Nonsense "arguments" from Ed

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

OK, bringing this into its own thread...

 

In the "knots" thread, I suggested this:

Be sure and send a Prevaricator's Knot to all the BSA officials who issued charters to government agencies post-Dale, onehouraweekmy.

 

In response, Ed wrote:

And don't forget to send one of those Prevaricator's Knot to the ACLU!

 

Now, since Ed didn't indicate why the ACLU deserved a Prevaricator's Knot, I asked him:

For what, Ed? I said why the BSA should get one; why should the ACLU?

 

Ed nonsensically replied:

Same reason, Merlyn.

 

So I asked if Ed even realized what he was saying:

So Ed, you think the *ACLU* is dishonest because the BSA issued charters to government agencies after the Dale decision?

 

And now Ed writes, with no other clarification:

Didn't say that Merlyn.

 

And now we're up to date, with new material by me.

 

Sorry Ed, yes, you DID say that, when you said "same reason." I gave a reason why the BSA deserves a Prevaricator's Knot, and you said the ACLU deserved one for the "same reason." Since the reason I gave for the BSA is their issuing of charters to gov't agencies post-Dale, your reply means that the ACLU deserves one for the "same reason," which is complete nonsense.

 

Now, if you'd like to try and present a coherent reason why the ACLU deserves one, instead of writing glib nonsense and simply denying that what you wrote somehow isn't what you meant, then state more clearly why you think the ACLU deserves a Prevaricator's Knot. Right now, all you've said is that they deserve one for the "same reason" as I gave for the BSA deserving one, which is for issuing charters to government agencies after the Dale decision.

 

But you aren't really interested in an argument. I'd say you're not only not interested, but likely not capable.

 

I suspect you'll just deny this, but still offer no real reasons or argument, just more of your nonsense babbling.

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

I have to admit when I first saw the title of this thread, my first instinct was to delete this thread. Then having read it, I understand what Merlyn is saying. I do ask that only Merlyn and Ed post here and we can either watch what happens or ignore them completely

[erickelly65 10]

To be honest, I have never understood Merlyn's stance that the Scouts must take an either/or stance from the Dale decision. (Either have your membership rules or benefit from government support but not both)

 

Secondly, its the school's duty to decide if it can sponsor a Scouting Unit, not the Scouts.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

No public school can legally charter a BSA unit that discriminates on the basis of religion, because public schools can't do that, even if the administration wants to discriminate. It isn't up to the school, since they cannot practice religious discrimination.

[evmori 11]

Does the ACLU issue BSA charters? No.

 

Gotta agree erickelly65. School districts do business with different companies & agencies that I would bet discriminate in some manner but they still do business with them. No, Merlyn, I don't have any examples!

 

Chartering a BSA unit is, in no way endorsing discrimination.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[FScouter 24]

Eric, and everyone else,

 

Ed and Merlyn were asked to take their bickering "outside". Merlyn has done that by opening a thread specifically to address Ed's arguments. Fellow moderator OGE has opted to let the thread stand and I agree. Let's please not hijack their "discussion", and leave this thread to the two of them as their personal yet publicly viewable thread.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I knew it. Ed is incapable of carrying on an argument, even after being tediously guided right to what he needs to do to make one.

 

Ed, why does the ACLU deserve a Prevaricator's Knot? You have yet to offer a coherent reason.

 

If you want to discuss why public schools can't charter BSA units, start a new thread. This one is about your inability to offer even a shred of an argument to support your views.

[evmori 11]

James Madison, the principal drafter of the First Amendment, proposed that, unlike European states, the government should not tax its citizens to support religious activities, nor should it promote religious beliefs, and that all religious beliefs should be treated equally and fairly. He believed that religion would thrive best when the government did not promote some religious beliefs to the exclusion of others.

 

The ACLU is dishonest.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I knew it, Ed STILL can't offer a reason why the ACLU should get a Prevaricator's Knot.

 

Ed, you still haven't offered a reason. You've copied and pasted (without indicating that you got it from the ACLU's website) a bit about Madison, and then baldly assert that the ACLU is dishonest. But you haven't stated any REASON.

 

Do you consider the ACLU's description of Madison's views to be deliberate lies? I'm forced to guess, since you:

1) didn't bother to mention that the description of Madison WAS from the ACLU's website, and

2) didn't comment on it AT ALL

 

Sorry Ed, what you do is described as a "word salad". You just toss words and phrases around, without even attempting to put forward a concept.

[evmori 11]

The ACLU is dishonest. If they actually lived into the Madison blurb they posted on their web site they would be forcing the removal of Menorah's from government property instead of just forcing the removal of Nativity displays.

 

Never guess at anything I post, Merlyn. You have done this many times and to date you have been wrong every time.

 

No I didn't mention it was from the ACLU web site. Did I violate a rule by not doing so? And I did comment on it. You just didn't like my comment.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

At last! It only took half a dozen tries, but Ed has finally put forth an argument. Which I will proceed to shoot down, of course, but what did you expect?

 

The ACLU is dishonest. If they actually lived into the Madison blurb they posted on their web site they would be forcing the removal of Menorah's from government property instead of just forcing the removal of Nativity displays.

 

I've told you this before Ed, but I know you can't learn things. The ACLU *DID* sue to remove *BOTH* nativity scenes *AND* menorahs. The *COURTS* decided that menorahs were not religious symbols.

 

Never guess at anything I post, Merlyn. You have done this many times and to date you have been wrong every time.

 

I *HAVE* to guess because you can't ARGUE properly. What, for example, did you mean by "Same reason" earlier? It can only mean one thing, but that one thing is complete and utter nonsense.

 

And no, you didn't comment on the ACLU blurb; you said the ACLU was dishonest, but you did not comment on the blurb itself.

 

So Ed, I've refuted your sole argument that you've put forth on the ACLU's dishonesty. In fact, I refuted it months back when you brought up the same erroneous claim.

 

Now, so I don't "have to guess", can you explain what your "Same reason" reply meant? You don't want me to have to guess what you mean, so it's in your own interest to explain it. The only interpretation I can come up with is that you are saying the ACLU is dishonest for the same reason I gave for the BSA's dishonesty, that of issuing charters to gov't agencies, but you and I know that's nonsense. So in the interest of not being forced to guess, what did you mean by "Same reason"?

[evmori 11]

You've refuted nothing, Merlyn. Ask any Jew. A Menorah is a Jewish religious symbol. If the ACLU really cared about religious freedom, they would pursue this with the same vim & vigor they pursue the BSA.

 

You also seem to be incapable of arguing without name calling & berating. Do you see this as a necessity? Does it make your point more valid? Or is it like the guy who uses the f word all the time because he doesn't know any better?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

Merlyn, you dont have to keep repeating that Ed cant learn, whether or not he can is up to us to discern.

 

Ed, the F word tactic is not on point and can only lead away from the original argument that the ACLU is being dishonest

 

 

[evmori 11]

OGE,

You missed my point. I was only using the F word statement as an example of the way some people talk as a parallel to the way Merlyn argues. No tactic was meant.

 

It only took half a dozen tries Not a true statement.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, the ACLU *DID* try to get menorahs removed. Yet you keep trying to put forth the same false argument that the ACLU hasn't done anything. They DID. The courts ruled against them.

 

And no, you can't argue. "You've refuted nothing, Merlyn. Ask any Jew. A Menorah is a Jewish religious symbol."

 

Sorry, I *DID* refute you. You claimed the ACLU was ignoring menorahs; I pointed out they DID try to have them removed, but the courts ruled they weren't religious symbols. I think menorahs ARE religious symbols, but the idiotic supreme court ruled otherwise. But what I refuted, specifically, was your claim that the ACLU went after nativity scenes but not menorahs. They went after both. The court said menorahs weren't religious symbols.

 

Yes, it's a crock, but you need to blame the supreme court for that, not the ACLU.