View Single Post
Old 02-23-2009, 09:58 PM   #43
SkinWalker's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
No, I'm calling it for what it is or would you care to explain the fact schools are starting to get sued for discrimination against Conservatives.
Would I care to explain irrelevant links to irrelevant and frivolous lawsuits? Sure. The explanation is that the plaintiffs are possibly just crybabies. The fact that some whiny individuals are so full of themselves that the institutions of higher learning aren't tolerant of their ignorance is laughable. In fact, I'd like to thank you for the links, I haven't had a good laugh like this in a while!

So don't tell me I'm making it up, oh and each of these sources are referring to seperate cases.
hehe... you clearly didn't read your own "sources" (scare quotes intentional). At least two are the same case and another might be the same frivolous case you link to later in this post.

See my sources above
Ha! I did! Thanks!

And I consider some of what you have said to be outright flamebait, if I were a muslim and you were bashing the muslim faith you'd be up for a lawsuit about now.
Uh. Nope. I can dis Allah and Muhammad all day long and there would be no threat of law suit. Indeed, Islam is just as much a superstition as Christianity -cult followers of both allow irrational thought to cloud reason.

Then why are you trying to paint Christians as just being a bunch of uneducated people.
Please. Get my assertions correct. "[U]neducated" implies a lack of education. What I'm asserting is just what I said: the lower an IQ is the more likely to be conservative and, apparently, religious. The data are clear and empirical but instead of dealing with data sets you choose to create straw man arguments. You're arguing with fallacious reasoning rather than critical thought, demonstrating my assertion with every single post. Good work.

And the correlation between educational institutions and discrimination of Conservatives cannot be ignored either. It took me 30 seconds to find 4 seperate lawsuits.
Actually, anyone of sound and reasoned mind would likely ignore these "sources" you've cited. Two are of a disgruntled former student who didn't get hired by the university. Duh. Lots of people don't get hired. She'll get over it. Link to us the article that announces a judge and/or jury sided with the plaintiff on this one, buddy. Two of the others are in regards to superstitious and backwards high schools and educators upset because real institutions of learning are not willing to allow credit for learning mythology and claiming it to be science. Duh. Hats off to the California universities. Anyone who transfers from so-called christian colleges where that nonsense is taught also shouldn't get transfer credits and also be required to take remedial coursework to get up to speed.

So, again, you've made my point for me. If anyone doubted the challenges of religious conservatives to educate themselves, you've helped clarify it.

And you're wondering why the hell I'm considering what you're saying is flamebait.
No. I'm not wondering that at all. Your core beliefs and preconceived notions are being challenged by my words. I question the very conclusions you accept blindly and without question. Conclusions to which you consider only that data which are supportive. To someone like you, words like mine are very clearly "flamebait." In the context of this forum and the topics being questioned, discussed, and debated, however, they are not. Discourse in this area could not proceed without these words.

You do realize that there are quite a few scientists including Stephen Hawkins that believe in God, as Mark Twain said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Stephen Hawking's "god" -he's often misquoted by under-educated believers (please note that "under" is not synonymous with "un").

Mark Twain also said, "Faith is believing in that which you know ain't so." Do you really want to go head-to-head with quoting atheists and non-religious with me regarding the superstitions of religion.

Religious Conservatives tend to be happier because they believe in God and believe there is a purpose to their lives, if you go from the aethiest viewpoint, life has no purpose.
This is an argument from ignorance. You're not an atheist, so you have no idea what atheists believe. I was once a theist -raised in a culture that gave a priori acceptance of the god myth. I can honestly say that my life has great purpose: to live; to love; to leave a legacy. I enjoy living today. I don't torment myself over what might be in some alleged and speculative afterlife that can never be known -I live for now and to make the world a better place for my descendants and my neighbors, which includes you.

That's also why Conservatives are more charitible as to the deliberate goading that conservatives don't care about discrimination, that is complete and total garbage.
Hey, it wasn't *my* study. The data are available for you to look at. Perhaps religious conservatives are more charitable because they seek status among their peers and find it through public displays of piety. Personally, I don't care what the means are, the ends are enough. If you think your god wants you to feed the homeless and provide drug counseling to teens, knock yourself out -just don't require these people to convert to your superstition or I'm going to have something to say about your "charity." (I using "you" in the general sense here).

Again, you are using data that is biased, as demonstrated in the above articles I found.
You haven't demonstrated that the data are biased. You haven't even demonstrated that the institutions that the data originate from are biased. Even if the institution was biased, applying guilt by association to the researchers who happen to work at the institution and who have made their methodologies transparent and available for peer review is a very, very fallacious argument and underscores a deficit in your education. This isn't a bad thing, but if you insist on continuing to debate such topics, it may benefit you to obtain some education in the fields as well as the general field of philosophy where it pertains to critical reasoning and logic.

If this argument were in the reverse I would be in a discrimination lawsuit right now and would have the ACLU would be trying to silence me. Seriously, what you're saying is outrageous.

Explains why various members of the scientific community and academia are being sued.
It explains only that, in the United States, there is a right to civil action via the court system. Show us the case citations to the suits where the plaintiffs were awarded damages. Then you might have something for discussion.

Or maybe your scientific studies have tainted data due to wanton bias. Ever heard selectively sampling to skew results.
Sure. Its possible. The data are available for review. I eagerly await your analyses.

Or maybe Tommy has it right and you have it wrong.
It doesn't appear so, but I suppose its possible. I eagerly await your analysis of the data.

Look at election polling data much?
Not much. No. I detest politics and politicians. Liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans -they're all the same to me: sqwaking hens crying about this and that, looking for power and status... meh.

Oh the source that you used that Tommycat protests, well the University of California is subject to a lawsuit for discriminating against Christians.

Unbiased source it is not.
HA! You're not serious! Are you? You're saying that a bunch of religious nuts sore that their myths and superstitions aren't getting accepted as science by universities where real educations are obtained is evidence that *my* citation is biased? Cool. I'm liking you more and more.

One things for sure, there'll always be something to talk about in the Senate as long as you're posting here.

A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,