Comment of the Day, #1

Every now and then, somebody will post a comment that so perfectly captures a fact or opinion or mood or frame of mind that I am staggered by its perfection. I’ve only highlighted such comments once or twice in the past, but I’ve been tempted to do it on many occasions. Therefore, I am now instituting the “Comment of the Day”. When I find such comments, I will honor them with their own post, to make it easier for others to find and appreciate this perfection. (The writer of the comment gets my admiration, but nothing else. This blog isn’t making any money, folks, so I have nothing for prizes.)

And yes, as you can tell by the title, this will be a daily feature! You may be thinking “Oh no! That’s impossible! There aren’t enough good comments to find a perfect one every day!” Ahh, but that’s where you’re wrong! Have you learned nothing from the fundies? Since when did facts matter? Since when has logic applied? I am going to use the definition of “day” from Genesis! Nobody knows how long one of God’s days is. That means you’ll see a new Comment of the Day at some impossible and undefined interval. The first one is today. The next one may be next week, next month, or after the Sun goes nova.

One of the more highly-evolved fundies

Today’s comment comes to us from Sue Blue. In the comments to the article “Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ!”, Sue Blue writes:

Jeeezus! Every time I think this country’s scraped the very bottom of the barrel of stupidity, the bottom drops out. One wonders if these fine, flag-wavin’ Amerkan folks have nothing left but bloody stumps from a lifetime of knuckle-dragging.

Congratulations, Sue Blue! You have achieved perfection!

11 Responses to “Comment of the Day, #1”

  1. Troy Says:

    If you want a longer day but not something vaguely defined as the Genesis “day” may I suggest there are slower rotating worlds in the solar system:Mercury and Venus. On Venus the year is actually shorter than the day. The moon’s day is about a month makes computation all the easier.

  2. Ron Britton Says:

    That’s way too scientific. I like the fundie approach to this. It means whatever you want it to mean!

  3. Lilyana Says:

    Since a day is such an indefinite amount of time, what the fundies are really telling me when they say that the second coming is at hand, is that the second coming is still many, many years to come long after global warming has wiped the face of the planet. (Much like Paul claimed that the second coming was coming soon to a street corner near you! way back in the day, and when it didn’t, excuse time. Thus the origin of this odd distortional distinction.) But hey, they’ve managed to line their pockets on all that illegitimate oil money, so they can totally afford to buy that desolate patch of land over there. Definitely the time to buy in to the market. Rock bottom prices! Plus, they’ll be safe in their space bubbles. Oh wait, that’s right, they forgot to give NASA any funding. Oh well. We’ll explore the universe and work on our space colonies some other time.

    On the subject of global warming, how long do you think before fundies start claiming that it’s god’s way of wiping the planet clean, kind of like the flood, only this time it’s the rapture? Would I be doing the devil’s work by being a little environmentally aware? I guess I couldn’t be the anti-christ then though. I’m not really the crazy hippie marching through the forest to stop every last tree from being cut down type. Damn. And here I was hoping it would be me.

  4. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Lilyana – I’m not sure they’ll ever say global climate change is part of God’s wrath because they are so far stuck in denial-land, that they can’t even admit that it is a real phenomena.

    As for environmental awareness being the devil’s work, why I’ve actually heard that argument before! Wish I could remember where, I’d post a link… Maybe somebody else has a better memory than I.

  5. LadyRavana Says:

    Ya know PL, I would ask if you were joking…but, sadly, I know you’re not.

    Knowing Fundies…I guess ecological responsibility is the devil’s work.

    So…Satan is the one telling us not to rape the planet, huh? God says “Go forth and multiply! Pollute! Make all my other creations go extinct, I don’t care! Feel free to heat up the planet! Screw the polar bear! And the penguin! And the caribou! To hell with the rainforests, I gave you this earth, and YOU should have complete dominion over it! If that means killing the lungs of the planet, then go right ahead! Jesus is gonna come back. Err…soon?”

    *shakes head*

    That logic honestly melts my brainmeats. I can feel it leaking out of my ears.

    *feels that twitching nerve start up in the left side of her skull* And there it is again…*rubs temples and pops aspirin*

  6. Sue Blue Says:

    I’m honored to have rated the “Comment of the Day” award! Especially since it could be a non-twenty-four-hour day, like in the bible – one of those unspecified time periods before God flipped the switch on the sun and moon. Queen for a God-day is really cool!!

  7. Lilyana Says:

    I wish it were possible to find reasonable thought and intelligence abounding on the subject of environmentalism. On the one side, you have a group of people who think they should get to do whatever, whenever, to trash it how they see fit despite that we all share the same planet. On the other side, you have a group of people who are concerned about somewhat superficial aspects of it or things that are just plain wrong and don’t bother to research it. Makes me want to say a few words to both sides. So I will.

    God may live in god days, but we live in people days. And in people days, global warming is rapidly approaching and scientists aren’t blathering idiots who make up whatever they feel like and then dogmatically adhere to it. We all know what that’s called and it isn’t science. Solar panels and hybrid batteries are bad. Their production creates massive amounts of ozone killer. Get a smaller car with high gas mileage. Recycling is an industrial process. Only 40% actually gets recycled. Aside from aluminum, recycling makes things worse than just using plentiful landfill space that produce energy and making it fresh. Unless it’s local grown, refrigeration and preservation of organic foods is worse than getting genetically modified foods. Old trees release CO2, new ones absorb lots of it. Logging is done through tree farms, the forests will be ok. There is a problem with over-logging in some places. Target the real problem areas. Stop worrying about spotting a single endangered bird. Evidence shows that the Endangered Species Act doesn’t work. Animals removed from the list were done so because of external influences unrelated to the ill-designed act. The trend of the planet is that most species go extinct anyway. Even if some higher being is going to come down and destroy the Earth, why don’t we make the best of it until then?

    @Sue: Your comment of the day actually reminds me that not only is the sheer amount of stupidity incredibly sad as is, but even worse because most fundies I encounter have two decades or more in age over myself. I fear when someone in her very early 20s can outwit such a huge portion of the middle-aged population who has had much more time and experience to learn. Also, I should have said this sooner, but congrats on making the first official comment of the day with impressive wit and humor.

  8. Parrotlover77 Says:

    im not exactly sure where you are getting your info from (sean hannity?) but recycling is WAY better than land fill. recycled aluminum (for example) takes far less energvy than mined aluminum to produce. if I was on my computer id write more. on my phone on vacation. why am I posting?? im addicted to BOF! I just couldn’t let that fallacy go unchallenged.

  9. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Lilyana – Back on my PC so I can respond to more points. First, recycling plastics (since you conceded on aluminum already), is simply a matter of melting the plastic, filtering it, then molding it, essentially. Producing plastics from raw materials takes far more work. The endangered species act has saved countless species (uh… bald eagle anyone?) and they are removed when their populations bounce back or, occassionally and sadly, due to political pressures. Organic food is a more gray area. For the most part, it’s more ecologically sound since there are far fewer (but certainly not zero) dangerous chemicals going into the ground water and poisoning wildlife. However, buying LOCAL is even better since transporation of food is some of the largest part of food’s so-called carbon footprint which might even be worse. Local AND organic is really about the best you can go ecologically. Now if you factor in land density, the issue gets even more gray. Certainly massive amounts of chemicals can produce more food per acre (as can GMO), but at what cost? Millions (literally) of birds die from chemical run-off each year. Being a “parrot lover,” that cost absolutely breaks my heart. So I will concede that it’s a gray area in that “buying organic” doesn’t do anything to save the world, but that wasn’t really the intent to begin with. The intent was health (fear of chemicals/etc.).

    The old tree/new tree argument sounds like something Reagan said once (trees are the largest contributors of greenhouse gases – or something to that effect). That is patently false. Whether young trees absorb more CO2, I am not certain. But the NET effect of essentially any living tree is less CO2. There are other roles for old trees too, such as habitat. You can’t grow a several hundred foot tree overnight. Yes, many logging firms are fairly good at properly maintaining renewable trees, but not all.

    So, anyway, in conclusion, Rush Limbaugh is not a good source of ecological living.

  10. Bunkie Says:

    On the carbon dioxide (CO2)/young versus old tree issue……

    While trees, through respiration, do give off CO2, it was found that only 34% of the CO2 given off by the tree actually made it into the air. The rest is locked up in the tree’s sap.
    http://abstracts.aspb.org/pb2007/public/P01/P01039.html

    In a study, simulations of carbon storage suggested that conversion of old-growth forests to young fast-growing forests would not decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/247/4943/699

    The younger trees are using some of the CO2 given, given off by the older more mature trees, and using it for growth – because releasing CO2 is not all that trees do.

    Trees take in CO2 (with water and light) to produce O2 (oxygen) – which it releases into the air – and food (sugars) to grow on:

    6H2O + 6CO2 ———> C6H12O6 + 6O2

    This is photosynthesis. The tree needs this energy to grow, produce leaves and repair itself.

    Did you know that the daily oxygen requirement of ten people can be met by a single mature beech tree but, it would require 2,700 saplings to do the same.
    http://www.stewardwood.org/woodland/tree_value.htm

    So, let’s not be too hasty to knock off the older trees and replace them with young ones.

  11. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Thanks, Bunkie. That was awesome. This is well outside my area of expertise and even borderline on my “hobbies” so I’m glad somebody with some scientific knowledge on the issue is beating back those absurd claims! When I got back to my office this AM after vacation, there was the letter that the president of the weather channel wrote to Al Gore on my desk. What a crock. Shorter version: Al Gore makes gas prices higher. Gimme a break. Want to take bets on if that joker is a fundie?