Thread: Missouri public school bans Kurt Vonnegut's 'Slaughterhouse Five'.
View Single Post
Old 08-03-2011, 01:35 PM   #240
EatingPie
Blueberry!
EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.
 
EatingPie's Avatar
 
Posts: 888
Karma: 133343
Join Date: Mar 2007
Device: Sony PRS-500 (RIP); PRS-600 (Good Riddance); PRS-505; PRS-650; PRS-350
Quote:
Originally Posted by anamardoll View Post
Is it possible, perhaps, that you do not understand that sometimes people say one thing when they mean another?
The only thing I dislike in any discussion is people putting words in my mouth, or speculating about what I "understand." This is the second time it's happened in this thread. If I'm not clear, please ask me a question, and please please do not speculate on my internal state of mind.

Quote:
I'm somewhat vaguely astonished at the stance you're taking. I have to assume that you believe everything every politician has ever said, ever. Because they wouldn't SAY it if it wasn't TRUE. How does one live like that? I'm genuinely curious.
This suggests that you have missed my point entirely.

What evidence do you have the politician is being disingenuous in their quote? No evidence yet presented bears any of that out. Comments have attacked them for deciding on "religious" grounds. Okay, how do you know they did that? Can you present evidence that shows this to be the case?

The only evidence presented (prior to the Google links) are the quotes from the article. The article specifically states the decision was not religious. Yes, that statement could be a lie, but what evidence do you have that it is? None. So we go off complaining about religious bias with nothing to back it up.

That is an unreasoned position to take. It boils down to nothing short of a witch hunt, since it is a completely baseless accusation with absolutely no substantive evidence or proof to support it.

Or to attack it purely on logical grounds, the religious argument relies entirely on a fallacious position: "Some Politicians lie (true), therefore this politician is lie-ing. (QED?)"

Case in point:
Quote:
How do you pick a political party, or -- for that matter -- a religion, if you believe that everything anyone says is true and unassailable? How do you deal with the inherent contradictions that arise? I'm flabbergasted.
First, in terms of Christianity, there are no "inherent contradictions," which is one reason to believe it's true (I'm not talking about what some person says about Christianity, I'm talking Christian philosophy and the Bible itself). In terms of politicians (or statements made by Christians), that is a question beyond the scope of this thread, and as I stated above, does not contribute to this discussion because it merely builds a logical fallacy.

OTOH, I have illustrated that the statements made regarding language were truthful. They stated use of something akin to a movie rating system, and Slaughterhouse Five is demonstrably R-rated. This shows that they are telling the truth.

-Pie
EatingPie is offline