Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

Except that you said I was using religion as a weapon.

Please...quote me, word for word, stating you were "using religion as a weapon."

That would imply you thought I was using religion as the sword and shield of my argument. I certainly wasn't.

Implicit strawman argument.

I'm sure you never do. But we don't know you, so we might interpret a statement like this...as taking offense.

Subjectively, as just admitted, sure...

Just as you seem to be confusing some of the things we say.

Words have meaning ...sorry, no cofusion there.

Also, you keep using the word "fallacious." I'm curious; what is the fallacy in our argument?

My declration of such fallcious are the indetification of those fallacies.

Primarily, it seems people have been arguing that the sign posted wasn't the best way to convince people that atheism is preferable.

Hence the fallacy of that argument.

Nothing within the statement, context or otherwise, stated that atheism was "the best way" to convince people that "atheism is preferable."

Again, another subjective (and incorrect) interpretation of what was stated.

S.D.

[flippyshark]

Sir Dillon,

In reply to:
"Also, you keep using the word "fallacious." I'm curious; what is the fallacy in our argument?"

you said:

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

My declration of such fallcious are the indetification of those fallacies
S.D.

Okay, in your haste to respond, your typing got sloppy. That's fine. But, as near as I can tell, what you meant to say was -

"My declarations of such fallacies are the identification of those fallacies."

First, let me know if that is in fact what you intended to type. IF SO, I'm not sure I understand it. It sounds an awful lot like "They are fallacies because I declare them so." Or perhaps you meant "I have already identified the fallacies in my previous posts." If one of these two interpretations is correct, please let me know. If neither is correct, could you clarify?

In reply to:
"Primarily, it seems people have been arguing that the sign posted wasn't the best way to convince people that atheism is preferable."

you said:

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

Hence the fallacy of that argument.

Nothing within the statement, context or otherwise, stated that atheism was "the best way" to convince people that "atheism is preferable."

Again, another subjective (and incorrect) interpretation of what was stated.

This is so garbled I can scarcely make out your intent at all. That reply doesn't appear to be addressing the issue (the right for the sign to be there as opposed to the merits of its content), and it's confusing in the bargain. Again, please clarify.

[Disneyphile]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

"Also, you keep using the word "fallacious."

I keep reading this as "fellatious", which has an entirely different meaning.

However, it completely changes the context of this whole thread and even makes it a bit funny. So, I think I'll keep reading it as that.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by Disneyphile

I keep reading this as "fellatious", which has an entirely different meaning.

That made me giggle.

[Disneyphile]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

That made me giggle.

It can also make ya gag, if you go too deep.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Disneyphile

It can also make ya gag, if you go too deep.

Yeah; you'll never have that problem with me.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

Sir Dillon,

That reply doesn't appear to be addressing the issue (the right for the sign to be there as opposed to the merits of its content), and it's confusing in the bargain. Again, please clarify.

Sorry for the confusion.

Just as much as religious people read the Bible in ways (not what it actually says, but what they want it to say) that to suit their own ends; they also read into the Constitution the same way.

As referenced in the OP, Lars and his caller claimed the 1st Amendment (reading into it what they want it to say, not what it actually does) supported the religious display but not the atheist display. Then claiming it was hate speech and was tantamount to being agents of the government in proliferating that particular belief, they concluded it was an unconstitutional display.

That position is a special pleading fallacy. Holding others to their rules while not holding themselves equally accountable.

The "I'm right...you're wrong" mentality previously mentioned by one of your cohorts.

Anyhow...

Thanks for the response.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

No deal.

Because so many question it, its message not conforming to what some cosider their version of "good taste," and that it was equal space (which happened to be next to the tree/nativity scene) was used to remove via the court of public opinion; and that opinion used the first (questioning it) in substantiating the second (having it removed on allegations that it was hate speech and amounted to being illegal).

Thank you for the response.

So our only option is to agree with the message no matter what it says? We are not allowed to express our opinion that it is a poorly chosen choice of message simply because some people might use that to justify something that you don't agree with?

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

The "I'm right...you're wrong" mentality previously mentioned by one of your cohorts.

No one here has "cohorts". We are all quite capable of speaking for ourselves, and do so.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

Sorry for the confusion.

Just as much as religious people read the Bible in ways (not what it actually says, but what they want it to say) that to suit their own ends; they also read into the Constitution the same way.

As referenced in the OP, Lars and his caller claimed the 1st Amendment (reading into it what they want it to say, not what it actually does) supported the religious display but not the atheist display. Then claiming it was hate speech and was tantamount to being agents of the government in proliferating that particular belief, they concluded it was an unconstitutional display.

That position is a special pleading fallacy. Holding others to their rules while not holding themselves equally accountable.

Edited to add - Oh, or maybe it's a good time to let the conversation rest.

The "I'm right...you're wrong" mentality previously mentioned by one of your cohorts.

Anyhow...

Thanks for the response.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything in this response. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, your replies to some of the previous posts gave the impression you felt those posts were guilty of the same fallacy. I suspect this is incorrect.

I'm happy that greater clarity is making its way into the discussion, but I'll be away the rest of the day. Look forward to seeing where this is heading a few hours from now.

Edited to add - Or perhaps this is a good time to let the discussion rest. Happy hedons to all until later.