Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Discussion > Religion & Philosophy
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Religion & Philosophy Discuss Pro-Gay Theresa May Insists Anglicans Should Not Be Forced to Perform Gay Marriages R at the General Discussion; Originally Posted by Joe Shoe See, you say this after spending a whole stupid post whining about 'ad hominem.' As ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91 (permalink)  
Old 06-03-2017, 01:28 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,311 Times in 9,282 Posts
Default Re: Pro-Gay Theresa May Insists Anglicans Should Not Be Forced to Perform Gay Marriag

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
See, you say this after spending a whole stupid post whining about 'ad hominem.'
As I've said before, REPEATEDLY, I have no problem with occasional banter.
Your problem is you habitually DROP ALL TOPICAL DISCUSSION to fixate SOLELY on the ad hominem.

If you would BOTH ADDRESS THE TOPIC and engage in whatever banter you wanted, that would be topical.
The fact that you consistently DROP THE TOPIC to devolve into ad hominem is the problem.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #92 (permalink)  
Old 06-03-2017, 07:16 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,218
Thanks: 822
Thanked 1,589 Times in 1,079 Posts
Default Re: Pro-Gay Theresa May Insists Anglicans Should Not Be Forced to Perform Gay Marriag

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
As I've said before, REPEATEDLY, I have no problem with occasional banter.
Your problem is you habitually DROP ALL TOPICAL DISCUSSION to fixate SOLELY on the ad hominem.
If that happens, it's only in response to you taking things so far off-the-rails that meaningful discussion is already lost at that point anyway. As I just pointed out in my last post, when I do you don't really deal with the reality of what I point out. There comes a point when people don't waste their time on your posts, Foundit.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
  #93 (permalink)  
Old 06-03-2017, 09:49 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,311 Times in 9,282 Posts
Default Re: Pro-Gay Theresa May Insists Anglicans Should Not Be Forced to Perform Gay Marriag

Joe, rather than indulge your ad hominem fest any longer, may I propose this.

You have dropped TOPICAL arguments left and right.
If you want to pick those up again, then do so.

My recommendations?
1) http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/rel...tml#post891481
Here, I responded to multiple examples YOU provided, but then you ignored that discussion in your subsequent reply.
You dropped those discussion points.
If you're interested in NOT going solely ad hominem, you can talk about those.

2) http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/rel...tml#post891381
Another post where I talked about multiple arguments, and you completely dropped that discussion.
You can try responding there.

3) If there is any actual argument that you raised that I didn't respond to, POINT TO THE POST AND ARGUMENT and I'll pick it up.

Balls in your court.
If you want to attack me (like you've been doing), then that's what you'll choose to do.
If you want to discuss the topic, then get back to discussing the topic.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #94 (permalink)  
Old 06-03-2017, 11:14 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,218
Thanks: 822
Thanked 1,589 Times in 1,079 Posts
Default Re: Pro-Gay Theresa May Insists Anglicans Should Not Be Forced to Perform Gay Marriag

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Joe, rather than indulge your ad hominem ...
I don't really care of you "indulge" or not. I'll keep pointing out your bullsh!t either way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
You have dropped TOPICAL arguments left and right.
If you want to pick those up again, then do so.
I've already told you why that is happening. But I'll tell you why, yet again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
My recommendations?
1) http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/rel...tml#post891481
Here, I responded to multiple examples YOU provided, but then you ignored that discussion in your subsequent reply.
You dropped those discussion points.
The reason I didn't waste my time with this particular post is that you started that post with another accusation of "LIE" again. I already TOLD you several posts back that when you do that I won't be wasting my time with you. Stop doing that, as you know you're just playing games at this point. When you do stop, substantive discussion can happen again. That ball's in YOUR court, not mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
2) http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/rel...tml#post891381
Another post where I talked about multiple arguments, and you completely dropped that discussion.
You can try responding there.
After re-reading it, this one you did managed to go a post without playing your "liar-liar" game, so I'll engage in this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
IF the law were to require it (or such a rational legal argument existed), then it doesn't matter how many people talk about not liking it.
Before gay marriage, there was plenty of whining about how people didn't like it. Laws got passed.
WE FOUGHT BACK ANYWAYS.
At best, the anti-gay marriage laws delayed the fight. It did not stop the fight.
The fight was always there for gay marriage and that's something you don't have regarding the topic of this thread.
In this section, you are vastly over-complicating this matter in terms of the context of people passing precautionary legislation (the topic of that exchange). Even in the example you gave (precautionary laws against gay marriage), the thing you pointed out (gays "fighting back" anyway) only UNDERSCORES the importance of being precautionary all the MORE, so you only reinforced my point with that. . IOW, clearly, people weren't precautionary enough, and hopefully they learned a lesson that they need to be EVEN MORE SO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
You may recognize that I am a firm believer of separation of church and state.
Um, no. The only part of SoC&S you've ever seemed particularly interested in to me is the themes present in the establishment clause only. I don't think I've ever seen you actively defend matters of the free exercise clause specifically, that I recall anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
"religion controlling government or taking over government" is extremist fear-mongering.
Glad you agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
You're trying to credit alarmist, conspiracy theory thinking with preventing the things they imagine up.
I was pointing to an example on YOUR side, Foundit--the left. And you've just admitted he (Barry Lynn) was doing nothing more than fear mongering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I believe people should take precautions against problems there is actually a risk of happening. Here, you have ONE EXAMPLE. And you're trying to pretend it's much worse than it actually is. People like me, SCOTUS liberals, etc have explicitly stated that pastors will not be forced to perform gay weddings. You prefer your fear over the facts.
And given the slippery slope that has happened over the last decades in terms of churches, we have no reason to believe you and every reason to believe you are full of it when you 'explicitly state' such things. That's the problem. Churches have been facing an encroaching of religious liberty for years now. This trend with examples is well laid out in part in this article. You are welcome to read it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
The law will prevent pastors from being forced to marry gay couples.
The law will prevent the vast majority of churches from being forced to host a gay wedding.
It's amazing how much stock you suddenly put in the law, and how you think it can be so well relied upon to save the day. Esp. someone coming from an issue (gay-rights related ones) where the law DOESN'T always do the job. If we were to stop fighting for religious freedoms we see eroding just because the law hasn't evolved to where it should be to be more specific, it would be like people before the the Civil Rights Act having given up prematurely.

Not to mention that religious freedom is a constitutional sacred cow above many other issues in this country. Ergo it is almost always a good idea for it to be reinforced when possible, on that basis alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
With "nuclear security", that is what prevents the problem.
This sentence woefully fails to even address the analogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
THERE ARE CHECKS IN THE CONSTITUTION to prevent what you want to proclaim fear over.
SCOTUS ACKNOWLEDGED those checks in the constitution.

You are trying to pretend they don't exist.
This is like saying: if the govt. starts eroding on peoples' right to free speech, we should not raise concern about that or pass laws dealing with specific encroachments just because the constitution guarantees the right to free speech. See, the reason we can't rely on the constitution is because people like you aren't honoring the constitution to begin with in the slippery-slope trend I mentioned above. If you were, these additional laws wouldn't be needed. The constitution is a DOCUMENT--if powers that be don't honor it to begin with and have shown they aren't interested in doing so, the citing it as a protection is useless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Balls in your court.
No, balls in yours.
As I showed in this thread, argue honestly without the "liar-liar" game of late you've been playing, and you'll get substantive discussion. Start that crap back up in posts, and you won't, in any post that you do that. THAT'S up to YOU.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

Last edited by Joe Shoe; 06-03-2017 at 11:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #95 (permalink)  
Old 06-04-2017, 05:44 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,311 Times in 9,282 Posts
Post Re: Pro-Gay Theresa May Insists Anglicans Should Not Be Forced to Perform Gay Marriag

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
I've already told you why that is happening.
Joe, both of us are making choices here.
On your side, you repeatedly drop topical arguments to instead fixate on ad hominem whining.
That is a choice you are making.
At this stage, I don't even see you denying that you are doing it. You are just trying to justify it.

If there are topical arguments I am dropping, POINT THEM OUT.

But for you to just try to make lame excuses for why you are fixating on ad hominem while you avoid topical arguments?
That's still just a lame excuse for a choice you are making.

So to make it perfectly clear, it's happening because of your choice.
You don't like what I'm doing. But for some inane reason you think that annoyance justifies you devolving this into pure ad hominem.
It doesn't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
After re-reading it, this one you did managed to go a post without playing your "liar-liar" game, so I'll engage in this one.
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
You drop topical points and then later try to falsely blame me for your choice to drop topical points.

