Like I said before, I am not going to bother with someone who doesn't get the simple difference between atheism and theism/polytheism. The conversation is just TOO broken to bother with. I am not going to argue XYZ with someone who doesn't get ABC. Just like I wouldn't discuss the multiplication table with someone who doesn't get 2+2=4. Just like I wouldn't play chess with someone who uses their pawn as a rook.
Atheism is NOT a dogma because there is no religious text NOR religious rules NOR any threat of eternal damnation - it is the REJECTION of the RELIGIOUS dogma that is based on RELIGIOUS TEXT.
You made an irrelevant personal attack when you said this
"I'm going to go ahead and say that your false sense of self-importance and ironic"--- which had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what Scalia was all about.
When people don't have an argument to make they usually make a personal attack - which is what you have done here.
Argue the argument, NOT the arguer.
Fail all over the place.
Scalia STILL voted against the defendant in McClesky. Fail. Just because OTHER judges flucked up as well, that does NOT obviate Scalia's vote. Two wrongs DON'T make a right.
He showed his anti-gay agenda in Lawrence v Texas. His outdated view of "morality" has already put him on the wrong side of history.
Here is a brief recap of Scalia's legacy:
- Anti gay rights
- Anti abortion
- Pro torture of suspects
- Anti euthanasia
- Denied evolution
- Believed in creationism
- Believed in the devil
- Anti atheist
- Said that the US Constitution did not prohibit the government from preferring religion over secularism (he didn't read the First Amendment)
- Anti-affirmative action
- Anti environmental regulations of carbon dioxide
- Justified his Bush v Gore decision by saying "Get over it".
- Pro-gun lunatic (He ruled that the 2nd amendment right to possess a firearm was unconnected with service in a militia)
- Refused to recuse himself when he was personally involved with one of the parties in a case (Cheney)
- Generally Pro States rights
- Pro corporations
- Anti-Democracy
He spawned 9 children and died on a luxury ranch where grown up people hunt animals for sport.
"You probably checked out cliff notes posted on Google and now consider yourself an expert."
Irrelevant personal attack on my credentials. I never claimed to be an expert, you liar/slanderer. I could care less about your credentials because I am not a petty weasel.
Argue the ARGUMENT, NOT the ARGUER.
I wrote close to 2400 words on Scalia's legacy where I actually QUOTED him and provided sources and you have failed to justify his destructive rulings that have affected this country in a negative and will continue to affect future generations in a negative way (Citizens United for instance). All you did was generalize what I wrote - the easy way out.
Grow a brain that can count to one, you ad-hom wielding imbecile.
I guess you are also agnostic about Santa Claus and Easter Bunny.
Like I said before, I am not going to bother with someone who doesn't get the simple difference between atheism and theism/polytheism. The conversation is just TOO broken to bother with. I am not going to argue XYZ with someone who doesn't get ABC. Just like I wouldn't discuss the multiplication table with someone who doesn't get 2+2=4. Just like I wouldn't play chess with someone who uses their pawn as a rook.
Atheism is NOT a dogma because there is no religious text NOR religious rules NOR any threat of eternal damnation - it is the REJECTION of the RELIGIOUS dogma that is based on RELIGIOUS TEXT.
You made an irrelevant personal attack when you said this
"I'm going to go ahead and say that your false sense of self-importance and ironic"--- which had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what Scalia was all about.
When people don't have an argument to make they usually make a personal attack - which is what you have done here.
Argue the argument, NOT the arguer.
Fail all over the place.
Scalia STILL voted against the defendant in McClesky. Fail. Just because OTHER judges flucked up as well, that does NOT obviate Scalia's vote. Two wrongs DON'T make a right.
He showed his anti-gay agenda in Lawrence v Texas. His outdated view of "morality" has already put him on the wrong side of history.
Here is a brief recap of Scalia's legacy:
- Anti gay rights
- Anti abortion
- Pro torture of suspects
- Anti euthanasia
- Denied evolution
- Believed in creationism
- Believed in the devil
- Anti atheist
- Said that the US Constitution did not prohibit the government from preferring religion over secularism (he didn't read the First Amendment)
- Anti-affirmative action
- Anti environmental regulations of carbon dioxide
- Justified his Bush v Gore decision by saying "Get over it".
- Pro-gun lunatic (He ruled that the 2nd amendment right to possess a firearm was unconnected with service in a militia)
- Refused to recuse himself when he was personally involved with one of the parties in a case (Cheney)
- Generally Pro States rights
- Pro corporations
- Anti-Democracy
He spawned 9 children and died on a luxury ranch where grown up people hunt animals for sport.
"You probably checked out cliff notes posted on Google and now consider yourself an expert."
Irrelevant personal attack on my credentials. I never claimed to be an expert, you liar/slanderer. I could care less about your credentials because I am not a petty weasel.
Argue the ARGUMENT, NOT the ARGUER.
I wrote close to 2400 words on Scalia's legacy where I actually QUOTED him and provided sources and you have failed to justify his destructive rulings that have affected this country in a negative and will continue to affect future generations in a negative way (Citizens United for instance). All you did was generalize what I wrote - the easy way out.
okay, so you won't address my arguments. I have you on record. My arguments stand.
"You may either continue on thinking Scalia has something against minority scientists or maybe try to actually find out what the case in question was about"
----I NEVER argued that. Scalia did NOT have anything against minority scientists; he had a problem with MINORITIES going to PRESTIGIOUS schools because he thought they were too fast for them.
"I'll give you a hint: It was not about black people becoming scientists."
----I never claimed that it was about black scientists. The "black scientists" was a bogus tangent point designed to overstate the alleged purpose of Affirmative Action. The point of Affirmative Action is to AT MINIMUM create equitable opportunities for minorities when they apply to all schools, NOT to necessarily create "black scientists" as an end goal.
If you aren't going to quote my arguments then I will not bother with you. My arguments stand. So I will just copy and paste my arguments that stand unchallenged.
"The being a scientist line was not the center of his argument dude."
----Then why did he mentioned it at all?
"it was only an example he used."
---It was not just "AN EXAMPLE. It was the EXAGGERATED example he used to base his decision. He frequently overstates someone's position in order to defeat it. Nothing new there. The proponents of affirmative action did not argue that minorities should be able to go to college ONLY so that they could become scientists.
"Standards for admission exist for a reason."
----Standards for admission is whether a person will be able to succeed academically and graduate - NOT whether a person will be able to become a scientist or not. If that was ACTUALLY the case then colleges would only admit a handful of people - because only a handful of people end up becoming scientists.
"That is how the school gauges whether or not a person is prepared for that particular college."
----EXACTLY. That has nothing to do with whether a person will become a "scientist" or not. You have just owned yourself.
I applied your logic to another example and showed you that the standards you are advocating would exempt 99.99% of population from attending prestigious schools.
A person of minority does not need their resume to say "scientist" on it when he or she graduates a prestigious school. Instead, that person needs the resume to state the name of the prestigious school, the year of graduation and GPA.
"They are not graduating from the school, that is what this is about. It is why on multiple occasions I told you to check the data yourself. They get accepted into school because of lower standards but then fail to graduate and receive a diploma."
---That is NOT What Scalia said. He SPECIFICALLY said "SCIENTISTS". Again, that is a direct implication that if someone whose skin color is black is better off at a slower school. Skin color has absolutely NOTHING to do with one's ability to do well academically.
"It doesn't matter what they went to school for; it could be physical science, any of the social sciences, communication, business, etc."
---MOST people do NOT become "scientists" when they graduate. I have a political science degree - I am NOT a scientist.
Scalia's point was bogus. It was an exaggeration. There are enough of people who get admitted to a school and then drop out when their GPA drops below 2.0. The main point of Affirmative Action IS to AT MINIMUM create an equitable system where minorities can break out of poverty - NOT to necessarily create "scientists" in the long run.
You have not addressed my hypothetical so I will just copy and past it again.
By your logic, I also do not need to get admitted to one law school and not the other simply because the chances of me becoming a SCOTUS justice are close to zero. Well, my answer is that I just want to be a lawyer, and just because I may never become a Supreme Court Justice does NOT mean that my skin color should determine which school I end up getting admitted to.
Like I said before, I am not going to bother with someone who doesn't get the simple difference between atheism and theism/polytheism. The conversation is just TOO broken to bother with. I am not going to argue XYZ with someone who doesn't get ABC. Just like I wouldn't discuss the multiplication table with someone who doesn't get 2+2=4. Just like I wouldn't play chess with someone who uses their pawn as a rook.
Atheism is NOT a dogma because there is no religious text NOR religious rules - it is the REJECTION of the dogma.
You made an irrelevant personal attack when you said this
"I'm going to go ahead and say that your false sense of self-importance and ironic"--- which had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what Scalia was all about.
When people don't have an argument to make they usually make a personal attack - which is what you have done here.
Argue the argument, NOT the arguer.
Fail all over the place.
Scalia STILL voted against the defendant in McClesky. Fail. Just because OTHER judges flucked up as well, that does NOT obviate Scalia's vote. Two wrongs DON'T make a right.
He showed his anti-gay agenda in Lawrence v Texas. His outdated view of "morality" has already put him on the wrong side of history.
Here is a brief recap of Scalia's legacy:
- Anti gay rights
- Anti abortion
- Pro torture of suspects
- Anti euthanasia
- Denied evolution
- Believed in creationism
- Believed in the devil
- Anti atheist
- Said that the US Constitution did not prohibit the government from preferring religion over secularism (he didn't read the First Amendment)
- Anti-affirmative action
- Anti environmental regulations of carbon dioxide
- Justified his Bush v Gore decision by saying "Get over it".
- Pro-gun lunatic (He ruled that the 2nd amendment right to possess a firearm was unconnected with service in a militia)
- Refused to recuse himself when he was personally involved with one of the parties in a case (Cheney)
- Generally Pro States rights
- Pro corporations
- Anti-Democracy
He spawned 9 children and died on a luxury ranch where grown up people hunt animals for sport.
"You probably checked out cliff notes posted on Google and now consider yourself an expert."
Irrelevant personal attack on my credentials. I never claimed to be an expert, you liar/slanderer. I could care less about your credentials because I am not a petty weasel.
Argue the ARGUMENT, NOT the ARGUER.
I wrote close to 2400 words on Scalia's legacy and you have failed to justify his destructive rulings that have affected this country in a negative and will continue to affect future generations in a negative way.
If you aren't going to quote my arguments then I will not bother with you. My arguments stand. So I will just copy and paste my arguments that stand unchallenged.
"The being a scientist line was not the center of his argument dude."
----Then why did he mentioned it at all?
"it was only an example he used."
---It was not just "AN EXAMPLE. It was the EXAGGERATED example he used to base his decision. He frequently overstates someone's position in order to defeat it. Nothing new there. The proponents of affirmative action did not argue that minorities should be able to go to college ONLY so that they could become scientists.
"Standards for admission exist for a reason."
----Standards for admission is whether a person will be able to succeed academically and graduate - NOT whether a person will be able to become a scientist or not. If that was ACTUALLY the case then colleges would only admit a handful of people - because only a handful of people end up becoming scientists.
"That is how the school gauges whether or not a person is prepared for that particular college."
----EXACTLY. That has nothing to do with whether a person will become a "scientist" or not. You have just owned yourself.
I applied your logic to another example and showed you that the standards you are advocating would exempt 99.99% of population from attending prestigious schools.
A person of minority does not need their resume to say "scientist" on it when he or she graduates a prestigious school. Instead, that person needs the resume to state the name of the prestigious school, the year of graduation and GPA.
"They are not graduating from the school, that is what this is about. It is why on multiple occasions I told you to check the data yourself. They get accepted into school because of lower standards but then fail to graduate and receive a diploma."
---That is NOT What Scalia said. He SPECIFICALLY said "SCIENTISTS". Again, that is a direct implication that if someone whose skin color is black is better off at a slower school. Skin color has absolutely NOTHING to do with one's ability to do well academically.
"It doesn't matter what they went to school for; it could be physical science, any of the social sciences, communication, business, etc."
---MOST people do NOT become "scientists" when they graduate. I have a political science degree - I am NOT a scientist.
Scalia's point was bogus. It was an exaggeration. There are enough of people who get admitted to a school and then drop out when their GPA drops below 2.0. The main point of Affirmative Action IS to AT MINIMUM create an equitable system where minorities can break out of poverty - NOT to necessarily create "scientists" in the long run.
You have not addressed my hypothetical so I will just copy and paste it again.
By your logic, I would have to get admitted to one law school over the other simply because the chances of me becoming a SCOTUS justice are close to zero. Well, my answer is that I just want to be a lawyer, and just because I may never become a Supreme Court Justice does NOT mean that my skin color should determine which school I end up getting admitted to.
"The being a scientist line was not the center of his argument dude."
----Then why did he mentioned it at all?
"it was only an example he used."
---Yeah, it was an exaggeration example as usual. He frequently overstates someone's position in order to defeat it. Nothing new there. The proponents of affirmative action did not argue that minorities should be able to go to college ONLY so that they could become scientists.
"Standards for admission exist for a reason."
----Standards for admission is whether a person will be able to succeed academically and graduate - NOT whether a person will be able to become a scientist or not. If that was ACTUALLY the case then colleges would only admit a handful of people - because only a handful of people end up becoming scientists.
"That is how the school gauges whether or not a person is prepared for that particular college."
----EXACTLY. That has nothing to do with whether a person will become a "scientist" or not. You have just owned yourself.
I applied your logic to another example and showed you that the standards you are advocating would exempt 99.99% of population from attending prestigious schools.
A person of minority does not need their resume to say "scientist" on it when he or she graduates a prestigious school. Instead, that person needs the resume to state the name of the prestigious school, the year of graduation and GPA.
PeterDuck's comments