Ethered
by matt at 6:00 am on June 19th, 2006 in Iraq War, Religious Right / ExtremistsBecause this absurd argument has gone on for way too long after the winning side was clear, it’s time to end it.
Flag-draped caskets containing returning soldiers can’t be photographed. Stated reason: privacy. Feel free to identify any of the fallen in this or any other photo:
Secondary reason: Mean lefties will use the photos for political ends.
Real reason: It’s political, all right, political cover for the administration.
When is it OK to use death objects for propaganda? Oh, right:
sarabeth wrote:
Third row, far right: I’m pretty sure that one is “Truth-telling by the Bush Administration in the Time of War”.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 6:09 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Who cares about respect anymore as long as the “me” crowd gets their way….and for the record matt, Jesus wanted the world to know of His death on the cross, so if you can get a soldier to put it in writing that he wants his flag drapped casket photographed and used by the anti-war crowd to fight the war, then have at it!!!
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 7:52 am ¶
matt wrote:
fortunately for sane people everywhere, that’s not the standard.
let’s not forget: anti-war crowd = majority
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 8:02 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
I believe all of the forms were signed. They were in our employ when they expired.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 8:04 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Will someone ask this bloke if he’s willing to stipulate that Cindy Sheehan’s son would have answered YES if he had been asked if he would put it in writing that his flag draped casket could be “photographed and used by the anti-war crowd to fight the war”?
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 8:10 am ¶
jamie wrote:
“Jesus wanted the world to know of His death on the cross,”
PROVE IT. Bible = written by man. Anyone who claims to know what Jesus wanted, as opposed to what men wanted people to think Jesus wanted is smoking something I want!
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 8:16 am ¶
JimC wrote:
lol, ok Nick, you go down to the local Army base and start giving them orders…let’s see how far you get…
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 9:33 am ¶
JimC wrote:
How do you know this? His father said he served proudly, in fact his father’s family were against Cindy’s actions….
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 9:34 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Well, if you want to get into a theological discussion again, fine, but you claim the Bible was written by man, I claim the Bible was authored by God and only penned by men…either way, we have the Bible that tells us of Jesus and this Bible tells us He wanted us to tell the whole world, so really the burden is on you to prove otherwise…
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 9:36 am ¶
matt wrote:
HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA. finally, a burden of proof is on the record.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 9:39 am ¶
JimC wrote:
What exactly are you celebrating now? Have you proved the Bible to be in fact not God inspired? if so, there is a bunch of atheists waiting to see your proof…
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 9:42 am ¶
jamie wrote:
no, i believe the burden is on you to prove the existence of god which is a necessary component to your argument which has yet to be proved by anyone, let alone you. again, doesn’t it get old being wrong all the time? and i’m not talking about theology when I say that, i’m merely talking about basic high school logic which seems once again to escape you. you didn’t do very well in debate club, did you?
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 9:43 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Oh Jamie…try as you might to seem so superior….when 90% of the world believes in some sort of super natural being, 80% of Americans claiming to be Christian, I do beleive the burden is in fact on you…
As for the logic, I’m a software engineer, deary, I deal in logic for a living and I’m told that I am quite good at it…
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 9:45 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
This isn’t about orders, big guy. This is about the fact that our tax dollars are in their paychecks. Anything done by the government (or the military, being an organ of gov’t) is done in our name, with our money whether you’re a general, a grunt or an intern under a desk in the Oval Office. That is more than enough justification to see what is done, why and the results–no matter who gets touchy about it.
And at least the deceased aren’t practically naked. Pervs.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 9:53 am ¶
matt wrote:
are we back to believing in polls. i can’t keep track really
mrs jim c excepted, let’s not get carried away. the only thing you seem to be “quite good at” is willful ignorance.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 9:55 am ¶
JimC wrote:
We’ve gone down this road before, we elect our government to run the military, that’s where our power ends…if you can petition the government and/or the judicial system to get change done, then so be it, until then, the people who were elected are in charge….
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 9:57 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Hey that’s what Peter Jennings told me in a report about religion he did a while back…
Ok meow…sure thing. Using your gauge for what determines what “good” is, anything you rail against I must concldue I’m doing very well at…
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:02 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
There you have it, folks. Your power begins and ends on the first Tuesday of November, each year. You might have an opinion, but don’t you dare express it outside of that voting booth. Just abdicate responsibility right there and go pray.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:03 am ¶
jamie wrote:
“Oh Jamie…try as you might to seem so superior….when 90% of the world believes in some sort of super natural being, 80% of Americans claiming to be Christian, I do believe the burden is in fact on you…”
So you believe that if a lot of people believe something, it is, by that measure alone, true? You are positing that Belief = Fact? Well, this is further proof that this argument is a lost cause as your logic skills, not matter how many people tell you that you are a good programmer, suck.
And where is it exactly in this string of comments that I am “seeming superior”? Proof of that would be helpful as well. And calling someone “deary” is embarrassing . . for you.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:05 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I didn’t ever say that belief equals fact, however generally when the overwhelming majority does believe somehting to be fact, it is logically up to the minority to prove otherwise…
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:09 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Ah, but we don’t only have the Bible that tells us of Jesus, do we, brother? We also have the Koran that tells us of Jesus.
And, of course, there’s always The Da Vinci Code, which may or may not be more fictional than the Bible.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:09 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Nick read that again, I said you can petition the goverment or judicial systems but that does not mean you will get your way…
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:10 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
You, of course, have proved that it is, right?
How about the burden of proof is on you, too, genius?
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:11 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out, and if you actually have studied the history behind either then you might not have posted this comment. The Koran was conceived long after Christians were well established, in fact Muhammed did not live until 600 years after Christ died, and the Koran was largely passed on verbally thereafter.
The Da Vinci code is largely based on a transcribing error, I believe it was San Greal was misscribed as Sang Real which started the whole Holy Bloodline mythos…
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:13 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Lies, damned lies, statistics. And they there’s “numbers pulled out of a hat, very logically mind you, by Jimbo”.
You don’t even have enough logic to understand that the logic it takes to write a computer program is different from the logic that is required to have an intelligent discussion, do you?
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:15 am ¶
jamie wrote:
“I didn’t ever say that belief equals fact, however generally when the overwhelming majority does believe something to be fact, it is logically up to the minority to prove otherwise…”
No, apparently the minority can just sit back and laugh. But that tactic aside, the beautiful thing about belief is that it doesn’t require proof. If however you want to convince someone of something, using “belief” when dealing with non-believers will not get you very far. It’s logic, baby, and yours still sucks.
Still looking for proof of my “seeming superiority,” from this string that is. Other evidence is out there, but I wouldn’t expect you to track it down.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:18 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Peter Jennings told me? You personally, huh? Wow!
What a poor and paltry delusionality! He hears voices in his head. Who can it be? God? Joan of Arc? Napoleon? Alien astronauts? No, it’s just Peter Jennings.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:19 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
I saw that, my good queen. However, you can say only one thing, here, without contradicting yourself:
I see that my power ended in that quote, but somehow IF…IF I can petition the government…You seemed to be saying I could not. You see, I haven’t read all of Patriot II, yet, so let’s be clear about what I CAN DO.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:22 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Logically? By what logic, pray?
And, of course, this does not apply to the validity and wisdom of the war on Iraq? It did, but only as long as the majority supported it?
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:23 am ¶
JimC wrote:
lol, you can’t even see that I was being a little cheekish about that, Peter was a liberal, he did a special on religion on TV, which I watched and in this report statetd the figures I mentioned above to the best of my recollection…but if it makes you feel bigger to make fun of me somehow, then have at it…
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:24 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
Can’t be Joan of Arc, she’s French.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:26 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Forget it…obviously the large egos are too much to see around…
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:28 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
And how does that, logically, make it any less reliable as an account of who Jesus was and what he did?
The fact that for centuries before Mohammed arrived on the scene, the Bible was polished and massaged by people who have zero claim to objectivity, that makes it more reliable, huh?
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:31 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
Hold your breath folks, you may get a bible-thumpin’ Protestant to say a good thing about the Catholic Church, yet…
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:33 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
We all know that every Christian computer programmer has french fantasies.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:38 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
So that would be the logic of evasion and obfuscation?
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:40 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I’m not anti-Catholic, nor am I pro-protestant, I’m pro-Bible, if it isn’t in the Bible, then it is not fit for doctrine…I consider Catholics Christians just as much as I consider Baptists Christians, its not which church you belong to but that which is in your heart and your relationship with Christ. I have big problems with a lot of Catholic doctrines, but does that negate the Catholic church, no…just as Paul called the errant churches bretheren, I too still call Catholics bretheren…I’m not into Catholic bashing at all, Nick, so no need to try to bait me, there are those in any given Baptist church who are false converts just as there are in any given Catholic church…
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:51 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
So you’re saying they did a good job as stewards of scripture?
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 10:53 am ¶
sac wrote:
Are you guys really arguing religion? Pointless.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 11:01 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Yes, we should really argue abortion instead.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 11:05 am ¶
sac wrote:
No need, I already solved that one a few months ago, remember?
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 11:22 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
Not arguing. Playing.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 11:30 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
In my book, the definition of a good argument is that it can be re-started anytime, on cue, regardless of past outcomes.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 1:15 pm ¶
sac wrote:
So you agree on the mutability of perspectives? Excellent.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 1:22 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I might, if I knew what it meant.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 1:38 pm ¶
matt wrote:
it means flip flopper
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 1:40 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Re-starting a good argument may, but doesn’t have to, involve flip-flopping.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 1:42 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Sans new evidence, it means flip-flopping. Which I endorse wholeheartedly. It means you’re thinking. Which GW is incapable of.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 1:45 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
But he’s more than capable of flip-flopping. So where does that leave us now?
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 1:50 pm ¶
sac wrote:
I think it means I win. Again.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 2:12 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
And is that your final answer, or do you want to take this opportunity to mutate your perspective?
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 2:47 pm ¶
sac wrote:
My perspective is always “I win.” Lucky me.
Posted 20 Jun 2006 at 7:05 am ¶