Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate) (page 13)

Marvin Shilmer

For comparison, here is a question with very similar construction qualities

Let's take a look.

The comparable question you offer is this:

Because science is by definition a "theory"--not testable, observable, nor repeatable. Why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?

That question is answerable.

I'd answer it this way: First, science is not a theory. Science is a method. Second, I only object to creationism and/or intelligent design being taught in public schools in the United States because public schools in the United States are funded by a government (or governments) having a tenet that no religious test will be required as a qualification to any public trust, which to me means teaching religious concepts as valid is illegal. Also, and not to get tedious, "intelligent design" is a religious construct insofar as I'm concerned.

Viviane,

If, as you claim, the question you posed is comparable to the one I asked you then the question I asked you is answerable.

Viviane

If, as you claim, the question you posed is comparable to the one I asked you then the question I asked you is answerable.

I did answer exactly as you did. Your first act was to point out that the question itself didn't make sense. I've done that and offered to elaborate. So far you've chosen to remain in the dark on why your question needs improving. The difference is, I refuse to assume to know what you really mean and answer that instead.

So, at this point, you have literally answered the same way I have with the notable exception that I haven't told you what is wrong with your question, merely offered to do so.

Marvin Shilmer

Is this your way of asking for help?

No. It's may way of kindly telling you the burden of proof is yours to prove your assertions are true.

That you think my question needs help is your view. I don't happen to agree with it, but it's your view nevertheless. Regardless, the question asked to you is either answerable or unanswerable as it is. If the comparative question you offered is a decent measure, then my question is answerable because I provided a testable, thoughtful and relevant response to all features of what was asked.

Viviane

No. It's may way of kindly telling you the burden of proof is yours to prove your assertions are true.

I've already done that. In fact, you did it. You answered a question that was similarly poorly constructed by pointing out the question was wrong.

In any event, even without out, you've been told many times all you have to do is ask what is wrong with the question if you want to know. Until you DO ask, there is no burden on me.

Marvin Shilmer

I did answer exactly as you did. Your first act was to point out that the question itself didn't make sense. I've done that and offered to elaborate. So far you've chosen to remain in the dark on why your question needs improving. The difference is, I refuse to assume to know what you really mean and answer that instead.

It's false to claim I thought the question I answered didn't make sense. It did make sense. The lady wanted to know why I didn't want creationism taught in schools and that is the question I answered. It is an entirely legitimate question to ask, and the question made perfect sense. The sole thing I corrected was the misconception that science is a theory. It's not. But the question asked was valid, and it made sense. Oh, and I answered what was asked. I didn't dodge the question by making excuses to not answer what was actually asked at face value. I was asked for my position and I gave it in precise enough terms that it is testable.

I don't think my question needs improving. If you think it does feel free to improve it, that is so long as you don't fail to answer my question for what it asks first. Then we can entertain whether your re-framed question asks what I want to have you answer. That said, I'm not really interested in your answers to questions you want to have me ask. I'm more interested in your answer to the question I'd have you answer.

So, at this point, you have literally answered the same way I have with the notable exception that I haven't told you what is wrong with your question, merely offered to do so.

Nope. See above.

Marvin Shilmer

In any event, even without out, you've been told many times all you have to do is ask what is wrong with the question if you want to know. Until you DO ask, there is no burden on me.

Wow. That's telling!

Logic 101: A burden of proof rests on whoever makes an assertion to prove that assertion true.

What this means: This burden does not shift because someone else does not ask you a question.

Viviane

It's false to claim I thought the question I answered didn't make sense.
The sole thing I corrected was the misconception that science is a theory.

You wrote "First, science is not a theory. Science is a method". If you thought it made sense, you're very first action wouldn't have been to correct the very premise of the question. Since you did, clearly you felt the question was wrong.

As I said, burden of proof provided. If you need it made more clear, all you need do is ask. Since you've not after repeated overtures and offers to make it clear, it's obvious you've no interest in it.

Actually, you know what? I'll take pity on you. You ARE asking, you just can't admit it.

First, as far as I know, nothing called "Miss White America" exists. If it does, provide me a link and I'll look at it and see what it is and then form an opinion since obviously, it's 100% stupid to form an opinion on something that doesn't exist or, if it does, I don't know anything about or, if it is something you are using as an example, you've failed to explain what it is or provide details I could use to form an opinion.

Second, do you mean find as in legal? Fine as in moral? Again, none of those things can be answered without without knowing more about the thing you are talking about. Is is a business? A private organization with membership dues? Does the name mean that ONLY white people can be involved? Is it limited to people named White? Is it like the Odd Fellows group that also allows women, meaning the name doesn't reflect what their membership policy is?

Thirds, courts get involved when someone brings a lawsuit or charges or is seeking redress. Which of these things are you asking about? Courts don't just "get involved" on their own. Ask you asking if I think it should be illegal? Should law enforcement and then courts should get involved? That someone should sue them? That the courts should break tradition and get involved?

You are asking me to make a ton of assumptions about what you mean, what type of organization you are talking about, how they operate, etc. That's why it's a question that I am refusing to answer. You've given me nothing to work with without trying to read your mind. It doesn't make sense, asking someone to assume details.

So, jump on that, figure out what you are asking and ask it.

Viviane

Wow. That's telling!
Logic 101: A burden of proof rests on whoever makes an assertion to prove that assertion true.
What this means: This burden does not shift because someone else does not ask you a question.

It is. I used you to prove it. That should definitely tell you something. I suspect it's not, but it should.

Marvin Shilmer

First, as far as I know, nothing called "Miss White America" exists. If it does, provide me a link and I'll look at it and see what it is and then form an opinion since obviously, it's 100% stupid to form an opinion on something that doesn't exist or, if it does, I don't know anything about or, if it is something you are using as an example, you've failed to explain what it is or provide details I could use to form an opinion.

Something like it exists. See: Miss Black USA

Second, do you mean fine as in legal? Fine as in moral? Again, none of those things can be answered without without knowing more about the thing you are talking about. Is is a business? A private organization with membership dues? Does the name mean that ONLY white people can be involved? Is it limited to people named White? Is it like the Odd Fellows group that also allows women, meaning the name doesn't reflect what their membership policy is?

1. Legal and moral.
2. What I'm asking about is a 501(c)3 corporation.
3. In the case of my question, yes, only "white" people could win the pageant.

Thirds, courts get involved when someone brings a lawsuit or charges or is seeking redress. Which of these things are you asking about? Courts don't just "get involved" on their own. Ask you asking if I think it should be illegal? Should law enforcement and then courts should get involved? That someone should sue them? That the courts should break tradition and get involved?

That is part of my question to you. In the case of a Miss White USA pageant should, in your view, anyone get the courts involved to resolve anything related to discriminatory behavior (since that is at issue in this discussion).

You are asking me to make a ton of assumptions about what you mean, what type of organization you are talking about, how they operate, etc. That's why it's a question that I am refusing to answer. You've given me nothing to work with without trying to read your mind. It doesn't make sense, asking someone to assume details.

Without changing the question asked, make assumptions you feel necessary in order to answer what's been asked. If you need more clarification please feel free to inquire.
If your view did not matter to me I'd not ask it.

Marvin Shilmer

It is. I used you to prove it. That should definitely tell you something. I suspect it's not, but it should.

All I've seen you use me for is a person to vent on. You're loaded with anger, and you're loaded with yourself. You bicker over nothing.

I'm not your enemy. I'm not trying to trap you. I'm just trying to have a conversation about a current and correlated topics. But having a conversation takes two, each of which is willing to answer relevant questions.

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

Share this