I think most people are capable of continuing a complex discussion on one thread.

He doesn't like how one thread is going, so he starts a new one to try and reframe and give himself an advantage. Everyone's onto him.

The ones that you claim show theists attacking atheists and calling them demons.

Hint: It is not the one that I gave you in which one poster joked about inner demons and such. That was a serious of jokes.

In your usual tactic when you lose a challenge, you then moved the goalposts and put your own new restrictions on what would or wouldn't satisfy my claim. I said atheists had been called demons in this forum. That is a TRUE FACT, one which I documented with MULTIPLE links.

Your first deceit came in the way you modified what my claim was. You stated my claim as saying THEISTS had done it. You posted a link directly to what I said (which was very helpful - thanks!), and it confirmed that I did not claim it was theists. In other words, you stated a falsehood and have yet to admit error, retract what you said, or apologize in any way for falsely maligning me. Again, your usual style. In fact, with this post, you again repeated the falsehood.

Then you decided "Oh, it can't have been made in a humorous way" - fuck no, that was not part of the deal either. You don't get to change the terms when you lose. I said atheists had been called demons, and I provided a shit-ton of links to confirm. You were upset that I was right, and you were wrong, and so you tried to modify the requirements. Fuck that noise.

I am not playing your game anymore. You have yet to provide even one link supporting any of the hateful claims you've made about things atheists have said here. You continue to hatefully attack others and balk at any attempt by anyone else to hold you to the same standard that you hold everyone else to.

You have zero credibility. I will not respond to any of your demands because you have shown yourself to be dishonest, deceitful, and totally lacking integrity.

If you would admit error, retract your statement, and apologize to me, I would gladly forgive you and give you a chance to redeem yourself.

But you haven't, and you won't. And yet you claim to be a Christian. How strange.

You left out the part where you claimed that there were numerous posts concerning theists describing atheists as demons.

Did you forget that part?

Me: Please link to the posts where you claimed atheists are talking about the "end of theism."
You: yOu nEvEr pRoVeD YoUr cLaIm tHaT AtHeIsTs hAd bEeN CaLlEd dEmOnS By tHeIsTs.
Me: That's because I never claimed that.
You: yEaH YoU ToTaLlY DiD YoU StUpId iDiOt! hErE'S ThE LiNk!
Me: OK, here's a bunch of posts showing atheists were called demons.
You: HaHaHa i tOtAlLy gOt yOu, ThEy aReN'T ThEiStS!
Me: Umm, I never said it was theists. Re-check my claim.

Star Member trotsky (44,611 posts)
7. This is greatly appreciated.

Especially by many of us who have literally been called "demons" because of our more vocal approach to criticizing religion.

Last edited Thu Oct 26, 2017, 01:04 PM - Edit history (1)

We have different definitions. But if one makes a claim and cannot support the claim, and then redefines what the initial claim was to fit the available evidence, what does that say about the claimant?

And that is what has happened here.

We also know that's what happened here, it was spelled out in the quoted price. With citations and links so everyone can follow along.

I know how you followed along.

Oh, and I was there the whole time. Even when we were called demons and vermin.

Trotsky's response to another poster:

Your accusation: I claimed that THEISTS called us demons.

Again, no proof has been offered for this accusation. The only link you've provided doesn't even CONTAIN the word "theist." How pathetic.

Thank you for humiliating yourself once again. You have no credibility here. None.

Click on the link and see.

You have had plenty of time to find all of those posts that you have alleged are out there, as well as the posts demonstrating intolerance for atheists at DU, but in this particular thread, it was actually you who introduced the term demons.

All documented above. You can continue to embarrass yourself if you wish. I'm happy to assist as always.

Proof has been plastered all over your threads. You have zero credibility left and you're working on going negative.

I mean, everyone can read all the exchanges you forced to be scattered across multiple threads, your attempt at reframing debates, trying to exclude uncomfortable questions. (still waiting on your definition of god so we can continue that discussion without any weaseling)

You wrote the sheet music. Everyone can see your posts. You realize that, right?

Good day.

Having lost YET AGAIN, you're trying to go back to your wet noodle of a last resort tactic: moving the goalposts.

You've dropped your false accusation that I claimed THEISTS called us demons. That's good.

You've dropped your false accusation that I didn't provide proof we were called demons. That's also good.

Having lost and been utterly humiliated on those to attempts, you are now trying to say that because I didn't provide that proof on the thread where I made the claim, that somehow all the proof presented to you now somehow doesn't count.

I admire your persistence, if nothing else. You are devoted to your doomed cause, facts be damned. Your hatred is that great.

But as I have also explained to you, I never saw the demands at the time for a link, because I couldn't see the post asking for one. I had rug on ignore for years because of his poor behavior that ended up getting him banned from DU.

You don't have to believe me, but I honestly couldn't care less what you think. You've completely destroyed your image and your reputation on this message board. No one takes you seriously. But I will not allow you to falsely accuse and attack me while you hold yourself to a double standard when it comes to providing documentation of your claims.

Please post again and continue your humiliation. I can't wait to see what you'll try next.

Intentional or not, they reveal much.

But I don't regret a single one of mine.

You DEMANDED I prove what was basically a throwaway claim. I did, because I knew it was true.

I asked you to prove a claim that you based an entire thread on. You refused, because you knew it was false.

Everyone else has now seen your behavior enough to know what you're about. I offered you the opportunity to simply apologize, retract your false claim, and move on. You refused, and simply ratcheted up your false attacks on me. You have no credibility. You have humiliated yourself over and over again. And I will continue to shine the spotlight on your dishonest tactics and biased agenda.

Now please, go ahead with your precious last word so you can fling another insult at me.

Even a fully planned out, with links and citations from people who were here when said events happened. "Nope."

That way, no one else needs to bother with his nonsense.

And the numerous mischaracterizations as well.

§ 14-12.7 ... No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State ...

§ 14-12.8 ... No person or persons shall in this State, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the State, or of the State of North Carolina ...

§ 14-12.9 ... No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing a mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, demand entrance or admission, enter or come upon or into, or be upon or in the premises, enclosure or house of any other person in any municipality or county of this State ...

§ 14-12.10 ... No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall while wearing a mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, hold any manner of meeting, or make any demonstration upon the private property of another unless such person or persons shall first obtain from the owner or occupier of the property his or her written permission to do so, which said written permission shall be recorded in the office of the register of deeds of the county in which said property is located before the beginning of such meeting or demonstration ...

§ 14-12.14 ... It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, while wearing a mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to place or cause to be placed at or in any place in the State any exhibit of any kind whatsoever, with the intention of intimidating any person or persons, or of preventing them from doing any act which is lawful, or of causing them to do any act which is unlawful. For the purposes of this section, the term "exhibit" includes items such as a noose ...

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_4A.pdf

In contrast, Islam is a recognized religion.

I agree that religious beliefs deserve some accommodation; and I doubt 14-12.7 could be enforced against a devout conservative Muslim woman who wanted to walk down the street veiled. But the current statute does not recognize such an exemption

On the other hand, I think there may be some contexts in which prohibitions against masking of the face can be enforced without problem. The NC mask laws make an exemption holiday celebrations, for example, but on days like Halloween it is not uncommon for convenience stories to demand customers wear no masks, and I suspect banks have no problem enforcing such a prohibition as well. US passport photos seem to require a full face photo

Photo ID cards for social services typically contain the photo to prevent use of the card by anyone other than the person to whom the card was issued. This seems to be the case for some Quebec bus passes issued to students; and perhaps in such cases it is not unreasonable to require the user to allow the bus driver to verify that the person using the bus pass is actually the person to whom the pass was issued

one of the stated reasons, the exemptions that apparently can be allowed contradicts the claimed goal.

And if a veiled patron can enter a bank, or a library, or a public place, and stay there, the stated goal is also defeated.

An earlier, failed version that was proposed by the PQ under Pauline Marois, would have prohibited any religious symbols from being displayed in public.


How this would have affected the many crosses on display in the province, including the one on display in the Quebec Parliament, was not discussed.

Nor was the issue that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly provides for the free expression of religious beliefs

"An Act to foster adherence to State religious neutrality and, in particular, to provide a framework for religious accommodation requests in certain bodies"
http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/Quebec%20Bill%2062.pdf

First, it is not intended to be universally and unexceptionally applied.

For government employees wearing large religious symbols like turbans and veils on the job. Not for public.
It allowed for small items like a cross around your neck and that's the reason it was obviously made to mess with Sikhs and Muslims workkng in government services.

As is the current proposal because it too allows for religious symbols that reflect the heritage of the province. And we both know what that heritage is.

Someone went wearing a jesus mask and was allowed to use the services the muslims cannot with the face covered. Totally not the same as marois' idea. Can still wear turbans on the bus.. just uncover your damn face.

You didn't even know what the bill she was writing was even about. I had to tell you.
Still waiting for you to show me where Muslim women covering their face is a legitimate religious belief that should be followed.
I won't hold my breath. Getting you to answer stuff honestly is pretty difficult it seems.

Source: you.

Busted.

Busted? Only in your mind apparently.

Edit: When I use the accent-e it cuts the letter out of my subject line, so I'm just going to use a normal e.

And France is a country.

Accents do not show in the top line.

A nice try on your part, but one that ignores most of the story.

Perhaps you could also opine on how Law 62 supports the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically part 2.

Hint: That is the part guaranteeing freedom of religious belief and expression.

I don't live in Canadia. I doubt it really exists, to tell the truth.

You only said INSTITUTIONS. Government is an institution.

You lose.

A library is not.

I thought that it was obvious, but apparently it is not to some.

Happy to help you out here.

Yes, your desperate attempt to AMEND your statement is obvious to all.

as to the essential difference between public and private institutions..

Much to your embarrassment. Keep digging.

So when you claimed all of the calling of demons and could provide no proof until I linked to a series of obviously humorous comments by one poster, were you confused?

Moving the goalposts again.

Your shtick is so limited, and so tired, and so lame. Everyone sees what you are doing. You are fooling no one.

Neatly avoiding what has not been refuted.

thread?

Meanwhile you are still defending your bogus claim in that thread. WTF? Is this another undocumented feature of Christian Ethics?

In another thread, you tried to insist that a citation showing applicable Canadian laws regarding wearing masks did not apply to Canada.

Your assertion was that us laws did not prohibit masks. You attempted to prove your assertion with a link about Canadian laws. You are now pretending that your claim was about Canada. That appears to be a flat out lie. I have no idea why you do this. It does not help your credibility here.

You are asking questions about another thread, insisting that I have said things that I did not say. I asked at one point for mask laws. You linked to an article and I cited Canadian law because, as I already informed you, the thread was about Canadian laws in a Canadian province.

Did you not even read your own supplied link? If not, that is your problem.

That thread was another.

And the gall to accuse anyone else of framing.

No, but if it makes you feel good, feel free to repeat the unfounded allegation.

No backup. Alone. Outnumbered. Out-argued.

Not many options left to attempt to control the narrative.

Only if illogic trumps logic. It is obvious that this law, like similar laws, targets a specific religion. That is called anti-theistic intolerance.

And, if personal messages that I receive are to be believed, some Christians here feel that the dialogue in this group can be toxic.

The government has LESS business telling me I have to wear clothes, than it does telling me I cannot access certain public services with a face-obscuring covering.

One is taste/'obscenity' related which is entirely subjective, and the other is security related.


Granted, this vector hasn't been exploited for criminal or terrorist purposes to my knowledge. But that doesn't matter in principle.

it must be enforced uniformly. But when a government spokesperson states that it will only be applied selectively, that is evidence.

And security is alleged many times even if there is no demonstrated legitimate reason as a means of stopping debate.

The mass murderer in Las Vegas had no mask, no veil. The plane hijackers on Sept 11, 2001 wore no veils. Dylan Roof wore no veil. The attacker in Florida wore no veil.

Not clear yet on how they will implement it. The law has executive enforcement leeway, but that doesn't mean it'll be enforced selectively.

This is what they have a supreme court for I guess.



Apparently they are trying to follow this up with a law banning public employees from wearing any religious iconography whatsoever. ALL religions.

The former Prime Minister, the then head of the PQ, did propose such a law.

As an interesting fact, there is a crucifix in the Parliament chamber in the province, as well as a huge crucifix in the public park on Mont Royale. All part of the heritage.

My understanding of the proposed law would suggest the parliament crucifix and possibly the one in the government-owned park are in jeopardy.

I'm not trying to rules game you with a hypothetical though.

Getting a tourture device out of the government hall sounds like a great idea.

of the province. Can you guess which religion that might be?

As a clue, it might be the religion practiced by the first colonists from France.

and wiping out anyone who disagrees? Does that not somehow seem appropriate?

How come you don't have a dozen posts on Saudi Arabia, they are way worse than Quebec

Does intolerance in one country excuse it in another country? An interesting concept.

Why do you have so much trouble answering questions?

Why are religions so intolerant, then cry persecution at the first sign of resistance?

And you did not answer my question about the exempted religion under the proposed law.

Should we tolerate, or not tolerate, groups like the KKK and Nazis?

Please note that I am not calling anyone in particular a klansman or Nazi, of course. Just asking a question to illustrate why sometimes intolerance must be met with intolerance.

As in the post about the group of Boston atheists who decided that their non-political group could not tolerate a non-Democratic viewpoint?

Should those intolerant atheists also be not tolerated? If memory serves, many proclaimed non-theists here showed much tolerance for that particular brand of intolerance.

You are still hung up on Boston Atheists kicking a Trump-lover out of their group. THAT'S your go-to example for "atheistic intolerance."



Now answer my question. Should we tolerate the KKK and Nazis? Yes or no.

Your question needs further elaboration. Is it legal to be a KKK or Nazi member in the US. Yes, so it is legally tolerated.

Try again.

So try again, but be clear in what you ask.

Like I owe you anything.

You couldn't answer, that's your answer. You lose again.

Have your last word - you've already conceded defeat, let me see you humiliate yourself further.

Go ahead. Respond.

Okay.

Even better!

Unbelievable. I'd say there's a shark you can jump, but you long since sailed past it.

When you have to twist so far to defend your indefensible statements that you accidently defend the Nazi party.

A weak try at framing. Did you actually read what I posted? If so, feel free to explain your claim.

You better explain yourself... Oh, you tried elsewhere, how... predictable...

Less hack job reframing attempts, the desperation is disappointing.

but if that is the only way you feel you can win, I understand.

Like when you (hopefully) accidentally defended Nazis, the question was straight forward "Should the KKK and Nazis be tolerated?" You took that, twisted and reframed it to "They are legally" you choose to ignore the key word "should" thus avoiding the actual question posed, and got yourself in some hot water.

You never get to accuse anyone of reframing ever again.

You never answered the question about the definition of your god, let's start there before you start demanding any other answers.

So any further asking of that question by a long time member is simply a deflection.

Where does it say they have to wear veils in public in their holy texts? Muhammad doesn't say it, his wives never wore veils either according to their texts. 
So how can they claim it is a religious belief? 
It's not a religious belief. It's not fuckin bigotry to have to show your face especially on religious grounds when it isn't even a part of their religion .

until the Supreme Court rules against it.

And the intent is motivated by bigotry and Islamophobia.

Do you remember the argument in some quarters about the alleged refusal of Jews in Montréal to assimilate with the surrounding population?

If you do not, or are not from that area, here is a link:

Let me know. Other than that you got nothing other than the Jews are claiming discrimination.

Are different for other religions and I'll agree with you.
If they say no religious building in the area and don't allow any at all how is it discrimination?
It's also discrimination against muslims, catholics and everyone else except atheists I guess.
You can't be more wrong on this but I'm sure you'll try. Maybe you have yourself convinced that religions get special treatment.. well they don't anymore..
Just gonna have to deal with it.

But as I said, you are convinced.

Can you direct me to the part where you showed that women having to cover their face is part of their religion?
Maybe a verse from a religious text perhaps.

I missed the part that it said they had already been granted a permit for one of the streets, then they changed the rules.
That could be considered a little fishy, I'll admit that. It doesn't really prove anything about the mask ban.
Only that Quebec has been known to do dumb shit like that before and they will continue to do/try it. It doesn't change anything for me about the mask ban, maybe a few things could be tweaked to make everyone happy somehow.
We'll have to see.