Free Speech?

[RandFan]

Why are people so determined to decide what I can debate or not?

You can and will debate anything you want. My statement was a figure of speach meaning that it is not "reasonable" to debate it. My example of a flat earth was the give away. I'm sorry you didn't figure it out. We COULD debate that the earth is flat but that would not be a reasonable debate. Likewise claiming that Coulter meant American's when she clearly states "their leaders" are muslim and Bush is Christian is unreasonable.

If you don't want to debate a point, then don't. Stay out of it. But please refrain from deciding what other people may or may not debate.

You do not decide what people can debate here. Do you understand that?

Duh, that was implicit in my post. THAT is why I said: "...but please, go on for 11 pages doing so."

 

[RandFan]

(sigh)...we can go with what he was convicted for. Treason.

But was the conviction correct? How do we know unless we know what he said.

What if, what if...

A valid logical operator. If his actions were not treasonous then he should not have been convicted.

Nobody is stopping you from debating that.

You have derailed this thread. The thread is not about Coulter.

What if, what if...

Again, "what if" is a valid logical operator. You are dismissing it without knowing the truth. If we knew the truth you would have every right to dismiss it. Since we don't, you don't.

 

[RandFan]

Page 6. We are getting there.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You are the one evading my question by erecting conditions.

Only someone as fundamentally dishonest as you would call being asked to provide evidence for your claims "erecting conditions".

 

[CFLarsen]

But was the conviction correct? How do we know unless we know what he said.

That's not the point. He was convicted. Whether it was correct is another discussion.

A valid logical operator. If his actions were not treasonous then he should not have been convicted.

But irrelevant.

You have derailed this thread. The thread is not about Coulter.

Then stop discussing her, if you feel this way.

Oh, wait...you want me to stop discussing her?

Again, "what if" is a valid logical operator. You are dismissing it without knowing the truth. If we knew the truth you would have every right to dismiss it. Since we don't, you don't.

I could call it a red herring....but I won't.

 

[CFLarsen]

Page 6. We are getting there.

Emphasis on "we". It takes more than one, you know...

 

[CFLarsen]

Only someone as fundamentally dishonest as you would call being asked to provide evidence for your claims "erecting conditions".

But that's not what you did. You erected a condition before you wanted to answer my question:

Forcing US soldiers to convert is not "force"?

Just answer the question. No conditions. Is that really so hard?

 

[RandFan]

That's not the point. He was convicted. Whether it was correct is another discussion.

On what basis do you say that it is not the point. It is THE point.

But irrelevant.

I would act surprised but what is the point? It is relevant because IT IS exactly what we are talking about. Was al-Timimi's rights violated?

Then stop discussing her, if you feel this way.

I admitted that I was part of the derail. I have taken responsibility for my actions.

Oh, wait...you want me to stop discussing her?

I want you to learn logic. I also want a Porsche. Neither are likely to happen.

I could call it a red herring....but I won't.

It would be fallacious to do so since it is central to the entire debate. Coulter isn't central to anything except a side issue that you raise that has been thoroughly rebutted and is no longer an issue except that you are incapable or unwilling to accept that fact.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

But that's not what you did. You erected a condition before you wanted to answer my question:

Forcing US soldiers to convert is not "force"?

Just answer the question. No conditions. Is that really so hard?

Just provide the evidence. No conditions. Is that really so hard?

 

[Grammatron]

I refer you to Coulter's words.

I'm not going to do your homerwork for you.

 

[RandFan]

Emphasis on "we". It takes more than one, you know...

I concede this point. It is a flaw in my character. I don't like to let bad logic have sway. I might be a fool but I am an honest one and I pride myself in the correct use of logic and my logic is correct on this issue.

 

[RandFan]

I have to logg off now. I'm way behind in my paperwork. I appologize. I will log on in about 6 hours.

Bye.

 

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Grammatron
All the is rather obvious if you would read the law under which Al-Timimi was charged

Prove it.

If you asking me to prove that if you read the law everything will become obvious to you, I am happy to ablige. Just let me know when you finish reading the law.

 

[CFLarsen]

If you asking me to prove that if you read the law everything will become obvious to you, I am happy to ablige. Just let me know when you finish reading the law.

You clearly have problems following your own posts.

Oh, well.

 

[Grammatron]

You clearly have problems following your own posts.

Oh, well.

Prove it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Prove it.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Prove it.

Claus is above such lowly concepts as "proof" and "evidence". Whatever he says should be accepted as gospel truth in order that he does not have to bother himself with such trivialities.

 

[Grammatron]

Evasion and "argument by animated gif" noted.

 

[Thanz]

But that's not what you did. You erected a condition before you wanted to answer my question:

Forcing US soldiers to convert is not "force"?

Just answer the question. No conditions. Is that really so hard?

The problem, Mr. Larsen, is that your question is of the "when did you stop beating your wife" variety: it assumes facts not in evidence. You may as well have said: "Shooting US soldiers in the head is not 'force'?" and it would have just as much validity. In order to make your question a valid one, you must provide some evidence that she has advocated this.

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh, well. Nothing new.