TheBlaze Books Give You More!

CommentsDisplaying Bad_Ashe's 10 most recent comments.

• Yet Another Controversial Cartoon on the Deadly Texas Fertilizer Explosion

  April 29, 2013 at 4:25pm

  In reply to Thighmaster.

  Based on what evidence? Are there no industrial explosions or accidents in the overly regulated states of New York and California? No only are the cartoons classless, but they are based off a demonstrably false argument.

  Unless of course you would like to illustrate that working in Texas is (per capita, per industry) less safe than working in California or New York. I’m looking forward to that.

  Cheers!

• Yet Another Controversial Cartoon on the Deadly Texas Fertilizer Explosion

  April 29, 2013 at 4:18pm

  In reply to sdnw.

  @CDN1979 – I don’t suppose you have data to support the fact that working in, say, Texas is statistically (per capita, per industry) less safe than working in a liberal state such as New York and California? If isolated instances are all you have to make your case than we can play that game all day.

  Finally, when unemployment is through the roof and you are being taxed to the point where you can’t feed your family, please feel free to continue blathering on about the miracle of governmental over regulation.

• Yet Another Controversial Cartoon on the Deadly Texas Fertilizer Explosion

  April 29, 2013 at 4:09pm

  In reply to The_Great_Sarcasmo.

  I totally agree with your flawed logic!

  Case in point, it was clearly a lack of regulation and state safety standards that led to the 2010 San Bruno, California pipeline explosion. As we all know, if there is one place in the country that isn’t overly regulated to the point of absurdity, it’s California.

  Let’s not forget that New York is notoriously lax on regulations as well, especially New York City. The Con Ed steam pipe explosion of 2009 is clearly the result of the fact that New York is practically the wild west when it comes to regulating business.

  The fundamental flaw with the big government progressive argument on this issue – as illustrated in the classless cartoons above, and your idiotic comment – is that they confuse common sense regulation with no regulation at all, and their inference that all regulation is good regulation is based on a demonstrably false premise.

  Of course, in the case of the good folks at the Sacramento Bee, it could also be a result of the constant sting that comes from businesses leaving California for the friendly confines of Texas. What’s the economy look like in Sacramento again?

  Cheers!

• Atheist Mom Who Penned Viral Essay About Raising Kids ‘Without God’ Speaks Out

  February 11, 2013 at 3:04am

  In reply to Bamagal0007.

  @BUSH – I almost forgot…I’m also still waiting on you to address who “they” are from which “religion” that refers to their own faith as blind. You’ve avoided that one twice now. Either demonstrate this or retract the statement.

  Cheers!

• Atheist Mom Who Penned Viral Essay About Raising Kids ‘Without God’ Speaks Out

  February 11, 2013 at 3:01am

  In reply to Bamagal0007.

  @BUSH – I will quickly address your points as well…though there is some overlap, mostly because you have a reading comprehension issue:

  1. Please demonstrate where I said that or retract the statement.

  2. Fair or unfair isn’t at issue…logical consistency is. You already admitted that if there is any evidence for God’s existence, this comparison doesn’t hold, but as I’ve mentioned previously, even if the atheist rejects this evidence, the comparison is still not logically sound — see #3 above.

  3. I did. But as I mentioned above, and in one of my previous posts, even if the evidence for God’s existence was null (or believed to be null by the atheist) the evidentiary standard is still not logically consistent when compared to something for which there is overwhelming evidence of a solely fictional existence.

  4. As for your request to provide evidence…I asked you first. (See #2 above). I pointed out early on that you did not support this assertion, and either implied or directly asked for you to do so. When this happens, we can move forward, but not until.

  Finally, you weren’t talking about empirical evidence. In fact, you didn’t use the word empirical until now. Additionally, this implies that the only things you believe to exist are those which can be shown to exist empirically, and that you reject all other types of evidence. This is not only a stupid statement, but a demonstrably false one…but let’s not jump ahead.

  Cheers!

• Atheist Mom Who Penned Viral Essay About Raising Kids ‘Without God’ Speaks Out

  February 11, 2013 at 2:36am

  In reply to Bamagal0007.

  @BUSH – Don’t blame me if you can’t separate rhetoric from dialectic. Additionally, brevity certainly isn’t helping out your argument. The issue here is that you can’t understand the position and simply gloss over the rest. So let’s try breaking things up into small, easily-digestible bits:

  1. You keep using the terms “self-evident” and “obvious”. and attributing them to me.

  While such an argument could be made, at no time did I make it. You have crafted a strawman.

  Please demonstrate where I stated belief in God was either “self-evident” or “obvious” or retract your statement.

  2. In a previous post, I referred to certain logical arguments for God’s existence, arguments in which the premises are supported by evidence.

  You asserted that “I know what they mean, and I can decipher what argument you’re making. And, let me tell you, it is a fallacious one.”

  Naturally, I asked you to demonstrate how these arguments are fallacious…twice. Nothing yet.

  Please address these arguments that you so clearly understand and demonstrate them to be fallacious…or retract your unsupported assertion.

  3. The problem with the fundamental logic of the comparison is that it conflates arriving at a conclusion via deductive reasoning based on evidence with arriving at a conclusion based on an argument from ignorance (a conclusion with no evidence), yet it treats both approaches as valid.

  If you truly can’t understand this, Carnegie Mellon owes you so

• Atheist Mom Who Penned Viral Essay About Raising Kids ‘Without God’ Speaks Out

  February 10, 2013 at 1:01am

  In reply to Bamagal0007.

  @ BUSH (2)

  Finally, with every post you make your comparison/hypothetical scurries further down the rabbit hole of abject stupidity.

  As I previously mentioned — and this is where your lack of reading comprehension and/or complex thinking fails you again — even if the atheist personally believes that there is no compelling evidence for God, or simply rejects it out of hand like the little pseudo-intellectual weasel they probably are, the comparison is still moronic. There is not simply a lack of evidence for the existence of Santa or the Tooth Fairy, rather there is a preponderous amount of negative evidence regarding these examples….and absolutely no logical or philosophical proofs that affirm them. Additionally, from a historical perspective, we can easily trace their origins as relatively recent fictional constructs.

  If you don’t understand the fundamental difference, the problem clearly lies with whatever level of intelligence and complex comprehension the God you don’t believe in granted you…it has nothing to do with me.

• Atheist Mom Who Penned Viral Essay About Raising Kids ‘Without God’ Speaks Out

  February 10, 2013 at 12:50am

  In reply to Bamagal0007.

  @BUSH — Oh…you have a reading comprehension problem…and you’re not particularly good at logical argument to boot. This whole thing makes more sense now.

  I never mentioned either fairness or unfairness in the comparison; one so moronic that fairness is a pointless topic of debate. I’m also still waiting for you to identify which “they” and “religion” you were talking about when it comes to self-referencing blind faith.

  Additionally, I never made the case that God’s existence was self-evident, even if such a case could be made. In fact, I even pointed this out as the primary strawman in your hypothetical. Again, that reading comprehension problem of yours is a doozy.

  As for the evidence and logical argument for God’s existence, you are deflecting again. I briefly mentioned some of these in my previous post…you stated you understood all my “big words” and that these arguments based on evidence were fallacious. I then pointed out that you never actually addressed these examples.

  Calling something fallacious does not make it so…you made the assertion, now it’s time for you to support it. When you do so, the conversation can continue. Glossing over those details on which I challenge you simply continues to display your intellectual dishonesty.

  There are plenty of things that cannot be explained by modern scientific theory…but not only is that largely irrelevant, we can tackle that if and when you support your claims of fallacy.

  I’ll wai

• Bill Maher Goes After Glenn Beck and His ‘Gullible Honey Boo Boo,’ ‘Rube’ Audience

  February 7, 2013 at 2:26am

  In reply to tothepoint.

  @VOTEBUSH

  I didn’t change the discussion, I simply gave my opinion on what it had evolved into and suggested a perspective that was more in line with the intent of the original comment.

  When the original poster made his or her comment, no reasonable reader actually assumed the comment was claiming that Maher never went to school or got a degree, they were clearly talking about his lack of knowledge, familiarity, or myopic perspective on this particular topic…though there is certainly more where that came from. They even used the word “ignorance”.

  Either you’re being overly pedantic to the point of absurdity, or you are simply attempting to score cheap rhetorical points in an effort to display your apparent superiority over those poor conservative rubes.

  Your final comment goes to my point. Education is never absolute, and it never ends. Some education is pitifully narrow in scope. Some education is education in name only. Some is worthless; some is wasted. No matter how you slice it, when it comes to this particular topic, Maher could do with some serious educating.

• Atheist Mom Who Penned Viral Essay About Raising Kids ‘Without God’ Speaks Out

  February 7, 2013 at 2:04am

  In reply to Bamagal0007.

  @VOTEBUSH12

  As I stated in my previous post, you are simply too short for this ride. Based on this post, you are more likely than not an intellectually dishonest weasel who resorts to handwaving and appealing to vague generalities. Alternatively, you could just be an idiot, but I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

  So let’s hit on some of your highlights:

  You essentially agree with the logic of my counterpoint. This is the only intelligent thing you did in this response. The rest of your response reeks of philosophical and theological ignorance.

  Who is this “they” you speak of? In which “religion” do they refer to faith as blind?

  There is plenty of sustainable evidence and logical proofs for God’s existence…you are either unaware of them or choose to ignore them. Out of all those apparently big words that you understand, you never actually addressed any of what they reference.

  It’s rare for even a mildly intellectually honest atheist (a contradiction in terms, admittedly) to dismiss these out of hand. Find them unconvincing? Sure. But dismiss them without addressing them? That takes a special kind of blind godless fanatic.

  No one said the comparison was unfair, it is simply moronic.

  Handwaving, avoidance, argument from personal incredulity…it appears that the only one with a fallacious argument here is you.

  Cheers!