you editorialized:

For those of us who have been here longer, we know the history.

Well, if that is what you consider to be real debate and discussion, that is your affair.

What you're attempting to do is sidetrack the actual debate.

made by the poster.

Opinion is fine, but an accusation of time and time again implies a good number of situations. When I pointed this out, I was told by 2 responders that it is my job to disprove what was alleged.

If any poster contends that time and time again, posters in this group are stating something, that poster should be prepared to back up the allegation with specifics. Notice that I said prepared, not required.

Otherwise, the contention is mere rhetoric.

We've discussed and debated topics with dozens if not hundreds of believers.

She and I both recall posts making the exact statement she referenced.

You've been a DU member for 2 years. You haven't seen anywhere near the number of threads we have.

I guess she and I could both be lying, is that what you are saying?

But if there have been instances of "time and time again" posts by long time posters that say what is alleged, it should be easy to find such posts.

As an example, at one point last year, there were numerous Islamophobic posts and replies. I started a document containing the DU registrations of the posts and documents for reference. I intended to write a post on Islamophobia in the progressive community.

Before I could write the post, DU revised what could and could not be posted and the Islamophobic posts vanished. Or were hidden.

But in the absence of proof, proof in the form of specific posts by specific posters, what can I think? I searched back to 2005, and yes, I have only been here as a poster for 2 plus years, and as a reader for about a year prior, but I have never seen such posts.

Not the first time you've flung insults, won't be the last. And you'll certainly never apologize - I know that for a fact.

Here's a publication from the ACLU about the Catholic hospital crisis here in the USA:
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/healthcaredenied.pdf

Please consult pages 23-24. If the statement is so frequently made that the ACLU devotes two whole pages to addressing it, is it *really* that unbelievable that it has appeared on DU a few times?

Amazing, given that my prior response is easily viewable by anyone here.

So your accusation is easily disproven by simply reading what I said, starting with my saying that I am not accusing either of you of lying.

And referencing an ACLU publication is all very nice, but the specific contention dealt with posters on DU who allegedly "time and time again" defend a position that I cannot actually find here. So unless the ACLU publication specifically references DU and DU posters, it has no evidentiary value in regard to the specific conduct alleged here.

And as I said, my being unable to find proof of another's allegation is not disproof of the allegation, but if the person making the allegation cannot support what they are claiming is a frequent occurrence, I cannot give any weight to the unsupported allegation.

Rich.

you veer off into something else.

while still failing to show any evidence for a contention that was made earlier.

Richer.

You're claiming we are lying.

Heddi did a search and provided you with results. You can still view them if you check the original edit of her post.

So go ahead and look, and then apologize for insinuating we were lying. Oh wait, that's right, I know how you feel about apologizing to people you've insulted.

And you did fabricate a quote from the Koran. That happened.

And anyone who reads my posts will find no evidence to support your claim.

It really is that simple.

I merely asked for evidence to support an assertion, evidence of these numerous posts by believers defending a specific charge. And so far there is no evidence provided.

The assertion:

"And so far there is no evidence provided."

I just told you how to examine the evidence Heddi provided. Do you not understand how to do so?

Perhaps I missed something. Or not.

Unless, you count this:

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=244923#edits

Click on the "Original version with no edits. (Show)" link to show the original post. You're welcome for the lesson, even though you insulted me because you didn't know how.

I just renewed my star membership so I could provide you with even MORE evidence. Read it and weep:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218221058#post1

Same poster, different thread, same heartless sentiment:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=212208

Another poster, defending the religious restriction of care:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=212406

Yet another poster:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218197677#post1

I have provided the evidence you demanded. I now eagerly await your apology, despite my knowledge that one will never come.

Moving the goalposts rather than doing the noble thing and admitting that maybe we had a point, maybe what we said really did happen. Finding individual posts with vague keywords is difficult. As I mentioned, Heddi and I have been on DU for a very long time. We've read lots more posts than you have. We've hashed and rehashed these discussions. We know what's been said. We gave you the hard evidence you DEMANDED, insinuating that we were lying if we didn't have any.

Evidence was presented, and now you declare it doesn't meet your personal definition of what the phrase "time and time again" means.

I am not surprised. Not one bit.

Thank you for your continued Christian behavior. I truly do appreciate you showing everyone how Christians should act. You should be very proud of the example you are setting.

have the right to decide which services to offer.

If you wish to argue for a uniform standard of what care hospitals should be required to offer, that is another argument entirely. But a complicated one because not all hospitals offer every service now.

And time and time again is different idiomatically from 2 posts out of however many thousand of posts there are on DU.

If you have a different definition of time and time again, that is of course your right.
One definition of the idiom:

made the statement that a person seeking services not provided at a Catholic hospital could just go somewhere else.

I am comfortable with our efforts to provide evidence. The fact that you moved the goalpost is not my concern. Please have the last word and again show everyone your Christian behavior.

2 times is not equivalent to "time and time again". It really is that basic. 2 times is more than 1 time, but barely qualifying as multiple.

At least you abandoned the claim that I called you a liar. Progress of a sort.

you have a star. Search for "religious hospital", specifically with regards to Washington State. The argument has been made before, namely by some prolific anti-atheist posters right here in this very forum.

I found nothing, indicating that:

my search was deficient, or
there is nothing.

Last edited Mon Mar 6, 2017, 08:44 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm deleting the majority of this thread because I have a feeling that because I dared to make posts in the Religion Forum over the past few days, there is a target on my back to get posts hidden. As pointed out by hmrjustin below, by giving you what you have requested, I am putting myself at risk for a hide.

Wanna know what my post said before I edited it ? Ask Justin. I'm sure he'll give you an unbaised view of what was posted here.

Not wanting to risk a hide because of other people's personal sensitivities, I have altered my thread. I hope it was in enough time to prevent what will surely be an alert based on personal vendetta vs. alert to truly keep posts in line with the TOS.

And as Trotsky intimated above, I've been on this site for nearly 16 years. I've been a moderator (back when they had those) and host for many, many of those years. Because of changing databases since 2001, many of the most egregious posts that suggested people who weren't happy with the offerings of catholic hospitals could go elsewhere are not accessible. That does not mean that they do not exist. They do. I've seen them more than I ever cared to. Typically, given the nature of what is considered "religious bigotry" on DU, the posts are allowed to stay, in all of their hateful glory, reminding women that an abortion is just a city, county, state, or time zone away (if you really want one).

Please go tilt at some other windmills. You've already called me a liar, and I suspect you'll have some nit to pick with the two examples I've posted above. Hey, maybe someone will even alert on this post to be hidden for "calling out" a poster who hasn't posted in a year, or some bullshit. Hey, anything to save face, I guess....

defend their posts.

but you didn't, I did.

Please, alert away. Mustn't let someone's words actually be taken at face value now, can we?

Starboard tack on more than one occasion said things he should not have but haven't we all? I got 7 hides in one day once.

Because that's what he did. Repeatedly. In that thread that I have now edited out because I don't trust you or some other, ahem, posters here not to alert.

He never apologized for it. He said women needing hormonal birth control could go to the 7-11 and buy rubbers like the rest of the world.

He never apologized for that, either.

But it doesn't matter. Please, send out the bat-signal to our sea faring friends so he can come back and continue to berate atheists and non-believers, just like in the good old days. And religionists can twist themselves into pretzels defending his horrible, bigoted speech(es), just like the good old days.

How you, a gay man, could stand to repeatedly in that thread be equated with a bicycle, a vole, a hamster, and a dead grandmother, I"ll never know. It was offensive then as it's offensive now and the fact that so many people stood up for that bigoted blather...I'll never understand it.

As a former member of MIRT yourself, you must admit that had someone with <100 posts come in posting that tripe their ass would be shown the door post haste. Ah, but he was your buddy so he gets a pass, amirite?

sick.

and he defended him. He said they were very gay friendly.

Look he screwed up there. There is no denying that but I believe on many occasions he expressed his support for same sex marriage.

Yeah he probably let his pride get in the way before admitting a mistake to his accusers and I privately said that to him.

You're trotting out the "they had gay friends so he can't say homophobic things" canard? That's like saying hey, I have a black friend so I can use the N-word.

seriously? You're gonna go with that? Honestly. That's your defense of his screaming and repeated homophobia in that thread -- that he and his wife have gay friends?

Justin, it's okay to say he fucked up and said horrible things that cannot be undone. They are hurtful not only to the LGBT community, but to women as well, to equate our healthcare needs as something that can be gotten at a fucking 7-11.

Why are you repeatedly incapable of calling him out publically--then and now? Oh, you sent him a PM -- wouldn't want to hurt his feefee's in public, would you?

He said HORRIBLE things. Repeatedly. He never apologized to the people who expressed outrage about them. In fact, he doubled down, continued to insult us, call *US* bigots, call *US* haters, because we fucking disagreed with his homophobic and misogynistic bullshit.

Why can't you do the same? Say it. Say "That poster said horrible things that were bigoted and offensive". There are some things you can't walk back. THose comments are among them. There is never an "aw, it's okay" if you have called someone a racial slur, or referred to a woman by a misogynistic slur, or referred to a gay person by a homophobic slur. So would it be better if he equated gay marriage to two faggots getting married, instead of a man marrying a bicycle, or his dead grandmother? Because those are both horrible things to say, and I'm sorry, but not something that someone who is such a paragon of equality and justlice and liberalism would just "slip up" and say. I've never "accidentally" (or purposefully) called a gay man a faggot. I've never made a "whoopsie" and equated gay marriage to a person wanting to marry a hamster, or a dead grandmother, or a bicycle. I've never had a slip of the tongue and totally accidentally called a black person "the n-word". It hasn't happened because I don't think in those terms and I don't use those words.

Your buddy though...he certainly had those thoughts. Repeatedly. Same SEx Marriage is like wanting to marry a hamster. A vole. A bicycle. A Dead Grandmother. How is that even remotely okay?

It's really sickening, Justin, that after these years you can't just say outright that he said hurtful things, and that he was WRONG to say them and WRONG to attack the people who called him about about it.

My point I was trying to make was that I do not believe he was homophobic.

Last edited Mon Mar 6, 2017, 11:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Yeah I have made mistakes here and didn't speak out when I should have. At least I can admit my mistakes.

But my point still stands that I do not think he is homophobic or against gay marriage.

In the future Heddi if you don't want to see my posts you can always use the ignore function. Then you don't have the trot out the Justin goes after the atheists meme anymore.

I guess you will just have to run to the Facebook group to say how horrible that hrmjustin is.

See you dear!

Did you receive any reward for setting a record?

It might be a record for someone not banned on the spot.

a few times.

But without evidence, it is an allegation.

Except in Trump's mind.

The comparison to Trump was very tactful, but unfortunately predicated on the erroneous assumption that I conflate allegation with proof. I don't. The issue here is whether or not I really give a rat's ass whether or not you believe the allegations. So...

Or,based solely on the evidence so far offered, an overstated allegation?

believe me but think I am mistaken and never saw such posts, or that I am lying.

Which fits your conclusion about what I said?

In a court of law, eye witnesses are considered evidence.

And my original point questioned the assertion of repeated posts, an assertion that was not backed up.

SO it may be true that a few posters here do fit that category, but that is not evidence of a "time and time and again" situation that was alleged by another.

My experience has been that most of the theist/non-theist exchanges here have been polite. A few have not.

but just want to parse how many times?

SO yes, that defense (of the right to offer or not offer services) has been made. As to the time and time again component, I have not seen it. 2 comments does not in my view constitute being framed as a repeated argument.

That was the entirety of my comments.

Just yell "fake news!" and refuse to accept any evidence otherwise.

Of course when the tables are turned, and evidence is demanded from him, then things are different.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=240164
"...(A)ny posts that attempt to characterize 'Catholics' as a homogenous (sic) group of intolerant right wingers is doomed to fail because of its gross oversimplification"

I asked for evidence of these posts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=240210

My request was refused.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=240214

I again asked for evidence.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=240216

My request was once again refused.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=240220

In this thread, he was presented with the evidence he requested. Heddi and I went far above and beyond the level of effort he was willing to put forth defending his own claim, and this is the result. Just a warning for anyone else who chooses to engage in discussion.

I would imagine this post will probably be alerted on as some kind of personal attack, callout, or who knows what. Hopefully the jury will see through such a tactic to remove this evidence from the thread.

they can *effectively* accomplish in others. Can't make abortions illegal, but you CAN write a law requiring all abortion doctors to have admitting privileges to a hospital. This is a large hurdle for most abortion providers, so it *effectively* shuts down access to legal abortion.

Because the other side of that story of course is that even if it were made illegal, abortion wouldn't stop. Women would still seek and get abortions, they'd just be much more likely to die or have permanent infertility as a result. Which is A-OK with the religious prudes - that way the woman is punished, which makes them happy.

...having to check 23 hospitals is appalling. Women's reproductive rights is and must be treated as a fundamental right. The government must come up with a better solution.