No Fly Zone

Barack Obama was being interviewed when a fly kept buzzing around him. He tried to shoo it away several times but it kept returning. When it landed on his hand or sleeve he swatted and killed it. I was having breakfast on a business trip with several co-workers when we saw the video and I remarked that some group would protest the killing of the fly.

People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has expressed its displeasure at the killing of the fly. The organization is sending Obama some kind of insect trap that allows them to be caught and released. I wonder how long it would have taken to get the fly to go into it?

This is a fly, a pest, an insect, a nuisance, a vector, a disease carrying creature and it was killed. It is not like Obama’s dog ran in and he beat it to death. He killed a fly.

I am willing to bet the White House has all kinds of things that kill insects and other unwanted visitors (not Republicans, other unwanted visitors). They use pesticide and they might have bug zappers around. I don’t think Obama or anyone else has time to capture these things and release them into the wild…

Then again, maybe Obama can appoint an insect czar.

The guy killed a bug. There is no crime against humanity or nature in doing that. PETA should worry about its own history of animal abuses and leave Obama alone. He killed a fly.

Even for people who believe that animals have rights, this has to beyond belief. I don’t think we should be cruel to animals and mistreat them but this was a FLY.

Besides, Obama might have caught and released it only to have a bat or frog eat it. Then he would be in trouble with some other group.

I just hope Obama is ready to treat the North Korean missile like the fly…

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

75 Responses to “No Fly Zone”

  1. Adam says:

    PETA asking for breast milk icecream should give most people a heads up as to the direction they are quickly heading. It’s this kind of bull that keeps them in the headlines only for the negative things they do and gives bigger voice critics like the CCF.

    The article you link to is old news and trumped up by PETA’s critics as if euthanasia is just so cruel or unethical. The CCF wants you to believe PETA was gathering up regular, good little pets and killing them for the fun of it because they are hypocrites or fanatics or something. The methods in question involved putting down those animals suffering the most. Does PETA put down more animals than a regular kennel? Sure, but they aren’t a regular kennel.

    This is why most of the charges against those two could not stick and they ended up being found guilty of littering in the illegal dumping of dead animals.

    Of course I myself refrain from swatting bugs but of course I’d never tell the POTUS not to do it. I’d think of something much better to go public with if I could make headlines that reach Obama.

  2. Blake says:

    PETA is an example of a group that confirms the adage ” The road to hell is paved with good intentions”- treat animals probably better than I do some people, but there is a line between sane and just plain freaking crazy, and they are the latter.
    You KILL vermin- plain and simple. By their flawed logic, we should not kill the viruses that make us ill, because “viruses have rights too”- what idiots.

    • Adam says:

      Their logic is not so much flawed as much as just some of their actions. Nothing in their logic calls for protecting organisms without consciousness under normal circumstances, such as a virus, so don’t make up stuff just to call them idiots.

      • Blake says:

        Flies? Adam, do you read what you write? Flies have consciousness? As Steven Colbert satirically said, “Somewhere a fly family is missing their father.” yeah right.
        I can see protecting animals, but vermin?
        You gotta be kidding me.

        • Adam says:

          I guess it depends on how you define consciousness, after all. Yes, even flies have brains, thoughts, feel pain in some form. Viruses? No.

          For the record I am a vegan. People often ask me if I feel eating yeast is unethical. No, it’s not. Neither is treating a cold.

          You can’t keep calling them idiots in the same breath you make these arguments, Blake.

        • Blake says:

          It figures you’d be a vegan- ah well, it takes all kinds.

        • Adam says:

          Figures in what way? You’ll find I am a very moderate vegan. I support first and foremost a plant based diet. But I would rather meat eaters hunt or fish for their food if they are going to eat animals.

          Normal people would never stand by and let a pet be treated the way our factory farms treat the food we eat, so why contribute to such a system?

        • Blake says:

          Adam, I agree that if you are going to eat meat, you should be able to see how it gets to where your market is, or, as you suggest, hunt or fish for your meat. To do otherwise is a bit dishonest.

        • Blake says:

          I do find it strange that you would so easily give consciousness to flies, but reluctant to give the same level to fetuses- if killing one is wrong, so would be the other, right?

        • Adam says:

          Have I been reluctant? I don’t recall ever saying one way or another. But you’ll have to excuse me. Frankly I care very little for a debate that oversimplifies complex subjects like animal rights and abortion down into a comparison between the a fetus and a fly.

        • Blake says:

          It’s only as complex as you make it, Adam. It’s really very simple- one is a human being, the other is vermin.

        • Adam says:

          I would rather take this approach to the subject: A complex subject is only as simple as a simple minded person can make it.

          We are incredibly complex creatures living in an incredibly complex world. I reject your black and white approach to either subject and I reject your injection of the abortion topic into an otherwise splendid conversation on the topic of PETA and animal rights.

      • Blake says:

        I do not need to make them look like idiots- they do quite fine themselves.

  3. Big Dog says:

    The link is to an older story thus the word HISTORY.

  4. Big Dog says:

    Adam said:

    I guess it depends on how you define consciousness, after all. Yes, even flies have brains, thoughts, feel pain in some form.

    So does a fetus but I don’t see PETA rallying against abortion and though I know you don’t believe in it I notice you are not opposed to someone else doing it.

    • Adam says:

      You won’t see AARP rallying against abortion either, so what’s your point? PETA is an animal rights advocacy group. Now animal fetuses? That’s a different story…

  5. Darrel says:

    Wow he smacked that bug! Good shot Mr. President. Nailed him. I’m fast like that too (but it was a big one, they are slower).

    Our understanding of consciousness does not lead (the experts on this) to believe that insects experience anything like what we refer to as “consciousness.” They’re more like little machines running on programs (like Blake).

    It’s not likely that a fetus does either. No language, not self-aware, etc.

    D.

    • Adam says:

      While “consciousness” is obviously the wrong word for me to have used, my point is simply that the logic of claiming rights for an insect does not translate into claiming rights for a virus.

      A fly is clearly a living organism. A virus is just DNA, protein and fat. It has no cellular structure, no nervous system, nothing.

      • Big Dog says:

        A fetus has DNA, a nervous system and cellular structure. It has a beating heart and a brain.

        • Darrel says:

          No, a fetus without a heart is still called a fetus. A fetus without a brain, is still called a fetus. Only zealots think a woman should have to carry such a fetus to term.

          D.
          ————–
          Turns out, I am an acquaintance of a person who is an abortion provider and a good friend of the murder victim, Dr. Tiller. He wrote an article that was published in our local paper. It’s quite insightful.

          An excerpt:

          “A Fayetteville doctor, himself a target of abortion protestors, says law officers failed to protect Dr. George Tiller

          As the whole world knows, my friend, Dr. George R. Tiller, was murdered on Sunday morning, May 31, 2009, while he was doing his regular Sunday activity, ushering in his Lutheran church in Wichita, Kan.

          Like Tiller, I too am an abortion provider. Since I stopped doing later abortions, between 18 and 24 weeks, I have sent most of my patients seeking late second trimester abortion to Dr. Tiller’s office. Some were women who faced a major threat to their life or health if they were to continue with what had been a wanted pregnancy. Or their wanted baby was diagnosed with a major anomaly incompatible with survival for more than a few days or years and only then, a life of suffering and incredible pain.

          George took them when they were not able to pay for his services. He accepted patients for whom we sometimes had to give money to even make the trip. George’s colleagues who knew of his deep religious faith, generosity, kindness and love called him St. George when we spoke among ourselves, though we knew it embarrassed him to hear himself addressed this way.

          America’s, and the world’s, women have lost a champion in Dr. George R. Tiller. And Wichita and Kansas have embarrassed themselves by not protecting one of their brightest, bravest, kindest, and most generous and most faithful sons. And I have lost a friend and colleague.”

          The rest at Arkansas Times.

    • Blake says:

      I am running on programs? That would be funny if you had a sense of humor, but as I understand it, atheists do not.
      Does that make you less than human? Perhaps you could be swatted too- your goats would like that, I bet.

      • Darrel says:

        BLK: “as I understand it, atheists do not [have a sense of humor].>>

        DAR
        Well we certainly don’t have time to get into what you don’t understand.

        Perhaps you should get out more. Pat Condell is quite good. Some people consider the late George Carlin and Steve Martin rather funny fellows. Shoot, the better comedians are probably atheists. Certainly the better scientists are. Those are the folks who, you know, understand how the natural world works?

        Perhaps you’ve heard of Einstein? He was an atheist.

        D.
        ——————–
        “To be an atheist requires strength of mind and goodness of heart found in not one of a thousand.” – Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834)

        • Big Dog says:

          Einstein would more accurately be described as an agnostic.

        • Blake says:

          If Einstein was an atheist, why would he say.”Religion without science is lame, Science without religion is blind,”
          Seems to me he at least held his disbelief in abeyance, unlike yourself.
          I think Einstein might just be smarter than you, D- What do you think?

        • Darrel says:

          BIGD: “Einstein would more accurately be described as an agnostic.”>>

          DAR
          Well, agnostic is a squishy term that mostly overlaps with atheist. Neither an atheist or agnostic asserts a belief in god.

          But let’s ask Einstein. A fellow wrote him a letter asking him this question. He responded:

          “Dear Mr. Raner:
          I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me.
          From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere – childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world – as far as we can grasp it. And that is all.”
          –Albert Einstein, 7/2/45 (Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997)

          BLK: “If Einstein was an atheist, why would he say.”Religion without science is lame, Science without religion is blind,”>>

          DAR
          Because he was using “religion” as shorthand for “morality.” Following science too strictly, without consulting or taking into consideration our secular moral intuitions, is “lame.”

