ACLU Post Series, Part 2: Two Cases To Mull Over
Case #1 The ACLU vs "Jingle Bells"
The ACLU, along with the Anti-Defamation League, sent a letter to a Rhode Island school board threatening to bring a lawsuit if the school did not remove religious musical selections from a holiday concert. The letter was sent after the parents of two Jewish students said that the religious content of the musical program causes Jewish students to "no longer feel safe or welcome there." Some sources reported that the ACLU/ADL letter demanded removal of all Christmas-related music, including secular songs such as "Jingle Bells."
Point
Contributed by Citizen F
The ACLU said that the school should remove all references to Christmas, religious or secular, including songs such as "Jingle Bells". The ADL also contributed to the threat. When asked for comment, Rabbi Daniel Lapin is reported to have said, “The ACLU is already notorious for its rabid hostility toward America's Judeo-Christian tradition, but the Anti-Defamation League, originally founded to defend Jews, should know better.” I agree.
Counterpoint
Zombiedeathkoala
The first problem with this case is that there isn't a case. This article does not discuss any legal action filed by the ACLU, nor was I able to find a case number or name in the database of ACLU cases. Instead, the story describes a letter that was aparently sent to the school board by the Anti-Defamation League and the ACLU after two Jewish students complained about the religious content of a holiday pagent. The ACLU didn't sue, nor did the ADL as far as I can tell, so we've got no court records or official documentation to refer to on this one.
The second problem is that World Net Daily (along with many other Christian publications) reported that the ACLU/ADL letter threatened the school unless they removed all mention of Christmas from the program, including secular songs like "Jingle Bells," but the Washington Times reported that the letter from the ADF and ACLU only requested removal of the "religious songs" from the holiday concert. Since the text of the letter is nowhere to be found, I'm inclined to trust the source that doesn't feature regular columns by Jerry Falwell. This leads me to believe that the ACLU and ADL were rightfully telling the school to knock it off with the religious music.
The third problem is that the school in question has a history of inappropriate religious proselytizing. For example, in 2002 a teacher at the school showed a creationism video that warned students, "the only way to be saved from the next flood is to accept Jesus Christ as your savior." While not directly applicable to the trouble over the 2003 musical pagent, this does lend credibility to the side of the Jewish students who said they were made to feel unwelcome.
On the whole, I do not think this incident constitutes evidence of ACLU actions that would violate the rights of Christian citizens or Christmas-celebrating citizens, though I must admit that the limited information makes it difficult to say for certain. Call it a draw?
Case #2: The ACLU vs The Festive Lawn of City Hall
On December 22, 2003, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a resident of Cranston, RI, who wished to challenge the life-sized nativity scene and menorah erected in front of Cranston City Hall. Mayor Stephen Laffey had personally approved the displays, and then subsequently declared the City Hall lawn a "limited public forum open for the purpose of appropriate seasonal and holiday displays" from December 5 to January 1.
Point
Citizen F
The ACLU argued that it was unconstitutional for the city government to allow private citizens to construct Christmas displays on public property. The citizens could construct any display they chose. Some chose religious displays, some chose secular displays. This is ridiculous. Is it unconstitutional for the city to grant permission for a religious organization to hold a party in a public park where they set up temporary decorations praising Allah? This is clearly free speech. How can one possibly conclude that this is a religious endorsement?
Counterpoint
Zombiedeathkoala
Well, right off the bat it seems pretty clear to me that a mayor shouldn't be in the business of approving religious decorations for the lawn of City Hall. I do approve of the way the mayor tried to cover his ass by declaring the "limited public forum" during the time period that just happens to coincide with the Christian holiday season (Hanukah sometimes begins in November, so I guess even the Jews would be out of luck in those years). I especially like how, after receiving complaints about the religious content of the displays, the mayor then approved the erection of a display that included 15 flamingos in Santa Claus hats representing the "Church of the Flamingos." Now there's some quality backpedaling.
Of course, this is very clearly not a case of the ACLU targetting Christmas or Christianity, since the suit was filed after the mayor had erected a nativity scene and a menorah. As far as I am concerned, this seems to be yet another situation in which the ACLU should have stood aside and allowed the government to trivialize religion.
33 Comments:
Didn't you hear him? The ACLU is anti-Christian! You're the neo-Illuminati. Acting against the menorah was just as much a sneaky feint as acting against Skoki's ban on Nazis.
In regards to the "Jingle Bells" case, the Washington Times doesn't specifically say the ACLU 'only requested removal of the "religious songs"'. It said that the ACLU and ADL threatened to sue for not cutting religious songs, but it did not indicate whether secular songs were objectable. The WT did not contradict the claim made by World Net Daily and the Alliance Defense Fund that secular Christmas songs were attacked. While the ADF and WND are biased, I have no evidence that they make up facts. Can you provide support for your position that the ADF and WND are could be lying about the facts? Are you aware of any flat-out misstatements of facts that both organizations have made that would lead you to believe they would blatantly lie about this? If not, I think it's fair to assume that it is likely that secular songs were included in the letter. If that is assumed, then Christmas was indeed attacked.
CF
Aleks,
Would you care to submit an opinion on this issue supported by facts or evidence? I doubt you'll "shut up", but maybe you could at least "put up".
CF
CF: Maybe we're looking at different WT articles? I dunno. At any rate, I never said that WND and ADF lied, I just pointed out that their interpretation of events was different from one presented by a slightly less biased source. This case was represented as the ACLU versus "Jingle Bells" by both WND and yourself, yet I have no evidence for the claim that the ACLU claim objected to secular musical selections other than what WND and the ADF printed. The WT gave no indication whatsoever of that angle, instead presenting this as a case in which the ACLU opposed religious music, and it seems that the MSM would have been quick to pounce on a case in which "Jingle Bells" really was being attacked...it's just too perfect a tagline.
Let me put it to you another way: YOU are the one making an assertion (that the ACLU was attacking secular musical selections), and therefore the burden of proof is on YOU. If the only sources you can find to support your position are WND and the ADF...well, I guess it will be up to the readers to decide if they find those sources credible.
As for evidence that WND and the ADF are prone to misrepresentation of facts...never you fear! One of the upcoming portions of this series will cover that very topic.
ZDK,
I cannot find factual inaccuracies on the websites of either group, but I admit I didn't spend hours looking. I have two biased sources saying that all Christians songs were forbidden. I also have the leader of Toward Tradition, Rabbi Ladin, taking a position against the ADL, which deflates the claims that the school was truly harming Jewish students. You don't have any sources saying "only" the religious songs were forbidden, but do have the most credible source and that source (inexplicably) didn't mention secular songs. As you said, people have to draw their own conclusions. Neither of us can prove our point beyond a shadow of a doubt.
CF
Facts and evidence as hypocritically demanded: "The question is whether this is an example of how the ACLU is anti-Christian, not whether the ACLU infringed on any rights."
CF, December 9 thread. Always happy to set a good example.
You've been here well over a year now, are you ever planning on getting around to providing some facts or evidence on your claims? Any of them, but how about Iraq in particular? You might not have the facts or the brains, but you certainly can't say you haven't had the time. You claim to be well informed, "intelligent", and unencumbered by the alleged prejudice and mysterious "talking points" that take the place of intellectual process in us "sheep", so what have you been right about, or even intelligent about? Why is your self-image so utterly divorced from your performance on every single issue? Obviously that's rhetorical in the sense that I think the answer's pretty plain, but it might do you a lot of good to think about. But you won't, as you avoid honest self-criticism like you avoid facts, and for the same reason. But whoever decided your self-esteem was the most important thing and helped you build that huge and unsupported ego set you up to be a laughingstock.
CF:
Did you even bother to read what I originally posted? I SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DECIDE EITHER WAY. I specifically stated that we should probably call this one a "draw" because it's a situation entirely based on hearsay. We've got no record of the actual letter and thus no way to determine what actually happened.
Please keep your eye on the prize: YOU are trying to defend YOUR statement that the ACLU is infringing on the rights of Christians and/or Christmas celebrators. Do you really want to be wasting your time debating a case that I already stated should be considered neutral due to lack of solid evidence?
Oh, and just FYI: I didn't spend "hours" looking for misrepresentations about the ACLU by WND and the ADF. It actually was one of the shortest "research" efforts I've ever made...I didn't time myself, but I know that I found enough material for a post between the first and second commercial breaks in The Simpsons. If you actually had any interest in checking into this, I'm confident that you would be able to do so without any trouble.
Which Simpsons?
CF,
Do you have the integrity to admit that this makes the World Net Daily and the Alliance Defense Fund your "source of news" as you said of Media Matters and myself? Obviously there's a difference, in that I referred not to any words of Media Matters' but only to the video clips they posted of O'Reilly's words whereas you are taking ADF and WND's claims as true, but out of pity I will ask only if you consider them your "source of news".
*clarification: I did also use MM's own words, as their own words, on another point (O'Reilly calling people "coward" for refusing to come on his show and then refusing to allow them on his show). But since MM obviously was saying what it said it was saying, that does not mean I assumed any credibility, even though both of your claims against MM have proven to be as false as your claims against Author and myself. So do you have the integrity to call World Net Daily and Alliance Defense Fund your own "source of news"?
ZDK said:
"Did you even bother to read what I originally posted? I SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DECIDE EITHER WAY."
I know...that's why I said, "***As you said***, people have to draw their own conclusions. Neither of us can prove our point beyond a shadow of a doubt." I just wanted to rephrase my points and that I agree that the ADF and WND are not credible enough to be the sole sources for this information. It was probably redundant so I'm guessing that's why you may have missed the "as you said" portion of my statement. Sorry about that.
CF
So you don't have the integrity to admit that you used the Alliance Defense Fund and the World Net Daily as your "source of news" to a greater degree than I ever used Media Matters. I'm shocked, shocked.
ZDK,
Also, I will not vouch for the credibility of either of those organizations and when I said I didn't spend hours, I should have said, "didn't go out of my way to find inaccuracies." I didn't do any thorough digging that I would normally do to use something as a trusted source. They are just organizations with opinions. I'm looking forward to your discussion that provides those inaccuracies.
As for the burden of proof, I understand your point. To be honest, I didn't enter this discussion regarding the ACLU with the understanding that it was my responsibility to prove that the ACLU was anti-Christmas. I responded to a general request for opinions and some documented ACLU positions to support that opinion. I wasn't trying to change your mind or anyone elses. If you want to change my mind, the burden of proof is on you. I was contributing to a discussion. I didn't even realize my points would be posted on the main page of your site. I hope the points I made were at least worthy of that honor, but that wasn't their intention. I hope you at least feel that I made an effort to support my point of view with documented facts and evidence, rather than just ranting about my opinion. In other words, I hope I at least "put up", even if I didn't prove anything.
CF
Aleks,
Of course I'll admit that WND was a source of mine! I sited them in a discussion. I pointed out that they were biased and potentially not credible, but I definitely used their site as a source for the anti-ACLU opinion. Of course I'll admit that because that's exactly what they were. Are you ready to admit that MM was a source for you?
As for your evidence, what are you talking about? How does that relate to the ACLU? What is your opinion on whether they infringe upon the rights of those trying to celebrate Christmas? What is that post evidence of?
CF
==Of course I'll admit that WND was a source of mine! I sited them in a discussion. I pointed out that they were biased and potentially not credible, but I definitely used their site as a source for the anti-ACLU opinion. Of course I'll admit that because that's exactly what they were. Are you ready to admit that MM was a source for you?==
Wolf,
Why don't you have the integrity to call it your "source of news" as requested, since you called Media Matters mine when I didn't use them in any way that depended on their credibility, unlike your use of the World Net Daily and the Alliance Defense Fund? Does it bother you at all that your performance is the opposite of your self image?
I've never declined to "admit" that MM was a source of video clip regarding the O'Reilly show. For you to pretend otherwise is dishonest and stupidly so.
==As for your evidence, what are you talking about? How does that relate to the ACLU? What is your opinion on whether they infringe upon the rights of those trying to celebrate Christmas? What is that post evidence of?==
You don't see how "The question is whether this is an example of how the ACLU is anti-Christian, not whether the ACLU infringed on any rights" relates to the ACLU?
And as for the ACLU's supposed persecution of Christmas celebrators, I've seen no evidence that they are and you and Mr. O'Reilly don't exactly have a history of being fair, balanced or right about much, so even you should understand why your words on it don't count.
"Why don't you have the integrity to call it your "source of news" as requested"
What's wrong with you. Sure, source of news. I was looking for anti-ACLU opinions. Where do you look for those? Anti-ACLU organizations. I admitted the bias present in those organizations so I didn't vouch for their credibility, I used them to help me summarize the anti-ACLU position.
"You don't see how "The question is whether this is an example of how the ACLU is anti-Christian, not whether the ACLU infringed on any rights" relates to the ACLU?"
No. It's just a quote from me. How did your use of that quote relate to the ACLU?
"And as for the ACLU's supposed persecution of Christmas celebrators, I've seen no evidence that they are..."
FINALLY!!! You gave your opinion on the topic that was being discussed. I had no way of knowing where you stood. Congratulations on having the courage to comment on this topic after all the evidence ZDK presented released any obligation for you to provide any. Thanks for stepping up to the plate to the best of your ability.
CF
=="Why don't you have the integrity to call it your "source of news" as requested"
What's wrong with you. Sure, source of news. I was looking for anti-ACLU opinions. Where do you look for those? Anti-ACLU organizations. I admitted the bias present in those organizations so I didn't vouch for their credibility, I used them to help me summarize the anti-ACLU position.==
The ADF and WND are your "source of news" and you ask what's wrong with me? By the way, did you announce your sources' lack of credibility before Author challenged it?
=="You don't see how "The question is whether this is an example of how the ACLU is anti-Christian, not whether the ACLU infringed on any rights" relates to the ACLU?"
No. It's just a quote from me. How did your use of that quote relate to the ACLU?==
It's not a quote about the ACLU? Or is it a quote about the ACLU that does not relate to the ACLU?
=="And as for the ACLU's supposed persecution of Christmas celebrators, I've seen no evidence that they are..."
FINALLY!!! You gave your opinion on the topic that was being discussed. I had no way of knowing where you stood. Congratulations on having the courage to comment on this topic after all the evidence ZDK presented released any obligation for you to provide any. Thanks for stepping up to the plate to the best of your ability.==
Obligation to provide evidence that no one has presented evidence that the ACLU persecutes Christians? You really have no idea what evidence is, do you? It's just another magic word you repeat over and over without feeling bound by the concept. As for "FINALLY!!!", I've said that I don't have a strong opinion or knowledge base on this issue. That means I don't lecture about it. You're an arrogant idiot, and feel entitled to lecture educated people about topics you know nothing about aside from obviously untrue talking points (don't whine, ask for proof). My intellectual limitations may not be nearly as crippling as yours, but I know that I have some and do not feel obligated to pretend I know things I do not. Obviously if you followed the same ethic you would have just about nothing to say, but imagine how much smarter that would make you. As for "FINALLY!!!", I rendered an opinion on the subject before. But sadly I do think that you're being honest, "to the best of your ability".
Author,
In the interests of standing up for the very, very weak, I'm going to help the wolf-but-not-a- truth-monster out by hitting you with evidence somewhat less ridiculous than his "source of news". See also Stephen Colbert's campaign against humbuggery, the annual work of Bill O'Reilly, etc.
Activist Judge Cancels Christmas
December 14, 2005 | Issue 41•50
WASHINGTON, DC—In a sudden and unexpected blow to the Americans working to protect the holiday, liberal U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt ruled the private celebration of Christmas unconstitutional Monday.
"In accordance with my activist agenda to secularize the nation, this court finds Christmas to be unlawful," Judge Reinhardt said. "The celebration of the birth of the philosopher Jesus—be it in the form of gift-giving, the singing of carols, fanciful decorations, or general good cheer and warm feelings amongst families—is in violation of the First Amendment principles upon which this great nation was founded."
In addition to forbidding the celebration of Christmas in any form, Judge Reinhardt has made it illegal to say "Merry Christmas." Instead, he has ruled that Americans must say "Happy Holidays" or "Vacaciones Felices" if they wish to extend good tidings.
Within an hour of the judge's verdict, National Guard troops were mobilized to enforce the controversial ruling.
"Sorry, kids, no Christmas this year," Beloit, WI mall Santa Gene Ernot said as he was led away from his Santa's Village in leg irons. "Write to your congressman to put a stop to these liberal activist judges. It's up to you to save Christmas! Ho ho ho!"
Said Pvt. Stanley Cope, who tasered Ernot for his outburst: "We're fighting an unpopular war on Christmas, but what can we do? The military has no choice but to take orders from a lone activist judge."
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43438
Aleks,
If you read the December 7th thread where I originally provided those sources you will see that I was not providing a reference source for the facts of the cases, but instead providing the anti-ACLU position on those cases. *Fact: Before I cited WND as a source, I announced made the following statement:
"There is plenty of talk about both these cases on the web, but I'll summarize the anti-ACLU position." That clearly indicates that I am providing biased information. I encourage you to provide evidence that this is not the case.
About my quote: How does YOUR USE of that quote relate to the ACLU? You should know your motivation for that quote, so please just tell me what point you were trying to make about the ACLU when you used that quote.
"I've said that I don't have a strong opinion or knowledge base on this issue."
When did you say that? And if you are therefore not going to "lecture" about it, why are you talking about it now? Why didn't you just ignore the discussion? Why interject with comments that will interrupt the discussion that ZDK tried to create?
And Aleks, The Onion is a satirical website. They don't present facts, they make fun of facts. Since you didn't explicitly announce before you posted that comment that this website wasn't credible, I cannot assume you understood that it wasn't credible. That is, after all, the standard to which you attempted to hold me in regard to WND. If you disagree, provide evidence.
CF
1. ==If you read the December 7th thread where I originally provided those sources you will see that I was not providing a reference source for the facts of the cases, but instead providing the anti-ACLU position on those cases. *Fact: Before I cited WND as a source, I announced made the following statement:
"There is plenty of talk about both these cases on the web, but I'll summarize the anti-ACLU position." That clearly indicates that I am providing biased information. I encourage you to provide evidence that this is not the case.==
Flatly dishonest. You said only that "Here are two quick examples related to secular Christmas displays, specifically." The rest came later
"I encourage you to provide evidence that this is not the case." Easily, you didn't originally describe them as unreliable, you're simply saying so when it's demonstrably not true. Now that I've provided evidence, why don't you? I've proven a negative, it should be easy enough for you to give evidence to the positive.
2. ==About my quote: How does YOUR USE of that quote relate to the ACLU? You should know your motivation for that quote, so please just tell me what point you were trying to make about the ACLU when you used that quote.==
What I said was "You don't see how 'The question is whether this is an example of how the ACLU is anti-Christian, not whether the ACLU infringed on any rights' relates to the ACLU?" A discussion of whether the ACLU is anti-Christian or not does not relate to the ACLU? I guess you'll never dazzle anyone with brilliance, but your bullshit isn't really baffling either, just tedious.
3. =="I've said that I don't have a strong opinion or knowledge base on this issue."
When did you say that? And if you are therefore not going to "lecture" about it, why are you talking about it now? Why didn't you just ignore the discussion? Why interject with comments that will interrupt the discussion that ZDK tried to create?==
From the thread Author began with "Welcome to the ACLU Post Series.": I said "As for whether the ACLU is violating "Christian rights", present some evidence that they have done so and I will either accept your position or provide counter-evidence." You responded to this, so it's just absolutely astonishing that you now question whether I've ever admitted the softness of my views. And the fact that I do not claim to be an expert on the issue does not mean that I don't know a lot more than you, obviously. For example, I am not a scientist and it would be idiotic for me to presume to lecture Author as you have, but the record shows that I still know a lot more about science than you. Does that make it clear?
==4. And Aleks, The Onion is a satirical website. They don't present facts, they make fun of facts. Since you didn't explicitly announce before you posted that comment that this website wasn't credible, I cannot assume you understood that it wasn't credible.==
Given the stupidity and factual wrongness of your views on nearly everything, I don't really care what you assume about an article I posted for Author's benefit. For me to be accountable for the Onion's credibility, I must have used it as a source - for what? Am I arguing that Christmas is under attack? I didn't rely on the Onion's credibility any more than I did on Media Matters', unlike your behavior with the World Net Daily and the Alliance Defense Fund. You depended on what they claimed to be facts indeed being facts, where I have I done that? But you tell yourself you're intelligent.
5. ==That is, after all, the standard to which you attempted to hold me in regard to WND. If you disagree, provide evidence.==
I didn't rely on the Onion's credibility any more than I did on Media Matters', unlike your behavior with the World Net Daily and the Alliance Defense Fund. You depended on what they claimed to be facts indeed being facts, where I have I done that? But you tell yourself you're intelligent, although you demanded and I provided evidence and you provided none other than your own credibility, a bit of help would have sunk even a seaworthy claim.
1. Flatly dishonest? Look at the context of the quote you provided. *Fact: You'll find the word "opinion" in the paragraph three times. *Fact: If you include the sentence right before the one posted, I said, "I guess that is what someone should expect, though, when they hold a dissenting viewpoint. Here are two quick examples related to secular Christmas displays, specifically." When the context is included, your quote supports my point that I was providing examples of the "viewpoint", not unbiased sources. So I'll ask again, what evidence or facts can you present that contradicts my assertion that I provided the WND reference as a source of the anti-ACLU position, rather than a source of unbiased facts?
2. ==About my quote: How does YOUR USE of that quote relate to the ACLU? You should know your motivation for that quote, so please just tell me what point you were trying to make about the ACLU when you used that quote.==
What I said was "You don't see how 'The question is whether this is an example of how the ACLU is anti-Christian, not whether the ACLU infringed on any rights' relates to the ACLU?" A discussion of whether the ACLU is anti-Christian or not does not relate to the ACLU?"
I readily admit that the quoted question did relate to the ACLU when I used it. Now, please stop asking me questions and answer this one: How does YOUR USE of that quote relate to the ACLU?
3. The fact that you asked me for evidence does not show the softness of your views. Can you provide any evidence or even make an argument as to why I should be able to make that assumption? Have you ever asked me for evidence when you had a strong view? What is the difference between that situation and this one?
4. "You depended on what they claimed to be facts indeed being facts, where I have I done that?"
*Fact: You said, "I'm going to help the wolf-but-not-a- truth-monster out by hitting you with evidence somewhat less ridiculous than his "source of news"..."
It was evidence but not facts? Additionally, I did not depend on the accuracy of their facts, only the fact that they had an opinion based on a case that existed. I was providing the anti-ACLU position, not unbiased fact. Provide evidence that this isn't the case.
5. This is a repeat of 4.
1. So when you said "I guess that is what someone should expect, though, when they hold a dissenting viewpoint.", you were referring to your sources of news' viewpoints, not your own?
Also, 5 is not a repeat of 4. I asked that you provide evidence, since you demanded and I did so.
Those were just to help you so I'd have hopefully something better to respond to when you're done, but if this is another of those cases where you stop posting halfway through a list and then later accuse me of having "killed" the thread by not responding to those you chose to respond to, actually mentioning this time that you're boycotting the later points would make you look more intelligent and honest then the previous times you've simply stopped and then acted as if I should have known you were 'done'.
Hey now, that's the Jewish explanation of rainbows! And it has no pretentions of science, nor does it preclude that the weather conditions were perfect for a naturally occuring rainbow. Also, being kinder than is probably warrented, she could have been using 'next flood' as a metaphor for the rapture or something. But then again how often do you see Creationists depicting Adam and Eve as innocently nude? Or people who have returned to paradise as nude? There used to be some intellectual heft in these things (Michaelangelo, for example), but it's rare these days.
I'll be offline for a few days, please tell your girlfriend to email Aaron D or I about whether she'll be in town.
1. What is the relevance of that question?
As for your claim that 4 and 5 differ, I will point out why I disagree: *Fact: In 4 you posed this question: "You depended on what they claimed to be facts indeed being facts, where I have I done that?" *Fact: in 5 you posed this question: "You depended on what they claimed to be facts indeed being facts, where I have I done that?"
Word for word the same question. I already answered it. If you want me to respond to something else in 4 or 5 let me know what it is.
CF
==1. What is the relevance of that question?==
Can't even you see that? You claimed that the sentence proved that you were only using your "source of news" as an example of a viewpoint. If the sentence refers to your martyrdom as the "dissenting viewpoint" rather than the WND's, it was pretty dishonest of you to try and use it thus. Now why don't you stop hiding from the "truth monster", "be a man", and answer the question?
2. ==I readily admit that the quoted question did relate to the ACLU when I used it. Now, please stop asking me questions and answer this one: How does YOUR USE of that quote relate to the ACLU?==
It's a quote about the ACLU. What are you saying it relates to?
3. ==The fact that you asked me for evidence does not show the softness of your views. Can you provide any evidence or even make an argument as to why I should be able to make that assumption? Have you ever asked me for evidence when you had a strong view? What is the difference between that situation and this one?==
Certainly. I have a pretty solidified view that the war in Iraq has not made 300 million Americans safer, cowed Iran and N. Korea, harmed more than helped al-Qaeda, etc. I asserted these positions and asked you for evidence, which you have still yet to give. You don't see the difference between that and my 'position' on the ACLU debate?
4a. ==It was evidence but not facts? Additionally, I did not depend on the accuracy of their facts, only the fact that they had an opinion based on a case that existed. I was providing the anti-ACLU position, not unbiased fact. Provide evidence that this isn't the case.==
Ok, let's be charitable and assume it's only a defect in your intelligence and not also your morality that leads to your inability to see that I wasn't using the Onion as a serious source. What position did I use the Onion article to support? What facts laid out in the article did I depend on? What facts claimed by Media Matters did I depend on when you tried to tie me to an ad that you thought or pretended to think Media Matters ran? Be "a man" instead of "a wolf" and list any.
4b. Please say straight out, if you claim it to be true, that you did not depend on anything presented by WND or ADF as a fact.
5. ==Word for word the same question. I already answered it. If you want me to respond to something else in 4 or 5 let me know what it is.==
You already answered it? What was your answer to "You depended on what they claimed to be facts indeed being facts, where I have I done that?" Were you really "man" or "wolf" enough to answer it?
1. I still don't understand the relevance of the question, but in the sentence you sited I was referring to my viewpoint. WND was a site that agreed with my viewpoint. I thought I was being asked for the anti-ACLU viewpoint and that additional resources that agree with that singular viewpoint were relevant. I also believed that, while biased, the WND site could offer an extended explanation of what I was talking about. This appears to be the same reason ZDK linked to them in her post. Not because she trusted them unconditionally, but because you could go to that site to read what people were complaining about and judge the credibility of the site for yourself.
2. Aleks, I know that the letters ACLU were in the quote. I don't know what point you were trying to make about the ACLU when you used that quote. I don't want to theorize on what point you were actually trying to make, I was hoping you'd tell me. You made the point, not me. If your point related to the ACLU I'll happily admit it. I just don't see how it does. In other words, I don't know if you were making a point about the ACLU or about my grammar (or something else just as silly) because you just posted a sentence of mine. If your use of that quote was about the ACLU and not my grammar or my spelling or something else, tell me how your use of the quote related to the ACLU.
3. OK, so you see what I mean when I say the fact that you asked for evidence is not proof positive that you had a soft view on the issue. So I'll reiterate my initial question.
Aleks: "I've said that I don't have a strong opinion or knowledge base on this issue."
When did you say that you don't have a strong opinion or knowledge base? Clearly it wasn't when you asked for evidence, since you have asked for evidence when you had a strong view. When was it?
4. "What position did I use the Onion article to support?" My position. *Fact: You said, "I'm going to help the wolf-but-not-a- truth-monster out by hitting you with evidence...". To me, that indicates that you are going to provide evidence that supports my position and that I should assume the information that follow is evidence. I know the Onion makes stuff up. I told you that. Because you can't prove that you didn't trust them, should I consider them a source of news that you trusted? *Fact: There stories have been picked up in the foreign press in the past. Why shouldn't I assume you were trusting them, too? If you are able to say how I intended to use WND and whether I trusted them, why am I not able to say how you intended to use the Onion?
4b. Did I "depend" on WND? No. No more so than ZDK when she sited them. Did I believe them? Yes. That belief was based on several things, including the vast amount of information available describing this event. *Fact: As ZDK said, the Washington Times reported on this. It clearly did happen. The difference between the facts the WT stated and what WND stated seemed inconsequential and didn't seem contradictory. Did I depend on WND? Only if they were necessary to my point. I don't believe they were. Since the WT confirmed that the event did occur, and since it was ceded that the event occurred, my point stands without them. If this were not ceded and I depended on WND for the existence of the event, I would have depended on them. This was not the case. Long answer to a short question, but I wanted you to understand why I answered how I did.
5. *Fact: I responded by showing where you said you were going to present "evidence" prior to your article from the onion. *Fact: You asked, "You depended on what they claimed to be facts indeed being facts, where I have I done that?" I showed you where you'd done that. Unless, of course, you can show me the difference between evidence and facts in this instance.
CF
1. And yet your integrity was flexible enough to say "1. Flatly dishonest? Look at the context of the quote you provided. *Fact: You'll find the word "opinion" in the paragraph three times. *Fact: If you include the sentence right before the one posted, I said, "I guess that is what someone should expect, though, when they hold a dissenting viewpoint. Here are two quick examples related to secular Christmas displays, specifically." When the context is included, your quote supports my point that I was providing examples of the "viewpoint", not unbiased sources. So I'll ask again, what evidence or facts can you present that contradicts my assertion that I provided the WND reference as a source of the anti-ACLU position, rather than a source of unbiased facts?"
2. I was pointing out to Author a relevant previous claim of yours regarding the . . . hold your breath for it . . . ACLU.
==3. OK, so you see what I mean when I say the fact that you asked for evidence is not proof positive that you had a soft view on the issue. So I'll reiterate my initial question.
Aleks: "I've said that I don't have a strong opinion or knowledge base on this issue."
When did you say that you don't have a strong opinion or knowledge base? Clearly it wasn't when you asked for evidence, since you have asked for evidence when you had a strong view. When was it?==
I like evidence, and am willing to change my view to conform to it. That's probably why I don't make idiotic dogmatic claims or repeat the words "fact" and "evidence" over and over again as a substitute for understanding or using the real things. In any case, if asking you to give evidence to convince me of your position rather than asserting one tells you that I had an inflexible position staked out, that'll just have to be what you go on believing. Reality hasn't changed to accomodate your views yet.
4a. You've convinced me. Considering your mental and moral faculties, you have no way of knowing that I was not using The Onion as a source.
4b. Author used WND as an example of the idiocy she was arguing against, and you used them as an example of the side you were standing with. I'd accuse Author of picking on a weak source, but since you're "intelligent" and picked WND to defend your point, I guess she picked a fair representative of the anti-ACLU point. Since you tell yourself you're intelligent, surely you must consider it a great compliment to the ACLU?
4c You seem to be saying that you're more of a Washington Times kind of guy, credibilitywise, than a World Net Daily (your "source of news") guy. Is that fair?
==5. *Fact: I responded by showing where you said you were going to present "evidence" prior to your article from the onion. *Fact: You asked, "You depended on what they claimed to be facts indeed being facts, where I have I done that?" I showed you where you'd done that. Unless, of course, you can show me the difference between evidence and facts in this instance.==
Be at least a little honest, in situations where it's incredibly easy to point out that you're not. What I said was "evidence somewhat less ridiculous". The Onion, satire and all, is better than your "source of news". Why you think that reflects badly on me is your deal, since you approach every situation already knowing that the solution will make you "intelligent". But keep telling yourself that you like "truth monsters".
1. Why don't you tell me why you think that quote implies that my integrity is flexible.
2. Fine. So what point were you trying to make about the ACLU when you used the quote?
3. "In any case, if asking you to give evidence to convince me of your position rather than asserting one tells you that I had an inflexible position staked out, that'll just have to be what you go on believing." Good news!!! I never said, nor have I believed, that this is the case. Now, maybe you can answer my question:
Aleks: "I've said that I don't have a strong opinion or knowledge base on this issue."
When did you say that you don't have a strong opinion or knowledge base on this issue?
4a. So you admit that. Good. I admit readily that it would be completely irresponsible for me to assume that I know the intention of your use of that source and that your use of that source indicates that you trust them as a source of facts. Will you make the same admission about my use of WND?
4b. ZDK used that source for the same reason I did. Her use of that source does not imply that she has no credibility, nor does it imply she feels they are 100% credible.
4c. I believe it is fair to say that the WT has more credibility than WND, but I think the WT leans right on many issues. Feel free to provide evidence I'm wrong.
5. I didn't say that reflected badly on you. Those are your words, not mine. You asked where you had done that and I showed you. If you feel that reflects badly on you, don't do it in the future. If not, continue to present any source you feel is relevant to the conversation. I found the Onion column ammusing. Whether you think a source is credible should not determine whether you reference them, only whether you think the story you referencing is relevant. If you feel a comical or uncredible article is relevant, you should post it. That's what I did, that's what ZDK did, that's what you did. You don't have to trust them or believe them or even like them to use them. I used MM as a source, didn't I? Lord knows I don't think they're credible. If it's relevant in your opinion, use it. If you feel using it hurts your credibility, don't use it.
CF
1. ==*Fact: If you include the sentence right before the one posted, I said, "I guess that is what someone should expect, though, when they hold a dissenting viewpoint. Here are two quick examples related to secular Christmas displays, specifically." When the context is included, your quote supports my point that I was providing examples of the "viewpoint", not unbiased sources.==
You were trying to use the "sentence" right before as proof that you were calling the WND article a perspective, but that sentence refers to your own "dissenting viewpoint", correct?
2. That they were, according to you, anti-Christian. Given your pompous announcement that the discussion was about whether the ACLU was indeed anti-Christian, that's a fair assessment isn't it?
3. I said: "As for whether the ACLU is violating "Christian rights", present some evidence that they have done so and I will either accept your position or provide counter-evidence." Did I lay out a position, or did I invite you to try and make a case for yours?
4a. Yes, I fully admit that you have no intellectual capacity that could reliably allow you to know that I was using the Onion as a joke. FACT: I did not use it to support a position. FACT: I did not use it as a source of any information. FACT: I addressed it to Author, who is indeed intelligent enough to know it was a joke (as almost anyone but you would be), not to you. FACT (don't you ever get sick of yourself?): I said that it was "evidence somewhat less ridiculous" than your source of news, a point I stand behind. You edited out the "somewhat less ridiculous" and apparently that easily convinced yourself it wasn't there, just as you convinced yourself that I was against Halliburton just because you'd make previous remarks about it, without any input from me.
4b. reposted due to nonresponse: Author used WND as an example of the idiocy she was arguing against, and you used them as an example of the side you were standing with. I'd accuse Author of picking on a weak source, but since you're "intelligent" and picked WND to defend your point, I guess she picked a fair representative of the anti-ACLU point. Since you tell yourself you're intelligent, surely you must consider it a great compliment to the ACLU?
4c ==I believe it is fair to say that the WT has more credibility than WND, but I think the WT leans right on many issues. Feel free to provide evidence I'm wrong.==
If I were like you, I would edit that to say that you'd claimed without adjectives that the WT had "credibility". But I'm not, and for whatever it's worth I agree that even a tabloid like the WT has more credibility than your "source of news".
==5a. I didn't say that reflected badly on you. Those are your words, not mine.==
And hence the absence of quotes. What you did do was try to tie an ad you falsely claimed MM ran to me.
5b ==You asked where you had done that and I showed you. If you feel that reflects badly on you, don't do it in the future.==
You did? Where?
5c ==If not, continue to present any source you feel is relevant to the conversation.
I never claimed that the Onion article was relevant, only better than your "source of news".
5d ==I found the Onion column ammusing. Whether you think a source is credible should not determine whether you reference them, only whether you think the story you referencing is relevant.
If you believe that and are honest and intelligent, why did you attack me over that ad you falsely claimed MM ran?
5e ==If you feel a comical or uncredible article is relevant, you should post it. That's what I did, that's what ZDK did, that's what you did.==
You've accused me of insulting the troops and insinuated that I was molested by my uncle, but by far the most offensive thing is when you try to draw similarities between us. I posted a joke from a satire site as a joke, as I've done several times to this site (FSM, "Intelligent Falling" from the Onion). Author posted a crappy and dishonest source to lay out the opposing case, which would seem cheap except that you used the same crappy and dishonest source to lay out your own case.
5f ==You don't have to trust them or believe them or even like them to use them. I used MM as a source, didn't I? Lord knows I don't think they're credible. If it's relevant in your opinion, use it. If you feel using it hurts your credibility, don't use it.==
Then how are you not responsible for the supposed Bush=Hitler ad? You tried to tie me to it, and I never used MM as a source of anything but O'Reilly video.
1. That was my point. I was presenting a viewpoint. Why does that show the flexibility of my credibility? Can't you answer that question?
2. You were saying they were anti-Christian and you were using me as a source. That was your point?
3. The fact that you didn't lay out an opinion before asking for my evidence does not show that you didn't have one. Is it not possible that you had lots of evidence waiting in the wings and you just were waiting for mine before presenting it? How would I know, based on what you'd said, whether this was the case?
4a. You didn't address my question so I'll repost it:
"I admit readily that it would be completely irresponsible for me to assume that I know the intention of your use of that source and that your use of that source indicates that you trust them as a source of facts. Will you make the same admission about my use of WND?"
4b. "Author used WND as an example of the idiocy she was arguing against, and you used them as an example of the side you were standing with."
reposted due to non-response:
ZDK used that source for the same reason I did. Her use of that source does not imply that she has no credibility, nor does it imply she feels they are 100% credible.
5a. "What you did do was try to tie an ad you falsely claimed MM ran to me."
If this isn't a lie, show me when I did it. If you can't, admit that you might simply be remembering inaccurately the events that occurred (which is different from lying).
5b. Scroll the Point 5 discussion. I've already answered this question.
5c. So you posted something completely irrelevant?
5d. Without the context of that discussion I cannot answer that question. If you have the context, post it. If not, I can't even be sure that incident even took place (I remember pointing out that MM is not a good source of news, but don't remember whether that was an attack).
5e. "Author posted a crappy and dishonest source to lay out the opposing case..."
So how does that differ from what I did?
5f. Again, post the context of that alleged accusation and I'll debate the point. I am not responsible for anything MM runs and neither are you. I will stand by my use of MM as a source. If you are trying to prove that someone isn't credible, I believe the best way to do that is to show you exactly what they said without bias. There is no more credible source of MM quotes than MM. There's nothing wrong with you using MM as a source of news, especially if they have audio or video that supports your point. I think it's a great idea. I'd be surprised if I told you otherwise, and if I did I owe you an apology.
I forgot to sign the preceding post, but I wrote it.
CF
Post a Comment
<< Home