Posted on 11/24/2007 7:44:20 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
TOPEKA | Countless flights across the country. Car rentals, gas money, food and lodging. All those cardboard signs. For the 71 members of Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church, the costs of doing business must add up.
And those costs could soon grow a lot higher. A Maryland jury recently ordered Westboro to pay nearly $11 million to the father of a fallen soldier whose funeral was the subject of one of Westboro’s protests.
Many hope the lawsuit, and future ones like it, will put the notorious church out of business for good. It’s something that new funeral picketing bans, now passed in 43 states, have proved unable to do.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
Please feel free to do so!
bump
Still waiting ...............
And.............we’ve beaten this thread to death.
Does this include theological statements? A precedent like that could come back and bite mainstream fundamentalist Christians, or even mushies who still believe there is a hell and that some people go there.
I think he knows the gays are far less scrupulous than the military families. Phelps would likely find his church gone up in smoke about a week after he started doing things like that.
At least you have admitted that you could not answer it.
Better a quiter than a never ran I guess.
Actually, I don’t remember your question and don’t intend to search through a dead thread to find it. If you feel it’s so important, restate yourself (the question), and I’ll reply hopefully to your satisfaction. Otherwise, let’s move on. There are plenty of other topics out there to discuss.
Can’t even back through a few posts that are linked to each other?
So you are lazy too?
There might be a “junior” size forum out there better suited to your ability.
So, you aren’t really interested in answers. Look, you and I may not agree, but I’m not going to resort to personal attacks even though you continually use them. I tried to engage in a civil discussion over an obviously emotional issue for some people. My apologies if you, your friends, or your family were harmed by Fred Phelps and his church. I suppose that would justify your antagonism towards me for appearing to defend them. Why don’t we call it quits here and move onto other topics, FRiend? Have a good day.
Once and for all there is a difference between a personal attack and an observation based on facts.
Observation based on a fact: You will not back track a few posts proving you are lazy. See, this is an observation that is quite apparent.
Personal attack: You are ugly and your mother dresses you funny.
I do not know what you look like and have no idea how your mother dresses you so this would be a personal attack.
There will be fewer tears and hurt feelings if you can understand the difference.
If this is your best then I have no further use for you.
Good day.
From: http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html
Personal Attack (Argumentum Ad Hominem, literally, “argument toward the man.” Also called “Poisoning the Well”): Attacking or praising the people who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself. The statement “2+2=4” is true regardless if is stated by criminals, congressmen, or pastors.
From: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person’s claim or claims. This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.
Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual’s characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.
In general, it is best to focus one’s attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.
From: http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html
Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.
1. The personal attack is also often termed an “ad personem argument”: the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor’s character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.
2. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of “getting personal.” The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.
Eaker, just do a Google search for it if you aren’t yet convinced.
Whether I’m “lazy” or not is totally irrelevant to the points I make. It doesn’t matter if the personal attacks are true or not, because they have nothing to do with the discussion.
Feel free to thank me very much for taking the extra time to try and educate you! To quote Mark Levin, “THANK ME!”
How HYPOCRITICAL!!! You are whining about ad hominem attacks on YOURSELF, but you SUPPORT the Phelps ATTACK on a DEAD SOLDIER!!! Shame...shame.
All that for nothing.
You are still lazy and excessively whiney.
Looks like Google can’t fix that. Maybe you can try the library for some self-help books.
Good luck lil’ feller.
LOL. Good luck to you, too.
We had a local military funeral and they showed up. Had the service at the local school, where protesting is not allowed. The closest the Phelps group could come to the funeral was to stand in the road, and then the neighbors on both sides picked that time to burn leaves. Pretty effective.
Carolyn
CDHart wrote: “We had a local military funeral and they showed up. Had the service at the local school, where protesting is not allowed. The closest the Phelps group could come to the funeral was to stand in the road, and then the neighbors on both sides picked that time to burn leaves. Pretty effective.”
That’s awesome, especially the part about the burning leaves. Did Phelps give up or stand there in the smoke?
You didn’t respond to my reply to you...why not?
The one where you asked me in an email if I’m insane?
NO #193.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.