          People often confuse religion and morality. As Clarke once put it:

          “One of the greatest tragedies in human history was the hijacking of morality by religion.” –Sir Arthur C. Clarke

          BIGD: Seems to me he at least held his disbelief in abeyance, unlike yourself.>>

          DAR
          When have I said I don’t believe? Quote me.

          Einstein vigorously fought against those who lied about his beliefs during his lifetime.

          For example:

          “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” [Albert Einstein, 1954, from “Albert Einstein: The Human Side”, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

          A bit more:

          “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
          No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this,” he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.

          “I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.” –Albert Einstein, from Einstein Portrait, (1953)

          BLK: I think Einstein might just be smarter than you, D- What do you think?>>

          DAR
          He used to be. Not any more.

          D.
          —————
          “I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.”

          –Albert Einstein, in a letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434

    • Blake says:

      You are a great argument for retroactive abortions, but why waste a bullet on someone who has no brain?

      • Darrel says:

        You mean you are getting your ass handed to you on these issues by someone “who has no brain?”

        What does that say about you Blake?

        D.

        • Blake says:

          My butt is still in the same place, andyou haven’t handed me anything other than a few goat pellets of your “special wisdom”. You are so “special”, I think we should call you special ed.

  6. Big Dog says:

    Are not people animals? Don’t you Darwinists believe we are just a higher order?

    And speaking of Darwin, he said that it was survival of the fittest. If the animals cannot survive without us intervening then they are not the fittest and should be allowed to vanish.

    • Darrel says:

      BigD: Are not people animals?>>

      DAR
      Indeed they are animals. Didn’t you learn that in nursing school? And some of them use the frontal lobes, and others, not so much.

      BIGD: Don’t you Darwinists believe we are just a higher order?>>

      DAR
      Actually, that’s a distortion. You don’t believe in evolution? Really?

      BigD: If the animals cannot survive without us intervening then they are not the fittest and should be allowed to vanish.>>

      DAR
      Let the same rule apply to political parties I say. See below.

      D.
      —————-
      “To understand the emergence of a lasting Democratic majority we’ll first have to spend a few moments reviewing the profound and relentless incompetence of the Bush administration — and the pursuant collapse of the Republican Party. That means looking back at the failure of Republican ideas — including a wholesale rejection of the myth of conservative superiority on the economy — and holding our noses long enough to survey the gallery of truly repellent scoundrels, scandals, and screwups that the Republican Party has been responsible for over the last eight years.

      After completing the unpleasant but edifying task of autopsying the Republican Party, we’ll examine the underpinnings of Democratic victories in 2004, 2006, and 2008 — and make the argument for why Democrats are going to keep winning. (Two words: young people.) In short, the Republicans are going to keep getting spanked again and again for forty more years because we’re right and they’re wrong, and Americans know it.”
      –James Carville’s new book

  7. Big Dog says:

    Babies don’t have much in the way of language for quite some time after birth. Does that mean we can swat them dead?

    If you notice, I am defending Obama in this post because PETA is moronic on it.

    Catching or killing a fly is not a hard thing to do. The MSM acts like he caught an arrow in flight.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “Does that mean we can swat them [babies] dead?>>

      DAR
      Not once they are out and breathing on their own. In Bible days yes, they didn’t count them as persons until later.

      Bigd: “PETA is moronic on it.”

      DAR
      Yes they are. I posted this in our forum a day earlier:

      ***
      During an interview for CNBC at the White House on Tuesday, a fly intruded on Obama’s conversation with correspondent John Harwood.

      “Get out of here,” the president told the pesky insect. When it didn’t, he waited for the fly to settle, put his hand up and then smacked it dead.

      “Now, where were we?” Obama asked Harwood. Then he added: “That was pretty impressive, wasn’t it? I got the sucker.”

      Friedrich said that PETA was pleased with Obama’s voting record in the Senate on behalf of animal rights and noted that he has been outspoken against animal abuses.

      Still, “swatting a fly on TV indicates he’s not perfect,” Friedrich said, “and we’re happy to say that we wish he hadn’t.”

      DAR
      Twenty million people in that cult!

      D.

  8. Big Dog says:

    Reject Adam, you made the comment about flies being able to feel pain and having a consciousness. Fetuses do as well so I pointed out the hypocrisy of those who are upset at killing a fly but have no problem with killing a fetus.

    You don’t have to agree or even participate but it was a logical step.

    • Adam says:

      How can you call that a logical step when all you have is a straw man attack? You accuse hypothetical animal rights activists of being hypocritical for having hypothetical pro-choice views. There’s not much logic there to step with, instead you just fall on your face.

  9. Big Dog says:

    First Darrel, you once again tale something out of context. The discussion was about animals and it was a rhetorical question “are not people animals?” So your answer, while trying to demean, was moronic because the kind of question is clear.

    I learned it in biology and all kinds of other classes.

    I believe each species evolves within itself. I don’t believe that one turns into another. However, you folks believe it so we can use your arguments for you.

    Carville is a moron. You talk about scoundrels but there have been just as many in the Democratic Party. They are the true scoundrels. Clinton, Durbin, Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, Frank, Dodd, Rangel, Geithner, Daschle and God knows how many more all involved in one corrupt or unethical act after another.

    I am willing to bet the Democrats will not have a 40 year hold on power. I know Obama is trying the same politically motivated and counter productive things that FDR did but they will not bear the same results with regard to party domination. We will have the high unemployment and high interest rates and the inflation will be high but there will be no Democratic domination for 40 years.

    You statists think so but won’t happen.

    • Darrel says:

      BIGD: “the discussion was about animals and it was a rhetorical question “are not people animals?”>>

      DAR
      Oh, I see now. I read below and Adam helped me understand this. A fetus is of the animal kingdom… therefore PETA… should be for the protection of the fetus…

      I am sorry. Your argument was so RETARDED I completely missed it!

      Bigd: I believe each species evolves within itself. I don’t believe that one turns into another.>>

      DAR
      So you don’t believe in evolution. Well perhaps if you have any questions, there may be an opportunity to learn something. Dealing with creationist misunderstandings about evolution is a bit of a specialty of mine.

      BIGD: there have been just as many in the Democratic Party.>>

      DAR
      I gave you a list of sixty republican child humpers in republican leadership positions. How many demo’s can you point to? Still waiting for that list.

      Being an independent, I would like to be able to say that the two parties are really the same and that they are two sides of the same coin. And I used to say that. But I’ve learned that it’s not true. It’s not even close to being true. The republican party is more corrupt, more dishonest, more sick, twisted and perverted than anything else around. It’s not close and there really is no comparison.

      Bigd: “many more all involved in one corrupt or unethical act after another.”>>

      DAR
      The problem is, you look to your rightwing nutball sources and feed your mind with this CRAP over the years and decades. And you don’t have good skills of discernment. You don’t know how to think critically. You think like a cult member and are only interested in confirming your biases, having your ears tickled over and over no matter how ridiculous your claims are.

      Bigd: I am willing to bet the Democrats will not have a 40 year hold on power.>>

      DAR
      I would bet that too. Carville was being provocative. Publishers do this with titles to sell books. But his main thesis, that republicans are in a bad way, and for quite a while, is solid. I can quote you lots of republicans who say the same thing.

      D.
      —————–
      “In the last fifty years, there have been ten Presidents–five Democrats and five Republicans–and the Democrats place first, second, third, fourth and fifth [in new job creation]…. the chance of that occurring randomly is 1 in 252, which just happens to be almost the exact odds of being dealt a straight in a game of five-card stud.”
      –James Carville, “We’re Right, They’re Wrong,” pg. 13

      • Blake says:

        Here he goes with his “specialties” again- you are so full of hot air, if you farted, you’d be a cat five Hurricane. Go back to your goats -they might teach you not to brag so much.

      • Blake says:

        Oh, and that “link” is so biased, that it kisses its own a$$.
        You should be ashamed, but as we know, you have no shame, dishonestly calling yourself an independent, even though you are very liberal in everything you write.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “that “link” is so biased”

          DAR
          Pathetic. Truth doesn’t have a bias. Every claim at that link is referenced. Why don’t you try your hand at refuting ONE?
          If you don’t like that list of republican pedophiles there are many others.

          BLK: “You should be ashamed.”

          DAR
          *I* should be ashamed? LOL. What is it, opposite day?

          D.

  10. Big Dog says:

    Adam, let me type slowly. You stated that flies could feel pain and had consciousness in discussing the difference between it being more wrong to kill them than a virus which has no cellular structure or nervous system.

    I then said that a fetus had all you described for the fly (and more) so that killing it would be more wrong than killing the fly (using you progression).

    I then said that PETA never advocates for humans (the fetuses) but does for vermin.

    Those are all logical. However, logic is not a progressive strong suit.

    • Adam says:

      Even typing slowly you aren’t injecting any more logic into this bogus argument so don’t bother. Your argument has no logic and talking down to me only makes you look all the more foolish.

      Personally, I do not advocate for the death of animals, fetuses, or criminals, so I don’t really see how my statement gives you the grounds to attack PETA.

      I don’t know why you are stuck on this idea that PETA is somehow hypocritical for not being against abortion. This is one of the dumbest things I’ve seen you try and argue in a long time. Repeat after me: PETA an animal rights advocacy group with no stance on abortion because their concern is the treatment of animals. It can’t get much simpler than that. If you missed it please read it again because it’s drop dead simple.

      I mentioned AARP already. With your logic they would be hypocrites as well because they advocate for retired folk but they don’t advocate for fetal folk.

      Now, if you saw NARAL issuing a statement critical of Obama for killing a fly, you’d have a point. You have no point though and this is absolutely devoid of logic and meaning.

      • Blake says:

        The argument Dog advocates is simple but apparently you can’t even do simple- no wonder you need someone to take care of you. If humans are animals, and they are, PETA should have a problem with abortions, but they do not, so they are hypocritical. The fact that they have their own narrow agenda, and cut the discussion off before they can reach the logical conclusion (because that would be uncomfortable morally- they might have to actually think about it) does not mean the conclusion isn’t valid, it just means that they can’t face their own hypocrisy.
        If they advocate for Animal Rights, and people are animals, they should argue for humans. Fetuses are human.

        • Adam says:

          It’s impossible to fend off the insanely high level of stupidity that you two are invoking in this argument so I’m just going to stop talking about it. You two morons are a perfect fit for one another.

  11. Big Dog says:

    Adam, it had nothing to do with PETA and all to do with your statement about why one life is more valuable than another.

    AARP represents retired persons which a fetus could not be. A human is an animal.

    • Adam says:

      Keep it up, morons. You only make yourself look dumber as you keep making your idiotic straw man arguments.

    • Tamara says:

      Gee guys, let this one go. Adam is right that it is completely inane to keep on trying to argue how an animal rights group should concern itself with abortion. Unless of course you are suggesting that every right to life group should now concern itself with meat eaters under the same logic. Dumb!

  12. Big Dog says:

    There have certainly been child molesters in the Democratic Party but I don’t know how many nor do I care. I simply stated that there have been as many corrupt politicians in each party regardless of the infraction.

    The argument was not about PETA it was about Adam’s claim that flies could feel pain and had consciousness. I pointed out that a fetus has the same and libs do not protect it. I also stated that PETA had no position on a human animal but would defend a fly.

    Not retarded. Just a statement of fact. A fetus is far more advanced than a fly and you libs do not protect them.

    As for evolution, I don’t believe in it. When there is absolute proof I will listen. It is a theory like global warming.

    • Darrel says:

      BIGD: “As for evolution, I don’t believe in it. When there is absolute proof I will listen. It is a theory like global warming.”>>

      DAR
      No, it’s a theory like the heliocentric theory (earth goes around the sun).

      “Theories” are actually the *goal* of science. Because theories, in science, tell us how things work (“laws” just tell us how things are).

      The idea that the earth goes around the sun is a theory, and a fact. Just like evolution. There has been no scientific challenge to evolution for at least 130 years. There is no other game in town.

      D.
      ——————
      “Many theories have become established as fact. Doctors are certain of germ theory–that various germs cause a number of ailments. Astronomers are certain of the heliocentric theory of the solar system–the sun, not the earth, is the center of the solar system. Geologists are certain of the plate tectonic theory–that continents and sea floor are moving on large chunks of the earth’s crust. And biologists are certain that all living things share a common ancestor.”

    • Savonarola says:

      DOG
      The discussion was about animals and it was a rhetorical question

      SAV
      See, the thing is that there’s a huge number of people who get offended when people are considered animals, thus they deny it; even if your question was rhetorical, experience with morons tells us that the point that humans are animals needs to be made obvious.

      DOG
      I believe each species evolves within itself. I don’t believe that one turns into another.

      SAV
      You’re entitled to your beliefs, as idiotic as they may be.

      DOG
      As for evolution, I don’t believe in it. When there is absolute proof I will listen.

      SAV
      There are two issues here. First is the question of what constitutes “absolute proof.” But that’s actually secondary to the fact that you don’t require “absolute proof” for anything else, and you don’t have “absolute proof” for anything besides your own existence. What you really require is an absence of reasonable doubt. That I can provide in droves.
      If you have the stones, tell me what would convince you that evolution is true. If it’s something insane like “show me a dog birthing a cat,” I’ll just continue to call you an idiot based on your ignorance of what evolutionary theory says. If it’s something that is reasonable for anybody sane — forensic evidence, eyewitness accounts, repeatable experimentation — we should talk.
      I’ll get you started: pseudogenes. For starters, read up on the vitamin C (pseudo)genes in primates.

  13. Big Dog says:

    Hey Tamara, the issue was how guys like Adam and liberals could say that flies have a consciousness and a nervous system and therefore are worth more than a virus. I pointed out that a fetus has all those and that it is not protected. The whole issue was whether PETA should be defending flies, which are disease carrying vectors, when they don’t defend a fetus.

    It was done illustratively to make a point that liberals and their organizations put more worth on vermin than unborn children.

    Darrel and Adam blew it all out of proportion because they have trouble with these things. When Adam gets flustered his biggest retort is to call people morons and say he is done talking about it and Darrel makes some silly claim and then says he is an expert int he subject (as if his continued claims of being an expert at everything mean something). I could claim to have flown to the moon.

    Does it make it so?

  14. Big Dog says:

    Sav,
    Since there are two kingdoms, animal and plant people must be animals.

    I don’t need you trying to educate me. I am not interested in pseudointellectuals and their internet based group think.

    I also do not need another moron like Darrel in here claiming to know everything.

    I damn sure do not need some snot nose who does not know me calling me names. I do not agree with your point of view, leave it at that and stop acting like you have a mission to save the world or to teach it your points of view. Not interested.

