• 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!

Opening a Letter to Neil Gorsuch [W:127]

Harshaw said:
I don't "hope" anything. I know it for certain.
Click to expand...
DOES THAT MEAN YOU CAN PROVE IT WITH OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE? Because no matter how "certain" you personally might be about something-or-other, no one else needs to believe you if you cannot provide proof.

Harshaw said:
Your letter is written like a fourth grader would,
Click to expand...
THAT'S THE SORT OF POSITIVE CLAIM THAT SHOULD BE SUPPORTED WITH EVIDENCE. Well? Why don't you provide the evidence?

Harshaw said:
and the only reasonable thing you said in it, vis-a-vis jurisprudence, was that it's filled with "amateur" legal thinking.
Click to expand...
WHICH MIGHT BE LAUGHABLE/ENTERTAINING. Of course, the only way for the reader to find that out for sure, if it is laughable/entertaining, is to actually read the letter, not ignore it!

Harshaw said:
You are deluded if you think anyone will ever take this letter seriously.
Click to expand...
FACTS ARE FACTS. And Debate Points are Debate Points. Can you identify even one thing stated in the letter which is factually untrue, or logically flawed? Be thorough in explaining the error! And, thanks in advance!
 
Logicman said:
Wrong. It's called "Thou shalt not murder."
Click to expand...
AMAZING. How is it that after it is fully explained how abortion fails to qualify as "murder", the person who received the explanation repeats the claim, or a variant of the claim, like a mindless broken record? ARE you mindless? Do you lack a capacity to absorb and understand new information? Or do you simply think that Objectively Verifiable Facts are inferior to Ignorance and Stupidity?
 
FutureIncoming said:
As the Sender of a letter, I can Send a copy of it to anyone I choose, especially when there is nothing personal-private/confidential about the letter.
Click to expand...

You said you opened it...
 
Bodhisattva said:
You said you opened it...
Click to expand...
A STUPID LIE. My exact words from the Original Post are:
I've decided to "open" the Gorsuch letter to the public, by posting it here.
Click to expand...
Because the word "open" is inside quotation marks, it doesn't mean what your Stupid Lie wants readers to think. It merely means I was making-public some of my writings, writing that exists on my computer, writing that had been printed out and (as stated in the OP) mailed to Gorsuch weeks ago. It is now an "open letter" rather than an only an ordinary letter.
 
FutureIncoming said:
DOES THAT MEAN YOU CAN PROVE IT WITH OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE? Because no matter how "certain" you personally might be about something-or-other, no one else needs to believe you if you cannot provide proof.


THAT'S THE SORT OF POSITIVE CLAIM THAT SHOULD BE SUPPORTED WITH EVIDENCE. Well? Why don't you provide the evidence?


WHICH MIGHT BE LAUGHABLE/ENTERTAINING. Of course, the only way for the reader to find that out for sure, if it is laughable/entertaining, is to actually read the letter, not ignore it!


FACTS ARE FACTS. And Debate Points are Debate Points. Can you identify even one thing stated in the letter which is factually untrue, or logically flawed? Be thorough in explaining the error! And, thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

Why are you always shouting? Calm down.
 
FutureIncoming said:
AT THIS DEBATE SITE I CAN ASK FOR EVIDENCE WHENEVER ANYONE MAKES A POSITIVE CLAIM. It doesn't matter if I've seen some evidence before; what matters is that the person making the claim needs to be able to provide supporting evidence (might be different from what I've seen before --and, generally, it is well known that the more evidence, the better!).


DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE IS? People only making **claims** qualifies as "hearsay", and little more. Why would 2000-year-old hearsay be better than modern hearsay?

NOT TO MENTION A CHANGE OF TOPIC. Proof of the existence of Jesus is not-at-all proof of the existence of God. I invite you to think about what folks living 2000 years ago might say if a modern highly-rated stage magician took a time machine back then and did some performances that used only the tools available back then. Do not think I'm suggesting Jesus was a time traveler; the point is simply that non-miraculous means do exist, to do many many things that folks of ancient times might consider to be miraculous.


SEE ABOVE. Proof of the existence of Jesus is not the same thing as proof of the existence of God.


HAW! HAW!! HAW!!!
Click to expand...

No need to shout.
 
FutureIncoming said:
I USUALLY TRY TO MAKE AN INITIAL POINT IN CAPS. Then I try to explain the point in regular type. **That** style is different from my own-name style.
Click to expand...

Shouting will not make the point any clearer.
 
zyzygy said:
Shouting will not make the point any clearer.
Click to expand...
THIS IS NOT SHOUTING. This is shouting, and for many decades newspapers have been using large font sizes to shout. Meanwhile, once upon a time personal computers could not display lowercase letters at all, and no one who had significant experience of that time considers all-upper-case to be shouting. It is just another way to stress text, and in some circumstances is the simplest way for stress to survive various automatic text-manipulations, like the italicizing that happens when you quote something here --any italicized original text gets its stress lost in the quote.
 
Last edited:
I will go on the record here as stating that I do not want rescuers to save my severed head. I refuse to be one of those heads in a jar like on Futurama.
 
