In addition to being a contemptible ghoul who uses a tragedy to attack an unrelated concept, evolutionary biology (we are all on the same page, right? The evidence so far is that the Virginia Tech killer was a mentally ill young man with a confused Christ complex, not a ruthless atheist proponent of evolution who was following the advice of Charles Darwin’s ghost), this “full time creation evangelist” Grady McMurtry makes a revealing admission:
Therefore, he [McMurtry] asserts, people should not be surprised when mass shootings occur, such as the one on the Blacksburg university campus on Monday. “And at Virginia Tech, what do we have?” he asks rhetorically. “We have a person who, unfortunately, thought that humans had no more value than cats and dogs — and unfortunately, I think, probably felt the same way about themselves.”
The creationist continues explaining his premise. “And so what happens? If we are nothing but thinking animals, [and] if you have excess people, then you can just put them in a bag, throw them in the river the way you would too many kittens or too many puppies.”
What was that last line? Being an evolutionist means you’re as casual about human deaths as creationists are about killing kittens and puppies?
CREATIONISTS DROWN PUPPIES!!?!
Puppies?
And kittens?
I dare not contemplate what they would do to the cute little ducklings. And think of the bunnies! Dear god, don’t let the creationists near the adorable baby bunnies!
I have to go lie down, I’m so distraught.
Every time a creationist spouts off about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, god kills a kitten.
They make Bunny cry!
Of course, as we can infer from this straw man, and I always do: Creationists don’t believe that life has any value unless some random, undefinable, unknowable magic thing tells them it does. Never know which direction they’ll flip-flop.
Duh, it is just like what God will do at the end times, toss us into a lake of fire (river, whatever) although I don’t think He’ll use a Bag. Makes perfect Sense.
Typical emotional immaturity. It is similar to one discovering fire and then concluding that “now we must go around burning people”. To understand something that is indifferent does not immediately mean to embrace that discovery.
Even before I got to the second paragraph and the bold sentence, I already had the image of Grady going around shooting 32 cats and dogs simply because “they have it so easy.”
In the mean time, we have news about suicide bombers killing that many people every single day, and all that the Bible believing crowd does is shrug their shoulders, claiming that it is all collateral damage that we should endure while working towards a “victory”, which today can only be defined as “saving Republicans’ behind in ’08 elections.”
QUOTE Creationists don’t believe that life has any value unless some random, undefinable, unknowable magic thing tells them it does.
i know that this thread is a parody of the semi-illiterate [yeah, i know, i but can’t type] way that some of them speak but, i think that’s what scares me the most about creos/fundies …….ive spoken to several (mostly male)who’ve all said that they would rape and kill if it wasn’t for Jesus/God or who’ve said that IF THEY WERE SURE that God ordered it, they would kill strangers and family
You want to worry? Consider what they do to cephalopods!
That kitten may look cute, but how do we know it is not thinking “Mmm … a l’Orange or plain?”
It makes perfect sense, actually.
You see, while creationists do not believe in evolution, they have taken Malthus’ ideas about population and food supply to heart and they realize that dogs, cats and even bunnies compete for food that rightfully belongs to humans.
So the less cats and dogs there are, the more tender vittles there will be for people down the road.
Even if you do have a surplus of kittens and puppies, as Dwarf Fortress has taught us, the appropriate way to deal with them is to slaughter them for meat, bones, and leather.
And as to cute little ducklings and cute little bunnies — wait until they grow up, and eat them.
The problem is, those damn dogs and cats refuse to learn about abstinence-only methods of birth control, and therefore their babies deserve to be put to death. However, it would be far better to stone them than to drown them.
FSM forbid that someone, somewhere on the internet describe one of these comtemptible ghouls with a curse word. We might have to read another flurry of completely unironic newspaper articles and op-eds about how uncivil liberals on the internets are.
Oh, but those bunnies grow up…
So, this is an example of “framing,” right?
Watch a video of MN Rep. Mark Olson (Republican, Big Lake) ranting about the “theory of biological origin defined in the Declaration of Independence”. KSTP had a report on Rep. Mark Olson bizarre performance at the Capitol on Wednesday… Watch a video of the KSTP report at KSTP.com
Simply deranged thinking.
No, the creationist isnt trying to frame anything. He is just saying that he cant see the problem in drowning animals.
Do you suppose they might try to drown excess squids too?
Unfortunately, this is true.
My (late) Catholic grandmother used to bury kittens alive because it was God’s way to control the cat population. Spaying or neutering was apparently immoral.
When was the last time you saw a puppy, kitty, or bunny in a church? These are Godless creatures who practice premarital fornication. They don’t even know the 10 Commandments, much less honor them. Good Christians understand that they must be stopped or our American way of life will end.
Kill a kitty for Christ!
Drowning all the cats and dogs is just a cover for their efforts to exterminate the bunnies. The bunnies are proof that Intelligent Design is wrong, much like the banana is proof that there is an intelligent designer.
(Of course, the banana does have an intelligent designer … it’s a domesticate)
Sonja:
I wasn’t suggesting that the creationist was “framing” anything
I would suggest, in fact, that this is an example of PZ “framing” the creationist’s position by choosing a provocative title for the post and by including cute pictures to engage our sympathies for the animals. I might even suggest that the post is in part a demonstration of PZ’s disdain of the tactic of framing. But maybe I’m reading too much into it…
I think we have strong meme potential here. Let’s make sure anyone who uses this stupid argument gets labeled as a puppy drowner or something.
Oh now now, don’t forget that kooky creationist Kazmer Ujvarosy who claims that ….
So don’t be surprised to see bunnies and ducks and kittens and rats and turtles and mosquitoes in church this Sunday (don’t look for Bears, because their pure evil).
Greg: Wow. I think that video makes McMurtry’s point. And you make a good point about the bunnies. In fact, the entire natural world is just sitting out there as flagrant evidence of evolution. Perhaps that is why Republicans aren’t interested in protecting it.
“they’re”
duh
This made me happy.
http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0704/ds041807czar.mov
I can’t imagine throwing puppies into a bad and drowning them. What a great way to prove exactly the opposite of his point.
Congratulations, PZ! You finally understand framing!
Ah, I see that I’m not the first to notice this. :-)
It is in cases like this I wish scifi stories were true. Because I know some animals that I would have no Tribble to sic on the creos…
I must go and fetch more coffee, since my first thought upon reading this was that they were acting out a ‘No Republicans Left Behind’ policy.
It is in cases like this I wish scifi stories were true. Because I know some animals that I would have no Tribble to sic on the creos…
I must go and fetch more coffee, since my first thought upon reading this was that they were acting out a ‘No Republicans Left Behind’ policy.
“The bunnies are proof that Intelligent Design is wrong”
No doubt. An intelligent designer wouldn’t make an adorable, big shiney-eyed, fuzzy mammal that would squeal and kick you with it’s strong and claw-tipped hind feet when you make the slightest attempt to snuggle it.
I’ve spoken to several (mostly male)who’ve all said that they would rape and kill if it wasn’t for Jesus/God or who’ve said that IF THEY WERE SURE that God ordered it, they would kill strangers and family…
Yep. Scary.
And then, of course, there are the folk who (reputedly) invade middle-Eastern nations on the instructions of such voices in their head.
Let’s all try to remember the important lesson David Berkowitz apparently forgot: if your neighbour’s dog tells you to kill somebody, you don’t go do it.
No. You just say, “Bad dog!”.
I’m a little scared now… being a rabbit and all.
No really, too funny. Who actually says this sort of thing?
I am getting this image of future society as being a bunch of obese bible-and-gun-toting creationists who drive SUVs and drown puppies on a Saturday afternoon for fun….
Fortunately, I am a Darwinist, so I know that’s unlikely to happen.
And there are some that are sure, apparently:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6557679.stm
“Framing” is accusing your opponent of drowning bunnies? You mean it actually has the same meaning as it’s usage in old gangster movies?
Well, the bunnies deserve to die for stealing Easter from Jesus.
Rodents are far more common… ;-)
Actually I knew lots of X-tians/creationists while growing up in a small town who thought nothing of animal life or proper treatment of them. One pastor I knew would pull dogs up by their neck with a chain, and then beat them. Another guy would take litters of puppies out and execute them with a firearm due to their unwanted status.
“Consider what they do to cephalopods!”
Dip ’em in marinara?
(I do!)
Please, please promise me that you won’t let creationists drown those cute little aminals pictured!
Grady reveals much about himself and those who agree with him that the only reason he doesn’t drown humans the way he’d apparently drown kittens is that God has essentially told him not to.
Which means all it takes is for Grady to perceive that God has told him to kill people, a la Moses, and viola! Killing becomes a godly exercise, just like it was for the 9/11 attackers.
Of course the fact that Cho’s screeds were filled with Christian imagery somehow doesn’t seem to lay any responsibility of his actions on Christianity. Can you imagine the feeding frenzy had he been babbling about Darwin instead?
“If we are nothing but thinking animals [….]”
McMurtry would be glad to know that I don’t consider him a thinking animal.
McMurthy’s blog closes thusly: “Dr. McMurtry taught evolution for 20 years in public schools before he became a creationist and eventually accepted Christ as his Savior and Lord.” suggesting that he discovered how evil Darwin was, then found true science, THEN found out about the love of his life. I wonder if he should add, “not necessarily in that order!?”
And did you see his poll for today?
“What has contributed MOST to the lack of respect for human life seen in America today?”
Banning prayer in public schools
Teaching the evolution theory as fact
Legalizing abortion-on-demand
Glorifying violence in the media
Failing to reach the lost with the Gospel
I can’t believe he forgot to mention the Democratic Party and evil activist judges. His software must limit him to 5 choices.
Bunnies aren’t just cute like everybody supposes
They’ve got those hoppy legsand twitchy little noses
And what’s with all those carrots???
What do they need such good eyesight for???????
I like bunnies. But puppies are more fun.
The funny thing is that I doubt he can find any publicly outspoken atheist that thinks the extermination of people is the way to handle “excess people”. Most “smart” people favor education and birth control.
Two things he would never support.
I argue I value life more than alot of christians do. They seem to value the afterlife more.
Cho didn’t value human life because he most likely felt he was given no value… he may have been hoping the afterlife would be a better place.
Continuing from The Ridger…
Bunnies! Bunnies! It must be Bunnies!!!!
I hear Bush liked to blow up frogs but quite unlike the people who put kittens in bags, he apparently enjoyed actually seeing the results of his handiwork.
The following is from GEORGE W. BUSH’S JOURNEY
A Philosophy With Roots in Conservative Texas Soil
We were terrible to animals,” recalled Mr. Throckmorton, laughing. A dip behind the Bush home turned into a small lake after a good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out.
“Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them,” Mr. Throckmorton said. “Or we’d put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up.”
When he was not blowing up frogs, young George — always restless and something of a natural leader — would lead neighborhood children on daredevil expeditions around town, seeing how close they could come to breaking their necks.”
Shh don’t tell CuteOverload they will be out of a job.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
So how come cats aren’t extinct yet?
Here’s the phrase that nettles me most: “nothing but thinking animals.” Asphinctersayswha?! “Nothing but”?! We’re not a dime a dozen, we thinking animals. We’re vanishingly rare in kind, if not number. That’s like saying “nothing but a 14-inch penis.” Yeah, it’s a penis, but that’s a SPECTACULAR penis. The untamed and irrational use of those “merelys” and “onlys” and “justs,” followed hard upon by the most singular kinds of features imagineable, are signal not merely of illogic, but of damnable lying. If this puke isn’t buggered eternally (14 inches, baby–where did you think I got the analogy from?) for his cruelty to cute critters, than maybe he will be for his putrid lies.
Thanks for the 14 inch penis mental picture.
Dr. Ujvarosy says
“The prediction that exclusively human beings pray to the Creator of the universe can be falsified by the demonstration that creatures above or below the level of our intelligence pray to the Creator as well.”, eh? He makes it too easy. . .
Take this, Kazmer!!
http://www.okiedee.com/Tube-jpgs/OkieDee-Easter_Praying_Bunny.jpg
And this!!!
http://www.samliquidation.com/images/alien_with_Jesus.gif
Applause. I will never again lack a response to those who claim evolution makes us as unimportant as “mere” animals.
Who knew ol’ PZ had a soft spot for bunnies?
Greg Peterson said ” but a 14-inch penis.” Yeah, it’s a penis, but that’s a SPECTACULAR penis.”
Spectacular is in the eye of the beholder — or perhaps just the holder.
Thanks, PZ, for reminding me about the rabbit in the freezer. I need to go dig up that recipe for rabbit stew.
People hold dominion over all animals; we can do what we damned well want to them. Right?
I went to a wedding a few years ago where they served sea cucumber. Now, I love Chinese food (and, in fact, I love all different kinds of cuisine), but for some reason, I just cannot stomach sea cucumber. One of my mottos is, “Let the sea cucumber live.”
When I said no thanks (politely, by the way), I heard the Christian at the table mutter that we have dominion over all animals on the planet.
But why can’t I just not like the stuff? What’s wrong with that?
Oh well, I guess I broke a biblical edict to eat everything that moves, even if I don’t like the way it tastes. And no, I didn’t try to stop the Christian from eating his cuke. He likes it? Fine. Who am I to judge?
I personally like the ducklings in these pictures. Prepared properly, I think duck is very tasty (even if I’m not partial to Chinese-style roast duck. The roast duck I had in France, though, was AWESOME).
Typical emotional immaturity. It is similar to one discovering fire and then concluding that “now we must go around burning people”. To understand something that is indifferent does not immediately mean to embrace that discovery.
oops. NOW you tell me.
guess I’ll return that new flamethrower I just bought.
*sigh*
Thanks for the chuckle, PZ. This one is going in the permanent archive.
Of course the fact that Cho’s screeds were filled with Christian imagery somehow doesn’t seem to lay any responsibility of his actions on Christianity. Can you imagine the feeding frenzy had he been babbling about Darwin instead?
Good lord almighty. If the word ‘Darwin’ or ‘evolution’ had occurred once anywhere in any of Cho’s writings the frenzy would be category five. The frenzy would create a mass of self-righteous accusations so dense that an event horizon would form. Darwinist literature would then be tossed into the singularity as appeasement to ensure the survival of the destined American race.
Hmm, now I must chuckle as I realize the appropriateness of this scenerio — their own lack of scientific knowledge leading them into feeding a singularity extra mass. Seems about par for the course.
guess I’ll return that new flamethrower I just bought.
Woah, woah there, fishy. Let’s not be hasty. That wouldn’t happen to be a 14mm Strahlrohr in your pocket, would it?
I don’t want my 14-inch penis anywhere NEAR the eye of a Beholder. For one thing, it’d get dispelled pretty damn quick…
As for RevBDC’s ‘mental picture’, I’d link to an ‘actual picture’ but a)censorware would never let me find one on this computer, 2)not everyone here wants to see pictures of a 14 inch penis, and D)it’s easy to go find one on your own, so why should I bother?
Stogoe, have you been using Polymorph spells to get chicks again?
dude, a hilarious post. thanks. made me laugh.
(Of course I thought of this just as I hit Post.)
If I recall correctly, the antimagic field only suppresses spells; they resume functioning once it goes away. This implies stogoe wants the 14-inch penis and the beholder together…
I’d like to see some creationists try to drown my chinchilla. Chico would rip their fingers off before he’d touch water. Practically hydrophobic, he is.
Really, though, this is sick. That guy is messed up.
Aigh. I don’t even have a cervix and yet the bruising is painful to contemplate. :(
That’s your cue to remind them about Leviticus 11:10-12.
Brings this to mind:
Dead puppies aren’t much fun
They don’t come when you call
They don’t chase squirrels at all
Dead puppies aren’t much fun
God kills a kitten everyday. Creationists don’t believe in the “chance” of a cat walking in front of a car. Creationists believe that God knew that the cat was going to walk in front of the car.
Folks, you kill puppies for Satan. And since fundies are willing to kill puppies…
The creationist continues explaining his premise. “And so what happens? If we are nothing but thinking animals, [and] if you have excess people, then you can just put them in a bag, throw them in the river the way you would too many kittens or too many puppies.”
1) nothing but thinking animals.
Well now, my mother told me when I was small that people were a kind of animal. She said the difference was that we could decide and act in ways that critters couldn’t. As I grew and observed I saw that this idea explained many things.
2) if you have excess people
Is that a particular number, the result of intensive computer simulation involving algorithms and intuition unknown to most or is that just how many it takes to clog one’s valves?
3) just put them in a bag, throw them in the river the way you would too many kittens or too many puppies.
I have dispatched animals. I have not dispatched people. My father showed me that sometimes a human is forced to take life from animals. The facts that his animals fed thousands and put clothes on my back are persuasive arguments for fact.
In all, to accuse people of being more cruel to each other than we are to animals, and to make that the point of further condemnation of people like me (and you, and you, and … ) is not only dishonest but lazy, indulgent and blandly unconvincing.
I speak only from my own limited experience. What I have observed is that people treat animals marginally better than the treat other people. The difference is small. Therefore when one uses a term such as “If we are nothing but thinking animals, [and] if you have excess people, then you can just . . . ” (fill in the blank) one admits that one is making an emotional, not a rational appeal.
See, this is the sort of thing that makes me suspect that if God does exist, he is sort of appalled at an awful lot of His followers.
The sacrifice of Isaac always bugged me, big time, in Hebrew school. Because, you know what? Killing is wrong. Even if God tells you to, even if you’re really sure He means it, even if He’s very, very insistent. It’s still wrong. That “Thou shalt not kill” is there for a reason, and God doesn’t get takebacks on it. (Yes, I realize we got the Ten Commandments well after Abraham’s day, but I’m making a point here. Shh.)
Killing doesn’t get any less wrong if there’s no God, either. Removing a life from the world is a big deal, especially if that life is sentient, and *especially* if that life isn’t going on to anything after death.
Any person who needs the constant threat of damnation to refrain from murder is missing the point in a fairly serious way.
for some reason, I just cannot stomach sea cucumber.
Maybe because it’s a slimy filter-feeder? (Have you ever handled one of those things live?)
My standard answer to “dominion over the beasts” is to invoke their own terminology: “And on Judgement day, God’s gonna ask you, ‘how have you cared for all those creatures I gave into your stewardship?'”
Of course, the corollary implies that a belief in God precludes killing people. …Right?
…Right?
Could it be just an instance of lack of respect for Life in general? Life is already 3 or 4 billion years old and by rights, most of it (and many of the best bits) should be in the future, but religion teaches that none of it counts. The actual future (as opposed to the imaginary future ‘afterlife’) simply doesn’t come up as an issue for most believers, which is a real problem.
Cute bunnies?!
http://www.thisnext.com/item/8398F2C1/monty-python-killer-rabbit
Pygmie’s and Dwarves of course.
What is it with me and random incorrect punctuation.
“‘”
“I’ll quote the bible
’cause that’s where it’s written
If ye loveth Jesus
Ye must kill a kitten”
-Stephen Lynch