    I like when Darrel comes here all the time. My visits are way up and that is earning me more money from the ads. That money goes to the troops so he comes here and tells us what an expert he is and then writes half baked stuff but he is helping me donate to the troops.

    You, I don’t need another Darrel. Go back to the gay free thinkers

    • Darrel says:

      I am glad your hits are up and you are making more money. I haven’t claimed to be an “expert” I have claimed to have some areas of “specialty.” More than claiming it, perhaps I have demonstrated it too. Please be honest.

      Bigd: “gay free thinkers”

      Nice touch. Way to set the tone.

      Maybe someday you will learn that a comment like that tells precisely nothing about anyone else, and quite a bit, about *you.*

      D.
      —————-
      ps. “freethinker” is one word.

  15. Savonarola says:

    DOG
    Since there are two kingdoms, animal and plant people must be animals.

    SAV
    You LEAD with a statement like that and expect to be taken seriously? My goodness, it’s like talking to an idiot. Oh, wait…
    There are *five* kingdoms, Dog. I learned that in grade school, not from some internet group. I learned much more getting a biochemistry degree from an accredited university. My statements are not based on groupthink or internet “education.” That is, I’m entirely qualified to educate anybody not so frightened as to run away from his earlier statement of “when there is absolute proof I will listen.” That makes you a liar, Dog.

    DOG
    I also do not need another moron like Darrel in here claiming to know everything.

    SAV
    Funny, I don’t think I claimed to know everything. Nice strawman. Or dumb strawman, really. Either you knew that I didn’t make that claim — meaning that you’re a liar — or you thought I did, which means you can’t read well. Which is it?

    DOG
    I do not agree with your point of view, leave it at that and stop acting like you have a mission to save the world or to teach it your points of view. Not interested.

    SAV
    Ah, but you said that you’d listen when there’s proof. Given just a tiny taste, you’ve plugged your ears and started to scream “lalalalalalala I can’t hear you!” That makes you a liar. And intellectually cowardly. Frankly, I think the latter is worse. Both are typical for Republicans.
    By the way, you’re taking offense that I’m calling you names. But I’m not just randomly picking descriptors as are you (e.g. “snot nose,” “moron,” “gay” — although I am quite happy making you look so utterly incompetent). My word selection is based on what you show. That’s not mere name-calling, that’s observation. You make statements that cannot possibly be true, but you present them as true. That makes you a liar. You confidently make statements that are blatantly and demonstrably false. That makes you an idiot. See how this works? So if you’re going to call me a pseudointellectual, you’d better have a case that I’m a pseudointellectual. Or run away, which is apparently your M.O. with me.

    If you like having Darrel here because it increases traffic and thus helps the troops, why not participate in an evolution discussion with me? I sure don’t mind helping the troops. I can send my friends here so that they can see me steamroll your biological ignorance into oblivion. Or, if you’d rather, invite all of your friends to be sure to check out where you stomped mean ol’ snot-nose pseudointellectual moron Sav. In that respect, even if you lose, you can’t lose!

    • Darrel says:

      SAV: “increases traffic and thus helps the troops,…”

      DAR
      Yes lets do it! Hey BigD? Lot’s of hits, lots of money.

      D.

    • Savonarola says:

      Instead of a brave, canine roar, all I hear is…

      *crickets*

      • Big Dog says:

        What you heard was someone who was away spending Father’s Day with family.

        I have no interest in debating evolution. I have been through this before with your kind clogging up my bandwidth with tons of copy and paste and links.

        My site deals with politics and the military. You come here calling names and acting stupid. Don’t come to my house with insults. Would you come to my home and talk to me like this? If you did you would never do it again.

        Keep it civil Sav or you will be gone.

        • Savonarola says:

          DOG
          What you heard was someone who was away spending Father’s Day with family.

          SAV
          That would be perfectly understandable if you hadn’t already been active on the blog today. Instead, you made other posts but avoided this thread. My hearing doesn’t deceive me.

          DOG
          I have no interest in debating evolution. I have been through this before with your kind clogging up my bandwidth with tons of copy and paste and links.

          SAV
          Again, multiple points:
          1. I didn’t say anything about debate. You said you’d listen. Now you’re saying you won’t.
          2. Text compresses well; it doesn’t take much bandwidth. But:
          3. You can’t have it both ways. I could type out my own explanations, or I could link to explanations, which would take even less bandwidth. So it becomes apparent that neither is acceptable, which means that bandwidth is really not your concern, is it?
          4. “[My] kind”? You’ve had multiple run-ins with people with biochemistry degrees trying to take you up on your promise to listen, but you haven’t learned to stop making promises that you refuse to keep because of your own hard-headedness?

          DOG
          My site deals with politics and the military.

          SAV
          Yet you made the statement here that you’d listen. If your beef is really that this site isn’t the correct place, then where would you like to do it? Why not simply create a new entry specifically for this topic? If that’s still unacceptable, I can start a brand new thread in our forum, and that will cost you no bandwidth at all. Or you could start a thread there, even.

          DOG
          You come here calling names and acting stupid.

          SAV
          Funny, you originally accused me of acting smart. Can’t you make up your mind? Also:

          DOG
          Keep it civil Sav or you will be gone.

          SAV
          This coming from the person whose remarks are filled with gems like “moron” and “gay.” The only reason you’re in any position to talk is because you can delete comments and ban people (power abuse), not because you’ve taken some sort of moral high ground. “Name calling is not tolerated here, you gay pseudointellectual moron.” Yeah, Dog, good call.

          But when it comes down to it, here’s what’s going on: You said you’d listen to proof. I try to provide it, and you get pissy and threaten to ban me. You should be proud, Dog.

    • Big Dog says:

      I made a mistake in using the word kingoms here.

      This site is a political site and a military site. Debare evolution somewhere else.

      You can try to send you friends here but you will end up getting all of them including Darrel banned.

    • Blake says:

      Lotta big talk and very little meaning here- put some meat on the bone.

      • Savonarola says:

        BLAKE
        Lotta big talk and very little meaning here- put some meat on the bone.

        SAV
        Not sure what it is you’re not understanding, Blake. I called Big Dog on his classification of organisms. I called him on his failure to hold himself to his own standard. I called him on misrepresenting my position. I called him on the hypocrisy of inviting hits and then threatening to ban. I called him on demanding an end to name-calling while he called people names. I asked him to look into pseudogenes. What more do you want? Some evidence of expertise? OK.

        DOG
        I made a mistake in using the word king[d]oms here.

        SAV
        I can’t imagine what such a mistake could be. What word did Dog mean instead, Blake? There are five kingdoms (animalia, plantae, monera, protista, fungi), not two. A newer method of classification uses three domains (eukarya, eubacteria, and archaebacteria), but once again we see that replacing Dog’s word “kingdom” with anything else cannot reconcile his two-way classification of “plant” vs. “animal.”

        Now, Blake, I suppose that I could expound on pseudogenes (and/or a slew of other pieces of strong evidence for evolution), but Dog doesn’t want that to happen here. Maybe you’d like to head over to our forum and “get edumacated” there? I won’t be holding my breath; I don’t think you have the stones to come out of your fantasy world where “truth” is decided by your neurons instead of by reality.

    • Blake says:

      You sure are quick with the “liar” routine here. Are we touchy? Perhaps your hormone levels need to be adjusted?
      Perhaps you should be checked out. We’ll wait.

      • Savonarola says:

        BLAKE
        Perhaps your hormone levels need to be adjusted?

        SAV
        Why would you think that, Blake? What does anything here have to do with my hormones?
        The only reason I can come up with for why you’d rib someone about hormones is that you think that person is a female and you’re a misogynist. Is that the case here, Blake? Are you commenting on my hormone level because you think I’m a girl and are trying to get my goat? I have news for you: Darrel’s the one with the goats, and I’m a male. Maybe you need to look up who Girolamo Savonarola was.

  16. Big Dog says:

    Sav, you are mistaken. I was not active on this blog today until I addressed you. Blake was active. I was in another state all day with family.

    Please don’t embarrass yourself by telling me where I was or what I was doing. I know full well what I was doing much better than you so even though you might think you are all knowing, you are not.

    You want to link to items I will read them. I have probably seen them before but I will look.

    I do not want a bulletin board debate or running dialog here. It is not a bulletin board.

    • Savonarola says:

      DOG
      Sav, you are mistaken.

      SAV
      Indeed I am. My sincere apologies.

      DOG
      You want to link to items I will read them. I have probably seen them before but I will look.

      SAV
      Then that really doesn’t do that much good, does it? That’s why I find it more productive to have a two way discussion than one person posting a slew of information with no feedback as to what impact that information is having upon the audience.

      DOG
      I do not want a bulletin board debate or running dialog here. It is not a bulletin board.

      SAV
      Fair enough; this is why I offered to conduct a dialogue on the Freethinkers’ bulletin board. I’d rather include some explanation than just paste a handful of links. Are you interested? We have many options at our disposal. I could try links only on your site, but I don’t foresee that being too effective, especially without knowing more. First, I don’t know the extent of your current knowledge base, and second, I suspect that you will have questions, and it would be good if those could be presented and answered with dialogue.

      • Blake says:

        OOOOh- we have another “free thinker” here? The tingle just goes up my leg- Darrel called for backup- Why? Two illogical people are twice as boring- what’s your “specialty”?
        I notice you comment like Dar- could you be the same person? I think so.

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          You sure are quick with the “liar” routine here. Are we touchy?

          SAV
          Touchy? No. Able to spot blatant falsehoods using an actual connection to reality? Yes. You should try it sometime.

          BLAKE
          Darrel called for backup- Why?

          SAV
          He didn’t call for backup. I came here of my own accord. But that’s an interesting accusation to be paired with the accusation that he and I are the same person. “He needed help, so he called in himself!” Do you ever think about the stupid things you say BEFORE you say them?

          BLAKE
          what’s your “specialty”?

          SAV
          Science. If you could read for comprehension, you’d know that already.

          BLAKE
          I notice you comment like Dar- could you be the same person? I think so.

          SAV
          Look, I know you ditto-heads think that people like Darrel are few and far between, and therefore think that there must be lots of sock puppets, but that only goes to show how much your interpretation of reality differs from actual reality. Darrel and I are not the same person; search our forum for a thread on the hydrogen economy where he and I get into a “spirited” debate regarding hydrogen as a fuel source.
          Labeling authors makes it incredibly easy for readers to follow who has said what and gives context to replies. It shouldn’t take a genius to figure that out, but — hey, you asked. It’s kind of like using English and sentences and punctuation, only in a more specific application. But I don’t go around accusing you of really being Big Dog because you two speak English and appear to share the same brain. I guess today’s your day.

  17. Big Dog says:

    No Sav, wrote something different and did a poor job of late night editing. It was a mistake to which I have admitted.

    There are 5 or 6 Kingdoms depending upon what you read. I just made a mistake when I decided to edit what I was writing.

    I am sure you know what it is like to make a mistake. I KNOW you know what it is like.

  18. Big Dog says:

    And I did not threaten to ban until you Said:

    I can send my friends here so that they can see me steamroll your biological ignorance into oblivion.

    That will not add to the conversation and ended with a reminder that despite your claims of what you think you can do here, I have control over what you can.

    • Savonarola says:

      DOG
      And I did not threaten to ban until you Said [that you would send friends.]
      That will not add to the conversation…

      SAV
      Right. Their reading wouldn’t have added to the conversation at all. You said you loved the hits, and I was willing to help you get them. I didn’t say (nor was I trying to hide, nor would I imagine) that these friends would be commenting. In all fairness, I didn’t state that explicitly, but there was no intent to flood your blog with commenters, rather with hits.

      But let me help you down off of your high horse. Earlier, you said:

      DOG
      Keep it civil Sav or you will be gone.

      SAV
      So sure, you can pretend that you’re only worried about bandwidth, but your statements belie the claim. The above is a threat to ban for an infraction of which you are also guilty.

      DOG
      I just made a mistake when I decided to edit what I was writing.

      SAV
      You know, I really try to be understanding with mistakes. Everyone makes them. I made a pretty big (and somewhat embarrassing) one in this very thread. But when you tried to explain your mistake, your explanation made no sense. No word can be substituted for “kingdom” in that sentence to produce a statement that reflects an understanding of taxonomy.
      Now, I’ll take this opportunity to point out that I actually let that observation go unmentioned until Blake demanded that I “put some meat on the bone.” So I did, making the point that there is no way to reconcile the heart of the sentence by changing the single word you claim to have mistakenly used.
      So, people make mistakes. I fessed up and apologized, because it was the right thing to do: my mistake unfairly painted you as cowardly. I still have trouble seeing how even multiple edits can leave you with the “‘animals’ or ‘plants'” part, but I figure that this is beating a dead horse, and I’ll be content not to bring it up again.

      DOG
      despite your claims of what you think you can do here, I have control over what you can.

      SAV
      Do us both a favor. Stop threatening the pathetic power abuse of banning people because they poke holes in the veracity your statements.

      Now, as I have been forbidden to post long explanations here, I’ll postpone discussion of pseudogenes because I’ve found a link that succinctly explains another piece of compelling evidence for common ancestry: Human chromosome 2. Happy reading.
      http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

    • Darrel says:

      SAV: “another piece of compelling evidence for common ancestry: Human chromosome 2. Happy reading.”>>

      DAR
      I like to point out that Michael Behe, author and leading proponent of “Intelligent Design,” admits that the evidence for the common ancestry between humans and apes is overwhelming and he doesn’t deny it.

      Bigd says he only believes in evolution within species. But the evidence against that is overwhelming as well.

      D.
      ——————
      “It should also be noted that Darwinian theory has survived [and been strengthened by] major advancements in biology. Darwinian theory has survived the discovery of Mendelian genetics, the discovery of the structure of DNA, the discovery of the genetic code, etc., and is able to incorporate these without failing. Surely no other theory, except Relativity, has survived as many revolutionary advancements in human knowledge, Newtonian physics did not. As theories go, Darwin’s is a masterpiece.”

      • Savonarola says:

        DAR
        I like to point out that Michael Behe, author and leading proponent of “Intelligent Design,” admits that the evidence for the common ancestry between humans and apes is overwhelming and he doesn’t deny it.

        SAV
        Right, it’s the “big tent” approach. Make the theory amenable to as many differing views as possible.
        When Dembski’s right-hand-man posted on Dembski’s blog that the bulk of the ID movement would be accomodating common ancestry, there was uproar among the IDiots.

        More here.