Thursday, July 14, 2011

Nuts at Recursivity: 'Gee, that shiny object looks sooo.. interesting...'

There a quality of cluelessness to atheists and Darwinists. It's almost like an ideological autism. It's amazing the stuff that they ignore, and the stuff on which they obsess.  They don't see the stuff that matters.

Point of evidence:

The comment string on Jeff Shallit's blog Recursivity about a post of mine on the cognitive dissonance of a press story mourning the death of a couple of baby dolphins at the Baltimore aquarium. The dissonance is that the press would never publish a story mourning the deaths of children killed in abortion clinics-- killed by the tens of millions in the U.S..

I had said:
The death of a couple of fish makes the news. We kill a million human calves babies each year in abortion clinics. The media response is silence.
Blind to the real issue-- our bizarre silence about millions of aborted kids while we mourn a couple of dead dolphins-- the folks at Shallit's blog found a shiny object:


Or, more specifically, my use of the word "fish" to describe dolphins, who are really aquatic mammals.

Take a look at the comment string.

The irony of course is that the idiotic comment string makes my point: these imbeciles obsess over trivia, wander off into incoherence and ignore salient reality. My post is about the incongruity of mourning dead dolphins when we don't mourn millions of dead children who we've killed.

Now of course, you could disagree with me that children in the womb are children, or even human. You could disagree with me that there's any incongruity in mourning dolphins while not mourning dead babies. Those issues can be debated.

But the entire comment string at Recursivity is about ... taxonomy, icthology, mind-reading, weighing the soul at death, sexism, and farts.

These people are mad.


  1. I realize that atheists are unrecoverable. They have only two answers:

    1) I assume that I know!

    2) Fuck you!

  2. Dr. Egnor,

    It was clear to me that you were being dismissive toward dolphins by referring to them as fish and were not making a taxonomical statement. But then again, I am not a pedant.

    Incidentally, I value dolphins, although not as much as people. (With the possible exception of theomachoi/new atheists.)