|
Cagey18 -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/23/2009 10:56:33 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marc2b
quote:
We are no longer in medieval times. I correctly pointed out the odds, and the fact that no one is agreeing with you.
This is a perfect example of exactly what I mean. So we are not in medieval times anymore. So what? You implied that “rightness” belongs to those who have the most numbers. I countered with an example that proves you are wrong. You didn’t like that so you simply dismiss it out of hand with a rhetorical dodge.
*sigh* Geez, do I have to spell everything out? You do realize that people on this thread are more educated than your average medieval peasant, yes? And hence the fact of nearly everyone not buying your "Christian nation" argument casts it into serious doubt, yes?
So no, your example does not "prove me wrong", but rather brings in yet more extraneous crap.
quote:
quote:
Not "dictating the terms", but rather pointing out reality. If you bring up ancient Egyptian customs, and I point out that's not the topic, is that "dictating the terms" in your world?
It is if it’s being used to shut down your opponent’s arguments without even bothering to consider them. Under your conditions, nobody is allowed to use any analogy or bring up any counter-examples.
Uh, no, ancient Egyptian customs would be an example of the extraneous crap I was talking about. Similar to pretending we're discussing origins of our legal system, when we're not.
quote:
So you want to go to the original topic?
Okay.
Concerning a proposed resolution on declaring 2010 to be “the year of the bible,” Vendaval asked, “What are your thoughts on this? Pro, con or neutral? Does this violate separation of church and state?”
That right there allows for a wide variety of responses and related topics, and it sends your insistence of a narrow focus out the window (yeah, I know, we’re not talking about windows).
I did state my view (in post number thirty-four) that such a resolution would not violate the Constitution and why. I also decided to address the notion of the United States being a Christian nation – or not. There are, as I see it, two ways to look at the matter since words (let me guess… we’re not talking about words) mean different things to different people. My answer to that is also in post thirty-four.
The conversation (not just mine but of many posters), of course, continued to meander into related topics – as conversations are wont to do.
And if I choose to ignore your meanderings, that's not a "conversation"--that's you preaching to yourself. Of course, in your world, that's "dictating the terms". Tough shit.
quote:
It is the nature of the beast (if I have your permission to talk about beasts). Then we get to post number fifty-seven in which I ask (Musicmystery) the question:
“How can you possibly discuss legal/Constitutional issues without discussing the cultural heritage such things arise from?”
I realize now that you probably misinterpreted what I meant by “Constitutional issues.”
No, I didn't misinterpret at all. The topic had already been determined, since you replied to it.
quote:
I did not mean matters brought before the Supreme Court on whether or not they are Constitutional. I meant issues about the Constitution.
If that's what you meant, then you should have indicated so, instead of replying to an already established topic (ie Constitutional issues before the Supreme Court). By doing so you're on that topic. Not introducing a different one. See how that works?
quote:
In that vein I continue to stand by what I said. The Constitution did not spring out of nothingness. It is a product of the culture (a culture which includes Christianity) that created it.
Aaaand this would be the topic that no one but you is interested in discussing (unless CnU magically jumps in, of course)
quote:
The people who wrote the Constitution and who have been subsequently empowered to interpret it likewise are products of said culture. If you don’t want to discuss that, then don’t. But don’t presume to tell me what I can and cannot comment upon or what analogies, examples, and counter-examples I may use.
Never did, not once. I merely pointed out that it wasn't the topic you and I were (ostensibly) discussing.
quote:
You may prefer to keep things on a narrow focus and in a singular view but I am just the opposite. I prefer to look at things from multiple perspectives.
Not to mention introducing extraneous crap, which is how I look at your "multiple perspectives" backpedaling.
|
|
|
|
