Kent Hovind gets 10 years

Big Les said:
Well done, you've found a (straw) Christian man.
Click to expand...
That's too funny. It might have escaped your notice but fanboy made the point....
  • Founded? No. The US was most assuredly not founded on Christianity.
…then proceeded to rip into it. I never made that point.

Since my original point was that America had a decidedly christian population from the very beginning I don't know how you could say I'm misrepresenting anyone's point. I'm not attributing that point to anyone except me. er

Gene
 
Gene,

You and I finally agree on something! That's a wonderful description you provided by John Jay stating that this country was so hospitable to Native Americans. That was pretty bold thinking for that day! :rolleyes:
 
Dr Adequate said:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; …
Click to expand...

Good Doctor, you seem to have a little straw between your teeth.

Gene

eta: I wouldn't mention it if I thought you were a rank amateur.
 
AgingYoung said:
Good Doctor, you seem to have a little straw between your teeth.
Click to expand...
You point is a little gnomic for me. You said that "the case had been made" that "America was founded on christianity". I pointed out that in 1797 the Senate disagreed with you --- and surely they'd know if it had been? Where is the straw?
 
Last edited:
AgingYoung said:
fanboy,
Although I never made the point America was founded on christianity it is good to see the case made it wasn't. Food for thought.

Gene
Click to expand...
I'll even fetch the quote you misread. delphi_ote hasn't been sharing that scotch and what ever pill he's popping with you has he?

Gene
 
My apologies, so you did. I must also have misunderstood what you meant by "priceless".

Actually, something rather odd seems to have happened to that post altogether.
Argued it? Argued against it?

Well, anyway, consider my post more of that "food for thought".
 
Last edited:
Yes, I was a little tired; you might look at the times.

Enjoy the straw. I know that from time to time I enjoy the unwashed, uncooked menudo that's served here. :)

Gene
 
The Christian god can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites. - Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to his nephew, Peter Carr
Click to expand...

You know, I never realised the Bible was such a morass of immoral behavior which is called moral until I read it.

If the idea of a personal communication with God was the reason I became a xtian, then the Bible was definitely the greatest single reason I became an agnostic. I can only wonder how xtians manage to go through the entire Bible without shuddering with the cruelty of the deity presented or moral confusion about the system of ethics presented as divine.

Actually I do know having been there. The only way that xtians can fail to come to terms with the inhuman cruelties of the Bible is by having their own moral compass, their own consciences put into suspended animation. The process is simple: it's called prayer and fellowship. Both provoke a sense of moral superiority that is founded in unreality.

I would also add that the more I read of the Founding Fathers like Jefferson, Madison and Adams, the more I admire their clarity of thought.
 
AgingYoung said:
That is an issue most people don't fully understand. A review of the The Act establishing the Overseers of Harvard College shows America's profoundly christian heritage. It points to a much entrenched christian presence.
Click to expand...

Yea, the good old days when you could simply hang the damned papists and quakers when they got annoying. These are the values that founded america after all, and it was the idiotic founding fathers who thought to actually try to get rid if these proper sentiments, and where has that lead? We have had papist presidents and jews in congress.
 
Dr Adequate,

By priceless I meant I was enjoying fanboy's misrepresentation of my point and the seriousness he had in attacking it.

Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
For the sake of reason I defend Hovind, his degree and consequently the law that confers legitimacy to it.
Click to expand...

This is the fundmental mistake you are making.

Laws do not confer legitimacy upon degrees. If the state legislature saw fit to confer a medical licence upon my cat, that would not make my cat competent to practice surgery.

Reason demands that if you accept some legal authority you can't with a clear conscience dismiss others.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary. Reason demands that legal authority based on reason and evidence should be respected, but it's perfectly legitimate to reject legal "authority" based on nothing of the sort.

The authority or rule of law is precisely what makes Hovind's degree legitimate.
Click to expand...

No. The authority is what makes Hovind's degree legal. But the law cannot make it legitimate.

In particular -- among my other duties is the service upon search committees for my school. If "Dr" Hovind were to apply for a job here, we would not consider his application, because he does not have a legitimate degree. In fact, even if he had a "legitimate" (and accredited) degree, we would still be likely not to consider his application because he also has a fraudulent, illegitimate degree from a diploma mill, and therefore is a liar, cheat, and scoundrel. The State of Colorado cannot "legitimate" the degree nor can it make him not a liar, cheat, and scoundrel.
 
Is it wrong that I hope that Mr. Hovind will have a large cell-mate that will demonstrate the term 'prison rape' to him?

I wonder if god will help Mr. Hovind get out of that situation?
 
le•git•i•mate: 1. according to law; lawful: the property's legitimate owner.

Laws do not confer legitimacy upon degrees. If the state legislature saw fit to confer a medical licence upon my cat, that would not make my cat competent to practice surgery.
Click to expand...

Competency is irrelevant to the point of a degree being legal or legitimate. My point has never been the value of the degree or the competency of Dr. Hovind. Enjoy your straw. I'll enjoy my unwashed, uncooked menudo.

Gene
 
Perhaps you missed the other definitions of "legitimate"?

2: being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false <a legitimate grievance> <a legitimate practitioner>
Click to expand...
4: conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards <a legitimate advertising expenditure> <a legitimate inference>
Click to expand...

Since these are in much more general usage it can be assumed that anyone here arguing that his degree is not legitimate in fact used one of these definitions, especially in view of the fact that everyone has already said that they know his degree is legal, it is just not legitimate.
 
Cuddles,

It isn’t a legitimate inference to take a word from a point someone made (a word having, as you pointed out, various legitimate meanings) and fly past the first prime connotation picking out some other meaning to assign the word in an attempt to conclude anything about the point being made. That reasoning has no legitimacy particularly when the very point defines the connotation. You could even say it’s specious.

But there are some among us, and they know who they are, that want to conjure up meaning and speak to words; declaring to words, ‘you will mean this!’ With their self appointed authority they call points that aren’t as though they were in feeble attempts to sculpt a different reality. You could ask why or isn’t present reality sufficient? Innocent babe, you had to ask.

In reality there are self evident truths. If everyone agrees to the rule of law then we mutually confer authority to it. With mutual consent we submit to that authority. Valid opinion can’t reside outside that authority and remain valid. Now that is the truth if you are a member of present reality. For some that’s not sufficient.

Gene
 
Cuddles, AgingYoung was asked to explain "legitimacy", "authority" (he still hasn't proven this in thesense he uses it) and several other points on the last few pages. He has ignored various issues that dispute his argument.
 
Questioninggeller said:
Cuddles, AgingYoung was asked to explain "legitimacy", "authority" (he still hasn't proven this in thesense he uses it) and several other points on the last few pages. He has ignored various issues that dispute his argument.
Click to expand...

Did you catch how he insists on using the definition of legitimate to be the strict etymological definition and then used a form of the word with one of the alternate definitions in the very next sentence? :jaw-dropp Could this guy be any denser?

I'm gonna stop feeding this troll. He's basking in the attention. For people like AY, any attention is good attention.
 
AgingYoung said:
Cuddles,

It isn’t a legitimate inference to take a word from a point someone made (a word having, as you pointed out, various legitimate meanings) and fly past the first prime connotation picking out some other meaning to assign the word in an attempt to conclude anything about the point being made. That reasoning has no legitimacy particularly when the very point defines the connotation. You could even say it’s specious.
Click to expand...

So basically what you are saying is that every time someone uses a word it automatically changes meaning to what you want it to mean and not what they very clearly meant, especially now that they have explained that it is in fact what they meant. Interesting.

Can we all just get back to gloating over the conman in prison, that was much more productive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom