Poll of the Day > it should be illegal to discuss jesus or bible in the class roo

(+) Yeah! (+)

myghostisdead posted...

You are arguing with someone who thinks it should be illegal to discuss jesus or the bible in the class roo. Just keep that in mind.

ad hominem

---

OniRonin posted...

ad hominem

You are the one who wrote it not me. Plus, it has been explained to you that in order to teach classes such as the art history I taught you must discuss religion and how it influenced the artist and society as a whole. But then, you singled out just one religion so it seems that you have a bit more of a problem with that particular religion but lets ignore that and go broad with all religions.

Other classes will touch upon world religions, some more and some less. You just can't make it illegal to discuss these religions. That is a ridiculous idea that stifles learning about various cultures, ideas and world history.


---

OniRonin posted...

lets just be clear. you think
"some other experts said my experts were experts"
is a better argument than
"my grandad's an expert and he says my dad is an expert"

...
please come back when you get to college buddy

Probably been to more classes than you as I have about 10 years extra on you. Come back when youve had the same amount of experiences Ive had. Which probably wont be for a while. Instead of insulting me (which just shows you have no argument), how about coming up with a decent argument for why history isnt needed. It you wont. Youll just say ad hominem again, thinking its actually an argument and making yourself look even more ridiculous trying to make yourself look better, when all youre doing is making yourself look worse. You also still havent proven those experts wrong who say history should be a core class. The only thing youve basically said is that you think religion shouldnt be taught because you say so. Oh, and money gatekeeping. But no real legit reason...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Youll just say ad hominem again,

good guess, but your post is actually another appeal to authority.

LinkPizza posted...

You also still havent proven those experts wrong who say history should be a core class.

I havent stated a position on whether history ought to be taught - you are the one who has. the burden of proof is on you to prove that history ought to be taught, and 'experts say so' is not a valid argument


---

You want proof? Easy. Its still be taught as a core class. Thats proof. Easy. Done. What to say its shouldnt be taught. Then bring proof that it shouldnt be. Just because you dont like an argument doesnt mean its not valid...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Its still be taught as a core class.

I don't understand what this means

---

OniRonin posted...

I don't understand what this means

Its being taught as a core class still. Meaning that its still believed to be an important part of the curriculum.
---

I wonder if TC was home schooled.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Its being taught as a core class still. Meaning that its still believed to be an important part of the curriculum.

Wait, your argument that 'history should be taught in schools' is 'history is currently taught in schools'?

---

OniRonin posted...

Wait, your argument that 'history should be taught in schools' is 'history is currently taught in schools'?

No. My argument is its still taught in schools. Schools can and do update their classes all the time. They are adding and taking away classes as needed. And can change the core classes, and which classes are needed to graduate. If history was as unimportant as you are saying, then they would make it optional. Or totally take it out. The fact that they dont seems to speak to the fact that they think its important.
---

LinkPizza posted...

The fact that they dont seems to speak to the fact that they think its important.

yes... they think it's important. you have to establish the link between 'these people think it's important' and 'it is important'

---

OniRonin posted...

yes... they think it's important. you have to establish the link between 'these people think it's important' and 'it is important'

Do you have proof that its not important?
---

LinkPizza posted...

Do you have proof that its not important?

burden of proof lies with you

---

OniRonin posted...

burden of proof lies with you

Nope. With you. Oute the one trying to prove its not important and shouldnt be taught in school...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Nope. With you. Oute the one trying to prove its not important and shouldnt be taught in school...

When did I say that history is not important and shouldn't be taught in school?

---

OniRonin posted...

When did I say that history is not important and shouldn't be taught in school?

By wanting to take religion out of school, you basically take out history. As was stated, history and religion. Go hand in hand. It would be nearly impossible to teach history without the mention of religion, and the little history you can learn would be fragmented. The whole conversation weve been having implies you think history is not important. Or are you saying that it is important and you were just wasting time because you havent had anything to add to the conversation, or any actual reason on why religion shouldn't be taught in school...
---

LinkPizza posted...

By wanting to take religion out of school, you basically take out history. As was stated, history and religion. Go hand in hand. It would be nearly impossible to teach history without the mention of religion, and the little history you can learn would be fragmented. The whole conversation weve been having implies you think history is not important.

so what you're saying is, i never said that history is not important and shouldn't be taught in school

Or are you saying that it is important and you were just wasting time because you havent had anything to add to the conversation, or any actual reason on why religion shouldn't be taught in school...

you're the one wasting time, sir. I stated over 10 posts ago:

"I havent stated a position on whether history ought to be taught - you are the one who has. the burden of proof is on you to prove that history ought to be taught, and 'experts say so' is not a valid argument"

if you want to use "history must be taught" as the reason why religion must be mentioned, you need to establish that history must be taught. otherwise your argument falls apart. my argument doesn't rely on history either way, so i have no burden to establish that history is not necessary, unless you first construct a sound argument against me relying on that basis. and even if you did, I could also attack the claim that religion must be mentioned in order for history to be taught. but there's no reason for me to waste my valuable mental faculties doing that until you actually create a sound argument (not just an appeal to authority)

---

By saying you dont want religion in taught in school, thats also saying no history as stated many post ago (and multiple times) that religion and history are very close. To the point where you cant teach history without touching on religion at some point, without it being fragmented to hell and back.

Saying the experts say so is a valid reason. Again, just because you dont like a reason doesnt mean it isnt valid. If you want to say the experts are wrong, then prove theyre wrong. Until then, it stands that its been proven important.

Schools have already decided history must be taught. So, unless you can prove otherwise (that history or religion should not be taught), then you have no leg to stand on and you claim falls over on its face. You also do have to establish that history should not be taught as ita already been proven to be important. You can try to shift burden of proof all you want, but youre the one trying to change things saying it doesnt need to be taught when its already proven that it does need to be taught...
---

LinkPizza posted...

By saying you dont want religion in taught in school, thats also saying no history as stated many post ago (and multiple times) that religion and history are very close. To the point where you cant teach history without touching on religion at some point, without it being fragmented to hell and back.

i will address this argument as soon as you establish the importance of teaching history

LinkPizza posted...

Saying the experts say so is a valid reason. Again, just because you dont like a reason doesnt mean it isnt valid.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

---

Already been established by experts...

OniRonin posted...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus.

---

LinkPizza posted...

Already been established by experts...

literally says its not valid though

---

OniRonin posted...

literally says its not valid though

Where?
---

on the web page i linked to

---

OniRonin posted...

on the web page i linked to

Did you read it? Because it said: It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus.

That means that the appeal to authority fallacy ISNT used to dismiss claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Which is exactly how youre trying to use it. Which means that youre using it wrong in this case...

Its right there in the link you sent in black and white...
---

did you read it. it says that its not valid

---

OniRonin posted...

did you read it. it says that its not valid

I did more than read. I quoted it for you. Here it is again.

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus.

Basically, it says that your Appeal to Authority CANT be used to dismiss claims made by experts. Basically, if I was saying that a random person was saying we should have it, thats appeal to authority. But if I say an expert in the field said that, appeal to authority doesnt work. Like in this case. So, either youre having trouble reading, having trouble comprehending what its saying, or trolling at this point. And based on what others have said about you, and about your other topics, Im going to go with the third...
---

Just dropped in to say OP is an idiot.

LinkPizza posted...

I did more than read. I quoted it for you. Here it is again.

Basically, it says that your Appeal to Authority CANT be used to dismiss claims made by experts. Basically, if I was saying that a random person was saying we should have it, thats appeal to authority. But if I say an expert in the field said that, appeal to authority doesnt work. Like in this case. So, either youre having trouble reading, having trouble comprehending what its saying, or trolling at this point. And based on what others have said about you, and about your other topics, Im going to go with the third...

ctrl +f for the word valid please

---

Justinw303 posted...

Just dropped in to say OP is an idiot.

ad hominem

---

OniRonin posted...

ctrl +f for the word valid please

You keep saying that like it's somehow the only part of that article that matters.

While I'm thinking about it, do you think it should be illegal to discuss other religions in the class room? Or is it just Christianity you have a problem with?

---

I never met Jesus.

He's been "passed on" now for quite some time...

So How is Each and Every Country's Governments and Wealthy following him eh? EH!?...

Bah...

---

lmfao this some garbage level trolling

dude comes back with ad hominem like its supposed to make him look smart

lmfaooo pls stop

---

OniRonin posted...

ad hominem

That's incorrect. It would be ad hominem if they said your argument is wrong because you are idiot (their words, not mine).

That it just a regular insult.

---

FatalAccident posted...

lmfao this some garbage level trolling

dude comes back with ad hominem like its supposed to make him look smart

lmfaooo pls stop

ad hominem

Lokarin posted...

That's incorrect. It would be ad hominem if they said your argument is wrong because you are idiot (their words, not mine).

That it just a regular insult.

they have no criticism of my argument to post and yet call me dumb for making it

---

OniRonin posted...

they have no criticism of my argument to post and yet call me dumb for making it

Yup, they're insulting you - but it's not an adham

---

OniRonin posted...

ctrl +f for the word valid please

So, you just don't understand what the article is saying. I understand. When you learn what "appeal to authority" means, how about you come back so we can continue this discussion. Also, why are you using "appeal to authority" if you don't know what it means? Because you clearly don't, since you seem to think it means something completely different.

Also, why tell me to search for the word valid. Searching for one word does nothing. How you ctrl +F for the sentence

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus.

And one last thing. You don't get to the right to use "ad honimem" and think people will take you seriously, when you do it yourself. Which you've done twice. Calling me a troll because you didn't clearly state your question. And then trying to take down my argument with you "please come back when you get to college buddy" statement.

FatalAccident posted...

lmfao this some garbage level trolling

dude comes back with ad hominem like its supposed to make him look smart

lmfaooo pls stop

This...

Lokarin posted...

That's incorrect. It would be ad hominem if they said your argument is wrong because you are idiot (their words, not mine).

That it just a regular insult.

It's ok, Lok. He's just saying stuff that he thinks will make him look smart. He's be using "ad hominem" and "appeal to authority" without knowing what they mean because he thinks that'll win him the argument. But they won't if you don't know what they mean or how to use them. He also thinks anyone cares when they say it. It's just a way for him to dismiss that person, while also using the argument of "I win because I say so."

So, FatalAccident is correct here...
---

OniRonin posted...

ad hominem

Lmfaoo

Also isnt this the guy who said something about separation of church and state itt? Obvs doesnt know what that actually means

pla stop lmao

---

LinkPizza posted...

So, you just don't understand what the article is saying. I understand. When you learn what "appeal to authority" means, how about you come back so we can continue this discussion. Also, why are you using "appeal to authority" if you don't know what it means? Because you clearly don't, since you seem to think it means something completely different.

Also, why tell me to search for the word valid. Searching for one word does nothing. How you ctrl +F for the sentence

And one last thing. You don't get to the right to use "ad honimem" and think people will take you seriously, when you do it yourself. Which you've done twice. Calling me a troll because you didn't clearly state your question. And then trying to take down my argument with you "please come back when you get to college buddy" statement.

This...

It's ok, Lok. He's just saying stuff that he thinks will make him look smart. He's be using "ad hominem" and "appeal to authority" without knowing what they mean because he thinks that'll win him the argument. But they won't if you don't know what they mean or how to use them. He also thinks anyone cares when they say it. It's just a way for him to dismiss that person, while also using the argument of "I win because I say so."

So, FatalAccident is correct here...

Which is a shame, since I enjoy religious debate.

I'm relatively anti-religious, but I'm more pro-free speech so even I would allow religious speaking... my desire for free speech outweighs my anti-religious sentiments.

---

Lokarin posted...

I'm relatively anti-religious, but I'm more pro-free speech so even I would allow religious speaking... my desire for free speech outweighs my anti-religious sentiments.

my position doesnt cut against free speech

---

FatalAccident posted...

Lmfaoo

Also isnt this the guy who said something about separation of church and state itt? Obvs doesnt know what that actually means

pla stop lmao

ad hominem

LinkPizza posted...

It's ok, Lok. He's just saying stuff that he thinks will make him look smart. He's be using "ad hominem" and "appeal to authority" without knowing what they mean because he thinks that'll win him the argument. But they won't if you don't know what they mean or how to use them. He also thinks anyone cares when they say it. It's just a way for him to dismiss that person, while also using the argument of "I win because I say so."

ad hominem

Also, why tell me to search for the word valid. Searching for one word does nothing. How you ctrl +F for the sentence

please im begging you, just look at how you've used valid in this topic and what the link has to say about the validity of argument from authority.

are you sure you're really 30 years old, you act like a 13 year old given your limited grasp on basic logic

---

OniRonin posted...

my position doesnt cut against free speech

I get that, but when I say "free speech" mean the spirit and metric of, not just the American legal definition.

---

You're still engaging in a debate here? No. I should say 'you're still trying to convince someone who thinks attacking religion makes him smart that he's actually a dumbass?' I mean, if the dude seriously thinks he can just write religion out then turn around and teach a class on something like U.S. politics with it's multiple religious references in key documents like the Declaration of Independence with no loss of knowledge, he's a complete idiot. Nevermind dealing with things like international cultures, history, art, science, or a bunch of other stuff.

---

OniRonin posted...

ad hominem

Someone still hasnt learned what ad hominem means. Its a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. in this case, I wasnt going against anything you said. But was explaining to Lok why you have no idea how to even use the arguments youre saying. It wasnt an ad hominem. It was just a regular old insult. But you probably dont understand anyway, so...

OniRonin posted...

please im begging you, just look at how you've used valid in this topic and what the link has to say about the validity of argument from authority.

I have read it? Have you? Because it seems unlikely. The first sentence says, It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. That means that Appeal to Authority isnt used to dismiss claims of experts. The second sentence says, Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. That means that appeals to authority arent a valid argument if this were an appeal (hint: its not). But it also says that its not reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge. Again, saying that if they are an expert, you dont just disregard it by saying, Appeal to authority. So, before you start insult me, how about you the read the link you sent me. If you dont understand how to use a fallacy, then you probably shouldnt use it in most of you post...

OniRonin posted...

are you sure you're really 30 years old, you act like a 13 year old given your limited grasp on basic logic

This is probably the closest thing to an ad hominem. You havent said anything to back up your claim, and attacked me instead of be argument...

And by the way, youre the one acting like 13 year old. And the only one here who cant grasp basic knowledge. Look at how everyone around here is treating you or talking to you. Obviously, youre the only one acting like a child here...
---

Unbridled9 posted...

You're still engaging in a debate here? No. I should say 'you're still trying to convince someone who thinks attacking religion makes him smart that he's actually a dumbass?' I mean, if the dude seriously thinks he can just write religion out then turn around and teach a class on something like U.S. politics with it's multiple religious references in key documents like the Declaration of Independence with no loss of knowledge, he's a complete idiot. Nevermind dealing with things like international cultures, history, art, science, or a bunch of other stuff.

why do you need to teach politics

---

Lokarin posted...

I get that, but when I say "free speech" mean the spirit and metric of, not just the American legal definition.

that's what i meant. it doesn't cut against the spirit of free speech or the law

---

This is probably the closest thing to an ad hominem. You havent said anything to back up your claim, and attacked me instead of be argument...

not an ad hominem since i had already refuted your argument

LinkPizza posted...

And by the way, youre the one acting like 13 year old. And the only one here who cant grasp basic knowledge. Look at how everyone around here is treating you or talking to you. Obviously, youre the only one acting like a child here...

ad hominem

---

OniRonin posted...

not an ad hominem since i had already refuted your argument

You didnt refute anything. I, on the other hand, did...

OniRonin posted...

ad hominem

Just an insult since its after I refuted your argument using actually evidence that you posted. But its not you understand what an ad hominem is, anyway... And everyone seems to know this already...
---

OniRonin posted...

why do you need to teach politics

Why do you need to teach anything? Especially with how steeped in religion and politics everything is now-a-days. Hell, you can't even say something like 'there's only two biological genders' without kicking off a fight about politics, gender identity, religion, and probably sixty other things that normally would have no relation what-so-ever to that comment.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Why do you need to teach anything?

good point!

---

Is OP okay with labor unions not being mentioned in school? Hell, government agencies dont pay taxes either, so shouldnt history classes be primarily focused on celebrating the achievements of the wealthy, since they pay the overwhelming share of taxes?

So, to reiterate, OP is an idiot.