you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

A muscovy duck isn't a duck. Technically.

But if someone complains about all the misbehaving ducks in the pond and your defense for your duck's musbehaviour is "technically not a duck!" you're not really saying anything of worth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    I can only infer from your statement that "Muscovy ducks aren't technically ducks" which you've followed up by stating "anyone who says technically not a duck isn't saying anything worthwhile", means you're telling me what you're saying isn't anything of worth.

    Well, thanks, we already established that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Why would I think this was worthwhile? You "Um Actually"-ed my post about the moral behavior of atheists who get religious about atheism.

    This was only ever a long shot at best.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Ah, but that wasn't what you originally said:

    Atheism is a religious stance, and is practiced like one.

    Don't try to change your argument when it gets proven wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    My man, it's a stance on a theological issue. You don't want to admit that, and I'm not going to force you. What does going "Yah-huh / Nuh-uh" back and forth forever do for anyone?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments