Now that Ive cooled off....

[Ryan H.]

Originally posted by Voice
You're missing the point Ryan.

I'm pointing out YOUR willful ignorance of any opinion that differs from yours.

I'm pointing out your predictability.

Let's see what Ryan (god of all things political) has to say about a few of these things. BRB.

Show me where I was willfully ignorant. Please, I'm dying to know. I said it is a logical fallacy to assign credibility to anything based on an appeal to the authority of the author.

It's like me saying Bush is the greatest military commander in our country BECAUSE he is the commander in chief. Obviously, that's not true, because just because he is in control of the military and his word is final, it doesn't mean he is the most qualified to make military decisions.

I also stated that I agreed with some of the author's points, and dismissed others.

So, where is the willfull ignorance? I'm dying to know where, in that post, I displayed willfull ignorance. Do you even know what the term means?

You're starting to make me wonder if your mental age and your chronilogical one are even remotely correlated.

[Ryan H.]

Originally posted by KCAA
Ryan did you read my post above ^^ the one regarding 6million?

I don't have time right now to dig through the thread to find the relevant post. I'm leaving in about four minutes.

Don't worry, we'll get to it tomorrow.

[Ryan H.]

Originally posted by Voice


Ok, I said the EXTREMES of the two.....I.E The scientific minds who absolutely disagree with their being a creator, god.....etc. And then the people of faith, who absolutely deny scientific reasoning and evolution.

I myself, not being an extremist in either faction, can be of the opinion that god is the reason for evolution.

Your original statement excluding the two was a blanket statement, it was not made in context with your statements about 'extremists', in that you did not link the two in any way, not by saying "some extremists think this way". You wrote that in an active voice, implicating your own personal beliefs, and then later stated something, again in active voice implicating your own beliefs, that completely contradicted it.

I honestly think you just don't even pay attention to the shit you write.

[Voice]

Ryan, my original statement was about the extremes of the two, I simply left that word out because I figured it would be understood that I was talking about the extremes.

As for your willfull ignorance, I'm just trying to say that you are very close-minded to any opinion that differs from yours. You are quick to discredit anything that isn't from a source that you believe to be viable.

I post something that falls into the category of what I believe to be viable, logical, and note-worthy, and you proceed to completely ignore any thoughts brought up by said article.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....tm/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/01/ab....ap/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12....ap/index.html

About these last two articles, we're paying twice as much money to teach the youth of america the same bullshit programs? What's up with that Mr. Bush?

[KCAA]

Originally posted by Voice
Ryan, my original statement was about the extremes of the two, I simply left that word out because I figured it would be understood that I was talking about the extremes.

As for your willfull ignorance, I'm just trying to say that you are very close-minded to any opinion that differs from yours. You are quick to discredit anything that isn't from a source that you believe to be viable.

I post something that falls into the category of what I believe to be viable, logical, and note-worthy, and you proceed to completely ignore any thoughts brought up by said article.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....tm/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/01/ab....ap/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12....ap/index.html

About these last two articles, we're paying twice as much money to teach the youth of america the same bullshit programs? What's up with that Mr. Bush?

Wow, very nice finds. Especially that lthird one. Amazing that we spend $170 million on those. They dont' even work.(for the most part)

And then to find out he DOUBLED it. Wow.

[Ryan H.]

Originally posted by Voice
Ryan, my original statement was about the extremes of the two, I simply left that word out because I figured it would be understood that I was talking about the extremes.

As for your willfull ignorance, I'm just trying to say that you are very close-minded to any opinion that differs from yours. You are quick to discredit anything that isn't from a source that you believe to be viable.

I post something that falls into the category of what I believe to be viable, logical, and note-worthy, and you proceed to completely ignore any thoughts brought up by said article.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....tm/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/01/ab....ap/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12....ap/index.html

About these last two articles, we're paying twice as much money to teach the youth of america the same bullshit programs? What's up with that Mr. Bush?

How stupid do you think I am? You contradict yourself all the time, and when people catch you doing it, you say "Oh, that's not what I was saying".

You asserted fact, then moved on to another point, then asserted another fact that contradicted the first one, and when I called you on it, you tried to tie the two together in a way that it's obvious you didn't mean to originallly.

You have, more than once, made the claim that science and religion are mutually exclusive, and you've been embarassed on that point, especially by Svosen.

As for my 'willfull ignorance', you claimed that in the post you quoted, I displayed willfull ignorance. I asked you to cite where and how, and you once again retreat into vague assertions.

The sad part is that you thought I was actually arguing about the content of that article you posted. I was just pointing out how stupid it is to give credibility to a statement simply because it appears on the news or because it is made by a professor.

You took that for me disagreeing with his statements, or dismissing them. The fact is, I was dismissing your logical fallacies and telling you why.

You can claim I am willfully ignorant all you want, but unlike you I've come to my current ideology by examining all sides, from communism to libertarianism. I'm actually educated on the genesis of our current political platforms, which is a lot different than regurgitating political talking points from pundits and politicians.

Voice, there is a reason Keers and others said you and KCAA should just shut up- neither of you have the vaguest ****ing clue about what you're talking about. You base all your arguments on logical fallacies and pure emotion with no basis in fact, and you're embarassing yourself.

[Ryan H.]

Originally posted by KCAA


Before i drop it(the thread itself), I want to state clearly.

We watched the debates in class. He said it two or three times. He emphasized it. Jeez. You obviously missed it or are too "ignorant" as you like to say to realize it. I'm not sure.

The burden of proof is on you. You claim he said something, and you cannot ask me to prove a negative. Find the transcripts where he said, during the debates, that we lost six million jobs.

And I will concede that I didn't cite 2.7. I cited every other relevant figure except that one. Either way, the correct figures didn't come until I pointed out the bullshit on the figure of six million.

[Ryan H.]

Originally posted by farfus


Yes, Ryan, from what little ive read and heard about this subject (i expect you could easily know more), the term seperation of church and state became much stronger a point of contention back in the early sixties when prayer was essentially taken out of the schools. I may be wrong, and there may be earlier incidents that preclude the useage of this term, but without question religion has a place in society, always has and always will. Its like asking someone to totally disregard their way of life because its against the rules of the school or society to use them outside of their home. And yet that same person wanting you to do that can kill and maim without regard to anyone else's personal security under the guise of the power that they wield, their power of correctness (political or otherwise). And i totally agree that this country was founded on Christian, religious, principals, many of the principals that kept prisoners of war, wives of military men, strong families, together during desperate times from the beginning of time. Notice that about the same time this so called seperation of "church and state" became a more punitive process that our divorce and suicide rates began to rise as our young people no longer had the foundation that so many of the previous generations had to grow up on...

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, Farf; it sucks when intelligent posts get lost in threads like these.

I'm not sure if the abolition of school prayer was THE impetus for the current anti-religion movement concerning government, but I'm sure it's a big part of it. If anything, I'd have to say it goes back to the genesis of the current democratic model, the Great Society Movement back in the sixties.

I think the problem with religion, that some people have anyway, is that Judeo-Christian beliefs place a lot of importance on judgement values about right and wrong behavior; this is good, this is bad, etc.

Of course, liberals and socialists don't believe in value judgements on morality. Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying Kerry or Gore condone murder, but their party is the party of moral ambiguity in that it doesn't place importance on value judgements.

Liberals defend illegal immigrants, habitual drug users, pedophiles, etc. In Vancouver, you can get your heroin on the government's dime, because they believe 'free heroin helps the addict function better and reduces crimes and social problems arising from drug use'. It's better to just make the taxpayers fund their habit instead of placing a value judgement on the behavior.

And yes, I have noticed that divorce and suicide rates, not to mention teenage promiscuity and underage drinking, have all gone up in correlation with the increase in 'separation of church and state'. I don't know if there's a causal link, but one is certainly implied.

The problem liberals have is they don't understand that freedom of religion does not = freedom FROM religion. In this country you are free to practice whatever religion you want, in that government cannot persecute you for being a hindu; they can't legally make you pray to Allah, for example.

However, that doesn't mean you are free from any and all things religious, in government or the private sector. Having the cross on the seal of Los Angelos county (a city originally founded as a mission, btw) does not violate your freedom of religion. The words "Under God" on money do not violate your freedom of religion. The biblical artwork on the ceiling of the Supreme Court does not violate your freedom of religion. The prayer before congress does not violate your freedom of religion.

I happen to be a good anecdotal example. My family is devoutly Christian, except me. Everyone else in my family goes to church every week, they talk about the bible all day at work, right in front of me. Every now and then my father sends me a religious email, and whenever he gives me a ride, we almost always listen to praise music.

But have my rights been violated? Has my family MADE me act as a Christian? Have they forced me to accept Christ? No, they haven't. And it's pretty ****ing self-centered for me to expect all of them to never talk about anything remotely related to religion whenever I'm around.

Just because the capitol building says "Merry Christmas", it does not mean your rights have been violated. Same goes for the word God on your money. The attack on religion, specifically Christianity, in this country is frightening; it's a ploy to repress freedom of religion by people who claim to have had their freedom of religion violated. Luckily, most people see through that.

On a sad note, Denver just had our annual Christmas parade, called the parade of lights. Both Santa Claus and the churches who usually marched in it were banned, though the Two Spirits Society, a group of gay and lesbian Indian Americans, had a float honoring dead holy gay Indian people.

That's like me throwing you a birthday party and not even being allowed to say, write, or imply in any way shape or form, your actual name.

[Gabriel013]

... and the guy down the street hijacking the party to celebrate his new hairdo. Well sort of..


Svosen, I'm not saying the guy wasn't a good person or that indeed he wasn't a christian in so far as he follows many of the moral guidlines set out in the bible. He may have moved on the religious path to something which allowed greater understanding of others and their views but this would make him no longer a catholic.

My father was raised a catholic and though I have not experienced it myself I know from his experiences and the things I learned at school that true catholics a pretty set in their ways.

Regarding your post Farfus and Ryans subsequent reply above:

I have noticed with most governments that in trying to make amends for the social injustices they take things too far in the other direction and discriminate against the majority. This seems to happen in many areas including religion. Rather than allowing a balance for everyone.

Liberals defend illegal immigrants, habitual drug users, pedophiles, etc. In Vancouver, you can get your heroin on the government's dime, because they believe 'free heroin helps the addict function better and reduces crimes and social problems arising from drug use'. It's better to just make the taxpayers fund their habit instead of placing a value judgement on the behavior.

This is so true, not just in Vancouver but in a lot of the western world (Appears to be more prevalent in US and UK).

[Norrec]

He brings up a valid point.