CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:28 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Thanos Thanos:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Yet precisely that opinion has been stated innumerable times by Canadians on this very site. :idea:


Incorrect. No one's called for suppression of religious beliefs. No one, however, should be forced to tolerate any church-going politician trying to force their own particular religious inclinations onto the society at large via the legislative law-making process.


Thank you for illustrating my point. You're all for excluding church-going politicians from acting on their principles and you want religion and religious people excluded from the public dialogue. I could not have made my point any clearer than you have.

[B-o]

Thanos Thanos:
I detest these extremist secularists in Quebec that are attacking without justification the religious beliefs of others. Doesn't mean that I'd ever drop my guard against self-righteous religious cranks that want, and constantly agitate, to impose the values and policies of their own church onto everyone else. If I wanted to live like that I'd move to Saudi Arabia. Or Texas. :|


Meanwhile, the religious folks get secularism shoved down their throats at every turn. It's only fair that they get their shot at the ballot box and in Parliament and if their ideas are sound then they'll survive the test of the legislative process.

But just shutting them out of the whole thing because you don't like their ideas or their values opens the door for them to shut you down should they ever come to power. But if they're Christians they probably won't do that because of Luke 6:31.


You missed the entire point altogether but...whatever. There's a massive difference between living your own life according to a set of religious values and deliberately trying to impose those values on the rest of the polity. If you can't see it then there's not much point in continuing.

I'm not really very sorry either for the past three or four decades of the religious being obligated to respect the secular. I realize this might be uncomfortable for you but it really doesn't compare to the last seventeen hundred years or so of the secular, atheist, or pagan being made uncomfortable (and usually also being made to feel much, much worse) at the hands and whims of the monotheists.

$1:
......should they ever come to power.....


Going by what I've seen of the religious right in your country over the last thirty-odd years I'll expect nothing less than a Christian impersonation of the Taliban. It'll come with a stereotypically idiotic mega-church "Jayzus luvs yewwwwww!" smiley-face attached to it, but it'll still be Taliban V2.0 regardless.

Like Zippy quoted not too long ago,

Islam is rising,
the Christians mobilizing,
the world is on it's elbows and knees,
it's forgotten the message,
and worships the creeds


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 53469
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:33 pm
 


N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Pet Peeve: Some people have to learn what a straw man is.

Saying a claim lacks support is not a straw man argument. The anecdotal claims by the CBC are unsupported.

That's not a straw man. This link below is a straw man...(and a good one :wink: )

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... llege.html

See the difference DD? If English is a second language with you I apologize, but it's not just you. A lot of people irritate by not understanding basic definitions of terms.


$1:
Straw Man
Intentionally caricaturing a person's argument with the aim of attacking the caricature rather than the actual argument is what is meant by “putting up a straw man.” Misrepresenting, misquoting, misconstruing and oversimplifying are all means by which one commits this fallacy. A straw man argument is usually one that is more absurd than the actual argument, making it an easier target to attack and possibly luring a person towards defending the more ridiculous argument rather than the original one.

https://bookofbadarguments.com/?view=allpages


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:52 pm
 


Thanos Thanos:
Going by what I've seen of the religious right in your country over the last thirty-odd years I'll expect nothing less than a Christian impersonation of the Taliban.


You know, I really have no idea where you and Derby got your ideas about Christians but it is glaringly obvious that you don't actually know any.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13404
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:53 pm
 


$1:
You know, I really have no idea where you and Derby got your ideas about Christians but it is glaringly obvious that you don't actually know any.



That idiot down in Dixie that burns Korans was a little off-putting.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:55 pm
 


Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:
$1:
You know, I really have no idea where you, Jabberwalker, and Derby got your ideas about Christians but it is glaringly obvious that you don't actually know any.


That idiot down in Dixie that burns Korans was a little off-putting.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4235
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:00 pm
 


N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Pet Peeve: Some people have to learn what a straw man is.

Saying a claim lacks support is not a straw man argument. The anecdotal claims by the CBC are unsupported.

That's not a straw man. This link below is a straw man...(and a good one :wink: )

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... llege.html

See the difference DD? If English is a second language with you I apologize, but it's not just you. A lot of people irritate by not understanding basic definitions of terms.


Well your right English isn't my first language, but glad to see I still have a better grasp of it than you, a native speaker does. ;)


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4235
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:02 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
desertdude desertdude:
Just shows where dog's moral compass lies and he got called out on it and if that bothers you then tough shit.


On the upside it's nice to see that you're now comfortable enough with us to show us your true colors.


Calling out on somebody on their shit, like I have done many times in the past with you ( remember your little ass facts episodes ! ;) ) is showing my true colours, well glad you can see them then. 8)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:11 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Thanos Thanos:
Going by what I've seen of the religious right in your country over the last thirty-odd years I'll expect nothing less than a Christian impersonation of the Taliban.


You know, I really have no idea where you and Derby got your ideas about Christians but it is glaringly obvious that you don't actually know any.


I really don't want to know the ones who do things like re-writing all the science and history text books in Texas so the kids can be taught that Jesus walked with dinosaurs. Or the ones who control multiple state legislatures and governors' offices in your country that are committed to purging not just abortion but all forms of birth control for women to access.

You're a good guy and you're clearly not an idiot. How you can stomach being on the same side as cretins like that is absolutely baffling.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:20 pm
 


DrCaleb DrCaleb:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Pet Peeve: Some people have to learn what a straw man is.

Saying a claim lacks support is not a straw man argument. The anecdotal claims by the CBC are unsupported.

That's not a straw man. This link below is a straw man...(and a good one :wink: )

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... llege.html

See the difference DD? If English is a second language with you I apologize, but it's not just you. A lot of people irritate by not understanding basic definitions of terms.


$1:
Straw Man
Intentionally caricaturing a person's argument with the aim of attacking the caricature rather than the actual argument is what is meant by “putting up a straw man.” Misrepresenting, misquoting, misconstruing and oversimplifying are all means by which one commits this fallacy. A straw man argument is usually one that is more absurd than the actual argument, making it an easier target to attack and possibly luring a person towards defending the more ridiculous argument rather than the original one.

https://bookofbadarguments.com/?view=allpages


So if I used the bit of the story that deals with Muslim head dress laws, and created a caricature of Muslim government workers as thieves to be represented as the argument (as I illustrated with the link) I would create a straw man, would I not, but if I challenge the credibility of anecdotal evidence as I originally did that is not a straw man argument. Correct?

Now if I had tried to turn the argument into the fact the confrontation with the old lady was three on one, or the only one actually injured in the story was the old lady that might be a straw man. But that wasn't my point. My point was the story was anecdotal, unsupported, and the actual verifiable facts of the story don't necessarily lead us to the conclusion she or he is trying to draw us to. In fact trying to suggest my argument was only about how the old lady was mistreated would be a straw man, would it not? I mean that's what we could be arguing about right now if I had fallen for it, right?

(OK, I did force the facts a bit, to provide that link of the thieving school board worker who only wore a burqa when it was convenient, but it's a good story. Sue me ;))


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4235
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:45 pm
 


Back peddle anyone?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:16 pm
 


desertdude desertdude:
Back peddle anyone?


Still don't understand, eh? That's OK I'll give it you in plain English. You used the term Straw man incorrectly. In fact you created a straw man argument in order to make the accusation. Don't do that. It's irritating.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4235
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:35 pm
 


Keep trying, maybe you will be able to convince yourself.

P.S : If it helps, try to spell out each word individually in the definition posted by Caleb and then look up its meaning in a dictionary, an English dictionary in case it wasn't clear.

Good luck.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:12 pm
 


I made a mistake of thinking I was just talking to Dr Caleb. I kind of wanted to talk serious with him, because that kind of thing interests me - the subtleties of definitions. I forgot you were lingering around in the background with your simple-minded, snarky, ways.

Although...if I hadn't made the mistake of adding that damned irrelevant link, cause I was dumb enough to think anybody would understand it's just non sequitur humor added with a wink and a nod, I could have just said to Doc, "Yes. What's your point".

Nevertheless, you really do need to learn what a straw man argument is. You still don't get it even with the definition right in front of your face.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4814
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:56 pm
 


What someone needs a lesson in the straw-man argument? Where are all the house Neo-Cons?

They've been using the straw-man to make sure the lefty, anti-white, terror supporting, pinko commies don't take our guns away and open the borders letting the immigrant criminals steal our jobs and rape our daughters for years.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:58 pm
 


There's no neo-cons here, pal. Just Canadian conservatives, and that's a world apart from the unhinged gong show going on down in the US these days.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 64 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.