This thread has wandered far afield of a discussion about medical ethics if we're talking about the direct election of Senators being responsible for the decline of American civilization.
_________________________ "There are 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and those that don't."
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 987
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: Feral
Originally Posted By: foobar456
In the context of this thread it was obvious what I was talking about. When reading a discussion thread on a forum it would make sense to consider the context of the discussion. Cupcake/Sweetheart/Moron.
Wow, a bitter internet post-monkey...that's new. Let me guess what you do for a living...programmer, admin...web designer...computer magazine columnist...something with computers?
Context, as in the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning. As I said, my comments on your statement were about your statement, not the entire thread. If you have issue with my facts, then by all means, tell me where I'm wrong. If I want ad hominem fallacy from humans with quotients a third their weight, I'll go to a local college. In the meantime, when you next feel the need to angrily pound your indignance out at someone just trying to be a part of a futile debate, take a deep breath. Go to your special place, where your New Girl/Battlestar/Firefly friends live. Take the time to wash or at least wipe your fingers clean of the sugar/semen shame-glaze. And respond sans emotion. Everything will be just fine, sunshine. Peace.
It seems to me that what foobar meant was that if you intended this section of text:
Originally Posted By: Feral
Yeah? Ask some Mormons about marriage under the ever-watchful eye of geheime staatspolizei in das Heimutland. Or Huichol practicers and peyote...or the Rastas and cannabis. I'm assuming you meant prohibition by law in the U.S, because we could include Sharia and certain dirty little tenets of Catholicism...if we go further, past the legal and just into social prohibition or "shit that will probably get you investigated", we could include the "Ground Zero Mosque", or "Burn A Quran Day".
On the other hand, there are quite a few instances of Establishment...still. Sunday Laws are an example. Or Cecil B. DeMille's Ten Commandments ads still in courthouses around the country. And worse, selective enforcement, on things like Scientology and Operation Snow White.
to contradict or rebut foobar, or, in other words, to contradict or rebut the following text in the context in which it was meant:
Originally Posted By: Feral
Nice try there, but there is no prohibition of the free exercise of religion going on.
....that it doesn't, because that's not what foobar meant.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 987
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: Feral
Aw come on...didn't we just talk about this? I thought we were past it. Personal attacks...the last bastion of intellectual cowards.
*Sniff sniff* Smell that? Smells like...pussy.
Well, if you're trolling, then nvm.
If not, then you and dbl are intellectual cowards. In your last remaining bastions.
Of course....to say that someone is an intellectual coward is also a personal attack, so I guess I'm also an intellectual coward, in my last remaining bastion.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 987
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
Originally Posted By: foobar456
boggie said religions require tithes, I said they don't, you said they don't.
This is what dbl said..
Quote:
Well I'm certainly no expert on the bible, but I seem to recall there being something is that book about the duty to tithe. That would strike me as a requirement, even if it isn't enforced, since all good Christians are exhorted to do what the "good book" says.
On a technicality you are right it is a requirement from good christians but not enforced on them which I highlighted in bold lettering.
There is a difference between "requirement" and "enforcement"
I tell ya Foob like dbl said to Lu..you and Lu are likeminded when it comes to nit-picking on certain wording.
Maybe you both should consider a career in law.
The characteristics "required" and "enforced" are not mutually exclusive.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 987
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: Feral
It'll be sooner rather than later, I'm afraid. And it appears to be accelerating
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
I hate to admit it
No, you don't. And the word "admit" has the implication that the statement in question is true, but the speaker is hesitant to say it. Or at least it suggests a context where something is true merely because someone says it is.
But how is it?
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
But it doesn't change my larger point about the unconstitutionality of Obamacare's mandate on contraceptive services when it comes to requiring that all insurance policies, even those of religious institutions, cover said services.
You phrase this in a way which implies that the unconstutionality of that particular law is beyond doubt, and the only thing that is in question, was your statement about that unquestionable condition.
If that was what you were thinking when you wrote it, how is the statement to which you refer unquestionably true?
If you mean, it doesn't change your "point," as in, it doesn't change that words appeared on this site at a particular time in the past, identified by the string "dblboggie," I don't see why anything would change the past.
If you mean, it doesn't change your "point," as in, a statement made by you has not been refuted, you haven't proven your point.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Previous Topic
Index
