★ Gold Patron ★
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


LogicalFallacy last won the day on April 6

LogicalFallacy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,033 Damn!

About LogicalFallacy

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    New Zealand
  • Interests
    Fishing, camping, gardening, politics, social dynamics, science, philosophy, astronomy. A special interest in mythology and ancient history (Both ancient humans and ancient earth)
  • More About Me
    You can find out more by chatting on our discord channel. Link below

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    A transcendent, immaterial, invisible Pink Unicorn

Recent Profile Visitors

6,657 profile views
  1. Mixed feelings about this: http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/frankenswine-scientists-bring-a-pig-brain-back-from-dead/ar-BBW2H9K?li=BBSVbAt
  2. I largely agree with Older here. Peace based on fear is a fragile thing. Like anything else based on fear and hate, its prone to breakage. However simply turning the other cheek is asinine. Rather than turning the other cheek an attempt should be made, if possible, to resolve the issue using non violent means. The stick, which I agree should be 'carried' should ideally only be used after other attempts at resolution fail. There are of course exceptions - if an invader breaks into my home they get the stick up front and delivered with as much lethality as possible. In that case the rule is shoot first, ask questions later. The intruder wasn't popping in for a cuppa. (Problem here is the police then investigate whether 'reasonable force' was used. We yes sir, the guy broke into my home at night and I was afeared for my life!) To wit: 31 SECTION 48 of the Crimes Act 1961 provides: Everyone is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use. This defence recognises that people have a right to defend themselves against violence or threats of violence, so long as the force used is no more than is reasonable for that purpose. The law does not require people to wait until they have been attacked before taking action to protect themselves. But the law also acknowledges the attacker’s right to life and bodily integrity and requires the force used in self-defence to be no more than is necessary to prevent the violence or threatened violence.
  3. An interesting article looking into dog evolution https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/books/112135905/a-dogs-tale-the-strange-evolution-of-our-bff
  4. Yes, hence to this point I haven't... but I so want to go bash some religious trolls with some logic. I mean if god wants us to stone gays should we stone Christians who work on the sabbath? These are important questions!
  5. In my church circle there were references made to having "an upper room experiance" which was essentially being filled with the 'holy ghost. Never saw no ghost but some people (the same ones ) would on occasion 'speak in tongues' ... I.e. they would babble incoherently and people would praise God that his spirit was filling said person's... again.
  6. Welcome @MindShift Glad you found us. Will have to have a listen to your podcast - got a link? And I have been thinking of doing the 'twitter' so if I do I'll look you up... probably have a different handle though. Hope you enjoy your times here! LF
  7. Yes, and for the non religious is might be a time to stand up and be heard or risk losing your freedom to not believe openly. I'm given to understand China doesn't push a state religion... well unless 'do what we say and keep your head down' is a religion.... Here is an interesting article on the elections: http://theconversation.com/india-whats-at-stake-in-the-2019-elections-114648
  8. You referring to Israel Folau? Shit things have got hot here. Some MP's are talking about needing to strengthen hate speech laws, and on the other side a church leader has said there will be "war" if "liberals, atheists, left wing radicals" try and make the bible hate speech. I'm like I'm happy for you to rattle out your horrid shit as long as you are happy for me to call you a deluded fuckwit prattling out nonsense from and ancient book so filled with violence it makes Game of Thrones look tame. Here's a good one for a meme Israel Folau: "I'm being persecuted for my beliefs" *Tells a whole bunch of people they are going to hell* I do find that often calls for free speech is just a cover for wanting to be a total dick without consequences cause free speech! It's a tricky road to navigate.
  9. Good point. Great point in fact. As MOHO mentioned - all the friends we have made here. Sometimes we focus too much on what we have to lose rather than what we had to gain. And what is the greatest gain from leaving religion? Freedom!
  10. And here comes the persecution complex syndrome. "I can't say what shit I like to therefore I'm a persecuted Christian" seems to be the main takeaway. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/112034108/unrepentant-israel-folau-im-more-than-happy-to-do-what-god-wants-me-to-do
  11. For the second time in a year Israel Folau has come under fire for his tweets - this time he's targeting the classics - drunks, idolaters etc... and of course atheists. (I'm suddenly agnostic about all this!) https://punditarena.com/rugby/smcmahon/israel-folau-hell-awaits-anti-gay-message/ I'm half inclined to open a twitter account and troll the crap out of him!
  12. Have been reading about this in the news the last few days. Awesome progress! https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/111775966/something-no-human-has-seen-before-the-firstever-photograph-of-a-black-hole-will-likely-be-unveiled-next-week?rm=a#comments https://www.stuff.co.nz/science/111953923/how-did-scientists-capture-the-black-hole-image
  13. So the study was from 1961 to 2016. The OP study is recent and they note it may require a review of key papers released prior. Might be a space to watch? Weird, reread the OP article. In it they say this: So it's growing.... but still losing more ice than it gains. So the fact that it's growing is kinda irrelevant if it has a net loss? Doesn't take a genius to figure out if you lose more than you gain it will continue to contribute to sea level rise.
  14. https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/111889787/global-warming-is-shrinking-glaciers-faster-than-thought#comments Can't find the actual study. Why don't these people link the actual studies? Morons. If anyone comes across the actual study, which might have a completely different title, please link. I'll keep looking. So my question would be, is the Greenland slowing glacier an outlier, in a trend of shrinking glaciers, or is all the data wrong and glaciers are not shrinking?