"You lie!" - Disrespect or expression of an opinion?

[Pruddock]

And where have I claimed non-belief? I won't give you crap for believing, I'll give you crap for being presumptuous.

You're Welcome

Dale

(FWIW, using passages from a religious "holy book" - be it The Bible, The Quran, The Bhagavad Gita, whatever - to prove said book's validity/veracity is known as "proof-texting", and would get you a failing grade in just about any respectable Seminary/Divinity School.)

Dale, some of the presumptuous internet links you post just scream irony right now. If you had wanted to say circular logic is never a good way to prove something I would have agreed with you. But, for how much crap Christianity seems to take on this site, and I've discussed this with other who feel it gets a little ridiculous, I don't understand the point of you bringing it up unless trying to just take a stab at something.

Chris, I agree that circular logic is pointless, I just don't agree with the need to use a sarcastic smiley and Dale's infamous tone in his posts along with a belief that I take seriously to prove his point.

In simple terms, I just ask for respect and I feel I've asked for it in a way that was both respectful and sincere and was given more sarcasm. For that, I have very little respect... I'm sure you will both tare this post apart to justify yourselves as that's what I've come to expect on this forum. Should be fun to watch...

 

[tsst]

Yes, let's also use The Bible to prove that The Bible is accurate and valid.

Likewise when using a leftwing blog site to question the credibility of a rightwing politician.

As the C&L link stated, there are two factions within the SCV; I've no problem with any group that looks to preserve their legacy and honor their dead. I definitely would have a problem with a subgroup that still sees slavery, in the 21st Century, as "benign".


Dale

I would also have a problem if he belonged to that subgroup. I am just not quite ready to wholly trust a leftwing liberal blog site in making that assertion.

The SCV works in conjunction with other historical groups to preserve Confederate history. However, it is NOT affiliated with any other group. The SCV rejects any group whose actions tarnish or distort the image of the Confederate soldier or his reasons for fighting.

If he is a closet KKK member like the C&L website would have everyone believe, shame on the SCV and Mr Wilson and he deserves what he gets. I simply took for face value what they state on their about page.

Experts say the divisions within the Sons vary between two extremes. On one side are the traditionalists, members who focus on cleaning up Confederate grave sites and conducting Civil War re-enactments.

Even the C&L website recognizes this side of the SCV. Wonder why the C&L website would not suggest he is part of this sect? :shrugs:

 

[ForkedTung]

If you wear your religion like a badge of honor and frequently refer to it in successive posts, it is disingenuous to feign surprise/disgust when other posters refer to it as well.

Originally Posted by jazzgeek
Yes, let's also use The Bible to prove that The Bible is accurate and valid.

That could hardly be called a "sarcastic insult to your faith".

Payton, I have no problem with your religion or faith, that being said you are the only member here that I know what their faith is...the fact that you continually put it out there does not give you authorship and or the ability to censor others from using it as an analogy.

 

[jpccusa]

It happened... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/us/politics/16wilson.html?hp

 

[jazzgeek]

Likewise when using a leftwing blog site to question the credibility of a rightwing politician.

Um, no. You see, that's the "adversarial nature" of a two-party political system, and of jurisprudence as well.

"Leftwing" political blog sites will question the credibility of "rightwing" politicians. "Rightwing" political blog sites will question the credibility of "leftwing" politicians.

This is how it is, and should be.

In contrast, using the SCV "About Us" page to determine their purpose/mission/goals is one thing; however, using it as validation of what they claim to be would fall under the category of "Public Relations".

I would also have a problem if he belonged to that subgroup. I am just not quite ready to wholly trust a leftwing liberal blog site in making that assertion.

Nor am I, quite honestly. I only posted to cite his membership - I'm not convinced myself whether Rep. Wilson is part of the "upstart" faction within the SCV.

If he is a closet KKK member like the C&L website would have everyone believe, shame on the SCV and Mr Wilson and he deserves what he gets.

Agreed.

I simply took for face value what they state on their about page.

Previously addressed in my point above.

Even the C&L website recognizes this side of the SCV. Wonder why the C&L website would not suggest he is part of this sect? :shrugs:

I'm not sure if the article suggests any affiliation with any subgroup within the SCV - just that these "subgroups" exist.

Quoting the C&L article.....

"So inquiring minds want to know:
Is Joe Wilson still a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans?

If so, does he condone the activities of the "Lunatic" faction that now controls the SCV?

Does Joe Wilson consider the Republican Party "the Party of Lincoln"?

Does Joe Wilson support secession?"

:shrugs:

Dale

 

[Drizzt80]

It happened... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/us/politics/16wilson.html?hp

I find it interesting that the House Majority Leader doesn't refer to the leader of our country in the proper manner: (from the article linked above)

“I did not take a racial connotation from Mr. Wilson’s remarks,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, who introduced the resolution. “I do believe that there are expressions throughout the country being made that are unusually harsh. I think the attacks being made on Mr. Obama are unusually vitriolic.”

It's a small thing, and I'm not suggesting any sinister intent or tying to make any kind of point. Interesting none-the-less considering all past and present Presidents are referred to as President "insert surname" or Mr. President. :shrugs:

D80

 

[jazzgeek]

Dale, some of the presumptuous internet links you post just scream irony right now.

Not that you need me to grant you this, but feel free to cite 'em.

If you had wanted to say circular logic is never a good way to prove something I would have agreed with you. But, for how much crap Christianity seems to take on this site, and I've discussed this with other who feel it gets a little ridiculous, I don't understand the point of you bringing it up unless trying to just take a stab at something.

Buck up, Aggie. If this is how you defend your faith - by playing the victim card - this Badger will gig ya.

But I tell you what - I'll edit the post, and change "The Bible" to "One's Holy Scriptures". Fair enough? Will that make you feel as if I'm not bashing your Christian faith?

Chris, I agree that circular logic is pointless, I just don't agree with the need to use a sarcastic smiley and Dale's infamous tone in his posts along with a belief that I take seriously to prove his point.

Oh, do tell! My tone has become "infamous"? Details, man, details!

In simple terms, I just ask for respect and I feel I've asked for it in a way that was both respectful and sincere and was given more sarcasm.

In the rabbinic tradition, I answered your question with a question. You queried:

I understand you find it funny, but can you please leave out the sarcastic insult to my faith.

And I replied:

And where have I claimed non-belief?

....and I've yet to see your response to this question.

The "sarcasm"? Sure, I'll concede a little bit of snark with this comment....

I won't give you crap for believing, I'll give you crap for being presumptuous.

....when you're able to concede presumption with this comment....

I don't give you crap for not believing, please show the same respect for my beliefs.

Is that a deal?

For that, I have very little respect...

Likewise.

I'm sure you will both tare [sic] this post apart to justify yourselves as that's what I've come to expect on this forum.

How'd I do?

Should be fun to watch...

Was it good for you, too?



Dale

 

[ZoologyGirl]

the

hey now, I take offense to that!

....:nyah:

 

[jazzgeek]

hey now, I take offense to that!

....:nyah:

Can you cite the definite article? ;-)


:sidestep:


Dale

 

[TandJ]

Nova blurted out his wisdom..

California is the most democratic state in the US, and it's paying the price for leaving so much up to the voting public.

For once I can agree with you.. You will never see me vote Demoncat/Liberial... *lol* I think Kalifornia has a nice ring to it myself.. Its threads like this, that have slowly been pulling the seems apart of this forum.. Its pathetic, and quite frankly, in the last few threads like this, I have lost even more respect for some of you, not that I had much respect for a few chosen people anyways.

Regardless, it has been suggested that these topics end up over at some political site, instead of people trying to push their agenda's on the viewers of this site..

Yeah, here comes the lines of BS.. If you don't like it, don't read it??.. Hard to do when this is pretty well pushed in my face every time I come here.. Its pretty bad when an uneducated fool/idiot like me can see clear through a lot of the BS spewed here..

Leave me to my rifle, my home and my land... I will survive without any of you..

Regards.. Tim of T and J

 

[tyflier]

Dale, some of the presumptuous internet links you post just scream irony right now. If you had wanted to say circular logic is never a good way to prove something I would have agreed with you. But, for how much crap Christianity seems to take on this site, and I've discussed this with other who feel it gets a little ridiculous, I don't understand the point of you bringing it up unless trying to just take a stab at something.

Chris, I agree that circular logic is pointless, I just don't agree with the need to use a sarcastic smiley and Dale's infamous tone in his posts along with a belief that I take seriously to prove his point.

In simple terms, I just ask for respect and I feel I've asked for it in a way that was both respectful and sincere and was given more sarcasm. For that, I have very little respect... I'm sure you will both tare this post apart to justify yourselves as that's what I've come to expect on this forum. Should be fun to watch...

Payton, I'm not gonna tear your post apart or justify anything. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing that needs to be justified. Dale made a comment to someone else that doirectly correlated as a perfect analogy to what they posted. It was neither insulting nor sarcasting to the Christian Relgion or the Bible. Any offense you took to a very simple phrase was pre-conceived and self-imposed.

I don't see where Christianity gets a "bad rap" on this forum. Bad Christians get a bad rap...but they deserve it. I think that everyone remains fairly respectful of the MANY members that are at least moderately religious. However...as has been said...most of them don't use their beliefs or their religions as a weapon to brandish in a debate.

Quite frankly, I see plenty of other people/groups/belief systems that get WAY more flak than Christianity on this forum. Like liberals, for example. From many of the posts and topics in this forum, you'd swear liberals were the anti-christ. And THOSE insults are FAR more blatant...

So with all due respect, I won't tear your post apart...I'll simply disregard it.

 

[jazzgeek]

So with all due respect, I won't tear your post apart...I'll simply disregard it.

You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.


Dale
(who could really, really, really use economy of language sometimes)

 

[tsst]

Um, no. You see, that's the "adversarial nature" of a two-party political system, and of jurisprudence as well.

"Leftwing" political blog sites will question the credibility of "rightwing" politicians. "Rightwing" political blog sites will question the credibility of "leftwing" politicians.

This is how it is, and should be.

Agreed on the adversarial nature but no less cyclic or valid than your reference. He said she said. 'They are not credible to question our credibility on questioning their credibility about questioning our credibility on questioning their credibility to questioning our credibility to question their credibility about being credible about credibility'.

In contrast, using the SCV "About Us" page to determine their purpose/mission/goals is one thing; however, using it as validation of what they claim to be would fall under the category of "Public Relations".

The C&L website also validated their claim by stating "experts" cite two factions one of which does what the SCV about page claims. The other of which the about page "rejects". (external validation by "experts") :shrugs:

I'm not sure if the article suggests any affiliation with any subgroup within the SCV - just that these "subgroups" exist.

Quoting the C&L article.....

"So inquiring minds want to know:
Is Joe Wilson still a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans?

If so, does he condone the activities of the "Lunatic" faction that now controls the SCV?

Does Joe Wilson consider the Republican Party "the Party of Lincoln"?

Does Joe Wilson support secession?"

:shrugs:

Dale

But add the preceding statement. Then note the lack of a statement like this. 'Is Joe Wilson spending his free time cleaning up grave sites to honor fallen soldiers?' 'Is Joe Wilson participating in reinactments to support the local community?' And it indirectly suggests which subgroup they think he patronizes. You're much too intelligent of a guy to have missed the inference.

A clearer picture of why this congressman might so virulently breach protocol and loudly interrupt an African-American president's speech to Congress by calling him a liar does start to emerge, doesn't it?
So inquiring minds want to know:

Is Joe Wilson still a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans?
If so, does he condone the activities of the "Lunatic" faction that now controls the SCV?
Does Joe Wilson consider the Republican Party "the Party of Lincoln"?
Does Joe Wilson support secession?​

 

[tyflier]

Agreed on the adversarial nature but no less cyclic or valid than your reference. He said she said. 'They are not credible to question our credibility on questioning their credibility about questioning our credibility on questioning their credibility to questioning our credibility to question their credibility about being credible about credibility'.

The C&L website also validated their claim by stating "experts" cite two factions one of which does what the SCV about page claims. The other of which the about page "rejects". (external validation by "experts") :shrugs:

Big difference between using opposing viewpoints to validate something, and their OWN site. Had you used the positive comments from the C&L site to validate the SCV group...you would have been fine. The issue isn't with what you said, it's with your "technique".

But add the preceding statement. Then note the lack of a statement like this. 'Is Joe Wilson spending his free time cleaning up grave sites to honor fallen soldiers?' 'Is Joe Wilson participating in reinactments to support the local community?' And it indirectly suggests which subgroup they think he patronizes. You're much too intelligent of a guy to have missed the inference.

Nobody cares if he cleans graves. People care if he supports slavery. Of course it's an inferance...it's designed to make us ask that question ourselves. Someday, perhaps, we'll get an answer. Even than...I still won't care if he cleans graves. So what's the point?

 

[tsst]

Big difference between using opposing viewpoints to validate something, and their OWN site. Had you used the positive comments from the C&L site to validate the SCV group...you would have been fine. The issue isn't with what you said, it's with your "technique".

I will agree my intent was not expressed well.

Nobody cares if he cleans graves. People care if he supports slavery. Of course it's an inferance...it's designed to make us ask that question ourselves. Someday, perhaps, we'll get an answer. Even than...I still won't care if he cleans graves. So what's the point?

I disagree. If the sole intent was to raise questions why would they not include multi-sided points of reference? It's a veiled, at best, implication leaving out two sided objectivity. Meant to imply, no matter of the lack of any evidentiary support whatsoever, that he is part of the slavery benign subgroup.

 

[tyflier]

I will agree my intent was not expressed well.

I disagree. If the sole intent was to raise questions why would they not include multi-sided points of reference? It's a veiled, at best, implication leaving out two sided objectivity. Meant to imply, no matter of the lack of any evidentiary support whatsoever, that he is part of the slavery benign subgroup.

Let's see...does he belong to a country club? Does he have a "staff"? Does he drive a BMW, Mercedes, or a Chevy? Does he belong to a Glee Club or A'Cappella Choir? Does he play an instrument in an organized band? Does he belong to the PTO, Lions Club, or Masonic Home?

These are all very valid, and presuambly interesting qwuestions to ask of ANY politician. But they really don't matter. Nobody cares about anything above, because none of it has ANYthing to do with his character and/or his ability to do his job. Now flip the script...

Cleaning gravesites, participating in parades and reenactments, and celebrating his state's history really have very little to do with how he is able to perform his job or his character.

Belonging to a club that allows rampant racism to prolifewrate? Participating in the activities of a fringe secession group? Practicing racism and "benign slavery" in his home? THESE issues say a LOT about his character. They also have a HUGE imapct on how he is able to perform his job as an elected official. THESE questions are the ones that have a REAL impact on who this individual is, and how we will be as a public official.

Sure...there are implications. BENIGN implications, based entirely upon his non-publicized(until now) participation in this group. If the group doesn't LIKE the frionge aspects of it's membership...perhaps they should disallow their membership. But the FACT that these fringe individuals are still considered and accepted as part of the SAME GROUP...it is VERY reasonable to assume that their activities are condoned,a t least privately, or on a minimalist level. That, in and of itself, justifies asking these questions of Sen. Wilson.

There is no justification for asking if he cleans up gravesites. It has NO IMPACT on his character or hius ability to perform his duties as a Senator. The OTHER questions have a HUGE impact.

So try again to exlpain to me how it is inferance, implication, and/or wrong to raise THESE SPECIFIC questions...I may be thick, but I'm just not seeing ANY logic to your argument...

 

[tsst]

Let's see...does he belong to a country club? Does he have a "staff"? Does he drive a BMW, Mercedes, or a Chevy? Does he belong to a Glee Club or A'Cappella Choir? Does he play an instrument in an organized band? Does he belong to the PTO, Lions Club, or Masonic Home?

These are all very valid, and presuambly interesting qwuestions to ask of ANY politician. But they really don't matter. Nobody cares about anything above, because none of it has ANYthing to do with his character and/or his ability to do his job. Now flip the script...

Strawman points.

Cleaning gravesites, participating in parades and reenactments, and celebrating his state's history really have very little to do with how he is able to perform his job or his character.

Belonging to a club that allows rampant racism to prolifewrate? Participating in the activities of a fringe secession group? Practicing racism and "benign slavery" in his home? THESE issues say a LOT about his character. They also have a HUGE imapct on how he is able to perform his job as an elected official. THESE questions are the ones that have a REAL impact on who this individual is, and how we will be as a public official.

Wrong these are functions claimed by the SCV group, and more specifically one faction of it. And also validated by external "experts". So if his credibility is being questioned due to membership in the SCV then what subgroup he is tied to is absolutely relevant. I don't give a crap if he uses Crest toothpaste either. But if he supports the slavery benign subgroup then as stated before he gets what ever he deserves. If however he belongs to the subgroup (externally validated by experts and cited even by the leftwing website as existing) that cleans graves and reenacts history then his membership in the SCV is a non issue.

Sure...there are implications. BENIGN implications, based entirely upon his non-publicized(until now) participation in this group. If the group doesn't LIKE the frionge aspects of it's membership...perhaps they should disallow their membership. But the FACT that these fringe individuals are still considered and accepted as part of the SAME GROUP...it is VERY reasonable to assume that their activities are condoned,a t least privately, or on a minimalist level. That, in and of itself, justifies asking these questions of Sen. Wilson.
There is no justification for asking if he cleans up gravesites. It has NO IMPACT on his character or hius ability to perform his duties as a Senator. The OTHER questions have a HUGE impact.

So try again to exlpain to me how it is inferance, implication, and/or wrong to raise THESE SPECIFIC questions...I may be thick, but I'm just not seeing ANY logic to your argument...

Benign? Under the heading Topics: Racism/Bigotry and only citing questions that imply racism and bigotry. We have a different definition of benign.

So using this logic it is ok to tie all herpers directly to herpers that misuse, mistreat, and otherwise denegrate herpologists by their actions or inactions simply because they are both registered at a herp society. So we can assume all herpers condone release in Florida because a herp society fringe member released before. And before you say they are not excepted members remember the SCV website also claims they reject those fringe members. So it must be all for one and one for all? I never said it was wrong to raise those questions, I said it was wrong to raise only the questions that favor that side of the SCV group when considering why he is a member.

 

[jazzgeek]

I disagree. If the sole intent was to raise questions why would they not include multi-sided points of reference? It's a veiled, at best, implication leaving out two sided objectivity. Meant to imply, no matter of the lack of any evidentiary support whatsoever, that he is part of the slavery benign subgroup.

This would be akin to newspapers running the headline "NOTHING HAPPENED AS YOU SLEPT LAST NIGHT!!!!!" each morning, as a matter of course.

It's the "outlier" behaviors (supporting slavery) that generates interest and piques people's curiosity, not "standard" behaviors (honoring one's legacy).


Dale

 

[tsst]

This would be akin to newspapers running the headline "NOTHING HAPPENED AS YOU SLEPT LAST NIGHT!!!!!" each morning, as a matter of course.

It's the "outlier" behaviors (supporting slavery) that generates interest and piques people's curiosity, not "standard" behaviors (honoring one's legacy).


Dale

I agree but then we are not talking about headlines. We are talking about the debate over the purpose of his membership. For the record I understand why a left or right site would only cite one side (ie the headlines). I just don't think it's a valid when attempting to mediate or provoke (what I see C&L as doing) a debate over the reason for his membership. Unless I missed it and they are simply saying outright that he is a racist bigot (headline) and that is the reason he yelled "you lie".

 

[tsst]

He didn't say "you lie" after all!!! :roflmao:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjTkPpUrYTk