Remember Bob Jones University, and the criticism it received when Bush gave a talk there? Part of it was because they didn't think banning interracial marriage went far enough, they had a ban on interracial dating. After all the controversy over Bush, they dropped the ban. That was just a few years ago.
I wonder if (______fill in the blank most likely being referred to left by the missing he) were to post here etc
I wouldn't bother if this weren't such a prime example of your ability to misread the obviouse, but it does seem pretty clear that the he being referred to is K . . .
It is you who, in the simple act of reading comprehension, make "leaps of logic"
Actually I don't enjoy criticizing people's writing but since you are being a bit rude about this, I'll go ahead.
Here is what you wrote.
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Martin Luther King probably had different ideas than your own . . . he wrote his PHD Dis on Keirkegaard
Keirkegaard wrote a great book called Attack Upon Christendom
Kierkegaard was a Christian but he mocked Christianity as practiced institutionally
I wonder if he were to post here if you would call him a bigot?
Now, you claim that it is clear, but in reality it isn't because of this little thing I like to call, punctuation. You have the trailing off periods which at best I would consider to be a bit of a pause, like a comma. Other than that it is just sort of one long run-on sentence.
Now let's move on a bit more. Your topic sentence of your "paragraph" is about Martin Luther King. In the last "sentence" you don't use any sort of regular noun before using a pronoun. In this instance I attributed the pronoun to the topic of the paragraph, MLK.
Now we could of course go further and ask that if you really wanted to speak about Keirkegaard, why would you even mention MLK? I mean it sort of clutters up the the writing there to have a sentence about him in the middle of the claimed paragraph about Kierkegaard. Why include him? Why to commit a logical fallacy of course!
Affirming the Consequent, if A is B than B must be A.
If King is racially tolerant and writes of Kierkegaard who criticized the church. Then King must not mind criticism of the church and likewise Keirkegaard must be racially tolerant.
That would be all fine and well except for it is a logical fallacy. So I had to either assume your pronoun, meant MLK while working with a complete lack of punctuation, or I had to assume you were intentionally committing a logical fallacy.
I presumed the punctuation and not the fallacy.
However since you have corrected the meaning, I'll gladly assume the fallacy and treat it accordingly.
Remember Bob Jones University, and the criticism it received when Bush gave a talk there? Part of it was because they didn't think banning interracial marriage went far enough, they had a ban on interracial dating. After all the controversy over Bush, they dropped the ban. That was just a few years ago.
So interracial marriage is NOT going to bring the antichrist. Whew.
Bob Jones University is your example of the "Religious Right" in North America? I've run in Christian circles all my life and don't even know who Bob Jones is/was.
There are an abundance of Christian groups publicly fighting the gay marriage issue. At least pick a well-known representative if you're going to denigrate an entire group.
As I said before, some Christians use the Bible to justify things they disagreed with. Non-Christians found other stupid reasons to disagree with interracial marriages.
But I'd still like to see proof that the Religious Right as a group fought interracial marriage the way that gay marriage is being contested.
I ask one question of people from the religious right: did Christ ever condemn homosexuality in his message of peace and love even once?
And I get no answer. They call themselves "Christains"...
First of all, learn to spell "Christians" right before proceeding to ask stupid questions about the faith.
Secondly, Jesus wasn't looking to become the Israeli Minister of The Obvious.
He, along with everyone who heard him knew the Old Testament prohibitions against homosexuality, and if he disagreed, the onus would have been on him to state his objections. He didn't.
As a matter of fact, he mentions several times that he agreed with and confirmed the teachings of the Torah - including the commandments.
it goes even further to elaborate the circuitous routes your 'thinking' takes
while still missing even the slightest, obviouse point
I would bother but what's the use . . . if you actually believe half of what you posted in that retort above then I simply have to pity you . . .
You are very, very sad. You have gotten to where you won't even quote or address my writing. You are self-deluding.
Any second grader knows how to write a paragraph. Don't complain to me when you don't. Additionally, you've NEVER addressed the logical fallacy. You ask if I thought Keirkegaard bigoted. Why would I consider him bigoted in any regard? Why would you mention Martin Luther King in a paragraph about him, even begin the paragraph speaking about King except to commit the fallacy. You are welcome to show why King writing about him is relevent in ANY WAY. It isn't except to affirm the fallacy.
Your avoidance is horrible. Just answer the questions or admit that you're wrong.
How is my avoidance horrible? I've likely posted more in this thread attempting to address the issue than anyone else. You ask one question and I haven't had time to post to it and now I am avoiding you? Pretend that even I only have 24 hours in the day.
You asked for a seperate but equal scenario. That one is pretty easy and I have supported making it equal and not seperate. The military, draft and combat roles.
Men have to register for the draft. Women do not. Courts have upheld that this is okay. Women have sued to get into the "glass ceiling" military jobs that they desire for advancement, like fighter pilots, but have been "kept from" and not sued to get into "glass celler" roles like attacking ground troops.
Men and women have very seperate but equal roles in the military. All barriers to upward mobility have been sued out of the way of women. However they do not have to commit to the most dangerous combat roles nor do they have to register for the draft under threat of federal prosecution.
I would post more, examples, but I'm sure you'll have fun ignoring this one, declaring that it really isn't true, etc.
Remember Bob Jones University, and the criticism it received when Bush gave a talk there? Part of it was because they didn't think banning interracial marriage went far enough, they had a ban on interracial dating. After all the controversy over Bush, they dropped the ban. That was just a few years ago.
Bob Jones University is your example of the "Religious Right" in North America? I've run in Christian circles all my life and don't even know who Bob Jones is/was...But I'd still like to see proof that the Religious Right as a group fought interracial marriage the way that gay marriage is being contested.
Isn't that a great way to think about the world?
I run the IT department here at initech, and I make sure everyone uses DOS. Every once in a while these young whippersnappers come up talking some graphical user interface mumbo-jumbo, but I remind them that I don't know anything about it, so it must not matter. Afterall, I know everything about this stuff and it is part of my social identity.
Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I support you. Afterall, we all know that Bob Jones is just a struggling school with no support or influence.
You are very, very sad. You have gotten to where you won't even quote or address my writing. You are self-deluding.
Any second grader knows how to write a paragraph. Don't complain to me when you don't. Additionally, you've NEVER addressed the logical fallacy. You ask if I thought Keirkegaard bigoted. Why would I consider him bigoted in any regard? Why would you mention Martin Luther King in a paragraph about him, even begin the paragraph speaking about King except to commit the fallacy. You are welcome to show why King writing about him is relevent in ANY WAY. It isn't except to affirm the fallacy.
Nick
It truly is tiring deal with your incomporehension
You were calling people biggots for being critical of religion
then you followed that up with a tiring-whatever-you-want-to-call-it that dealt with MLK and religion and civil rights
So I joked about MLK being influenced by Kierkegaard
Kierkegaard, who wrote a book called Attack Upon Christiandom
and asked "I wonder if he (meaning Keirkegaard) posted here would you call him a biggot?"
Can't you see the chain of EXTREMELY SIMPLE LOGIC YOU FsCKING BUFFOON!!'
'
JEEUSO**()#$%&(*_$&%()_*#$^%
and get off this idiotic 'fallacy' bllsht! as if you know something about philosophical disputation
please ban me and save me from needing to respond to this moron!
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
Remember Bob Jones University, and the criticism it received when Bush gave a talk there? Part of it was because they didn't think banning interracial marriage went far enough, they had a ban on interracial dating. After all the controversy over Bush, they dropped the ban. That was just a few years ago.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/03/04/bob.jones/
So interracial marriage is NOT going to bring the antichrist. Whew.
I knew sombody who's sister went to Bob Jones U for a while back in the 80s
She went jogging at the track and jogged along with *Ghasp!!* a black man
She was ostracized and felt seriouse negative feelings aimed at her . . .
SHe went there as a Christian but left there because they snubbed her for jogging interracially!!!
Step 2: ...
Step 3: Armageddon.
Originally posted by BRussell
Click this link. Be amused.
the ending is very funny
Originally posted by pfflam
Let's follow my paragraph:
MLK wrote of K. end of MLK
K wrote etc
K thought etc but he was an etc and etc
I wonder if (______fill in the blank most likely being referred to left by the missing he) were to post here etc
I wouldn't bother if this weren't such a prime example of your ability to misread the obviouse, but it does seem pretty clear that the he being referred to is K . . .
It is you who, in the simple act of reading comprehension, make "leaps of logic"
Actually I don't enjoy criticizing people's writing but since you are being a bit rude about this, I'll go ahead.
Here is what you wrote.
Originally posted by pfflam
Martin Luther King probably had different ideas than your own . . . he wrote his PHD Dis on Keirkegaard
Keirkegaard wrote a great book called Attack Upon Christendom
Kierkegaard was a Christian but he mocked Christianity as practiced institutionally
I wonder if he were to post here if you would call him a bigot?
Now, you claim that it is clear, but in reality it isn't because of this little thing I like to call, punctuation. You have the trailing off periods which at best I would consider to be a bit of a pause, like a comma. Other than that it is just sort of one long run-on sentence.
Now let's move on a bit more. Your topic sentence of your "paragraph" is about Martin Luther King. In the last "sentence" you don't use any sort of regular noun before using a pronoun. In this instance I attributed the pronoun to the topic of the paragraph, MLK.
Now we could of course go further and ask that if you really wanted to speak about Keirkegaard, why would you even mention MLK? I mean it sort of clutters up the the writing there to have a sentence about him in the middle of the claimed paragraph about Kierkegaard. Why include him? Why to commit a logical fallacy of course!
Affirming the Consequent, if A is B than B must be A.
If King is racially tolerant and writes of Kierkegaard who criticized the church. Then King must not mind criticism of the church and likewise Keirkegaard must be racially tolerant.
That would be all fine and well except for it is a logical fallacy. So I had to either assume your pronoun, meant MLK while working with a complete lack of punctuation, or I had to assume you were intentionally committing a logical fallacy.
I presumed the punctuation and not the fallacy.
However since you have corrected the meaning, I'll gladly assume the fallacy and treat it accordingly.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Nick
HAHA
nice try trumptman
it goes even further to elaborate the circuitous routes your 'thinking' takes
while still missing even the slightest, obviouse point
I would bother but what's the use . . . if you actually believe half of what you posted in that retort above then I simply have to pity you . . .
Originally posted by BRussell
Remember Bob Jones University, and the criticism it received when Bush gave a talk there? Part of it was because they didn't think banning interracial marriage went far enough, they had a ban on interracial dating. After all the controversy over Bush, they dropped the ban. That was just a few years ago.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/03/04/bob.jones/
So interracial marriage is NOT going to bring the antichrist. Whew.
Bob Jones University is your example of the "Religious Right" in North America?
There are an abundance of Christian groups publicly fighting the gay marriage issue. At least pick a well-known representative if you're going to denigrate an entire group.
As I said before, some Christians use the Bible to justify things they disagreed with. Non-Christians found other stupid reasons to disagree with interracial marriages.
But I'd still like to see proof that the Religious Right as a group fought interracial marriage the way that gay marriage is being contested.
And I get no answer. They call themselves "Christains"...
Originally posted by Existence
I ask one question of people from the religious right: did Christ ever condemn homosexuality in his message of peace and love even once?
And I get no answer. They call themselves "Christains"...
First of all, learn to spell "Christians" right before proceeding to ask stupid questions about the faith.
Secondly, Jesus wasn't looking to become the Israeli Minister of The Obvious.
He, along with everyone who heard him knew the Old Testament prohibitions against homosexuality, and if he disagreed, the onus would have been on him to state his objections. He didn't.
As a matter of fact, he mentions several times that he agreed with and confirmed the teachings of the Torah - including the commandments.
