There was a time when, not having taken part in long arguments at ARN and other forums, I did not understand why so many of my friends in the anti-creationist community held Sal Cordova in such low esteem. Alas, my interactions with him on this blog over the last couple years have brought me up to speed on that subject. Though he tries very hard at all times to appear high-minded and civil, he is in fact a deceitful, vile little toady. And this post is a perfect example.
He posts an email invitation to a seminar on feminism and safe sex, which he uses as a jumping off point to discuss “Darwinist inspired unsafe sex.”
You see, once upon a time, an ill-advised Darwinist did not practice safe sex, but rather unsafe sex — with a horse!!!! Unfortunately for him, he died a few hours after copulating with a horse, not too far from the Discovery Institute’s headquarters.
Ah yes, the ubiquitous use of the word “Darwinist” to mean “anyone I disapprove of.” What does this horse-fucker have to do with evolution? Nothing whatsoever. But who cares? It’s a useful smear either way. Sal even constructs an idiotic argument to justify it:
In the Darwinist world, animals and humans are the same, and thus it is logical they should copulate with each other.
I’ll take moronic non-sequiturs for $1000, Alex. Now Sal’s response will no doubt be, “Hey, I labeled this as humor; you guys just can’t take a joke.” Except that in the comments on the post, he continues to try to make this perfectly serious argument. When someone stated the obvious, that the overwhelming majority of “Darwinists” (whoever they are) do not advocate beastiality, Sal replies:
That is true, but the bestiality is the logical consequence of Darwinism. Most will not go that far because it is reprehensible to them.
But as more people take Darwinism to its logical conclusion, they will see it for what it really is. I’m helping make it evident to people like Jeremy Mohn what sort of drek they’re trying to shove down the throats of believing children by being a part of KCFS.
There’s really only two choices here. Either Sal really believes this, in which case he is a first class, grade-A fucking moron, or he doesn’t believe it and he’s just using it to smear people he disagrees with. Take your pick. Either way, it’s repulsive.
And while you’re reading that one, take a look at this post too where he quotes me and takes a few potshots. The post is really an attack on PZ Myers and on atheists in general. He calls PZ “the USA’s leading voice for atheism”, something I think PZ himself would deny in a fit of laughter. He shows a picture of PZ in a t-shirt with the red A for atheism on it and he decides to engage in a little juvenile name-calling:
However the fact remains, many associate “Atheist” with the likes of O’Hair and PZ Myers. Thus, it is easy to suppose that “A” doesn’t stand for atheist, but rather for Rectum. I would therefore encourage my dear atheist friends from wearing the “A” as people might perceive them not as atheists but rather as rectums.
Now, I’m not calling PZ a rectum. Not at all. For the record, I think he’s a sweetie pie deep down.
I am simply pointing out he is perceived as a rectum by his comrades and thus probably most people. For example, Darwinist Ed Brayton refers to PZ Myers not as an atheist, but as a rectum:
PZ, you really are just about the biggest rectum I have ever known,….a first class, double-barrelled, fully automatic rectum.
Isn’t that cute? Good Christians like Sal don’t swear, so he’s translated what I said into something more technical sounding. I called PZ an asshole and he’s translated it into “rectum.” How precious. And while I’m sure he thinks that doing so somehow preserves his righteousness, he then goes on to spout this little gem of nastiness:
I realize that Ed, being a fan of sodomites, might remotely be using the term “rectum” as term of endearment, but I don’t think so in this case. Rather, I suppose when Brayton sees pics of Myers in his “A” shirt, he’s probably not thinking “PZ the Atheist”, but rather “PZ the Rectum”.
No Sal, I’m afraid that label belongs squarely to you at this point. PZ and I do not like each other, but on this we can surely agree: you are a vile, sycophantic, classless little worm. I’m sure your mother told you growing up that the best way to make friends was to be yourself, but I suspect that her delusions of your adequacy match your own.
Oh, one more thing. Let’s not forget this idiotic statement:
The reason I would discourage atheists from wearing of the scarlet letter “A” is that some atheists are such bad apples, the bad atheists have given even the good atheists a bad reputation. These bad apples have caused the general public to form a stereotype in their mind that atheists are mean-spiritied amoral people like Madeline Murry O’Hair. O’Hair regularly courted criminals as her cronies and was punished by God through cruel death.
I was certainly no fan of O’Hair, who was about as nasty a human being as I’ve ever encountered. But this speaks far more loudly about Sal and the god he worships than it does about O’Hair. Notice how he lapses into the passive voice? I suspect that’s so he doesn’t have to think through the implications of his claim. Let’s be more specific and put it in the active voice.
According to Sal, God actually sent a murderer to O’Hair to hack her and her son and her granddaughter to pieces and bury them in a shallow grave – literally. They were hacked into so many pieces with a saw that when their bodies were discovered they had to be identified with dental records and DNA testing. Remember that the next time Sal and his cronies blather on about their loving god and how immoral we “Darwinists” are. Absolutely disgusting.