processvenue/SARCASM_VS_NON_SARCASM · Datasets at Hugging Face

S.No int64 1 6k	Sentence stringlengths 38 957	Annotator 1 stringclasses 2 values	Annotator 2 stringclasses 2 values	IAA stringclasses 2 values
1	with such eloquent and compelling arguments as this i'm surprised it hasn't happened already.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
2	fantasy,fairy tale, wild imagination, adsurd , silly , ridiculous,fabricated .unsupported by one single observation or experiment , unsubstantiated. i do agree we don't speak the same language. no one will explain to me how one steals public information, i am confused. how is work shady? how would you define shady as opposed to rather shady when it refers to work? i thought bookmaking etc. was shady but i am old fashioned i guess. please educate me. is this a meaningfull reprimand coming from someone who believes one can observe a mind? you still have refused to explain that and i was so anxious to hear it. please go on.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
3	'if carrying guns became legal, then police could no longer arrest people for carrying guns illegally!' emoticonxrolleyes really? i suppose you'd be happier if only the 'bad guys' were armed, because that would make them easier to identify.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
4	It was a troll. Now that we've activated email response, it could take another look or expand some mail list.	Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Disagree
5	Poor little poopie. If your gay sex agenda wasn't of the devil himself you might be better received in the world.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
6	:p I wish! If I did, I'd be as wealthy as the Church, who does. emoticonXHoho	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
7	Logical truths do not come from "somewhere", your question makes as much sense as "What time is a moose?".You do not appear to have read my post at all, variously repeating what I have said and addressing things I did not say.	Non-Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Disagree
8	This is more of a creationist circlejerk than an actual discussion.	Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Disagree
9	Bang your head long enough, it might knock some sense into it. How about Palin's self imp...appointed defenders answer the valid questions? Isly proved nothing.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
10	The first half of the above post you're being purposefully thick. The last part is just dumb and not at all based in reality!	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
11	i've noticed a conspiracy or two, people saying that i'm too young to understand what-not. i still prefer my genitalia. i love my genitalia. i would give my lifeblood for my darling sperm - all so that they might have the honor of procuring for me an infant.	Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Disagree
12	No. We know that evolution happens. What would be a problem would be to find the processes that made evolution happen as such incredible rates. There isn't any evidence that it can happen that fast.	Non-Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Disagree
13	Quote Mining. You got to love it. Always fascinating when stuff is dishonestly taken out of context. Normally, we see this from creationists, but you are by no means the first prolifer who has engaged in this practice. But lets look at it	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
14	i'm surprised that some of the more frothing liberals here have not yet suggested that we now have a way of tracking and potentially treating the 'abnormal' brains of conservatives.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
15	Well, actually society has said that 18 is the dividing line. It can then also say, that under certain circumstances, for a particularly bad person, in some cases it will be considered if the person is 16 or 17. That's why we have all the judges and lawyers, etc...	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
16	Why do you find it necessary to fit observations to Genesis? or why it makes perfect sense to design creatures that resemble humans but have them evolve from things that look like apes? and so on? Are you saying that mankind is the original goal of evolution?	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
17	it's actually not a fundie site, it is a catholic site, tradition in action. in the 'about us': not exactly where i would first think of looking for information about human sexuality. but that's me. hey, arch, have you ever considered getting scientific information from a scientific source??? just a thought.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
18	i'm not in the least surprised.. i stated that it was required by law.. i never said anything about when it became a requirement. as of now, in the year 2010 applying for a ss number is required.. would you say that is an invasion of privacy?.. and for your information clinton wasn't the first or last president to rape the social security program.. politicians have been using it as a personal bank for decades.	Non-Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Disagree
19	And they can be. Increases in complexity are readily achieved via incremental change.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
20	I argue against them with regards to whatever argument they muster. Do we have any of those on this message board? Because from what I can see, it's primarily the "religious" argument counter...	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
21	Oh, I don't think there's anything wrong with it, I'm completely for it.	Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Disagree
22	[quote=gansao;461336] darling, you're the b****, i was addressing. a bigamist? doing drugs so early in the day? try to make sense, even if it's a first attempt.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
23	Because self-defence, unlike most other 'reasons', automatically allows all citizens firearm access, and in most cases allows firearm acess without mandatory training/evaluation. When this occurs, you are much more likely to get misuse of firearms.If you read around you'll see that I consider all rights as needing justification. This comes both from my stance as a relativist and as a UK citizen, where there is no formalised Constitution. Ask yourself this - if a right cannot be justified, why should it be treated as a 'right'?	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
24	Never thought of that. If that "person" has rights, do they have responsibilities? Could a fetus be charged for causing toxemia? How about suing the little tyke for giving mom varicose veins and stretch marks?	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
25	So what are some examples of restrictive gun laws in South Africa? The people in South Africa think their gun laws are not strict enough. In one of your previous posts you seem determined to use South Africa as evidence that outlawing guns doesn't work. But gun ownership is still legal there.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
26	And of course the Bible or rather the HUMAN author would say that....	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
27	..... yeah i guess so, if you're willing to prescribe them the property of an independent 'human being'.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
28	Why would they be useless? They aren't useless on birds? And how is this qustion different in any meaningful way from the above? Aren't wings forelimbs with feathers? It seems that soaring or gliding or even faster running would be extremely useful.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
29	I didn't think you had either the intellectual or logical ability to respond. :)	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
30	i love how you reply without putting any thought into your post, it is awesome. the answer to my question was no. your computer screen is not absorbing light from the sun and reflecting the color yellow back to you. thanks for playing, you lose. we know you don't actually believe in science, so you can stop trying to quote it.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
31	Well, my daughter cut her chin (in the U.S.), which required some stitches. My wife arrived to the emergency room with my daughter around 6:30 PM. We did not come back home until after midnight.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
32	which one is this brady? the discredited kellerman study by the discredited kellerman? or the opinion piece of the rabidly anti-gun brady campaign? cite your sources. and answer the damn question already. is self-defense with a firearm an immoral act? it's not rocket science, there's only two answers; yes or no.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
33	You must be thinking of physics... last I looked, biologists weren't trying to explain the the creation of the universe. However, we have an excellent handle on the evolution of species, and some pretty reasonable ideas about the origin of life, which is more than your bible ever came up with. I mean... some invisible, bearded guy-in-the-sky zapped it all into existence? Fairytales.	Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Disagree
34	query: why do they call the followers of gush limpbutt the addict 'dittoheads'? answer: they have no ideas of their own. think gush & cindy have the same supplier? now there's a capitalist we all can admire!!	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
35	Nobody should be forced to even have a sonagram. I think that you'll find reasonable pro-life and pro-abortion people believe that much.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
36	i am surprised that some of the more conservative christians are not weighing in on source of some of the christian terminology and concepts.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
37	but it is the best theory besides evolution. If evolution isn't true somebody please come up with a new theory to compete with creation. Right here please I would like to know what is option #2 for Atheism." Just out of interest, which version of creation are you talking about?	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
38	I think that case was in Georgia (a different state) and so far as I know homosexuality was not involved. However if you want to worry about a legal case you need to look at Dover Pa. Not the sticker case in Cobb County.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
39	Link me to one saying weed 'addiction' is worse than alcoholism please.	Non-Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Disagree
40	The Bible. God did not write the Bible, he inspired the people to write it. You are right, no logical contradiction exists. What is option C? I thought there were only evo or creo to choose from.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
41	I believe Alan Keyes already have used that term on us. (Alan Keyes, the ultra-concervative Republican Candidate for the Illinois Senate seat - in opposition to Barack Obama. The Maryland resident the Republican party had to recruit because they couldn't find anyone else in their right mind who would go against Barack. Also the very same Maryland resident/Television talkshow host who beratted Hilary Clinton for moving to NY and expecting to be able to "represent" NY'ers. Yeah, look who's the hypocrit now.)	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
42	do we want to have control over ourselves? some religios fanatics dont, and thats what im saying. i dont know much on this matter, im only 14. but, ive been to a conservative catholic school, and ive seen what it's like. its a narrow minded hellhole.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
43	Welcome to CuckooLand. Old Sarge will serve as your welcoming committee.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
44	Yet Bush's military record is downright questionable, as well as his Saudi Links, not to mention his business failures.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
45	wow, thanks for admitting how you really feel about sex apparently. never given your so-called 'wife' an orgasm eh? i sure could...lol...	Non-Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Disagree
46	not according the SCJ of Mass. This was part of the grounds of their ruling FOR marriage in Mass.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
47	None... unless she uses abortion as a form of birth control and has them regularly.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
48	In the split second something happens, we must protect ourselves.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
49	A lot of work has been done on that topic. I would recommend reading Debating Design from Darwin to DNA It is a monster of a book, but it is definitely worth the read.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
50	Actually "I don't know" is quite a valid answer in science.However, again you slip into this false construct of a belief that all that can be known is in the scope of science; which you've also denied saying you believe in the past.[quote=Montalban]Is this a rational statement? If so, prove it rationally, by science.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
51	Not all christians are nuts. But this fellow. I suppose he will next say that the cause of the global warming is really hell encroaching on physical reality. Huck	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
52	Again, we never said that a human fetus was a different species.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
53	Actually, the process of fossilisation is not slow and can be done relatively quickly. All what you need is for sediments to quickly cover a dead (or an alive body - as what would have happened to Noah's Flood) and hence, fossilsation can occur rapidly; evolutionarly speaking, fossils take millions of years to fossilise a bone, but unless the bone is covered by sediments quickly, the bone will never fossilise.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
54	If one can't attempt to falsify a theory then it is not open to science and therfore useless to science. It becomes simply an untestable belief.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
55	Yes, you also have to admire his philosophy on this: go against my opinion and physical harm will befall you. Who needs reason when you can threaten your opponents with death?	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
56	Their "ultimate reality" is that some higher authority may exist. It's still an "ultimate reality" to them. Definitely a religion.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
57	I think you need to answer the same question I asked the other guy, who is God?	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
58	much more is happening in the world today than your little gay crusade matthew. but keep your single issue, and totally limited perspective in life, that's what you're good at. could you post where i said that revelation speaks to the rcc vs the protestant reformation ms ? as christ was a jew trebor, his followers wont ever cease to exist, just as god has preserved the jew according to his promises. i'm surprised you can't appreciate that my friend.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
59	** Apparently you refuse to accept the fact that in English the words "test" and "measure" are NOT synonymous. Duh!!	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
60	Homosexuals are attracted to people of the same sex whether they be adults are children.............The vast majority of the priests who were charged admitted to being gay............	Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Disagree
61	And I'm addressing your counter-arguments in that regard. One of those counter arguments has been that both chimps and ourselves had four billion years to evolve to our level of intelligence and that during all that time we were subject to the same ecological pressures. Neither of those statements is accurate. The first is misleading for the reasons outlined above, and the second is simply false: humans have experienced greatly different ecological challenges since we diverged from chimps.I'll finish up tomorrow - battery dead.	Non-Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Disagree
62	Invalid argument to assert that mutations can map a road outside of their assigned task in illogical, where would the information to do so come from? Biology works because every individual cell doing what it was created to do along with what the one next to it was, though created to perform another set of instructions creates the molecular change that the combination of the cells together would produce. But there is no additional information there... not int he way you assert.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
63	If it was her head, I'd say implode. Air rushes in to fill a vacuum. ;)	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
64	I do and I was joking around. I'd never actually consider having sex with a Christian.emoticonXCry Besides, a man your age should have learned the difference between love and sex.	Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Disagree
65	Because, when each is in its natural habitat, they are reproductively isolated.	Non-Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Disagree
66	I'll give you that one...only because I think by then women will be able to place their fertilized ovums in banks. But then again they said the same thing about robot servants and flying cars too!	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
67	If that's the case I wish someone would unplug me. I'm getting tired of this version of reality.	Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Disagree
68	btw, jazyjason, before you edited out your complimentary comment about howard dean. just wanted to say i'm surprised you said anything to associate yourself thus with a such an irrational far left commie. must stay with the mudflingers and lynch mobs and, especially if they're jesus lovers, ya know. so ... i understand why you took it down. merry christmas.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
69	Well hey, if you want the analogy, ya gotta live with where it bites ya ... emoticonXGood	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
70	Nope, you're posting your own BS.. and just making yourself look more stupid than you are.. if that's possible... emoticonXCryemoticonXCryemoticonXCryemoticonXCryemoticonXCryemoticonXCryemoticonXCryemoticonXCry How's your Uncle EZridden.. haven't seen him today...emoticonXKill	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
71	Please stop making statements that have nothing whatsoever to do with the debate at hand. We're not talking about Christian fundamentalism and "reality".	Non-Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Disagree
72	Hehe. Putting political messages on such things seems retarded to me though. -Wez	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
73	does the grand canyon strike you as a 'crack' as well? like? what makes them so dangerous if it ain't their guns and their willingness to use them? this assumes that no da is presently going after them. something i highly doubt. diversionary tactic on your part. wouldn't making guns harder for them to acquire be helpful?	Non-Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Disagree
74	he's one of your allies, so i'm surprised you'd think so.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
75	I dunno about that, but possibly. They do know that those afflicted with ADD have some unusual structures in their brains too. Last I heard they were investigating the causality of homosexuality with developmental deficencies in the brain. The jury is not out yet	Non-Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Disagree
76	Well, where do you get your beliefs about right and wrong from? I mean, I know that you have moral standards and are most likely an ethical person. Sandycane does have a point in her previous message to you. It is just that I think that the main point	Non-Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Disagree
77	Yup. Give me an example of a true inaccuracy, instead of working to poke fun. Do you honestly think anyone will take you seriously (except the evolutionists) if you don't provide reasons for your apparent problem with scriptures. Are you scared because you see the "ancients" commenting on subjects you thought science had "discovered" since the "enlightenment"? Man, how arrogant can you get? You remind me of the Pharasees. Arrogant presuppositions are no substitue for confronting your ignorance my friend. Either explain how the Bible speaks accurately on sophisticated subjects as given above, or don't bother posting.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
78	AGREED!!!!That has to be BY FAR the best series I've ever read!Also, Asimov's Foundation triligoy is good. And again, the classics:Fahrenheit 4511984Catcher in the Rye...and all those other depressing books...	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
79	Speculation can be profitable. A full head of hair is not unique. My pyramidal tinfoil hat is an antenna for knowledge and truth. It reflects idiocy and dumbness into deep space. You still haven't admitted to your error.	Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Disagree
80	Dude, seriously, ask your parents permission before getting on the computer, please. That's what I thought Archie. Do you ever get tired of being so predictably dishonest and detestable?	Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Disagree
81	So have you found figures pertaining to the rate of mountain growth? It is not enough to see with the naked eye the way erosion is. This explanation would also cause some mountains to fall as tectonic plates move away from eachother. Again after billions of years all rivers in existence would be deeper than those in the grand canyon without the material coming down from mountains.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
82	Here is what fascinates me about the judgmental criticism you offer of my opinion. In typical fashion you make claims which you don't support at all. Here is my post below, point out WITH EVIDENCE!!! what I am distorting in any way; especially that which I hold dear. In other words, write a cogent and rational post which makes sense when applied to the quoted post it intends to attack. emoticonXDonno	Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Disagree
83	Well if it's so easy then how about you provide the names of the dealers who're selling howitzers and anti-aircraft missiles and fragmentation grenades? And while you're at it, supply the names of the companies who're making them in violation of the various federal restrictions.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
84	Actually, selection occurs by differential reproductive rates. What this means is that organisms which reproduce more will have more offspring than the others (obviously). Therefore, traits that help organisms reproduce will become more prevailant.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
85	There is a point, however, that the fetal lung is not mature enough to survive outside the womb even with mechanical assistance. So, unless our technology will be pretty radically different in the future, it isn't about getting it out, it's about it not surviving when it is out.	Non-Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Agree
86	Oh it applies, but if we were to look at the Bible that way, God wouldn't allow one single bad thing to happen.	Sarcastic	Non-Sarcastic	Disagree
87	And there we go again. Re-read the bit about dancing around the land mines, if you in fact did read it the first time.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
88	But the military is pretty much all a volunteer thing. It's not a hiring process--employer/employee thing. That arrangement lends itself more to the soldier not volunteering for service in the first place.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
89	Well let's put it this way. I really like playing baseball. So I put in a law that says everyone has to play baseball unless they're in a position where it will threaten their life. Since it's such a wonderful thing no one should have any problem with a law passed, right?	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
90	I'm one of those cruel heartless bastards that thinks the Constitution doesn't apply to terrorists. Break out the cattle prods and "LET'T PARTY" emoticonXRolleyes	Non-Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Disagree
91	You could put the stranger out even if they had nowhere to go and it was freezing cold out.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
92	As long as it resides within said woman - you bet. Kind of like you get to decide the rules for your house and who you are gonna let in the door OR throw out when they become detrimental to your household in some way.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
93	i'm surprised. i was sure you'd have read her essays on capitalism, but i guess only so many books are required before you can defend proper economics.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
94	And the ability to digest nylon is not a new function?? You seem to have a different conception of 'new function' that what matches with reality.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
95	How refreshing. Sadly for you and like-minded "patriots", you cannot tell citizens where they "should go", except figuratively.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
96	too stupid and liberal!! if they were being exploited that could not now afford 75 million smart phones at $150 a month!!	Non-Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Disagree
97	So am I correct that you believe it would politically incorrect for Democrats to bring a concealed handgun or open carry gun to a Democratic Meeting? How about Brady and Galileo? I remind that the esteemed congresswoman was pro-gun. 2 Lawmakers to Carry Guns in Home Districts	Non-Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Disagree
98	Because there's absolutely no due process in this proposal. Your name is on the list, your rights are revoked. That's not due process. There's no court of law, no trial, no verdict, no attorneys, no chance for the accused to defend themselves, etc. We still haven't forgotten the Homeland Security memo that said veterans and those opposed to abortion could be potential terrorists.	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
99	Finally someone answered the question. Thanks. I thought it might be the government.Does your government attempt to do this?What do you think about other democratic nations that have citizens that are less armed? Do you think that they're in danger - or is it only the American government that's out to do this?	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree
100	I think bringing "emotions" into the question of whether God exists or not tends to cloud the issue a bit.Isn't the essence of atheism a rational enquiry which concludes that in the absence of any credible evidence, there is no reason to believe in God ? An emotional attachment to "non-belief" would be irrelevant (and irrational).	Sarcastic	Sarcastic	Agree

1

with such eloquent and compelling arguments as this i'm surprised it hasn't happened already.

Sarcastic

Agree

2

fantasy,fairy tale, wild imagination, adsurd , silly , ridiculous,fabricated .unsupported by one single observation or experiment , unsubstantiated. i do agree we don't speak the same language. no one will explain to me how one steals public information, i am confused. how is work shady? how would you define shady as opposed to rather shady when it refers to work? i thought bookmaking etc. was shady but i am old fashioned i guess. please educate me. is this a meaningfull reprimand coming from someone who believes one can observe a mind? you still have refused to explain that and i was so anxious to hear it. please go on.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

3

'if carrying guns became legal, then police could no longer arrest people for carrying guns illegally!' emoticonxrolleyes really? i suppose you'd be happier if only the 'bad guys' were armed, because that would make them easier to identify.

Sarcastic

Agree

4

It was a troll. Now that we've activated email response, it could take another look or expand some mail list.

Sarcastic

Non-Sarcastic

Disagree

5

Poor little poopie. If your gay sex agenda wasn't of the devil himself you might be better received in the world.

Sarcastic

Agree

6

:p I wish! If I did, I'd be as wealthy as the Church, who does. emoticonXHoho

Sarcastic

Agree

7

Logical truths do not come from "somewhere", your question makes as much sense as "What time is a moose?".You do not appear to have read my post at all, variously repeating what I have said and addressing things I did not say.

Non-Sarcastic

Sarcastic

Disagree

8

This is more of a creationist circlejerk than an actual discussion.

Sarcastic

Non-Sarcastic

Disagree

9

Bang your head long enough, it might knock some sense into it. How about Palin's self imp...appointed defenders answer the valid questions? Isly proved nothing.

Sarcastic

Agree

10

The first half of the above post you're being purposefully thick. The last part is just dumb and not at all based in reality!

Sarcastic

Agree

11

i've noticed a conspiracy or two, people saying that i'm too young to understand what-not. i still prefer my genitalia. i love my genitalia. i would give my lifeblood for my darling sperm - all so that they might have the honor of procuring for me an infant.

Sarcastic

Non-Sarcastic

Disagree

12

No. We know that evolution happens. What would be a problem would be to find the processes that made evolution happen as such incredible rates. There isn't any evidence that it can happen that fast.

Non-Sarcastic

Sarcastic

Disagree

13

Quote Mining. You got to love it. Always fascinating when stuff is dishonestly taken out of context. Normally, we see this from creationists, but you are by no means the first prolifer who has engaged in this practice. But lets look at it

Sarcastic

Agree

14

i'm surprised that some of the more frothing liberals here have not yet suggested that we now have a way of tracking and potentially treating the 'abnormal' brains of conservatives.

Sarcastic

Agree

15

Well, actually society has said that 18 is the dividing line. It can then also say, that under certain circumstances, for a particularly bad person, in some cases it will be considered if the person is 16 or 17. That's why we have all the judges and lawyers, etc...

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

16

Why do you find it necessary to fit observations to Genesis? or why it makes perfect sense to design creatures that resemble humans but have them evolve from things that look like apes? and so on? Are you saying that mankind is the original goal of evolution?

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

17

it's actually not a fundie site, it is a catholic site, tradition in action. in the 'about us': not exactly where i would first think of looking for information about human sexuality. but that's me. hey, arch, have you ever considered getting scientific information from a scientific source??? just a thought.

Sarcastic

Agree

18

i'm not in the least surprised.. i stated that it was required by law.. i never said anything about when it became a requirement. as of now, in the year 2010 applying for a ss number is required.. would you say that is an invasion of privacy?.. and for your information clinton wasn't the first or last president to rape the social security program.. politicians have been using it as a personal bank for decades.

Non-Sarcastic

Sarcastic

Disagree

19

And they can be. Increases in complexity are readily achieved via incremental change.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

20

I argue against them with regards to whatever argument they muster. Do we have any of those on this message board? Because from what I can see, it's primarily the "religious" argument counter...

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

21

Oh, I don't think there's anything wrong with it, I'm completely for it.

Sarcastic

Non-Sarcastic

Disagree

22

[quote=gansao;461336] darling, you're the b****, i was addressing. a bigamist? doing drugs so early in the day? try to make sense, even if it's a first attempt.

Sarcastic

Agree

23

Because self-defence, unlike most other 'reasons', automatically allows all citizens firearm access, and in most cases allows firearm acess without mandatory training/evaluation. When this occurs, you are much more likely to get misuse of firearms.If you read around you'll see that I consider all rights as needing justification. This comes both from my stance as a relativist and as a UK citizen, where there is no formalised Constitution. Ask yourself this - if a right cannot be justified, why should it be treated as a 'right'?

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

24

Never thought of that. If that "person" has rights, do they have responsibilities? Could a fetus be charged for causing toxemia? How about suing the little tyke for giving mom varicose veins and stretch marks?

Sarcastic

Agree

25

So what are some examples of restrictive gun laws in South Africa? The people in South Africa think their gun laws are not strict enough. In one of your previous posts you seem determined to use South Africa as evidence that outlawing guns doesn't work. But gun ownership is still legal there.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

26

And of course the Bible or rather the HUMAN author would say that....

Sarcastic

Agree

27

..... yeah i guess so, if you're willing to prescribe them the property of an independent 'human being'.

Sarcastic

Agree

28

Why would they be useless? They aren't useless on birds? And how is this qustion different in any meaningful way from the above? Aren't wings forelimbs with feathers? It seems that soaring or gliding or even faster running would be extremely useful.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

29

I didn't think you had either the intellectual or logical ability to respond. :)

Sarcastic

Agree

30

i love how you reply without putting any thought into your post, it is awesome. the answer to my question was no. your computer screen is not absorbing light from the sun and reflecting the color yellow back to you. thanks for playing, you lose. we know you don't actually believe in science, so you can stop trying to quote it.

