How tidy that a fan has fans

Roger Ebert. Former movie critic, Chicago Trib and syndicated TV. I discovered his blog a few months ago and was enchanted – a fine writer, a profoundly human man and very very brave. He’s wasting away from cancer – can no longer speak or eat. He doesn’t even have a jaw anymore. And yet he blogs. And he cares. And he has his finger on the pulse of the humanity that is us. I wish I knew him.

This morning I checked in to see if he’d posted since his absolutely definitive take down of Glenn Beck following the TV star’s absolutely astonishing ‘social justice’ rant and was very glad to see he’s still bangin’ them out.

And his Glenn Beck post has 693 comments! So don’t even bother. 693 comments.

I’ll bet some of them came from the Americans on the ground in Afghanistan where it is the 167th day of the ninth year of the war there.

48 responses to “How tidy that a fan has fans

  1. I doubt that your definition of ‘social justice’ is the same as Glenn Beck’s. Jesus promoted social justice-voluntary charity. Some churches today promote manditory charity, which is redistribution of wealth, which is socialism.

    Like

    • [social justice-voluntary charity]

      That’s wrong David. “Justice’ is neither sought nor acheived on a voluntary basis.

      Justice and Charity are entirely different concepts.

      Like

      • Social justice means taking care of those who can’t take care of themselves. You missed a word. Social justice comes from charity. If it comes from force, it’s not really charity, it’s redistribution of wealth.

        Like

        • [social justice means taking care of those who can’t take care of themselves]

          We seem to be talking about different things here. Social justice means much much more than that. When I’m arrested for a crime and can’t afford a lawyer, one is provided for me because it would be unjust for the poor to be left without the ability to defend themselves. That’s social justice and it only comes from laws made by governments. It’s not a matter of a richer person paying for my lawyer. That would never work. But it is a matter of the people as a whole through their taxes seeing to it that our society is just.

          Like

          • I told you our definitions are different. I told you that yours is different from Glenn Beck’s too. Social justice is feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving drink to the thirsty, aid to the sick, succor to the imprisoned. It’s biblical. Treating all humans with dignity.

            Yours is redistribution of wealth, which if left unchecked, trends to socialism. It’s also the government thinking they know better than the people how to take care of the people.

            Who do you think pays the most taxes? (I’m not saying we shouldn’t pay taxes for necessary services-it’s what defines necessary that I have problems with.)

            Like

            • We’re still talking in circles here. You are still describing charity and calling it social justice.

              So about the lawyer thing – are you saying it’s okay if it doesn’t lead to socialism? Or that it’s not okay because it will lead to socialism?

              As for the taxes point – I think you mean that it’s WHO defines what’s necessary that you have a problem with. If you decide and I disagree and we’re both taypayers . . . . it’s a puzzlement, yes?

              Like

              • Social justice is about charity. It’s about helping those less fortunate than us. It doesn’t mean give a handout, it means give a hand up. And it means creating a more level playing field. And realizing that that field will never be perfectly level.
                Allowing someone legal counsel when they’re in trouble isn’t an issue to me. Giving them Johnny Cochran would be. A nice basic lawyer is just fine.
                Regarding taxes, if you call government a who and not a what, so be it.
                Don’t get me wrong, there is justification for the government to collect taxes.
                My whole point is that your definition of social justice and Roger Ebert’s are different than what Glenn Beck is talking about, so before either of you go ripping someone for telling church people to run if your church has social justice in it’s tenents, understand what he’s saying. Some church leaders say ‘social justice’ and mean ‘redistribution of wealth’. Obama’s current and former spiritual advisors are a couple who do just that. Catholic social justice, which extends into all sectors of society, is charity-true voluntary charity. We give to the Church every week, not because the bible says to tithe, but because our hearts cry out for us to give. The Church does wonderful things with that cash-feed and clothe the poor, provide basic health services to those who can’t afford it or get it, etc. But it’s voluntary.

                Like

  2. I know what my definition is and that of most major religions. What you call ‘mandatory charity” I call the commons. The ancient civic value of acting as a people for the good of the larger community. And individual charity doesn’t take care of that.

    Do you think acting in concert is socialism?

    Like

  3. If people are required to do it, yes. Charity comes from the heart, not the law. Jesus spent a great deal of time telling the Pharisees just that.

    Like

    • I don’t just feel a moral obligation as an individual.

      Certainly nations, like people, are subject to the rules of natural law. I.e., if we don’t care for those who can’t care for themselves, we are all in big trouble. I think it would be irresponsible to just hope that personal charity would be sufficient to address the problem.

      Like

  4. *laughs*

    Oh NOES!! not Teh SOCIALISM!

    Where is my fainting couch? *faints*

    Get a grip on reality David. Socialism is about as evil as Capitalism. Both systems have weak and strong points. Societies that mix both tend to do fairly well (see most of Europe and Canada).

    f people are required to do it, yes. Charity comes from the heart, not the law.

    Churches do not pay taxes via the law. I agree absolutely that they should begin to pay taxes because they, by your definition, are not being charitable.

    Like

    • Except that socialism in all it’s forms kills its own people.

      Churches should pay taxes??? That really takes away from the poor, don’t you know? Catholic Charities gives out 95% of what it takes in, directly to those who need it. Tax the Church and you’ll be taxing the poor. Do what you want with the Protestants, I’m not talking about Joel Osteen.

      Like

      • [Except that socialism in all it’s forms kills its own people.]

        I guess I missed the killing fields in Canada, Paris, London, Dublin, Geneva, Rome . . . you know, pretty much the world of ‘western culture’ that we live in.

        Also most of Asia, South America, Mexico . . . you know, the rest of the WORLD.

        And Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, public schools – all socialist enterprises.

        Like

        • George Bernard Shaw, socialist, Karl Marx, socialist/communist/marxist, Fredrick Engle, socialist/communist/marxist; Joseph Stalin, communist, Pol Pot, communist; Mao Tse Tung; communist. Maybe I should have said that socialist people kill people. The point remains, when the government decides who’s worthy and who isn’t, people die.
          State run anything is socialist policy.

          Like

          • You are funny. Who exactly did Marx and Engles kill? They wrote books; they were political theorists.

            Do you also intend to go after Adam Smith? I mean he contributed to capitalism and its bloody history? OH wait, that is the history I think is good so its all unicorns and sunshine, no need to critically analyze that!

            Joseph Stalin, communist, Pol Pot, communist; Mao Tse Tung; communist.

            Mentioning Authoritarian leaders does not say much about Socialism. Communism perhaps, but not socialism.

            he point remains, when the government decides who’s worthy and who isn’t, people die.

            Um…the government does decide that, it called the courts and the system of secular laws that have evolved over time in non religiously addled societies.

            Would your magic book and sky fairy mythos get us to any better place, we can look back in history when religious authorities were in charge. Oh, the Dark Ages, maybe not then.

            Like

            • Actually, yes, Adam Smith was problematic as well. While MArx and Engles may not have killed anyone personally, the ideas they proposed did. Stalin, Hitler, Pot, and Mao took their ideas to the extreme.

              Regarding laws, all modern western law stems directly from the Catholic Church, whether you like it or not. And we’re not talking about criminals here, we’re talking of average citizens. George Bernard Shaw advocated that people who didn’t pull their weight should just be killed off. Now that’s addled. A government which controls the purse strings of health care can now decide that you aren’t worth spending money on because you’re close to dying age anyway, or because they didn’t like your behavior choices.

              Regarding the Dark Ages, they were brought on by those surrounding the broken down Roman Empire, waging war and creating chaos for all secular society-about 7oo years worth. Were it not for the Bible and the Church, you’d probably be speaking Arabic right now and bowing to Allah whether you like it or not.

              Like

              • How in the world did George Bernard Shaw come into this? A second tier playwright? Huh?

                Like

              • [Were it not for the Bible and the Church, you’d probably be speaking Arabic right now and bowing to Allah whether you like it or not.]

                Sorry David – you have that one backwards. During the book burning Dark Ages that overran the West, it was the Arab world that preserved the ancient writings of Western Civilization. We almost lost the words of the ancient Greeks.

                [all modern western law stems directly from the Catholic Church]

                The Church had a hand in the creation of modern law, no doubt. But to say it all stems from the Catholic Church is nonsense.

                Like

          • State run anything is socialist policy.

            I suggest you sign the Pledge (Moe has it here somewhere as well) and renounce all this filthy socialism immediately. Here are some highlights:

            pledge to eliminate all government intervention in my life. I will abstain from the use of and participation in any socialist goods and services including but not limited to the following:

            * Social Security
            * Medicare/Medicaid
            * State Children’s Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)
            * Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
            * US Postal Service
            * Roads and Highways
            * Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)
            * The US Railway System
            * Public Subways and Metro Systems
            * Public Bus and Lightrail Systems
            * Rest Areas on Highways
            * Sidewalks
            * All Government-Funded Local/State Projects (e.g., see Iowa 2009federal senate appropriations–http://grassley.senate.gov/issues/upload/Master-Approps-73109.pdf)
            * Public Water and Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen….

            Time to turf it…. and this is only a quarter of the list. Unless of course how your defining socialism is wrong and based on your faulty assumptions everything you have said has been wrong so far.

            Like

            • Give me back what I’ve put into Social Security and MEdicare/Medicade, and I won’t use it. But I probably won’t get them anyway, even though I’ve paid a healthy chunk into them. I don’t and will never use SCHIP. I pay for Police and Fire in my property taxes. I pay for the postal service, even though I don’t use it. I pay for roads and highways, and a usage tax every time I fly. I don’t use railways, subways, busses, and pay taxes for all of those.

              And, wink, wink, they’re all things that also exist in capitalism.

              Like

              • David

                You don’t seem to get the idea behind taxes. It’s not a cafeteria; we don’t get to pick and choose which part of America we want to support. (We have agreed to educate the next generation and so we all pay in.)

                And yeah, all this stuff does exist in every ‘ism’ out there – capitalism, socialism, even communism. Dictatorships and democracies alike tend to provide these services (some better than others for sure)

                Like

            • Arb: you are an inspiration – check out the new page I just added to the blog after reading this comment.

              Like

      • [Except that socialism in all it’s forms kills its own people.]

        Sure they should to avoid being defined – by you – as Socialist. They are given tax free status at the pleasure of the federal government and the rest of us taxpayers. We devised tax policy (i.e., no property tax etc) because it’s a way for us, the people, to allow them to do this charitable work that we would otherwise be doing in the name of the government. But govt’ policy allows them to do it in therir own name.

        CAtholic Charities gives out 95% partly because tax policy puts more money into their hands.

        Like

        • Why does the government give religious organizations exemption from taxation? To encourage people to give money to those religious organizations, because those organizations are better at it than the government. Besides, what people give to charity is after that income has already been taxed. I guess you’d like to tax it again and again and again.
          Catholic Charities percentage is because there is so little overhead when most of the management work is done by people who have little or no salary. And in buildings that don’t have property taxes.

          Like

  5. Catholic Charities gives out 95% to causes they agree with partly because tax policy puts more money into their hands.

    The bigotry, boy buggering and death mongering the the CC allows to happen comes part in parcel with its ‘good works’.

    From the wiki article on the CC –

    “A similar situation arose in Washington DC in November 2009 around a proposed same-sex marriage law with Catholic Charities saying they would withdraw from their social services contracts with the city if it was implemented.[10] The charity eventually decided to stop offering benefits to its married employees rather than provide them for married same-sex couples.”

    Ah, because of the dogmatically asinine voodoo system of beliefs propagated by the church no one can have benefits. Or perhaps we should chat with the people in the developing world who have life destroying STI’s and STD’s because they were told condoms are evil?

    CC are mixed bag at best.

    Except that socialism in all it’s forms kills its own people.

    Please educate yourself on the definition of socialism David, the claims you are making are specious.

    Like

    • so magnify the bad and throw away the good, that’s the best way to argue a point, isn’t it?

      Also, get your negatives a little more recently would you? Hasn’t been a new case of priests abusing anyone for a decade or more. You’ll have to prove bigotry and death mongering, cuz that just falls on deaf ears-not true. Or if you change the definition radically enough, it might be. But why should any organization be forced to give anything to people they are fundamentally opposed to?

      Arborist, if you’re going to criticize the Catholic Church, try educating YOURSELF on what they believe.

      Like

      • so magnify the bad and throw away the good, that’s the best way to argue a point, isn’t it?

        Critically looking at issues requires one to examine both sides of an issue.

        Also, get your negatives a little more recently would you?

        Really? Okay.

        Let’s see there is the scandal in Germany. The scandal in the the Neathlands. The one in Ireland. And that is just from typing Catholic Church Sex Scandal into google news.

        You’ll have to prove bigotry

        Did my last post not give the example of bigotry via the church suspending benefits to all because they would not want to support same sex marriages. The catholic church is virulently homophobic and thus qualifies to be categorized as ‘bigoted’. Or did I miss somewhere the CC embracing homosexuality as okay? I think not.

        and death mongering,

        Being anti-contraception to the point of spreading misinformation would be considered death mongering. Also watch the CC in all of is delusional glory fall over itself in a rational debate here.

        But why should any organization be forced to give anything to people they are fundamentally opposed to?

        They should not, I agree. They should not however be involved with making public policy decisions because their arguments are based on magic, as a opposed to reason.

        Arborist, if you’re going to criticize the Catholic Church, try educating YOURSELF on what they believe.

        I have a good idea about what the CC represents, I also believe, like all rotten decrepit structures, that it should be dismantled.

        Like

        • Don’t forget when you point one finger there’s three pointed back at yourself. It’s a fact that man is sinful. It’s a fact that at a stretch of time of about 50 years, people in the Church did things that no human ought to do. It’s also a fact that, in secular institutions responsible for the same things, like educating children, that the rate of child molestation is equal or more than that done by the Catholic Church. It’s also a fact that the Church sought out so-called secular ‘experts’ to determine how to deal with the problem. Their advice failed. It’s also a fact that it’s been more than 10 years since any of these child molestation cases happened. The press is simply digging up old news. Sorta what they did to Tiger Woods.
          Regarding bigotry, since when is it bigotted to hold your moral ideals? For 4000 years, sex outside of marriage is wrong. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Nothing has changed. In fact, God can’t change. If he did, he wouldn’t be God. So it’s a fact that homosexual acts are immoral. This doesn’t mean that the Church or God has anything against the people who do them. It’s the acts themselves that are sinful. We seem to be having a problem (you, anyway) separating people and their actions. The Church is not homophobic, in fact she recognizes that people can have same-sex attraction. There’s nothing wrong with having that attraction. It’s acting on it that’s wrong. Nothing bigotted about it. The Church does not approve of ANY sex outside of marriage, it’s not just homosexual sex. And, since she is against sex outside of marriage, then artificial contraception is wrong, too. The only way to prevent STD’s is to abstain from having sex with someone you’re not married to. If everyone did that, there would eventually be no STD. It’s not magic.

          You haven’t shown (nor have some who call themselves Catholic, NAncy Pelosi and Joe Biden, so I’m not blaming you for misunderstanding) that you have a good understanding, not at all. By the way, if you think you can dismantle it, I suggest you start swinging. With all the crap that’s been done from within and without the Church, she’s still standing strong, whether you think so or not. Happy Easter, by the way!

          Like

          • [For 4000 years, sex outside of marriage is wrong. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Nothing has changed. ]

            Oh for heavens’ sake, David, that’s just not true. The marriage norm 4000 years ago was to have multiple wives. Moses had more than one I believe. It was the norm in most of the world. Many American Indian peoples had multiple wives.

            It has NOT always been one man one woman.

            And it’s not even universal today.

            Like

          • It’s also a fact that it’s been more than 10 years since any of these child molestation cases happened.

            You see Dave, after a priest buggers you, you do not really feel like talking about it. It really is not coffee table conversation. In fact, people who have been sexually abused are often very ashamed of what happened and often blame themselves for what happened.

            It take a lot of courage to come forward and admit sexual abuse, especially at the hand of a priest or other authority figure.

            So, no Dave, the molestation did not magically stop, it is just people need time to come forward and face their abusers. The sex scandals will not stop until the church goes away.

            In fact, God can’t change.

            God has no prohibitions against slavery or rape. God sounds like quite the monster if you ask me, and as you said he cannot change his ways, he is unrepentant and megalomaniacal. In any case, certainly no one to revere.

            This doesn’t mean that the Church or God has anything against the people who do them. It’s the acts themselves that are sinful.

            Oh, well then I guess the homosexual should feel better about that little pearl of wisdom. An eternity of torture for loving the person you choose? Sounds like god needs a little anger therapy. Why would the creator of all the universe give a rats ass about who we love? Unless of course god is a man made construct, then all the sexual repression makes a lot of sense.

            The only way to prevent STD’s is to abstain from having sex with someone you’re not married to.

            Another great way to prevent STD’s is to not to lie to people about contraception.

            By the way, if you think you can dismantle it, I suggest you start swinging.

            I am Dave. Every time I meet a deluded religious person I engage them in debate and expose how weak and insufficient the arguments of the faithful are. You see Dave, I have no intention of ‘convincing’ you to renounce your magic book and the associated delusions that come with it. It is your right to live your life as you see fit. No Dave, I insist, please continue to grovel before a mystical sky daddy and let the words of 2000 year old ignorant people rule your existence.

            I argue for the people who have not completely forsaken rational thought, who are contemplating breaking free of the shackles of religious indoctrination who might be reading this blog. I want to show them the closeted, mendacious nature of religion and how intellectually repugnant it actually is.

            I stand for critical thinking and rationality; and by treating your arguments charitably while deconstructing them, I hope to win them(the undecided) over to the side of reason and away from the ignorance that permeates faith.

            Like

  6. Is the Catholic Church a force for good?

    Like

    • I know all about atheist Hitchens, and don’t need to listen to a lecture by him. He’s deluded, and so is your “Intelligence Squared”. By the way, did you know that 80% of the greatest scientists in history believed in God, and about 75% of them believed that Jesus is God.

      Like

      • [about 75% of them believed that Jesus is God.]

        You gotta get me a cite for that one David – are we to assume that the overwhelming numbers of Jews among the giants of science believed Jesus was God? How about the Asians who – Japanese in particular? Come on . . .

        Like

      • I know all about atheist Hitchens, and don’t need to listen to a lecture by him. He’s deluded, and so is your “Intelligence Squared”.

        You see Dave, it is really painfully obvious you have nothing cogent to say here. Adults in rational land would have arguments to say how and why Hitchens is deluded. Sadly, all you can do is clutch your prayer beads a little tighter and wonder what would jesus do.

        You cannot/will not address what Hitchens said because it is a damning condemnation of your institution that, unlike religion, is based in provable, testable reality.

        So really, if you want to argue coherently with rational people, you are going to have to leave the fables and the sky daddy out of it and come up with something resembling a counter argument.

        Like

  7. Why don’t you describe what your lil movies are? Possibly something Steven Spielberg produced?

    Like

    • Certainly David.

      They are part of debate put on via Intelligence Squared. You can watch the whole debate on you tube and decide for yourself. I posted Hitchens because he does a masterful job of describing the catholic church and its litany of deeds which can only be described as evil. Here is the introduction clip, it is linked to the entire debate.

      Possibly something Steven Spielberg produced?

      *slam* Whoops what was that, an idea contrary to what I believe? Religious blinders on FULL!

      Try to keep in mind this is a moderated reasoned debate, with both sides represented. Evaluate the arguments from both sides before coming to a conclusion.

      Like

  8. Dave said: A government which controls the purse strings of health care can now decide that you aren’t worth spending money on because you’re close to dying age anyway, or because they didn’t like your behavior choices.