As explained to you numerous times, it's when posting devolves to solely personal attacks that it's a problem.
Side "banter" is allowed.
When you choose to ignore topical discussion and devolve into PURELY ad hominem (no longer "side banter"), that's a problem.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
  #96 (permalink)  
Old 06-04-2017, 05:48 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,311 Times in 9,282 Posts
Post Re: Pro-Gay Theresa May Insists Anglicans Should Not Be Forced to Perform Gay Marriag

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
In this section, you are vastly over-complicating this matter in terms of the context of people passing precautionary legislation (the topic of that exchange). Even in the example you gave (precautionary laws against gay marriage), the thing you pointed out (gays "fighting back" anyway) only UNDERSCORES the importance of being precautionary all the MORE, so you only reinforced my point with that. . IOW, clearly, people weren't precautionary enough, and hopefully they learned a lesson that they need to be EVEN MORE SO.
You can pass three times as many unconstitutional laws and it doesn't change the fact that they are invalid.
You guys didn't have the support for a constitutional amendment. Shown in repeated polls that while specific areas had majority support for laws against gay marriage, you didn't have enough support to pass a constitutional amendment.
That was the only precautionary method which would have changed the outcome...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Um, no. The only part of SoC&S you've ever seemed particularly interested in to me is the themes present in the establishment clause only. I don't think I've ever seen you actively defend matters of the free exercise clause specifically, that I recall anyway.
We disagree on what constitutes "free exercise", per the first amendment. Don't confuse that with not protecting actual "free exercise".
The first amendment does not grant permission to violate laws. The Lemon Test is very prevalent.

On THIS topic, we agree pastors and non-public business churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages. I just don't agree with you on claims regarding a "threat".
And your claims of "threat" revolve around some imagined, nebulous future act...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
I was pointing to an example on YOUR side, Foundit--the left. And you've just admitted he (Barry Lynn) was doing nothing more than fear mongering.

Yes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
And given the slippery slope that has happened over the last decades in terms of churches, we have no reason to believe you and every reason to believe you are full of it when you 'explicitly state' such things. That's the problem. Churches have been facing an encroaching of religious liberty for years now. This trend with examples is well laid out in part in this article. You are welcome to read it.
Slippery slope arguments are intellectually lazy.
The article details examples of things you guys don't like. It's not "encroaching of religious liberty".
People need to recognize the difference between "things happening which you don't like" and an actual causal chain. ESPECIALLY the difference between things that have never been constitutionally protected that some people mistakenly believed were...

For example, gay marriage has been something explicitly shown as an interest for gay rights groups for decades. It was not part of any "slippery slope".
The constitution always demonstrated why gay marriage was protected. People like me have been explaining this for a long time now.

Compare to THIS topic, liberals are explicitly stating that pastors are protected. SCOTUS EXPLICITLY STATED pastors are protected.
The line is recognized and observed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
It's amazing how much stock you suddenly put in the law, and how you think it can be so well relied upon to save the day. Esp. someone coming from an issue (gay-rights related ones) where the law DOESN'T always do the job.
Really?
Where? Name the issue...

The law (or to be more explicit, the legal system enforcing the constitution) has repeatedly demonstrated protection of gay civil rights. It may have taken time, but the law DID protect.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
If we were to stop fighting for religious freedoms ...
Nobody is saying to do that.
Nobody.
What I am pointing out is there is no fight for forcing pastors / real churches to perform gay marriages against their will.
So stop pretending it's a fight.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
This sentence woefully fails to even address the analogy.
Actually, it does. And you predictably cut and paste around the explanation...
Don't blindly assume I am directing refuting every thing you say. I am pointing out the flaw in your argument in that of course I would agree nuclear security is needed as the precaution.
Just like the first amendment is needed to prevent theoretical forcing of pastors to perform gay marriages.

Like I said:
The TRUE analogy would be if we were talking about DOING AWAY WITH the law / constitution involved (or "nuclear security"), THEN you would have a point.

The true analogy would be if you were mindlessly proclaiming we needed to double nuclear security, but refuse to give any cogent justification of the risk for why we need that in the first place.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
This is like saying: if the govt. starts eroding on peoples' right to free speech, we should not raise concern about that or pass laws dealing with specific encroachments just because the constitution guarantees the right to free speech. See, the reason we can't rely on the constitution is because people like you aren't honoring the constitution to begin with in the slippery-slope trend I mentioned above.
No.
The government has not eroded any "people's rights" on this issue (or other issues).
You just refuse to acknowledge what is actually a right in the first place.

On this issue, we agree that the constitution protects actual religious pastors from having to perform gay weddings.
We agree that the vast majority of churches are protected as well from having to host a gay wedding.
(We disagree on that one case where the public business pavilion had to host it, but that is one isolated case.

And you are trying to fear-monger proclamations to ignore that.
And now you are trying to proclaim "but because we didn't get our way on apple, that justifies our fear on orange"...
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
anglicans, forced, gay, insists, marriages, may, not, perform, progay, should, theresa

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0