It is currently Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:19 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 110 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:51 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 13447
The Nehor wrote:

That I consider political freedom so important that I would fight for it means that I shouldn't have it? That's an odd stance.



I'm putting the odds of trolling at 8 to 1 right now.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:59 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:05 pm
Posts: 11830
EAllusion wrote:
The Nehor wrote:

That I consider political freedom so important that I would fight for it means that I shouldn't have it? That's an odd stance.



I'm putting the odds of trolling at 8 to 1 right now.


Yeah, I'm getting the same vibe.

_________________
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:20 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 12271
Location: On the imaginary axis
Yup. Fortigurn is either:

(a) Serious in his proposal for the political disenfranchisement of US citizens with religious beliefs (and it is now clear that this is his proposal)

or

(b) Not serious in the above proposal.

If (a), he is so far removed from the spectrum of practical politics that he can properly be classified as (colloquially) a nutjob.

If (b), he is a troll.

On the balance of probabilities, and because I dislike concluding that people are (in colloquial terms) nutjobs, I vote (b). Pity.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:26 am 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 918
EAllusion wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:

No, also he supported the right of Americans to have their religious beliefs taught in educational curriculum materials as fact.


No he didn't. He supported the right of people to advocate for that. There's a difference.


There is a difference, but I didn't see him supporting mere advocacy. Unless he really meant 'I have no problem with these people being permitted to advocate their views, but the government should prevent their views from being acted on, even if they have overwhelming political support'.

Quote:
I think people should have a right to argue in favor of the government's ability to issue blanket warrants for entire neighborhoods. That doesn't mean I favor the government actually having this right.


So you are in fact arguing that regardless of their right to advocacy for political change, their actual power to effect political change should be withheld from them? They should, in fact, be disenfranchised from effecting the political change for which they are advocating?

_________________
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:29 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 13447
Fortigurn wrote:
So you are in fact arguing that regardless of their right to advocacy for political change, their actual power to effect political change should be withheld from them? They should, in fact, be disenfranchised from effecting the political change for which they are advocating?


No. I think they should have the right, for instance, to vote for representatives who promise to repeal the 4th amendment. I think they should be opposed by other people's votes and speech so they are not successful in their attempts. I don't think it is proper to simply strip their right to vote for advocating the government have a power I do not think it should.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:40 am 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 918
EAllusion wrote:
Religious people make up 80ish % of the population depending on how you define them.


I would like to see reliable statistics for this (not that I think it's particularly relevant).

Quote:
The have near total control over the government and its military.


Is this your own idea, or can you cite the relevant scholarly literature? I see no evidence for this whatever, and considerable evidence to the contrary. I see many religious people protesting strongly against US involvement in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, and yet the US continues to be involved in all these conflicts. I see Creationists utterly unable to have their religious views incorporated into national curriculum material.

I would be very interested to see any relevant peer reviewed scholarly literature that argues and demonstrates that the religious people in the US 'have near total control over the government and its military'.

Quote:
They have a long-established right to participate in the political process.


Yes, I'm aware of that.

Quote:
I'm not sure what scenario you imagine in which their rights are stripped from them that has any basis in reality.


The scenario in which the government is prepared to make an unpopular decision. You're confusing 'unpopular' with 'unrealistic', and 'implausible' with 'impractical'.

Quote:
How are they going to lose control of the government in the first place?


You assume that they have control of the government in the first place. You have not demonstrated this.

Quote:
Not only will they have to lose control, but those sympathetic to their basic rights would also have to.


How many people usually vote in a US presidential election? About 55% isn't it? Hardly an overwhelming majority. So it's clear from this statistic alone that the alleged '80%' of the population who are religious aren't even regularly exercising their political franchise. So much for them having control of the government. What we see is that a very large number of people in the US don't even bother to exercise their political franchise. If voter turnout is around 55%, how many of those are religious? It can't be 100%, and would you claim that it's even the majority?

Quote:
When addressing the practicality of this occurring with or without violence, you first have to propose a remotely plausible scenario to understand if that will lead to violence. (And you couldn't just "pass legislation" even if you forget that no legislature in the US would do such a thing.


I certainly agree. I have not commented on the plausibility of the suggestion, I have simply presented it as a possibility. The proposal is not impossible.

Quote:
What you are proposing is explicitly unconstitutional. You'd have to amend the constitution prior to passing a law or stack the Supreme Court with those willing to ignore sound interpretation of the constitution.)


Amending the constitution is not impossible, nor is reinterpreting the Amendments.

_________________
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:44 am 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 918
The Nehor wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:
The Nehor wrote:
I will tell you that if you tried to take away my political voice and succeeded I'd consider killing you.


The you definitely shouldn't have a political voice. In fact you should be locked up for the safety of society.


That I consider political freedom so important that I would fight for it means that I shouldn't have it?


No, that's not what I said. I said that you shouldn't have a political voice and you should be locked up because you said this:

Quote:
I will tell you that if you tried to take away my political voice and succeeded I'd consider killing you.


That's very different to saying 'I consider political freedom so important that I would fight for it'. You can fight for it in a range of ways which don't involve killing me, or anyone else.

Quote:
If that means the Founding Fathers of the U.S., the political reformers of Britain, and those who fought (physically or legally) for rights and freedoms throughout the world maniacs that at least I'll have good company in my cell. A lot of them would be bestial Christians.


Wait a minute, now you're shifting the goalposts even further. Now you're talking about fighting legally or physically for 'rights and freedoms throughout the world'. That is not the topic under discussion. But for the record, yes I believe that anyone who claims to be fighting for rights and freedoms and starts by turning around and killing people is bestial. It's an instinctive, animalistic response. It is not a reasoned, rational, or ethical response.

_________________
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:45 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 12271
Location: On the imaginary axis
Fortigurn wrote:

Amending the constitution is not impossible ...


But for given what is required to amend the US constitution, and given the bizarre nature of the amendments you seem to have in mind, only a person quite detached from reality (or a timewaster) could expect anyone to take such ideas seriously.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:52 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 13447
Fortigurn wrote:

Is this your own idea, or can you cite the relevant scholarly literature? I see no evidence for this whatever, and considerable evidence to the contrary. I see many religious people protesting strongly against US involvement in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, and yet the US continues to be involved in all these conflicts. I see Creationists utterly unable to have their religious views incorporated into national curriculum material.


Yes, because religious people are one giant hivemind vote that supports all the same policies.

The US Supreme Court has 9 out of 9 religious people on it. (5 Catholics, 2 Jews, and 2 protestants). The United States Congress has one open atheist and over 400 people who are known to be religious. The current president is religious. All mainstream candidates for the presidency are religious.

In other words, trolling.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:55 am 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 918
EAllusion wrote:
The Nehor wrote:

That I consider political freedom so important that I would fight for it means that I shouldn't have it? That's an odd stance.



I'm putting the odds of trolling at 8 to 1 right now.


The Nehor wrote:
Yeah, I'm getting the same vibe.


Comments such as this remind me that this forum is largely populated by citizens of the US. In a similar discussion on an extremely large Australian forum (just over 96,000 members), when I made this same proposal it was understood as completely serious (which it was), and was met with universal enthusiasm. Intelligent discussion ensued. But in Australia we have no argument over the separation of the church and state, which is very well defined in our country and receives almost complete all religious and secular citizens. You're actually allowed to talk about issues such as this in Australia without people talking about how they would consider killing you if the hypothetical situation became real.

As for trolling, I refer you to an earlier post of mine:

Fortigurn wrote:
For the record, I am myself a Christian. But I don't believe religious people should take an active part in the political process, and I've always abstained from political involvement in my country of origin (Australia).


I am not trolling. I am speaking my mind on the subject. This is what I actually believe. Not only that, it's what I live up to.

_________________
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:57 am 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 918
Chap wrote:
Yup. Fortigurn is either:

(a) Serious in his proposal for the political disenfranchisement of US citizens with religious beliefs (and it is now clear that this is his proposal)


Yes I am serious.

Quote:
If (a), he is so far removed from the spectrum of practical politics that he can properly be classified as (colloquially) a nutjob.


I wasn't expecting the discussion to degenerate into personal abuse quite so quickly. But again, 'This is America', as they say. You're confusing 'unpopular' with 'unrealistic', and 'implausible' with 'impractical'.

_________________
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:59 am 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 918
EAllusion wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:

Is this your own idea, or can you cite the relevant scholarly literature? I see no evidence for this whatever, and considerable evidence to the contrary. I see many religious people protesting strongly against US involvement in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, and yet the US continues to be involved in all these conflicts. I see Creationists utterly unable to have their religious views incorporated into national curriculum material.


Yes, because religious people are one giant hivemind vote that supports all the same policies.


Not only have I said no such thing, I don't believe any such thing. On the contrary, such an idea has been implied by others (yourself included).

Quote:
The US Supreme Court has 9 out of 9 religious people on it. (5 Catholics, 2 Jews, and 2 protestants). The United States Congress has one open atheist and over 400 people who are known to be religious. The current president is religious. All mainstream candidates for the presidency are religious.


Your point? Are you presenting this as evidence for the claim that 80% of US citizens are religious, and that religious people have 'almost total control' over the government and military? Did you see my request for relevant scholarly literature? That was a serious request.

_________________
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:00 am 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 918
EAllusion wrote:
No. I think they should have the right, for instance, to vote for representatives who promise to repeal the 4th amendment. I think they should be opposed by other people's votes and speech so they are not successful in their attempts. I don't think it is proper to simply strip their right to vote for advocating the government have a power I do not think it should.


So you think they should have the power to have their religious views included in educational curriculum as fact?

_________________
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:03 am 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 918
Chap wrote:
But for given what is required to amend the US constitution, and given the bizarre nature of the amendments you seem to have in mind, only a person quite detached from reality (or a timewaster) could expect anyone to take such ideas seriously.


Once again, you're confusing 'unpopular' with 'unrealistic', and 'implausible' with 'impractical'. I do not understand why such a discussion as this has to be dragged down to the level of personal abuse. Is it possible to discuss the issue rationally here?

_________________
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:04 am 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 918
Here's a question for discussion (not an invitation for personal abuse). Is it practical to require schools owned by religious institutions to teach as fact scientific theories and models which contradict their religious convictions?

_________________
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:05 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 12271
Location: On the imaginary axis
EAllusion:

I really, really recommend at this point that you join me in backing away towards the door, nodding and smiling. Once outside, run like hell.

This is not a troll ...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:10 am 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 918
Chap wrote:
EAllusion:

I really, really recommend at this point that you join me in backing away towards the door, nodding and smiling. Once outside, run like hell.

This is not a troll ...


I cannot understand this response to reasoned, rational questions. Certain quite unreasonable statements have been made in this thread, and it is very unlikely that their authors can find any support for them, and I suppose that's a very good reason to leave. But personal insults, abuse, and false accusations of trolling are incomprehensible. Is this is a taboo subject in the US, or on this forum?

_________________
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:13 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:05 pm
Posts: 11830
Fortigurn wrote:
Comments such as this remind me that this forum is largely populated by citizens of the US. In a similar discussion on an extremely large Australian forum (just over 96,000 members), when I made this same proposal it was understood as completely serious (which it was), and was met with universal enthusiasm. Intelligent discussion ensued. But in Australia we have no argument over the separation of the church and state, which is very well defined in our country and receives almost complete all religious and secular citizens. You're actually allowed to talk about issues such as this in Australia without people talking about how they would consider killing you if the hypothetical situation became real.


You discuss disenfranchising people and it receives universal approval and you think this is a good thing? I'm glad you're so civilized. I propose we set up internment/reeducation camps for Jehovah's Witnesses, Gays, obese women, and anyone who watches soap operas. Here's hoping for universal approval.

I think a society that can seriously discuss that level of discrimination without outrage or anger is sick.

_________________
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:21 am 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 918
The Nehor wrote:
You discuss disenfranchising people and it receives universal approval and you think this is a good thing?


Yes I do. Disenfranchising a certain group of people, in a certain context, for a certain reason. There's a whole world out here which doesn't think the same way as you guys do in the US. And the amazing fact is, they just might be right.

Quote:
I'm glad you're so civilized. I propose we set up internment/reeducation camps for Jehovah's Witnesses, Gays, obese women, and anyone who watches soap operas. Here's hoping for universal approval.


This is an appeal to the argumentative fallacy of the 'slippery slope'. It doesn't actually address the issue. I know you're capable of addressing the issue, and I know that you're capable of doing so intelligently without personal rancor or abuse (I've seen your posts), and I was actually looking forward to a rational discussion of the topic with you. If it's not to be, it's not to be, but the choice is yours.

Quote:
I think a society that can seriously discuss that level of discrimination without outrage or anger is sick.


Every society practices a range of politically sponsored discrimination. Your own country practices discrimination of political enfranchisement, as you well know. So it's not about discrimination, it's just about where you draw the lines.

By the way, capital punishment in Australia was outlawed more than 20 years ago. Our society views it as savage, barbaric, and primitive. We think a society that can seriously discuss that kind of punishment without outrage or anger is sick. Takes all kinds, doesn't it?

_________________
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:26 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:05 pm
Posts: 11830
Nope, sorry, I can't discuss someone wanting me and everyone like me being politically disenfranchised at the whim of others without personal rancor or abuse.

_________________
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:41 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 13447
Fortigurn wrote:

Not only have I said no such thing, I don't believe any such thing. On the contrary, such an idea has been implied by others (yourself included).


Clearly you do. You took the fact that some religious people oppose the Iraq war as evidence that the religious do not have near total control of the government. This requires one to presume that it is the position of "religious people" to oppose the Iraq war in order for the inference to make sense. This, of course, is false. The war is supported and opposed by the religious alike, both by elected representatives and by the general population.

Yes, I do think the religious can be counted on to be a near bloc vote when the issue is whether we should strip the religious of their basic political rights.

Quote:
Your point? Are you presenting this as evidence for the claim that 80% of US citizens are religious, and that religious people have 'almost total control' over the government and military? Did you see my request for relevant scholarly literature? That was a serious request.


I'm not going to make the effort when I feel you are yanking our chains (among other reasons).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 110 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group