“That may be what you intended to say, but what you actually said was that his opinion carries more weight if it is more persuasive.”
My original statement: “His opinion only carries more weight than anyone elses if it is good and eloquent enough to persuade more people, (which admittedly it does. He was obviously a very talented and erudite individual”
Notice the words “good” and “talented”.
I apologise if I have attributed personal prejudices to your arguments as opposed to talent, reason and experience. I was probably influenced unduly by phrases like “liberal filth”, “liberal scum”, “Satanic left”...
“I really despise this argument. What people attempt to do when they make this argument is discredit the opponent, and not his arguments, by painting him as a closed-minded person who always reacts by saying “I’m right and you’re wrong” without any consideration of the arguments to hand.”
That’s quite a statement when your response to my argument was “Well then, you need to add to your store of information and reconsider.” How is that not attempting to “discredit the opponent” (opponent?) by painting him as an ignorant individual?
“I am quite certain that there are areas in which you are more knowledgeable than I, and in which I could learn from you. However, we’re talking about the US Constitution, in which tradition I have been steeped my entire life. I’m presuming that isn’t true of you, as a non-American. Further, this is a subject I have discussed many, many times. I am justified in thinking that I have seen and carefully considered all the evidence and arguments arrayed against me. If you have a new one, trot it out, but don’t ask me to go over the same well-winnowed ground once again.”
Quite true. You’re right, although of course, It’s very hard for me to array new arguments when I dont know which ones you have been exposed to.
“That’s yet another of those sophistries that I despise. The premise here is that if we disallow anything, we will end up disallowing everything. Taken to an extreme, this would mean that disallowing murder is a slippery slope to disallowing tea.”
I’m sorry. I understand your argument, but I dont think the analysis I made in this instance was too far a stretch. Im not trying to do away with tea-drinking. Im talking about me being unable to practice my faith because someone else was refused to practice his earlier.
I know you are an american and an expert on things I know little about, so let me bring my experience to bear on this. Unlike you I live in a nation with a state religion. It doesnt work. I am a baptist in a country with very few baptists. I AM in a minority, and yes it does change your opinions (actually it just brings some opinions more to the fore).
“The history you have been taught is inaccurate. There is absolutely no, no, no, no, no “separation of Church and state” requirement in the Constitution. Not then, not now, not ever.”
I bow to your superior knowledge here. Thank you for telling me that.
“Not all belief is bigotry, but all bigotry is belief. Unreasonable belief in falsehood, but belief nonetheless.”
Agreed.
“I have never once run across a Catholic-basher who correctly understood the teachings of the Catholic Church.”
There aren’t too many Catholics who correctly understand the teachings of the Catholic Church either :)
Perhaps that is always the problem. Perhaps people are always against not what the other side believes, but what they think the other side believes. Im a student of military history and I see this all the time. You see something like the spanish civil war, and the two sides labelled as “fascist” and “communist”. It would probably be more accurate to label them “anti-communist” and “anti-fascist”. A very terrible thing.
“Notice the words “good” and “talented”.
Talented doesn’t help your case, as witness the exceptionally talented liar Billy Blythe. As for “…good and eloquent enough to persuade…” I think that speaks for itself.
“I apologise if I have attributed personal prejudices to your arguments as opposed to talent, reason and experience. I was probably influenced unduly by phrases like “liberal filth”, “liberal scum”, “Satanic left”...”
No doubt. The Satanic left has decreed that anyone opposing them must weasel and waffle, speaking more in disclaimers than substance. Calling them what they are – Satanic filth – must be seen as evidence of stupidity and prejudice. It’s a very neat trick. They can say anything they like (for instance, that Bush enjoys the deaths of US soldiers), but their opposition must maintain utmost timidity or be labeled…oh, any one of a number of pejoratives. Well, I call BS. It is far past time to call them what they are. Oh, to be sure, words are inadequate to describe their perfidy, their moral bankruptcy, their repulsive dishonesty. But words are all we have, so I say let the expletives fly.
They are scoundrels…call them scoundrels. They are crawling, reptilian, treasonous godless unpatriotic pierced-nose Volvo-driving France-loving left-wing Communist latte-sucking tofu-chomping holistic-wacko neurotic vegan weenie perverts…call them that. They are a bunch of effeminate, leftist, pickle smooching neo Nazi would-be tyrants...call them that. They are crystal-crunching nutjobs…call them that.
“How is that not attempting to “discredit the opponent” (opponent?) by painting him as an ignorant individual?”
By now you’ve probably figured that out on your own. We all have areas in which we lack information. It’s part of the human condition. Telling a person that he lacks information on a given subject is not telling him that he is an “ignorant individual.”
“it’s very hard for me to array new arguments when I dont know which ones you have been exposed to.”
It would have to be one coined in the last ten minutes.
“I’m talking about me being unable to practice my faith because someone else was refused to practice his earlier.”
And my argument is that we are protected from that only by the decency of the men we elect, and our own. Preventing government from responding appropriately to whacko cults that in no way deserve the name of religion serves only to place us at the mercy of Satan. It protects our own freedom of religion not in the least. This is being played out daily in the US.
“Unlike you I live in a nation with a state religion. It doesnt work. I am a baptist in a country with very few baptists. I AM in a minority, and yes it does change your opinions (actually it just brings some opinions more to the fore).”
I lived for twenty years in a country that was only 2% Christian, of all denominations. I think I know a little about being in a minority. And one thing I know is that driving religion from the public square is not the same thing as protecting freedom of religion.
“There aren’t too many Catholics who correctly understand the teachings of the Catholic Church either :)”
We have quite a number here on FR. I’ve been able to learn a lot from them.
“Perhaps that is always the problem. Perhaps people are always against not what the other side believes, but what they think the other side believes.”
Perhaps that is sometimes the problem, but not always. As an ex-leftist, who spent a great deal of time tucked away in the pocket of the Earl of Hell’s weskit, I know very well what they believe…and why it is wrong, and why it is evil.
“You see something like the spanish civil war, and the two sides labelled as “fascist” and “communist”. It would probably be more accurate to label them “anti-communist” and “anti-fascist”.
It would be more accurate to label one side as “evil, murdering communist swine,” and the other as “everybody else.” The Generalissimo saved millions of lives…the lives of the Spaniards that the communists would have murdered if they had won.
“A very terrible thing.”
Satan’s actions are always terrible, and those he takes through the communists and other leftists are no exception.
“Notice the words “good” and “talented”.
Talented doesn’t help your case, as witness the exceptionally talented liar Billy Blythe. As for “…good and eloquent enough to persuade…” I think that speaks for itself.
“I apologise if I have attributed personal prejudices to your arguments as opposed to talent, reason and experience. I was probably influenced unduly by phrases like “liberal filth”, “liberal scum”, “Satanic left”...”
No doubt. The Satanic left has decreed that anyone opposing them must weasel and waffle, speaking more in disclaimers than substance. Calling them what they are – Satanic filth – must be seen as evidence of stupidity and prejudice. It’s a very neat trick. They can say anything they like (for instance, that Bush enjoys the deaths of US soldiers), but their opposition must maintain utmost timidity or be labeled…oh, any one of a number of pejoratives. Well, I call BS. It is far past time to call them what they are. Oh, to be sure, words are inadequate to describe their perfidy, their moral bankruptcy, their repulsive dishonesty. But words are all we have, so I say let the expletives fly.
They are scoundrels…call them scoundrels. They are crawling, reptilian, treasonous godless unpatriotic pierced-nose Volvo-driving France-loving left-wing Communist latte-sucking tofu-chomping holistic-wacko neurotic vegan weenie perverts…call them that. They are a bunch of effeminate, leftist, pickle smooching neo Nazi would-be tyrants...call them that. They are crystal-crunching nutjobs…call them that.
“How is that not attempting to “discredit the opponent” (opponent?) by painting him as an ignorant individual?”
By now you’ve probably figured that out on your own. We all have areas in which we lack information. It’s part of the human condition. Telling a person that he lacks information on a given subject is not telling him that he is an “ignorant individual.”
“it’s very hard for me to array new arguments when I dont know which ones you have been exposed to.”
It would have to be one coined in the last ten minutes.
“I’m talking about me being unable to practice my faith because someone else was refused to practice his earlier.”
And my argument is that we are protected from that only by the decency of the men we elect, and our own. Preventing government from responding appropriately to whacko cults that in no way deserve the name of religion serves only to place us at the mercy of Satan. It protects our own freedom of religion not in the least. This is being played out daily in the US.
“Unlike you I live in a nation with a state religion. It doesnt work. I am a baptist in a country with very few baptists. I AM in a minority, and yes it does change your opinions (actually it just brings some opinions more to the fore).”
I lived for twenty years in a country that was only 2% Christian, of all denominations. I think I know a little about being in a minority. And one thing I know is that driving religion from the public square is not the same thing as protecting freedom of religion.
“There aren’t too many Catholics who correctly understand the teachings of the Catholic Church either :)”
We have quite a number here on FR. I’ve been able to learn a lot from them.
“Perhaps that is always the problem. Perhaps people are always against not what the other side believes, but what they think the other side believes.”
Perhaps that is sometimes the problem, but not always. As an ex-leftist, who spent a great deal of time tucked away in the pocket of the Earl of Hell’s weskit, I know very well what they believe…and why it is wrong, and why it is evil.
“You see something like the spanish civil war, and the two sides labelled as “fascist” and “communist”. It would probably be more accurate to label them “anti-communist” and “anti-fascist”.
It would be more accurate to label one side as “evil, murdering communist swine,” and the other as “everybody else.” The Generalissimo saved millions of lives…the lives of the Spaniards that the communists would have murdered if they had won.
“A very terrible thing.”
Satan’s actions are always terrible, and those he takes through the communists and other leftists are no exception.