BTW, these are in no particular order save for how I feel like answering them, and could be considered "out of context" were it not for the fact that hyperlinking makes it pretty easy to go back and read the full text, if you're so inclined, provided you have a few aspirin handy.
notice how I changed the subject so many times? Well, it's because I get to without anyone interrupting me, since you have abandoned your own blog site. Maybe you'll come out with a series of "jokes" so that all these lies that you've made will get off the main site easily visible to everyone. Like you did the last time I called you on your lies and misinformation.
Wow. I've abandoned my own site! Yep, mean ol' Willie sure had me running for cover, didn't he?
Will: I have a life. I have a wife, a house, two kids, a dog, and a job. I've been to the gym four nights a week for the past month (7 pounds down, TYMV) and do enjoy playing the occasional video game. I've been busy. It happens. And as for... *sniff*, *cry* all my friends abandoning me? I'm sure they have better things to do with their lives than to constantly check up on a blog that's not being updated, save for some belligerent jackass who thinks it's his personal stage. I don't take their ignoring you anymore personally than I do your wiping your ass all over my blog.
Here's a suggestion: Why don't you try setting up your own blog? Then everyone can ignore the verbal diarrhea you shit out over there as well!
"pursuit of happines." [...] Will Smith would be mad at you.
OK. I could be a joyless shitpale and point out that, in fact, it's CHRIS GARDNER who would be mad at me, BUT... credit where it's due. This DID make me laugh. Touche'.
Bull-crap! You have freedom of religion but you failed to mention that you cannot lead a prayer in school. What part of that is harmful to ANYONE?
Um... Actually I could lead a prayer in school anytime I want: I'm not a teacher or school administrator. In fact, under the very doctrine of the separation of church and state, ALL STUDENTS have the right to pray in school. As for "what harm" is done by a TEACHER leading a school prayer? Hmmm.... I wonder how YOU of all people would feel about that if the teacher in question was Muslim. Or Hindu. Or Buddhist. Or Jewish. Or Wiccan. Or Taoist. Or Shinto. Or Siek. But hey: I'm sure you would feel it was any kind of indoctrination if you're child's teacher was having them pray to Allah or Ganesha, for example, right?
[Niceguy Eddie] "Looks like I was born strait. [...] [William] "Interesting statement. You say it turns you off, but cannot back up that statement with anything other than "the THOUGHT of being with another man".
Yeah, as opposed to the ACT, dipshit. If I've never done it - precisely because it DOES turn me off - on what other basis can I make a comment on the matter? What else could I possibly have to go with? Well... I have a THOUGHT. That might be unfamiliar territory to YOU, but it's pretty much where I LIVE.
I see why you stopped posting at this site. I would too if all my statements and ideals turned out to be based on lies and misinformation.
Well, I've already mentioned why I "stopped" (???) posting: I have a life. Sad that a seldom updated blog should be such a large part of YOURS. As for that second statement? If that were true you'd have stopped after your first post.
So, you admit you have to think about it before you act? If you were truly born straight there would be no thought process involved. However, you need to think about it before you make (made) your decision. How does that fit into your proclamations that people are born gay or straight? This isn't rocket science, you know. If you are truly born straight (or gay) then you would not have to think about who you want as a partner. But, since you DO have to think about it, that shows your stance that you are born gay or straight is based on nothing factual ... again. So, you have no proof you are born gay/straight and you have no belief that you are born gay/straight, yet you seek to garner civil rights for the choice of being gay. REALLY ?!?
First of all, regarding Civil Rights: It is not I who wishes to grant them. It is YOU who wished to continue to deny them on that basis. Even if one's orientation WAS a choice, the only justification to punnish them on that basis is your own medieval superstitions about it.
They both are sins against nature.
Yeah, THAT one. You know what else is, according to religious doctrine and state laws, some of which were only overturned in the past decade? Inter-racial marriage and oral sex. Condoms too, at one point. While we're at it, and as long as were talking about NATURE, I might point out that so is modern medicine, aviation, the Internet, democracy and fat-free frozen yogurt. By I digress.
SECONDLY, getting back to the previous quote, if you do nothing else with the inevitable waste of time you're going to grace us all with, I would ask you to do me one simple favor. PLEASE, for the love of God, and for our understanding, describe the THOUGHT PROCESS you went though in CHOOSING to be strait. I really want to understand this. Because for all your absurd word-twisting, I am left with one simple truth about myself: I was born strait. Period. There was never any doubt in my mind that women were attractive creatures. And I'd bet my left nut that every poster here - who's not named "William" or who's not actually gay themselves - would say the same. (Although they'd say it about BEING GAY.)
[READ THE FOLLOWING VERY CAREFULLY!]
So I really need to understand the process YOU went through, because Will? If you had to actually tangle this out and made a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to pursue women instead of men? If that was not instinctual for you?
You're gay.
(Or Bi-Sexual, I suppose.)
And if it WAS instinctual for you? If there was never any conflict in your mind?
I'm right.
Take your pick.
And they're not mutually exclusive: Both can in fact be true, but they cannot both be false. (Logic, FTW!) Also? A gay man (by MY definition) who marries a woman and live the heterosexual lifestyle? Is still gay. Behavior doesn't change desire. There are terms to describe such men. "In the closet" and "beard" come to mind.
[Niceguy Eddie] "The difference between you and me? Is that I don't give a flying fuck what consenting adults do on their own time." [...] [William] Fully understandable and acknowledged. You know WHY you don't care what consenting adults do on their own time? Because it is there CHOICE to do whatever they want ... as long as no one gets harmed, right(?), including giving each other AIDS/HIV? No, I guess you don't mean THAT kind of harm. You just mean 'other' kinds of harm, not the deadly and un-curable kind of harm. You mean psychological harm, not physical harm, right?
Harm, I define harm very specifically. (See my 'Doctrine of Choice.') But the short answer? Mental, emotional and physical harm, are ALL in fact harm. But you see... Having sex with another man, in and of itself, doesn't give you HIV. See... If I'm with an infected PERSON - male OR female, dumbass - I can get HIV. Not infected? I can ass-fuck them 'til the cows come home and all I'm going to get is calluses. Now if they have it, know it, and don't tell me? Yeah - THAT'S doing me harm. Duh. But that not a function of their gender or orientation. It's about without holding information that would inform my own choice.
OK. That's enough of the gay stuff. As rewarding as that was, There are two other things I need to address.
Some of the many Mediamatters lies exposed (do they ever end?) [...] http://www.mediaite.com/online/media-matters-writer-apologizes-after-accusing-drudge-of-posting-fake-trayvon-martin-photo/ [...] http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C1049953760/E20070926121225/index.html [...] http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/29/media-matters-lies-again-this-time-about-obama-intimidating-supreme-court/ [...] http://blog.heartland.org/2011/08/media-matters-lies-about-the-heartland-institute-again/
How this ends up in a post about homosexuality, I'll never know. Anyway, let's say I concede these points. (Not yet, but lets say.) Since 2003, MMFA has posted well over 50,000 items. You're taking issue with four of them. Well done. *clap, clap*
Don't worry, Eddie, I already know what your defense of these lies and misinformation brought by Mediamatters will be: "they're not as bad as the ones conservatives make". Is that the correct defense you'll make of Mediamatters?
No, I won't presume to compare the value of one lie to another. Although, as I mentioned, I might take issue with the FREQUENCY of them. But, in any case, nonse of that is necessary. This is all utter bullshit.
The first one is easy: "Media matters writer apologizes." OK, great. Good for him. A sincere apology is a sign of character. Seems like this is to his credit. If Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage or O'Rielly had the character to muster up a sincere apology they would be such malodorous scumbags. So he got it wrong and apologized for it. That's how things ARE SUPPOSED to work.
The second one is complete load of crap. Bill O'Rielly's full audio WAS included. I can't see any "context" that would make, "No one was shouting 'gimme my m-f'ing iced tea!'" a reasonable observation. (And Juan Williams' comments are irrelevant to the MMFA piece. If he has an opinion, fine. That's his business. MMFA isn't under any obligation to post it.) Whatever. This is just crap. The typical "taken out of context" whine that all RW'ers do whenever they just say something ignorant - as if ANY context would make it make sense. (In my experience? These things are WORSE in context.)
The third one is, itself, a blatant lie. They say MMFA is "lying" because the fail to prove their hypothesis. Fist of all, that's not a lie - that's just a poorly written argument. Second of all, CLICK THE FUCKING LINK. MMFA provides PLENTY of previous Presidents criticizing the Supreme Court! Hypothesis proven.
Where the fuck do you find this trash? And WHY do you READ it?!
Finally, MMFA is accused of "lying" about the Heartland Institute by... THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE. Now... remember the last site, that claimed that failing to prove the hypothesis = lying? Well, you see... MMFA's claim, per the Heartland Institute, was that
"The Heartland Institute is a libertarian think tank that hosts regular conferences disputing mainstream climate science and received $676,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006, including $90,000 specifically for ”General Operating Support — Climate Change.”
Let's see: (1) They ARE a Libertarian think tank. Agreed? (2) They host conferences disputing mainstream climate science, yes? (3) received $676,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006: They don't actually dispute this. They point out that it's only 5% of their funding, but they don't even SAY it's wrong. and (4) including $90,000 specifically for ”General Operating Support — Climate Change.”
Now they do SAY that ExxonMobil STOPPED funding them in 2006. Um... Yeah: So does MMFA! They then say something about how this was before the conferences started. Here's the thing. If you go to the MMFA piece, and go down to the quote in question, you can click on the words "specifically for." These will hyperlink you to ExxonMobil's 990-PF, filed for 2006. Scroll WAAAAY down to page 206 and read the third item. If Heartland has a problem with what MMFA reported, they should take it up with ExxonMobil. (And you should do YOUR OWN research, doofus.)
So... Heartland failed to prove their hypothesis... I guess THEY'RE the liars.
Any other softballs you'd like to lob my way / waste my time with? (Not that it took that long. I only spent about 5 minutes pouring over ExxonMobil's tax form.)
FINALLY...
P.S. Still waiting on a comment about your false/misleading 80% number you used.
For those who have a life and don't comb through posts from two months ago, 80% is the number of sub-prime loans issued by banks not governed by the CRA. And I'm done 'commenting' on it, so I'll simply give him a citation. It comes from University of Michigan Law Professor Michael Barr's testimony before congress:
Despite the fact that CRA appears to have increased bank and thrift lending in low- and moderate-income communities, such institutions are not the only ones operating in these areas. In fact, with new and lower-cost sources of funding available from the secondary market through securitization, and with advances in financial technology, subprime lending exploded in the late 1990s, reaching over $600 billion and 20% of all originations by 2005. More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30 percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts, which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts.
He's one of many who have studied it, and you can find several of his papers online rather easily. I've read portions of many of them myself, but I'm done doing your research for you. And, in any case, MMFA was kind enough to link to many of their own sources.
Now this DID take a bit of effort on my part, so I would appreciate it if you'd actually read the whole thing. (And I'll know from your comments if you did.) And I'l say up front that I don't plan to reply to your comments on this: You can have the last word, unless there's something truly eggregious in what you say. I'm confident that anyone who reads my work and yours side by side will see the truth of the matter.
"Um... Actually I could lead a prayer in school anytime I want: I'm not a teacher or school administrator."
ReplyDeleteWhy would being a teacher or school administrator cause "harm" to anyone? So, again, what part of leading a prayer in school causes harm to the point that it needs to be forbidden? And the examples you give are exactly what I mean. What "harm" can be caused by any of those religions being taught by teachers or administrators??
You demand civil rights for marriage (that no one else has) based on the fact that there is no harm caused by the participants (homosexuality) but demand denial of civil rights to another sexual action based ONLY on the opinion that mental and/or physical harm is caused to the participants. Yet, at the same time claim religion is a civil right with the exception of in school with NO explanation for the "harm" that it can cause that allows you to demand that exclusion.
Interesting position you take there. You demand civil rights for one group of sexual deviants, but will deny another group of sexual deviants civil rights based on "harm". But you claim there is a complete freedom of religion accept for by school teachers and administrators with NO explanation of ANY "harm" caused that will justify that position.
Let's flip the question to you, William; how do you imagine indoctrination is acceptable? This goes beyond religion, of course. Are you willing to say that you would accept a teacher berating students simply for criticizing Obama, as the recent case goes? If not, then how can you possibly argue that it's appropriate for something as important as personal faith?
DeleteWhat other sexual action are you talking about? If you want to determine the level of harmfulness of that action, it would make a lot more sense to be specific instead of questioning it based on a completely different example of harmfulness. It's not as if pedophilia might be fine and dandy because you don't agree that indoctrination is a bad thing.
I already asked him as much (RE: the indoctrination question) and he dodged the question, either inadvertantly, because missed thepoint (again), or intentionally because he knows he has no answer to it. (An idiot or a coward, I guess.) PRINCIPLED he's not. And few religious Conservatives are, as you well know.
Delete"Um... Actually I could lead a prayer in school anytime I want:"
DeleteActually, you could not lead a prayer in school, Eddie. I'm sure you know that, but thought you were making some kind of point. Like you abstinence-only whine, you use another false pretense to make another false point. When you decide to discuss honestly ... well, you're a liberal, I don't have time to wait for that.
"I already asked him as much ... and he dodged the question ..."
I did not dodge the question. I asked what "harm" would be caused if any of the religions (you mentioned) were taught in school. IF I have a problem with the way things are taught in the school my grandkids (my kids are grown) attend, then I would recommend to my kids that they could take them to a school that teaches what they want their child to learn. Which is what they have done. They want their child (my grandson) to be taught a good Christian way of life, so they have him going to a Christian school.
What I do not approve of is that some religions are taught while others are forbidden. This: http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/slj/home/886805-312/islam_in_the_classroom_teachers.html.csp is one example and others can easily be found. That is true for Christianity too. If you are going to teach Christianity in public schools then other religions should be ok, also. On the other hand, if you are going to forbid Christianity, then all others should be forbidden too. How is that un-principled?
Let me guess ... that is too frightfully boring for you to address. Nothing unexpected there. Similar to your false "EIGHTY PERCENT" claim and your inacurate whine about abstinence only program in Tennessee.
"If you are going to teach Christianity in public schools then other religions should be ok, also. On the other hand, if you are going to forbid Christianity, then all others should be forbidden too. How is that un-principled?"
DeleteWho said that indoctrination in Islam was acceptable? You're conflating the topic at hand with mere education.
Why are you singling out Islam? That seems quite bigoted. But, if it will please your hatred of Islam, you can insert the word "indoctrination" in place of "teach" in the quote you used. But, it works factually using either word. Even when you factor in your hatred of Islam.
DeleteYou posted an article regarding teaching about Islam, which is what I was responding to. The substitution was done by you. So how is teaching about another religion comparable to leading a religious act such as prayer?
Delete" ... is one example and others can easily be found. That is true for Christianity too."
DeleteI guess your reading comprehension problems prevented you from reading that statement immediately after the link? Perhaps you should read it all again before you ask that question. Read slower this time and look up the words you don't understand.
If you're not equating teaching about a religion and prayer, then why did you bring it up? If you are, then justify the comparison. Either way, I don't see how your quote changes anything.
DeleteHey, it was Eddie who said he could lead a prayer in school. That is not true. And he brought up the indoctination concern. The quote is one example that does address that concern and he still hasn't replied to the false statement he made about prayer. Don't blame me for inacuracies brought by Eddie.
DeleteSo, work on your reading comprehension skills and prepare a different line of questioning that actually addresses what I've said and not what Eddie has said.
Teaching about Islam is not indoctrination. You have yet to address this, unsurprisingly.
DeleteI didn't say it was indoctrination. And, I am referring to teaching and leading prayer in school. You have yet to address this ... unsurprisingly.
DeleteYou made the comparison. If it's not indoctrination, then it's irrelevant.
DeleteHow am I supposed to address what you're saying until you stop dancing and explain what your point is supposed to be?
I did not make the comparison. I said "teaching". Where did you get indoctrination from? What statement did I start using that word? Oh, wait, I get it ... Eddie brings a word into the discussion and you (as far as your intelligence allows) blame me for using the word. OK, I can follow that logic.
DeleteHow is indoctination causing any "harm" to anyone? Yet it is being controlled through the governments misguided explanation of seperation of church and state. Relate harm caused by indoctrination to harm caused by sexual deviance. Yet, both are deemed harmful and therefor not allowed, correct? Your reading comprehension skills tells me you will ignore everything I've written and continue to blame me for words Eddie uses and says.
I never said you didn't say "teaching". You're comparing it to prayer in school led by authority figures. If that's not indoctrination, explain how.
DeleteYou don't get to accuse me of ignoring anything after you skipped over my post above which addressed exactly what you're repeating here. My reply to your second paragraph is directly below your first post on this thread.
You want me to explain indoctrination? Have you lost your dictionary?
DeleteLet's go back to my very first question (the one both you and Eddie have dodged). What HARM is caused by a teacher or school administrator leading a prayer?
I'll do this one question at a time, since you have such a hard time following along with what is actually being discussed.
I want you to explain how an authority figure leading prayer in school is not indoctrination.
DeleteI addressed your question. It's like asking "how is rape harmful?" As long as you don't object to it, there are plenty of things that are acceptable. You yourself claim to have an interest in the environment in which your grandchildren are taught, but you want to pretend that school prayer should be allowed. As if people besides you don't have the right to have any influence on these things, simply because you disagree with them.
I invite you to demonstrate where I've strayed from the point at hand. Your insults are as poorly thought-out as your arguments.
"I want you to explain how an authority figure leading prayer in school is not indoctrination."
DeleteI don't care what you want. I'm not going to explain an issue that you bring up that does not relate to the issues I bring up.
"You yourself claim to have an interest in the environment in which your grandchildren are taught, but you want to pretend that school prayer should be allowed."
I don't pretend. I find nothing wrong with prayer in school. If you have a problem with prayer in school then you have equality issues of your own to work out. So, stop dodging the question and answer what HARM does a teacher cause to a child if they lead a prayer in class?
You (and other liberals) seem to have a hang-up on "harm" caused to children making things right or wrong. Well, answer that question about "harm" caused to children by a teacher leading a prayer in school class.
Unless you are afraid to answer that question. Are you afraid to answer it? I am demonstrating now that you have strayed far from the issue when that was my very first question of this entire article. Yet, you and Eddie and others are afraid to answer that simple question and change the issue to "indoctrination".
I hate to be a frightful bore, but if you can't even answer the simple questions how are you going to answer the more complicated ones?
"I'm not going to explain an issue that you bring up that does not relate to the issues I bring up."
DeleteWhen you ask what the harm is in something, then I'm not the one bringing it up.
"If you have a problem with prayer in school then you have equality issues of your own to work out."
No, the teacher would have a lawsuit to work out. Indoctrination is not acceptable, which also answers your question. How the use of that term is changing the issue is unexplained. My take is that you don't want to deal with the reality of the situation, so you dismiss it as irrelevant for convenience.
Prayer does not equate to indoctrinate. Which makes your argument inconsistant and irrelavent. Please show how petitioning a God for good favors is equal to instructing fundamentals of a religion.
DeleteOf course it does. It's a figure of authority giving validity to a matter of faith. If the teacher isn't telling children that there's a God, then who would they be praying to?
DeleteAre you trying to claim that the phrase "instructing fundamentals of a religion" is the only definition? Where did you get that from?
The GOVERNMENT tells you there IS a God. What does it matter if a teacher (hired by the government) acknowledges there is one? So, AGAIN, what "harm" is caused to the child from a teacher leading a prayer in school? Even if it is some wild idea that you have of indoctrination, what HARM is happening to the child? So, instead of avoiding the question, try answering what harm happens to the child?
DeleteWhen did I say there was only one definition? BTW, I used a dictionary. Do you know what that is? Look up 'prayer'.
You're making a two-faced argument with neither one making any sense.
The government does? Because of some misguided legislators from the 1950's? The existence of one error in judgment doesn't justify anyone else making the same mistake.
DeleteIf there's no harm, then why was your grandchild moved so that they could get a Christian education? Again, your definitions are irrelevant. Whether it's "harm" or not, you admit yourself that you want the family to have control over a child's religious education, not teachers.
What definition did you use, exactly? It seemed pretty narrow, conveniently.
"The government does?"
DeleteYes, the government does. Just like the Constitution refers to a "Creator". Do you think they were referring to the "big bang theory"? LOL
"What definition did you use, exactly? It seemed pretty narrow, conveniently."
Take your pick. Use whichever one you want. How does either make "prayer" indoctrination? Unless you're saying that asking a God for favor is "teaching". In which case you are so closed-minded that there would be no wonder you hold the beliefs you do.
Indoctrination:
1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments: teach
2: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
"If there's no harm, then why was your grandchild moved so that they could get a Christian education?"
I prefer my grandson going to a Christian school because they teach good morals. Not the kind that liberals prefer children learn in public schools (how to have sex at age 9, how to use drugs at age 12, ect...). Do you have a problem with some parents not wanting their children taught how to have sex at such an early age?
But, none of the reasons are because he may have to say a prayer from a different religion while in school. That part is just your bigoted delusions and interjections. Other religions are also part of his itinerary.
So, if you're done avoiding the question, what "harm" is caused by a teacher leading a prayer in school?
"Again, your definitions are irrelevant."
I don't know why you keep saying that. I have to assume it's because you don't know what the word "harm" means. Here you go:
Harm:
1: physical or mental damage: injury
2: mischief, hurt
You can choose (again) whichever definition you want to use. What "harm" does a teacher leading a prayer in school cause to a child?
"Just like the Constitution refers to a "Creator"."
DeleteThe Constitution refers to a "Creator"? Where is that? I think you mean the Declaration of Independence, which is not legally binding. Further, note the word is not "God". Why do you figure that is? "Creator" is not specific. It doesn't dictate a particular deity. This is especially obvious when it's not even "the" creator but "their" creator. In other words, it relies on individual faith, and does not assert the existence of God as you understand Him.
"2: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle"
Leading prayer would be telling students that there is a God, if nothing more specific to the teacher's religious beliefs. That's a point of view that's being pushed on the students. You've essentially admitted to this already, so I don't know what you think you're accomplishing.
"Not the kind that liberals prefer children learn in public schools (how to have sex at age 9, how to use drugs at age 12, ect...)."
Well, that's interesting. So children are so easily influenced that sex ed is a problem, but it's not going to alter their mindset at all if an authority figure leads them in prayer.
"But, none of the reasons are because he may have to say a prayer from a different religion while in school."
I don't think I said that was an actual possibility. The point was that you're admitting that environment makes a difference (moving the grandkid), while at the same time claiming that environment does not make a difference (prayer doesn't affect a child).
Your citation from M-W.com is followed by this example:"The scandal has done irreparable harm to his reputation." A reputation doesn't suffer physical or mental damage, does it? If you don't understand why I keep telling you your definitions are irrelevant, this is a good example. You dishonestly frame your arguments based off of convenient definitions, when you can't address the larger point. You wouldn't want your grandchild being indoctrinated in Islam, whether you thought that fit the strict definition of "harm" or not. "Harm" to the parent's sense of control, "harm" to the family dynamic, confusion between two different sets of beliefs which may be "harm" to the child's psyche...And there you go.
"So children are so easily influenced that sex ed is a problem, but it's not going to alter their mindset at all if an authority figure leads them in prayer."
DeleteWell, considering that the "authority figure" isn't teaching them while praying it isn't quite the same as being indoctrinated into sexual deviances. But, since you don't understand the difference between the two I don't expect you to be able to carry on an honest conversation on the subject.
"A reputation doesn't suffer physical or mental damage, does it?"
So, explain what harm the child suffers by having a prayer recited to them by a teacher. Explain how a child suffers irreparable harm to their mental state by having a teacher pray for a good day at school. Then explain how a child suffers irreparable harm to their mental state by having a teacher teach them that if they don't beleive in God then they will not have a good day. Is there a difference between the two? I expect you to not see a difference.
"Further, note the word is not "God". Why do you figure that is? "Creator" is not specific. It doesn't dictate a particular deity."
Neither does "a God" or "God". If it does, perhaps you could explain what God is being specified. Is it the Islam God? Is it the Christian God? Is it the Hebrew God? Is it the Indian God? Is it the 'fill in religion here' God? Tell me ... what God is being specified? Your stance falls on its face if you can't tell me that simple fact. However, I notice you admit that "Creator" is a deity, why is that? Is there a difference between deity and God? Yet you accept the use of Creator in the DOI (correction noted-thank you).
"You wouldn't want your grandchild being indoctrinated in Islam, whether you thought that fit the strict definition of "harm" or not."
That is because I don't believe the morals of Islam to be good morals. Which is the REASON I gave. What part of that are you having trouble understanding? However, I wouldn't have a problem with a teacher praying for the class to have a good day in the Islamic language. Do you understand the difference? No, I don't think you do. Which is why you aren't able to honestly defend your position on this subject. Too bad, you seem like such a good example of the typical liberal and their ability to discuss honestly.
"Well, considering that the "authority figure" isn't teaching..."
DeleteSex Ed isn't teaching TO have sex, it's teaching about sex. Prayer is training children TO believe in God, not teaching about God.
"Explain how a child suffers irreparable harm to their mental state by having a teacher pray for a good day at school."
I already answered the question, except for the sudden appearance of the word "irreparable". You're moving the goalposts.
"Neither does "a God" or "God""
"God" as capitalized is specific to Christianity. The "Islam god" would be Allah, for one of your examples.
"However, I notice you admit that "Creator" is a deity, why is that?"
Because it was from the viewpoint of someone who believed in a deity. Did you notice "Nature's God" as you skimmed the Declaration of Independence? That's a Deist term. All you're establishing is that Jefferson believed in a higher power of some sort. That does not equate to the government teaching that there is a "God".
"That is because I don't believe the morals of Islam to be good morals."
And not everyone thinks that belief in God is such a wonderful thing, either. You're arguing that it's fine to indoctrinate children into your view because you accept it, not considering that other people in the world may disagree with you. It's hard to imagine anything more self-centered and hypocritical than that.
"However, I wouldn't have a problem with a teacher praying for the class to have a good day in the Islamic language."
The teacher praying, or leading the class in prayer? Your phrasing is interesting there, and I think you're trying to move the goalposts again. I'm pretty sure that if your grandchild was led in prayer on a regular basis, you probably wouldn't be too thrilled with the habit that could be established through that.
"I already answered the question, except for the sudden appearance of the word "irreparable". You're moving the goalposts."
DeleteNo, YOU are moving the goalposts by using it in your example. Now you say that word is unacceptable? Go figure.
You moved the goalposts here: "Your citation from M-W.com is followed by this example:"The scandal has done irreparable harm to his reputation." "
""God" as capitalized is specific to Christianity. "
That is your own inflection. "God" could be one of the many Gods I mentioned and ones I did not mention. Try again, you're not doing very well.
" I'm pretty sure that if your grandchild was led in prayer on a regular basis, you probably wouldn't be too thrilled with the habit that could be established through that."
Who's moving the goalposts now? When was "regular basis" part of the discussion? When was "habit" part of the discussion?
"The teacher praying, or leading the class in prayer? Your phrasing is interesting there, and I think you're trying to move the goalposts again."
I think I'm tired of typing it the same way all the time just to watch you ignore the question.
Answering the question would be easier than to have me type it over and over. Either way, the question is the same. You'll just find another way to ignore it.
"And not everyone thinks that belief in God is such a wonderful thing, either."
No, but me and my family do. So, our choices are based on our beliefs. Why would anyone send their child to a school based on where others think they should go? Why wouldn't I think it's ok to indoctrinate my grandkid into a belief that I think has good sound morals? I already asked what parent would want their child taught to have sex at such a young age. And you defended the practice of teaching children to have sex at such a young age. (I notice you didn't deny they teach drug use too young too). I hardly think a good moral family wants their children to learn liberal ideals where you are taught how to have sex and use drugs at such a young age. You may approve of such a thing, but a moral family would not.
"You're arguing that it's fine to indoctrinate children into your view because you accept it, not considering that other people in the world may disagree with you."
DeleteI'm arguing that it's fine for my children and grandchildren to learn good Christian morals. Nearly 80% of America would agree with me about good Christian morals. They would also probably have no problem with prayer in school (as I defined it). It's just you 1 percenters who have a problem with religion in school. The rest of us have no problem with it. I guess it boils down to who whines the loudest as to who gets their way.
"The "Islam god" would be Allah,"
Wow, you're really flailing now. "Allah" means "The God" in Arabic. The Muslim religion has many names for God. All of them referring to the same God. Do you have a big L on your forehead?
"You moved the goalposts here: "Your citation from M-W.com is followed by this example:"The scandal has done irreparable harm to his reputation.""
DeleteNonsense, that was simply to demonstrate that usage is not restricted to "physical" or "mental" damage, as you wanted it to be. "Irreparable" is part of the example, which works just as well if the word isn't there at all.
"That is your own inflection."
No, it isn't. A god is a deity. When capitalized, God, is the Christian god. What other name do you use?
"Who's moving the goalposts now? When was "regular basis" part of the discussion?"
Why the hell would you imagine that teacher-led prayer would be a sporadic occurrence? When you have prayer in school, it's part of the routine, not at random times. You yourself used the example of praying for a good day. Why would you not do that every day? You're essentially admitting that daily prayer would be indoctrination, aren't you?
"I think I'm tired of typing it the same way all the time just to watch you ignore the question."
You typed more letters than it would have taken you to answer the question. Why don't you answer it, instead of ignoring it? I answered your question, now you do the same.
"Why wouldn't I think it's ok to indoctrinate my grandkid into a belief that I think has good sound morals?"
Who said you wouldn't? The point is that people have different opinions. What you think has poor morals, a teacher might think is just fine. That's why a teacher leading a child into any religious beliefs is wrong, because that's not their place.
"(I notice you didn't deny they teach drug use too young too)."
I have no idea what you're basing that off of, and didn't find it relevant. I don't necessarily accept your nonsense just because I don't address every single bit of it.
"I'm arguing that it's fine for my children and grandchildren to learn good Christian morals."
No, you're arguing that being led in prayer in public school is fine for everyone's children.
"Nearly 80% of America would agree with me about good Christian morals."
At what percentage do you think it's fine to push your views onto others? If it was 80% Muslim, I don't think you'd care what the numbers were if you found your grandchild bowing towards Mecca on a Saturday. It's something YOU don't want, just like I wouldn't want my grandkids to be taught to pray in school. You don't have any higher standing than me.
"They would also probably have no problem with prayer in school (as I defined it)."
That's quite an assumption. Many people practice personal faith and have some concept of objectivity.
""Allah" means "The God" in Arabic."
So what? It's specific to that concept of a deity. Did you forget what your argument was?
"When capitalized, God, is the Christian god." + "So what? It's specific to that concept of a deity."
DeleteAllah is capitalized. Allah means The God ... it is also capitalized. Does that mean Muslims are praying to the Christian God? God, I can't wait for the answer to that one. LOL
" "Irreparable" is part of the example, which works just as well if the word isn't there at all."
Then you should have left the word out of the sentence if you didn't want to move the goalposts as you did. Try it again and see if it does in fact work as you think it will.
"Why the hell would you imagine that teacher-led prayer would be a sporadic occurrence? When you have prayer in school, it's part of the routine, not at random times."
That's your opinion (a rather rude one at that). There could be many reasons why there would be sporadic prayers (birthday, test day, death in family day, sad day, ect... do you expect me to list all of them {your usual style}? ). Your bigoted hatred of Christianity just doesn't allow you to see that.
"It's something YOU don't want, just like I wouldn't want my grandkids to be taught to pray in school."
Saying a prayer is not the same as teaching to pray. And, you are correct, I have no higher standing than you. But I'm not so bigoted that I can't realize that saying a prayer isn't going to harm my child or grandchild. You, on the other hand, feels that saying a prayer will harmfully damage your child or grandchild. However, you never explained how. You simply said it would without explanation, using your personal opinion as the basis for that. And the reasoning behind that is because if there is no harm in prayer, then you wouldn't be able to get it banned from school. Just as you will not accept another sexual deviance because of harm caused to the child.
" Why don't you answer it, instead of ignoring it? I answered your question, now you do the same."
This is the only question I see from your previous post: "The teacher praying, or leading the class in prayer?"
Obviously, we've been talking about the teacher leading the class in prayer. However, the stupid rules (people like you) have instilled forbid the teacher from praying also. They forbid the teacher from wearing religious personal jewelry and they forbid the teacher from wearing certain clothing also.
Do you see how stupid your logic is regarding separation of church and state? An edict that isn't even in any US procedural document. You people are using a personal letter from in individual to another individual to set national law. How moronic can you get? I'm glad he didn't write (in that letter) that he just enjoyed jacking off, or you people would make that a national standard too.
"If it was 80% Muslim, I don't think you'd care what the numbers were if you found your grandchild bowing towards Mecca on a Saturday."
DeleteDidn't you read what I wrote? I said I don't believe the morals of Muslims are good morals. So, of course I wouldn't like that. Also, America ISN'T 80% Muslim, is it? It IS 80% Christian. And those 80% would agree with me about good morals. You think that's an assumption? That would be because you have no faith. And that's another assumption.
Besides, you've taken that sentence out of context, so I would expect you to misunderstand the meaning of it. But I've come to expect that from your style of writing. Aren't you the one who whines the most about me using 'out of context' statements, yet here you are, using out of context statements. That's a good way to reinforce my opinion of your ability to carry on an honest discussion.
"At what percentage do you think it's fine to push your views onto others?"
Well, apparently, you think it's fully acceptable for the 3% (who are atheist) to push their views onto the other 97%. So, what's wrong with the 80% wanting their views accepted?
Here's an analogy you will not like: 99% of the people are not rich and are demanding the 1% to change their ways and share the wealth. Do you agree with the 99% who are making those demands? If so, is 99% the number where you will accept that they can tell everyone else what to do? And, if 99% is that number, then how hypocritical of you to say 80% isn't enough.
Here's another analogy: 3% of the nation describes themselves as atheist. And, are proceeding to require removal of religion from our national ... well, everything. Do you agree that 3% is an acceptable number for their demands to be valid? If so, then how is it that the 1% (who are rich) are being criticized for making the demands they make? Do you support the 3% AND the 1% ? Or, are you hypocritically choosing which small percentage to agree with?
I think you are a hypocrite and will pick and choose what small (or large) percentage of people to agree with depending on your own personal views. Hmmm... this is right after you scold me for doing the same thing.
"Sex Ed isn't teaching TO have sex, it's teaching about sex. Prayer is training children TO believe in God, not teaching about God."
What a funny stance you have there. On one hand TEACHING how to safely/correctly use condoms is NOT teaching children how to have sex. On the other hand SAYING a prayer in school is indoctrinating children into a religion. You have a completely moronic view of reality. No wonder right-wingers think liberals are Godless people. You remove good moral practices from schools and install bad moral practices into schools and say it's a good thing for all. Then whine about and blame conservatives for the lack of morals in our population.
"I answered your question, now you do the same."
Actually, NO you have NOT answered the question. You have said it was unacceptable, but you have never described what kind of "harm" the child will suffer by being led in prayer by a teacher. What HARM is there in that?
"Allah means The God ... it is also capitalized. Does that mean Muslims are praying to the Christian God?"
DeleteAllah is in a different language, therefore it's a different word. Therefore, a different god (note the lack of capitalization).
"Then you should have left the word out of the sentence if you didn't want to move the goalposts as you did."
Why should I have edited a sentence from the webpage YOU were using?
"There could be many reasons why there would be sporadic prayers..."
First off, you're not explaining what's supposedly "rude", or what is indicative of "bigoted hatred". And you're only explaining what days would be used if your example wasn't of someone who led prayer every day. Your example wasn't specifically of sporadic prayer, though, that's the point. What reason do you have to believe that a teacher who really thinks it's appropriate to do this wouldn't do it every day? You can't possibly have one, as far as I can tell.
"But I'm not so bigoted that I can't realize that saying a prayer isn't going to harm my child or grandchild."
You admit below this that we're talking about "leading the class in prayer". But that "people like" me have made it so that teachers can't "say a prayer" or wear religious jewelry or whatever in class. So, how exactly am I "bigoted" for opinions that I haven't expressed, regarding something you admit is off-topic? Obviously, your attribution of other people's opinions to me can be easily classified as "bigoted", since you're generalizing in a negative manner.
"You people are using a personal letter from in individual to another individual to set national law."
Sure, because it provides the mindset behind the First Amendment. Besides, the Constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum. One takes into account minor things such as the reason America was founded in the first place, which involves people fleeing England due to religious tyranny. This sort of thing makes it very difficult to imagine anyone in that day and age siding with the likes of you.
"Also, America ISN'T 80% Muslim, is it?"
No, but it doesn't matter, because you already admitted that you don't have any higher standing than me. So, if you don't want your grandchild to be indoctrinated, then you have to respect the same for others.
"And those 80% would agree with me about good morals. You think that's an assumption?"
No, I said it was an assumption that 80% would accept prayer in schools. That's a different matter.
"Besides, you've taken that sentence out of context..."
You should use your keystrokes to explain how I did that, instead of blathering about my style of writing.
"Well, apparently, you think it's fully acceptable for the 3% (who are atheist) to push their views onto the other 97%."
The lack of religion in public schools and the like is not "pushing" anything on you. Your religion is fully compatible with that environment, as is every other faith.
"Do you agree with the 99% who are making those demands?"
DeleteYour analogy fails. For one thing, it depends on the degree of disparity, so it's not that simple of an answer. And this is an economic issue. It involves people's financial well-being, while there's absolutely, positively zero need for your faith to be represented in a public school classroom. Either you really think you're on a par with people in need, or you're just that dishonest. It's contemptible either way.
"On one hand TEACHING how to safely/correctly use condoms is NOT teaching children how to have sex."
Right, because Sex Ed also involves teaching abstinence. Did you notice my wording? "Sex Ed isn't teaching TO have sex..." The word "how" is not there.
"On the other hand SAYING a prayer in school is indoctrinating children into a religion."
Because that is demonstrating to children an act that is supposed to be proper and right, as opposed to saying "don't have sex, but in case you ignore that, here's how to avoid pregnancy and disease." Do you really not grasp the difference? And it's amazing that even after admitting that we're talking about leading prayer, you're still emphasizing "SAYING a prayer".
"No wonder right-wingers think liberals are Godless people."
Who cares? For one thing, there's nothing wrong with being Godless. Also, you yourself cited 3% for atheists and 97% for people of faith. So if you're familiar with the numbers, you would know that the percentage of liberals in the country is not encompassed by that 3%. All you're demonstrating is that right-wingers are ignorant and/or bigoted beyond belief. But if you want to define them that way, knock yourself out.
"Actually, NO you have NOT answered the question."
Read the paragraph where I cited your m-w.com definition. Besides that, of course, if you don't want your grandchild being led in Muslim prayer (different from the teacher saying a prayer on their own, so you don't conflate the two ideas yet again), then you don't need to fit any definition of "harm". Because your reaction shows that there's a problem to be avoided, no matter how you define or classify it. It's wrong, by your determination, and it's wrong whether it's the faith of the minority or of the majority.
"Your analogy fails. For one thing, it depends on the degree of disparity, so it's not that simple of an answer. And this is an economic issue."
DeleteInteresting denial of facts. Since gay marriage rights are being sought after ONLY because of the perceived financial injustice involved. Which is what all this is about, isn't it? You walked right into that one. Oooops. LOL Liberals demand only one group of sexual deviants should have rights that no one else has. You use "harm" to children as the reasoning for denying the other sexual deviant's ability to secure similar rights and I compare it to harm to children by questioning another liberal demand of eliminating religion from public schools based on harm caused to children. Yet when you discover there is no way to explain the 'harm' caused to the children you change it to a financial issue when all along the gays are seeking financial equality within the marriage constraint. Then deny that an analogy of a similar financial issue is related because you think 97% of people supporting an issue isn't enough because it's a financial issue and not a religious one. LOL, all along it has been a financial issue and you just walked yourself all around denying this and denying that, then you admit what authorizes you to demand financial equality is the high percentage of people who support your feelings towards the 1% of rich. Now, at the same time you say the high percentage of people who support my feelings towards gay marriage doesn't count because it isn't as high as 99%. Wow, I didn't realize 2% could make such a difference in your demands for rights for one group of people that no other group has.
"Besides that, of course, if you don't want your grandchild being led in Muslim prayer, ... then you don't need to fit any definition of "harm"."
DeleteActually, if you read what I said. I said I wouldn't care if a prayer was read in the Islamic language. Did you skip over that part? What I don't approve is the "teaching" of the immoral Islamic religion to my kids/grandkids.
So, is this the answer you're talking about? :
"You wouldn't want your grandchild being indoctrinated in Islam, whether you thought that fit the strict definition of "harm" or not. "Harm" to the parent's sense of control, "harm" to the family dynamic, confusion between two different sets of beliefs which may be "harm" to the child's psyche...And there you go."
I think that explains why I wouldn't want my kids/grandkids "indoctrinated" into Islam. However, it does NOT answer the question as to what "harm" a teacher leading a prayer in school does to a child. Now, stop avoiding that and answer it.
"Since gay marriage rights are being sought after ONLY because of the perceived financial injustice involved. Which is what all this is about, isn't it?"
DeleteIs it? You brought it up. I never said anything about "financial injustice". I wouldn't say it's the only factor involved, either, so it's not the only reason to seek equality.
"You use "harm" to children as the reasoning for denying the other sexual deviant's ability to secure similar rights and I compare it to harm to children by questioning another liberal demand of eliminating religion from public schools based on harm caused to children."
Why would you put harm in quotation marks when referring to pedophilia? Do you think there's some question as to whether that's actually harmful or not? Even if it were true that leading prayer isn't "harm", then one issue has no bearing on the other. It's not as if pedophilia would be acceptable because some other citation of harmfulness was invalidated. Your argument is idiotic.
"Yet when you discover there is no way to explain the 'harm' caused to the children you change it to a financial issue when all along the gays are seeking financial equality within the marriage constraint."
I didn't change anything. You brought up financial equality, and you also made the comparison to income inequality.
"Then deny that an analogy of a similar financial issue is related because you think 97% of people supporting an issue isn't enough because it's a financial issue and not a religious one."
Can you clarify that mess? the 97% (still an inaccurate number, by the way) applied to the religious argument.
"LOL, all along it has been a financial issue and you just walked yourself all around denying this and denying that, then you admit what authorizes you to demand financial equality is the high percentage of people who support your feelings towards the 1% of rich."
It hasn't been a financial issue all along. And you have the nerve to talk about people changing the subject? I also never said the high percentage of people authorize anything. It depends on the disparity in question, and the needs of the people. What did you imagine you read?
"Now, at the same time you say the high percentage of people who support my feelings towards gay marriage doesn't count because it isn't as high as 99%."
Where did I say that?
"Actually, if you read what I said. I said I wouldn't care if a prayer was read in the Islamic language."
I did read what you said, and you were talking about "saying" a prayer. Did you not notice the word "led" in the quote you pasted?
"I think that explains why I wouldn't want my kids/grandkids "indoctrinated" into Islam."
Then it's up to you to explain how a teacher demonstrating the propriety of prayer through a group activity is not indoctrinating those students. The students are participating in a religious act. Did every single one of them happen to think that was a great idea and propose it as a group to the teacher? Otherwise, they're being instructed in a religious rite that they wouldn't have done on their own.
My answer relies on the premise that leading prayer is indoctrination, simply because it obviously is. Now, until you can make some sort of argument as to how that doesn't qualify as "indoctrination" (and remember the "imbue" definition you yourself provided, please), then your question has been answered. The ball is in your court.
You should also explain how I took you out of context, since you accused me of that. Thanks in advance.
"Who cares? For one thing, there's nothing wrong with being Godless."
DeleteExcellant defense of demanding religion be removed from public access based on your "feelings". So scientific and rational. You sound like a right-winger now. LOL
As far as "ignorant and bigoted" I think you've self-described yourself that way. You want to (and DO) deny people their constitutionally guaranteed rights to freely express and practice religion (1st + 14th amendments) based on your fear/hateful/bigoted feelings toward religions you neither understand or accept using a personal letter between two people as your basis to set national law illegally. Yeah, it must be great to be Godless. You get to illegally restrict peoples constitutional rights based on your fear of them doing that. Being Godless as you like equates to being a hateful bigot. Congratulations, you've joined the right-wingers as you whine about them being.
"Even if it were true that leading prayer isn't "harm", then one issue has no bearing on the other."
DeleteSo you admit that there is no "harm" caused by a teacher who leads a prayer in school. I thought you eventually would.
"the 97% (still an inaccurate number, by the way) applied to the religious argument."
No, that's an accurate number. Only 3% of Americans describe themselves as "atheist". You do the math ... assuming you can do math better than your reading comprehension.
"My answer relies on the premise that leading prayer is indoctrination, simply because it obviously is. "
Of course it does. That's because you have no ability to understand the english language. Any and Every dictionary describes "pray" and "indoctrination" as DIFFERENT and SEPARATE things. When you accept the facts as they are presented then you'll get over your discriminating/bigoted feelings toward constitutionally guaranteed rights.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Excellant defense of demanding religion be removed from public access based on your "feelings"."
DeleteCan you explain what's wrong with being Godless? I didn't say anything about that being a defense of removing religion from "public access", whatever that's supposed to mean.
"As far as "ignorant and bigoted" I think you've self-described yourself that way."
Congratulations, you win the "daily redundancy of the day award". And yes, that wording was intentional.
"You want to (and DO) deny people their constitutionally guaranteed rights to freely express and practice religion (1st + 14th amendments) based on your fear/hateful/bigoted feelings toward religions you neither understand or accept..."
More about the "constitutionally guaranteed" nonsense below, but exactly how do you suffer by not being able to lead children in prayer in a public school? What difference can it possibly make, since children can pray on their own, pray at home, and go to church?
"So you admit that there is no "harm" caused by a teacher who leads a prayer in school."
The phrase "even if it were true" does not assert a conclusion, and you know it.
"No, that's an accurate number."
Some people aren't religious, besides atheists. Show me any information where religious people add up to 97%. I note that you failed to clarify the point in question.
"Any and Every dictionary describes "pray" and "indoctrination" as DIFFERENT and SEPARATE things."
Of course it does, because prayer is voluntary and indoctrination is not. Did you know that "sex" and "rape" are two different things as well?
"When you accept the facts as they are presented then you'll get over your discriminating/bigoted feelings toward constitutionally guaranteed rights."
Can you yell "fire" in a crowded theater? If not, then why are you discriminating against the right to free speech? How about lying in court regarding in relevant testimony? Is there "harm" in that, if nobody suffers a broken bone or psychological damage from it?
"... but exactly how do you suffer by not being able to lead children in prayer in a public school? What difference can it possibly make, since children can pray on their own, pray at home, and go to church."
DeleteMoving the goalposts again? Why bring the word "suffer" into a discussion on "harm". And, I'm not talking about the children being able to pray on their own, am I? The best you can do is to move the goalposts twice in one answer. Without actually being able to answer what you're responding to while taking my quote out of context. Very good demonstration of typical liberal methods of conversation.
Maybe next time you can actually address what was said and not what you make up and ignore.
"Some people aren't religious, besides atheists. Show me any information where religious people add up to 97%. I note that you failed to clarify the point in question."
What do you need me to clarify. Check any source you want and all you'll find is that 3% of Americans describe themselves as atheist. That means (simple math) that 97% are NOT atheist. At what point did I say that 97% were people of faith OR religious? I guess math isn't your strong suit?
"Of course it does, because prayer is voluntary and indoctrination is not. "
The other difference is pray is making a REQUEST to a god. And, indoctrination is to TEACH fundamentals and/or principles. They are so much different from one another a normal thinking human being could never conflate the two as equal. But, somehow you have concluded they mean the same thing. Really??
"Can you yell "fire" in a crowded theater?"
When you said there would be more on constitutional rights below, I thought you meant something real. Instead you bring something totally unrelated. How in the world can a teacher leading a prayer possibly cause ANY harm to ANY child? (20th time asking with no answer).
The constitution guarantees the teacher his/her right to observe their own religion in a manner fitting themselves. How does wearing a neckless with the Star of David harm ANY child? How would a teacher wearing a burka harm ANY child? How would a teacher leading a prayer harm ANY child.
Obviously the two lame examples you brought can, in fact, cause great physical harm. Can you demonstrate ANY harm that a child can suffer from a teacher leading a class in prayer? You haven't been able to at any point previous to this, perhaps you have some magical insight that no one else has and can actually answer that question this time.
BTW, I notice you completely ignore the mention of a personal letter from one to another that you derive your entire 'separation of church and state' laws and arguments from. Is that all the basis you need to set national law .... a personal letter? I'll bet there are a lot of personal letters out there that would deny gay marriages. Can we use them to set national law and get you liberals to finally stop whining about rights that NO ONE else has?
"Moving the goalposts again? Why bring the word "suffer" into a discussion on "harm"."
DeleteHow is that "moving the goalposts"? Please explain how those two words are not linked. Besides that, it wasn't even directed at children, which is where the "harm" reference was made.
"And, I'm not talking about the children being able to pray on their own, am I?"
I didn't say you were. You're dodging the question. Children don't need to pray in school, and I'd like to see you claim otherwise.
"Without actually being able to answer what you're responding to while taking my quote out of context."
That's the second time you've made that accusation without backing it up.
"Maybe next time you can actually address what was said and not what you make up and ignore."
Oh, like you claiming that I brought up "financial" aspects? Like your unexplained citations of my supposed statements? You have to fix your own posts before you criticize me.
"At what point did I say that 97% were people of faith OR religious?"
Here:"Well, apparently, you think it's fully acceptable for the 3% (who are atheist) to push their views onto the other 97%." If people aren't religious, then atheism couldn't possibly be "pushing" their views on them. It's not as if they would want their children indoctrinated, obviously. On that note, it's idiotic for you to claim that the 97% is some sort of unified force even if it was an accurate number. It would be made up of multiple religions, containing people who would not want their children led in prayer of an opposing faith. Like you, for instance.
"And, indoctrination is to TEACH fundamentals and/or principles."
Sorry, you yourself provided a definition that did not use the word "teach"; "2: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle".
"They are so much different from one another a normal thinking human being could never conflate the two as equal."
DeleteNo, if you pray on your own, or in church, that's one thing. If you're led in prayer by an authority figure, that's indoctrination. Again, sex and rape are two different concepts as well, it doesn't mean that one can't be part of the other.
"How in the world can a teacher leading a prayer possibly cause ANY harm to ANY child?"
This has been answered. Your absurd claim that prayer can't be indoctrination because they're not the same word does not address the point already made. You wouldn't want your grandchild led in Muslim prayer. You see a problem with that. No matter how many times you ask the question, you've already expressed the answer.
"The constitution guarantees the teacher his/her right to observe their own religion in a manner fitting themselves."
Well, "themselves" is a key word there, isn't it? That ends at their own fingertips. It doesn't include pushing their faith onto children.
"Obviously the two lame examples you brought can, in fact, cause great physical harm."
Lying in court could cause great physical harm? Did you even read what I wrote? It's still against the law even if there's no physical harm. Rights are not absolute. The same way that we can determine that people shouldn't lie regarding relevant testimony, we can determine that teachers shouldn't lead children in prayer, because people like you don't want them to.
"BTW, I notice you completely ignore the mention of a personal letter from one to another that you derive your entire 'separation of church and state' laws and arguments from."
I addressed it previously. Review the thread.
"I'll bet there are a lot of personal letters out there that would deny gay marriages."
Really? From the Founding Fathers? Because that would suggest that something in the Constitution addresses marriage, and you are so very fond of saying that there's no "right" to marriage. Besides that, there could have been a defense of slavery in that day and age, too. It's not as if we can never move past things that are obviously wrong on that basis.
"Sorry, you yourself provided a definition that did not use the word "teach"; "2: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle". "
DeleteAha ha ha. That's number 2. What does number 1 say? Dishonest discussion method.
"This has been answered. Your absurd claim that prayer can't be indoctrination because they're not the same word does not address the point already made. You wouldn't want your grandchild led in Muslim prayer."
The problem with that is that I never said that. In fact I said just the opposite. Dishonest discussion method.
"Lying in court could cause great physical harm? Did you even read what I wrote?"
Yes, lying in court has sent several men to Death Row in many states. Perhaps you've read about the many that have been released because of the discovery of those lies. Many before them have already been put to death. Of course you must feel death is harmless? Dishonest discussion method.
And, another Yes, I read every one of your statements. You might consider trying that method yourself.
"Really? From the Founding Fathers?"
Well, since you seem so keen on bringing rape and sex into the discussion, Where did the "Founding Fathers" say you have a right to abortion? Dishonest discussion method.
"I addressed it previously. Review the thread."
Citation please. I see nothing on that subject.
"Children don't need to pray in school, and I'd like to see you claim otherwise."
I have already done that. Review the thread.
But, to provide actual links to what I've said (which you refuse to provide) here is where I gave examples of when prayer may be needed: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/06/delusions-of-grandeur.html?showComment=1339949454274#c434077710878704062
"Here:"Well, apparently, you think it's fully acceptable for the 3% (who are atheist) to push their views onto the other 97%." If people aren't religious, then atheism couldn't possibly be "pushing" their views on them."
Unfortunately, having the reading comprehension problem that you have, I NEVER said the 97% were religious. That is something that you have a hard time accepting. You seem to install your own words into things I've never said and claim I said them. Wow, you ARE using the typical liberal method of discussion. Too bad none of it is "honest". That has been one of your desires while discussing with me, right? Honesty? Why don't you try using it periodically?
"That's number 2. What does number 1 say? Dishonest discussion method."
DeleteSo you're telling me that anything past definition number 1 isn't a definition of the word? Why are multiple definitions listed, then, if they don't apply to the word? Why did YOU list it, if you didn't think it was valid? It's indoctrination, by your definition, and no amount of maneuvering can get you out of that.
"The problem with that is that I never said that."
Why would you want your grandchild to participate in a religious act, while you believe that religion exhibits poor morals? You're not making any sense. We've also established that it's indoctrination, by your provided definition, and you did say you didn't want your grandchild to be indoctrinated in Islam.
"And, another Yes, I read every one of your statements."
Good, then you don't get to talk about how I "ignore" what you say, because I made it clear that lying in court is not allowed even when there's no physical or emotional harm.
"Well, since you seem so keen on bringing rape and sex into the discussion, Where did the "Founding Fathers" say you have a right to abortion?"
What the hell would the relevance be? Attempting to change the subject, or is your thought process really that random?
"Citation please. I see nothing on that subject."
It's pretty obvious you didn't make an effort: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/06/delusions-of-grandeur.html?showComment=1339958268994#c1451870054681663935
"I have already done that."
None of those things dictate a need for children to be led in prayer.
"Unfortunately, having the reading comprehension problem that you have, I NEVER said the 97% were religious."
If they're not all religious, then they don't all oppose atheism. Why did you cite the number, then?
"It's pretty obvious you didn't make an effort:"
DeleteThat doesn't address the concern I have over using a personal letter as the basis for creating national law. You gave a description why there is to be no national religion. Has the United States EVER had a national religion? I think not, so your point is awash.
"None of those things dictate a need for children to be led in prayer"
NEED was never a criteria. Changing the goalposts again? Try to stick with what is being said, not your opinion.
"So you're telling me that anything past definition number 1 isn't a definition of the word?"
You're making circular arguments. If I had left ANY of the definitions out, you would have said I was discussing dishonestly. Even the second definition does not agree with your description that it is indoctrination. Praying is NOT teaching. And, NO, we have NOT established that it is. It is your opinion, but your opinion is by no means fact. What is fact is that you cannot support your stance and are doing anything to get around honestly discussing this subject. Nothing unexpected there. That IS your style of writing and discussion.
"What the hell would the relevance be? Attempting to change the subject, or is your thought process really that random?"
That should be asked of you. You are the one to bring both the founding fathers and sex/rape into the discussion. For what reason is not clear, but in both cases you brought them into it. I think you're just upset that you still can't support your stance and are just whining for the sake of whining. Which, it appears, you are VERY good at.
"If they're not all religious, then they don't all oppose atheism."
That is your opinion.
If they are supportive of atheistic views they would have described themselves as atheists. That is my opinion.
Which still doesn't address the concern I have of you denigrating the 1% of people who are rich based on the extreme difference of those who are rich v. those who are not. While at the same time you support the 3% of people who are atheists while denigrating the 97% who are NOT, while saying the percentage difference does not apply. Very hypocritical stance.
BTW, 'imbue' does not achieve the dishonest interpretation of the word pray you are trying to infer either.
Delete"Why would you want your grandchild to participate in a religious act,"
To pray is not a religious ACT. Non-religious people pray also. Have you ever heard the old saying: there are no atheists in foxholes? Who would they be praying to if they don't believe in religion?
How would making a request be strictly deemed religious?
"How would making a request be strictly deemed religious?"
DeleteI should have asked: how would making a request be strictly deemed religious, pray tell? LOL
"You gave a description why there is to be no national religion. Has the United States EVER had a national religion?"
DeleteI said that it explained the mindset behind the First Amendment. If you ignore the letter you were referring to, only then can you claim it's only about a "national religion". Even that isn't a particularly strong argument.
"NEED was never a criteria."
Sure it was. I asked what difference it would make if you're not able to lead prayer in school. Nobody cares if your response is "I felt like it". You have to demonstrate how it's some sort of hardship on you. Considering all you're doing is expressing an opinion regarding what I said, I'm not sure how you can tell me not to express my opinion on the matter.
"You're making circular arguments."
How so? Do you know what that means, or is that where your dart happened to land?
"If I had left ANY of the definitions out, you would have said I was discussing dishonestly."
Yes, because you would have been. So? Does this explain your claim that I'm not supposed to use the definition that YOU provided because it's not the first one?
"Even the second definition does not agree with your description that it is indoctrination. Praying is NOT teaching."
The second definition said "imbue". "Teach" is the first one, which you foolishly tried to argue was the only valid one, even after providing an alternate.
"And, NO, we have NOT established that it is."
Until you provide some sort of logical argument to the contrary, we have. Unless you want to admit that you have no interest in rational conversation, of course.
"It is your opinion, but your opinion is by no means fact."
A reasonable conclusion doesn't have to be determined to be "fact". You have no argument, therefore your point was not made.
"What is fact is that you cannot support your stance and are doing anything to get around honestly discussing this subject."
I think that would qualify as opinion, if you want to be consistent about things.
"You are the one to bring both the founding fathers and sex/rape into the discussion."
So, you bring up Jefferson's letter, but I'm the one to bring up the Founding Fathers when I address that. I see. As for sex/rape, that was a comparison to demonstrate a point, not a topic to be discussed.
"That is your opinion."
As opposed to what, exactly? Someone who doesn't give a damn about religion is going to be upset that children aren't praying in the classroom? How do you figure?
"Which still doesn't address the concern I have of you denigrating the 1% of people who are rich based on the extreme difference of those who are rich v. those who are not."
Demonstrate the "denigrating" that I supposedly did. I also explained the difference between the two issues, showing how it's not hypocritical. Go back and review, since you ignored it the first time around.
"BTW, 'imbue' does not achieve the dishonest interpretation of the word pray you are trying to infer either."
It's not an interpretation of "pray". It is a word all of its own, for which teacher-led prayer in public school clearly applies. Feel free to post the definition and explain how you claim otherwise.
"To pray is not a religious ACT."
Yes, it is. Calling on a higher power means acknowledging a higher power, which is religious.
"Have you ever heard the old saying: there are no atheists in foxholes?"
Yes, it means that when people think they're going to die, they turn to faith regardless of their previous attitude. Who said they were praying? And even if they were, what would it prove, since they're not atheists? You are deeply confused.
"Yes, it means that when people think they're going to die, they turn to faith regardless of their previous attitude. Who said they were praying? And even if they were, what would it prove, since they're not atheists?"
DeleteIt would mean if they are an atheist entering that foxhole, they are still an atheist when danger arrives, but are seeking something ... anything that may save their life. What makes it strictly religious, pray tell?
"Yes, it is. Calling on a higher power means acknowledging a higher power, which is religious."
What makes you think they are calling on a "higher power", pray tell?
In my opinion, you are relying on confusion. Only it is you who is confused ... on every topic being discussed. Good luck with that.
"... anything that may save their life. What makes it strictly religious, pray tell?"
DeleteThe fact that the very words you're citing say "no atheists". If they're seeking help from a higher power, then they believe in a higher power. Therefore they're not an atheist. Time for you to hit the dictionary again.
"What makes you think they are calling on a "higher power", pray tell?"
You said this:"The other difference is pray is making a REQUEST to a god." And this:"Who would they be praying to if they don't believe in religion?" So let's do the math here;praying is making a request to a god, people in foxholes are praying, therefore those people are calling on a higher power. Do you have a different definition of "god"?
So, by saying "pray tell" that indicates I am requesting "a god" to answer me? Does "pray tell" mean I am seeking "a higher power" to give me guidance on the requests I make of you? Pray tell, you can give me an answer why using that phrase automatically makes it a religious ACT.
DeleteAnd, apparently, you have no understanding of the 'foxhole' saying.
"Pray tell" is just an expression, probably shortened from "I pray you may tell" or similar wording. It definitely has no bearing on your moronic arguments. Hell, I'm surprised you didn't cite a "praying mantis" as evidence of something. "What's it praying to? It's a bug! Is science telling us that there's a God? HAHAHAHAHahahahaha stupid liberal hypocrites!!"
DeleteBy all means, explain your interpretation of "no atheists" in foxholes in which there are, somehow, atheists in foxholes.
Anything else?
""Pray tell" is just an expression, probably shortened from "I pray you may tell" or similar wording."
DeleteThat's a good one. "I pray you may tell" is just an expression? I take it you mean that it has no religious connotations also? Good for you. I'm glad you're admitting "pray" does NOT necessarily invoke a god of some type or is a religious ACT. So, it has a direct bearing on my argument that "pray" is not always religiously connected. That means the teacher can lead a prayer saying "I pray all of you kids do well on your test, today" and not violate your idiotic belief in a law based on personal letters between adults.
Nah, nothing else. You've admitted what I expected you to admit and failed everywhere I expected you to fail.
No need for me to say what you just self-admitted you are.
"That's a good one. "I pray you may tell" is just an expression?"
DeleteIf that's the original phrase, and shortened over time to "pray tell", then "pray tell" would just be an expression, yes.
"I take it you mean that it has no religious connotations also?"
Who cares? I say "bless you" when people sneeze, it doesn't mean I think I'm a priest.
"I'm glad you're admitting "pray" does NOT necessarily invoke a god of some type or is a religious ACT."
No, the act of prayer, which is what YOU were talking about before you devolved into this nonsense, is still a religious act. Let's review:"To pray is not a religious ACT. Non-religious people pray also." "To pray" is the verb form, meaning the act of praying. It's not saying the word "pray". This is confirmed by your next line, where you stupidly claim that non-religious people "pray", not just "say the word pray" or whatever.
"That means the teacher can lead a prayer saying "I pray all of you kids do well on your test, today" and not violate your idiotic belief in a law based on personal letters between adults."
Right, because "I pray all of you kids do well..." is just an expression. I wish I had a dime for every time I heard someone use that phrase. And as if you didn't admit already that we've been talking about a teacher leading students in prayer, not merely saying "I pray..."
You sure you don't want to talk about "praying mantises"? It's probably a stronger argument for you. Almost anything would be, honestly.
"No, the act of prayer, which is what YOU were talking about before you devolved into this nonsense, is still a religious act."
DeleteNot according to your admission that to pray for a good test is not religiously related. How the hell do you think prayers work? Do you think each and every one starts out "Oh GOD, please give these kids ultimate knowledge so they pass this test. Oh GOD, you supreme being and higher power, only You can grant all our wishes as long as we believe in You."?
Thanks for being around to settle the question of prayer, led by a teacher in school, is perfectly legal despite your insistence that a private, personal letter between two ancient adults makes it illegal.
BTW, obviously, according to your standards, the praying mantis is illegally praying to a higher power, creator and/or supreme being for extended life and/or food. Probably because it was "born that way".
;) LOL
"Not according to your admission that to pray for a good test is not religiously related."
DeleteWhere do you imagine I said that?
Right here: "Right, because "I pray all of you kids do well..." is just an expression."
DeleteBeen smoking a bit? Your short-term memory seems to be failing you.
LOL
The context was obviously sarcastic.
DeleteAny more lame, dishonest attempts to keep your argument alive?
Actually, I haven't made any dishonest arguments.
DeleteOh God, you supreme being, creator and higher power, give brabantio the intelligence to understand what is written in the English language, for he doesn't seem to be able to read. And only You can achieve this goal because he has no belief in You and is a complete failure without Your help and guidance. So, please Lord of lords and God of gods give him that needed knowledge for he refuses to ask for Your help on his own and without You, everyone knows, he can achieve nothing good. Please forgive him for being a liberal, it is a choice he made using the free will You gave him.
Hey, wait a minute, prayer/pray wasn't even used in that. Hmmm ... go figure.
Who said the words "prayer" or "pray" had to be used IN a prayer? You're not even referring to something you've claimed I've said at this point.
DeleteIncidentally, you can't have it both ways. If you couldn't detect the sarcasm in the quote you claimed to take literally, then you have poor reading comprehension. If you did, then you were making a dishonest argument. Either way, you're a hypocrite.
Well, Lord of lords, God of gods, You Supreme Being, Creator and Higher Power ... I tried to ask for Your favor on brabantio's behalf. I understand he refuses Your existence so Your will be done.
DeleteSo, nobody said the words "prayer" or "pray" had to be used in a prayer, then. You've devolved into purely random commentary, not that you started off much better.
DeleteHmmm, my prayers don't seem to be working. There must not be a God. Therefor it cannot be illegal for a teacher to lead a prayer in school. I guess you win and everyone should convert to your religion of atheism. I wonder if it will be legal to promote atheism in public school, since there obviously is no God. How can prayer to a non-existent God be illegal if God does not exist. After all, public schools forbid teaching creationism and only accept evolution as an acceptable theory.
DeleteWow, you're just too intelligent for me to withstand.
The factor of whether or not there actually is a God couldn't possibly be considered, since it's impossible to know. It never had anything to do with effectiveness of prayer, either.
Delete"I wonder if it will be legal to promote atheism in public school, since there obviously is no God."
The absence of faith in public school is not promoting atheism. It's not as if children don't pray and therefore are persuaded to not be religious. If you recognize that already, then no, it would never be acceptable to tell children that there is no God.
"How can prayer to a non-existent God be illegal if God does not exist."
Outside of your painful, redundant phrasing, it would still be pushing a faith in a government-sponsored environment.
"After all, public schools forbid teaching creationism and only accept evolution as an acceptable theory."
What's your point? Of course they forbid teaching creationism, if you're talking about science classes. Do you think that's wrong?
"It's not as if children don't pray and therefore are persuaded to not be religious."
DeleteThat is exactly what happens when that occurs.
"it would still be pushing a faith in a government-sponsored environment."
What religion are you supposing is being "sponsored"? Muslim God, Hebrew God, Christian God? Come on, make a reasonable argument to support your God-less stance.
"That is exactly what happens when that occurs."
DeleteReally? Do you have anything to back that up?
"What religion are you supposing is being "sponsored"?"
You seem to favor Christianity being sponsored. What difference would it make, though? You're not making it clear what you're expecting me to "support" here.
"Really? Do you have anything to back that up?"
DeleteNo more than you do to back up when you say saying a prayer in school will "indoctrinate" children into religions.
OOOPS, you didn't mean to go there did you?!?
By your definition, leading (not "saying", which you've already admitted was not the topic) prayer in school is indoctrination.
DeleteIn other words, you made up your claim. No surprise there, honestly.
What religion is being sponsored? Answer the question. It does make a difference. If the government is sponsoring no specific religion how can you make an argument against prayer in school by authorities?
DeleteBTW, my preference is irrelevant, the question is what religion is BEING sponsored?
"By your definition, leading (not "saying", which you've already admitted was not the topic) prayer in school is indoctrination."
Um, no. There has been no admission of that type for leading or saying. Because simply praying is not indoctrination. I see you keep falling back to things that have not been said in order to sustain your argument. Pray tell, why do you keep doing that? An honest person would not do that, why do you?
"What religion is being sponsored?"
DeleteIt doesn't matter. Any assertion of religious truth is indoctrination. It would depend on individual cases, so your phrasing is pretty odd.
"There has been no admission of that type for leading or saying. Because simply praying is not indoctrination."
It may not have been done wittingly, but you did. You provided the definition ("imbue"). Leading a prayer meets that standard. Until you have something to address that, the point stands.
I expect you'll just kick and scream and make more irrelevant, random arguments, though.
"I expect you'll just kick and scream and make more irrelevant, random arguments, though."
DeleteLike you've been doing? I don't think so.
"It doesn't matter. Any assertion of religious truth is indoctrination."
There is no truth in religion, only theory.
So, again, what religion is being sponsored by the United States? You can't keep brushing this question off. It is absolutely critical to your stance that the government sponsors a religion by allowing a teacher to lead a prayer to school children. If you can't answer it then you have nothing to hold your argument together related to government sponsored religion.
