I’m afraid you’ve set up a false analogy. You’ve compared an intellectual, a philosophical point (the E.D. Hill comment) with an existential point, one of experience, of the senses (the physical degrees of pain). These things are incomparable.

I beg to disagree Send_Me..they are in fact comparable because at minimum they are concepts, and the the experiential aspect of the ‘finger’ argument is to make clear to one’s own conceivable experience of difference between one choice and another.

But nevertheless sir, you are good dogged, debater.

This particular version was more of an homage to orphan musicals directed by Tarantino. So the confusion was understandable.

Witnesses said Adkisson did not aim the shotgun at children but focused on the pews filled with adults. The first blast left many wondering if the disabling boom was part of the musical program.

It’s been a while since I last saw Annie, but for the life of me I can’t recall a shootout scene.

On July 29th, 2008 at 9:09 pm, love2rumba said:
Allow me to ask the following question of you: If a person gets a minor cut…such as a so-called ‘paper cut’ on their finger do either of you believe that the injury is equal to, greater than, or less in terms of pain than having a finger chopped off?

I’m afraid you’ve set up a false analogy. You’ve compared an intellectual, a philosophical point (the E.D. Hill comment) with an existential point, one of experience, of the senses (the physical degrees of pain). These things are incomparable.

Allow me to ask the following question of you: If a person gets a minor cut…such as a so-called ‘paper cut’ on their finger do either of you believe that the injury is equal to, greater than, or less in terms of pain than having a finger chopped off?

Keep in mind in both cases the victim did not receive anesthesia.

My answer without a ton of intellectual reasoning is that the ‘paper cut’ is less painful than getting a finger chopped off. This should be a ‘no brainer’ for anyone.

Do either of you disagree?

they are having a good time with you over at Crooks and Liars.

What ED Hill said way back when about BO was not worth getting her fired or its equivalent. I think anyone who gets upset about her comment was overwrought and it amazes me tha neither of you can see this.

Additionally, I am entitled to give my opinion of DarkKnight’s opinion at anytime. All you have to do is say “I disagree with it”. Frankly I gave all reasoning I felt the comment was worth. Trying to convice you to see the error of your ways as I see it is a good thing not a bad thing as your posts collectively have made it out to be…this kind of tactic you two are employing is very common from my personal experiences with liberals. I am also entitled to that opinion and observation, too.

And yes based on my personal experiences with liberals over the years, I would have to come to the conclusion that ideologically you two are liberals at this point…perhaps you have some recorded recordsof campaign contributions, letters to the editor, political activism going back to age 18 or other such proof to indicate that you are not?

Please show me!

You are welcome to convince me that I am wrong using reason at anytime.

For the victims in Tennesee I offer my condolenscences.

To answer some posters: There seems to be a double standard. If someone raised in a Christian community kills out of hatred (as this person seems to have done), he’s not a true Christian. If someone raised in a Muslim community kills out of hatred, then Islam is a religion of hatred.

The only double standard I see are certain liberals and the ACLU being silent on CAIR’s infiltration of American schools, but they scream whenever the The Ten Commandments are shown in an unseen corner of a courtroom.

Regarding Islam, can you find any of these in the New Testament:

If they refuse to convert, offer the Jizya. If they refuse that, kill them wherever you find them.

The rocks and trees will shout out “come! there is a Jew behind me!” [so you can kill him].

Do tell, LGM.

James Felix said:

Really? Because there are approximately 90,000 dead Iraqi civilians, most of whom were presumably Muslim, that would still be alive if it weren’t for a certain Christian president and Christian vice-president.

That’s an absurd comparison Rusty, even for you.

Naw, JF, it’s par for the course of Renowned Rusty Relativism ™ – where up is down and down is up. As I’ve said before, Rusty would be mighty hard pressed to be able to differentiate between the 9-11 attacks and D-Day.

DarkKnight said:
Purplepeep, I did not look at talking points from MoveOn or any other group.

Actually – and to even more correct – you, by your own citation, regurgitated complaints from two fringe leftist groups.

“Led by activist groups MoveOn.org and ColorOfChange.org, protesters cited incidents on Fox”

As I said it’s patently goofy that anyone should demand that any sane American do anything other than condemn such anti-America thugs like MoveOn, as both Democrats and Republicans already have done. Of course, you are welcome to be – as your citation says – “led by” them, but you just shouldn’t expect anyone to take your repetition of their garbage seriously.

On July 29th, 2008 at 12:16 pm, love2rumba said:
Send_MeFor an individual who has been making ad hominem attacks on me all night, you are rich.

I have? Please, show me.

On July 29th, 2008 at 12:36 pm, James Felix said:

You’ve saved me quite a bit of typing. Thanks for your post.

Second, I’m a gun owning, Bush voting, war supporting veteran of the US Navy who believes in personal responsibility, and therefore not a liberal in the currently understood sense of the word.

In this regard, we only differ in two ways: 1) U.S. Army, 2) still active.

Yup liberal think hard at work. Ignore reality and then claim I have no standing…standard tack.

Insofar as he suggested a degree in economics is irrelevant to the topic at hand… I’m sorry, but he’s right.

yes you do remind me of sophists of every category from the left side.

This is another ad hominem.

If you cannot understand the differnece between ad hoiminem and a simile…I do not know what to say.

I believe the statement he was referring to was that “latte sipping” remark. That cannot be called a simile, at least under any definition I’m aware of, and it was an ad hominem. The clear intent of the statement was to suggest that 1) latte sippers (that is, liberals) are by definition wrong and 2) the person you were addressing is a latte sipper. That’s the very definition of an ad hominem.

Given the pattern of your posts I suspect your immediate response will be to dismiss what I’ve just said as liberal claptrap. That would be wrong for two reasons. First, it would be yet another ad hominem fallacy. Second, I’m a gun owning, Bush voting, war supporting veteran of the US Navy who believes in personal responsibility, and therefore not a liberal in the currently understood sense of the word.