• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Serve Time In Jail...Or In Church?

It's actually Bay Minette, Alabama. Don't get your hopes up.


Apparently you haven't read the part where no one is being forced. It is an option. that's all.

Apparently you missed the part on "equivalent punishment".
 
Gee, that's really complicated. I guess they'll never come up with an answer to that one.

oh, and you think the Judge would let a Muslim convict have the same choice?

that's bull**** and you know it. and if he did, the Conservative-extremists around this country would be screaming about Sharia Law.
 
Come up with a solution to accommodating my religion since, afaik, there is no established religion that meets to discuss my personal religious beliefs at all, since there is no need for one. My religious beliefs do not require that others need to know about them for a better afterlife. It would be stupid to spend any money to establish a place to talk about such beliefs when a person's home would be quite fine for doing so, an informal kinda thing. And I highly doubt the judge would go for hour long meetings in my home every week to discuss these things with my family.

Then you can mow the lawn, clean up the roads or whatever. No one is denying you that right.
 
Do you have a record of how many delinquents of another religion in Minette Bay have been denied their options?

Just so you are aware, this program hasn't been implemented yet. It was supposed to start today but was delayed because the town has to check it with the state attorney.
 
oh, and you think the Judge would let a Muslim convict have the same choice?

that's bull**** and you know it. and if he did, the Conservative-extremists around this country would be screaming about Sharia Law.

Gee, another straw man already??
 
100% not a strawman. It is an accurate understanding of extremist Conservatives. I'm not sure you actually understand what a strawman argument is.

strawman: arguing against a point that no one in the debate has made.

no one in this debate has been screaming about Sharia law

you bringing it up is a red herring and you using it to argue your point is a strawman.
 
wrong. 100% wrong. that is NOT what a strawman argument means..

dude, do yourself a favor and look **** up before making a fool of yourself

Straw man is a rhetorical technique (also classified as a logical fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

IOW, you misrepresent the position (ie make **** up) and then argue against it.
 
Last edited:
dude, do yourself a favor and look **** up before making a fool of yourself...

...IOW, you misrepresent the position (ie make **** up) and then argue against it.

who's position did I misrepresent and how did I argue against it?

not only do you not fully understand what a strawman argument is, but you have no idea when it is actually being used.
 
Last edited:
who's position did I misrepresent and how did I argue against it?

not only do you not fully understand what a strawman argument is, but you have no idea when it is actually being used.

so now you are back tracking on your "claim" that "that's not what a strawman is"?

first things first.

your statement was a red herring, it had nothing to do with the comment you were replying to. it was a blatant attempt to distract from the actual comment being made.
 
Last edited:
so now you are back tracking on your "claim" that "that's not what a strawman is"?

first things first.

you have proved my claim. I did not make a strawman argument, nor do you know what a strawman argument is or when it is being applied.

now, do yourself a favor and point out which one of my statements was a strawman & how it was a strawman.
 
who's position did I misrepresent and how did I argue against it?

not only do you not fully understand what a strawman argument is, but you have no idea when it is actually being used.

dude, I just freakin quoted the definition for you. so now you resort to calling wikipedia, fallacyfiles.org and nizkor.org liars?
 
This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time. Why do people of faith always assume their traditions and beliefs are more valuable to society than say... watching Saturday morning cartoons? Hell, nobody ever died fighting for a Sponge Bob caliphate, or to retake the holy land for Thundercats. Believe whatever ridiculous immaculate conception, burning bush, or flying spagheti monster stories you want. Please let's just keep it out of criminal justice, public education, and other public functions we are all a part of.

I can't believe this can happen in the 21st century. And the real question is when are we going to stop arresting nonviolent drug "criminals" anyway?

My final thought: so much for conservative allegience to the constitution, huh? So BLATENTLY hypocritical.
 
dude, I just freakin quoted the definition for you. so now you resort to calling wikipedia, fallacyfiles.org and nizkor.org liars?

again, which of my statements is a strawman, HOW is it a strawman, and which statement is it trying to misrepresent?

accuse me of a strawman and you are obligated to prove it.
 
again, which of my statements is a strawman, HOW is it a strawman, and which statement is it trying to misrepresent?

accuse me of a strawman and you are obligated to prove it.

and here we go again, the guy who never "proves" anything, squealing for proof. :lamo
 
Just so you are aware, this program hasn't been implemented yet. It was supposed to start today but was delayed because the town has to check it with the state attorney.

So all this hand wringing was for naught?
Come up with a solution to accommodating my religion since, afaik, there is no established religion that meets to discuss my personal religious beliefs at all, since there is no need for one. My religious beliefs do not require that others need to know about them for a better afterlife. It would be stupid to spend any money to establish a place to talk about such beliefs when a person's home would be quite fine for doing so, an informal kinda thing. And I highly doubt the judge would go for hour long meetings in my home every week to discuss these things with my family.
 
100% not a strawman. It is an accurate understanding of extremist Conservatives. I'm not sure you actually understand what a strawman argument is.

It might be accurate in the maelstrom of your mind, but lets not pretend it's the truth.
 
This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time. Why do people of faith always assume their traditions and beliefs are more valuable to society than say... watching Saturday morning cartoons?

Perhaps because religion had more to do with the philosophy behind the creation of the United States then did Saturday morning cartoons.

Hell, nobody ever died fighting for a Sponge Bob caliphate, or to retake the holy land for Thundercats.

It seems you answered your own question.

Believe whatever ridiculous immaculate conception, burning bush, or flying spagheti monster stories you want. Please let's just keep it out of criminal justice, public education, and other public functions we are all a part of.

You feel religion has never played a part in the formation of the American justice system?
I can't believe this can happen in the 21st century. And the real question is when are we going to stop arresting nonviolent drug "criminals" anyway?

I think we can see the damage overuse of drugs can do right here on this post.
My final thought: so much for conservative allegience to the constitution, huh? So BLATENTLY hypocritical.

Party on, Dude!
 
Back
Top Bottom