BLOGROLL!
Right Minded
A New Preamble To The Constitution
I received this via e-mail. I have no idea if it is is really authored by State Representive, Mitchell Kaye from Georgia like it claims but, it is brilliant. Liberals and uninformed American citizens should take note of this message:
NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION
The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day...
We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, and delusional. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is
guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV: You do not have
the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary
of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes This one is my pet peeve...get an education and go to work..don't expect everyone else to take care of you!
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but if it would turn out the same way as current public housing, we're not interested in public health care.
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people..If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you put away for the rest of your sorry life.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)
ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an America means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
ARTICLE X:This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!
(and Last but not least....)
ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one God. You are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all, with no fear of persecution.
The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history,
and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!
NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION
The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day...
We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, and delusional. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is
guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV: You do not have
the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary
of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes This one is my pet peeve...get an education and go to work..don't expect everyone else to take care of you!
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but if it would turn out the same way as current public housing, we're not interested in public health care.
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people..If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you put away for the rest of your sorry life.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)
ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an America means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
ARTICLE X:This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!
(and Last but not least....)
ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one God. You are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all, with no fear of persecution.
The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history,
and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!
posted by Clay | 7:47 PM
27 Comments:
wow. i actually agree with you somewhat. and welcome back online.
my only real complaint rests in article XI:
"...This country was founded on the belief in one God. You are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all, with no fear of persecution.
The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history..."
George Washington himself denied that America was a Christian nation in the Treaty of Tripoli:
"AS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." (bold mine)
phrases like "one nation under god" and "in god we trust" didn't show up into official nationwide use until the Cold War, when the government was doing anything to seperate us from those "no good godless commies!"
christianity is still major force today, but America was not founded to be a christian country; christianity was just the dominant religion.
Kevin,
I apologize for taking so long to respond to you. I have an autistic daughter which takes up alot of my time. It's not a bad thing, its just what it is.
I notice that you are quoting George Washington from a treaty with Tripoli.
Obviously, treaties use diplomacy to end hostilities. In your quote, George Washington is assuring his Muslim enemy that the previous skirmish was not a "Christian Nation" against muslims.
He spoke well.
While America is not a nation comprised of christians, it is a nation whose government was designed, for the most part, by christians. So, while we are not a "Christian Nation", we are a nation whose form of government was defined by christians.
There is no doubt that Christianity has influenced not only our form of government and civil institutions, but even from a larger scope, Western Civilization as a whole.
Here is a quote from one of the Founding Fathers that bears this out:
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
- John Adams (signer of The Declaration Of Independence; Judge; Dipolomat; one of the two signers of The Bill Of Rights; second President of The United States.)
I am currently reading a book entitled: "The Christian Life and Character Of The Civil Institutions Of The United Staes" by Benjamin F. Morris.
This book was orginally published in, I believe, 1863. It has finally been brought out of obscurity and is an eye opening look at what our country's original foundations actually are -apart from the liberal's attempts to re-paint history to try and negate Christianity's role in our Founding Father's guidance when they hammered out the blue print for our nation.
It is, no doubt a lengthy tome, but very intersting. It would appear that our liberal educators in both secondary school and in the higher institution of learning (universities and colleges) are, in fact feeding us nothing more than propaganda.
Was Thomas Jefferson a deist vice a christian? Yes. Would he agree with the modern atheistic liberal's painting of his peers and the founding of our country?
The answer is most definately a resounding no!
I wasn't aware about your daughter. I wish your family any luck that you may need.
I realize that Christianity played a large role in the founding of this country (we left Britain because of it!), but i do not believe that we were founded as a Christian nation. (as in Christianity is the dominant and promoted religion). as i said, Christianity was merely the major religion at the time.
phrases like "in god we trust" or your proposed article (and real-life equivalents brought up in congress) seem to go against the most precious of the amendments; the first. i believe that the first part alone denies that we are a nation "under god"
(excuse me if i say something stupid or self-contradictory. my debate skills weaken as the night goes on. even if it is only 10:45)
"I realize that Christianity played a large role in the founding of this country (we left Britain because of it!), but i do not believe that we were founded as a Christian nation. (as in Christianity is the dominant and promoted religion). as i said, Christianity was merely the major religion at the time.
phrases like "in god we trust" or your proposed article (and real-life equivalents brought up in congress) seem to go against the most precious of the amendments; the first. i believe that the first part alone denies that we are a nation "under god"
(excuse me if i say something stupid or self-contradictory. my debate skills weaken as the night goes on. even if it is only 10:45)
First of all, this is not my "proposed article". As I stated in my post this isn't my own words.
Secondly, "In God We Trust" is a part of our history, regardless of your attempt to place its apperance at a different time distanced from the era of our Founding Fathers. It still remains a part of our history.
How "In God We Trust" goes against our Founding Fathers wishes is beyond me. How does this phrase go against "the first", whatever that means?
Kevin,
"In God We Trust" does not violate the 1rst Amendment to the Constitution, if that is what you meant by "the first". In fact, the 1rst Amendment of the Constitution, guarantees the right of "In God We Trust" to be used as a motto.
How are we not a "Nation Under God"? The very Declaration of Independence cited God as the source of our rights to liberty.
I would agree with you in that we are not a "Christian Nation" - meaning that everyone in this nation is a Christian, or is compelled to be an adherant to the Christian religion. But, you are mistaken if you don't recognize that Christianity was the major influence in the formation of our government.
I can't see what your beef is in the XI Article in the piece that I posted.
I just believe that "one nation under god" and "in god we trust" is insulting to those who don't believe in the Christian god, or any god for that matter.
saying that we had a Christian history is one thing, but proclaiming it on money and in the pledge seems like we're giving it too much credit. in the days when America was totally Christian (or 99% at least), it would be okay. but now, we're too diverse for any government sanctioned thing to promote one religion.
(BTW: i say "you're proposed article simply because it's on your website. although i probably could have phrased it better)
"I just believe that "one nation under god" and "in god we trust" is insulting to those who don't believe in the Christian god, or any god for that matter."
Kevin, there isn't a right to not be offended in the Constitution. That is for a good reason. Because, once you go down that road, no one can ever express their right of freedom of speech... ever. There will always be some sniveling person who claims to be offended. Of course, the reverse can be claimed against the complainer (i.e. his request for a prohibition against what offends him/her offends the person who is offended by that prohibition of his/her freedom of expression).
" [sic]saying that we had a Christian history is one thing, but proclaiming it on money and in the pledge seems like we're giving it too much credit. in the days when America was totally Christian (or 99% at least), it would be okay. but now, we're too diverse for any government sanctioned thing to promote one religion."
This great nation's government was in fact founded upon Christian principles. Only Christianity could produce such a pluralistic nation with it's freedom of religion and personal liberties. Secular ones do not honor these things. Atheistic ones result in a complete obliteration of personal freedom (i.e. Communist Nations). I am willing to back this up in future discussions if you are interested.
But, to try and distance our self today from the Christian foundations of our very form of government as laid out by our Founding Fathers is to lead this nation to eventual suicide.
America is what it is because of its foundations. I realize that perhaps, to take your word for it, America is no longer dominated by a Christian populace, but it is because of the Christian influence upon the very foundations of our government that such a secular freedom is allowed.
The notion that "In God We Trust" is on our money and that the phrase "under God" has been a part of our Pledge of Allegience is somehow a terrible travesty is disengenous. How many people really focus on these things on a daily basis. Nothing prevents a person from omitting the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegience. Most people don't spend any real amount of time staring at their coins and dollars.
In other words, this is all really just about a self-centered person, (not you), who has failed to realize that society does not exist to ensure that he or she is not offended in any way.
Some people just need to get over it.
But, I am sure that you and I disagree on this.
"...but now, we're too diverse for any government sanctioned thing to promote one religion."
How is "In God We Trust" sanctioning any one religion?
Which religion is being promoted here with this phrase?
Chrisianity?
Judiasm?
Islam?
Hinduism?
it still sanctions a religion.
"it still sanctions a religion."
And the problem with that is...what?
i just mean for those without a religion or belief in any god. about 10% (give or take) of the American population is Atheist, Agnostic, or otherwise non-religious. having "in god we trust" on things does not accurately represent american religion.
"i just mean for those without a religion or belief in any god. about 10% (give or take) of the American population is Atheist, Agnostic, or otherwise non-religious. having "in god we trust" on things does not accurately represent american religion."
So, you are basically saying to those other 90% of Americans who are religious that they should abandon their views in behalf of a mere 10% who don't believe in a God, so that they aren't offended?
In other words, 10% trumps 90%?
That is just ludicrous.
Are the 10% that uncertain in their belief that the mere presence of "In God We Trust" on currency, and "under God" in our Pledge Of Allegience causes them undue stress?
I can only reiterate what I have stated earlier, there is no Constituional right to not be offended and that we are a nation whose government was founded upon Christian principles.
i'm not talking about abandoning views. religious people can practice at home and in churches. not having the sayings doesn't affect a person's religious views.
it's like if we had "go Chicago Cubs!" on all Illinois money. if we took it off, Cubs fans could still be Cubs fans. if we kept it on, we alienate White Sox fans, Cardinals fans, Brewers fans, and those who don't even like baseball
i understand that we can't all be pleased with the world around us, but saying that we, as a unified country, trust in god is untrue.
i personally do not have an extreme opinion (i'd prefer if we took them off). but some people feel very strongly about this.
by the waay, this has been an epic debate =)
"i just mean for those without a religion or belief in any god. about 10% (give or take) of the American population is Atheist, Agnostic, or otherwise non-religious. having "in god we trust" on things does not accurately represent american religion."
But it does accurately depict the majority's opinion.
"i understand that we can't all be pleased with the world around us, but saying that we, as a unified country, trust in god is untrue."
How is it untrue? Especially, if the majority agree with it? Do we really need to ensure that the 10% have the say at the end of the day, as if, they "speak for America"? I think not.
"i personally do not have an extreme opinion (i'd prefer if we took them off). but some people feel very strongly about this."
What the 10% feel strongly about, is hardly a mandate to listen to them and their assertion and that we force their viewpoint upon everyone else.
"by the waay, this has been an epic debate =)"
Thank you. I truly respect you as the very first liberal that I have debated with that has remained civil thoughout the exchange. You are obviously a guy who is very intelligent and has the common courtesy to treat his opponent with the upmost respect. You are very rare.
well, i believe that the only way to have any discussion is to remain civil. Ad hominems aren't going to get us anywhere!
back to arguing...
the thing is that Atheism is here, and probably will stay here. i believe that the level of atheists is rising (i think...).
non-religious persons have as much of a voice in matters concerning their communities, and their country, as anyone of faith. i believe that they should have as much of a say in this as anyone else.
also 10% isn't a small fraction if you think about it. one in every ten Americans have no faith. and as stated before, the faithless have a powerful voice in the country. hardly an insignificant group.
there is no "forcing viewpoints upon everyone else". taking religious phrases off of money and out of pledges won't hinder anyone's ability to worship or have a relationship with god.
if someone's faith is jeopardized by the removal of a religious saying on money needs to reconsider their belief.
"the thing is that Atheism is here, and probably will stay here. i believe that the level of atheists is rising (i think...)."
So?
"non-religious persons have as much of a voice in matters concerning their communities, and their country, as anyone of faith. i believe that they should have as much of a say in this as anyone else."
How does the presence of "In God We Trust" on our money or "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance stop them from having a voice in their community?
If I am offended by rap music blaring out of some boom box, does that mean it is affecting my right to have a voice in my community?
If I can't stand country music should I have the right to ban it's presence in public? Would any one take me serious if I tried to claim that my rights as a citizen have been violated by the mere presence of country music in public?
"also 10% isn't a small fraction if you think about it. one in every ten Americans have no faith. and as stated before, the faithless have a powerful voice in the country. hardly an insignificant group."
10% may not be a small fraction to you, but it remains a minority. And not a large number at that. Besides that, what percentage of this 10% are actually bothered by the presence of "In God We Trust" on our money or the phrase "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance?
"there is no "forcing viewpoints upon everyone else". taking religious phrases off of money and out of pledges won't hinder anyone's ability to worship or have a relationship with god."
Ah, but you are, in fact, arguing for the "forcing of viewpoint upon every one else". You want to force the viewpoint of a percentage of the 10% of nonbelivers upon the rest of the country.
Of course, the removal of "In God We Trust" and "under God" out of the Pledge of Alligence does not stop believers from practing their faith in Church or the privacy of their own homes. It just starts a slippery slope that will one day ensure that a very small minority dictates what the rest of the country can and can't do, starting first with religion and then expanding into other areas.
Besides that, these things are more than appropriate since they reflect the very heritage of our nation itself. As I have stated earlier in our discussion, Christianity is the very underpinning of our form of government. It was a major force in the founding of our country.
Maybe what you are suggesting is that we throw out our form of government and let the percentage of the 10% of unbelievers who are offended, construct a new form of government for us?
"if someone's faith is jeopardized by the removal of a religious saying on money needs to reconsider their belief."
That of course goes both ways. It is unclear whether or not all of the 10% of unbelievers are having such a damaged "American experience" over the presence of "In God We Trust" on our money or "under God" in our Pledge of Allegience.
One thing that is for sure is that - those that are wineing about this need to get over it.
As I mentioned earlier, how may people spend their time analyzing what is printed on their currency?
How many people really have a hard time with "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience?
Assuming that your "10%" is accurate, how many of that percent really care about your concerns?
I'm calling these my final thoughts, unless i feel the need to say something else.
"If I can't stand country music should I have the right to ban it's presence in public?"
if we take the reverse of this whole argument, how would you feel if phrases such as "there is no god" were displayed on all currency, in the anthem and pledge, in every politician's speeches, and pretty much everywhere you turn? regular peoples like you and me can say "god bless" or "there is no god", but no government material should have any religious statement on it. "in god we trust" may not support a particular religion, but it fails to support other viewpoints, which i believe messes with that most sacred of our amendments.
"You want to force the viewpoint of a percentage of the 10% of nonbelivers upon the rest of the country."
no, if i wanted to do that, i would advocate anti-god phrases. simply removing a phrase isn't going to change anyone's viewpoint.
"It just starts a slippery slope that will one day ensure that a very small minority dictates what the rest of the country can and can't do"
with all due respect, that argument makes as much sense as "Gay marriage will lead to people marrying Goats." letting small groups have a voice is one of the most important things in this country. for example:
here you can see an average of the balance of ethnic diversity. was it a bad decision to remove racial divisions from culture and make everyone equal? the Civil Rights act didn't lead to black supremacy. the women's suffrage movement didn't lead to a woman controlled country.
taking a few phrases off the dollar isn't going to turn us into commie-fascist-baby-eaters. it may lead to pushed boundaries and questioning of authority, but that is the core of America: a small group challenging the rules to try to get recognized.
"these things are more than appropriate since they reflect the very heritage of our nation itself. As I have stated earlier in our discussion, Christianity is the very underpinning of our form of government."
awww... the christian nation discussion again? that got boring at comment 6!:) true, "in god we trust" is our motto, but that was only entirely true back when they stoned the nonbelievers.
"That of course goes both ways. It is unclear whether or not all of the 10% of unbelievers are having such a damaged "American experience" over the presence of "In God We Trust" on our money or "under God" in our Pledge of Allegience. "
touche, my friend:)
"Assuming that your "10%" is accurate, how many of that percent really care about your concerns?"
i couldn't find my original source, but i found another one here, though it is a bit outdated, i doubt it has changed much.
i know many don't care if the phrases stay or go, but i'd be willing to bet that a majority would support the phrases to be gone.
also, i'd like to mention a comment you made earlier that i must have missed. you pointed out that communist nations, which tend to be secular, usually restrict personal freedoms. i don't wish to launch another comment war, so i'll make this short and sweet:
the reason those nations restrict liberties is that they are communist nations. the people who were controlling things were dictators, and they don't tend to like freedom. i'm not very sure on this subject, so i'll leave it at that.
anyway, it's been 17 comments and at least 4 new blogs by you, so i'm ending my argument (unless i really need to respond to you for whatever reason.) again i apologize for saying stupid things. it's late, and i'm thinking about the history paper i should be writing (about the pilgrims! oh, the irony!)
Kevin,
Thanks for responding, but you haven't really suceeded in really demonstrating why your position against "In God We Trust" really makes any real sense. You have managed to cling to the complaints of the 10% of all atheists as having some sort of "trump everyone else's" right.
Your notion that "In God We Don't Trust" motto somehow equals the offense of "In God We Trust". That is just disengenous nonsense.
""You want to force the viewpoint of a percentage of the 10% of nonbelivers upon the rest of the country."
no, if i wanted to do that, i would advocate anti-god phrases. simply removing a phrase isn't going to change anyone's viewpoint."
Ah, but that is really exactly what you are defending. You hear the protests of a lone Michael Newdour(sp?) and feel obligated to ensure that his offense is justifed. Damn the rest of the majority who don't agree with him.
""It just starts a slippery slope that will one day ensure that a very small minority dictates what the rest of the country can and can't do"
with all due respect, that argument makes as much sense as "Gay marriage will lead to people marrying Goats."
And just what makes you think that it won't go in that direction? After all, once you remove any limitations to marriage and morality, why would it necessarialy not go down hill from there?
"awww... the christian nation discussion again? that got boring at comment 6!:) true, "in god we trust" is our motto, but that was only entirely true back when they stoned the nonbelievers."
It may be "boring" to you but, just because you are bored doesn't really have any effect on what is true. I don't know of any time in this country when we would "stone the non-belivers". Nice try but, this nation was founded to ensure that everyone had the freedom to believe whatever they wanted to.
Kevin, I thank you for the exchange, but really, in the end you really can't make your case. An atheist that is secure in their veiwpoint isn't really incapacitated by "In God We Trust" on our currency or "under God" in our Pledge of Allegience".
Only citizens like Michael Newdour(sp?) and the ACLU seem to have such problems. And the rest of us Americans already know the hypocrisy and disgusting tactics of people like Mr. Newdour.
The ball remains in your court, whether you wish to respond or not.
arrgghh! this debate is too interesting to stay away! i'll just make a few points this time.
""no, if i wanted to do that, i would advocate anti-god phrases. simply removing a phrase isn't going to change anyone's viewpoint."
Ah, but that is really exactly what you are defending. You hear the protests of a lone Michael Newdour(sp?) and feel obligated to ensure that his offense is justifed. Damn the rest of the majority who don't agree with him."
first of all, i did a Google search, and i assume you're talking about Michael Newdow? either way, i hadn't even heard of a Newdow or a Nedour until now.
also, i believe that i may have misinterpreted your comment: did you mean forcing a nonreligious viewpoint, or a non-"in god we trust" viewpoint?
if it's the former, than no, i believe that everyone can practice whatever religion they want, as long as they don't force it on others or affect others with it.
if the latter, then it may be closer to the truth. i don't personally want to force the phrase away, but if it were up for serious consideration, i would advocate for it's removal.
""with all due respect, that argument makes as much sense as "Gay marriage will lead to people marrying Goats.""
And just what makes you think that it won't go in that direction? After all, once you remove any limitations to marriage and morality, why would it necessarialy not go down hill from there?"
oh yeah. i momentarily forgot the general Republican stance on gay marriage.
no matter what, the slippery slope argument makes no sense at all. it just takes a small event, finds it's worst possible distant outcome, and directly links them. as i said before, the civil rights act didn't lead to black supremacy. the women's rights movement didn't lead to men being cast aside as slaves.
if you say that taking the phrases off the bill will lead to a minority controlled country, i can say that a christian president would outlaw all other faiths and force everybody to convert or die. you say gay rights will lead to human-fish marriages, i say that too many christian values will lead to a theocracy. from your point of view, my slippery slopes would make no sense. i just took the worst outcome and connected it to the first cause.
Gay rights could lead in any number of directions. that doesn't mean that children will one day be able to marry giraffes. no gay rights could go anywhere. that doesn't mean that will be a theocracy.
anyway, that was more of a rant on slippery slopes than the topic at hand, so moving on...
""awww... the christian nation discussion again? that got boring at comment 6!:) true, "in god we trust" is our motto, but that was only entirely true back when they stoned the nonbelievers."
It may be "boring" to you but, just because you are bored doesn't really have any effect on what is true. I don't know of any time in this country when we would "stone the non-belivers". Nice try but, this nation was founded to ensure that everyone had the freedom to believe whatever they wanted to."
the first part was more of a joke about how the christian nation argument was the original basis for this debate, and yet we hadn't seen it since comment 6. i tend to have an odd sense of humor.
the second part, stoning nonbelievers was just for dramatic effect. actually, i may have to give you that one. further research tells me that America was actually quite religiously diverse in those days.
however, this does bring up another point; if there was such diversity, then why all the christian overtones? i'm gonna leave that one up as a question, because i truthfully can't answer it, and it's too late to start searching in depth.
anyway, this has been a fun discussion. this post turned out longer than i expected, so there may be some additional chatter to clear things up. in absence of such chatter, i will end my case here. either way, i'll probably take a few days off. gotta let my brain rest, you know.
"also, i believe that i may have misinterpreted your comment: did you mean forcing a nonreligious viewpoint, or a non-"in god we trust" viewpoint?
if it's the former, than no, i believe that everyone can practice whatever religion they want, as long as they don't force it on others or affect others with it.
if the latter, then it may be closer to the truth. i don't personally want to force the phrase away, but if it were up for serious consideration, i would advocate for it's removal."
In other words, forcing the atheist viewpoint on the rest of us....
""with all due respect, that argument makes as much sense as "Gay marriage will lead to people marrying Goats.""
And just what makes you think that it won't go in that direction? After all, once you remove any limitations to marriage and morality, why would it necessarialy not go down hill from there?"
oh yeah. i momentarily forgot the general Republican stance on gay marriage.
no matter what, the slippery slope argument makes no sense at all."
Then you obviously don't understand the term "slippery slope"
"if you say that taking the phrases off the bill will lead to a minority controlled country, i can say that a christian president would outlaw all other faiths and force everybody to convert or die..."
First off, we have had many Christian Presidents and that has never happened, even if they wanted to thanks to the checks and balances that our Constituion provides. So, that is a lame example.
Secondly, Christianity itself is based upon the doctrine of free will. A person has to accept Christianity of thier own volition in order for it to be authentic. So, what is your point?
"you say gay rights will lead to human-fish marriages, i say that too many christian values will lead to a theocracy."
Refer to my point about Christianity above. It was largely Christian men who formed our pluralistic form of government.
I know of nothing in Christianity that has changed between now and then.
"the first part was more of a joke about how the christian nation argument was the original basis for this debate, and yet we hadn't seen it since comment 6. i tend to have an odd sense of humor.
the second part, stoning nonbelievers was just for dramatic effect." Revealing the disenguity of your arguement. ...actually, i may have to give you that one. further research tells me that America was actually quite religiously diverse in those days."
Exactly my point.
"however, this does bring up another point; if there was such diversity, then why all the christian overtones?"
Because it was precisely Christian me who designed and forged our form of government. You are surprised because, why?...your college professors tried to teach you otherwise?
"i will end my case here. either way, i'll probably take a few days off. gotta let my brain rest, you know."
By all means, let your brain rest. But, I would challenge you to continute further research into this. What leftist academia teaches and what is the real truth of the matter often don't meet. After all, there is that leftist agenda to take into account.
I prefer history as it actually was, good and bad, as oppossed to some sanatized approach to support an agenda of the historicist.
and now: part 21 of our story, "Liberal vs Conservative"
""also, i believe that i may have misinterpreted your comment: did you mean forcing a nonreligious viewpoint, or a non-"in god we trust" viewpoint?
if it's the former, than no, i believe that everyone can practice whatever religion they want, as long as they don't force it on others or affect others with it.
if the latter, then it may be closer to the truth. i don't personally want to force the phrase away, but if it were up for serious consideration, i would advocate for it's removal."
In other words, forcing the atheist viewpoint on the rest of us...."
you're switching views here. you agree that removing the phrases wouldn't change anyone's opinion, but here you say that i'm forcing a non-religious viewpoint on everyone. i'm all for people practicing their various religions and what have you, but we don't have to broadcast it.
--
skipping a bit... i'll come back to it later.
--
""however, this does bring up another point; if there was such diversity, then why all the christian overtones?"
Because it was precisely Christian me[n] who designed and forged our form of government. You are surprised because, why?...your college professors tried to teach you otherwise?"
are you saying that christianity is the only religion that could give people religious rights? that no other religion could let people decide which supernatural being to worship? that was simply the personal choice of the signers. they were ticked at the "death to the heathens" attitude of Europe and wanted something else. it had nothing to do with their man in the sky. anybody could have made that decision.
besides, looking at some christians today, it would seem that that vision is gone ( see these guys, focus on the family (i can't link for some reason), and miss Ann "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" Coulter.
and by the way, i'm sure that if i had any evil, leftist, communist college professors, that is what they would tell me. however, i'm not quite at that point in my scholarly career yet. try sophomore in high school. this may surprise you, or it could explain some of my... lacking debate skills.
"After all, there is that leftist agenda to take into account."
you have your "leftist agenda", and we have our "right wing conspiracy", eh? :)
--
okay, here's the part that i jumped, because i think it will need a lot of space, and i wanted to get the actual argument out of the way first. it's the part on the slippery slope argument, and i think you missed my point entirely. i'll start at the beginning:
""no matter what, the slippery slope argument makes no sense at all."
Then you obviously don't understand the term "slippery slope"
isn't it this? saying that one thing will cause something else to happen, and will eventually lead to something horrible like the downfall of western civilization? that's the impression i got.
"...i can say that a christian president would outlaw all other faiths and force everybody to convert or die..."
First off, we have had many Christian Presidents and that has never happened, even if they wanted to thanks to the checks and balances that our Constituion provides. So, that is a lame example.
Secondly, Christianity itself is based upon the doctrine of free will. A person has to accept Christianity of thier own volition in order for it to be authentic. So, what is your point?"
i meant nothing against christianity. those points were merely for the sake of argument. i don't beliece that a christian president will do all that stuff. you missed my point. actually, you had the exact response i hoped you'd have. you can see that my example is ludacris, and not based in any reality except the very very very slim chance that this could happen. it is the same as the gay marriage argument. just because we let some people get married, it will not lead to armageddon. as in your counter point, we have already had gay marriage in a couple of states, and there has not been one American instance of animal marriage.
if you can provide evidence that gay marriage will lead to human-alpaca unions, i'll be glad to listen. other than that, there is no truth to that argument.
talk to ya later!
"you're switching views here. you agree that removing the phrases wouldn't change anyone's opinion, but here you say that i'm forcing a non-religious viewpoint on everyone. i'm all for people practicing their various religions and what have you, but we don't have to broadcast it."
So, our freedom of speech should be limited to "broadcasting our religious viewpoint", everything else goes. Right?
"are you saying that christianity is the only religion that could give people religious rights? that no other religion could let people decide which supernatural being to worship? that was simply the personal choice of the signers. they were ticked at the "death to the heathens" attitude of Europe and wanted something else. it had nothing to do with their man in the sky. anybody could have made that decision."
It had nothing to do with "their man in the sky" (your words, not theirs)?
Excuse me, but they came here initially because they wanted to worship their "man in the sky" (God).
"Anyone could have made that decision" as long as he...believed in that "man in the sky". Your point is what?
"...i'm sure that if i had any evil, leftist, communist college professors..."
Evil? That is your word. I hate to deflate your smug leftist intent here, but really, that is your word for them. I guess you get to live with it.
"try sophomore in high school. this may surprise you, or it could explain some of my... lacking debate skills."
So, you are a sophmore in High School?
Wow! You've lived for so long that you obviously have the experience in life behind you vice just...let's say teenage angst.
"...isn't it this? saying that one thing will cause something else to happen, and will eventually lead to something horrible like the downfall of western civilization? that's the impression i got."
There you go again with the over the top conclusion. The end of Western Civilization? I don't recall implying that at all. Just the logical implications of a slippery slope. Is this a liberal tactic to deflect a conservative argument's validity by trying to suggest some over the top conclusion? If so, that's bad form.
"i meant nothing against christianity. those points were merely for the sake of argument."
What do you mean by "for the sake of argument"? Do you mean that you make statements that you don't really believe to be true just to get a rise from someone? If so, how teenager of you.
"actually, you had the exact response i hoped you'd have."
I see, you imagine yourself to be the spider in the parlor who has just invited the fly in?
"...you can see that my example is ludacris, and not based in any reality except the very very very slim chance that this could happen."
So, why make such an argument unless, you are being disengenous?
"..it is the same as the gay marriage argument. just because we let some people get married, it will not lead to armageddon. as in your counter point, we have already had gay marriage in a couple of states, and there has not been one American instance of animal marriage."
And that is proof postive that polygamy and animal sex isn't coming sooner or later, now that marriage has been opened up?
"if you can provide evidence that gay marriage will lead to human-alpaca unions, i'll be glad to listen. other than that, there is no truth to that argument."
Hint: "slippery slope".
"you're switching views here. you agree that removing the phrases wouldn't change anyone's opinion, but here you say that i'm forcing a non-religious viewpoint on everyone. i'm all for people practicing their various religions and what have you, but we don't have to broadcast it."
So, our freedom of speech should be limited to "broadcasting our religious viewpoint", everything else goes. Right?
"are you saying that christianity is the only religion that could give people religious rights? that no other religion could let people decide which supernatural being to worship? that was simply the personal choice of the signers. they were ticked at the "death to the heathens" attitude of Europe and wanted something else. it had nothing to do with their man in the sky. anybody could have made that decision."
It had nothing to do with "their man in the sky" (your words, not theirs)?
Excuse me, but they came here initially because they wanted to worship their "man in the sky" (God).
"Anyone could have made that decision" as long as he...believed in that "man in the sky". Your point is what?
"...i'm sure that if i had any evil, leftist, communist college professors..."
Evil? That is your word. I hate to deflate your smug leftist intent here, but really, that is your word for them. I guess you get to live with it.
"try sophomore in high school. this may surprise you, or it could explain some of my... lacking debate skills."
So, you are a sophmore in High School?
Wow! You've lived for so long that you obviously have the experience in life behind you vice just...let's say teenage angst.
"...isn't it this? saying that one thing will cause something else to happen, and will eventually lead to something horrible like the downfall of western civilization? that's the impression i got."
There you go again with the over the top conclusion. The end of Western Civilization? I don't recall implying that at all. Just the logical implications of a slippery slope. Is this a liberal tactic to deflect a conservative argument's validity by trying to suggest some over the top conclusion? If so, that's bad form.
"i meant nothing against christianity. those points were merely for the sake of argument."
What do you mean by "for the sake of argument"? Do you mean that you make statements that you don't really believe to be true just to get a rise from someone? If so, how teenager of you.
"actually, you had the exact response i hoped you'd have."
I see, you imagine yourself to be the spider in the parlor who has just invited the fly in?
"...you can see that my example is ludacris, and not based in any reality except the very very very slim chance that this could happen."
So, why make such an argument unless, you are being disengenous?
"..it is the same as the gay marriage argument. just because we let some people get married, it will not lead to armageddon. as in your counter point, we have already had gay marriage in a couple of states, and there has not been one American instance of animal marriage."
And that is proof postive that polygamy and animal sex isn't coming sooner or later, now that marriage has been opened up?
"if you can provide evidence that gay marriage will lead to human-alpaca unions, i'll be glad to listen. other than that, there is no truth to that argument."
Hint: "slippery slope".
"you're switching views here. you agree that removing the phrases wouldn't change anyone's opinion, but here you say that i'm forcing a non-religious viewpoint on everyone. i'm all for people practicing their various religions and what have you, but we don't have to broadcast it."
So, our freedom of speech should be limited to "broadcasting our religious viewpoint", everything else goes. Right?
"are you saying that christianity is the only religion that could give people religious rights? that no other religion could let people decide which supernatural being to worship? that was simply the personal choice of the signers. they were ticked at the "death to the heathens" attitude of Europe and wanted something else. it had nothing to do with their man in the sky. anybody could have made that decision."
It had nothing to do with "their man in the sky" (your words, not theirs)?
Excuse me, but they came here initially because they wanted to worship their "man in the sky" (God).
"Anyone could have made that decision" as long as he...believed in that "man in the sky". Your point is what?
"...i'm sure that if i had any evil, leftist, communist college professors..."
Evil? That is your word. I hate to deflate your smug leftist intent here, but really, that is your word for them. I guess you get to live with it.
"try sophomore in high school. this may surprise you, or it could explain some of my... lacking debate skills."
So, you are a sophmore in High School?
Wow! You've lived for so long that you obviously have the experience in life behind you vice just...let's say teenage angst.
"...isn't it this? saying that one thing will cause something else to happen, and will eventually lead to something horrible like the downfall of western civilization? that's the impression i got."
There you go again with the over the top conclusion. The end of Western Civilization? I don't recall implying that at all. Just the logical implications of a slippery slope. Is this a liberal tactic to deflect a conservative argument's validity by trying to suggest some over the top conclusion? If so, that's bad form.
"i meant nothing against christianity. those points were merely for the sake of argument."
What do you mean by "for the sake of argument"? Do you mean that you make statements that you don't really believe to be true just to get a rise from someone? If so, how teenager of you.
"actually, you had the exact response i hoped you'd have."
I see, you imagine yourself to be the spider in the parlor who has just invited the fly in?
"...you can see that my example is ludacris, and not based in any reality except the very very very slim chance that this could happen."
So, why make such an argument unless, you are being disengenous?
"..it is the same as the gay marriage argument. just because we let some people get married, it will not lead to armageddon. as in your counter point, we have already had gay marriage in a couple of states, and there has not been one American instance of animal marriage."
And that is proof postive that polygamy and animal sex isn't coming sooner or later, now that marriage has been opened up?
"if you can provide evidence that gay marriage will lead to human-alpaca unions, i'll be glad to listen. other than that, there is no truth to that argument."
Hint: "slippery slope".
"you're switching views here. you agree that removing the phrases wouldn't change anyone's opinion, but here you say that i'm forcing a non-religious viewpoint on everyone. i'm all for people practicing their various religions and what have you, but we don't have to broadcast it."
So, our freedom of speech should be limited to "broadcasting our religious viewpoint", everything else goes. Right?
"are you saying that christianity is the only religion that could give people religious rights? that no other religion could let people decide which supernatural being to worship? that was simply the personal choice of the signers. they were ticked at the "death to the heathens" attitude of Europe and wanted something else. it had nothing to do with their man in the sky. anybody could have made that decision."
It had nothing to do with "their man in the sky" (your words, not theirs)?
Excuse me, but they came here initially because they wanted to worship their "man in the sky" (God).
"Anyone could have made that decision" as long as he...believed in that "man in the sky". Your point is what?
"...i'm sure that if i had any evil, leftist, communist college professors..."
Evil? That is your word. I hate to deflate your smug leftist intent here, but really, that is your word for them. I guess you get to live with it.
"try sophomore in high school. this may surprise you, or it could explain some of my... lacking debate skills."
So, you are a sophmore in High School?
Wow! You've lived for so long that you obviously have the experience in life behind you vice just...let's say teenage angst.
"...isn't it this? saying that one thing will cause something else to happen, and will eventually lead to something horrible like the downfall of western civilization? that's the impression i got."
There you go again with the over the top conclusion. The end of Western Civilization? I don't recall implying that at all. Just the logical implications of a slippery slope. Is this a liberal tactic to deflect a conservative argument's validity by trying to suggest some over the top conclusion? If so, that's bad form.
"i meant nothing against christianity. those points were merely for the sake of argument."
What do you mean by "for the sake of argument"? Do you mean that you make statements that you don't really believe to be true just to get a rise from someone? If so, how teenager of you.
"actually, you had the exact response i hoped you'd have."
I see, you imagine yourself to be the spider in the parlor who has just invited the fly in?
"...you can see that my example is ludacris, and not based in any reality except the very very very slim chance that this could happen."
So, why make such an argument unless, you are being disengenous?
"..it is the same as the gay marriage argument. just because we let some people get married, it will not lead to armageddon. as in your counter point, we have already had gay marriage in a couple of states, and there has not been one American instance of animal marriage."
And that is proof postive that polygamy and animal sex isn't coming sooner or later, now that marriage has been opened up?
"if you can provide evidence that gay marriage will lead to human-alpaca unions, i'll be glad to listen. other than that, there is no truth to that argument."
Hint: "slippery slope".
there seems to be a mistake in your posting mechanisms. fear not: i shall only respond once! :)
anyway, i first want to say, with all due respect, that this comment from you seems a bit snappy and mean in some places. i'll try to clarify my arguments when necessary, and retort when needed.
""you're switching views here. you agree that removing the phrases wouldn't change anyone's opinion, but here you say that i'm forcing a non-religious viewpoint on everyone. i'm all for people practicing their various religions and what have you, but we don't have to broadcast it."
So, our freedom of speech should be limited to "broadcasting our religious viewpoint", everything else goes. Right?"
i don't quite get what you're saying here, clay. clarification?
""are you saying that christianity is the only religion that could give people religious rights? that no other religion could let people decide which supernatural being to worship? that was simply the personal choice of the signers. they were ticked at the "death to the heathens" attitude of Europe and wanted something else. it had nothing to do with their man in the sky. anybody could have made that decision."
It had nothing to do with "their man in the sky" (your words, not theirs)?
Excuse me, but they came here initially because they wanted to worship their "man in the sky" (God).
"Anyone could have made that decision" as long as he...believed in that "man in the sky". Your point is what?"
okay, i'm sorry i used a sort of insulting name toward your god. i get that way when i'm on a rant. (not usual arguing. i can usually stay collected. but ranting is an entirely different thing, alltogether.)
i was not implying that the founders said anything like that.
my point of that selection is that even if the founders weren't christian, they could still give us freedom. it is not only christians who can grant freedom.
""...i'm sure that if i had any evil, leftist, communist college professors..."
Evil? That is your word. I hate to deflate your smug leftist intent here, but really, that is your word for them. I guess you get to live with it."
you seem to miss a lot of my jokes here, and you tend to take them literally. maybe my sense of humor is just really whacked up.
""try sophomore in high school. this may surprise you, or it could explain some of my... lacking debate skills."
So, you are a sophmore in High School?
Wow! You've lived for so long that you obviously have the experience in life behind you vice just...let's say teenage angst."
i'm not saying i have any experience whatsoever. it's simply my opinion versus yours. this is the internet; speech is free, debate is open, and you seemed like a worthy adversary.
and i was just pointing my age out for your information. i feel that you have to know your opponent when you debate them.
""...isn't it this? saying that one thing will cause something else to happen, and will eventually lead to something horrible like the downfall of western civilization? that's the impression i got."
There you go again with the over the top conclusion. The end of Western Civilization? I don't recall implying that at all. Just the logical implications of a slippery slope. Is this a liberal tactic to deflect a conservative argument's validity by trying to suggest some over the top conclusion? If so, that's bad form."
i wasn't implying that you were implying the end of the world. my "over the top conclusion" was for dramatic effect. it wouldn't have had the same effect if i said "...and will eventually lead to something horrible like jaywalking", now would it? i was just defining my view of the slippery solpe argument.
""i meant nothing against christianity. those points were merely for the sake of argument."
What do you mean by "for the sake of argument"? Do you mean that you make statements that you don't really believe to be true just to get a rise from someone? If so, how teenager of you."
maybe i used the wrong wording here. it's more of a "for the sake of expressing my point of view" kind of thing.
"how teenager of you."
are you just going to use that against me now? just because i don't have the knowledge and experience of someone your age doesn't make me a bad person. do you view all teenagers as malicious people?
""actually, you had the exact response i hoped you'd have."
I see, you imagine yourself to be the spider in the parlor who has just invited the fly in?"
again, bad wording. it's more of an "actually, you had a response that i can use" situation
""...you can see that my example is ludacris, and not based in any reality except the very very very slim chance that this could happen."
So, why make such an argument unless, you are being disengenous?"
precisely. i was using those statements to show how silly the slippery slope can be.
""..it is the same as the gay marriage argument. just because we let some people get married, it will not lead to armageddon. as in your counter point, we have already had gay marriage in a couple of states, and there has not been one American instance of animal marriage."
And that is proof postive that polygamy and animal sex isn't coming sooner or later, now that marriage has been opened up?"
no, but i don't see it yet. i'm not looking down one specific path and saying, "oh, look! two consenting adults who love each other are getting married! this could maybe sorta lead to beastiality!" i see it up to the getting married part. i see no cause for alarm untill there is evidence for this other sexual axtivity.
and anyway, this is more of a gay marriage argument. i'd be willing to discuss it, but we may need somewhere else. this comment section is getting long.
""if you can provide evidence that gay marriage will lead to human-alpaca unions, i'll be glad to listen. other than that, there is no truth to that argument."
Hint: "slippery slope"."
am i missing your use of "slippery slope" here? or is it just that it's 1:30 and i can't think right? please explain.
anyway, i'm not sure if i'm seeing this comment wrong or what, but it does seem different from the more collected ones of the past.
it's getting interesting again. i may stick around...
"So, our freedom of speech should be limited to "broadcasting our religious viewpoint", everything else goes. Right?"
"i don't quite get what you're saying here, clay. clarification?"
You're kidding right? Ok. you need clarification here is is, focus on the "our freedom of speech should be limited so that we are not able to broadcast our religious viewpoint - all other free speech should be protected. Do you understand now?
"...it had nothing to do with their man in the sky."
okay, i'm sorry i used a sort of insulting name toward your god."
Yet you have the gall to say:
"anyway, i first want to say, with all due respect, that this comment from you seems a bit snappy and mean in some places."
How disengenous is that?
"i get that way when i'm on a rant. (not usual arguing. i can usually stay collected. but ranting is an entirely different thing, alltogether.)"
Perhaps, you should avoid "rants" from now on. What do you think?
"Evil? That is your word. I hate to deflate your smug leftist intent here, but really, that is your word for them. I guess you get to live with it."
"you seem to miss a lot of my jokes here, and you tend to take them literally. maybe my sense of humor is just really whacked up."
I can assure you Kevin, that my sense of humor is not "really whacked up". But this is a lame spin on what you said. Oh, so once you are called out on something, "you were only kidding?" Yeah right.
"and i was just pointing my age out for your information. i feel that you have to know your opponent when you debate them."
Don't worry. I got your message and I believe that I demonstrated that in my response to you. But, I must say that I am impressed. A sophmore in High School? Wow! It is unusual to encounter a young man of your tender age this engaged in political matters. I tip my hat to you for at least having the intelligence to be engaged this early in your life. In my teenage days, no one I knew was capable of looking as far ahead as you are, beyond girls, and rock music.
"i wasn't implying that you were implying the end of the world. my "over the top conclusion" was for dramatic effect. it wouldn't have had the same effect if i said "...and will eventually lead to something horrible like jaywalking", now would it? i was just defining my view of the slippery solpe argument."
First off, here we go with the "humor"/"dramatic effect" excuse. Sorry, I'm not buying your spin. Secondly, you're view of "slippery slope" demonstrates that you don't really understand what that phrase actually means.
"What do you mean by "for the sake of argument"? Do you mean that you make statements that you don't really believe to be true just to get a rise from someone? If so, how teenager of you."
"maybe i used the wrong wording here. it's more of a "for the sake of expressing my point of view" kind of thing."
I'm sorry Kevin, but this is yet another lame excuse on your part.
"how teenager of you."
"are you just going to use that against me now? just because i don't have the knowledge and experience of someone your age doesn't make me a bad person. do you view all teenagers as malicious people?"
No, Kevin. I don't view all teenagers as "malicious people". Do you view all "older adults as "malicious people?"
I was merely responding to your spin and pointing out the obvious limitations of your age and experience in life, just in case you have an unwarranted elevation of your opinion.
"I see, you imagine yourself to be the spider in the parlor who has just invited the fly in?"
"again, bad wording. it's more of an "actually, you had a response that i can use" situation"
Sorry, once again Kevin, but this is a lame response.
"...you can see that my example is ludacris, and not based in any reality except the very very very slim chance that this could happen."
"So, why make such an argument unless, you are being disengenous?"
"precisely. i was using those statements to show how silly the slippery slope can be."
But, it does no such thing. Instead, it demonstrates that you don't actually have any real grasp as to what a "slippery slope argument" really means.
"..it is the same as the gay marriage argument. just because we let some people get married, it will not lead to armageddon. as in your counter point, we have already had gay marriage in a couple of states, and there has not been one American instance of animal marriage."
"And that is proof postive that polygamy and animal sex isn't coming sooner or later, now that marriage has been opened up?"
How is that "proof postive that polygamy and animal sex isn't comiing sooner or later, just becasue a couple of states have just now approved of homosexual marriage?
"no, but i don't see it yet. i'm not looking down one specific path and saying, "oh, look! two consenting adults who love each other are getting married! this could maybe sorta lead to beastiality!" i see it up to the getting married part. i see no cause for alarm untill there is evidence for this other sexual axtivity."
In other words, you don't understand what a "slippery slope" is.
and anyway, this is more of a gay marriage argument. i'd be willing to discuss it, but we may need somewhere else. this comment section is getting long."
In other words, you are running out of arguments to make, so it is time to just quit in the interest of not having a post's comments exceed come unnamed number?
"if you can provide evidence that gay marriage will lead to human-alpaca unions, i'll be glad to listen. other than that, there is no truth to that argument."
"Hint: "slippery slope".
"am i missing your use of "slippery slope" here? or is it just that it's 1:30 and i can't think right? please explain.
anyway, i'm not sure if i'm seeing this comment wrong or what, but it does seem different from the more collected ones of the past.
it's getting interesting again. i may stick around..."
Kevin, you are always welcome to stick around, in fact, you are always welcome here.
Just because we disagree doesn't mean that you don't belong here with your comments.
I wasn't kidding about my admiration for you as a young man, who actually has the desire to stay abreast of political and civics topics.
You must have great parents who have taught you something about our civic duties as American citizens!
My hat is off to you.
Post a Comment
<< Home