Reply #90: No [View All]

[mogster]

They value the jumping, erratic fundamentalist debate; where one's not arguing in an open manner to find out what happened, but already have made up their mind, subsequently the debate becomes a battlefield where they:
1. Evade the points in the argument that conflicts with their view
2. Try to project a number of percieved opinions upon their 'opponent' (that would be me), a natural stance that comes from
3. The blacksacking of their debate 'opponent' as a conspiracy theorist, where he/she inherits eveything said about the current topic - no matter how silly - that has the opposing view that they carry

The Christian fundies I debate at home think I'm mad for suggesting that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that there exists Americans that don't support Bush, that John Kerry is anything but a Maoist communist (AND a selfish capitalist), et cetera.

They most certainly see themselves as analytical and open minded people, though.

You say your argument still stands, yet I just rationalized that bombs probably weren't a part of the threat picture on the plane. Four hijackers with knives and box cutters supposedly held more than 50 passengers at bay while a dip-shit lousy pilot were propelling them towards their death, taking the almost incredible care to hit the outer wall of the Pentagon instead of plunging the god damn plane into the eye of evil, as seen from above. As another sceptic said, hitting the parking lot would only produce 36 or so virgins, so you'd think the howlin' (but cold, well-trained and efficent) fanatics would see the outer wall of the section that was being repaired to produce not as many virgins as the smack down in the middle hit.