Sarcastic

Agree

31

Well, my daughter cut her chin (in the U.S.), which required some stitches. My wife arrived to the emergency room with my daughter around 6:30 PM. We did not come back home until after midnight.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

32

which one is this brady? the discredited kellerman study by the discredited kellerman? or the opinion piece of the rabidly anti-gun brady campaign? cite your sources. and answer the damn question already. is self-defense with a firearm an immoral act? it's not rocket science, there's only two answers; yes or no.

Sarcastic

Agree

33

You must be thinking of physics... last I looked, biologists weren't trying to explain the the creation of the universe. However, we have an excellent handle on the evolution of species, and some pretty reasonable ideas about the origin of life, which is more than your bible ever came up with. I mean... some invisible, bearded guy-in-the-sky zapped it all into existence? Fairytales.

Sarcastic

Non-Sarcastic

Disagree

34

query: why do they call the followers of gush limpbutt the addict 'dittoheads'? answer: they have no ideas of their own. think gush & cindy have the same supplier? now there's a capitalist we all can admire!!

Sarcastic

Agree

35

Nobody should be forced to even have a sonagram. I think that you'll find reasonable pro-life and pro-abortion people believe that much.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

36

i am surprised that some of the more conservative christians are not weighing in on source of some of the christian terminology and concepts.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

37

but it is the best theory besides evolution. If evolution isn't true somebody please come up with a new theory to compete with creation. Right here please I would like to know what is option #2 for Atheism." Just out of interest, which version of creation are you talking about?

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

38

I think that case was in Georgia (a different state) and so far as I know homosexuality was not involved. However if you want to worry about a legal case you need to look at Dover Pa. Not the sticker case in Cobb County.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

39

Link me to one saying weed 'addiction' is worse than alcoholism please.

Non-Sarcastic

Sarcastic

Disagree

40

The Bible. God did not write the Bible, he inspired the people to write it. You are right, no logical contradiction exists. What is option C? I thought there were only evo or creo to choose from.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

41

I believe Alan Keyes already have used that term on us. (Alan Keyes, the ultra-concervative Republican Candidate for the Illinois Senate seat - in opposition to Barack Obama. The Maryland resident the Republican party had to recruit because they couldn't find anyone else in their right mind who would go against Barack. Also the very same Maryland resident/Television talkshow host who beratted Hilary Clinton for moving to NY and expecting to be able to "represent" NY'ers. Yeah, look who's the hypocrit now.)

Sarcastic

Agree

42

do we want to have control over ourselves? some religios fanatics dont, and thats what im saying. i dont know much on this matter, im only 14. but, ive been to a conservative catholic school, and ive seen what it's like. its a narrow minded hellhole.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

43

Welcome to CuckooLand. Old Sarge will serve as your welcoming committee.

Sarcastic

Agree

44

Yet Bush's military record is downright questionable, as well as his Saudi Links, not to mention his business failures.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

45

wow, thanks for admitting how you really feel about sex apparently. never given your so-called 'wife' an orgasm eh? i sure could...lol...

Non-Sarcastic

Sarcastic

Disagree

46

not according the SCJ of Mass. This was part of the grounds of their ruling FOR marriage in Mass.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

47

None... unless she uses abortion as a form of birth control and has them regularly.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

48

In the split second something happens, we must protect ourselves.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

49

A lot of work has been done on that topic. I would recommend reading Debating Design from Darwin to DNA It is a monster of a book, but it is definitely worth the read.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

50

Actually "I don't know" is quite a valid answer in science.However, again you slip into this false construct of a belief that all that can be known is in the scope of science; which you've also denied saying you believe in the past.[quote=Montalban]Is this a rational statement? If so, prove it rationally, by science.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

51

Not all christians are nuts. But this fellow. I suppose he will next say that the cause of the global warming is really hell encroaching on physical reality. Huck

Sarcastic

Agree

52

Again, we never said that a human fetus was a different species.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

53

Actually, the process of fossilisation is not slow and can be done relatively quickly. All what you need is for sediments to quickly cover a dead (or an alive body - as what would have happened to Noah's Flood) and hence, fossilsation can occur rapidly; evolutionarly speaking, fossils take millions of years to fossilise a bone, but unless the bone is covered by sediments quickly, the bone will never fossilise.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

54

If one can't attempt to falsify a theory then it is not open to science and therfore useless to science. It becomes simply an untestable belief.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

55

Yes, you also have to admire his philosophy on this: go against my opinion and physical harm will befall you. Who needs reason when you can threaten your opponents with death?

Sarcastic

Agree

56

Their "ultimate reality" is that some higher authority may exist. It's still an "ultimate reality" to them. Definitely a religion.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

57

I think you need to answer the same question I asked the other guy, who is God?

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

58

much more is happening in the world today than your little gay crusade matthew. but keep your single issue, and totally limited perspective in life, that's what you're good at. could you post where i said that revelation speaks to the rcc vs the protestant reformation ms ? as christ was a jew trebor, his followers wont ever cease to exist, just as god has preserved the jew according to his promises. i'm surprised you can't appreciate that my friend.

Sarcastic

Agree

59

** Apparently you refuse to accept the fact that in English the words "test" and "measure" are NOT synonymous. Duh!!

Sarcastic

Agree

60

Homosexuals are attracted to people of the same sex whether they be adults are children.............The vast majority of the priests who were charged admitted to being gay............

Sarcastic

Non-Sarcastic

Disagree

61

And I'm addressing your counter-arguments in that regard. One of those counter arguments has been that both chimps and ourselves had four billion years to evolve to our level of intelligence and that during all that time we were subject to the same ecological pressures. Neither of those statements is accurate. The first is misleading for the reasons outlined above, and the second is simply false: humans have experienced greatly different ecological challenges since we diverged from chimps.I'll finish up tomorrow - battery dead.

Non-Sarcastic

Sarcastic

Disagree

62

Invalid argument to assert that mutations can map a road outside of their assigned task in illogical, where would the information to do so come from? Biology works because every individual cell doing what it was created to do along with what the one next to it was, though created to perform another set of instructions creates the molecular change that the combination of the cells together would produce. But there is no additional information there... not int he way you assert.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

63

If it was her head, I'd say implode. Air rushes in to fill a vacuum. ;)

Sarcastic

Agree

64

I do and I was joking around. I'd never actually consider having sex with a Christian.emoticonXCry Besides, a man your age should have learned the difference between love and sex.

Sarcastic

Non-Sarcastic

Disagree

65

Because, when each is in its natural habitat, they are reproductively isolated.

Non-Sarcastic

Sarcastic

Disagree

66

I'll give you that one...only because I think by then women will be able to place their fertilized ovums in banks. But then again they said the same thing about robot servants and flying cars too!

Sarcastic

Agree

67

If that's the case I wish someone would unplug me. I'm getting tired of this version of reality.

Sarcastic

Non-Sarcastic

Disagree

68

btw, jazyjason, before you edited out your complimentary comment about howard dean. just wanted to say i'm surprised you said anything to associate yourself thus with a such an irrational far left commie. must stay with the mudflingers and lynch mobs and, especially if they're jesus lovers, ya know. so ... i understand why you took it down. merry christmas.

Sarcastic

Agree

69

Well hey, if you want the analogy, ya gotta live with where it bites ya ... emoticonXGood

Sarcastic

Agree

70

Nope, you're posting your own BS.. and just making yourself look more stupid than you are.. if that's possible... emoticonXCryemoticonXCryemoticonXCryemoticonXCryemoticonXCryemoticonXCryemoticonXCryemoticonXCry How's your Uncle EZridden.. haven't seen him today...emoticonXKill

Sarcastic

Agree

71

Please stop making statements that have nothing whatsoever to do with the debate at hand. We're not talking about Christian fundamentalism and "reality".

Non-Sarcastic

Sarcastic

Disagree

72

Hehe. Putting political messages on such things seems retarded to me though. -Wez

Sarcastic

Agree

73

does the grand canyon strike you as a 'crack' as well? like? what makes them so dangerous if it ain't their guns and their willingness to use them? this assumes that no da is presently going after them. something i highly doubt. diversionary tactic on your part. wouldn't making guns harder for them to acquire be helpful?

Non-Sarcastic

Sarcastic

Disagree

74

he's one of your allies, so i'm surprised you'd think so.

Sarcastic

Agree

75

I dunno about that, but possibly. They do know that those afflicted with ADD have some unusual structures in their brains too. Last I heard they were investigating the causality of homosexuality with developmental deficencies in the brain. The jury is not out yet

Non-Sarcastic

Sarcastic

Disagree

76

Well, where do you get your beliefs about right and wrong from? I mean, I know that you have moral standards and are most likely an ethical person. Sandycane does have a point in her previous message to you. It is just that I think that the main point

Non-Sarcastic

Sarcastic

Disagree

77

Yup. Give me an example of a true inaccuracy, instead of working to poke fun. Do you honestly think anyone will take you seriously (except the evolutionists) if you don't provide reasons for your apparent problem with scriptures. Are you scared because you see the "ancients" commenting on subjects you thought science had "discovered" since the "enlightenment"? Man, how arrogant can you get? You remind me of the Pharasees. Arrogant presuppositions are no substitue for confronting your ignorance my friend. Either explain how the Bible speaks accurately on sophisticated subjects as given above, or don't bother posting.

Sarcastic

Agree

78

AGREED!!!!That has to be BY FAR the best series I've ever read!Also, Asimov's Foundation triligoy is good. And again, the classics:Fahrenheit 4511984Catcher in the Rye...and all those other depressing books...

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

79

Speculation can be profitable. A full head of hair is not unique. My pyramidal tinfoil hat is an antenna for knowledge and truth. It reflects idiocy and dumbness into deep space. You still haven't admitted to your error.

Sarcastic

Non-Sarcastic

Disagree

80

Dude, seriously, ask your parents permission before getting on the computer, please. That's what I thought Archie. Do you ever get tired of being so predictably dishonest and detestable?

Sarcastic

Non-Sarcastic

Disagree

81

So have you found figures pertaining to the rate of mountain growth? It is not enough to see with the naked eye the way erosion is. This explanation would also cause some mountains to fall as tectonic plates move away from eachother. Again after billions of years all rivers in existence would be deeper than those in the grand canyon without the material coming down from mountains.

Sarcastic

Agree

82

Here is what fascinates me about the judgmental criticism you offer of my opinion. In typical fashion you make claims which you don't support at all. Here is my post below, point out WITH EVIDENCE!!! what I am distorting in any way; especially that which I hold dear. In other words, write a cogent and rational post which makes sense when applied to the quoted post it intends to attack. emoticonXDonno

Sarcastic

Non-Sarcastic

Disagree

83

Well if it's so easy then how about you provide the names of the dealers who're selling howitzers and anti-aircraft missiles and fragmentation grenades? And while you're at it, supply the names of the companies who're making them in violation of the various federal restrictions.

Sarcastic

Agree

84

Actually, selection occurs by differential reproductive rates. What this means is that organisms which reproduce more will have more offspring than the others (obviously). Therefore, traits that help organisms reproduce will become more prevailant.

Sarcastic

Agree

85

There is a point, however, that the fetal lung is not mature enough to survive outside the womb even with mechanical assistance. So, unless our technology will be pretty radically different in the future, it isn't about getting it out, it's about it not surviving when it is out.

Non-Sarcastic

Agree

86

Oh it applies, but if we were to look at the Bible that way, God wouldn't allow one single bad thing to happen.

Sarcastic

Non-Sarcastic

Disagree

87

And there we go again. Re-read the bit about dancing around the land mines, if you in fact did read it the first time.

Sarcastic

Agree

88

But the military is pretty much all a volunteer thing. It's not a hiring process--employer/employee thing. That arrangement lends itself more to the soldier not volunteering for service in the first place.

Sarcastic

Agree

89

Well let's put it this way. I really like playing baseball. So I put in a law that says everyone has to play baseball unless they're in a position where it will threaten their life. Since it's such a wonderful thing no one should have any problem with a law passed, right?

Sarcastic

Agree

90

I'm one of those cruel heartless bastards that thinks the Constitution doesn't apply to terrorists. Break out the cattle prods and "LET'T PARTY" emoticonXRolleyes

Non-Sarcastic

Sarcastic

Disagree

91

You could put the stranger out even if they had nowhere to go and it was freezing cold out.

Sarcastic

Agree

92

As long as it resides within said woman - you bet. Kind of like you get to decide the rules for your house and who you are gonna let in the door OR throw out when they become detrimental to your household in some way.

Sarcastic

Agree

93

i'm surprised. i was sure you'd have read her essays on capitalism, but i guess only so many books are required before you can defend proper economics.

Sarcastic

Agree

94

And the ability to digest nylon is not a new function?? You seem to have a different conception of 'new function' that what matches with reality.

Sarcastic

Agree

95

How refreshing. Sadly for you and like-minded "patriots", you cannot tell citizens where they "should go", except figuratively.

Sarcastic

Agree

96

too stupid and liberal!! if they were being exploited that could not now afford 75 million smart phones at $150 a month!!

Non-Sarcastic

Sarcastic

Disagree

97

So am I correct that you believe it would politically incorrect for Democrats to bring a concealed handgun or open carry gun to a Democratic Meeting? How about Brady and Galileo? I remind that the esteemed congresswoman was pro-gun. 2 Lawmakers to Carry Guns in Home Districts

Non-Sarcastic

Sarcastic

Disagree

98

Because there's absolutely no due process in this proposal. Your name is on the list, your rights are revoked. That's not due process. There's no court of law, no trial, no verdict, no attorneys, no chance for the accused to defend themselves, etc. We still haven't forgotten the Homeland Security memo that said veterans and those opposed to abortion could be potential terrorists.

Sarcastic

Agree

99

Finally someone answered the question. Thanks. I thought it might be the government.Does your government attempt to do this?What do you think about other democratic nations that have citizens that are less armed? Do you think that they're in danger - or is it only the American government that's out to do this?

Sarcastic

Agree

100

I think bringing "emotions" into the question of whether God exists or not tends to cloud the issue a bit.Isn't the essence of atheism a rational enquiry which concludes that in the absence of any credible evidence, there is no reason to believe in God ? An emotional attachment to "non-belief" would be irrelevant (and irrational).

Sarcastic

Agree