|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 08:38:14 [Permalink]
|
dglas:
And the real kicker, as far as the "conversation" in this thread is concerned, is that people here are treating the Constitution as if it were absolute, changeless - much like the christians who are against "the mosque at ground zero" (in quotes for a reason, fucker), and the islamists treat their respective dogmas. People seem to think the Constitution magically provides some sort of absolute protection against change. The Constitution is built for, and has mechanisms associated with it, precisely for change. That's why you have the first amendment (or any amendments) to begin with. That is the strength of America - it is built for change, to be adaptive. If you think the Constitution can never change, that it is absolute, the evidence of history begs to differ with you - much like the fossils in the museum beg to differ with creationist misconceptions. |
This is a breathtaking misrepresentation of what we have been saying about the Constitution. When I voiced my concern about removing religious protections, even selectively, I was also addressing my concern that the first amendment could, in fact, be changed by precedent or even by following constitutional procedures for making changes to the Constitution.
I am opposed to messing with the establishment clause and the right to free expression as it stands now because I think that what is on the books is one of the Constitutions greatest strengths. And I like many others here have said why we don't agree with your premise that it must be changed along those lines.
dglas, I have never misrepresented what you have said. I just don't agree with you. I don't understand how anyone who claims to be a critical thinker can change what was actually said into such a obvious strawman. While you are busy talking about other people's bias's it might be time for you to do a bit of soul searching of your own. And just maybe... dare I say it? You owe us an apology for depicting us the way you have done.
I have been with you on other subjects. I agreed that you were treated unfairly by the jref and that your criticism of them was justified. But I think your train has run off its rails on this one, and rather than consider what is actually being said, you are letting your bias taint what people here are actually saying. You need to reset, bud. Take a step back, take a breath, and reset.
I would hate to think that not agreeing with you is tantamount to heresy in your mind. That is not the thoughtful dglas that once earned my respect, which is now quickly waning. Take it from a friend, eh?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 08/25/2010 : 09:13:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Well, I did call him an idiot.  |
Yeah, 'cause howling mobs are widely known for calling people idiots. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 09:43:02 [Permalink]
|
CNN:Less than 100 feet from where a hijacked airplane slammed into the Pentagon, Muslim military personnel bring prayer rugs on weekday afternoons for group worship.
On Fridays, a local imam conducts a service in the Pentagon Memorial Chapel built after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks by al Qaeda that killed 184 people at the U.S. military headquarters.
...Army officials interviewed Wednesday said they were unaware of anyone ever protesting against Muslims using the chapel.
"I've never had a question about it" in four-plus years at the Pentagon, Army spokesman George Wright said... In other non-news, Michael Shermer doesn't seem to understand the fuss:The Ground Zero Mosque issue is equally clearly not a First Amendment issue because, near as I can figure, it is not being built on government land, it is not being funded by tax-payers dollars, and it is not a public building. To that extent, it’s none of the government’s business what the owners and financers of the building want to do with their private property, so they are free to build a mosque near Ground Zero (it’s two blocks away, by the way, not "at" Ground Zero), and by the 4th right of the First Amendment, people are free to peacefully assemble to remind said private land holders and building builders what happened in that neighborhood a scant nine years ago next month. Nevermind that people were actively trying to use government power to prevent Cordoba House from getting a building permit. Nevermind that there's still at least one active lawsuit against it. Shermer seems utterly clueless to these very real constitutional issues, instead seeming to think that someone is complaining about the protests themselves.  What the heck is going on with all the public voices of skepticism completely missing the point, over this issue? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 09:55:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I have been with you on other subjects. I agreed that you were treated unfairly by the jref and that your criticism of them was justified. But I think your train has run off its rails on this one, and rather than consider what is actually being said, you are letting your bias taint what people here are actually saying. You need to reset, bud. Take a step back, take a breath, and reset. |
I think we have once again run up against that one thing skeptics have that they're incapable of being skeptical about. As I said before, we've discovered dglas' sacred cow. Most of the time, we get to know what the cow actually looks like, but dglas is keeping his cow carefully hidden away from the light of criticism.
I really hate to think what my melt-down is going to look like, when it happens. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 10:00:57 [Permalink]
|
"...dglas now signals his intent to run away, having not really tried much at all."
Well, that is your goal, isn't it Dave? "Overwhelm" the "opponent" with "incisive" obliviousness until the "enemy" "retreats" in despair from the "battlefield." No matter what tactics you must use, you must "win," no matter what the cost to anyone and to hell with the subject matter. Fear not though: I haven't given up - I've just given up on you. The difficulty with the way you approach arguments, Dave, is that you take the safe, attacking ground and you try to frame every discussion so that you can attack from above. I wouldn't give that to you, so you resort to sniping in other ways. Trite and disappointing, but not surprising.
How many thousands of words have I spent here, trying to get through? How many times have I tried to restart the discussion? Several.
So, go ahead and revel in your delusion of "victory." You and Dude and Tom80 go and group masturbate in your private little corner of the interwebs.
Kil,
"I would hate to think that not agreeing with you is tantamount to heresy in your mind. That is not the thoughtful dglas that once earned my respect, which is now quickly waning. Take it from a friend, eh?"
Well, appeals to emotion and intellectual vanity aside (Dave will now attack you on that for consistency's sake, won't he?), disagreeing with me is not heresy, Kil. I am still who I am; the very same guy as before, as all along. No more and no less thoughtful than before. I am still trying, against all odds, to raise the level of discourse, as always. The only difference is, this time everyone is too wrapped up in polarized, partisan hysteria (Dude's influence I assume) to notice - which you will note, they have attempted persistently to project onto me.
Perhaps it is forgotten that I am not an American. My view is not lost in the fog of Democrapublican political partisanship. I sometimes see more than two, dichotomous options. Impossible, I know, but there it is. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 10:26:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
Well, that is your goal, isn't it Dave? "Overwhelm" the "opponent" with "incisive" obliviousness until the "enemy" "retreats" in despair from the "battlefield." |
Is that why I keep stating my desire to know what your position is?| No matter what tactics you must use, you must "win," no matter what the cost to anyone and to hell with the subject matter. |
You must be looking in a mirror when you say "you" there.| Fear not though: I haven't given up - I've just given up on you. |
Oh, noes!!1!| The difficulty with the way you approach arguments, Dave, is that you take the safe, attacking ground and you try to frame every discussion so that you can attack from above. |
I don't even know what that means.| I wouldn't give that to you, so you resort to sniping in other ways. |
You're the one claiming that I think that dogma has no influence on people, but somehow I'm the one who's sniping?| Trite and disappointing, but not surprising. |
More projection from you, dglas. I want to know your position. You refuse to say, instead you make personal attacks and evade the actual issue.| How many thousands of words have I spent here, trying to get through? |
Not many after subtracting out your messages which did nothing but insult people.| How many times have I tried to restart the discussion? Several. |
Once, but even that included insults.| So, go ahead and revel in your delusion of "victory." |
I'm not interested in "victory," I'm interested in what you have to say. But you won't actually say it.| You and Dude and Tom80 go and group masturbate in your private little corner of the interwebs. |
More insults instead of discussion. And I'm the one who's supposedly polarizing?| Well, appeals to emotion and intellectual vanity aside (Dave will now attack you on that for consistency's sake, won't he?)... |
Why? Kil isn't making an argument, he's trying to reach you on a personal level.| ...disagreeing with me is not heresy, Kil. I am still who I am; the very same guy as before, as all along. No more and no less thoughtful than before. I am still trying, against all odds, to raise the level of discourse, as always. |
By insulting me and lying about me. That's dglas' version of raising the level of discourse.| The only difference is, this time everyone is too wrapped up in polarized, partisan hysteria (Dude's influence I assume) to notice - which you will note, they have attempted persistently to project onto me. |
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You poor little victim! Really, dglas, you'd be more credible if you could point to even a single example of "polarized, partisan hysteria" without strawmanning the hell out of it.| Perhaps it is forgotten that I am not an American. |
Why is that relevant? Do Canadians not have politics?| My view is not lost in the fog of Democrapublican political partisanship. |
But nobody here knows what your "view" is. It's lost in the vastly deep fog of you refusing to tell us.| I sometimes see more than two, dichotomous options. Impossible, I know, but there it is. |
Incredible is what it is, in the sense that your statements aren't credible. You've gone so far out of your way to fabricate positions for us to hold that it's clear you think there's only one option, and all the rest is "dogma." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 14:52:24 [Permalink]
|
Have not been following this particular thread, but I think that in his last post dglas describes my impression of you quite well, Dave W.
As an Admin/Moderator of this site you could, for the credibility of this site find the feedback useful, but your reply instead just proved his point.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 15:04:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Starman
Have not been following this particular thread, but I think that in his last post dglas describes my impression of you quite well, Dave W.
As an Admin/Moderator of this site you could, for the credibility of this site find the feedback useful, but your reply instead just proved his point. |
Obviously, I'll need you to be much more specific. I'm seeing a swirl of lies and evasions from dglas, and you're calling it "feedback" as if it's somehow constructive. What point is he making? I really don't know. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 15:19:31 [Permalink]
|
| Well, appeals to emotion and intellectual vanity aside (Dave will now attack you on that for consistency's sake, won't he?), disagreeing with me is not heresy, Kil. I am still who I am; the very same guy as before, as all along. No more and no less thoughtful than before. I am still trying, against all odds, to raise the level of discourse, as always. The only difference is, this time everyone is too wrapped up in polarized, partisan hysteria (Dude's influence I assume) to notice - which you will note, they have attempted persistently to project onto me. |
How are you doing that, dglas? You are consistently evading a number of issues and misrepresenting other's positions. How is that "raising the discourse"? That's what I do not understand at all.
Several people have by now pointed out to you that you have misrepresented them on the dogma issue. The central issue not being that we do not think there is no dogma (what you claim we claim), but that we state that the dogma of a religious group is its interpretation of its texts, not the text itself (what we actually claim). I raised the issue of Reza Aslan, who does not think that the dogma of islam is that apostates should be killed. It's not that he doesn't adhere to what he interprets as the dogmas of islam, but that he disagrees with militant islamists on what the dogma is in the first place. He disagrees on how the text should be interpreted. You have consistently failed to address this issue, rather preferring to attack a strawman. Why?
Similarly on the constitution issue Kil pointed out. Multiple people have by now pointed out that you misrepresented them. However, this has not, so far, lead you to actually address the issues they stated. Why?
Lastly, how is | Perhaps it is forgotten that I am not an American. My view is not lost in the fog of Democrapublican political partisanship. I sometimes see more than two, dichotomous options. Impossible, I know, but there it is. |
supposed to raise the level of discourse? Sorry, but if you want to play the "I'm the high-and-mighty arbiter who will raise the discourse"-card, actually play it. Instead of bluffing about playing it while all you actually have is the "I'm holier than though"-card.
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 08/25/2010 15:23:53 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 16:17:27 [Permalink]
|
| To add on the dogma issue, perhaps if Reza Aslan's position on apostasy may be too hard to discuss a different easier question that might resolve the issue. Dglas, do you think it is Christian dogma that one should not wear a garment made out of two different material? Why / why not? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 19:09:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by the_ignored
Actually, when dglas is talking about "absolutism", I think he's referring to the fundamentalists in each religious view, not everyone who's religious themselves.
|
There is one absolutism that I subscribe to. Link here.
|
But I am absolutely sure that we would be better served by considering this link. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/26/2010 : 03:03:31 [Permalink]
|
From: All Hat No Cattle.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2010 : 04:50:18 [Permalink]
|
| Whats with the bowling ball? |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/26/2010 : 06:49:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Whats with the bowling ball?
|
I'm not sure but I think it represents Conservative philosophy: "The best success is when you knock everyone else down."
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 08/26/2010 06:50:33 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2010 : 06:56:16 [Permalink]
|
| I thought it went "If you knock everyone else down, you will never have to raise yourself up." |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I… WTF…?
