The Loss of Freedoms

[unformed 0]

Quote

Similar to what I said previously, go have a drink, read a book, relax, take a nap, crochet, play a rousing game of backgammon, knit socks for one-legged dogs, teach children to do your taxes, make a delicious fruit-smoothie, play in a sprinkler ( ooo, that sounds fun).

Just take a freaking step back for a second.

Why? This is cracking me up. They're saying everything I would say, except they actually believe it.

This ad space for sale.

[unformed 0]

Quote

They told them to create a law allowing gay marriage. You believe that is in the courts power to do?

I agree. Fifty years ago, the courts forced the government to allow blacks to go to the same schools as whites. Since then, the standard of education has gone down. Our purebred species has now become contaminated with monkey DNA, and crime and drug use has entered our population.

The courts need to be stopped from creating laws like these. Our society is being broken apart because of it.

This ad space for sale.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Leave it to the Catholic-hater to keep bringing that up.

This isn't about Catholics vs. the world. This is about political ideologies and politics in the US. I'm not arguing my points from a religious standpoint.

John is bringing them up as a way to discredit them.

Careful john, your fallacies and predjudices are showing...

So is it wrong to be prejudiced against torturing and burning people who don't subscribe to your myths? Is the Inquisition a fallacy? Are you trying to deny it?

I think YOU have a serious problem of credibility here.

Um... you're bringing up someting that happened hundreds and hundred and hundreds of years ago... why exactly?

oh that's right, b/c THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE JOHN!!!

like I said before, same shit, different day. all you have is to attack my religion, when it really isn't even part of this discussion. you brought it in here so you could attack it.

One need not go back hundreds of years to see problems with the Catholic church. More recently, I'd say that protection of priests who were known to be involved in child molestation damaged the church's credibility.

Question:
When the subject is the health and development of children, which is the least credible reference?

A - The American Academy of Pediatrics
B - The American Psychological Association
C - The Catholic Church

I think the answer is kind of clear. Then again, when my daughter's been sick, I've taken her to a hospital rather than a church, so perhaps I'm just biased towards science versus mythology.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,010]

>They told them to create a law allowing gay marriage.

You got that exactly backwards.

When did they pass a law that allowed you to freefly? Or the law that allows you to drink one beer and drive home? Or the law that allows you to paint yourself blue at a football game and cheer for your favorite team?

The government does not ALLOW you to do anything. That's not their job. The Tenth Amendment says this explicitly:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That means that you don't need the government's permission to freefly, marry, have kids, get a job, quit a job, take a trip or paint yourself blue. All they can do is pass a law that says you _can't_ paint yourself blue.

Now, the government sometimes passes laws that are unconstitutional, like the Virginia law against interracial marriages. The courts can then say "sorry, that's not constitutional; the law is now invalid." Again, that is INCREASING the rights we have and limiting the power of government. And giving people more rights is almost always a good thing.

Keep in mind that we are supposed to be free.

[rushmc 23]

and you think that is a valid comparison?

ya right.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[micro 0]

Quote

Question:
When the subject is the health and development of children, which is the least credible reference?

A - The American Academy of Pediatrics
B - The American Psychological Association
C - The Catholic Church

fallacious argument.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[rushmc 23]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Quote

BINGO, we have a winner.

Now, are you going to start supporting your own statement??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[billvon 3,010]

>Now, are you going to start supporting your own statement??

Which statement? The Tenth Amendment? I don't think I have to. It's pretty clear.

[rushmc 23]

Come on baby, lets do the twist
Come on bbaaaaby, lets do the twist.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Leave it to the Catholic-hater to keep bringing that up.

This isn't about Catholics vs. the world. This is about political ideologies and politics in the US. I'm not arguing my points from a religious standpoint.

John is bringing them up as a way to discredit them.

Careful john, your fallacies and predjudices are showing...

So is it wrong to be prejudiced against torturing and burning people who don't subscribe to your myths? Is the Inquisition a fallacy? Are you trying to deny it?

I think YOU have a serious problem of credibility here.

Um... you're bringing up someting that happened hundreds and hundred and hundreds of years ago... why exactly?

oh that's right, b/c THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE JOHN!!!

like I said before, same shit, different day. all you have is to attack my religion, when it really isn't even part of this discussion. you brought it in here so you could attack it.

One need not go back hundreds of years to see problems with the Catholic church. More recently, I'd say that protection of priests who were known to be involved in child molestation damaged the church's credibility.

Question:
When the subject is the health and development of children, which is the least credible reference?

A - The American Academy of Pediatrics
B - The American Psychological Association
C - The Catholic Church

I think the answer is kind of clear. Then again, when my daughter's been sick, I've taken her to a hospital rather than a church, so perhaps I'm just biased towards science versus mythology.

Blues,
Dave

one more thing... this is NOT a discussion of Catholics vs. secular society's definition of the family.

oh, I lied... one more thing... there are other "institutions" that hide and shuffle molesters, not just the catholic church. look at the recent case of the guy who confessed to the killing of johbenet ramsey (although it turns out he didn't do it). It should come as no surprise to many that teachers who are suspect or who are caught molesting children are simply let go from a school and not turned in, where they can move to another school and get a job. It happens in other denominations too. But in the eyes of the media and society, the catholic church is the great pariah. what a crock of shit.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

so perhaps I'm just biased towards science versus mythology

one last thing... quit calling my religion mythology. it's offensive.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

so perhaps I'm just biased towards science versus mythology

one last thing... quit calling my religion mythology. it's offensive.

Try not to be so easily offended.

myth
A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society

Mythology:
A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

fallacious argument.

Now you're getting hung up on homosexuality again.

(Fellat..................ok, let me think about this a sec....)

[SpeedRacer 1]

that would be a "blowjobious argument."

or you could just say "your argument blows."

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Question:
When the subject is the health and development of children, which is the least credible reference?

A - The American Academy of Pediatrics
B - The American Psychological Association
C - The Catholic Church

fallacious argument.

Please note the very first word in my text that you quoted. Surprisingly, the appearance of "Question:" right before a sentence may indicate that the form of sentence just might be a question rather than an argument. By the way, I notice you haven't answered the question.

Semantics aside, please explain what argumentative fallacy I've made so that I can avoid it in the future.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Question:
When the subject is the health and development of children, which is the least credible reference?

A - The American Academy of Pediatrics
B - The American Psychological Association
C - The Catholic Church

fallacious argument.

Please note the very first word in my text that you quoted. Surprisingly, the appearance of "Question:" right before a sentence may indicate that the form of sentence just might be a question rather than an argument. By the way, I notice you haven't answered the question.

Semantics aside, please explain what argumentative fallacy I've made so that I can avoid it in the future.

Blues,
Dave

Oh come on. So you posed that question as simply an inquiry? There was no implied argument against the Catholic Church? No motive other than to gather information?

Because your sentence after that seems to contradict such sentiment.

Questions are OFTEN used during arguments. I can see nothing about your presentation that indicates you were just asking a question to gather information and not to make a point.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[livendive 8]

Quote

one more thing... this is NOT a discussion of Catholics vs. secular society's definition of the family.

Secular, science-based authorities have been referenced in this thread. You have discounted those authorities out of hand without providing any logical basis for your dissent. My assumption was therefore that your position is founded in your religious background rather than science. If this was an invalid assumption, you have my apologies.

Quote

oh, I lied... one more thing... there are other "institutions" that hide and shuffle molesters, not just the catholic church. look at the recent case of the guy who confessed to the killing of johbenet ramsey (although it turns out he didn't do it). It should come as no surprise to many that teachers who are suspect or who are caught molesting children are simply let go from a school and not turned in, where they can move to another school and get a job. It happens in other denominations too. But in the eyes of the media and society, the catholic church is the great pariah. what a crock of shit.

Speaking of fallacious arguments, that one goes by the name "Two wrongs make a right".

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 2,034]

Quote

Quote

>I'm simply tired of being attacked for my beliefs in "an open forum."

?? You've been doing most of the attacking in this thread. Nothing wrong with discussing contentious issues, but it's odd that you'd post so vehemently about how other people are so very, very wrong then claim that you're the one being attacked.

Stating my beliefs is attacking? Aren't YOU taking this a little too personally this time bill? If I'm guilty of attacking anyone, it's kallend, who deserves it, and you for calling you a fool, for which I apologized. My comments about substandard families and whatnot are not attacks. It's a pity you can't see past that.

I understand - mentioning the well documented HEINOUS actions of your church in the past makes me deserving of personal attack.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>Now, are you going to start supporting your own statement??

Which statement? The Tenth Amendment? I don't think I have to. It's pretty clear.

It used to be, bill. Not any more. The Tenth and Ninth Amendments have become, shall we say, somewhat lost in the society. The Rehnquist Court really did make an attempt to reestablish this stuff. However, the Federal Government continues its power grab via the commerce clause.

I'll put it this way - you've got a couple of Amendment stating that those rights enumerated in the Constitution are not exclusive, and that those not enumerated are left to the states. Seems pretty simple, really, until the Progressives viewed the commerce clause as the way to make central government grow.

Because even sitting on your lawn implicates interstate commerce there is simply nothing left that does not give the Feds reason to exercise its power.

Clarence Thomas made light of it in his dissent in Gonzales v. Oregon - where the SCOTUS found that the US Attorney General overran his authority to use the Controlled Subtances Act to overrule an Oregon law banning assisted suicide. Clarence Thomas pointed out that just months before in the Raich decision, this same court decided that it was well within the federal government's authority to ban privately owned, grown and used medical marijuana because of the commerce clause.

Thomas dissented on the basis of sarcasm. He basically said, "I'm following the law you guys made that I disagreed with then. Now you are changing you mind?" Thomas wrote in Gonzales:

Quote

The majority's newfound understanding of the CSA as a statute of limited reach is all the more puzzling because it rests upon constitutional principles that the majority of the Court rejected in Raich. Notwithstanding the States' " 'traditional police powers to define the criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens,' ", the Raich majority concluded that the CSA applied to the intrastate possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes authorized by California law because "Congress could have rationally" concluded that such an application was necessary to the regulation of the "larger interstate marijuana market." Here, by contrast, the majority's restrictive interpretation of the CSA is based in no small part on "the structure and limitations of federalism, which allow the States ' "great latitude under their police powers to legislate as to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons." According to the majority, these "background principles of our federal system ... belie the notion that Congress would use ... an obscure grant of authority to regulate areas traditionally supervised by the States' police power..."

Of course there is nothing "obscure" about the CSA's grant of authority to the Attorney General... And, the Attorney General's conclusion that the CSA prohibits the States from authorizing physician assisted suicide is admittedly "at least reasonable," ... and is therefore entitled to deference... While the scope of the CSA and the Attorney General's power thereunder are sweeping, and perhaps troubling, such expansive federal legislation and broad grants of authority to administrative agencies are merely the inevitable and inexorable consequence of this Court's Commerce Clause and separation-of-powers jurisprudence...

I agree with limiting the applications of the CSA in a manner consistent with the principles of federalism and our constitutional structure. Raich, supra, at ___ (Thomas, J., dissenting); cf. Whitman, supra, at 486-487 (Thomas, J., concurring) (noting constitutional concerns with broad delegations of authority to administrative agencies). But that is now water over the dam. The relevance of such considerations was at its zenith in Raich, when we considered whether the CSA could be applied to the intrastate possession of a controlled substance consistent with the limited federal powers enumerated by the Constitution. Such considerations have little, if any, relevance where, as here, we are merely presented with a question of statutory interpretation, and not the extent of constitutionally permissible federal power. This is particularly true where, as here, we are interpreting broad, straightforward language within a statutory framework that a majority of this Court has concluded is so comprehensive that it necessarily nullifies the States' " 'traditional ... powers ... to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.' The Court's reliance upon the constitutional principles that it rejected in Raich--albeit under the guise of statutory interpretation--is perplexing to say the least. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

So here was Clarence Thomas calling "bullshit."

And he was right in saying, "While the scope of the CSA and the Attorney General's power thereunder are sweeping, and perhaps troubling, such expansive federal legislation and broad grants of authority to administrative agencies are merely the inevitable and inexorable consequence of this Court's Commerce Clause and separation-of-powers jurisprudence."

The 9th and 10th Amendments are withering on the vine because there isn't anything that anyone can do can cannot be thought of to have an effect on interstate commerce.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Question:
When the subject is the health and development of children, which is the least credible reference?

A - The American Academy of Pediatrics
B - The American Psychological Association
C - The Catholic Church

fallacious argument.

Please note the very first word in my text that you quoted. Surprisingly, the appearance of "Question:" right before a sentence may indicate that the form of sentence just might be a question rather than an argument. By the way, I notice you haven't answered the question.

Semantics aside, please explain what argumentative fallacy I've made so that I can avoid it in the future.

Blues,
Dave

Oh come on. So you posed that question as simply an inquiry? There was no implied argument against the Catholic Church? No motive other than to gather information?

Because your sentence after that seems to contradict such sentiment.

Questions are OFTEN used during arguments. I can see nothing about your presentation that indicates you were just asking a question to gather information and not to make a point.

I thought the "Semantics aside" was sufficient pre-acknowledgement of your point. My intent was to discard the question vs. argument shtick as irrelevant and ask which fallacious argument I'd made.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[GTAVercetti 0]

Yeah, like that happens here.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

one more thing... this is NOT a discussion of Catholics vs. secular society's definition of the family.

oh, I lied... one more thing... there are other "institutions" that hide and shuffle molesters, not just the catholic church. look at the recent case of the guy who confessed to the killing of johbenet ramsey (although it turns out he didn't do it). It should come as no surprise to many that teachers who are suspect or who are caught molesting children are simply let go from a school and not turned in, where they can move to another school and get a job. It happens in other denominations too. But in the eyes of the media and society, the catholic church is the great pariah. what a crock of shit.

You are right, with one major exception though and it is pretty significant.

When a schoolboard actually does press charges and the person is convicted they are de-certified as teachers aftera first offence.

How many offences does it take for a Catholic priest to be defrocked? This is where I lost all respect for the RC church...In wake of the Boston debacle, they officially stated that they will defrock a priest after multiple convictions. That's right, the first time a priest gets the altar boy to give him head, we'll just let it slip as a mistake...turn the other cheek if you will.

How many school boards give teachers a second chance after they have been convicted? How many school boards have this as their official policy?

A crock of shit indeed...

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

one more thing... this is NOT a discussion of Catholics vs. secular society's definition of the family.

oh, I lied... one more thing... there are other "institutions" that hide and shuffle molesters, not just the catholic church. look at the recent case of the guy who confessed to the killing of johbenet ramsey (although it turns out he didn't do it). It should come as no surprise to many that teachers who are suspect or who are caught molesting children are simply let go from a school and not turned in, where they can move to another school and get a job. It happens in other denominations too. But in the eyes of the media and society, the catholic church is the great pariah. what a crock of shit.

You are right, with one major exception though and it is pretty significant.

When a schoolboard actually does press charges and the person is convicted they are de-certified as teachers aftera first offence.

How many offences does it take for a Catholic priest to be defrocked? This is where I lost all respect for the RC church...In wake of the Boston debacle, they officially stated that they will defrock a priest after multiple convictions. That's right, the first time a priest gets the altar boy to give him head, we'll just let it slip as a mistake...turn the other cheek if you will.

How many school boards give teachers a second chance after they have been convicted? How many school boards have this as their official policy?

A crock of shit indeed...

I'm afraid you see things through rose colored glass re: teachers... if that was the case, why do pedophiles consistently get new jobs in new schools?

As far as pedophile priests go, I'm in LOCK STEP AGREEMENT WITH YOU!!! The RC church failed miserably with this. Miserably. There should be NO second chance. Period. You fuck up once, you're gone.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[Everon 0]

Quote

My intent was to discard the question vs. argument shtick as irrelevant and ask which fallacious argument I'd made.

Blues,
Dave

I'm patiently awaiting a reply to this myself.

If one does emerge, it'll be a real screamer.

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

as for your statement about inflicting misery, it's quite the opposite really... the use of birth control is what is inflicting misery around the world today, not the church.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Please explain that how the catholic churches anti-condom stance is preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa. Post it here, send a PM, believe me I am all ears on this one.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?