Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
It was about creating legal precedents. You misunderstood this and went into some childish "durs" and "lols" because you thought it was about the outcome of the trial.
The lol was literally because it's a hilarious case law to read. The dur was because upon reading it, very little seemed to be relevant and the guy lost his case in a spectacular fashion. Not the sort of thing that one often points to in order to support their case position.
Quote:
Now you actively lie about the exchange (suddenly claiming it was I and not you who made the error about it being about the outcome of the trial) and continue with the insults.
Right... it's not like you didn't literally say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
In relation to the first amendment, US courts can't judge on whether a practice is religious due to its factual status. Only whether the person actually believes the claims are relevant. In regards to the workplace, "Reed vs the Great Lakes" is taken to extend this right also to non-religion, atheists or indeed even people who refuse to state the nature of their belief. You have, the supreme court has found, also the first amendment right to not believe.
Are you trying to tell me that this conclusion in bold is not expanding on the claim in the underlined? That I'm supposed to read that paragraph at the top and bottom and take that middle chunk as being utterly unrelated?
You can say that. And I'll let it go if you do. But up to this point, your claim about the Reed case is planted right in the middle of a paragraph about the first amendment.
Quote:
Your behavior in this entire thread has been abysmal and I suspect that to anyone but yourself it is clear that your addiction towards quarreling and belittling people have at this point made you incapable of addressing quite a lot of issues properly.
Quarreling only followed after you stopped making sense. You argued with me from Post #74 that atheism couldn't be understood as a religion. This is nothing more than ignorance of the thing you're talking about. You also accused me of making an "implicit premise" in #66 that not even Uke was able to support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
And I'm not convinced I see where Aaron has rejected this thing I don't understand.
And you know that he would be on board with you if he could be.
And even before that, you made the claim that the author didn't talk about X but he clearly talked about X. It was even a numbered point in the article!
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...8&postcount=41
Quote:
Perhaps you should take a long good look in the mirror.
Every new thread is a new thread. Errors carry forward until corrected, but the level of belligerence level starts at zero every time. If you're going to accuse me of making "implicit premises" and things like that, I'm going to play right back at you. You're the one who went first in this thread.
If you don't want to tango, then don't and I won't. But if you do, then I don't mind the dance.
Last edited by Aaron W.; 09-25-2015 at 10:52 AM.