How to promote a secular West.

[woolfe9998]

No, its not bad faith. I'm not trying to deceive you in any way. I told you I read the first part, and only the first part. I then limited my response to the first part and explained why I did that. I made it clear why I stopped and why I would not continue.

Bad Faith - intent to deceive.

Maybe you are getting your terms mixed up, because, how I know it I did not do it.

It would be bad faith if you read it and decided you didn't have a logical reply but falsely claimed you didn't read it. I have only your word that you didn't do that, and I have lots of experience arguing with people who like to cherry pick which arguments they respond to.

If I assume, however, that you actually didn't read it, I'll amend my description to cheesy, instead. Not reading the other person's entire argument is not conducive to constructive discussion. If you had written 5 paragraphs making several points and I had chosen to reply to only one, I'm sure you'd feel the same way. You know, that feeling of "what is the point in even bothering to debate this guy because he won't even read what I write?" That feeling.

Sometimes responding to an argument requires stringing together more than a few words. I realize people around here have the attention span of house flies and won't read past a third sentence. In fact, you're probably not even reading this paragraph now. But assuming you are, I request that in the future you either read my post entirely or not reply to it at all. I've always paid you the same respect.

 

[realibrad]

It would be bad faith if you read it and decided you didn't have a logical reply but falsely claimed you didn't read it. I have only your word that you didn't do that, and I have lots of experience arguing with people who like to cherry pick which arguments they respond to.

If I assume, however, that you actually didn't read it, I'll amend my description to cheesy, instead. Not reading the other person's entire argument is not conducive to constructive discussion. If you had written 5 paragraphs making several points and I had chosen to reply to only one, I'm sure you'd feel the same way. You know, that feeling of "what is the point in even bothering to debate this guy because he won't even read what I write?" That feeling.

Sometimes responding to an argument requires stringing together more than a few words. I realize people around here have the attention span of house flies and won't read past a third sentence. In fact, you're probably not even reading this paragraph now. But assuming you are, I request that in the future you either read my post entirely or not reply to it at all. I've always paid you the same respect.

I am many things, but I am not a liar and I did not lie here. You dont need to amend anything you said, and I don't need to read everything you write.

But, when you ignore things I have said that already answer or address things you bring up, I see no productive conversation. I was letting you know my position and that I would move on for the reasons I provided.

I might be unclear, but I attempt to be very direct.

 

[woolfe9998]

I am many things, but I am not a liar and I did not lie here. You dont need to amend anything you said, and I don't need to read everything you write.

But, when you ignore things I have said that already answer or address things you bring up, I see no productive conversation. I was letting you know my position and that I would move on for the reasons I provided.

I might be unclear, but I attempt to be very direct.

Fine, but I take exception to the notion that I ignored, or even misunderstood, anything you wrote. I'm rather consistent at reading and comprehending what I read. I never want to reply without first reading and understanding the other person's position. I might miss something important.

For example, in the part you didn't read, I mentioned the fact that we made our tax code far less progressive under Reagan, and wealth distribution has gradually become more uneven since. I thought that was a rather important point in our discussion.

 

[realibrad]

Fine, but I take exception to the notion that I ignored, or even misunderstood, anything you wrote. I'm rather consistent at reading and comprehending what I read. I never want to reply without first reading and understanding the other person's position. I might miss something important.

For example, in the part you didn't read, I mentioned the fact that we made our tax code far less progressive under Reagan, and wealth distribution has gradually become more uneven since. I thought that was a rather important point in our discussion.

I'm engaged in another thread and I may or may not return to this. Look at my post about globalization as to my position on why its happening.

 

[Atreus21]

So we should be more concerned about tax policies which are "unjust" to millionaires and billionaires than to the welfare of ordinary working people?

That was quite honest of you.

Why shouldn't everyone pay the same percentage of their income?

 

[woolfe9998]

Why shouldn't everyone pay the same percentage of their income?

Because for the poor, and increasingly even the middle, income, the 20% or whatever that you pay could be instead of getting a surgery you need. Not so for the wealthy. What you advocate will make the poor and middle class poorer and the rich, richer.

This is a core difference in values. You value whatever you consider "fair" or "just" in a tax system. I value the lives and welfare of the people who live in this country. I'd much rather live in a prosperous society with progressive taxation than a shithole country with a flat tax. And quite honestly, I am totally uninterested in being "fair" to people who have way more money than they could ever spend.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm engaged in another thread and I may or may not return to this. Look at my post about globalization as to my position on why its happening.

I agree that globalization has been a factor in increased wealth inequality, but that has to do with what causes it rather than how to solve it. Particularly since ending or reducing globalization involves adopting protectionist policies, which would do more economic harm than good.

What I want is universal basic income and universal healthcare, funded by a more progressive tax system than what we have now. Beyond that, I couldn't care less how the rest of the pie is distributed.

 

[Noah Abrams]

Alright, coming back to what the thread was actually created about, Sessions announces a task force to combat 'dangerous secularism'. Sessions being a bona fide racist and bigot, is a natural fit for being part of the vile one's gang. When he uses the term 'religious liberty', it is a code word for a certain kind of bigoted and hateful Christians.

I think the question to be asked is, whether this is a passing phase, or is this something more permanent. Ultimately of course nothing is permanent, but still....

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018...liberty-task-force-memo-christian-nationalism

 

[ryzenmaster]

I come from the atheistic Scandinavia where we do NOT have church state separation. Despite that, religion doesn't play anywhere nearly as big a role in our society as it does in America.

Reading through this thread I see all too familiar pattern with people on both sides trying to attach additional baggage to atheism. It is a single position to a single issue: rejection of god proposition. Anything else is not directly related. There is no atheist handbook telling you to go door to door converting theists to atheism. Neither is there one that requires you to accept mainstream science. You can be a flat earther and an atheist the same time.

As for promoting secularism, it might be difficult while majority of politicians are religious. It would be great though if politicians were required to promote their policies without appealing to the supernatural. Anyone promoting their religion in official capacity should not be allowed in office. Maybe one verbal and two written warnings before forcing them to resign. Note that I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to hold their own believes. It's just about keeping it to yourself while speaking in official capacity.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Speaking of Sessions Religious Liberty Task Force...

 

[SMOGZINN]

Speaking of Sessions Religious Liberty Task Force...

Finally someone is looking out for the poor Christians. It was getting to the point where can't even burn crosses in people's front lawn without someone feeling the need to express their different point of view. How is a poor Christian supposed to practice their faith if other people keep disagreeing with them?

 

[Puffnstuff]

Finally someone is looking out for the poor Christians. It was getting to the point where can't even burn crosses in people's front lawn without someone feeling the need to express their different point of view. How is a poor Christian supposed to practice their faith if other people keep disagreeing with them?

With this stunt oppression has a new face.