I'm not concerned about hurt feelings. I like that OLO is robust. Yet I come here seeking discussion or interaction that might be meaningful. Name calling and slander doesn't fit the bill.

In just your last few posts aimed at me, you've called me: ‘liar’, ‘child abuser’, ‘motivated by fear’, and ‘paranoid’.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15642#272168

After the November article by Bill Muehlenberg on Australian Broadcasting Corporation bias, I gave further example of the type of abuse and bigotry perpetrated by this tax payer funded monolith. 

I probably should take some of the blame, as I should have known better than to give you such an open door. For in your usual contrariness, you were quick to jump on board. 

anyhow..re earlier mention..of 'dark matter'
the search tERM=wimps..seems the latest..THINKING
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=WIMPS+NEUTRINOS

lest we forget..they [wimps]..[antimatter][repel]
are fundamental..To the MATTER..and matter clumps/ATTRACTS.

that said..THE previous posts have made me saD
such giants of mind..yet wimps..AT Heart..I SO WOULD LIKE TO DEFEND SOME OF THE CREATIONIST CONCEPTS..but one thing is sure//scientists never done the big bang..[thats my fundamentalist base...its NOT MEN..NOW WHAT?]

the fundamentals are just to 'neat'..for fluke or chance
energy..becomes mass..mass changes state..its energy..DOING WHAT ENERGY DOES..change state....MEN LIVE..men die..we build..WE DESTROY..seems energy can do anYTHING..but change minds.

from
http://www.blacklistednews.com/We_Need_to_Talk_About_the_Sheeple/32170/0/0/0/Y/M.html

Can any argument be sincere if we approach it from the assumption that the discussion is already over and that at this point our role is to educate others? Who are we to judge who is “awake” and “asleep”, anyway? When we call someone a “Sheeple” we deny their inner life and their humanity; that they have deliberated important matters yet have arrived at conclusions different from our own. It’s an inability to accept that someone might have their own reasons for feeling or thinking something, and a refusal to accept that nobody came and put us in charge.

Particularly vexing are those moments in which we fling labels like “asleep” or “sheeple” at those who disagree with us while we are supposedly warning them about “the elites.” There’s an irony there that seems to escape unnoticed, one evocative of Nietzsche’s warning to those who fight monsters.

What is “awake” anyway, and how does one become qualified to divide humanity into the wheat and the chaff? There is an allure to simplistic assumptions like these. Is “asleep” a term that we should dare apply to others based on one or two issues upon which we find disagreement? By doing so, we close ourselves to both finding common ground as well as learning ways in which we might be “asleep” as well, for surely we’re all “asleep” in our own ways. All of us can sometimes be found happily munching grass in the sheeple pasture. I do it and you do it, whether we know it or not.

Oh, please, Dan S de Merengue.

>>In just your last few posts aimed at me, you've called me: ‘liar’, ‘child abuser’, ‘motivated by fear’, and ‘paranoid’.<<

I was pointing out that a third party was - in context - reasonably justified in using that language towards a different third party. To imagine that as a personal attack on yourself is simply perverse.

But by accusing me of dastardly dealing at least you have managed to divert our conversation away from the facts at issue here, which I suppose is a victory of sorts for you.

>>The two key messages in the article, surely, are i) that the dangerous type of fundamentalism is where "contrary views will usually either be dismissed out-of-hand or resisted with considerable vigour and, often, violence", and ii) that it is the "...intense fear of being wrong that marks out the fundamentalist from the person who is open-minded and/or conscientious."<<

Do you disagree with either of these statements?

Pericles,
Let's be clear about what you said:
"And it is not a particularly controversial to describe the teaching of lies to impressionable minds as a form of abuse." (Pericles, 19/11/2013)

Do you stand by your words? Am I, in teaching Biblical truths, a liar and a child abuser?

Of course I do, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Do you stand by your words?<<

But, as you pointed out earlier, context is critical.

>>It means whatever you want it to mean in a context.<<

So let's have another look at your concerns.

>>Pericles, Let's be clear about what you said: "And it is not a particularly controversial to describe the teaching of lies to impressionable minds as a form of abuse."

First of all, let's agree on the substance of my observation. I assume that you would heartily agree that teaching lies to children is a form of abuse? You might like to answer yes or no to that before moving on...

Yes?

Ok.

So by a process of elimination, this is where you feel aggrieved:

>>Am I, in teaching Biblical truths, a liar and a child abuser?<<

If you are teaching "truths", then of course you are not a liar. But by qualifying it with the word biblical, you are muddying the waters. So let's revisit that all-important context...

>>In order to believe it as you do, it is necessary to apply a literal interpretation to the Bible. In order to take the words of the bible literally, it is necessary to accept its religious foundations. In order to accept its religious foundations, you need faith. Ergo, young earth creationism cannot be described as factual.<<

Unless you can find a discontinuity in the logic of the above, then we can move on to the conclusions that you find so distasteful:

>>Therefore it was entirely accurate to describe teaching young-earth creationism as promulgating lies - that is, passing off a faith-based belief as factual.<<

Since the article did not refer to you, there is no way you can accuse me of describing you as a liar, or a child abuser.

If you now tell me that you do indulge in the practice of teaching young-earth creationism as fact (as opposed to proffering a theory for discussion), then you should examine whether you are, in essence, attempting to influence young minds towards your own, factually baseless, beliefs.

It's that straightforward, really.