I've addressed the "imbue" concern, and it does not fit the standards you're trying to imply. You can't take random words from any definition and expect to use them to support your case. The words actually have to mean what you think they mean. And, so far, they haven't. How is a simple prayer permiating (the meaning of imbue) the minds of children into believing they will only get what they want by believing in a god? You're just being plain silly now.
"Like you've been doing?"
DeleteFinancial inequality. Atheists in foxholes. If there is no God then it can't be wrong to lead children to believe in God. All your arguments, all random, all irrelevant. Good job with the Pee-Wee Herman defense, though. Very advanced debate tactic there.
"There is no truth in religion, only theory."
Is that your view? You believe in God, but he's just a "theory"?
"So, again, what religion is being sponsored by the United States?"
I answered you. We're talking about classrooms here, so it would depend on the incident. If you're not talking about that anymore, then you have to explain what the hell you're driving at.
"I've addressed the "imbue" concern, and it does not fit the standards you're trying to imply."
No, you've said that it was not an interpretation of "pray", which was a dishonest argument.
"How is a simple prayer permiating (the meaning of imbue) the minds of children into believing they will only get what they want by believing in a god?"
That definition of "imbue" suddenly became very specific. Is "only get what they want by believing in a god" part of it? Because I don't remember seeing that phrasing earlier, strangely enough.
"Financial inequality. Atheists in foxholes. If there is no God then it can't be wrong to lead children to believe in God. All your arguments, all random, all irrelevant."
DeleteALL related to the topic Eddie brought in this article and replies where you changed the subject. Did you even read the article or go straight to bringing your lies after seeing me make a reply?
"Is that your view? You believe in God, but he's just a "theory"?"
Do you believe in evolution? Would that be your view?
"I answered you. "
You answered by saying it doesn't matter. That is no answer. That is dodging the question.
"That definition of "imbue" suddenly became very specific. "
That's right, what meaning do you want to use where it applies to your stance? In which case it would suddenly become very specific". Stop your whining.
"Did you even read the article or go straight to bringing your lies after seeing me make a reply?"
DeleteYes, it's a collection of your idiotic comments. We're talking about one of them here. What's supposed to make the "atheists in foxholes" argument sensible according to anything else in the article?
"Do you believe in evolution? Would that be your view?"
It's not the same thing, because I don't claim to have faith. Do you view God as a theory, yes or no?
"You answered by saying it doesn't matter."
It is an answer when it doesn't matter. If you don't present a question that makes any sense, you can't complain when you don't get the answer you're looking for. Either explain what you're talking about, or let it go.
"That's right, what meaning do you want to use where it applies to your stance? In which case it would suddenly become very specific". Stop your whining."
What's wrong with "1. to instil or inspire (with ideals, principles, etc.)"? Note the lack of "believing they will only get what they want..." or anything of the sort. When you assert that the definition is stricter than what it really is, I'm going to call you out on that dishonest act, and calling it "whining" isn't going to help you one bit.
"It's not the same thing"
DeleteAh ha ha ha ha
"Appeal to ridicule", logical fallacy. Anything else?
DeleteWilliamJune 20, 2012 8:21 AM
Delete"It's not the same thing"
Ah ha ha ha ha
BrabantioJune 20, 2012 8:28 AM
"Appeal to ridicule", logical fallacy. Anything else?
Basically, no, Brabs. When it comes right down to it, that's all he's got. Although I did get a chuckle out of his objection to your using a secondary dictionary definition, considering an exchange he and I had re: wife/consort.
You know, conchobhar, if you actually had read what I've said then you would know that I thought both definitions did not apply to his usage. I didn't say the second definition was not allowable. But, seeing how you didn't read, you wouldn't know that.
DeleteI'll give you credit for one thing, William. You misconstrue what others have written, and you do the same thing to yourself.
DeleteYeah? Well go read what was said (obviously you haven't yet). And, since you are completely lost on this one, I'll help you out.
DeleteGo here:
http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/06/delusions-of-grandeur.html?showComment=1340041960704#c2646372823233765588
or here:
http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/06/delusions-of-grandeur.html?showComment=1340043775749#c8343831453836782695
I did not say he could not use the other definition of the word 'pray'. I said the other definition does not fit with how he was trying to use it. And it doesn't. 'Pray' does NOT mean 'indoctrinate'. No matter how you twist the words, it just doesn't.
William:"Aha ha ha. That's number 2. What does number 1 say? Dishonest discussion method."
DeleteConchobhar:"Although I did get a chuckle out of his objection to your using a secondary dictionary definition..."
Laughing and calling my citation "dishonest" would be an "objection". He didn't say you used the words "you can't use that definition" or similar phrasing. After I pressed you on the matter, THEN you said "even" the second definition didn't fit. That was your secondary argument, after you figured out you couldn't justify your original objection.
"And it doesn't. 'Pray' does NOT mean 'indoctrinate'. No matter how you twist the words, it just doesn't."
DeleteExcept:"What's wrong with "1. to instil or inspire (with ideals, principles, etc.)"? Note the lack of "believing they will only get what they want..." or anything of the sort."
Notice how you ignored that argument? You fail to address my points, but then you insist that yours are somehow still valid. That isn't how reasoned discussion works. That's how children think, insisting on something despite all reasonable arguments to the contrary.
"Pray, indocrinate, imbue, whatever." My point was that this is your essentially irrelevant style of argument.
DeleteAnother case in point:
Brabantio:
""God" as capitalized is specific to Christianity. "
William:
"That is your own inflection. "God" could be one of the many Gods I mentioned and ones I did not mention. Try again, you're not doing very well."
Actually, you're the one who's not doing very well. (You mentioned above that you felt mentally overmatched by Brabs. You were being sarcastic, but you spoke more truly than you meant to.) As far as this silly little exchange goes, you're totally off the mark. In English usage the capitalization of the word "God" means that you are speaking of the god of the Bible, using one of the names attributed to to him. A personal name is, like all proper nouns, capitalized. Your capitalization of the common noun plural, "Gods," is wrong, and is either an honest mistake or a dishonest argument. Since you've already accused yourself of dishonesty, that's what I'll go with. Here's what I mean.
Brabantio:
"Really? From the Founding Fathers?"
William
"Well, since you seem so keen on bringing rape and sex into the discussion, Where did the "Founding Fathers" say you have a right to abortion? Dishonest discussion method."
The context of this exchange, beginning with your reference to Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" letter, confirms your self-indictment.
But your greatest dishonesty is around the word "pray", and your insistence that praying can't be "indoctrination" or teaching because the definitions differ. That's absurd. One of the most effective teaching methods, for both parents and teachers (in loquo parentis) is behavior modelling. (You know how well, "Do what I say, not what I do," works.) When an authority figure, such as a teacher, models an activity, such as prayer, the very act teaches impressionable young people (rightly or wrongly) that the act is efficacious and good. If the teacher requires the children to participate, this adds practice and repetition to pedagogical mix. You ask what harm this might inflict? You've answered that by putting your children and grandchildren in a school which teaches what you feel to be the right dogma and morals. Would you be comfortable having your children pressured into saying the "Hail Mary," and asking God to "Bless our Holy Father in Rome," every day? Somehow I doubt it. But hey, Christianity is the country's predominant religion and the largest Christian sect is the Catholic Church, so why not, if numbers rule? But what happens to the child, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim or atheist, who has the courage to refuse to participate? Pariah status?
(continued)
(continues)
DeleteIn the second or third comment you ever directed at me, you offered me a tinfoil hat because I'd made a reference, I've forgotten the exact context, to Northern Ireland and the over-intrusive security apparatus there (you seem to have come around, or maybe you just like to attack those to your left). Well, stand by. Europe's internecine religious wars staggered to their end in the late 20th Century, amid the 'dreary steeples' of Northern Ireland. It was the example of these wars that motivated the Founders to wisely erect the wall of separation which you and your beloved Barton so hate. That wall is being attacked, not only by Barton, but in the American military, and it's a dangerous thing.
"The Air Force Deputy Chief of Chaplains tells a New York Times Reporter, in a front page story, that it is now official U.S, Air Force policy to “Reserve the right to evangelize the un-churched.” (Who exactly are “the un-churched,”and who decides?)." http://warisacrime.org/node/20642
"If they are supportive of atheistic views they would have described themselves as atheists. That is my opinion."
An opinion based on projection and conjecture, not observable fact or logic, is pretty weak beer. An agnostic would be, to a point, "supportive of atheistic views," but would definitely not describe himself as an atheist. That would probably also be true of a person who describes himself as 'spiritual but not religious.'
Since you're around defending brabantio, conchobhar, could you answer a simple question that he doesn't seem to be able to answer?
DeleteSeveral years ago, I was joined in a civil union with my wife, about 6 months later, we were married in a church ceremony. After our civil union we (apparently) garnered some extra rights from being in a heterosexual union that homosexuals in the same union do not get (according to many liberals I've discussed with). The question is what additional rights did I get after our church marriage ceremony that I hadn't already gotten after our civil union?
I'll take your non sequitur as capitulation on the points I've raised, but I'm not going down the primose path with you. Brabs is handling you just fine. You just don't like his answers.
Delete"Brabs is handling you just fine."
DeleteYeah, by NOT answering the one question that defines the demands of liberals and homosexuals around this nation: what additional rights are garnered by church marriages over civil unions?
From what I've been told, there are NO additional rights from a church marriage that a civil union doesn't achieve. Of course, I'm not saying that civil unions achieve the financial/medical equalities that are being sought after. But, all those equalities can be argued through civil unions and church marriages achieve NO additional rights over civil unions. But, NOT addressing that is NOT "handling (me) just fine".
BTW, of course you won't attempt to address that either. I don't expect you to. For the same reasons Brabantio won't also.
If not answering questions is your gauge of performance, then you're losing horrendously.
Delete"A hit! A palpable hit!"
DeleteToo bad none of the questions I'm not answering are as critical as the ONE question I seek an answer to. But, I'm not asking just you (you're not as important as you think). If you actually read this article, I originally asked classicliberal, and he hasn't even posted since then. The lack of an answer to that question from anyone else is very telling.
DeleteWhich means I've hit the nail on the head and found THE question that none of you liberals will attempt to answer. It looks like I am right about it being the defining question regarding "gay marriage" rights.
All the questions you're not answering have to do with the validity of the arguments YOU have been making. When you fail to answer them, your arguments are null and void.
DeleteIf you want to admit that leading prayer is indoctrination, and therefore unacceptable, then maybe we can move on to another issue.
That's correct. A teacher leading a prayer in school is not indoctrination. Neither would it be indoctrination if Eddie lead a prayer in school.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI've heard your assertion. What I haven't heard from you is how the dictionary definition of "imbue" supports that assertion. By the way, your first two sentences are contradictory.
Delete"By the way, your first two sentences are contradictory."
DeleteNot for the statement I made. How would Eddie leading a prayer in school be considered indoctrination? Yet, it would fall in the category of 'illegal' in your world of "separation of church and state".
Are you done giving questions that you'll whine about answers to? Maybe you'll answer mine, now?
"What I haven't heard from you is how the dictionary definition of "imbue" supports that assertion. "
DeleteI answered that long ago. Go back and read it.
I guess the problem, here, is that you ignore answers, that I dutifully give, then claim I don't answer. That sure seems logical.
Now, on to my question. What additional rights did I get from a church marriage after being in a civil union for the previous 6 months? Still don't have the moxie to answer that one? I see that conchobhar doesn't either. Don't feel alone.
Now, this is funny:
Delete"Too bad none of the questions I'm not answering are as critical as the ONE question I seek an answer to."
The question you're obsessing over is answered and/or irrelevant to everybody but you. You, however, ignore incoveniently substantive arguments or answer them with nonsense and lies, but still feel you've got the moral standing to declare your own superiority. Leading a prayer is not indoctrination, simply because you say so?
Hilarious.
You remind me of a a comic strip from my youth, called "Hi and Lois," specifically a segment devoted to intergenerational argument. After three windows in which Mom and Dad explained, completely reasonably, why the toddler couldn't get something he wanted, the fourth window was a single shot of the little guy bawling, "You don't understand! I WANT IT!!!
I wonder if that little guy ever grew up and learned to discuss like an adult? I know you haven't.
"How would Eddie leading a prayer in school be considered indoctrination?"
DeleteThat would be your third sentence. I said the first two.
"I answered that long ago. Go back and read it."
Substantively? Please link to it, because I haven't seen you make an honest attempt.
"I answered that long ago. Go back and read it."
Delete"Substantively? Please link to it, because I haven't seen you make an honest attempt."
Did you cut and paste that from a couple of threads featuring William and me? I seem to remember challenging him to do that, with no, or laughable, results.
You guys are demanding special rights for one group of Americans that no other American has. Since it has been determined that "marriage" gave me NO ADDITIONAL rights over my civil union how can you make those demands of rights that NO OTHER AMERICAN HAS?
DeleteAnd you're whining about honesty? Really?
"Please link to it,"
I'm not going to go back and read through a hundred posts to find one that you deny is there when it is proven you have a reading comprehension problem. You can find it your self and when you do I'm sure you'll let me know if I did not do as I claim.
"You guys are demanding special rights..."
DeleteAlready addressed. You can get married, gay people usually can not. Whether you call that a "right" or not, the disparity is undeniable.
"You can find it your self and when you do I'm sure you'll let me know if I did not do as I claim."
The problem is that you're saying you did something that I never saw. So I can't "find it" to let you know that I didn't find it. Now, I'm saying you never addressed it. Prove me wrong, otherwise my claim stands as correct. That's how it works.
Eddie, If it seems I am abandoning your site, as William claims, it is because I find him(William) to be a frightful bore. Why don't we all just ignore him? He has nothing intelligent to say and is driven, it seems to me, by hatred, intolerance and ignorance. Why engage him? I actually have conservative friends and they are able to unemotionally argue their positions and listen to mine in turn. I welcome discourse with those with whom I disagree...except William,unfortunately. He is like a barking dog. He has even managed to argue with me about my faith in Christ...as though he is the bouncer at the gates of heaven and I will need to talk my way past him. LOL! If we ignore him perhaps he will go away.
ReplyDeleteA very valid question and principled point.
DeleteI have two reasons:
First... Because you have no idea how much FUN I have arguing with him! :) Finding ExxonMobil's tax form and vindicating MMFA over the Heartless Institute? Was as personally satisfying for my as (rhetorically) hitting him the head with a brick would be! I do it for the same reason as I do this blog, write Utopia and now draw Polisym: Because I have so much FUN doing it! LOL
Also... My personal victory criteria here aren't convincing him (which is impossible, as he's comopletely closed his mind off) nor even making him go away. (What fun would that be?! LOL) It's simply in knowing I'M RIGHT. And, of course, making Conservtaives loko bad in the process. William helps me out immensely on BOTH fronts. LOL
But Secondly, on a far more serious note, MMFA did a pretty good piece recently on why ignoring RW Mwedia isn't really an option. (OR rather, why it's a perilous one.)
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206110001
Now... Neither William, nor the comments section of this blog (nor the blog itself) are "the media." But I think the principle at play is the same, and just as valid. If someone, anyone, posts something here that is blatantly WRONG, and it's not something that's already been addressed ad nauseum (that last one's a doozy when William is involved) I really think that it deserves a response.
UNFORTUNATELY - and where you have an entirely valid point - that means that this asshat end up driving the conversation, and much of the content. Which is unfortunate. (OTOH, I've had such a bad case of writer's block lately, I was thankful for the material! LOL) But should anyone come by, read his stuff and think, "Good Question!" I feel I owe it to them and myself to provide an answer.
I WILL apologize for continuing to include his content, however. I have the ability to easily erase anything he posts. And maybe after generating enough content to write Sean Hannity's next book and seeing it all erased, he WOULD go away. But I don't actually WANT to do that.
Because he speaks for Conservatives here. And in using so much bigotted, hateful invective in his comments? He simultaneously saves me the trouble of pointing out how the Right behave AND gives me evidence to back it up. ;)
"Finding ExxonMobil's tax form and vindicating MMFA over the Heartless Institute? Was as personally satisfying for my as (rhetorically) hitting him the head with a brick would be! "
DeleteToo bad you won't do that with the Tennessee abstinence issue or the "EIGHTY PERCENT" issue. Since both of those are based on lies and misinformation you refuse to respond to questions about them.
Oh, gosh, am I being a frightful bore again? Silly me for wanting explanations for lies made by those seeking to denigrate one political party and religious ideal simply because they don't like them. Gee, how right-wing you sound with that attitude.
I came to the same conclusion as jlarue a long time ago. This dog has nothing to offer anyone.
DeleteI could bring lies and misinformation, like Eddie does. Would that suit you better? Still nothing on those topics I've pointed out. Go figure ...
Delete"First of all, regarding Civil Rights: It is not I who wishes to grant them. It is YOU who wished to continue to deny them on that basis. Even if one's orientation WAS a choice, the only justification to punnish them on that basis is your own medieval superstitions about it."
ReplyDeleteYou may as well seek civil rights for those who dye their hair RED. That way anyone who CHOOSES to have red hair can get those additional civil rights over those who choose NOT to dye their hair red. If you want to minimize the importance and significance of civil rights, your ideal that a CHOICE earns them will certainly do that.
As for me, I think civil rights should be reserved for those who are in situations they have no control over.
What right is denied to people who dye their hair red?
DeleteWhat right is denied homosexuals who want to get married? Is there a right to marriage out there that no one has told me about? Maybe you're thinking of financial equality? But, those are different, aren't they?
DeleteHomosexuals can't do what heterosexuals do in most states. There's nothing regarding hair color that could possibly compare.
Delete"There's nothing regarding hair color that could possibly compare."
DeleteSure, there is a direct comparison being that it is CHOICE. Unless you've got definitive proof that homosexuals are born that way. Which you've had plenty of times to bring but never did. Here's another chance for ya. Can you do it this time?
Maybe you'll want to address the concern of marriage rights that no one has but you want for one group. Or perhaps the financial inequality that I agree is present and should be addressed. Or you can stick to the hair color thing. Your choice.
You brought up the hair color comparison, not me. If, in your construct, you are saying that people who dye their hair red are at some sort of disadvantage, then you really don't have an argument that the situation shouldn't be remedied. There would be no reason to discriminate.
DeleteAgain, your reading comprehension abilities are failing you. I never said they were at a disadvantage. Unless you have that statement, you probably should stop using it. Go back and slowly read what I actually said (as if that would do any good, right?).
DeleteI know you didn't say they were at a disadvantage. That's exactly why I'm telling you the comparison is invalid.
DeleteThe point, which I think you are pretending to misunderstand, is that there are no "special rights" involved here. People who dye their hair red are not disadvantaged in any way, so any rights granted to them would be something above and beyond those that anyone else has. That's not comparable to correcting the inequality that is inherent in one group of people being unable to do something that another group can.
And what rights are the homosexuals denied? Is marriage a gauranteed right? If not, then why are you seeking to give them rights no one else has? If so, then show me where there is that right.
Delete"That's not comparable to correcting the inequality that is inherent in one group of people being unable to do something that another group can."
Homosexuality is not inherent. If it is you would have brought proof of it. Since it isn't you have not brought any proof. So, can you make your statement without the word "inherent" being used?
With that statement, though, you open the door for pedophiles seeking rights based on their 'condition' which causes them to have an inequality. Are you prepared to go down that road again?
No matter how many times you make this nonsensical argument about marriage not being a "right", I will refer you to the fact that heterosexuals are able to get married while gay people are not in most states. Your definitions are irrelevant.
DeleteThe word "inherent" in the sentence you quoted clearly referred to the inequality, not sexual orientation. There goes your ability to talk about reading comprehension.
And, as has been well established, proof (much less your absurd standards of proof) is not required. Also, as has been made very clear, pedophilia involves harm to children, and you have failed in every attempt to show how a consensual adult relationship constitutes "harm" to anyone.
"No matter how many times you make this nonsensical argument about marriage not being a "right", I will refer you to the fact that heterosexuals are able to get married while gay people are not in most states."
DeleteI'm sorry, brabantio, but since it is the "right" to marriage that you (and others) are seeking, I will continue to call it that. Now, when you are able to answer those questions about "rights" denied to the homosexual, feel free to do so. If, however, you find that there is no "right" to marriage given to heterosexuals but you still seek to have a "right" to marriage for homosexuals I will continue to point out your inconsistencies.
"The word "inherent" in the sentence you quoted clearly referred to the inequality, not sexual orientation."
There's a good example of your inability to understand what is written. Inherent essentially means to be born that way. You've used it in that context before and I was not about to let you get away with it again.
"pedophilia involves harm to children,"
Which brings up the point (and comparison) I am making about prayer in school. What "harm" to children happens that makes it illegal for a teacher to lead a prayer while at school? Answer that question please.
"and you have failed in every attempt to show how a consensual adult relationship constitutes "harm" to anyone."
I don't think showing whether there is "harm" to anyone makes a difference when someone is seeking "rights" that no one else has. What I am trying to show is that you (generally every liberal) are seeking "rights" for one group of people (who make a choice to be in that group) while no other group of people have the "right" you are seeking for that other group.
So, whether another group of people causes "harm" to anyone or not is not the issue when you seek to garner "rights" for one group while excluding another. You are being a bigot and hypocrite with that stance. It seems just like what you call me for wanting to exclude your favorite group AND the other perverted group from getting "rights" that no one else has.
IF, however, you want to discuss the financial equality that all groups should enjoy, I'm here to discuss the current inequality and would be more than willing to find ways to achieve financial equality for all those groups that are financially discriminated against because of their choices. Because choosing to be gay and share a gay lifestyle with your lifelong (or current) partner should not prevent you from inheritances, medical decisions/visitations, tax shelters, retirement allocations and other financial benefits from being with the partner you choose. I fully agree there are some inequalities on those issues.
"If, however, you find that there is no "right" to marriage given to heterosexuals but you still seek to have a "right" to marriage for homosexuals I will continue to point out your inconsistencies."
DeleteThere is no inconsistency in my argument. There is a disparity which should be corrected, regardless of your dishonest framework.
"Inherent essentially means to be born that way."
If I'm talking about a person, yes. If I'm talking about a situation, as I undeniably was, then "born" doesn't apply.
"What "harm" to children happens that makes it illegal for a teacher to lead a prayer while at school?"
Because it's indoctrination.
"So, whether another group of people causes "harm" to anyone or not is not the issue when you seek to garner "rights" for one group while excluding another."
Heterosexuals couldn't possibly be excluded because they're already able to get married. Again, your definitions are irrelevant, no matter how many times you insist on them.
Prayer does not equate to indoctrinate. Which makes your argument inconsistant and irrelivent. Please show how petitioning a God for good favors is equal to instructing fundamentals of a religion.
Delete"Yeah, THAT one. You know what else is, according to religious doctrine and state laws, some of which were only overturned in the past decade? Inter-racial marriage and oral sex. Condoms too, at one point. While we're at it, and as long as were talking about NATURE, I might point out that so is modern medicine, aviation, the Internet, democracy and fat-free frozen yogurt. By I digress."
ReplyDeleteYeah, you digress. Are you saying religious doctrine/state law and nature are the same thing? I've never heard a liberal say that kind of thing, but nothing would surprise me about their belief patterns. I know I never said anything about religious doctrine or state laws when I made my statement, but you can read it any way you want. When you get done whining about something that isn't related to my concern, let me know. If you want to continue whining about what I actually said ... well ... you know how to find your blog site.
While I'm at it. I don't want my own blog site. I don't need a bunch of people who whine about different opinions, posting how superior they feel they are over others with opinions, like you do at yours.
"You're gay.
ReplyDelete(Or Bi-Sexual, I suppose.)"
Well, do I get those special civil rights that you are seeking for others of that same persuasion then? Because, presently, being heterosexual and married to a woman, I still have NOT garnered any civil rights for marriage.
You're able to get married in any state as a heterosexual. Gay people are not. Your definitions are irrelevant because the difference in standing is readily apparent.
DeleteWhere is the "civil right" for that? Do I already have a civil right to marry? Or is there something else allowing that to happen?
DeleteWhat part of "your definitions are irrelevant" did you not understand?
DeleteWhat definition are you having a problem with?
DeleteIt doesn't matter whether you define this as a "right" or not, despite your disingenuous insistence to the contrary.
Delete"Well, do I get those special civil rights that you are seeking for others of that same persuasion then? Because, presently, being heterosexual and married to a woman, I still have NOT garnered any civil rights for marriage."
DeleteBack in 2004, the GAO identified 1,138 rights, benefits, and privileges extended, in federal law, to married couples. Only hetero couples, of course, and only via federal law (the states are where such things really kick in), and that was 8 years ago (the list has been extended since then).
Which are "rights"? Which are "benefits"? I honestly don't know of any, if you have actual proof of "rights" I'm getting ONLY because I'm heterosexual, then please bring that evidence. I've stated over and over, I fully support financial equality for gays who want to get civil unions (you can call it married if you like, I'll call it civil unions). So, if you could bring examples of the "rights" that heterosexuals get that homosexuals do not.
Delete"Which are 'rights'? Which are 'benefits'?"
DeleteSomeone else suggested you don't think before you write. They're wrong--you don't think at all. If your wife fell ill and incapacitated, you'd be the one who would make decisions regarding her care (a homosexual doesn't even have a right to see his partner if said partner falls ill). If you were hit by a car, you would inherit what was hers. Every year, you pay taxes and get benefits for being married. If you're a veteran, your benefits, should you die, fall to your spouse. And on and on and on.
"I honestly don't know of any, if you have actual proof of 'rights' I'm getting ONLY because I'm heterosexual, then please bring that evidence."
The 2004 GAO report, documenting 1,138 of them in the federal law alone, is here:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
...and, of course, it's 8 years out-of-date, meaning many more have been added since.
Thank you, classicliberal, you just gave a couple very good examples of why I fully support the financial inequality changes that are needed. Each of your examples show just that injustice and I fully support the efforts to get them corrected. Again, thank you.
DeleteBTW, when my wife and I were joined in a civil union at the local City Hall, we aquired those "rights" (as you call them). Later that year, we were "married" in a Church ceremony. What additional "rights" did I aquire after that?
DeleteI am thinking you are seeking financial equality (I support that), but are using a religious ceremony to achieve that. Umm, what about that 'seperation of church and state' liberals have a habit of whining about?
Marriage is a civil, not religious, arrangement. People can partake of entirely extraneous religious ceremonies if they like, but it's not required; if, on the other hand, they marry in this way without going through the civil process, the marriage will not be officially recognized (except insofar as common law allows).
DeletePerhaps now you can explain how the right to dictate your wife's medical treatment is a "financial" matter.
Marriage is a religious ceremony instituted by God at the beginning. If you believe in religion, then you know this to be true. If not, then settle with the 'civil unions' and things will work out fine. I will vote for equality using civil unions, but not with marriage.
DeleteNo mention of the seperation of church and state while you're requiring the government to recognize religious ceremonies? Go figure.
No, marriage is a legal arrangement. I got married with no religion involved whatsoever. Churches may serve as part of the process, but they are absolutely unnecessary.
Delete"Marriage is a religious ceremony instituted by God at the beginning. If you believe in religion, then you know this to be true."
Delete...and three sentences later...
"No mention of the seperation of church and state while you're requiring the government to recognize religious ceremonies? Go figure."
It's your position that marriage is a religious ceremony, yet government is recognizing it. You have the church-and-state problem, here, not I.
In reality, it is, as I've already demonstrated, a civil, not religious, arrangement, and it's a change in this civil arrangement, not a change in any religious arrangements, that is being discussed with regard to gay marriage. Your saying otherwise won't make it otherwise. It does, however, make you look fundamentally dishonest and unwilling to face reality, but so does everything else you write here.
I have no problem with the state santioning a religious ceremony. It is you liberals who feel that religion needs to keep their dirty little hands out of anything remotely related to the government. So, hell ya, it is my position that marriage is a religious ceremony and, hell ya, it is fine with me if the government lets any religion do what ever they want ... as long as the government doesn't institute a national religion that everyone must follow.
DeleteThe only problem I have is with you hypocritical liberals who demand that the government mandate marriage rights, then demand seperation of church and state.
And you want to know your next hypocrisy? It will be when a church denies a homosexual couple the usage of the church to be married in because they are homosexual and you will demand that the government force the church to allow gay marriages in their building. You will whine so loud that everyone in China will hear you. You people are so predictable it is unbe-frikin-lievable.
There's your lack of logic and lack of morals all wrapped up in one tidy little lawsuit.
"So, hell ya, it is my position that marriage is a religious ceremony and, hell ya, it is fine with me if the government lets any religion do what ever they want ... as long as the government doesn't institute a national religion that everyone must follow."
DeleteYou act as if this is a matter of opinion. It's not. If you can have a marriage without religion, then it's not a religious ceremony. Do you have any concept of how insane it is to for you to claim that you don't have to be religious to call upon a higher power, but getting a marriage license and going in front of a judge requires religion?
"It will be when a church denies a homosexual couple the usage of the church to be married in because they are homosexual and you will demand that the government force the church to allow gay marriages in their building."
Slippery slope, a logical fallacy. There's no basis in reality for that whatsoever.
"Slippery slope, a logical fallacy. There's no basis in reality for that whatsoever."
DeleteYou're right, that would never happen. You liberals are more hypocritical than you want to admit. And my logic is absolutely right again and again. You just refuse to see past your own behavior.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/kansas-law-would-force-churches-to-host-same-sex-weddings-receptions
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lesbian-couple-files-complaint-against-church-for-refusing-civil-union-cere
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfbWynI1Igc
" ... but getting a marriage license and going in front of a judge requires religion?"
DeleteNo, when my wife and I got our civil union done at the Court House we only had to pay the $100 (or so). What additional "rights" did we gain when we were "married" in a Church several months later? I notice you ignored that simple question.
"Churches may serve as part of the process, but they are absolutely unnecessary."
Yeah? Why are they being sued for not performing marriages then?
"You're right, that would never happen."
DeleteFrom the article:"The measure would specifically include churches that rent their property to the public..."“If a church has a parish hall that they rent out to the general public, they could not discriminate against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party,”"
That's your issue? The same principle that a church couldn't refuse to rent out s hall to an interracial couple when it rents it out to anyone else in the general public? If a church is going to operate as a business, then it's not that outlandish to say they shouldn't discriminate, because they're not endorsing any other uses for the rentals. As for the second link, either the church didn't act consistently in its usage of that property, or it's a frivolous lawsuit, neither of which would suggest that churches are going to be forced to perform weddings. That is the only legitimate concern.
"What additional "rights" did we gain when we were "married" in a Church several months later? I notice you ignored that simple question."
That wasn't in the post I was responding to, as has nothing to do with what I said. Did you notice that, perhaps?
"Yeah? Why are they being sued for not performing marriages then?"
That's not what your link showed, because the issue wasn't their church performing the ceremony. It was about land usage. Read your own links. Besides that, anyone can sue for anything. That in itself doesn't assert that a church is necessary to get married at all. Your logic is, as always, tortured.
And please, try to find some agreement between this:"To pray is not a religious ACT. Non-religious people pray also" and your argument that marriage is a religious ceremony when non-religious people get married every day without church involvement. "Non-religious people get married also", as your framework goes.
Delete"The same principle that a church couldn't refuse to rent out s hall to an interracial couple when it rents it out to anyone else in the general public?"
DeleteWow, talk about your "logical fallacy", who is talking about inter-racial marriage? What does that have to do with homosexuals? Are you equating all inter-racial couples to being homosexuals?
Where does God call inter-racial marriage an abomination? Where does God call inter-racial marriage a sin?
So, the facts are, your "slippery slope" is already happening. The "logical fallacy" IS being played out in reality. And, it shows you really haven't anything to support your argument.
"Your logic is, as always, tortured."
At least mine isn't hypocritical, like yours is.
"That wasn't in the post I was responding to, as has nothing to do with what I said. Did you notice that, perhaps?"
What I DO notice is you've been posting for the past week going from subject to subject and suddenly decide that the questions are getting too hard and claim you won't respond to that question. What a coincidence, classicliberal won't answer that one either. Does that mean you don't have the intelligence to answer that question? You mean I've reached the end of your ability to answer honestly? That didn't take too long.
"And please, try to find some agreement between this: ... "
What disagreement is there, that you can't figure out? Is this another one of those questions that is too tough for you to answer? Well, maybe someone who is smarter than you will show up and answer for you. Like the previous few questions.
"That wasn't in the post I was responding to, ..."
DeleteActually (factually), yes it was. Did you notice you responded to this: "Yeah? Why are they being sued for not performing marriages then?" ? Well, in the same post I asked: "What additional "rights" did we gain when we were "married" in a Church several months later?". Both are in the post you are responding to.
So, YES, it was in the post you were responding to. Perhaps I am correct, from my last post, that you don't have the intelligence to answer the tough questions. That's got to be it, because you've never backed down, like that, before. Is there something in that question that scares you?
Don't worry, I fully understand why you are afraid or unable to answer that question. Your secret is safe with me.
"Did you notice you responded to this: "Yeah? Why are they being sued for not performing marriages then?""
DeleteExcuse me, but you're out of your mind. That's the same post where you said I ignored the question. You're accusing me of ignoring a question in the same post that you're citing the question from. That is beyond dumb.
Here's the post you're talking about:"No, when my wife and I got our civil union done at the Court House we only had to pay the $100 (or so). What additional "rights" did we gain when we were "married" in a Church several months later? I notice you ignored that simple question..."Churches may serve as part of the process, but they are absolutely unnecessary."...Yeah? Why are they being sued for not performing marriages then?"
You asked classicliberal the question you're referring to in a previous post, which I did not respond to at all.
"Wow, talk about your "logical fallacy", who is talking about inter-racial marriage? What does that have to do with homosexuals? Are you equating all inter-racial couples to being homosexuals?"
DeleteI said it's the same principle that you can't deny the rental of property to interracial couples if you rent to the general public. The "equating" is simply that some people don't accept it. This really isn't that hard to grasp.
"Where does God call inter-racial marriage an abomination? Where does God call inter-racial marriage a sin?"
Who said the Bible is worth a damn? Comparisons like yours are meaningless, because bigotry is not justified by your faith. Mormons didn't used to be particularly favorable of African-Americans in general, based on their faith.
"So, the facts are, your "slippery slope" is already happening."
If a church is going to have business arrangements with the general public, then it's regulated by the government in that regard. That's hardly new, and it's perfectly appropriate. Your lack of a substantive reply to this point as stated above suggests that you knew that already.
"Does that mean you don't have the intelligence to answer that question?"
