(July 2, 2015 at 2:50 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Just because you repeatedly try to derail the point, Huggy, doesn't mean you weren't lying when you said your signature privileges were removed for quoting someone.  That is not what happened, but you continue to lie about it.

I'm done here.  Can we please stop indulging the Huggy Show, pretty please?

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree...

It took all of four hours from when I changed my sig to getting my sig disabled, without any official warning from the mods. what else am I supposed to conclude?

*Starts singing the song "Let it Go" *

(July 2, 2015 at 3:43 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 3, 2015 at 8:58 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: Secularism Gurantees what ive highlighted you suggest in the above post. It gives people the ability to chose a religion (or no-religion) without the state choosing for then. It prevents a state mandated religion from either existing or enforcing it's rules and dogmas on the body politic.

Now if that's not the 'freedom to chose' I don't know what is.

Tell us what your definition of secularism is. Where do you think it came from and what do you think it seeks to achieve?

*emphasis mine*
Do you agree with that definition?

If that is what secularism is, then DENMARK'S GOVERNMENT IS CLEARLY NOT SECULAR.

Got it?

I'll make this easy and play by your rules. Show me where Denmark enforces Christian rules and dogmas on the body politic; per the definition you chose to use. I imagine this is going to be hard for you knowing that only 5% of the population goes to church, Denmark has elected five openly atheist Prime Ministers, and the one party that overtly proclaims its religious affiliation hasn't held a seat in the legislature since 2001.

(July 2, 2015 at 4:16 am)Cato Wrote:

(July 2, 2015 at 3:43 am)Huggy74 Wrote: *emphasis mine*
Do you agree with that definition?

If that is what secularism is, then DENMARK'S GOVERNMENT IS CLEARLY NOT SECULAR.

Got it?

I'll make this easy and play by your rules. Show me where Denmark enforces Christian rules and dogmas on the body politic; per the definition you chose to use. I imagine this is going to be hard for you knowing that only 5% of the population goes to church, Denmark has elected five openly atheist Prime Ministers, and the one party that overtly proclaims its religious affiliation hasn't held a seat in the legislature since 2001.

Show you where Denmark enforces Christian rules and dogmas on the body politic? Fail to read the whole definition? Now who's being dishonest? the full sentence was "It prevents a state mandated religion from either existing or enforcing it's rules and dogmas on the body politic."  Key words being "either" and "or"

You do realize Denmark has a state religion right, so by that definition it is not secular,  

once again

(January 3, 2015 at 8:58 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: Secularism Gurantees what ive highlighted you suggest in the above post. It gives people the ability to chose a religion (or no-religion) without the state choosing for then. It prevents a state mandated religion from either existing or enforcing it's rules and dogmas on the body politic.

Denmark does indeed choose a religion for it's citizens by making them a member of the church of Denmark at birth.
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/rinv...enmark.htm

Quote:•  According to the constitution (§ 54), the Lutheran-evangelic Church is the Danish People’s Church (“Folkekirke”), and is, as such, supported by the State, which means that the Lutheran-evangelic religion and its institutions and churches are given a favored place among religions in Danish society. All tax-paying citizens, regardless of their personal religious beliefs, thus contribute to the priests and bishops of the “Folkekirke.”

•  Practically all citizens are automatically born as members of the “Folkekirke.” Not to be so demands that the citizens take the initiative to leave the church. At present 83 percent of the Danish population belong to the “Folkekirke.”

(July 2, 2015 at 3:43 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 3, 2015 at 8:58 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: Secularism Gurantees what ive highlighted you suggest in the above post. It gives people the ability to chose a religion (or no-religion) without the state choosing for then. It prevents a state mandated religion from either existing or enforcing it's rules and dogmas on the body politic.

Now if that's not the 'freedom to chose' I don't know what is.

Tell us what your definition of secularism is. Where do you think it came from and what do you think it seeks to achieve?

*emphasis mine*
Do you agree with that definition?

If that is what secularism is, then DENMARK'S GOVERNMENT IS CLEARLY NOT SECULAR.

Got it?

Denmark's government is secular.

Governments =/= Government structures, hence a defacto secular state still exists. I believe I tried explaining this to you at the time, but you ignored it and carried on repeating an incorrect point.

Go figure.

You can try and spin it however you like. You clearly defined secularism as preventing "a state mandated religion", therefore making Denmark, according to what YOU BELIEVE secularism to be, NOT secular, since it indeed has a state religion.

And you people wonder why I bring up past quotes... it's for this very reason. Even when confronted with your own words, you still can't admit you were wrong.

Which is why it is pointless even trying to discuss a God, you can't even get past Denmark.....

Huggy, when presented with evidence that YOU are wrong... you still argue that you are right.

Can't have it both ways dude. There isn't a set of rules for you and a set for everyone else.

Your ability to quote mine and create circular arguments have reached levels so epic, no one knew they ever existed.

*sigh* 

(July 2, 2015 at 2:23 am)Huggy74 Wrote: The first time I quoted someone in my sig, I was told to remove it despite NOT naming anyone, I hadn't visited the forum for a few days and came back to find the sig removed... how does that break the rules?

Oh, so what you're saying is that you remember that we consider that exact form of quote mining to be against the rules, and just decided to do it again. So you intentionally decided to break the rules, fully knowing what you were doing at the time. Great! Glad you admitted that.

Furthermore, I have access to that report, Huggy. It never goes away: you did identify the other party in your quote mine via his initials, and you were online at the time it was deleted. In fact, the reason it was deleted is that you had been given a length of time to alter it yourself, you were available to do that, and yet you hadn't done it.

Quote:Esquilax repeatedly requested that I remove that sig, even though Rhythm clearly indicated that he didn't care if I put it in my signature.... How is that against the rules?
So you're saying that even though the sig broke no rules, Esquilax simply asking for it to be removed (though not officially), should always be regarded as an Official mod request?

You know, you posted the thread in which we were talking about your latest signature rule break... did you read it before you posted? Or was it just the part that you thought proved your infantile point that you were interested in? Because, see, if one were to actually read the thread, including my comments therein, it would be pretty clear to them what actually happened: You were asked to remove a quote from FaF, not Rhythm, so what you're saying here is completely irrelevant.

Oh and also? You say you were never told in any official capacity to remove your sig, but that's a lie too, because I told you directly, when you asked me if I was telling you as a mod to remove your sig, that if you didn't on your own I would report it and we would be addressing that as moderators; see, I was following the rules myself and going through the normal staff process, rather than throwing my weight around and acting as a single mod, which we generally don't do: Here's the post where I explicitly told you I would report... which is where the moderators go to do things officially. You did know this would become an official action. Oh, and fun fact? Right fucking below that post, and I mean directly below it, Becca explicitly indicated that it had been reported, meaning that you did know this had escalated to an official issue for the staff.

Everything you do, top to bottom, is either misinformed garbage made to assuage your ego, or out and out lies for the same purpose. It's not even like you weren't told why your sig broke the rules; there are posts and posts by multiple mods detailing exactly why it was, so this faux-innocent "how was I breaking the rules?" bit is not only idiotic, it's another outright lie, because when I find lengthy explanations both from myself and Pandaemonium on exactly that point, I have a hard time believing that you still don't get it. So you're either lying by feigning ignorance, or you're genuinely so ignorant that a clear explanation from multiple sources doesn't get through to you.

Liar, or moron? Which suits you best, Huggy?

(July 2, 2015 at 12:15 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Liar, or moron? Which suits you best, Huggy?

His level of intellectual dishonesty is quite remarkable.