A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

May I offer a discussion on faith vs. religion that has several parallels with your excellent posting here? I've put a free e-book, Walkabout: The History of a Brief Century, on the Web in the hope of stimulating thought about things like religion, atheism, morals, and love.

“No one has ever claimed that going to church makes them a better person than those who don’t. “

Ok – some random idiots are bound to say anything. Oddly enough, the very internet poll you point to (not, by the way, a wondeful way to prove your point on anything) shows that three times as many people believe church doesn't make you a better person. But, I was caught using an absolute. Congratulations!

“There is little actual difference between saying “God created all people equal” and saying “all people are equal because there is no God to set anyone above others.” “

No atheist says b.

Horseshit. Pure horseshit. Watch Bill Mahr sometime.

” I would challenge anyone to come up with a Christian leader saying that Christians are better people than others,”

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_Am…>
There's enough hatred on that page to make anyone cringe. It doesn't show that anyone believes Christians are more than humans, though – which is the part of the letter I was discussing.

So Nazis are okay? Communists? Racists? We all fight against some beliefs because they are bad. Tolerance means we let them be (aka no censorship, crackdowns), not that we consider their beliefs okay to hold.

Who is this “we” you are talking about? You have a mouse in your pocket? I have no problem with people being Nazis. I think it is a stupid and hateful belief system, but it's still their right to believe whatever they want. Same thing with communists or racists. You can find against beliefs all you want, but you'll never defeat them. People are going to believe whatever they want, and attempting to control what they are allowed to think is simply wrong. Seems to me that you're every bit as judgmental as the Christians you've aimed at. It's your right to be as hateful as you want, but I think it's as stupid as when the hatred is aimed the other direction.

People do not have the right to be assholes. If you live in society you have to obey certain rules.

Yes, they do have a right to be an asshole. There is no “asshole ban” on the books. You should hope there never is, but that's my beliefs creeping into the mix. Sure, we have to obey rules. But people should be free to hate whoever they want, and to talk about that hatred. Passing a law to ban that wouldn't make the hatred go away anyhow.

There is a difference between “failing to spend enough time with your kids/being polite/helping others out” and things like taking kickbacks, having an affair, failing to raise your kids right, etc.

Sure, there's a difference. But each one is a willful decision. But we all have our failings, and it goes a long way towards actually getting along with each other if we are a little more forgiving due to that fact. It doesn't look like you're willing to do that. From where I stand, that makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

MICHAEL THE NARC-ANGEL

Millions of little members of the worldwide F.F.A. (Future Followers of the Antichrist) have learned how to find a certain part of their lower anatomy and quickly touch it while dancing – thanks to Michael Jackson, the highest paid Lower Anatomy Toucher of all time! Special thanks also go to the Jesus-bashing, Hell-bound Hollywood moguls who were just as quick to see higher profits in lower anatomies! [Just saw this opinion on the web. Other grabby items on MSN, Google, etc. include "Bible Verses Obama Avoids."]

Try using blockquotes.

There is no God to make some people better/= people are equal. Only an idiot would say something like that. I'd need some evidence to show he is that stupid. Because that is, in fact pretty stupid.

I don't have a quote from Mahr handy, but I'm willing to bet that he'd agree that people are equal because there is nothing that makes any of them better than the others – and specifically not a “Sky Daddy” as he likes to refer to God.
Then there's this:

By and large atheism looks upon man as a master of all situations, which is the opposite of the theistic stand wherein man is deemed to be a slave of god, fate, government, custom or circumstances. When people feel themselves masters, they rise to act to achieve. Thus atheism releases the immense human power that lay fettered by the theistic faith that man was not free but a slave of god or circumstances. The indolence of the honest theist afforded a handle for cheats to exploit gullibility and to amass wealth and power. Wide inequalities cropped up in the theistic way of life with the honest man at the bottom and the crooks at the top. No police force or military power can consign millions of people through hundreds of generations to humiliating untouchability, grinding poverty or political slavery, except by the willing surrender of the people when they feel they are not free.

Atheism remedies the wrong. When people feel free, they resent downtroddenness. They rise against inequalities. All free people live equally, because they belong to the same kind. Indeed the establishment of equality is the test of atheism.

Moving on…

“Who is this “we” you are talking about? “

People who care about other people. After all, don't you want other people to have correct beliefs about the nature of reality? Is the truth not good in and of itself? Now, you will probably say that I am sounding like a fundy… except I base my beliefs on things that can be falsified, tested and observed. Which is important when we are talking about reality.

Yes, truth is good, in and of itself. But I just don't put all of my faith in the scientific method. After all, there is a good deal about reality that science doesn't know yet.

And I think it is possible to care about other people and still give them space to hold their own beliefs. So the idea that one has to be an atheist to actually care about people is a huge red herring.

You don't understand why it is bad if a substantial portion of the population believes that it is okay to kill other human beings based on their ethnicity? Do I have to explain why this is something that should be countered at every opportunity?

You don't have to explain why it's bad. If you look through my writing, you'll find me confronting racism quite often, and denouncing it as being immoral. But people have a legal right to hold immoral beliefs. They are even Constitutionally protected in their right to spread their beliefs.

The number of racists in the US is substantially less than 10 years ago, much less 50. Do you think they magically went away or do you think they were marginalized by social pressure and laws making their actions illegal?

This is laughable. Racism is just as rampant as it ever has been. It was marginalized because it intruded upon the Constitutionally protect rights of minorities. No one has ever stopped being racist because someone else told them it was bad. Belief systems just don't work that way – or else you wouldn't be arguing that your beliefs are superior to mine.

Wow. A moral relativist. Remember, if you hate people for being racists you are just as bad as them because… hate is bad? Or maybe hate is part of something called moral outrage.

No, moral outrage is not the same thing as hatred. And I don't hate people for being racists…I just think they are wrong for being racists. And a “moral relativist” wouldn't say that hatred is just as bad from both directions, they would find one direction blameless while finding reason to excuse the other. Get a dictionary.

I don't oppose Christians for being judgemental- I oppose them for judging people on the WRONG THINGS. It is wrong to consider someone a bad person for being gay, but it is fine to consider them a bad person for being an alcoholic. This isn't hard. Judging people bacause of immoral actions is okay. Of course, if you refuse to help them out and act sanctimonious you are also acting badly, but telling someone they did something stupid and they need to fix it isn't a bad thing. How else do you expect people to learn to do what is right?

Here is the heart of the matter – you simply hate people for thinking differently because you have declared your belief system to be superior to theirs.

I, also, find no reason to condemn people for being gay. When I was invited to the Garden State Equality Gala this year, in recognition of my writing in support of marriage equality in New Jersey, I met no less than five bishops who were there in support of M.E. (including my own Episcopal bishop). I sat next to a Church of Christ pastor who had stopped marrying mixed-gender couples until she was legally allowed to marry same-gender couples. On the other side of the table was a Rabbi and his wife, who I didn't get to speak to much, and a licensed Methodist lay leader. I think they would all agree with you on that point.

But I would disagree with you about saying someone is a “bad person” because they are alcoholic. Alcoholism is a medical condition, recognized by the American Medical Association – and if you believe in what is testable and falsifiable, then you're going to have to adapt to that fact. “Telling someone they did something stupid and they need to fix it” is not the same as saying they are a bad person, and it isn't judging them.

Sanctimony is a prick's game. But telling someone they are a bad person never convinced anyone to change their behavior. In fact, I would say that telling someone they are a bad person because of their addiction or because they broke their wedding vows is actually pretty sanctimonious.

When did I advocate laws? I'm talking about social pressure. People are assholes because they are self centered and if you can counter that you can reduce the amount of assholeness.

You said people did not have a legal right to be an asshole. That is advocating a legal position. I don't know that self-centeredness can ever be overcome on a global scale.

Pressuring people not to be an asshole is often simply another form of being an asshole. Why not simply let people live according to the dictates of their hearts so long as they aren't hurting anyone?

There are degrees of severity. Unless you consider swearing equally bad as cheating on your spouse, you have to admit this are more severe actions.

Of course. But cheating on a spouse does not make someone a horrible person, either. Neither one makes a person unfit for public office (since we were obstensibly discussing Mark Sanford at one point).

Telling people their actions and beliefs are unacceptable so that they change it is so wrong? We should never stand by in the face of evil.

You seem to want to believe that there are only two choices – doing absolutely nothing or condemning a person as being an unfit human. I disagree with that premise. There is a whole spectrum of responses to any behavior. I'm merely saying we should pick the responses that are most effective and most respectful.

Claiming that I am intolerant of people with different fundamental beliefs about reality is true. I am intolerant of many things… which you seem to think is bad. Because we should tolerate people who hold evil ideas instead of openly mocking because… politeness I guess.

First of all, I'm glad you admit you are an intolerant prick. Secondly, whether it is good or bad is immaterial – I consider it a part of the problem of figuring out how people can better get along and build a better world. I just can't figure out how being an intolerant prick furthers that aim. Third, I've never said we should tolerate evil – it should always be opposed. I think we disagree heartily on what the definition of “evil” might be, though.

There is only one reality and when people advance an explanation about it with no evidence I toss it out of hand because it isn't backed by anything. You can have any belief you want… as long as you can prove it. I guess that makes me intolerant because I insist people have a reason for holding their beliefs?

Then I guess you really hate theoretical physicists. Pick up a book on string theory sometime. It's amazing stuff, and very little of it can be proven in any way other than through the manipulation of mathematics.

What makes you intolerant is that you view everyone else's competing ideas as being inferior. I've learned to disagree with people and still respect their mental acuity. You seem to have not learned how to do that yet.

To open a quote put the word blockquote in the <> brackets. To close it, put the same word in brackets with a leading slash (/blockquote goes in brackets). I don't know why Discus doesn't have a WYSIWYG editor – it would make things much easier (but probably slow down the response time).

-That is egalitarianism and humanism, not atheism.

That is the use of atheism as a reason for egalitarianism – which you said someone would be stupid to do.

So? How does that follow? Doctors don't understand the human mind fully, but I would never consider anyone but a neurosurgon having access to my brain.

I'm with you – only licensed neurosurgeons will get the chance to poke around in my head. But the scientific method – and therefore science – cannot render a verdict on the existence of God. It has shown that a great deal of what was accepted by organized religions was pure myth, but one of the first things a scientist has to learn is not to speak beyond the limits of the data. Right now, we can only say that we cannot perceive the existence of any deity. That is not the same as saying that accepting reality demands that we declare there is no god.

Why? Certain beliefs are inherently harmful and it would be a diservice to let a person hold them.

Very few beliefs are inherently harmful – perhaps if someone believes they can drink bleach and get superpowers or something. There is also the contention of Oliver Wendell Holmes that “each man reserves the right to go to hell in his preferred method.” There are people who believe that any medicine derived from blood products would be inherently evil and avoid them, even to the point of dying. It's their right to believe that, and to adhere to that. Some believe that America is worth going oversees and both killing and dying for. Whether or not that is evil depends on one's viewpoint.

It isn't exactly clear to what point a person can enforce that belief on their children. There have been numerous cases before several courts where the Church of Christ-Science has been found to be medically negligent for withholding medical care from terminally ill children. So, obviously, there is a limit (there is a limit to all liberties), but finding the exact point where the limit exists is not always a simple thing.

That isn't what I said. If you are an atheist AND you care about other people, than it is your duty to help them that way.

All right, but this is the exact same argument that fundamental Christians use to push their beliefs, too. The Great Commission commands them “Go into all the world and spread my word.” You can't have your right to say what you believe is right without giving them the same right.

When is the last time black neighborhoods were bombed from air? When was the last time “race riot” meant a white gang lynching black people? When is the last time a canidate ran on an explicately segregationist platform? Conditions are shit for blacks in the US, but that is mostly because we have no social safety net, not because whites are going out of their way to hold them down.

I don't know when the last time a bomb raid was run. But there are plenty of reports of racially motivated violence against blacks, or latinos, or asians. Have you ever looked at the racial breakdown for prisoners facing the death penalty in the US? You don't need to lynch someone when you are assured that the state is going to excute them anyway. For instance:

In 96% of the states where there have been reviews of race and the death penalty, there was a pattern of either race-of-victim or race-of-defendant discrimination or both.

Having spent some time discussing politics in various parts of the country, I'd say that the reason there isn't a better safety net is because a significant portion of whites are afraid the benefits would disproportionately fall to blacks. As a white male from a southern state, I'm regularly considered to be “one of us” by any number of bigots and get to hear what they really think.

Racism may be taking a different form than it used to, but it isn't gone. The last time someone ran on a blatantly racist platform? David Duke ran for the US House of Representatives as late as 1999. In 2004, he served as campaign manager for his lifelong friend Roy Armstrong. There are a lot of people who believe the ongoing conservative demonization of social welfare is an openly racist platform – and I'm not going to deny that the sentiment is in the mix.

Legal=/moral.

Yeah, thank God.

Everyone born before 1950 was raised in an atmosphere of instituitionalized racism. However, many of those people who are alive know are not racists. Somehow they managed to change their mind and it was because people told them it was wrong.

Many more still are. One of the hallmarks of racism is that people are sometimes willing to make an exception for a person, or a few people. For example, I know people who regularly use racial slurs who actually voted for Barack Obama “because he ain't like most of them.”

It isn't just saying it is bad- it is showing why. People were swayed by watching blacks get the stuffings kicked out of them on national TV.

Sure, some were. Some weren't. Some look at that as “the good ole days.” Again, just because it has changed form, doesn't mean that racism isn't alive and well.

So what are you disagreeing about? It is a disease and a person who refuses to treat it is making a bad decision.

You said that alcoholics were bad people. That is very different than what you are saying now. Good people make bad decisions.

It isn't for them. It is to show other people what not to do.

I'm not sure what to say about this – denigrating someone so that someone else entirely doesn't make similar mistakes doesn't sound like a particularly caring activity. Saying “alcoholics are bad people so don't be an alcoholic” doesn't sound very effective to me, either.

While I might not say being addicted makes you a bad person (unless it prevents you from taking care of your family), cheating does make you a bad person. You broke an agreement with another person who trusted. Violating another persons trust is one of the more deplorable things people can do and the reason is purely selfish. Hurting others for your own benefit fits squarely in the definition of bad.

Then we are all bad people, it's only a matter of quantity. No one goes through life without letting someone down or breaking a promise somewhere.

Too bad their are entire cultures that are group orientated… and make up the majority of the worlds population. As for “legal right”…

Well, yeah, there are a lot of assholes and they like to congregate and congratulate each other for being assholes. I'm not sure they are a majority of the world population, though.

Legal rights are important.

“People do not have the right to be assholes. If you live in society you have to obey certain rules.”
Wow, I don't say that. You want to retract the statement now or are you going to argue that society is the same thing as the government? Remember cutting in line is not legally wrong.

But you did say that. It's a direct cut-and-paste quote from you.

Because assholes do hurt people. That is what being an asshole means- acting without regard to other people. At the least they need to learn there are other drivers on the road.

When they hurt people, there are legal consequences. Whether people want to be a better person or not is entirely up to them. I'd love for people to have more consideration for other drivers – any ideas on how we can make this happen?

Well, it is better than killing them, but lying, breaking trust, violating legal contract… these are generally considered bad things.

Well, I never argued that they were good things. I've merely said that doing a few bad things doesn't make a person a bad person. Sometimes good people do bad things.

He was the one who insisted that individuals who have an affair should be removed from office in Clintons case. I don't see anything wrong with electing a politician who cheats… unless their platform is based on NOT CHEATING. Hypocricy… hypocricy is its own punishment and reward, but it is always worth it to highlight it.

Well, if you don't have a problem with a politician who cheats on his wife, then that part of Sanford's story shouldn't bother you. It's fine to say he's hypocritical about marital fidelity – I'm just saying that doesn't necessarily generalize to other areas.

Yes, but we are only talking about behaviors that warrent censure.

Marital infidelity is between the people involved. That's my position on it.

There are currently billions of people on this planet who hold beliefs that are offensive to civilized people. The problem isn't working together- the problem is ridding them of things that prevent them from doing that in the first place. I'm not just refering to religion- the sheer range of bigotry and stupidity is awesome in its scope. Hatred of people with alternate sexuality, people with a different ethnicity, people with a different culture… these are problems that cannot be made to disappear by politeness. People in many cases are acting badly and refuse to change and the insidious thing is that in many cases they don't even consider it bad. You have to make them aware of that first before you can even consider the nice approach.

I agree that “the sheer range of bigotry and stupidity is awesome in its scope.” And I'm not saying that we should simply sit back and let people get away with everything under the sun. I'm simply saying that running over to them and saying they are bad people is generally not helpful. And, sometimes, a softer approach works much better.

But call me a prick for attempting

I called you an intolerable prick for saying that you aren't willing to let people make up their own minds.

You do realize that some scientists have attacked it as not being science for precisely that reason? If it can't be tested, makes no predicitions, cannot be falsified… than it doesn't belong in science. To. their credit they decided to try to fix that.

Of course. But it's going to be difficult to reconcile mathematics that only works in fourteen or more dimensions with a three dimensional reality.

-I try to be open minded enough to adopt the best position. If it can be shown that the position is not the best, I switch to the next.

That's great. But each of us has the right to make up our own mind about what the best position is. You have no right to decide for the rest of humanity what is best. There's been quite enough of that throughout history.

You might think I am BSing, but my method to deal with political philosophies to choose was to look at the critiques. I rarely visit atheist blogs (what would be the point?)- in short, I am confident about my position because I have looked at the different ones and have found that some have merit and others do not. Some are debatable because they depend on what an individual values. Most are not though.

I don't think you're BSing – I've taken you at your word on everything you've said. But I still maintain that, just because you decided that atheism is the best way to go, others can still choose other ways.

I never said people who disagree with me are idiots. I am not David Sklansky:)

Noted. But to claim that your opponents are not dealing with reality is to, de facto, question their mental accuity.

Why not? Evidence works fine for this- if there is no reason to believe God exists that we do not reject the null hypothesis.

added to:

When there is no evidence for a given proposition and, if the proposition was true there would be evidence, than the proposition is false. If there would be no evidence if the proposition was true, than the belief is non-falsifiable and should be rejected.

You really don't know what you're talking about. Let's talk about something that can be proven – like that diseases can be transmitted by bacteria. At one point, science lacked the ability to see bacteria. You're claim is that, until science could see bacteria, they did not exist. That's simply foolish. Obviously, bacteria existed the whole time, we merely lacked the ability to see them. Now, substitute “God” for “bacteria.” You're talking ahead of your data.

Believing that evidence is not required to support your beliefs is because it makes you immune to rational discourse.

This is complete nonsense. People believe in all sorts of things that aren't perfectly rational. It doesn't make them “immune” to rational discourse at all.

What are you talking about? The limit is obvious. When you are causing harm to your children and you can't justify it without saying “I believe” than obviously it should be stopped.

Legally, that is a very dangerous position. Morally, it is contemptible. First, you have to define what “harm” is. Teaching your kid it is okay to eat sweets right before bed could be construed to be harmful. You obviously haven't thought the least bit about the results of the actions you affirm.

Er… this is the fundamental basis for all political beliefs- that they have to be spread to be accomplished. As for the difference, they don't have any backing for their beliefs. If they cannot defend their beliefs, they are wrong.

It is NOT “the fundamental basis for all political beliefs.” I'm sorry but that's complete nonsense. Furthermore, fundamental Christians do have a backing for their beliefs, it's just one that you don't like. Just like them, you want to take away people's freedom to decide for themselves.

So? Your claim was it was just as bad. I have shown it is obvious not.

No, you haven't. Not in the least.

Minorities and poor people. Interestingly, minorities are often poor people. Have you done any attempt to avoid confounding.

There are numerous studies that do this. The most salient facts concerning the death penalty are the race of the defendant and the race of the victim.

People in the rural South are retarded.

Well, that's a nice sentiment. Some are. Your hatred blinds you to all sorts of things.

Except you made an absolute statement. You said no one changed their mind.

Wow, you really can't hold a complete thought in your head. I said no one changed their mind simply because someone told them it was wrong or that they were bad people.

Except there is a difference in severity. We had a person on a racist platform… but they were running for the senate, not president. We have people disciminated against… but they are allowed to attend the same universities. Legal racism is essentially eradicated with only it occuring on a case by case basis. Of course, how bad that is varies, but it is certainly better than it was in the past. After all, Dennies no longer refuses to seat black people after public pressure.

It wasn't public pressure that changed Denny's policy, it was a court case. Did you not notice that the Supreme Court ruled on a discrimination case just this week? Have you not considered the ramifications of it? You are simply willfully ignorant.

People are the sum of their decisions. If a person consistently makes bad decisions they are a bad person.

Saying “alcoholics are bad people so don't be an alcoholic” doesn't sound very effective to me, either.

That isn't what I am saying. It is all too easy to identify evil in other people and not yourself. Being an alcoholic makes you a bad person. It isn't that bad people do bad things. It is that people do bad things and that makes them a bad person.

Yeah, but you did say that. So now you want to pretend like you didn't. So, which was the lie? The first time you spoke or the second? Which should I believe and why should I believe, either? By your own reckoning, you've lied to me and are, therefore, a bad person. I should make an example of you so that other people learn.

Once again, severity. Marriage is alot bigger promise than showing up on time and there is a difference between promises broken because of outside actions and ones broken because you didn't feel like keeping it.

So, which promises are okay to break? You accused me of moral relativism. This is the very example of it. I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know what you believe and are just trying to throw a veneer of civilization over your hatred so that you can sleep better at night.

Legal rights are important…But you did say that. It's a direct cut-and-paste quote from you.

Rights and legal rights are not synonymous.

More relativism.

When they hurt people, there are legal consequences.

I'd prefer intervention before that happens.

Cool. Then I'll be on your doorstep tomorrow and relieve you of your car keys so that you cannot hurt anyone.

I called you an intolerable prick for saying that you aren't willing to let people make up their own minds.

So? What is wrong with that?

Ask Vladamir Lenin.

I'm pretty sure you come up with the predicitons first. Otherwise, what is the point?

That's really the question of extreme physics. However, the point for this conversation is that you can't use it to desribe reality. And it is making projections that science doesn't have the capacity to test. By your reasoning, this should mean that it is worthless and should be driven out of people's heads.

I don't have the right to use force. I do have every right to declare their position is nonsense and that they do not have any right to hold it.

I agree that you have the right to declare it is nonsense. You have no right to say they have no right to hold it. Not on moral grounds, and definitely not on legal grounds.

If they can come up with evidence I am wrong, sure. But unless they do I don't see them having the right to have choosen another way. I am assuming I have enough information to make a competant decision.

I think your assumption is flawed. You don't seem to be making rational or competent statements. No one ever has to prove to you that they have a right to believe something. That goes against every precept of freedom. It is nothing less than an argument for mental slavery.

No it isn't. It is willful self delusion or fantasy. Even the most competant person can imagine. The difference is the ability to sort between what is true and what isn't.

To say someone is deluded or lives in a fantasy is questioning their mental acuity. It is saying they are insane, which means they are not fit to make decisions for themselves.

After all, most believers would never accept the rationale given for other religions… but have a blindspot when it comes to their own. What would you say when a person is able to recognize bad arguments except when they are their own?

I don't know – what do you call yourself?

You know, Sam. I had started to go through your lies again, but I honestly have better things to do with my time. You either don't know what you believe or you haven't the vocabulary to explain it. Bacteria, for example, were discovered in 1676. No one figured out what they did until 1905 when Robert Koch linked them to disease. You simply don't have the knowledge base to have this discussion.

You don't like my belief system. That's fine, I'm not asking you to. The difference between us is that you believe I have no right to mine. You might want to seek residence in China or North Korea, I hear their official position agrees with yours.

But don't come back around here. I don't need your condescenion coupled with your incredible ignorance. Spew your ignorance and hatred on someone else, somewhere else. In the meantime, keep using that dictionary. You might one day be able to say what you are talking about accurately. Maybe.

Bacteria, for example, were discovered in 1676. No one figured out what they did until 1905 when Robert Koch linked them to disease. You simply don't have the knowledge base to have this discussion.

My lies? What the heck? I am pointing out that people had a reason to believe that diseases were transmitted by living things that cannot be seen. Which is in fact the basis for quarentinees… which date back thousands of years.

Your objection is nonsensical- how is the date that bacteria was discovered relevant to the fact the existance of bacteria can be logically deduced? Do you think that there wasn't enough evidence to deduce the existance of bacteria before 1905?

Oh wait- it isn't out of character for you. You have misrepresented my position, showed extreme ignorance of the basics of ethics, commited repeated logical fallacies (argument from ignorance, strawman, false dilemnia, ad hominum, appeal to emotion etc).

<blockquote.You might want to seek residence in China

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/…

The difference between us is that you believe I have no right to mine.

Once again, misrepresenting my position. People don't have a right to a job, but saying that doesn't mean you desire everyone be unemployed.In fact, not having a right doesn't mean something is banned- it just means you have to provide a reason for you to be allowed to have it.

You might one day be able to say what you are talking about accurately. Maybe.

This is rich coming from someone who has apparently never heard of utilitarianism.

In the meantime, keep using that dictionary.

You object to me using a dictionary to point out your position is a nonsensical appeal to emotion?

<blockquote.But don't come back around here.

Translation- I cannot defend my position so I will show outrage and say that my opponent is an idiot.

Your responce to someone you accuse of trying to censor others… is to censor them.

Were you born without a sense of irony?

Well, you are probably going to delete this, but I am going to say this one, last time.

At no point did I call for making it illegal for people to say certain things. You seem to think my position is to censor speech, and I am at a loss for why you believe that. This seems to be the main sticking point, but I am at a loss why. You could have attacked this on purely practical grounds instead of resorting to censorship.