It wasn't addressed to me, and it had no relevance to anything I posted. Why should I answer it? It's especially stupid to suggest that I'm obligated to do so considering that I've already shut down your "rights" line of argumentation on this thread.
"What disagreement is there, that you can't figure out? Is this another one of those questions that is too tough for you to answer?"
That's pretty funny, since you're the one who can't answer the question. Am I supposed to answer the question I posed to you on your behalf, or what?
"I said it's the same principle that you can't deny the rental of property to interracial couples if you rent to the general public."
DeleteIt's not the same principle. It's an inacurate comparison. Races are determined by birth. Homosexuality is a choice.
"Who said the Bible is worth a damn?"
I do. That's what I base my morals on. Homosexuality is immoral, just like pedophilia is. Neither should get special rights just because of their choices. If you're going to demand special rights for one immoral choice, you must demand the same special rights to the other immoral choice. Do you?
BTW, Mormons don't follow only the Bible. They have a book written by some Smith guy that they follow also, who wasn't a very moral guy. If you want to use them as an example of Christianity, you surely don't know what Christianity is all about.
Your assertions about choice are irrelevant. Bigotry is not accepted. You may think it should be in one case, but it's not. Therefore the principle is the same in both instances.
Delete"I do. That's what I base my morals on."
Who cares? Your opinion doesn't dictate public policy, thankfully, any more than we would accept Mormons dictating the inequality of African-Americans in the 1970's.
"If you're going to demand special rights for one immoral choice, you must demand the same special rights to the other immoral choice."
Please refer to previous threads where you ultimately failed to address my posts responding to this moronic argument. The same goes for the "Mormonism isn't Christian" claim. Why do you feel such a strong need to change the subject?
I notice you didn't follow up on your "actually (factually)" post. I wonder why.
"Please refer to previous threads where you ultimately failed to address my posts responding to this moronic argument."
DeleteAND
"Your opinion doesn't dictate public policy, thankfully, any more than we would accept Mormons dictating the inequality of African-Americans in the 1970's."
Ok, I get it. YOUR moral choices are fully acceptable, but mine are not? You think homosexuality is ok and pedophilia is detestable and YOU feel that should be public policy. I think both are detestable and you say I don't get to dictate public policy.
Aren't you the one claiming NOT to be a hypocrite? Well, you are and it shows all too well.
"I notice you didn't follow up on your "actually (factually)" post. I wonder why."
Why would I need to. I already showed that you responded to the post where that question was in. Do you always deny things that are so obvious?
Post you responded to: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/06/delusions-of-grandeur.html?showComment=1340248430251#c6338682637190376688
Post where you denied responding to it: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/06/delusions-of-grandeur.html?showComment=1340271525592#c8329726685597570393
So, you respond to a post, then deny responding to that post. You have a serious problem.
"I think both are detestable and you say I don't get to dictate public policy."
DeleteDid you notice that the context was the Bible? Society determines what's acceptable, not an old book or your interpretation thereof.
The difference between you and me here is that I have an objective argument to support my position. You have a belief. Beliefs don't have to conform to reality at all. Objective arguments do. That's why when we're talking about policy, your Biblical views are utterly worthless.
"So, you respond to a post, then deny responding to that post. You have a serious problem."
This is what I said:"You asked classicliberal the question you're referring to in a previous post, which I did not respond to at all." The post you linked to was addressed to me. The post where you originally asked the question was not to me. The first time you brought it up to me was in the same post where you said I ignored it.
I didn't say that I didn't respond to the post you just linked to. If you're really this confused, you should see a doctor. If you're this dishonest, you should quit touting your Christianity, because all you're doing is showing that the title has no bearing on personal behavior whatsoever.
"The difference between you and me here is that I have an objective argument to support my position. You have a belief."
DeleteNo, the difference between you and me is that I prefer to follow consistent moral standards and you do not.
"I didn't say that I didn't respond to the post you just linked to. "
Doesn't matter, what you replied to was part of the post that was in. You said it was NOT in the "post" you were replying to: "That wasn't in the post I was responding to, ... ". I have shown that it was part of the post you replied to. Now, you deny it was part of the post you replied to?
You entire argument has been reduced to 'I didn't respond to this or that' and you have forsaken all your points of argument. I'm ashamed, for you, that it took this long for you to show that you have no actual positions that you can defend logically or morally and have now reduced yourself to saying 'that wasn't what I replied to'.
"No, the difference between you and me is that I prefer to follow consistent moral standards and you do not."
DeleteLike lying? Consistent, yes, moral, not really.
"Doesn't matter, what you replied to was part of the post that was in."
It does matter, because you changed your argument from claiming that I ignored your question to saying that I responded to the post where you made that accusation.
"I have shown that it was part of the post you replied to."
I never denied that. My point is that if someone walks up to you and asks why you haven't started on a project, and you say he never told you about any project, and the reply is "I just told you", then that person would be an idiot. That's exactly what you did, pretending as if linear time doesn't exist.
"You entire argument has been reduced to 'I didn't respond to this or that' and you have forsaken all your points of argument."
I don't see where I abandoned any arguments. You won't point anything of the sort out, either, because you're lying again. And am I not supposed to say "I didn't respond to" a question when you never asked me the question? I'm supposed to let your false accusations stand? Good luck justifying that.
Me: I have shown that it was part of the post you replied to.
DeleteYou: I never denied that.
Then what was this? : That wasn't in the post I was responding to, as has nothing to do with what I said. http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/06/delusions-of-grandeur.html?showComment=1340271525592#c8329726685597570393
Your "point" about someone walking around doing a project is completely unrelated to anything being said.
"Then what was this?..."
DeleteThat was pointing out that you never asked me the question before you said I ignored it. If you could find some post that asked the question, which I responded to, THEN you said I ignored the question, you would be accurate. You never asked me the question in the first place, therefore I never ignored it. Your claim was false, and you're lying through your teeth in order to avoid some minor embarrassment regarding your confusion between two separate posters.
The "project" analogy demonstrates the nature of your accusation, which you know full well.
"That was pointing out that you never asked me the question before you said I ignored it."
DeleteI didn't say you ignored the question. I said the question was in the post you replied to when you said it wasn't. I don't EVER expect you (or anyone else) to actually answer the question. You made the claim it wasn't IN the post you replied to, while it was. So all is good. You can avoid answering it because you won't and I'll continue to say it was in the post you replied to while you denied it was IN the post.
No problems ... I don't expect you to EVER actually answer it. If you did, then it would show that my church marriage garnered NO additional rights after being in a civil union for the previous 6 months. Which, of course, blows your entire argument of additional rights a church marriage gets you right out of the water.
"I didn't say you ignored the question."
DeleteFrom your own link:"No, when my wife and I got our civil union done at the Court House we only had to pay the $100 (or so). What additional "rights" did we gain when we were "married" in a Church several months later? I notice you ignored that simple question."
"You made the claim it wasn't IN the post you replied to, while it was."
Except I was obviously referring to the previous post, since that's the only way your claim could have been true. Of course the question was in the post where you accused me of ignoring the question. How could it NOT be? My point was that you can't accuse me of avoiding a question you hadn't previously asked me. Nobody is too stupid to grasp this, so quit pretending to be.
"Which, of course, blows your entire argument of additional rights a church marriage gets you right out of the water."
Where the hell did I say a church marriage garners additional rights? Take your time. Because if you can't find it, and you don't correct yourself, then you're just cementing your status as a blatant liar.
Circles, you only talk in circles.
DeleteCompelling! And that's sarcasm, in case you pretend otherwise.
DeleteWhat is compelling is the reasons you'll come up with to avoid answering what additional rights I got when we had our church marriage after our civil union. THAT is compelling. There must be about 5 or 6 diversions you used to avoid answering that.
DeleteToo bad you wouldn't address that, because the stark realities are that NOBODY gets any additional rights from a church marriage as opposed to a civil union. Which is the crux of your entire whine about gay 'rights' and marriage. Since NO additional rights are given through marriage, then civil unions are completely satisfactory to get the rights you claim they deserve. It would seem the only reason you demand "marriage" rights is because it is another brick you can tear down from the wall of religion. Because "marriage" gives you NO rights that a civil union doesn't give you. We know that by your lack of ability to answer my question about that. Unless, you want to give it a try now. Aha ha ha ha ah ... oh that's a good one ... a liberal actually answering the tough question ... ha ha hahha hha hahhha ah ahah. Not in this lifetime, right?
What diversion you going to use this time? A new one or one of the old standards you've been using? Because everyone (every right-winger) knows you (or any other left-winger) won't answer what additional rights a church marriage gives you over civil unions. I won't see Eddie answering that one, or conchobhar or steeve or classicliberal or even jluruel ... none of them (or you) will even attempt to answer that one.
So, don't sweat it, brabantio, you divert all you want because this stupid right-winger just asked the question that NONE of you will attempt to answer. THE question the holds your entire case for gay "marriage" rights together ... and you won't answer it. I know what you're thinking: damn those right-wingers coming to a liberal blog site and polluting it up with logical questions that we can't answer because it makes us look like a bunch of fools. There you go, I've given you plenty of other things to comment on, divert away ....
"What is compelling is the reasons you'll come up with to avoid answering what additional rights I got when we had our church marriage after our civil union. THAT is compelling. There must be about 5 or 6 diversions you used to avoid answering that."
DeleteReally? That's pretty difficult to believe, since you admitted you didn't even ask me this question originally. It has nothing to do with anything I've said, so it's pretty funny that you're so upset about MY supposed "diversions".
"Too bad you wouldn't address that, because the stark realities are that NOBODY gets any additional rights from a church marriage as opposed to a civil union."
Why do you repeatedly say "church" marriage? You don't have to get married in a church. You've been told this before. Marriage is a legal institution, which does not require religion at all. If your faith thinks it has some sort of dominion over the term "marriage", then it's wrong. It's just that simple.
I'll make a deal with you, though. Explain how God is a "theory" that you pray to thinking you're being heard. Admit that you confused two different posters when you accused me of ignoring your question. And reconcile your two claims that prayer (the act of calling upon a higher power) is not religious, but marriage (which requires NO church involvement of any sort) is religious. When you do those, satisfactorily, then I'll allow you to believe that you have some right to demand answers from me.
Until then, forget it.
"There you go, I've given you plenty of other things to comment on, divert away .... "
DeleteThanks for complying. You've shown real moxie, on your part.
ME: "There must be about 5 or 6 diversions you used to avoid answering that."
ME continued: "So, don't sweat it, brabantio, you divert all you want because this stupid right-winger just asked the question that NONE of you will attempt to answer."
YOU: "It has nothing to do with anything I've said,"(->1).
YOU continued: "Why do you repeatedly say "church" marriage?(->2). You don't have to get married in a church. You've been told this before. Marriage is a legal institution, which does not require religion at all.(->3). If your faith thinks it has some sort of dominion over the term "marriage", then it's wrong.(->4). It's just that simple."
YOU (continued): "I'll make a deal with you, though. Explain how God is a "theory" that you pray to thinking you're being heard(->5). Admit that you confused two different posters when you accused me of ignoring your question(->6). And reconcile your two claims that prayer (the act of calling upon a higher power) is not religious (->7), but marriage (which requires NO church involvement of any sort) is religious(->8). When you do those, satisfactorily, then I'll allow you to believe that you have some right to demand answers from me (->9)."
I guess I highly underestimated your ability to avoid the tough questions. I don't need you to "allow" me to do that, you do it all on your own.
Besides the bizarre implication that anything in that post could have possibly counted towards your "5 or 6" claim, how the hell could you possibly count 1-4? They address the reason I have no responsibility to answer you, and also the flaws in your argument.
DeleteYou think you can demand answers from me regarding something that has nothing to do with anything I've said, but you cowardly refuse to address things that you've said yourself. You are a hypocrite, the thing you seem to hate most in the world. Honestly, I didn't underestimate your capacity in that regard one bit.
"but you cowardly refuse to address things that you've said yourself."
DeleteThe thing is that I've come upon a revelation. There seems to be an issue directly related to your desires to force gay-marriage onto everyone and you can't even answer the question that defines the flaw in your demands. A simple flaw, yet a critical one, and you can't even answer for it.
Show me where anything you need answered is as critical as that simple question I've asked and "When you do those, satisfactorily, then I'll allow you to believe that you have some right to demand answers from me."
Don't worry, you're not alone. Conchobhar isn't about to attempt to answer that question either. He was busy defending all your other failures when he dutifully ran away from that question too. Just like you.
One issue you definitely have to address is the fact that marriage is not religious, which is one of the things you've been dodging. Essentially, your entire premise is flawed, which I've pointed out already. Gay marriage isn't "forced" onto you, any more than interracial marriage was forced onto racists. If you don't like it, that's your problem, not anyone else's.
DeleteThank you for establishing the standard of being accountable for your own words as being reliant on my "need". I could say anything and then never answer for it as long as you don't "need" it. So much for your sense of personal responsibility.
"One issue you definitely have to address is the fact that marriage is not religious, which is one of the things you've been dodging."
DeleteGenesis 2:24 explains the 'one man, one wife' concept. That shows the religious aspect started near 'in the beginning'. Do you have evidence of non-religous husband/wife from before that time?
Does this mean you're going to attempt to answer my question?
What the hell do you think that has to do with the fact that religion is not necessary to marriage? It's sanctioned by the government. Government is not religious. There's no religious test to get married. You don't need a priest, rabbi, etc. You can't dispute a single one of those points with anything substantive.
DeleteComparing ancient times to today to support your argument is one of the greatest mental disconnects you've had, and that's saying a lot.
"What the hell do you think that has to do with the fact that religion is not necessary to marriage?"
DeleteWell, the fact that religion started marriage (BTW, you didn't ask if it was "necessary"). Unless you got some evidence of earlier marriage than religion has it, then I've answered your question as you asked it. That's what you asked for, that's what I brought. And, it sounds like you have nothing to dispute it, do you?
Any more questions you want answered that you'll whine about the answers to? Or, are you going to answer my question, now?
"And my logic is absolutely right again and again."
DeleteWilliam, if the god of Genesis, whom you referred to above, actually existed as the OT describes him, you'd have been struck dead for that whopper.
Logic and you are as far apart as Moscow and Milwaukee.
"Well, the fact that religion started marriage (BTW, you didn't ask if it was "necessary")."
DeleteYou can't logically separate "religion is not necessary to marriage" from "marriage is not religious". If marriage was religious, then a church element would be necessary to perform one.
Biblical times are not relevant to the here and now. There's no simpler way to put this, and you can't dispute it. Today, in this country, two people can get married without a church, a priest, a blessing, the mention of any higher power, or anything that even vaguely touches onto a supernatural level.
Therefore, your framework of "church marriage" vs. "civil union" is not based in reality.
"Therefore, your framework of "church marriage" vs. "civil union" is not based in reality."
DeleteYes it is. There are NO benefits given to me from my church wedding over the benefits I received from our civil union that was performed at the City Hall. Which makes your demands to get "marriage" rights inconsequential since "marriage" gave us NO additional rights or benefits and ALL the rights you seek can be achieved from civil unions when the rules get changed to provide equality for all.
Saying Biblical principles are outdated would be the same as saying stealing should no longer be a crime since the illegality of it is based on OLD Biblical principals. So, there are NO reasons to demand "marriage" rights when what you REALLY want is equality of financial/medical matters that can be achieved through rule changes of civil unions to provide the equality you want. You're only hurting your own cause by demanding "marriage" rights considering that 80% of Americans consider themselves to be Christian of one type or another. And as Christians, marriage is between a man and a woman. If you want your equality so badly seek it through civil unions. Which I have said multiple times I would fully support. But I will never support your demands for gay-marriages based on that premise.
"William, if the god of Genesis, whom you referred to above, actually existed as the OT describes him, you'd have been struck dead for that whopper."
Conchobhar, and since that God does actually exist and the fact I have not been struck dead shows that I am right again.
So, now, if you two are done changing the subject and running around in circles how about answering the question: What rights did I get from my church marriage that I didn't get from my civil union that was performed months earlier? If you can't answer that, then that would indicate I received NONE. Proving that "marriage rights" DO NOT EXIST. And, you seeking them for gays is simply idiotic. How can you give rights to one group when no other group has them?
BTW, brabantio, one of your heros on the gay marriage front was arrested, recently. Maybe you caught that article? If not I'll link it for you. That way you can continue denying there's a link between the two lifestyles. Perversion is perversion ... it isn't just a cute catch phrase for the religious, it's a fact.
Deletehttp://www.sfexaminer.com/local/crime/2012/06/child-porn-arrest-gay-rights-activist-stuns-san-francisco
Delete"How this ends up in a post about homosexuality, I'll never know. Anyway, let's say I concede these points. (Not yet, but lets say.) Since 2003, MMFA has posted well over 50,000 items. You're taking issue with four of them. Well done. *clap, clap* "
ReplyDeleteWell, a broken clock is right twice a day. That's once every 720 minutes. Or once every 1440 minutes if you use a military clock. But that still means it is BROKEN. I only brought a few items that Mediamatters lied about, if the number of them was my point I would bring more, but that wasn't my point.
It was you who said they did not lie and you never seen any of their stories be a lie. Of course it is you who also uses lies to promote your hatred of abstinence-only and republican ex-presidents. So, I guess you go to the right site to learn and perfect your habits.
Obviously, my point is that you lie to promote your ideals. Mediamatters lies to promote their ideals. So, when you get a chance, why don't you address those lies you used to promote your hatred of anyone right-wing ... as I asked them in the correlating posts. You know ... the posts you've ignored since I pointed out the lies and misinformation you brought concerning the topic at hand.
