Skip to main content

View Diary: What An Atheist Reveres (61 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, the commenter presented this picture, (0+ / 0-)

    encapsulated in the "Live and let live" phrase, as if it were universal, let alone common. Calling bullshit on that theory requires that a descriptor be used to denote that group for whom it is alleged but vastly far from universally true.

    That is tarring nobody with  nothing because it does not attack or denigrate them and because it does not say all are or behave the same.

    So here's something else you can whine about, thought the priveleged class, a shitload of them are constantly whining and claiming that they are being persecuted.

    I said nothing about you, so I decline your invitation, and I invite you to lose the creative reading habit and discuss wht people say, not what you choose to impute to them if you wish me to take you seriously.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:01:48 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  False. (0+ / 0-)
      I said nothing about you
      You said "the religious" and that is a group that includes me.  I don't know how you can claim it doesn't.

      It takes no creative reading to take it personally when I am a member of the group you are talking about.

      It does, however, take a considerable amount of creative reading to think that the commenter who said "live and let live" was ascribing that phrase to anyone but him/herself.  It's not a religious tenet and has never been claimed as one.

      •  Find the word "all", and paste the quote. (0+ / 0-)

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 09:08:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is clear that "all" or "most" is intended (0+ / 0-)

          when no qualifier is added.  It is also apparent when the discussion begins with:

          If only 1/10th of the religious really believed that and acted upon it
          and later includes
          IOW, I'll believe it when I see it.
          •  Yes, I clearly imply "not all", ergo "all", nice (0+ / 0-)

            creative reading. If you ever feel like discussing something I actually have said, let me know, but you're just wasting my time with that phony "help, I'm being oppressed" shit. Do you really not know what a tenth is? Bye.

            That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

            by enhydra lutris on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 09:56:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not being oppressed, I'm being insulted. (0+ / 0-)

              And misrepresented.  Since you don't have any actual power over me, that isn't oppression.  I'm quite clear on the difference.

              Tell me: in your language, does "if only 1/10th of X did" mean something other than "not even 1/10th of X does" and therefore "all or most X do not"?  Does "I'll believe it when I see it" mean something other than "I have never seen it"?

              Did you mean "if only more than 1/10th did"?  Because now would be an excellent time to say so.

              •  No, as with the rest of this thread, you are (0+ / 0-)

                standing things on their head. I am the one being misrepresented. You are simply playing that tired, tiresome, sorry ass "look, look, the non-religious are attacking me" horseshit game.

                Had I said "ANY" instead of 1/10th, then you could've extrapolated "all", but since I clearly said 1/110th, you could not. That, of course did not and cannot stop you because your case  is based on a predetermination that you are being attacked, no matter how much creative reading and wilfull misinterpretation it takes to make that case.

                Tell me: in your language, does "if only 1/10th of X did" mean something other than "not even 1/10th of X does" and therefore "all or most X do not"?  Does "I'll believe it when I see it" mean something other than "I have never seen it"?
                I see, "If only one tenth did" means "none do". Can't you see how stupid and farfetched that is?
                Did you mean "if only more than 1/10th did"?  Because now would be an excellent time to say so.
                Nice try, but I am not going to change my language which was perfectly clear to those not trying to wilfully misrepresent me simply so as to gie the appearance that there was some basis for your ludicrous horseshit.

                That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                by enhydra lutris on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 11:40:16 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Don't be so surprised... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              enhydra lutris, Troubadour

              when a theist sees things that are not there. ;)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site