That would be ...
BobbyBobbie, now blocked.
He, she or it, as of the new mods (before or after I was banned I'm not sure) claims that the rule on "cite your academic sources" was made applicable to lower-level comments more than a year ago. News to me. The poster says, "delete it then," and BobbyBobbie the mod says: "That's the neat part; I already did." A junior Naugrith and another Nazi.
And, on AskAChristian, about justifying her morals, after accusing an agnostic or atheist of circular reasoning, this circular reasoning of his, hers or its:
How do I justify their existence? I thought it would have been pretty obvious: they are expressions of God's will and binding upon all moral creatures as the inheritors of a system, not the creator of it.
Whether or not this creates any supposed dilemma is besides the point. The mere existence of them is supported by theism, and imo unable to be grounded under atheism.
got a rebuke and a block (along with an accusation of being more a Nazi than Naugrith, calling her a 1930s partisan of a Central European state). It's also "interesting" that the atheist to whom she was responding, their comment is now deleted. Such TOLERANCE!
No comments:
Post a Comment