• 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!

Atheist Action Halts Calif. Nativity Display; Churches Go to Court

Ikari said:
You may say it an infinite number of times, you are still wrong. Your argument says that black people who first started to vote were partially responsible for the violence they endured because they instigated the violence by voting. Clearly a bad argument.
Click to expand...

Wow, now you go completely down fallacy lane! LMAO! Yea that's exactly what I said. Playing the race card no less!
 
Ikari said:
The vandalism caused the cancellation. No amount of dancing changes that.
Click to expand...

Yes, so what? Does not make the initial act any less stupid. Sorry you lose again.
 
Blackdog said:
Wow, now you go completely down fallacy lane! LMAO! Yea that's exactly what I said.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what you said. Sorry if you cannot recognize the logical conclusions of your argument. Your argument is one exercised a right which instigated rebuttal by one who breaks the law and that both parties are at fault. It is exactly as I said.
 
Ikari said:
That is exactly what you said. Sorry if you cannot recognize the logical conclusions of your argument. Your argument is one exercised a right which instigated rebuttal by one who breaks the law and that both parties are at fault. It is exactly as I said.
Click to expand...

That is not a logical conclusion to anything. It is a hyperbolic fallacy argument that has nothing to do with my argument. On top of that you play the race card. So I will say no.
 
Blackdog said:
That is not a logical conclusion to anything. It is a hyperbolic fallacy argument that has nothing to do with my argument. On top of that you play the race card. So I will say no.
Click to expand...

I didn't play the race card. Please try to be honest. And everything I stated is correct as you have previously stated in your argument. It is why you were so anxious to dismiss rights. Nothing I have written is inconsistent with what you have tried to argue.
 
Ikari said:
I didn't play the race card. Please try to be honest. And everything I stated is correct as you have previously stated in your argument. It is why you were so anxious to dismiss rights. Nothing I have written is inconsistent with what you have tried to argue.
Click to expand...

Yes you played the race card with the whole "blacks voting" thing. I am being perfectly honest, my argument has nothing to do with a misdemeanor crime of vandalism. As I have already stated we don't know who did it, not a clue as no evidence exist. Now it may have been Christians, but maybe not. It mite have been atheists trying to make Christians look bad. We don't know. This is why my argument has nothing to do with the law or free speech or any other nonsense not based on a little thing we call facts.

Now that we have set forth we have no idea who vandalized. I go back to my original statement which has nothing to do with the law, rights or any other legal aspect...

Both sides were being childish asses.

As soon as you know who did the vandalism, come back and see me, lol.
 
LOL, I wonder if most Americans know that the so-called 'Pilgrim Fathers' whose survival you celebrate today (it is Thursday the 22nd in the antipodes,) were against celebrating Christmas, and had banned the holiday? :mrgreen:
 
This kind of crap has been going on for decades. When it comes to religious displays on public property, everyone wants their piece of the pie but doesn't want to share. Has been that way since I can remember, and will most likely always be that was until all public entities... states, counties, municipalities... finally get the message, throw up their hands and ban any and all religious displays on public property forever and ever, amen.

Religious or non-religious, there is always a significant percentage of self-indulgent asswipes who want everything for themselves, and nothing for anyone else. Nothing to see here, move along. :shrug:
 
Blackdog said:
Blatant personal attack and hyperbole, period.
Click to expand...
bull****



Please don't insult my intelligence.
Click to expand...
only because it would become an infraction
Again they were both party's to it, period. One instigated
Click to expand...
there was NO instigation
those who vandalized were unable to control themselves
that failure does not cause the atheists to become responsible in any way for the vandalism perpetrated
... and the other broke the law. If you can't see the reality, that it's on you.
Click to expand...
you are making stuff up
had the vandals controlled their response to the legitimate exhibits of those having another belief system there would be no situation to be posting about
 
justabubba said:
why do the Christians insist on publicly promoting their belief system
attempting to convince people that the virgin birth story is possible
why do that not simply take comfort in the knowledge that their beliefs work for them without having the need to expose their belief system to others

so, why are atheists, or wiccans, or followers of shinto, or subscribers of tao, or any other non-mainstream belief system not entitled to the SAME opportunity to share the stories of their belief system as the Christians feel entitled to promote
Click to expand...

Atheists don't promote anything. They simply seek to disprove everyone else. That's my point. Why do that? You don't see a widespread trend of Christian groups putting up signs that say "Islam is false" or "Buddhist's are stupid" nor do you see those religions say that about each other or Christianity. That's ALL you see some atheists doing. In addition, no one is trying to keep any atheists from displaying their crap. The Christians in Santa Monica sued the local gov't for the right to put THEIR signs up. They never said they wanted the atheists signs down and in fact said they believed the atheists had just as much right to put theirs up as they did.
I don't see where you are pulling from my post that I believe atheists, wiccans, etc aren't allowed or entitled to promote their belief system (or lack thereof for atheists) either. I never said that. However, I think it's very hypocritical of atheists to claim they are offended by how much Christians put their beliefs out there when they do the same. They have no ground to stand on when they take the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach.
 
justabubba said:
bull****

only because it would become an infraction

there was NO instigation
those who vandalized were unable to control themselves
that failure does not cause the atheists to become responsible in any way for the vandalism perpetrated

you are making stuff up
had the vandals controlled their response to the legitimate exhibits of those having another belief system there would be no situation to be posting about
Click to expand...

Out of all the posts this is the one you respond to, lol!

#1 Fact: Yes it was, and it was reported as that, it is baiting at minimum.
#2 Fact: They put up signs insulting all religions. Yes instigation even if not illegal in any way.
#3 Fact: I did not say anything about atheists being responsible, nothing at all. I said the ones who put up the signs, as they are part of the problem.
#4 Please feel free to point out 1 thing I have made up. I know you can't but hell I gave others the opportunity and they fell flat as well.

#5 Last but not least...

We have no idea who the vandals were, none. So your assumption is based on an unknown quantity. That makes your info wrong.
 
Blackdog said:
Out of all the posts this is the one you respond to, lol!

#1 Fact: Yes it was, and it was reported as that, it is baiting at minimum.
#2 Fact: They put up signs insulting all religions. Yes instigation even if not illegal in any way.
#3 Fact: I did not say anything about atheists being responsible, nothing at all. I said the ones who put up the signs, as they are part of the problem.
#4 Please feel free to point out 1 thing I have made up. I know you can't but hell I gave others the opportunity and they fell flat as well.

#5 Last but not least...

We have no idea who the vandals were, none. So your assumption is based on an unknown quantity. That makes your info wrong.
Click to expand...

#1 Obviously not and accusations of such are.nothing more than dishonest deflection
#2 Freedom of expression. There is no right to not be offended so get over it. Rights are rights and to adhere to the principles of freedom you up hold this. One exercising rights is not subject to reprisal just because another may not like what is being said.
#3 The atheists put up the signs and you are blaming them for the actions against them
#4 you are inventing blame for those exercising rights when they has nothing to do with the vandalism
#5 has nothing to do with anything that has been said and is mere deflection.
 
Ikari said:
#1 Obviously not and accusations of such are.nothing more than dishonest deflection
Click to expand...

Not accusations but fact. Since you want to skip what I actually pointed out to you. I will put it here for you...

Yes you played the race card with the whole "blacks voting" thing. I am being perfectly honest, my argument has nothing to do with a misdemeanor crime of vandalism. As I have already stated we don't know who did it, not a clue as no evidence exist. Now it may have been Christians, but maybe not. It mite have been atheists trying to make Christians look bad. We don't know. This is why my argument has nothing to do with the law or free speech or any other nonsense not based on a little thing we call facts.

Now that we have set forth we have no idea who vandalized. I go back to my original statement which has nothing to do with the law, rights or any other legal aspect...

Both sides were being childish asses.

As soon as you know who did the vandalism, come back and see me, lol.
 
Blackdog said:
Not accusations but fact. Since you want to skip what I actually pointed out to you. I will put it here for you...

Yes you played the race card with the whole "blacks voting" thing. I am being perfectly honest, my argument has nothing to do with a misdemeanor crime of vandalism. As I have already stated we don't know who did it, not a clue as no evidence exist. Now it may have been Christians, but maybe not. It mite have been atheists trying to make Christians look bad. We don't know. This is why my argument has nothing to do with the law or free speech or any other nonsense not based on a little thing we call facts.

Now that we have set forth we have no idea who vandalized. I go back to my original statement which has nothing to do with the law, rights or any other legal aspect...

Both sides were being childish asses.