Originally posted by pfflam
HAHA
nice try trumptman
it goes even further to elaborate the circuitous routes your 'thinking' takes
while still missing even the slightest, obviouse point
I would bother but what's the use . . . if you actually believe half of what you posted in that retort above then I simply have to pity you . . .
You are very, very sad. You have gotten to where you won't even quote or address my writing. You are self-deluding.
Any second grader knows how to write a paragraph. Don't complain to me when you don't. Additionally, you've NEVER addressed the logical fallacy. You ask if I thought Keirkegaard bigoted. Why would I consider him bigoted in any regard? Why would you mention Martin Luther King in a paragraph about him, even begin the paragraph speaking about King except to commit the fallacy. You are welcome to show why King writing about him is relevent in ANY WAY. It isn't except to affirm the fallacy.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Your avoidance is horrible. Just answer the questions or admit that you're wrong.
How is my avoidance horrible? I've likely posted more in this thread attempting to address the issue than anyone else. You ask one question and I haven't had time to post to it and now I am avoiding you? Pretend that even I only have 24 hours in the day.
You asked for a seperate but equal scenario. That one is pretty easy and I have supported making it equal and not seperate. The military, draft and combat roles.
Men have to register for the draft. Women do not. Courts have upheld that this is okay. Women have sued to get into the "glass ceiling" military jobs that they desire for advancement, like fighter pilots, but have been "kept from" and not sued to get into "glass celler" roles like attacking ground troops.
Men and women have very seperate but equal roles in the military. All barriers to upward mobility have been sued out of the way of women. However they do not have to commit to the most dangerous combat roles nor do they have to register for the draft under threat of federal prosecution.
I would post more, examples, but I'm sure you'll have fun ignoring this one, declaring that it really isn't true, etc.
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
Remember Bob Jones University, and the criticism it received when Bush gave a talk there? Part of it was because they didn't think banning interracial marriage went far enough, they had a ban on interracial dating. After all the controversy over Bush, they dropped the ban. That was just a few years ago.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/03/04/bob.jones/
So interracial marriage is NOT going to bring the antichrist. Whew.
I'm sure this is about as relevent as speaking about the Nation of Islam as being the typical "black" church for the religious left.
Nick
Originally posted by Frank777
Bob Jones University is your example of the "Religious Right" in North America?
Isn't that a great way to think about the world?
I run the IT department here at initech, and I make sure everyone uses DOS. Every once in a while these young whippersnappers come up talking some graphical user interface mumbo-jumbo, but I remind them that I don't know anything about it, so it must not matter. Afterall, I know everything about this stuff and it is part of my social identity.
Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I support you. Afterall, we all know that Bob Jones is just a struggling school with no support or influence.
Originally posted by trumptman
You are very, very sad. You have gotten to where you won't even quote or address my writing. You are self-deluding.
Any second grader knows how to write a paragraph. Don't complain to me when you don't. Additionally, you've NEVER addressed the logical fallacy. You ask if I thought Keirkegaard bigoted. Why would I consider him bigoted in any regard? Why would you mention Martin Luther King in a paragraph about him, even begin the paragraph speaking about King except to commit the fallacy. You are welcome to show why King writing about him is relevent in ANY WAY. It isn't except to affirm the fallacy.
Nick
It truly is tiring deal with your incomporehension
You were calling people biggots for being critical of religion
then you followed that up with a tiring-whatever-you-want-to-call-it that dealt with MLK and religion and civil rights
So I joked about MLK being influenced by Kierkegaard
Kierkegaard, who wrote a book called Attack Upon Christiandom
and asked "I wonder if he (meaning Keirkegaard) posted here would you call him a biggot?"
Can't you see the chain of EXTREMELY SIMPLE LOGIC YOU FsCKING BUFFOON!!'
'
JEEUSO**()#$%&(*_$&%()_*#$^%
and get off this idiotic 'fallacy' bllsht! as if you know something about philosophical disputation
please ban me and save me from needing to respond to this moron!
g