Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

It kind of feeds into my theory on life: Fanatics are hard to talk to no matter what subject or which side they are fanatical about.

True, but I am not fanatical about the subject. Just informed, educated, and well read on it.

In other words, I can effectively debate and hold my own on the topic.

I discuss what I know...NOT I guess or feel; which is what "fanatics" do, yes?

S.D.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

True, but I am not fanatical about the subject. Just informed, educated, and well read on it.

In other words, I can effectively debate and hold my own on the topic.

I discuss what I know...NOT I guess or feel; which is what "fanatics" do, yes?

S.D.

We've gone around a bit, can you refresh me on what "the subject" is?

Are you arguing for the right to post a stupid sign or in support of the silly message on the stupid sign?

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

We've gone around a bit, can you refresh me on what "the subject" is?

Are you arguing for the right to post a stupid sign or in support of the silly message on the stupid sign?

Do you honestly expect me to answer such a fallaciously based question?

By declaring the sign and/or its message as "stupid" is patently subjective, not to mention fallacious.

Just because you disagree with the statement (and ascribed the ubsubstantiated label of "stupid") does not invalidate the statement.

Notwithstanding, the "bottom line" is those who disbelieve in religion have THE SAME RIGHT as those who do believe in religion to their expression, whether publicly or privately.

This issue is a matter of public display, obviously...and under the 1st Amendment non-religious people have the same freedom/equal access to the Capitol of Washington as religious people do.

However, religious people are claiming the 'special pleading fallacy' in that they, and only they, have such a right; and non-religious people DO NOT have this right.

That, in and of itself, is not only immoral and flies in the face of common sense; it is patently unconstitutional (not to mention hypocritical).

That "is the subject" of this thread.



S.D.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

This issue is a matter of public display, obviously...and under the 1st Amendment non-religious people have the same freedom/equal access to the Capitol of Washington as religious people do.

...

That "is the subject" of this thread.

One post before the weekend anyway. If that is the issue, then you seem to be arguing about the wrong things. Not one person in this thread has stated an opinion contrary to the idea that whatever group put up that sign should be allowed to. Every person in this thread has said that they do and that they should.

All that has been contested is whether, from a civility perspective the sign posted sends a positive or negative message.

So, you say the former is the issue of this thread, but have spent all of your time arguing about the latter. Please have this confusion clarified by Monday, for if I am going to take the contrary side, I need to know which argument I am actually to be making as one will be much more difficult than the other seeing as it will fly in the face of (on this board anyway) unanimity. It would suck to lose on points because I've been penalized for being masterfully eloquent on the wrong topic.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Alex

All that has been contested is whether, from a civility perspective the sign posted sends a positive or negative message.

Which goes to the very heart of the issue/subject identified.

It's all a matter of interpretation first...all else follow.

As Goulish indicated...it's an "ugly" display of "hate" speech directed at religious believers.

I have plainly stated my argument in the OP and subsequent responses...I invite you to argue from there (either the OP and/or those responses).

Sincerely,

S.D.