    Yep, because in Canada, Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Spain, Greece, Switzerland, Australia, Denmark and others I cannot think of at the moment that is exactly what happens: as soon as you piss off the government they conspire against you, and try to kill you via socialized medicine.

    It must be a very well kept socialist conspiracy, all those death panels working behind the scenes in all those countries that have universal health care.

    Repeating ideas that are patently false does not enhance their veracity. I suggest you put this one to bed as it is quite preposterous; verging on hyperbole really.

    Like

  9. OK, you folks can go on drinking the koolaid. Actually marriage to multiple wives was allowed because that’s the tribal culture they came from. Yes, Solomon had many wives. I don’t see any marriages between two men or two women, though. So monogamy is what God wanted, and that’s where it was centuries before Jesus.
    Moe, if you’re too lazy to do any research, I guess I can provide some evidence. http://www.godandscience.org for one. But name me some Asian or Jewish scientists that might be considered among the greatest scientists ever…

    Arborist, what about Cuba, China and the former USSR? Nazi Germany? By the way, I see that, since you think you can prove a negative, you can also argue that absence of proof is proof. Good job! Thumbs up.

    Good luck with all that.

    Like

    • [But name me some Asian or Jewish scientists that might be considered among the greatest scientists ever…]

      Um, Einstein?

      Like

      • Clap, clap, clap…There’s Jewish, as in people from Israel, or of Israeli descent, and there’s Jewish, as in believers in Judaism.

        Whichever you’re referring to, I didn’t say ALL the greatest scientists were believers, now, did I?

        So…1.

        Like

        • People from Israel are Israelis. Jews or the Jewish people would be offended if you said they were ‘believers in Judaism”. They are an ethnic people, whether they practice a religion or not and they identify as such. I think you have your understanding of Jews a bit mixed up.

          Like

  10. So monogamy is what God wanted

    Wow, you have brilliant insight into the Mind of GOD. It is almost like you are interpreting his Word to fit what you think is right.

    Oh wait, that is what you are doing.

    I see that, since you think you can prove a negative, you can also argue that absence of proof is proof.

    Is that the best rhetorical flourish you have? You have me now wriggling on the strawman you set up try and prove a negative? The burden of proof lies with you to prove that god, Zeus, Allah exist.

    Arb said: You see Dave, it is really painfully obvious you have nothing cogent to say here. Adults in rational land would have arguments to say how and why Hitchens is deluded. Sadly, all you can do is clutch your prayer beads a little tighter and wonder what would jesus do.

    I quote myself again, because again you’ve really not addressed earlier points, or (other than bring up some more red herrings) brought anything else to the discussion.

    Your original claim the socialism kills people is still not supported by anything resembling fact. Bringing your magic man and his mythology to the discussion has only lessened the weight of your arguments.

    Like

    • First of all, you don’t know me well enough to call me “Dave”.

      FWIW, it’s not my interpretation. I can prove God’s existence twenty ways, all of which you’ll deny. But you cannot possibly show one proof that God doesn’t exist.

      By your logic, you would also have to know that gun laws and guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Socialism doesn’t kill people, socialists do. Proven fact.

      Like

  11. First of all, you don’t know me well enough to call me “Dave”.

    My apologies, David.

    I can prove God’s existence twenty ways, all of which you’ll deny. But you cannot possibly show one proof that God doesn’t exist.

    Errr…didn’t we just go over that you cannot prove phrases like “it is not not raining outside”?

    Socialism doesn’t kill people, socialists do. Proven fact.

    But earlier in this thread you said: “Except that socialism in all it’s forms kills its own people.”

    Then you said: “The point remains, when the government decides who’s worthy and who isn’t, people die.”

    So to put your statements chronologically it would look like this.

    1. Socialism in any form kills people.
    2. The (I’m assuming socialist) Government kills people.
    3 Socialist do kill people.

    Therefore: People kill people. Brilliant.

    The thread that runs through your arguments is that you arrogantly refuse to examine your positions because, for you they are beyond critical examination.

    You will not examine your belief structure even though it is rife with inconsistencies and fallacious reasoning. Rather, you side step your faulty assumptions ( i.e. socialism(ists) kills people) and attempt to shoehorn your set of (immutable) facts into the reality of the situation.

    David, it does not work that way.

    Socialism doesn’t kill people, socialists do.

    Let us counter example your assertion to see if it holds moral worth.

    The catholic church does not condone the rape of children, only the priests do it.

    The church only provides the means, the protection and the context to rape children and ruin their lives. Therefore the church is innocent but those nasty priests are guilty.

    Rather atrocious I think, in any light.

    Furthermore, you have not explained to me how that up here in Canada the socialized health care is not killing people that disagree with the government. As a reminder you said:

    Dave said: A government which controls the purse strings of health care can now decide that you aren’t worth spending money on because you’re close to dying age anyway, or because they didn’t like your behavior choices.

    You see David, constantly changing the argument, not replying when you have been shown to be in error is not really a good way to argue. I’d be happy to gish gallop over any number of topics with you as you try to prove religion is not a man-made fairy tale (it is Spring Break after all).

    It is an informative experience, showing how indefensible the beliefs you hold actually are. Please, bring on the 20 proofs of God’s existence and I will happily clarify the errors in your arguments and reasoning for the edification of those who are watching this particular conversation.

    Like

  12. Now let’s counter yours. Public school systems around the world provide the means, the context and the safe haven for teachers to molest students. So let’s condemn public schools, rather than the teachers who did the actions in the first place.

    Regarding your socialist healthcare system, people do die every year based on the healthcare decisions your government makes. People die because there’s not money in the system to bestow necessary surgery on those who need it. Canadian health care-it’s great, as long as you’re not sick. I have personal experience in this regard, a niece in need of brain surgery to eliminate seizures. Sorry, there’ll be a 5 year wait for you to have that surgery. RIP, my niece.
    I can defend the truth very well, thanks. Now go play with your bunny…

    Like

  13. David, when forming a counter argument is important to realize the purpose of a what a counter argument is supposed to do. A counter argument highlights the deficits of the original argument in question. The it must of similar form, but with key parts reflecting the absurdity of the original argument.

    Public school systems around the world provide the means, the context and the safe haven for teachers to molest students.

    This is not a counter argument because it does not reflect reality. Breaking this down to show why my counterargument works and yours does not we need to start with the original premise.

    1. David: Socialism doesn’t kill people, socialists do.

    2. (CE) Arb: The church only provides the means, the protection and the context to rape children and ruin their lives. Therefore the church is innocent but those nasty priests are guilty.
    3. (ce) David:Public school systems around the world provide the means, the context and the safe haven for teachers to molest students.

    Now to compare 1 and 2 is to show how the institution of socialism, that is the theory behind it, does not kill people. Self identified socialists do not all possess the trait that they are murders as you claim. That claim is absurd because not all socialists are murders.

    The catholic church though has a long history of regressive policies that not only hurt people (anti-contraception, discrimination vs homosexuals, women etc) but has protected and still protects child molesters. Institutionally speaking, the church continues to perpetuate evil.

    Juxtapose that with the public educational system that, statistically speaking, has its’ share of child abusers and molesters. They key difference is that once caught, the perpetrators are not moved to different school district to continue their criminality, but rather they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    So, in the catholic church they tend to protect the child molesters, while in public school they tend to prosecute them.

    A good defence is a strong offence David, but rather than simply parroting my example you should come up with one that actually works.

    People die because there’s not money in the system to bestow necessary surgery on those who need it.

    Welcome to the world of the poor, who face this situation not because of a systematic problem, but because they cannot afford care.

    have personal experience in this regard,

    I am sorry for your loss David. However, that does not entitle you to make specious claims based solely on anecdotal evidence.

    I can defend the truth very well, thanks.

    I have not seen evidence that characteristic in this thread.

    Now go play with your bunny…

    Ah yes capitalism cashing in on the alleged death of jebus. Admittedly I would much rather consume a chocolate bunny than a chocolate dude being tortured on a cross.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s