As soon as you know who did the vandalism, come back and see me, lol.
Click to expand...

That's not playing the race card it's an example of people.exercising rights and facing retribution for doing so. Civil rights woman's suffrage, etc. It's applicable since your argument revolves.around those who exercise their rights being responsible for the retribution they may face for doing so. That shouldn't need explanation.
 
Ikari said:
That's not playing the race card it's an example of people.exercising rights and facing retribution for doing so. Civil rights woman's suffrage, etc.
Click to expand...

As if that is even remotely connected in any way to anything i said. Yes you played the race card.

Ikari said:
It's applicable since your argument revolves.around those who exercise their rights being responsible for the retribution they may face for doing so. That shouldn't need explanation.
Click to expand...

Again my argument has nothing at all to do with rights, nothing at all. So no.
 
cmakaioz said:
But it IS. You are persistently arguing in favor of SPECIAL privileges to use a public space, rather than equal rights to a public space.



The atheists in question aren't acting entitled at all. Their actions contested another group which IS acting entitled (and your position is, in effect, supporting that false sense of entitlement).



The only major obvious problem with that being that they didn't ruin anything at all.

Get this through your head. In actual FACT, the atheists didn't vandalize, destroy, or remove any part of anyone else's display.

Is this getting through? Anyone home?

If, by YOUR reasoning, the mere presence of a contrary viewpoint somehow "ruins" a display...then we can just as easily say that the nativity display "ruins" the atheist display by its mere presence.

If you don't see that implication, then that indicates that you are continuing to treat the nativity scene (despite your protestation) as being entitled to special protections or insulation from contrary views.



NO ONE RUINED THE NATIVITY DISPLAY. You keep posting as if something was done to the display. That simply didn't happen. The nativity display was completely unharmed. Later, it was removed along with ALL the displays in response to vandalism against the display of the atheists.



NOTHING WAS TAKEN. Again, your posts are becoming more hysterical despite clear access to information which disproves your claims.

The Facts:
Multiple displays by atheists were vandalized.
The nativity display was unharmed.
The displays -- all of them -- were removed by order of the city government in response to vandalism against the atheist displays.

Your Position:
It was a "dick move" on the part of the atheists to "ruin" the Nativity display.

Problem:
The atheists *didn't do anything at all to the nativity display*.

Do you see the disconnect here?
Click to expand...

You're obviously looking at this from completely biased glasses. So you're an atheist, congrats, there are many of us. Some of us are dicks and don't mind canceling a nativity scene tradition that has been going on for 60 years, and some of us respect others enough to just ignore the scene as we walk by. I have no problem with the Happy Festivus signs and other seasonal signs the atheists put up. But to put a sign denouncing Christianity right next to a nativity scene is petty, pathetic, and something we as human being should be above doing.

What next? Follow Santa in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade with a big sign telling the children he isn't real?
 
Ikari said:
This is a crazy amount of bs
Click to expand...

Believe what you want. I protest with a purpose, not to be a dick. People like Dix are why my daughter can't wear a halloween costume to school anymore.
 
jimbo said:
Why is it wrong to put the blame where it lies? My bet is that if the vandalism hadn't happened, the displays would have remained up, both sides would have had their say, and a week from now nobody would have remembered the incident.

I have more of an issue with Westboro, I think they are despicable in their message, but I wonder what would have happened if they had bought the spaces.

City cancelled due to vandalism and not wanting to deal with the BS.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing about the city shutting down the display, it was the right call in light of the vandalism. I blame whomever vandalized the signs for the shutting down. My argument is with the atheists who decided to make this a time to display their anti-religion message.
 
Ikari said:
That's not playing the race card it's an example of people.exercising rights and facing retribution for doing so. Civil rights woman's suffrage, etc. It's applicable since your argument revolves.around those who exercise their rights being responsible for the retribution they may face for doing so. That shouldn't need explanation.
Click to expand...

Comparing these people exercising their rights to the Civil Rights or womans suffrage movement is a joke.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Believe what you want. I protest with a purpose, not to be a dick. People like Dix are why my daughter can't wear a halloween costume to school anymore.
Click to expand...

Why can't your daughter wear a costume to school?
 
spanky said:
Why can't your daughter wear a costume to school?
Click to expand...

Because some parent was offended. They believe Halloween to be satanic and they didn't want their kid exposed to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom