Passenger killed by air marshall

[CFLarsen]

Claus, I am not the first person to suggest that you've stared into the abyss too long.

And I'll wager a guess that you won't be the last. I've been called many things by many people. By now, my name is Legion in some circles.

You do not refute my analysis of your verbal gymnastics; the false dichotomy in the second example is especially glaring. But anything to keep churning replies and moving away from anything uncomfortable.

That's not really my style, is it?

Since then you haven't even deigned to state openly that you are refusing to answer them. you have ignored the thread and studiously ignored any mention of them until the present.

So for the record, will you state simply and clearly that you have no intention of answering my questions? Do you admit that you have no way to distinguish Switzerland from the US by voter participation in that thread?

Again: I have already said what I wanted to say on the issue.

A beautiful evasion. I think the primary criticism in this area is that you "don't let go" only when *you* are asking the questions. Any time the tables are turned, you suddenly "have said what [you] wanted to say on that issue."

I think this thread is evidence of the opposite.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

There are a lot of religious and superstitious people in the US. Therefore, Americans are, for the most part, superstitious.

Think you'll agree with me now?

I'll agree with the simple statment of fact as long as there isn't some sort of implied judgement that this somehow makes American's stupid or inferior or something along those lines to go with it. It's that sort of judgment that get's people's ire up and makes threads go into 20-odd pages of bickering, not simple statements like the majority of Americans are religious.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'll agree with the simple statment of fact as long as there isn't some sort of implied judgement that this somehow makes American's stupid or inferior or something along those lines to go with it. It's that sort of judgment that get's people's ire up and makes threads go into 20-odd pages of bickering, not simple statements like the majority of Americans are religious.

I don't think that Americans are stupid or inferior. I looooove Americans. Can't you feel that?

 

[Jocko]

There are a lot of religious and superstitious people in the US. Therefore, Americans are, for the most part, superstitious.

Christ, Claus, do you even think before you type this garbage? How can one be superstitious without reference to some kind of superstition?

 

[CFLarsen]

Christ, Claus, do you even think before you type this garbage? How can one be superstitious without reference to some kind of superstition?

Keep going.

 

[Jocko]

Keep going.

Answer the question. Can a person be superstitious without subscribing to some kind of superstition?

Yes or no will suffice, thank you.

 

[CFLarsen]

Answer the question. Can a person be superstitious without subscribing to some kind of superstition?

Yes or no will suffice, thank you.

Of course they can't. That's not the issue.

The issue is whether you can be religious without having a specific religion.

So far, you have not been able to prove that you have to have a specific religion.

The onus is on you, my frothing friend.

 

[Jocko]

Of course they can't. That's not the issue.

The issue is whether you can be religious without having a specific religion.

Which is what your analogy was supposed to illustrate. Now you see it does not. Under those circumstances, a smart man might take that as a reason to revisit his original hypothesis.

So far, you have not been able to prove that you have to have a specific religion.

The onus is on you, my frothing friend.

No, the point is whether "religious" presupposes "religion," not a particular religion, my goalpost-hefting friend.

Like I said, a smart man might reconsider his position.

 

[CFLarsen]

Which is what your analogy was supposed to illustrate. Now you see it does not. Under those circumstances, a smart man might take that as a reason to revisit his original hypothesis.

Hmmmmm.....no, that's not what my analogy was supposed to illustrate.

If you want to believe that (and you seem most intent on doing so), fine with me. Do go on making these raving posts. They are most entertaining.

What my religion is? I don't suppose you'd mind pointing me to the post where this became about my personal beliefs?

Like I said, a smart man might reconsider his position.

Whattamaroon......

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Again: I have already said what I wanted to say on the issue.

You've also managed to already said a lot about what *I'd* like to say on your failure or refusal to answer questions.

The only reason Clancie is met with the same questions is because she doesn't answer them. She is not interested in examining her own beliefs. -CFLarsen

By addressing some points and ignoring others, [someone] can completely destroy a discussion. - CFLarsen

So, you really think it is not dishonest to jump in and out of discussions, answering only the points that are comfortable to you?
Fascinating. - CFLarsen

If you can ask for my opinion, I can ask for yours. You are not above everyone else, are you? - CFLarsen

Is it OK for people to walk away from their claims, and even repeat them later, as if no objections or counterarguments had been made? - CFLarsen

Prove it. Don't just state it, and demand that we believe you. - CFLarsen

Shouldn't we apply critical thinking to all claims that can be determined objectively? Or is it merely you whom we cannot demand evidence of? - CFLarsen

I most certainly hope that the new forum will not allow me or anyone else to post claims without providing evidence. - CFLarsen

Apparently, the "new" forum does allow that.

You should not criticize people for not answering questions or not responding to issues. You have a long string of unanswered questions dangling after you.

I hope that everyone notes the long list of questions that you have refused to answer in the Democracy thread noted above, and continues to remind you of your position regarding your "right" to criticize anyone's refusal to answer anything you post in the past. You have a long string of unanswered questions dangling after you, so don't expect to continue to bully people into answering yours.

You have failed to answer my questions and have effectively admitted that your initial position in that thread was made on the basis of a personal feeling and a vague notion of "American history." Since then, you have simply run from the challenge to post evidence and answer questions that proved uncomfortable to your position.

I think this thread is evidence of the opposite.

I think this thread is a marvelous example of your standard tactics and provides solid proof of the hypocrisy inherent in demanding answers from people, branding them as evaders if they don't answer in detail and to your satisfaction, while simultaneously running from questions directed at you.

I join your earlier wish in hope everyone reads it over; the exchanges between you and Upchurch are especially illuminating.

 

[CFLarsen]

Odd. Very odd.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Sad. Very, very sad.

 

[Upchurch]

Wow. I'm asking for clarification, you jump to the wrong conclusion, and I'm to blame?

No. Not at all. I was apologizing for giving you too much the benefit of the doubt. It was my fault, my expectations were too high and that led me to an erroneous assumption. Again, I am sorry.

I think you are letting your emotions cloud your judgment.

Oh? Why is that?

I am explaining my point. You can call it what you want, but please have the decency to respect it.

Well, I might had I received the same courtesy in return. Unfortunately, that sort of thing must be earned and you've gone to great lengths to not respect, or even consider, other's points, my own included. If you are to hold me to such exacting standards, I see no reason not to hold you to the same.

Not at all. As Patricio pointed out, Einstein could refer to something religious without referring to a specific religion.

Already granted, if you will remember, but you are saying that at least two specific instances phrases have "religious reference". I want to know what you think that reference is.

Not just existence, but acceptance that it should be part of government.

That it should be part of the government? Evidence for this claim? Given the time (which I don't have just this moment), I'll present you plenty of evidence to the exact opposite. Many of which have already been presented in this thread and there are many more available. How do you account for all of these counter examples in your claim that the US government is set up so that religion should be a part of government? Are do you intend to just ignore them?

There doesn't have to be a reference to a specific religion.

You've become a broken record, Claus. I am not saying that it must be a reference to a specific religion. I am saying that if it is a reference, it must be a reference to something. What is it referring to?

 

[Grammatron]

You can be religious without having a religion. That's my point.

And you can believe in a god without being religious.

 

[CFLarsen]

And you can believe in a god without being religious.

How so?

 

[CFLarsen]

No. Not at all. I was apologizing for giving you too much the benefit of the doubt. It was my fault, my expectations were too high and that led me to an erroneous assumption. Again, I am sorry.

If this is your way out of it, fine with me.

Oh? Why is that?

Because you blame me for your errors. That's no way to go.

Well, I might had I received the same courtesy in return. Unfortunately, that sort of thing must be earned and you've gone to great lengths to not respect, or even consider, other's points, my own included. If you are to hold me to such exacting standards, I see no reason not to hold you to the same.

I both respect and consider other points, your own included. I just don't agree with them.

Already granted, if you will remember, but you are saying that at least two specific instances phrases have "religious reference". I want to know what you think that reference is.

A reference to a supernatural being.

That it should be part of the government? Evidence for this claim? Given the time (which I don't have just this moment), I'll present you plenty of evidence to the exact opposite. Many of which have already been presented in this thread and there are many more available. How do you account for all of these counter examples in your claim that the US government is set up so that religion should be a part of government? Are do you intend to just ignore them?

You know what the evidence is: The government decided that there should be a direct reference to a supernatural being.

Kneejerk reaction? You bet. But it doesn't change the fact: They made religious references a part of government.

You've become a broken record, Claus.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that you keep asking the same question I already replied to?

I am not saying that it must be a reference to a specific religion. I am saying that if it is a reference, it must be a reference to something. What is it referring to?

A supernatural being.

 

[Grammatron]

How so?

Let's say I believe that the Universe is too perfect to be a random thing and was created by supernatural being or beings. And that's it; I don't pray to them I don't worship them it's just what I believe in.

Is that religious?

 

[CFLarsen]

Let's say I believe that the Universe is too perfect to be a random thing and was created by supernatural being or beings. And that's it; I don't pray to them I don't worship them it's just what I believe in.

Is that religious?

Yes. Is it having a religion?

 

[Upchurch]

Because you blame me for your errors. That's no way to go.

When did I do that? When I apologized for making an assumption?

I both respect and consider other points, your own included. I just don't agree with them.

Oh? If you have considered my points, why do you disagree with the political reasons for the adding of the "God" phrases? Why do you not answer my question about joking not being the only non-literal rhetorical device?

A reference to a supernatural being.

What supernatural being?

You know what the evidence is: The government decided that there should be a direct reference to a supernatural being.

A direct reference to an ambiguously defined "supernatural being"? Still not sure what you're talking about, but do you understand the context under which these decisions were made, especially given the atmosphere of the time?

Kneejerk reaction? You bet. But it doesn't change the fact: They made religious references a part of government.

Finish the statement: "...for political reasons."

It was still wrong, but it was not for the purpose of adding "God" to the US government.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that you keep asking the same question I already replied to?

A reply is not necessarily an answer.

 

[Grammatron]

Yes.

So any believe in something that can not be explained is religious?