Defiant Strife

[Bryan]

Something tells me that if the situation involved a teacher claiming that the Big Bang involved no creative intelligence you would not use the term "preaching" to describe his endorsement of a religious position.

This is a loaded statement. How is it any more 'religious' to say 'no creative intelligence was involved in the Big Bang' than it is to say 'no celestial magic teapots were involved in the Big Bang,' for example?

Aren't both plainly religious? How would you test empirically for celestial magic teapots? And how could you claim neutrality toward celestial magic teapotism?

It's funny seeing you try to clumsily dance around questions.

Waaah! That statement's loaded! Warning! Danger! Avoid question!

Perhaps you ought not pay so much attention to that "something" in the future.

Ah, so the dodge solved your problem. Right.

This reminds me of this: http://tinyurl.com/yvbz74

Your response reminds me of any number of times you've dodged an issue and responded with the fallacy of appeal to ridicule.

There comes a time when it just can't be broken down any further.

Indeed. And your thinking is broken down to that point, it seems.

If you can't see a parallel that obvious (hint: the word "endorsement" is taken as colloquially meant), I can only shrug my shoulders and hope one day you'll understand.

I can see a parallel between poisoning a fire ant mound and blowing up the twin towers. That doesn't mean that the pest control guy should be tried for murder.

You hang yourself with your defense, Strife.

Surely you will take this as some sort of admission of defeat, but that only underscores your problem further.

Your evolution from "preaching" to "endorsement" to "'endorsement is taken as colloquially meant" underscores my problem?

You're correct, in an ironic sense. My problem is that I'm dealing with people who cannot communicate their ideas coherently with clear English.

It's one of the classic methods of the person with a bad argument: if you stay ambiguous enough with your argument, then it is harder to attack.

This coming from someone who still insists that Mr. Paszkiewicz crossed no legal lines with the stuff he said on those recordings? How ironic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Strife's camp never seems to tire of inventing my positions for me.

I don't make any prediction concerning the outcome of a legal proceeding. As I've already mentioned, IIRC, anything can happen. I've also marked one statement of Paszkiewicz as overbroad and expressing a religious opinion as fact--an observation that the opposition seems happy to forget while stuffing their straw men. Though at the same time I stated that I do not consider that one statement sufficient reason for a continued complaint against the school board or a reasonable foundation for legal action.

On the other hand, I've argued that statements like those Paszkiewicz made should not be unlawful as an outworking of the separation clause. I've supported my argument from statements of the Framers, such as Jefferson, and the LaClair side has offered very weak rebuttals.

Rebuttals they are reluctant to defend (not counting personal attacks and ridicule), supposing them so overwhelmingly effective, I suppose.

[Strife767]

Aren't both plainly religious?

You seriously think it's "religious" to assume the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence? Wow. Just wow.

How would you test empirically for celestial magic teapots? And how could you claim neutrality toward celestial magic teapotism?

It's funny seeing you try to clumsily dance around questions.

Waaah! That statement's loaded! Warning! Danger! Avoid question!

Ah, so the dodge solved your problem. Right.

See? I called it. Claiming victory for no apparent reason.

Your response reminds me of any number of times you've dodged an issue and responded with the fallacy of appeal to ridicule.

I ridicule ridiculous things. It's not fallacious to label something that is absurd as such.

Indeed. And your thinking is broken down to that point, it seems.

I can see a parallel between poisoning a fire ant mound and blowing up the twin towers. That doesn't mean that the pest control guy should be tried for murder.

You hang yourself with your defense, Strife.

...what in the world are you talking about?

Your evolution from "preaching" to "endorsement" to "'endorsement is taken as colloquially meant" underscores my problem?

No. Preaching and endorsement are legally equivalent, and the fact that "endorsement" is defined legally about the same way it's defined colloquially was a little hint that may have helped you understand why they are legally equivalent.

You seem to have quite the issue with reading comprehension.

You're correct, in an ironic sense. My problem is that I'm dealing with people who cannot communicate their ideas coherently with clear English.

LOL

Talk about projection!

It's one of the classic methods of the person with a bad argument: if you stay ambiguous enough with your argument, then it is harder to attack.

Maybe I spoke too soon--this is arguably an even GREATER instance of projection on your part.

Strife's camp never seems to tire of inventing my positions for me.

I don't make any prediction concerning the outcome of a legal proceeding. As I've already mentioned, IIRC, anything can happen.

Doesn't change the fact that "preaching" = "endorsement of religion." Since Paszkiewicz crossed a legal line, I thought appropriate to point out the parallel that exists there as well as colloquially.

I've also marked one statement of Paszkiewicz as overbroad and expressing a religious opinion as fact--an observation that the opposition seems happy to forget while stuffing their straw men. Though at the same time I stated that I do not consider that one statement sufficient reason for a continued complaint against the school board or a reasonable foundation for legal action.

Nor do you think that his blatant dishonesty about his statements, nor the board's stagnation and lack of response to the situation are worthy of any complaint or anything either, apparently. I wonder why not.

On the other hand, I've argued that statements like those Paszkiewicz made should not be unlawful as an outworking of the separation clause.

That strongly implies that you think that they currently ARE unlawful.

I've supported my argument from statements of the Framers, such as Jefferson, and the LaClair side has offered very weak rebuttals.

Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

Rebuttals they are reluctant to defend (not counting personal attacks and ridicule), supposing them so overwhelmingly effective, I suppose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Projection #3.

[Bryan]

You seriously think it's "religious" to assume the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence? Wow. Just wow.

Apparently you still need a primer on basic logic.

In terms of deductive logic, absence of evidence is not evidence of lack. It is not a scientific statement in terms of empiricism to say that there is no purple cow in orbit around Betelgeuse. It's the fallacy of appeal to ignorance ("we have no evidence of a cow orbiting Betelgeuse, therefore there is not cow orbiting Betelgeuse")--and yes it's a religious claim in the sense you typically use the term, for it is based on no evidence.

Ah, so the dodge solved your problem. Right.

See? I called it. Claiming victory for no apparent reason.

Another fallacy for the Strifester.

It is not claiming victory to point out that your dodge failed to address the issue. I can wait until you try to address the issue to show that you failed.

Then I'll claim victory.

I ridicule ridiculous things. It's not fallacious to label something that is absurd as such.

Yes it is, if you fail to offer an argument demonstrating the absurdity.

Read it this time.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...o-ridicule.html

...what in the world are you talking about?

Your equivocating ways.

No. Preaching and endorsement are legally equivalent, and the fact that "endorsement" is defined legally about the same way it's defined colloquially was a little hint that may have helped you understand why they are legally equivalent.

What you're trying to say, I suppose, is that in terms of church/state separation religious endorsement and religious preaching would run afoul of tests like Lemon.

And that's a dodge, since the quotation in Strife's signature line is written as though intended to produce the impression that Paszkiewicz was letting loose akin to Jimmy Swaggart, not letting slip something like "under God" (I can just see Newdow claiming that the Pledge of Allegiance "preaches" at kids).

The choice of words was intended to make Paszkiewicz appear as wrong as possible, else we might expect Strife to put "Paszkiewicz endorsing religion in class" instead of what he actually wrote.

You seem to have quite the issue with reading comprehension.

LOL

Yep. When I see you failing to demonstrate basic reading comprehension, I make an issue of it.

Talk about projection!

Talk about accusations minus evidence.

Maybe I spoke too soon--this is arguably an even GREATER instance of projection on your part.

"[A]rguably"? You mean you'll provide an argument instead of asserting and then running away?

No, apparently that's not what you meant.

Doesn't change the fact that "preaching" = "endorsement of religion." Since Paszkiewicz crossed a legal line, I thought appropriate to point out the parallel that exists there as well as colloquially.

Okay, since they mean the same thing, change your sig line to read "David Paszkiewicz endorsing religion in class."

I don't think you'll do it, but maybe you'll surprise me.

If you refuse to do it, I'd like to know why.

Nor do you think that his blatant dishonesty about his statements, nor the board's stagnation and lack of response to the situation are worthy of any complaint or anything either, apparently. I wonder why not.

I don't think a reasonable person who is acquainted with the facts would believe that Paszkiewicz was dishonest about his statements. The LaClairs have definitely made false statements about Paszkiewicz, however.

That strongly implies that you think that they currently ARE unlawful.

It's not surprising you would draw a poorly supported inference.

High court decisions are frequently the result of close votes. My response simply recognizes that the law is what the judges decide it will be, right or wrong.

Nobody from LaClair's side has responded to my challenge to find a precedent that suits this case. I argued that the government, not Paszkiewicz, would be the target of a lawsuit (though I left open the possibility of a strained tort--an avenue the LaClairs have kept open). I'm not aware of any case where an individual's actions were held to violate the establishment clause where the individual was not making policy.

This case may make new law. Secularists love cases like this, because a victory can lead one step closer to the secularization of society (the other side likes these cases, too, where their side is victorious).

Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

I was too kind. There was no rebuttal to the Jefferson quotation. But I shouldn't call no rebuttal a weak reply, since my saying so doesn't make it so.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=41817

See the quotation at the end of the post, and then try to find anybody from the other side willing to discuss the quotation.

Projection #3.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Coincidentally, that's the third accusation of projection unaccompanied by any sort of evidence in support.