What would've then been deemed a "logical fallacy" has actually proven correct, in fact.

I've seen the other logical fallacies before. Chances are, you're thinking of "Appeal to Consequences of a Belief" - that the great-grandparent *believes* the government is murdering people, but can't confirm it.

Again, this logical fallacy fails to contain historical reasoning. The U.S. government has murdered Americans before (if by no other example than via the death penalty), and it will kill again.

Could be "Appeal to Fear" though. Then again, with Bush in office, he has every right and reason to be afraid! (and yes, with that, I've made the "logical fallacies" of "Personal Attack" and maybe "Two Wrongs Make a Right". Boo fucking hoo; the latter is a logical fallacy, yes, but the former is not. Personal attacks have nothing to do with logic and are almost never intended to. They have everything to do with making the other guy look bad. I suppose Bush doesn't need the help though. "Appeal to Ridicule" would be another one I've committed here; again, ridicule has nothing to do with being an actual, logical, factual argument, and I never say such things as though they are serious, logical arguments. I just feel like ripping somebody a new asshole, that's all).

No, his argument is not credible. What he is doing is on this list. I'll leave it as an exercise to determine which specific fallacy applies.

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument." (emphasis mine)

Whether or not a statement about a person is ad hominem depends on the claim or argument under discussion, as well as who is making the claim or argument. Saying that Bush is incompetent, or Michael Moore is a liar, is not ipso facto a logical fallacy.

If one is, for instance, trying to decide whom to vote for, then Bush's competence is actually quite relevant. Perhaps more so than his policies.

Sigh. More right wing rhethoric.

If they were paid fairly, they would be able to afford to buy more things. That they can't afford to, hardly means they all must be stealing. Poverty, that's when you don't have things, it's not an indicator that someone is a thief. Oh, except, perhaps, in your mind.

Actually, this was a discussion about why people can't afford to pay, therefore they don't buy. It was never suggested that stealing was therefore justified. You are simply trying to misdirect the argument, rather than address the issue of maximizing the return on an investment by setting an effective price point.

Like so many, you simply either can't, or choose not to, deal with the actual issues that are involved here. Rather, you fall back on erroneous beliefs intended to keep you from having to critically examine your own assumptions. These are the very same assumptions you seem to need to rely on to justify your philosophy. GIGO.

By categorizing piracy as theft, you simply fail to understand the actual issues, which, once again, makes it utterly pointless discussing this any further with you. A closed mind simply cannot take part in an open discussion.

By the way, your use of insults speaks volumes about you. It's a common rhethorical device called "Ad Hominem".
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-homine m.html

But why should you be given any more rights than people who perform other unnatural activities? Once we've let the barn doors open (so to speak), what happens next?

Your argument is known as the "slippery slope" theory. It is generally considered a fallacy. Allowing gay marriage does not "open the door" to cannibalism, polygamy, pedophilia, necrophilia, incest, or anything else. Those are all different issues, and we will deal with them as appropriate.

Can those of us who practice post-mortem cannibalism, necrophilia, and cross-generation incest be allowed the status we deserve in society? Surely we're not hurting anybody, so it's not immoral, right? And that goat didn't complain once.

All those things hurt people. Cannibalism implies murder. Allowing necrophilia would be highly upsetting to people who don't want their bodies used in such ways after they die. Incest results in deformed children. That goat was harmed even if it wasn't able to say so. All of these things have reasons for being illegal.

Gay marriage will bring great joy to the lives of many gay people. Those like you who think being gay is a sin probably don't know any gay people and thus will be completely unaffected by gay marriage. Who is being harmed?

You can translate my "you" to mean a lot of people arguing the same point you made which is pretty much something akin to "See, now who is the blind follower now?"

Well that isn't how you posted it. You posted a direct reply to me, accusing me of engaging in the strawman fallacy, and assigned a ton of beliefs to me, as well as played the part of victim from my post by claiming that I offended you. You don't like religion? You better find some way to know yourself. That's the only way to defend yourself against being victimized and offended all the time by other peoples speech. I sure as hell wasn't targeting science. I sure as hell wasn't arguing for any given viewpoint on science. I'll tell you what I was arguing below...

to equate some kind of blind belief to those who know that Newtonian physics works isn't fair at all and bereting the slashdot community with conspiracy theories is pretty silly.

