Posts by Marvin Shilmer

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

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.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

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.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

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.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

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.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

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.

36

Calling all lovers of Jehovahs and His Christ

by vinman in

i must say that i have always loved jehovah and his son jesus christ.

i have a 12 inch diameter telescope.

i would go outside and listen to the psalms that praised to my god.

Marvin Shilmer

Why would God crash two galaxies together?

The first answer that comes to my mind is: to get the result of crashing two galaxies.

What from one perspective is understandably a "crash" can also understandably be seen as a "productive exercise" from another perspective. Bringing elements together to make a cell comes to mind as an example of such a thing. We end up with destruction of matter to change that matter into transferable energy. If, from the micro perspective, you happened to live on one of those small molecular structures facing destruction you'd have one view. If, from a macro perspective, you happened to have car in need of starting you'd have a wholly different view.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Marvin Shilmer

You're free to mistakenly think your question makes sense, that I am avoiding it for whatever reason and to display a complete lack of curiosity on why the question is deficient.

Viviane,

You keep asserting things like the question is stupid and it's poorly worded and it presents a false dichotomy and that it makes no sense. These are your assertions; not mine.

Your assertions are yours to prove true, not mine to be curious about or mine to disprove. If you want to demonstrate why the question I've asked is unanswerable then do so and be done with it. But in the face of a question all you do is keep making assertions as though that matters. Until you prove your assertions true all they are is personal opinion. I'm glad you have them. I'm glad you feel free to share them. So what? I don't care what you hold as personal opinions. I care what you can prove.

Right now what I see is an answerable question and, in you, someone for reasons unknown just does not want to answer that answerable question.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Marvin Shilmer

As I said, rephrase it so it makes sense and I am happy to answer. The offer for help is on the table. No one is stopping you from accepting but you.

I'm happy with the question the way it is, and it is answerable as it is. You apparently just do not want to answer it for what it asks. And, no I really don't need you to re-frame the question I want you answer. I've asked the question I want to ask. I've not asked the question you want me to ask.

BTW, some minor points ... if you don't need to keep repeating the question, why did you? Also, why are you presenting a (poorly worded) false dichotomy? Why are you trying to limit any possible response (once you reframe the question so it makes sense) to just the options you are presenting?

I restated the question for sake of any readers who might want to know what I was speaking of without wandering through the thread of responses.

If you think my question presents a false dichotomy then say so and prove your assertion. I'm happy to engage that.

I'm also not trying to limit any possible response. How you choose to answer the question asked is up to you, up to and including a non-answer, which is what you've done until now. But, honestly, I see no possibility of a false dichotomy in the question of whether you hold a position that a Miss White USA pageant is a fine thing. Either you do or you don't. I don't really care which position you hold. I'm just wondering which position you hold and, hopefully, once you say, why you hold that position.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Marvin Shilmer

By the way, inserting the word commerce makes the argument too specious. That alone sounds like big brother's poorly supported excuse to tear down the fundamental right of freedom of religion.

I'm not sure I completely follow what you're trying to say but, as I said earlier, when a person or corporation purchases a state or local business license that individual or corporation is obligated to conduct that business as laws of that state require. The license is there to purchase. But the issuing authority is what governs and otherwise assigns conditions to the lawful use and keeping of that license. Hence my use of "commerce". I've also used this term because insofar as I can tell the discussion is about what licensed businesses can do.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Marvin Shilmer

...I HAVE answered you.

No. You haven't. You've concocted an excuse to avoid answering the question asked.

- Either you hold a position that a Miss White USA pageant is a fine thing, or you do not. You never say.

- Either you hold a position that courts should assert punitive measures to cause the sort of discrimination demonstrated in a Miss White USA pageant to cease, or you do not. You never say.

So, what is your position on a Miss White USA pageant? Is this a fine thing or should courts assert punitive measures to cause such discrimination based on race to cease?