Deuce said:
I will go on the record here as stating that I do not want rescuers to save my severed head. I refuse to be one of those heads in a jar like on Futurama.
Click to expand...
PERHAPS YOU CONSIDER SUCH A FATE AS "WORSE THAN DEATH", but what if it was only temporary? A certain amount of research into doing head transplants has been in the news recently (the donor body would come from a brain-dead adult on life-support), and one of the ultimate goals of modern stem-cell research is to figure out how to regenerate lost body parts, like arms and legs --and if that can be done, what about regenerating the whole rest of the body, from the neck down?
 
FutureIncoming said:
A STUPID LIE. My exact words from the Original Post are:

Because the word "open" is inside quotation marks, it doesn't mean what your Stupid Lie wants readers to think. It merely means I was making-public some of my writings, writing that exists on my computer, writing that had been printed out and (as stated in the OP) mailed to Gorsuch weeks ago. It is now an "open letter" rather than an only an ordinary letter.
Click to expand...

Then you deceived us all. You did not open the guy's letter.

You displayed a letter that you wrote to the public.

Simple English...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Then you deceived us all. You did not open the guy's letter.
Click to expand...
I PROVIDED FAIR NOTICE ABOUT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. By enclosing the word "open" in quote-marks, **and** by explaining in the OP what I meant by that. It is not my fault that you chose to ignore both the quotes and the explanation!
 
FutureIncoming said:
I PROVIDED FAIR NOTICE ABOUT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. By enclosing the word "open" in quote-marks, **and** by explaining in the OP what I meant by that. It is not my fault that you chose to ignore both the quotes and the explanation!
Click to expand...

Why are you shouting? Relax. You chose to write in a deceitful manner... I merely noticed it. *shrugs*
 
FutureIncoming said:
SEE ABOVE. Proof of the existence of Jesus is not the same thing as proof of the existence of God.

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!!
Click to expand...

What would you know; you haven't really studied it. Jesus prophesied his own resurrection and said HE would raise himself from the dead (John 2:19).

And whenever you feel like you can bust the resurrection, then make my day.
 
FutureIncoming said:
AMAZING. How is it that after it is fully explained how abortion fails to qualify as "murder", the person who received the explanation repeats the claim, or a variant of the claim, like a mindless broken record? ARE you mindless? Do you lack a capacity to absorb and understand new information? Or do you simply think that Objectively Verifiable Facts are inferior to Ignorance and Stupidity?
Click to expand...

You're asking ME that? ROTFLOL. Here's your problem:

"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them." - 1 Corinthians 2:14
 
Logicman said:
What would you know; you haven't really studied it. Jesus prophesied his own resurrection and said HE would raise himself from the dead (John 2:19).
Click to expand...
AND THE MERE CLAIM DOES NOT MEAN IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. And even if it did happen, that doesn't prove God had anything to do with it.

Logicman said:
And whenever you feel like you can bust the resurrection, then make my day.
Click to expand...
IN DEBATE, THERE IS NEVER A NEED TO PROVE A NEGATIVE CLAIM. Only positive claims need to be proved. Like the positive claim that Jesus was more than just an educated and skilled human being.
 
Logicman said:
You're asking ME that? ROTFLOL. Here's your problem:
Click to expand...
YOUR OPINION IS NOT THE SAME THING AS FACT. Especially when you continue to fail to present any Objectively Verifiable Evidence to support your claims!

Logicman said:
"The person without the Spirit
Click to expand...
ACCORDING TO STANDARD RELIGIOUS CLAIMS, THERE IS NO SUCH PERSON. Every living person has a soul (or even "IS a soul"). And since souls are considered to be exactly as "Spiritual" as God, in their manner of existence....

Logicman said:
does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God
Click to expand...
WE HAVE FREE WILL. And according to Quantum Mechanics, we don't need souls to have Free Will. Having Free Will lets us choose all sorts of things over other things.
MORE, I notice you don't specify how to **identify** "things that come from the Spirit of God".... Tsk, tsk! Why should we accept someone's mere unsupported **claims** that "this came from the Spirit of God" and "this did not come from the Spirit of God"????

Logicman said:
but considers them foolishness,
Click to expand...
NOT NECESSARY. See above. If "things that come from the Spirit of God" cannot be accurately identified, then because it is so easy to lie, it is also easy to refuse to believe claims that cannot be distinguished from lies. The concept of "foolishness" doesn't have to be involved at all.

Logicman said:
and cannot understand them." - 1 Corinthians 2:14
Click to expand...
SEE ABOVE. Since your source is linking "foolishness" with "lack of understanding", It Logically Follows that if foolishness is not involved, then understanding can still happen.
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
Yes. You tried to explain your foot out of your mouth but failed...
Click to expand...
YOUR MERE UNSUPPORTED POSITIVE CLAIM IS AS WORTHLESS AS THE UNSUPPORTED POSITIVE CLAIMS OF JAMESBY. Tsk, tsk!

Bodhisattva said:
...and why are you linking me to page for of that thread?
Click to expand...
THE LINK IS FOR #37 OF THIS THREAD. And it works fine when I click on it.
 
FutureIncoming said:
YOUR MERE UNSUPPORTED POSITIVE CLAIM IS AS WORTHLESS AS THE UNSUPPORTED POSITIVE CLAIMS OF JAMESBY. Tsk, tsk!


THE LINK IS FOR #37 OF THIS THREAD. And it works fine when I click on it.
Click to expand...

Topic fail...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom