Assault On Free Speech

[Autumnlicious]

What are trying to prove by using the Hitler hypothetical? Is it because that you and a few others have such a hateful bias against Christians and Conservatives that everyone of them you see through the distorted liberal looking glass is a Nazi?

It is used to show off the hateful bias that Christians and others will vote solely based on religion and not on policies.

But I expected that to fly over your head...

What if the hypothetical were between a 'Mother Teresa Christian' of a strong belief in God versus an atheist candidate? Both are equally experienced for the office....and just for argument's sake, let's say both are very close on policies except that one has a strong belief in God and the atheist candidate has no belief in God. How would you vote?

Close on policies != identical. I'd pick the closer matching policies I'd like, irrespective of the candidate.

For the sake of argument, however, assume both are identical policies and the difference is only a theist and atheist.

This is a very weird and irrelevant condition, but hey, we're arguing over the validity of voting solely by religion, so what the hell.

Know my answer, if both are identical except for personal religious beliefs?

I'd roll a pair of dice.

After all, if both policies are the same and the abilities are the same, then it won't matter either.

The only thing that makes/breaks a candidate is their position and their record.

Amazingly enough, this is what you have to do when you hire people!

Whodathunk that voting for president is like hiring qualified personnel based solely on their abilities and record....

[Shell B]

Who said I was a liberal? Weird little man.

[Autumnlicious]

...uh, not every quotation needs to have permission. If you, say, admit to a crime, I can report that to the cops. It doesn't seem like you know the extent of intellectual property law (or privacy law, which might be applicable). Have you heard of the fair use doctrine?

If you bothered to read her post, you'll see that she specified no condition that would mean all, none or some of what the topic was. In this case, it is `words' (as corresponding to what an author may write) and as such, you'll notice she did not specify the length of a potential length of text that would constitute infringement.

She intentionally left that underspecified.

And actually, depending on the length and usage of what you're quoting/using/etc, you can easily transition from fair use into infringement.

[Shell B]

Allow me to simplify
What?

You are actually conceding that its NOT as simple as...
Hitler was a theist ---> theism is better than atheism ---> Vote Hitler (the anti-Christian anti-Jewish mass murderer)

No. I am saying that you are too stupid to grasp it if I write too many words. Until you answer the question, your dodging ass is getting ignored.

---

That's not censorship, you dipshit. I have freedom of speech. You have freedom of speech. However, neither of us has the freedom to use someone else's words without their permission. Intellectual property law =/= censorship.

...uh, not every quotation needs to have permission. If you, say, admit to a crime, I can report that to the cops. It doesn't seem like you know the extent of intellectual property law (or privacy law, which might be applicable). Have you heard of the fair use doctrine?

Oh, how cute. You didn't read the thread, particularly the post where I said, "if it doesn't fall under fair use." I would say I'm pretty familiar with it, given that I have to deal with it on a regular basis. It seems like you should practice reading for a bit. Don't worry. I'll wait until you're done.

Just because you vote based on a single issue doesn't mean you lack observation and deduction. Perhaps after much observation and deduction, you've concluded that the best criteria to use is actually a single one.

In that case, you would be daft.

[downbeatplumb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ7G79WvTPE

I call, I cling, I want ... and there is no One to answer ... no One on Whom I can cling ... no, No One. Alone ... Where is my Faith ... even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness ... My God ... how painful is this unknown pain ... I have no Faith ... I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart ... & make me suffer untold agony.

So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them ... because of the blasphemy ... If there be God ... please forgive me ... When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. I am told God loves me ... and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.

a quote from Mother Teresa in a letter to Jesus written at her confessors request.

[Minimalist]

"Jesus" needs a letter? Whatever happened to this prayer shit?

[Faith No More]

What are trying to prove by using the Hitler hypothetical?

It's taking your idea of voting based on religion to an absurd level to see how far you will go with it. If you don't like the implications of the hypothetical, perhaps it is time to rethink voting based on religious convictions.

Is it because that you and a few others have such a hateful bias against Christians and Conservatives that everyone of them you see through the distorted liberal looking glass is a Nazi?

Now you're either just projecting your own inadequacies, or you are simply trying to play the role of the poor persecuted Christian. Either way, distorted jumps in logic such as this one do you no favors.

[Ryantology]

What are trying to prove by using the Hitler hypothetical? Is it because that you and a few others have such a hateful bias against Christians and Conservatives that everyone of them you see through the distorted liberal looking glass is a Nazi? What if the hypothetical were between a 'Mother Teresa Christian' of a strong belief in God versus an atheist candidate? Both are equally experienced for the office....and just for argument's sake, let's say both are very close on policies except that one has a strong belief in God and the atheist candidate has no belief in God. How would you vote?

I would not vote for someone because they are an atheist, if other aspects of their candidacy did not appeal to me as much. But, without a doubt, if all else was pretty much equal, the atheist is going to get my vote, if for no reason other than every atheist elected to public office, if they do a good job, makes it easier for more atheists to be elected and further erodes the erroneous assumption many Americans have that faith in God is necessary for one to be a public servant.

It's important, but not primary.

[CliveStaples]

It is used to show off the hateful bias that Christians and others will vote solely based on religion and not on policies.

So if you disqualify someone based solely on their religion, that's "hateful bias"? Do you really think the theists here are more hatefully biased against atheists than the atheists are against the theists?

---

If you bothered to read her post, you'll see that she specified no condition that would mean all, none or some of what the topic was. In this case, it is `words' (as corresponding to what an author may write) and as such, you'll notice she did not specify the length of a potential length of text that would constitute infringement.

She intentionally left that underspecified.

And actually, depending on the length and usage of what you're quoting/using/etc, you can easily transition from fair use into infringement.

...? I never said that she had specified the length of a potential length of text that would constitute infringement.

She said:

Screen cap it all you want. If I ever seen it anywhere that doesn't fall under fair use, I'll DMCA you for the fucking fun of it.

This seems like an attempt to intimidate someone into not using material under Fair Use from fear of being prosecuted. So of course she left it open-ended; that's the point of a threat.

[A Theist]

What are trying to prove by using the Hitler hypothetical? Is it because that you and a few others have such a hateful bias against Christians and Conservatives that everyone of them you see through the distorted liberal looking glass is a Nazi? What if the hypothetical were between a 'Mother Teresa Christian' of a strong belief in God versus an atheist candidate? Both are equally experienced for the office....and just for argument's sake, let's say both are very close on policies except that one has a strong belief in God and the atheist candidate has no belief in God. How would you vote?

I would not vote for someone because they are an atheist, if other aspects of their candidacy did not appeal to me as much. But, without a doubt, if all else was pretty much equal, the atheist is going to get my vote, if for no reason other than every atheist elected to public office, if they do a good job, makes it easier for more atheists to be elected and further erodes the erroneous assumption many Americans have that faith in God is necessary for one to be a public servant.

It's important, but not primary.

Fair enough. In similar fashion if everything were pretty much equal I would vote for the Christian. But I wouldn't vote for a candidate just because they're a Christian. I voted for Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter, the born-again Christian president and I'll vote for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama who identifies himself as a Christian. I would have no problem voting for an atheist candidate whose policies I would agree with as long as that candidate respected my rights to my faith. If all else being equal between the candidates, when it comes right down to the end, the atheist is going to vote for the atheist and Christians will vote for the Christian.