"Well, a broken clock is right twice a day. That's once every 720 minutes. Or once every 1440 minutes if you use a military clock. But that still means it is BROKEN."
DeleteBy the numbers Eddie posted, the "clock" in question--the MMFA--is only wrong twice a day. And, actually, it's far less than twice a day--4 alleged lies in over 50,000 items over 8 years. One lie every two years. And, as Eddie documented--not asserted, not suggested, but documented--only one of those was an actual inaccuracy, and it was corrected by the writer who made the mistake.
"I only brought a few items that Mediamatters lied about, if the number of them was my point I would bring more, but that wasn't my point."
You prefaced your examples with:
"Some of the many Mediamatters lies exposed (do they ever end?)"
...which, of course, suggests MMFA "lying" is a routine matter. That's a rather bold assertion, yet you failed to make any case for any lying by the MMFA, let alone routine lying.
A lie is like when you say, above,
"The GOVERNMENT tells you there IS a God."
...then, when questioned about this curious claim, reply...
"...the Constitution refers to a 'Creator'. Do you think they were referring to the 'big bang theory'? LOL"
The Constitution, of course, does not use the word "creator," nor is there any reference to god within it anywhere. The only references to religion are in the provision for oath or affirmation, the article barring religious tests for office, and the subsequently-added 1st Amendment, which separates the church from the state.
"The Constitution, of course, does not use the word "creator," "
DeleteYes, I know. I was corrected by brabantio when I said that. Thanks for you care, just the same.
"And, as Eddie documented--not asserted, not suggested, but documented--only one of those was an actual inaccuracy, "
Whittle away as you please, it was Eddie who said they never lie and he could find no examples of any lies that Mediamatters performed. Well, I simply proved they DO lie. The numbers are inconsequential.
"Yes, I know. I was corrected by brabantio when I said that."
DeleteIt was a very telling incident.
"Whittle away as you please, it was Eddie who said they never lie and he could find no examples of any lies that Mediamatters performed."
...while it was you who insinuated they lie as a matter of routine, but could come up with only a single genuine example of an MMFA error, and it was corrected. The fact that you had no genuine examples and had to resort to fictional ones, alone, bears on the validity of your thesis.
"Well, I simply proved they DO lie."
...except for the fact that you did no such things. Those at MMFA document what they say. No large press outlet is going to get things right every time, but you inadvertently made a prima facie case that MMFA has a better record than just about anyone in this regard.
"The numbers are inconsequential."
They weren't "inconsequential" to you when you raised this subject. You, in fact, went out of your way to stress the implication that MMFA is just some lie-factor. To review, your assertion, in your original remarks, was that MMFA was "that extreme left-wing bastion for lies and misinformation," and you chided Eddie, saying "you advertise your site on the most extreme left-wing misinforming web site out there." You offered alleged examples, prefacing them with this: "Some of the many Mediamatters lies exposed (do they ever end?)." And then, after all of this, you couldn't come up with anything. One error, in over 50,000 articles, over an 8-year timeframe, "exposed" by nature of the fact that it was corrected by the original writer; a record of which any large media outlet would be envious. Now, you've suddenly decided "The numbers are inconsequential." I'd say it was you doing the whittling. There's no level to which you're going to be able to reduce your own assertions that will make them accurate, though.
"It was a very telling incident."
DeleteIn what way? Are you insinuating I have a habit of misinformation or lies? Or that it is a forgivable incident?
Then you go on to vilify Mediamatters after they 'correct' their errors. Umm, please explain the difference between my "telling incident" and the "corrected" ones by Mediamatters.
It's telling in that you threw around the Constitution to support your point, when, in fact, you had no idea what it actually said, and it doesn't. It's the same flagrant indifference to reality you display every time you post.
DeleteAnd your jack-rabbiting away from the MMFA thing is duly noted.
DeleteLOL ... That's the best you can do? You insinuate I am a liar because I made an honest mistake (and it was duly noted and corrected the moment I was told), but you fully defend Mediamatters when it is proven they lie (and sometimes correct their honest mistakes). What a freekin hypocrite you are.
Delete"LOL ... That's the best you can do? You insinuate I am a liar because I made an honest mistake (and it was duly noted and corrected the moment I was told), but you fully defend Mediamatters when it is proven they lie (and sometimes correct their honest mistakes)."
DeleteNo, I defend Media Matters because they don't lie. You condemn them for being major misinformers, then, when asked to support this, offer four alleged examples of "lies" that, on examination, turned out to be only one example of something genuinely inaccurate, and it was corrected by the writer, which means you lied about MMFA in the first place (lie #1), and are continuing to lie about them by saying it was "proven they lie" (lie #2). You also lied when you said the volume of MMFA's lies was inconsequential, after making it a point, in your original remarks, to stress that they were a virtual lie-factory (lie #3). You also lied about the Constitution, and, "honest mistake" or not (and you still don't grasp the implications of your own words on that one), it was still totally inaccurate (lie #4), which means, in this one section of commentary alone, you've lied four times, to MMFA's one. Or, if we extend, to MMFA, the "honest mistake" standard you grant yourself ("honest mistakes" being far more forgivable than conscious lying), we have 3 William lies vs. 0 MMFA lies. Yet MMFA stands condemned by you as the major misinformer.
I'll let readers decide which of us has the hypocrisy problem.
Does that mean their correction of the lie makes the lie no longer a lie? I only brought 4 because I don't have time to research each of their articles. You know they have thousands upon thousands of them. Now, if you say "they don't lie" then you are mistaken too. I have proven they DO lie. Of course "implications" mean nothing to you while you defend Mediamatters for their lies, only right-wingers. Yeah, I'll let anyone decide who is being the hypocrite, too.
Delete"Does that mean their correction of the lie makes the lie no longer a lie?"
DeleteIt makes it an error they corrected. The only error--or, in your parlance, "lie"--you have offered from them.
"I only brought 4 because I don't have time to research each of their articles."
And yet you make sweeping claims about the content of those articles. To review, your original assertion was that MMFA was "that extreme left-wing bastion for lies and misinformation"; you called it "the most extreme left-wing misinforming web site out there," and prefaced your alleged examples of "lies" with: "Some of the many Mediamatters lies exposed (do they ever end?)." After such sweeping claims, you came up with only a single genuine example of an error, one that was corrected by the author, while, yourself, lying repeatedly. After such sweeping claims up front, you've continued to try to whittle down your own claims, but, as I said before, there's no level to which you can reduce these outlandish claims that can make them even remotely true or accurate. You've now whittled things down to "I don't have time to research each of their articles"--nothing more than an unacceptable excuse for the fact that you made sweeping claims and now stand exposed as having absolutely nothing to support them. And even after offering this excuse, you continue to lie: "I have proven they DO lie." That you're demonstrably an imbecile would be somewhat excusable--it's a condition that's often genetically determined--but this blend of aggressive ignorance and dishonesty comments directly on your character, and not in any positive ways. A lack of any sense of decency isn't an endearing characteristic, even in imbeciles.
No, I came up with 4 examples and you blew them off as if they were nothing. They ARE an extreme left-wing bastion for lies and misinformation. The ARE the most extreme left-wing misinforming web site out there (do you know of another extreme left-wing web site that misinforms as much?). And I DID bring some of their lies. Do they ever end? I don't know I don't go there any more. I got tired of their lies and misinformation.
DeleteBut all these complaints about me being a liar were backed up with no examples. Of course that is expected coming from a person who lies about the CRA just so you can denigrate ex-presidents who you hate.
That has got to one of the best: you bring the data for your whine about Bush's policies, then you deny the data you brought in your whine about Bush's policies because it proved just the opposite of what you were claiming. What do you call a person who uses false data to make their case then denies they do that kind of thing? I would call them a classic liberal, too?
"I came up with 4 examples and you blew them off as if they were nothing."
DeleteNo, Eddie demonstrated that they were nothing. He didn't insinuate this; he didn't assert it; he documented it.
"They ARE an extreme left-wing bastion for lies and misinformation."
...except for the fact that you can't document any "lies or misinformation" from them, which makes your claim, not what they write, a lie. A conscious lie you've chosen to tell repeatedly throughout this thread. Again, a comment on your own character.
"The ARE the most extreme left-wing misinforming web site out there (do you know of another extreme left-wing web site that misinforms as much?)."
You haven't shown that they misinform at all, much less to any degree. You haven't shown they're "extreme," either (and, in the real world, they're just run-of-the-mill liberals, their politics, as such, being in line with the overwhelming majority of the public).
I've toyed with you for a while, made you look foolish, cretinous, and insane, and this thread has offered ample opportunity for you to make a case for your view, if you had any ability to do so. To make it very plain, document MMFA being a bastion of lies and misinformation--said documentation not to involve the already-discredited efforts from earlier--or I'll accept your surrender on this point.
"I've toyed with you for a while, made you look foolish, cretinous, and insane, ... "
DeleteYeah, you've had your fun. Mediamatters was shown and proven to lie even though you claim they NEVER do, even after over 50,000 articles you say they never lie. Just how foolish is that expectation?
Now, it's my turn to toy with you. Brabantio refuses to answer a simple question about gay marriage rights. Actually I asked YOU this question, originally, but you mystifyingly disappeared from that line of discussion ( http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/06/delusions-of-grandeur.html?showComment=1340205563844#c8721352946073048733 ) right after I asked this next question. Let's see if you mystifyingly disappear again after being asked this question: My wife and I were joined in a civil union (and got all those additional rights you claim we get) 6 months later we were married in a church ceremony. What additional rights did we get from the church marriage over the civil union?
Take your time, you want to get this one right. Maybe you could call Eddie or conchobhar for a 'life-line'? I would hate to think you would run away again from a "foolish, cretinous, and insane" right-winger asking simple questions of those super-smart left-wingers, who seem to have all the answers.
Here's my prediction of your reaction to that question: talk about anything else (just like brabantio does and you did previously). Let's see if I am correct or not.
"For those who have a life and don't comb through posts from two months ago"
ReplyDeleteWell, if you joined in the conversation more than once every 2 months it wouldn't be so outdated. BTW, it's not like you're combing through some stranger's blog site. But, it did seem quite convenient that you started ignoring your site as I posted about the lies and misinformation you were bringing. Just sayin,
Hint: you may want to delete those posts so that no one else can continue reading those lies. That way you can say you never lie or misinform to promote your hatred of right-wingers and their ideals.
"80% is the number of sub-prime loans issued by banks not governed by the CRA."
That is an inaccurate number, but you can use any number you want to promote your ideals ... it IS your blog site, after all.
"That is an inaccurate number, but you can use any number you want to promote your ideals ... it IS your blog site, after all."
DeleteThe actual number is 77.2%; Eddie merely followed everyone's else's lead in rounding this off. Of the problematic loans, 50% were made by institutions that are unregulated by the CRA, while another 20% were from institutions minimally regulated by it. Only 20%--the actual number, if one wants to split hairs, is 22.8%--came from institutions regulated by the CRA. Eddie has provided documentation for this. I've provided even better documentation for it. Your reply was to quote some idiot from the Cato Institute being quoted on Wikipedia, comments that were allegedly made before the crisis had even started. And then to come here and repeatedly insist Eddie is lying by accurately representing what actually happened.
"Of the problematic loans, 50% were made by institutions that are unregulated by the CRA, while another 20% were from institutions minimally regulated by it. Only 20%--the actual number, if one wants to split hairs, is 22.8%--came from institutions regulated by the CRA."
DeleteExactly. Eddie said "EIGHTY PERCENT", when the facts (as you found them) say 42.8% of the loans were regulated by the CRA. "Minimally" is still considered regulated by it. When I looked it up the word used was "partially". So, I'm sure you adding your own inflection to reduce the impact of the coverage by the CRA. But, FACTS are (if you want to round off) 45% of loans were regulated by the CRA, that would mean that 57.2% were not regulated by the CRA ... not "EIGHTY PERCENT". From 57% to 80% is a LOT of rounding if he was merely rounding as you say.
Thank you, classicliberal, for bringing the FACTS. Now, maybe Eddie will apologize for lying in his rant.
"Eddie said 'EIGHTY PERCENT', when the facts (as you found them) say 42.8% of the loans were regulated by the CRA."
DeleteIt's not 42.8%. It's 22.8%. That's 22.8% of the problem loans made by institutions regulated by the CRA, while 77.2% of them came from institutions either entirely unregulated by it, or from those not subject to routine regulation by it. Further, 90.8% of the "high-cost" loans that drove the crisis originated from such institutions (unregulated or only minimally regulated). CRA-regulated institutions behaved more responsibly during the problem period than any class of institution involved in the market.
These facts, against your own ludicrous and entirely unsourced assertion that the CRA was responsible for the crisis, a conclusion that has no support in either the raw data or among any of the relevant experts.
And yours were sourced by what? Partial regulation or non-regulated makes a difference. The sun is partially blocked during an eclipse, does that mean it is completely bocked or not blocked at all?
Delete"And yours were sourced by what?"
DeleteEddie and I have provided sources for this repeatedly; your insinuation to the contrary amounts to just another lie. You've provided exactly nothing in the way of sourcing for your own outlandish claim that the CRA caused the crisis, because, of course, there are no legitimate sources that reflect that view.
"Partial regulation or non-regulated makes a difference."
The "partial" regulation refers to subsidiaries of banks covered by the CRA--while the parent bank has to follow the act, the subsidiaries don't if the parent bank doesn't manage their operations (and they never do). They are, in effect, unregulated by the act, but listed as only partially regulated, because they theoretically can be under those circumstances.
Sure you provided sources. But, those sources backed up what I am saying ... and that is the number you used is incorrect relating to CRA regulated loans. If you are going to fully explain each and every bank's responsibility for each and every loan you go ahead and do that. The fact remains that the CRA regulations were applied, in some way, to nearly 50% of the loans being discussed. NOT the 20% you and Eddie are claiming.
DeleteIf you want to continue to use misleading (false) data, you knock yourself out. I am simply pointing those lies out. I'm not trying to learn or teach banking procedures. You brought the data, not me.
I should correct this: "relating to CRA regulated loans" to 'CRA regulated institutions loaning'. Also, my previous statement should be corrected to reflect that the institutions were regulated by the CRA, not the loans. So, if the institutions are regulated by the CRA, so are the loans they perform. Whether the institution is partially regulated or wholey regulated. The loans are still from the institution that is regulated by the CRA.
Delete"So, if the institutions are regulated by the CRA, so are the loans they perform."
DeleteThe businesses owned by CRA-regulated institutions, which account for the 30% in question, are not subject to the comprehensive regulation of the CRA. They are, in fact, not subjected to any regulation by the CRA, unless the parent company chooses to manage their affairs, which practically never happens (as the very point of establishing such subsidiaries is often to avoid regulation). As every relevant expert who has examined this has concluded, the less regulated the institution, the more likely it was to behave in an irresponsible manner. Half of the problem loans, right off the top, are made by institutions that weren't CRA-regulated at all. 30% of the problem loans were from institutions that were, in effect, unregulated by it. Those institutions that were comprehensively regulated by the CRA, on the other hand, made only a bit over 20% of the problematic loans. CRA-regulated institutions were the most responsible in their loaning, and were so because of the CRA. As mentioned earlier, 90.8% of the "high cost" loans that drove the crisis originated in institutions not subject to CRA regulation.
This, against your still-entirely-undocumented assertion that the CRA was responsible for the crisis (don't think anyone has failed to notice your continued jack-rabbiting away from that, either).
You've already brought lies about the CRA loans. Who's going to believe you now?
DeleteWe have documented the facts. Document your claims now, or I'll accept your surrender on this point, as well.
Delete"Document your claims now"
DeleteHow can I document them better than to your own words: "Of the problematic loans, 50% were made by institutions that are unregulated by the CRA, while another 20% were from institutions minimally regulated by it."
YOU said only 50% were from institutions that were unregulated by the CRA. That leaves the other 50% where the institutions were regulated or partially regulated. You used the word "minimally", but could not explain what that meant. I think you made that word up to get out of the corner you painted yourself into.
"Yes it is."
ReplyDeleteNo, it is not. There are other options besides "church marriage" and "civil union".
"Saying Biblical principles are outdated would be the same as saying stealing should no longer be a crime since the illegality of it is based on OLD Biblical principals."
Are you claiming that theft was allowed at any point in time? Or that a secular society would have no such laws? What you're talking about has an objective basis. As an atheist, I can say that stealing should be illegal. That's not the same as saying that public policy regarding homosexuality should be based on attitudes from two thousand years ago.
"You're only hurting your own cause by demanding "marriage" rights considering that 80% of Americans consider themselves to be Christian of one type or another. And as Christians, marriage is between a man and a woman."
By your logic, it's impossible that there are any states that allow gay marriage. Not all Christians are bigots, William. You don't speak for anyone besides yourself. Besides that, a majority doesn't mean tyranny. Do you think Christian prayer should be mandated in public schools because most people are Christian? If that's what Christains want, then the heathens can just deal with it, right? I don't see how you can advocate one religious view as trumping everyone else and not the other.
"BTW, brabantio, one of your heros on the gay marriage front was arrested, recently."
So you'll link in order to commit a "guilt by association" fallacy, but not to defend your own words. Interesting.
Did you know Hitler was a vegetarian? Vegetarians must be Nazis, right? As if men who've been happily married to women for years aren't caught with child porn or something. I can't help laughing at the thought that you actually thought you scored a point there.