[Colonol Dekker]

Obtuse,? He's being more than 180' degrees on an angle of geometry?

[Kazan]

Code: [Select]

ob·tuse   Audio pronunciation of "Obtuse" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (b-ts, -tys, b-)
adj. ob·tus·er, ob·tus·est

   1.
         1. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
         2. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.
         3. Not distinctly felt: an obtuse pain.
   2.
         1. Not sharp, pointed, or acute in form; blunt.
         2. Having an obtuse angle: an obtuse triangle.
         3. Botany. Having a blunt or rounded tip: an obtuse leaf.

when used in the context i used it in it implies the person is intentionally ignoring the subtlies of a situation to be able to construct a straw man argument

[redmenace]

Because I would like to make the point that you shouldn't marginalize someone else's point of view with the same exact means that they are using and then act like you are superior.

I'm going to make the point that you're being disingenious in claiming that I am doing so

I am demanding that the governemnt comply with it's own constitution and remain neutral on religion - neither encouraging or discouraging it
They are demanding that th government ignore it's own constitution and continue to promot their religion - violating the rights of everyone not of their religion

if you don't see the difference then you are being obtuse

spare me your straw man arguments

I am not using that as an argument as why your wrong about the "establishment clause" but that your general attitude towards any one who disagrees with you sucks. And the two sides of this stupid argument are pretty much equal as far as their argogance and general immature nature.

[Kazan]

I am not using that as an argument as why your wrong about the "establishment clause" but that your general attitude sucks.

so you actually have nothing against my argument and you recognize the validity - you're just trying to cause a problem because you don't like that I am angry that certain christians refuse to respect my rights?

Just because you don't give a rats ass about your rights doesn't mean i'm going to stand by quietly while my rights are trampled.  I take the path of the founding fathers - to kick and scream when my rights are violated; to refuse to shut up and be polite to the people who are oppressing me.

I have the right to think of them as mindless backward ignorant fools who have no right to speak on any subject with authority.  Be my opinion of them as it may be, I still defend their right to belief whatever arrogance-laced superstitution they arbitrary are born into and indoctrinated to believe.

You get me? 

I disagree with them, quite strongly, but I will still defend their right to believe what they do.  They don't respect my rights however.

Say whatever you want about my distaste for religious lunacy - the fact remains I will defend their right to be religious even when they don't respect my right to not be religious.


I'd say that makes me better than them - especally since I merely think of them as arrogant fools, not as evil people like they think of anyone who doesn't believe in their god.

[Colonol Dekker]

Code: [Select]

ob·tuse   Audio pronunciation of "Obtuse" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (b-ts, -tys, b-)
adj. ob·tus·er, ob·tus·est

   1.
         1. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
         2. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.
         3. Not distinctly felt: an obtuse pain.
   2.
         1. Not sharp, pointed, or acute in form; blunt.
         2. Having an obtuse angle: an obtuse triangle.
         3. Botany. Having a blunt or rounded tip: an obtuse leaf.



when used in the context i used it in it implies the person is intentionally ignoring the subtlies of a situation to be able to construct a straw man argument

There ya go, section 2 subsection 2, i'm glad i remembered something from school...
So by the way..........@ no one in particular.....

[brozozo]

If the Phelps and Anne Coulter are the bottom rung of bat**** crazy conservatives, Kazan surely must be their left-wing counterpart.

[Kazan]

If the Phelps and Anne Coulter are the bottom rung of bat**** crazy conservatives, Kazan surely must be their left-wing counterpart.

yes becuase I have the lie and plagerize to make my point just like Ann, and I have to say that america's going to hell for allowing differences of opinion like Phelps

woops.

Seems you just tripped over your own comment.

A) I don't have to make things up, or lie, to make my point
B) I'm not condeming america to burn in hell for having diversity
C) I don't blindly support any specific political party (i support a specific one, but definantly not blindly)


yup. i'm just like them

They rate +9.0 to the right on the left/right political compus scale and I rate about a -5 tword the left.

yup, i'm COMPLETELY their opposite.

[Nuclear1]

If the Phelps and Anne Coulter are the bottom rung of bat**** crazy conservatives, Kazan surely must be their left-wing counterpart.

Hardly. Kaz gets bat**** passionate about what he's talking about, yes, but he tends to be right about these kinds of things, too. There's no question that some people can be at odds with for the kinds of things he says (read: me), but he doesn't make this stuff up either.

[Kazan]

thank you nuclear

i used to be a lot calmer abuot this.. but it's kinda the back-a-dog-into-a-corner effect going on

[Nuclear1]

On the topic at hand, if there's one thing I believe about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that, with the exception of slavery clauses, the Founding Fathers wrote what they ****ing meant to say and that's that. "No establishment of religion" means "no establishment of religion." Fundies can argue that the country was based on Judeo-Christian values all they'd like, but the law says that no religion will be respected by the government as a religion to base its law off of. The Founding Fathers were smart and looked back in history and saw how well Theocracies had gone over.

Still, the Founding Fathers also said that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, and if these Christians want to exercise that by making a Statue of Liberty with a cross in it, then they should be free to do it. Christians can live by the Bible if they like, but their right to exercise religion stops at the point where they begin to infringe on human rights and cross the line too far into politics. The Bible's got plenty of good common sense laws to live by (the 10 Commandments, respecting your neighbor, respecting the government), so I don't see why the Christians all have to flock to the one part of the Bible that says "no homosexuality." Preaching that essentially leads into breaking a whole number of other commands; they disrespect the government's authority by attempting to get legislation such as the homosexuality ban through and hate their neighbors if they're gay.

[Ulala]

With Christians, it's usually all or nothing. If it's just a little of the Bible here and listen to a little of God's word there, they wouldn't feel like, nor be, true Christians (to what the Bible lays out anyway).

[karajorma]

Still, the Founding Fathers also said that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, and if these Christians want to exercise that by making a Statue of Liberty with a cross in it, then they should be free to do it.

I don't think anyone on this thread has said they couldn't Anyone who has needs a good smack in the mouth.

[Nuclear1]

Still, the Founding Fathers also said that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, and if these Christians want to exercise that by making a Statue of Liberty with a cross in it, then they should be free to do it.

I don't think anyone on this thread has said they couldn't Anyone who has needs a good smack in the mouth.

Not saying they didn't, just stating the same opinion that's been stated a hundred times, as I usually do.