Did I do this? WTF? If you're going to respond to someones posts, then RESPOND TO WHAT *THEY* POST, not what you make up, inject, expand, etc... Don't play this game. This is completely unreasonable. You're straw manning again. Do you know what the straw man fallacy is? Let me help you:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man .html And in case you don't want to follow links:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
This is what you are doing. Who the hell are you addressing here?

Sure, moderation isn't perfect, but the bible guy and the new ager get modded down for a reason that isn't just "blind group think." You can be in the majority and be right sometimes

I didn't equate anything to a blind group think. See definition of Strawman fallacy above.

Sure, moderation isn't perfect, but the bible guy and the new ager get modded down for a reason that isn't just "blind group think." You can be in the majority and be right sometimes!

Look, I was making a lighthearted observation, about the bigotry that goes on here. You're constantly inflating what I said, have been from your first reply, and trying to make me out to be arguing for something I'm not. You want to use your mod points to mod someone as flamebait because you don't agree with them(which goes against the moderation guidelines), that's your business. You want to seek to silence people who believe things different than you, that's your business(I say sieg heil to that though). But understand as long I'm meta moderating, I will undo those things and it will affect your ability to get mod points in the future.

The mod system does not exist for people to flag those they don't agree with. That's a very bigoted way of using it. If some Jesus guy, new age star child, or whatever is posting something offtopic, I'm all for flagging them. But if they have something to say on the subject that is based on their jesus guyness, or new age starchildness, I'm not going to be a bigot and seek to silence them. This is a community forum. That's what this is.

Sorry you're not for free speech and tolerance of viewpoints that aren't lock step with your own. I AM.

Modding someone down because their ideas are not mainstream would be an Appeal to Belief.

And in any case, there is no "-1 Wrong" moderation. You should not mod down a post simply because you disagree with it, or even because 90% of the population will disagree with it. If it gets modded up and you disagree with the moderation, that's what the "overrated" mod is for.

I also take slight offense at how you're saying its "hip" to be against these dead philosophies, when in reality its much more hip to be against those eggheads in their ivory towers who challenge traditional beliefs

It's "hip" to cheer for your team without really thinking about the subject matter. Individuals from every point of view are guilty of this.

religious organizations enjoy tax-free status, gambling rights

Seriously? Gambling rights!? Now that's just not right...

Move on, don't complain that the book of Revelation or Alchemy or Phrenology deserves a 2nd chance. They have gotten more than their fair share of attention. Its not my fault or anyone else's these theories didn't pan out.

There are actually interpretations of Revelation that still fit reality perfectly. Most people just don't find it terribly useful for their every-day lives. (and of course there are interpretations that fairy-tale it away from all consideration)

They want to get it right the first time

I congratulate them for doing the Right Thing and making sure they deliver a rock solid Service Pack for the millions of XP users out there.

Before the slashdot editors and crowd crow over this delay, just remember the 503 errors and flakiness this site has experienced since "maintenance" was performed. Don't throw stones in glass houses, kids.

I agree with you, these people are commiting a common fallacy.

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.

2. Person B makes an attack on person A.

3. Therefore A's claim is false.

Not first language yadayada. straw man

Are you familiar with the concept of a "slippery slope"...

I don't see where I mentioned a "perpetual state of civil war." The fact is there have been occasions where thieves have used large amounts of firepower to commit crimes and police issued firearms could not stop them. Cops have had to requisition weapons from local gun stores in order to end the gun fight. Yet no one could reasonably say this is a perpetual state of civil war.

But this "Act" would seem to make it illegal to make a site that is all flash, or accessible to Opera only, etc.

RTFL (Read the Farking Legislation). It is not to do with specific *browsers* (ie doesn't matter if you exclude Opera, or NS, or IE), but whether using those browsers together with assistive technology (which most OS and Browser publishers are increasingly supporting without recourse to third party tools) it is possible to use sites that provide services to the public (or to employees, which is a different section of the Act).

Further, Macromedia have also gone a long way to provide accessibility support in recent versions of Flash, so it's now not the total waste of space for disabled users that it used to be.

It seems that it is in the webmaster's best interest to allow the widest audience to use the site,

Indeed, there is a strong commercial argument to providing accessibility support simply on revenue, even without the reputational issues involved.

but I don't see how it is any government business how a private company codes its website. Frankly, its no one's business if I want to code my own site to be inaccessible to anyone I want.

You also think it's your right to stick up 'No blacks or Irish' signs on your business?

Even Microsoft won't let you update Windows automatically without IE, which is their right.

However, even Microsoft have increasingly provided accesibility support in Windows and IE.

This is a theatre chain, they should have the right to design their website as they see fit.

This is a cinema chain. They provide services to the public, and must not do so in a way that unlawfully discriminates against sections of society.

Going online to view movie listings falls far short of the what any government should regulate.

Providing services to the public. Same as any of the Civil Rights legisation passed here, the US and other places. And given that many such operators give discounts for online booking, are you really proposing charging someone more because they have a disability?

Should we pass a law that requires all websites (blogs, family home pages, theatres, slashdot, etc) to have every bit of text, including the html source, as audio, to make the site accessible to blind people?

*cough*schoolboy fallacy*cough*. Although if you're coding to W3c standards, you will *already be* largely accessible.

why is this insightful? could the high tax rate in canada be due to the low population and the low relative cost of living from a combination of subsidised farming and efficient (cost cutting) production and distribution to a larger population in the US?

You cannot deduce that high taxes (or even higher taxes) in Canada are the direct result of *universal* health care through cause and effect.

this begs the question

No, it doesn't. It raises the question. Begging the question is a type of logical fallacy.

Please don't use phrases you don't understand.

It raises the question.

"Begging the question" is a fallacy of reasoning. Simple rule of thumb for those who don't want to understand what it means: don't suggested that you want to "beg the question" because whether you use it correctly or not you come across as a fool.

> Which begs the question, who is this aimed at?

I recently learned this here, so please don't take this as a criticism.

The phrase "begs the question" doesn't mean what you think it means. It does not mean, "this leads to the question."

Rather, it is a term used in logic to indicate a fallacy in which the question or statement itself tries to prove its truth by asserting its own truth. This is commonly known as circular reasoning. More here.

I agree with you about wondering who the product is aimed at, though.

"clean graffiti" really is an unauthorized message (graffiti).

Unauthorised message? UNAUTHORISED MESSAGE?!? What kind of police state do you think you live in? Graffiti is not a crime because people are not allowed to convey a message without the government's permission, it is a crime because it destroys public or private property. This doesn't, so isn't a crime.

Trying to compare it to racist slurs is a pathetic straw man fallacy". Racist slurs are illegal for an entirely different reason - inciting racial hatred.

That's precisely what happened to pseudo-historian David Irving in British court. When he sued a genuine historian for a few unpleasant pages about him her book, the publisher fought back. He ended up having to supply video tapes he had made of speeches to seedy little Holocaust denier groups. He not only lost his suit, he ended up providing valuable ammunition for his critics.

You can find Groklaw-like records of Irving v. Lipstadt at

The Nizkor Project

--Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle, editor: Eugenics and Other Evils

Does the right to free speech include a charismatic German chancellor's right to stand before a large crowd calling for the destuction of the Jews in Europe? Does it include Ian Paisley's right to stand in a street making a speech giving out the names of catholics living in a protestant area and asking the crowd what they're doing about it? (The catholics were subsequently burned out of their homes btw.) Does it include a Rwandan radio station's right to broadcast hatred and orders to kill all tutsis?

You are missing the point. These things are already punishable as incitement to murder (or even genocide). What the EU wants to ban will include things like websites of Holocaust revisionists. And no matter what you think about revisionists, most do not call for any violence against Jews, or whomever else. If you suppress these people's right to free speech, you just give them an additional opportunity to play the victim, while they will always find a way to be heard. Don't do that. Counter their disinformation and/or self-deceivement with facts and lots of diligence.

The Nazis gave us a warning from history about the potentially lethal power of the spoken word.

The Nazis gave us a warning what can happen when hateful propaganda meets an ignorant and gullible populace. Educate your citizens, give them ways to inform themselves, and they will be immune to inane sedition attempts.

The right to free speech is not absolute, nor should it be.

It isn't. But where do you stop when you want to impose limitations? Should outright calls to violences only be illegal, or do you want to ban any kind of prejudice or, nonconformist view of history and politics?

I tried to read your post, but all I could get out of it was: I hate America. I hate Reagan. I hate Bush. Europe good, America bad.

Maybe you should stop trying to read. You see, that was an ad hominem.

*sigh* You're a walking, talking cliche and you don't even know it. Programmed to spew out someone else's thoughts.

Where exactly are the hard facts and insightful reflections in your post?

I'm no Republican conservative, so save your ad hominems,

By definition, you have to talk "ad hominem" (against the person) if you want to counter the "Reagan was a great statesman" hypothesis. There is simply no way around it, and this is not fallacious. The fallacy lies in countering someone's argument by attacking him personally, instead of attacking his argument.

but here's a suggestion...go study what Reagan actually did for the economy and for the destruction of communism.

Yes, he once almost managed to wipe out communism, and capitalism, and all the rest, remember? Seriously though, the Soviet Union had to spend too much on keeping up in the arms race, and Reagan "helped" its collapse by driving this very arms race on and on. Also, the CIA's efforts to support Afghan rebels took their toll on SU morale. On the other hand, the CIA effectively created Islamic fundamentalism (as a relevant political movement) in Afghanistan, thus laying the groundwork for the Taliban, and even trained Osama Bin Laden as an insurgent fighter. There's always a flip side of the medal.

p.s. Isn't it amusing that Reagan's hate-filled detractors stopped calling it "Reaganomics" when it began to turn the sour economy around?

When it comes to Republican economical achievements, you should always consider this graph, too. Ok, Reagan's deficit pales in comparison to GWB's deficit, but whether Reaganomics was a long-term success is debatable.

Blockquoth the parent:

At any rate, NatasRevol's point certainly isn't a straw man argument.

Yes, it is. In fact, I checked that same page before posting, just to make sure I remembered the term correctly.

NatasRevol's original post was a straw man argument because it distorted the reality of Apple's periodic iTunes updates in order to argue that they're implementing ever more restrictive DRM. That's just not true. They're updating iTunes in order to reinforce the existing DRM, which is being willfully violated by the users of Hymn.

See, if this shit keeps up, Apple may need to develop a much more restrictive DRM, just to appease the RIAA.

You are presuming the worst without the historical evidence to justify it. Apple has repeatedly demonstrated that they prefer technological solutions to legal problems (certain "look-and-feel" litigation notwithstanding). If someone cracks the DRM, they patch it. 'Nuf said.

The one time they've genuinely changed the terms of the DRM, it was more expansive (increase from three to five machines allowed) than restrictive (burn same playlist seven times instead of ten), so... *shrug*

I see your point, but I -- sorta -- disagree. At any rate, NatasRevol's point certainly isn't a straw man argument.

I agree that, for now, "the only people caught in this "game" are those who use Hymn to break the DRM, in willful violation of the iTMS license." But it does matter to the rest of us. See, if this shit keeps up, Apple may need to develop a much more restrictive DRM, just to appease the RIAA.

There's that old SNL sketch called something like "They Ruined it for Everyone" (I think), where they interview the first bum who pissed all over a public toliet, the first hitchhiker who raped and murdered the person who gave him a ride, etc. This is roughly analagous. We've got a Good Thing going with the iTMS, in my opinion, I'd hate to see it ruined for everyone.

Ad Hominem arguments are logical fallicies and usually get you absolutely nowhere. If you want to discuss this in a civilized manner I am willing to, however if insist on ignoring the argument completely, then it really is pointless for me to continue.

Just to make sure you people know, the slippery slope argument is a fallacy in itself. It's not to say that it doesn't happen, one event does not always make a second event inevitable.

No, that's irrelevant. The number of people that believe something has nothing to do with how true it is.

Er, no, it doesn't 'beg' the question. It raises it without answering it, certainly; but that's not what begging a question means.

Begging a question is assuming it, using it in a circular argument.

[pontificate mode: on]

I find it strange and depressing that a community which is, in general, so careful and precise about its use of computer languages, should be so cavalier in its treatment of human ones...

Tu quoque. The fact that the US possesses and actively researches WMDs does not mean we can't criticize other countries who do. Even discounting different situations (dictatorship getting nukes vs. democracy getting nukes), at worst it only means that we are unable to live up to our own moral standards. It doesn't mean that our moral standards are invalid or that our criticisms are inappropriate.

The small-penis crowd needs to validate itself through what it owns.

I've always wondered why statements like this are misguided.

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

In short, resorting to mocking people doesn't make the argument true.

As for your repeated refusal to accept that many many people have to reinstall Windows all the time, far more than Linux people - I don't know why you can't recognize the reality of this situation.

Your scenario about the Linux box getting slower ad slower after 18 months does not happen, you see - wheras it's just about a given on Windows (unless of course YOU are managing the PC - it's nice to know there's one well maintained Windows box on the planet).

Here's an example problem for you. MS Office apps crash all the time on my computer at work. Just crash on startup, no matter what I do [...] It's a W2K box, got any thoughts on how to fix this?

That is a classic example of Ad Populum logical fallacy (Appeal to Popularity). Capitalistic, yes, logical, maybe not.

Anyway, I used to receive his "langalist" for quite a long time, and I can assure you that he always cites his readers. Every issue is such: it's just the style of his journalism, if you like.

As a side note, you might want to check what Ad hominem is.

I did not make any claim of causation.

I call straw man.
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Yikes! I don't like these guys any more than you do, but you're stooping to their level: your arguments are textbook examples of the fallacy of poisoning the well and the genetic fallacy.

I'm afraid, sir, that you're begging the question.

Kilpatrick made a career defending segregation and apartheid. [snip]

Yikes! I don't like these guys any more than you do, but you're stooping to their level: your arguments are textbook examples of the fallacy of poisoning the well and the genetic fallacy.

If you're going to make arguments against these people, at least do so logically.

(I feel I should point out that people who discredit the de Tocqueville Institute's findings because they're funded by Microsoft also commit the genetic fallacy.)

Kilpatrick made a career defending segregation and apartheid. [snip]

Yikes! I don't like these guys any more than you do, but you're stooping to their level: your arguments are textbook examples of the fallacy of poisoning the well and the genetic fallacy.

If you're going to make arguments against these people, at least do so logically.

(I feel I should point out that people who discredit the de Tocqueville Institute's findings because they're funded by Microsoft also commit the genetic fallacy.)

There is no right in the copyright law to make backup copies of motion pictures, so the whole argument that people should have the right to make backup copies of DVDs has no legal support whatsoever

In the context of a proposed change to a law, the fact that the law does not specifically enumerate a right today is the matter in question... is not proof that no such right ought to be specifically added.

For those who post using the term "begs the question" to means that a question is merely raised, please take note. Begging the question is the logical fallacy where the matter at hand is assumed to be true (or in the favor the arguing party desires) and then taken as accepted fact.

In this case, it's OBVIOUS that copyright law doesn't specifically mention the right to make backup copies of DVDs. If it did, the discussion at hand would not be whether to make an amendment to add such a clause. Trying to use this obvious fact that such language is missing today, without any other reasoning, as ground that is should not be added is a clear case of begging the question.

No, it doesn't.

("Raising the question" != "Begging the question")

(Bored? ME? ;)

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

3. Person B attacks position Y.

4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

source

Back to your cave, troll.

If you had listened to AirAmerica Radio, you would know that Air America isn't hate-filled. They support a change of government, one that respects the United Nations and the Geneva Convention. One that is for the people instead of for Rupert Murdoch.

As for original ideas, no ad hominem, little man.

Oh and finally, torturing prisoners Nazi-style may also cause some foreigners to start hating u.

You've got some reading to do, idiot. Some links:

www.remember.org

www.nizkor.org

In case you don't get it, the Nazis weren't into simulated sex acts. But thanks for playing.

I didn't say that he said this, but we may as well jump to the core issue, right? So, I'll ask you again: is unrestricted unregulated file-sharing just ok?

I believe the core issue is, is it OK for the RIAA to skip out on their royalty obligations? The title of this thread is, "RIAA Forgets to Make Royalty Payments." How I feel about P2P has nothing to do with this, it is a straw man fallacy. If I'm all for it, or completely against it, it has nothing to do with the RIAA failing to make royalty payments.

And I invite you to quote me claiming that he was making a false claim.

Ok.

"Plenty of bullshit argument from both sides."

So again, which part of his post is bullshit?

Weaselmancer

If she's so poor at what she does, ask why her personal tech site is one of the few sites outside of Slashdot that can cause the Slashdot effect

Fallacy.

Appeal to Popularity

This is patently false. You only believe it to be true because you are obviously an imbecile. Your own quotation of my statement shows that your statement is patently false. MY viewpoint SPECIFICALLY STATES:

"This is acceptable behavior only when the illegitimate action in question is the only recourse you have."

And I gave a specfic case where alternatives existed (Rosa Parks). It really shouldn't be this hard to understand.

You ... are ... an ... idiot. I NEVER said that you should never break the law.

While you got one thing right, you didn't say "you should never break the law". But you did say that you should never break the law when alternatives exist. Read your own quote of....yourself. (above)

YOU are not justified in YOUR action.

What action? I've never claimed to have made any.

You have NOTHING to do with Rosa Parks.

I didn't claim to. From my original post regarding Rosa Parks:
"(And before you start making crazy assumptions: I used Rosa Parks as an example of the problems with your logic, not as an analogy for file traders.)"

Reading comprehesion is not your strongpoint is it?
example
analogy

And, incidentally, if you don't like me insulting you, feel free to use your foes list. You have it for a reason.

I'm not worried about it. All it really does is make you look bad. Ad hominem attacks are the last resort of someone who is loosing an arguement.

There are more pro-religion books out there than anti-religion books.[...]Name one great composer or inventor who was an atheist. Couldn't do it? I didn't think so. So far the score's looking pretty good, eh? A billion Christian's can't all be wrong. Would you also tell Bush himself that he was wrong?

Ever heard the phrase "time will tell?" Well time has indeed "told", still after 2000 years of people who believe in Jesus. And going strong.

I wouldn't put it past your kind...

If they were wrong about God, they could concievably be wrong about their other theories/inventions/achievements. But they were right in their achievements. Name one great composer or inventor who was an atheist.

There are more pro-religion books out there than anti-religion books.[...]Name one great composer or inventor who was an atheist. Couldn't do it? I didn't think so. So far the score's looking pretty good, eh? A billion Christian's can't all be wrong. Would you also tell Bush himself that he was wrong?

Ever heard the phrase "time will tell?" Well time has indeed "told", still after 2000 years of people who believe in Jesus. And going strong.

I wouldn't put it past your kind...

If they were wrong about God, they could concievably be wrong about their other theories/inventions/achievements. But they were right in their achievements. Name one great composer or inventor who was an atheist.

There are more pro-religion books out there than anti-religion books.[...]Name one great composer or inventor who was an atheist. Couldn't do it? I didn't think so. So far the score's looking pretty good, eh? A billion Christian's can't all be wrong. Would you also tell Bush himself that he was wrong?

Ever heard the phrase "time will tell?" Well time has indeed "told", still after 2000 years of people who believe in Jesus. And going strong.

I wouldn't put it past your kind...

If they were wrong about God, they could concievably be wrong about their other theories/inventions/achievements. But they were right in their achievements. Name one great composer or inventor who was an atheist.

There are more pro-religion books out there than anti-religion books.[...]Name one great composer or inventor who was an atheist. Couldn't do it? I didn't think so. So far the score's looking pretty good, eh? A billion Christian's can't all be wrong. Would you also tell Bush himself that he was wrong?

Ever heard the phrase "time will tell?" Well time has indeed "told", still after 2000 years of people who believe in Jesus. And going strong.

I wouldn't put it past your kind...

If they were wrong about God, they could concievably be wrong about their other theories/inventions/achievements. But they were right in their achievements. Name one great composer or inventor who was an atheist.

You're not cattering only to smart people. You're cattering only to people who have no life and are glad to spend some ludicrious time just getting your unfinished crap to work.

Why are you posting this in response to my post? In any case, I was talking about what I'd advocate for the future which has not yet come to pass. So you have no idea how it will turn out. I certainly never suggested that we should cater to people who have no life. What is that called, again? Oh yeah, a straw man: "when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."

I'm getting tired of your type spewing insults. No, it's not the users who are stupid, it's you who can't write a good program. It's that simple. Now go fsck yourself next time you feel like insulting a user.

Huh? You're sick of developers spewing insults, but two sentences later you say "go fsck yourself." It sounds like you're part of the problem.

[...] all of these MS haters can't be wrong.