Passenger killed by air marshall

[Melendwyr]

The word "credible" means "capable of being believed."

The implication is "capable of being believed by an intelligent, rational being". Since any fool can believe any damn thing, the word becomes meaningless, otherwise.

 

[CFLarsen]

So because they were generally religious, you feel that's enough to conclude that nobody there was willing to allow for a non-supernatural interpretation of "creator" even though the language was purposefully crafted to include a multitude of interpretations?

Tell me, do you believe any of them might have questioned the existence of God?

Again, it pays to read my posts, but, in the absence: Yes, I believe that some might have questioned the existence of God.

I do, however, think - and have argued, with evidence - that the inclusion of the word "Creator" means that a supernatural being is the endower of American rights.

 

[Mycroft]

The implication is "capable of being believed by an intelligent, rational being". Since any fool can believe any damn thing, the word becomes meaningless, otherwise.

So long as it's understood that learning he wasn't dangerous after the fact doesn't change that he was percieved as dangerous before, and that we understand the clear difference between "credible threat" and "real threat."

 

[Mycroft]

Again, it pays to read my posts, but, in the absence: Yes, I believe that some might have questioned the existence of God.

Do you think the Declaration of Independence was written for them too?

I do, however, think - and have argued, with evidence - that the inclusion of the word "Creator" means that a supernatural being is the endower of American rights.

What you haven't shown evidence for is that the "supernatural being" is the only interpretation that was allowed for.

We agree the language was designed to cover a variety of beliefs.

We also agree some may have disbelieved or questioned the existence of God.

Why, then, isn't it logical to assume that the language of the Declaration of Independence was chosen to include atheism in addition to other theistic beliefs? Especially when it's so easy to interpret "creator" as "parents" or simply "nature"?

 

[Melendwyr]

So long as it's understood that learning he wasn't dangerous after the fact doesn't change that he was percieved as dangerous before,

No: this is wrong. What matters is not that he was perceived as dangerous, but that he was justly and properly perceived to be dangerous by a rational examination of the available evidence.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I do, however, think - and have argued, with evidence - that the inclusion of the word "Creator" means that a supernatural being is the endower of American rights.

I've pointed out that this is impossible, since no such being exists. Even if Jefferson wrote "all rights are given by the Giant Spaghetti Monster", it doesn't mean squat. We don't have laws based on the DoI and times have changed, our constitution doesn't acknowledge any divine source of rights or power.

WTF is the reason for bringing up this fantasy god of yours in this thread anyway? WTF does this god of yours have to do with the topic of the airline incident?

 

[thaiboxerken]

No: this is wrong. What matters is not that he was perceived as dangerous, but that he was justly and properly perceived to be dangerous by a rational examination of the available evidence.

At the time of the incident, I thing it was reasonable to believe him to be a threat. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you think the Declaration of Independence was written for them too?

Could be. Not all people were included in the DoI.

Why, then, isn't it logical to assume that the language of the Declaration of Independence was chosen to include atheism in addition to other theistic beliefs? Especially when it's so easy to interpret "creator" as "parents" or simply "nature"?

Because there isn't a Creator, if you are an atheist. This idea that it's the parents - note that the Creator isn't plural. Who is the Creator, your mum or your dad?

 

[Jocko]

Could be. Not all people were included in the DoI.



Because there isn't a Creator, if you are an atheist. This idea that it's the parents - note that the Creator isn't plural. Who is the Creator, your mum or your dad?

The only problem you have, Claus, is that you disingenuously insist on capitalizing "creator." If you have no creator, then you don't exist, do you? As attractive as that fantasy is, I know better.

Why don't you?



Edited to add: By the way, I'm sill glad we have armed air marshals, and I'm glad they responded decisively to a perceived threat.

 

[CFLarsen]

I've pointed out that this is impossible, since no such being exists.

And I've pointed out that this is not the point.

What do you think that "so help me God" means, if it doesn't mean a supernatural being? "We Trust in God"?

Even if Jefferson wrote "all rights are given by the Giant Spaghetti Monster", it doesn't mean squat. We don't have laws based on the DoI and times have changed, our constitution doesn't acknowledge any divine source of rights or power.

"Times have changed"? Did I just spot an admission there, as minuscule as it might be?

WTF is the reason for bringing up this fantasy god of yours in this thread anyway? WTF does this god of yours have to do with the topic of the airline incident?

Temper, temper.

Threads evolve. If you go to page 3, you will find that Mark brings up the issue of giving up rights, to which I asked how this is possible.

Now tell me what Mark said about where rights come from.

 

[Mycroft]

Could be. Not all people were included in the DoI.

Interesting. Which ones were excluded?

Because there isn't a Creator, if you are an atheist. This idea that it's the parents - note that the Creator isn't plural. Who is the Creator, your mum or your dad?

If I want to, I can create a child. It's not that difficult, most anyone can do it, I only need the help of a woman.

 

[CFLarsen]

The only problem you have, Claus, is that you disingenuously insist on capitalizing "creator." If you have no creator, then you don't exist, do you? As attractive as that fantasy is, I know better.

Why don't you?

Why don't you actually read the Declaration of Independence, you ignoramus?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It's not me who "disingenuously insist" on capitalizing "creator."

 

[Jocko]

If I want to, I can create a child. It's not that difficult, most anyone can do it, I only need the help of a woman.

I suspect Claus will need a little more by way of details on this particular maneuver. He doesn't strike me as an expert in the "creating arts," if you catch my drift.

Besides, as usual, he's being deliberately obtuse, pretending that being insufferable is the same as being brilliant.

 

[CFLarsen]

Interesting. Which ones were excluded?

Slaves were not included.

If I want to, I can create a child. It's not that difficult, most anyone can do it, I only need the help of a woman.

Yeah, that's the point: You need the help of a woman.

So, which one of you is the "creator"?

 

[Jocko]

Why don't you actually read the Declaration of Independence, you ignoramus?

Why don't you explain your monarchy and its state-mandated religion?

It's not me who "disingenuously insist" on capitalizing "creator."

Metaphorically, Clause, metaphorically. Think it over and try again. You're a smart guy, you'll get it eventually.

Edited to remove example of sinking to Claus' level.

 

[Grammatron]

And I've pointed out that this is not the point.

Yet you make it such.

What do you think that "so help me God" means, if it doesn't mean a supernatural being? "We Trust in God"?

It's no more relevent than a pyramid with an eye on the money.

"Times have changed"? Did I just spot an admission there, as minuscule as it might be?

I admit that you refuse to admit you are wrong, you got me.

Threads evolve. If you go to page 3, you will find that Mark brings up the issue of giving up rights, to which I asked how this is possible.

Now tell me what Mark said about where rights come from.

While Mark is right that it is possible to give up or forfit your rights, he is wrong where those rights come from.

 

[CFLarsen]

Why don't you explain your monarchy and it's state-mandated religion, you flaming hypocrite?

Yeah, yeah.... Let's quickly talk about something else!

Metaphorically, Clause, metaphorically. Think it over and try again. You're a smart guy, you'll get it eventually.

Rrrrrrrrrright. "Metaphorically".

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Why don't you actually read the Declaration of Independence, you ignoramus?

Calling someone an "ignoramus" is attacking the person rather than the argument. Please stop.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Jocko]

Yeah, yeah.... Let's quickly talk about something else!

Sorry, do I owe you royalties for snagging your technique? You know, if you ever actually addressed that issue, maybe you wouldn't keep finding yourself embarrassed by it.

So how about it, Claus? Afraid to answer an ignoramus' question?

Rrrrrrrrrright. "Metaphorically".

Keep banging. Anything to avoid the actual issue. Uh-huh.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's no more relevent than a pyramid with an eye on the money.

Sure, it's relevant. It's there for a reason.

I admit that you refuse to admit you are wrong, you got me.

It wasn't addressed to you.

While Mark is right that it is possible to give up or forfit your rights, he is wrong where those rights come from.

Which underlines my point about Americans still haven't figured it out, after so many years.