ambushed, I think what’s plain is that you and I have different definitions for “facts,” “evidence,” and “theory,” and very different notions of what your citation says. Best of luck to you.
Well, yes. If a book that disagrees with you still offers the same facts, and acknowledges the validity of your conclusions from those facts, and only reaches a different interpretation of those conclusions, then that book is a particularly good cite for your facts and your conclusions. Citing people who cherry-pick the same facts or who reach the same conclusions as you do only serves to restate your case in finer language – good tactics, to be sure, but hardly evidence for a crushing rebuttal.
I’ve given enough time to expire, yet tomndebb (and nearly all of my other opponents here) never responded to many of my most important points and questions.
My opponents have grossly understated the importance of-- or utterly ignored the fact-- that the assholish magellan01 rejected my cite merely because it agreed with my statements! When someone asks for a citation that backs up one’s statements – as magellan01 did – then, dammit, the citation must – absolutely MUST – agree with those statements! Else it is not what the poster asked for!
Thus, no one can validly reject a citation merely because it agrees with the posters statements, as Magellan did. He did NOT say he rejected my cite because it lacked sufficient evidence, as you revisionists insist, but simply because it said what I said! In doing so, he seemed to me to be implying that I had simply manufactured the entire quotation.
If he had actually claimed that my evidence was insufficient, as so many of you assert, I would have argued with him or cited additional evidence. I would NOT have pitted him for it.
Furthermore my opponents have ignored thousands of years of intellectual history by implicitly denying the validity of facts and deductive logic by denying that the evidence I cited adequately justifies the statement that the Godlessness of the Consitutiion was deliberate. Jacoby cited certain facts – and it is stupid to deny they are facts – such as that the Framers deliberately chose the godless, secular Virginia state constitution as their model instead of one of the undeniably religious majority of states. This FACT proves that the Framers did not want to model the Constitution on one of the religious states’ constitutions (and hence wanted a godless, secular Constitution), else they would have chosen one of them as a model. Tomndebb and Campion implicitly deny this is a fact, since they implicitly claim there are no facts in Jacoby’s quoted writing. At the very least they claimed that the Framers did not deliberately choose Virginia as their model.
But as I explicitly asked Tom and implicitly asked my opponents here, yet they refused to answer, how else can this decision be described but as a deliberate choice?
In this regard, please see: The U.S. Constitution is deliberately Godless. Discuss.
Yeesh.
You wander away from the board to think about this for three weeks and the best you can do is come back and say “Did so!” with a lot of extra verbiage?
Last time, (I hope):
magellan01 did not reject this book because it agreed with you; he rejected your selected quotations because they expressed nothing more than opinions that you share.
Jacoby might have provided all the information that any of us could possibly desire, but none of the information provided in your selected quotes presents those facts.
Read the quotes again. They provide a judgement by Jacoby that particular events occurred for particular reasons. I do not challenge Jacoby’s credentioals, good faith, or presentation. She might be dead on. Your quotations only demonstrate her judgment, something that is open to challenge until we see the facts.
This is where your argument falls apart, Tom. They couldn’t have had a “God is peachy keen and in charge in the US of A” amendment to the Constitution?" Of course they could have. Clearly, the Framers didn’t want it there. The fact that God is not in the Constitution is very nearly proof by itself that they didn’t want it there … anybody who wants to maintain that it was left out accidentally has a lot of evidence to marshall … not vice versa … because God ISN’T in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
You have misread my argument.
My only point has been that ambushed’s pitting of magellan01 is based on a false reading of what magellan01 said and a total misunderstanding by ambushed regarding what constitutes evidence or facts.
As I note in his new The U.S. Constitution is deliberately Godless. Discuss. thread, one may make the case that the omission was deliberate, but no one (at least no one cited by ambushed), has provided the evidence–and certainly no proof.
I don’t disagree with your analysis.
But I also think it’s unfair to say that ambushed’s cite is valueless - not that you did.
When an issue like this arises, there’s no way to definitively prove it. All you can do is assemble facts that are favorable to the inference you’re urging.
When a published author, after research, reaches the same conclusion you’re urging, it’s a nudge towards your side. A stronger nudge, admittedly, would be for us to see the facts relied upon by that author. But to assume that the author’s academic conclusion is valueless seems a bit hard-headed.
So - it’s not proof, but it’s evidence in favor.
It absolutely is a view to be reckoned when arriving at a decision regarding the issue. For that matter, Ms. Jacoby may have provided the exact citations establishing the point somewhere else in her book.
I would welcome seeing that evidence.
The issue in this thread is whether it is appropriate to Pit someone for not accepting opinion (however good the quality of judgment) that has been presented as fact. The cites actually provided show the judgment of Ms. Jacoby. They do not demonstrate the facts that Ms. Jacoby used to arrive at her conclusion. (I wonder how well ambushed would have received a similar claim by magellan01, citing the work of a reputable historian who happened to agree with the “accidental” analysis, but who provided no more citations of original documents than did Ms. Jacoby in the section quoted?)
I think magellen’s response was assholish, but not his opinion on the matter. What he should have said was, “That is an interesting argument and certainly one that deserves some consideration given your citation. But it appears to be one person’s interpretation and I would need to either read the book more closely or need some other corroboration to be convinced.”
Well, well, well, I’ve been pitted and no one even invited me. 
I just discoverd this thread. It refers to a discussion that ended about a month ago, so it is not fresh in my mind. I went back to review it, but it’s 12 pages long and I don’t feel like reading through the whole thing again. I feel safe in saying this much: it was a very interesting thread, it went on for quite a while, I personally engaged with several posters, all exchanges were civil, I learned more than I knew about atheism.
I will offer just one item as far as rebuttal: the thread itself.
Although I think the entire thread is interesting, the portion the OP brought up is on the last page. I’d recommend going back a couple of pages, though, to see how the discussion was going. I will leave it to your own judgments then, if I merit this pitting.
To make it a easier, I’ve supplied a fuller exchange than what the OP supplied. To save space, I will not repeat the text from Jacoby that the OP supplied.
Also, a little background: The statement of mine that started this particular exchange was originally in an answer I supplied to Diogenes the Cynic. MEBuckner, Dan Blather, Cosmosdan, MaxTheVool, and crowmanyclouds also participated (mostly disagreeing with me, if I recall correctly). Yet with all that back and forth there was no problem. Then the OPer made a counter claim. I responded by going back and reading Madison’s notes (something that may prove or show what the Founders intended) and supplying him with what I found. His response was to merely supply me with an excerpt from a book by someone expousing the same opinion or theory that he had. I then pointed out, perhaps ineloquently, that I do not consider someone’s opinion after the fact to be “proof” of what the Founders were thinking. I explained myself and said that I would be interested reading another cite if he had one. He then became indignant that I accept Jacoby of proof that his original claim was true (that the fonders fought tooth and nail…). I maintain that it is not.
I’d be curious to know what you all think. Particularly those who chose to side with the OP based on what he supplied.
Post 538
Post 559
Post 567
Post 572
Note to the OP: Whether you realize or not, you owe me an apology.
I thought the cite was interesting, but didn’t think it was going to be enough to convince anyone.
However, the argument that references to “natures god”, “creator”, etc. prove the Founders intended something other than a purely secular republic IMHO is severely lacking.
(I’ve heard it argued (not here) that “in the year of our lord” proves the Founder’s desire that we be a Bible believing, Christian nation :dubious: .)
The Enlightenment thinkers (IMHO) were not creating a new religion, with a new deity, they were using a easily understood metaphor. If they’d had the benefit of the last 200 years of human understanding (Darwin, Freud, etc.) I doubt a god would mentioned at all!
The founders clearly used the English founding documents to back the legitimacy of their revolt, Kings were not endowed by God with rights greater than other men, Kings who became tyrants lost their right to rule, etc.
We quit before I got a chance to suggest an alternate theory for the deist references, and the use of some other loaded words, in some of the documents being discussed.
I thought it was an interesting thread. I’m not trying to re-argue the positions here, just to provide a more accurate synopsis of what actually transpired that lead to this ridiculous pitting. But thanks for your thoughts.
Did you, or did you not, write that you rejected my quotation simply because it agreed with me? Do I need to quote your own words again?
If you admit that you did write the words that I am pitting you for, will you also please tell tomndebb that you wrote those words?
Those words – contrary to tomndebb’s assholish assertions to the contrary – are the SOLE reason I pitted you at all.
I think you ought to post them again. What the heck, it’s fun counting how many bubbles of foam are running down your chin. When you post it, however, this time you might want to read it and note something that you are clearly distorting: he did not reject it because it agreed with your opinion; he rejected it because it was an opinion that did not include the facts to support it. Meeting a request for evidence with a concurring opinion is not the same thing as meeting a request for evidence with evidence. Getting bent out of shape because one cannot distinguish between (seriously considered) opinion and evidence supported fact and then continuing both the inability to distinguish between fact and opinion and the anger over one’s own failures for over three weeks should be a clear sign that one should consider some new hobbies.
Heck, I’ll post it again:
I (that would be magellan01)
**do not consider someone making the same argument as you ** (that would be Jacoby whose words are an opinion)
**as a valid cite for this claim by you ** (that is, regardless how considered her judgment, an opinion that does not include documentary evidence of the fight–or of any mild discussion–does not satisfy the request for a citation regarding a deliberate decision or a fierce fight that you claimed).
What was the claim?
This statement makes the claim that a choice was made to exclude any reference to God in the Constitution. In addition, it makes the claim that that choice was “fought over tooth and nail.” To any but the most obtuse reader, this would be a pretty clear indication that you have made the claim that the framers not only excluded God, but that there was a great deal of arguing over that decision among the framers. A request for a citation for that claim would be answered by notes detailing (or at least alluding) to that battle royale.
Instead, you provided a citation to a judgement that the action was deliberate (a judgment that is defensible, but which is not infallible) with not a single reference to the framers even discussing the matter (much less fighting over it tooth and nail).
What we get, instead, are some references to a few people who were not part of the Convention reacting loudly after the fact. We do not even get a reference to any of the framers responding to the criticism.
We have no word (evidence) about the decision coming out of the convention.
We have no word (evidence) of any framer responding to the criticisms from a small handful of religious types.
We have an opinion that the issue was decided deliberately.
So, for all the evidence that has been presented (you know, “Cite?”), regarding the matter being fought over tooth and nail, there could have been exactly four loud preachers whose letters happened to be collected while it was a complete non-issue to the framers, the legislatures, the overwhelming majority of religious leaders and everyone else.
We know why you pitted him: you have not yet learned the differences between opinion and fact or the sort of evidence that it would be well for one to provide to support an opinion.
I can see you’re starting to froth at the mouth already. If you will try to contain your anger and look at my post, you will see that I included the same quote you did. I simply provided the context it which it appeared. I guess you think that is unfair. I am not surprised. Which brings us to…
You are a pussy of the the most fetid, stanky, and syphillated order. In the thread in question you repeatedly tried to invoke the masses on your side by uses of “us” and “we”, just like the punk kid I equated you with. And then you pit me without even putting my name in the title as to flag me! You did this, as was pointed out, to attempt to marshall support for your position without opposition from me. If you’re a male, you are not a man. Regardless of sex, you have no backbone. You are a slug who prefers to operate in the dark under a rock. In your mind, I’m sure you think your cowardly behavior is defensible.
But, you may be glad to know, that I think I’ve discovered the crux of our disagreement. In post #575, you reposted my statement:
You then responded:
See? I’ve found the problem. You seem to think that a cite to Jaoby’s work is as authorative as a cite to a dictionary!!! Now I don’t know if you think that a cite to ANY book is equally as valid, or just to those books whose authors share your views. Either way, THAT is madness. Or complete stupidity. Or both.
Realty check: Susan Jacoby is person with a point of view. She may be right. She may be wrong. Just like you or I. She wrote a book putting forth her theory. Good for her. It does not make her word gospel. Especially when I am asked to judge her argument based on a few extracted passages. Also, I supplied a link that brought her scholarship into question, which you did not refute.
Do you not think that there are other authors who I could have cited who support my side of the argument? Have you heard of David Barton, author of Original Intent?His book is about 75% quotes from the founders, and I didn’t even cite him as proof of anything because I realize that he is an author with a strong point of view and he is going to choose quotes and interpret facts to support his position. But what if I did? Would you have accepted what he had to say as proof that I was right? And whose to say the the parts I quoted are all he had to say on the subject? Shouldn’t you have to read the whole book to fairly judge. And how about if I cited two books, or five, or twenty? Are you going to read all those books before you post a reply? (Not that, in your case, if those books were books on logic—or manners— that it wouldn’t be a good idea.)
I doubt that a further explanation will be able to penetrate your soft, dense melon, but there is an irrepressible optimist in me, so here goes:
Yo claimed that the founders “fought tooth and nail” to keep God out of the D of I. I asked you to demonstrate the veracity of that statement. I indicated that I had gone to the place that, if your statement was true, would have most likely supported your position: Madisons notes on the convention AT WHICH THE DEBATES ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE DOCUMENT WERE HELD. I shared my findings with you, including the specific number of times the words religion, God, and Creator appeared. (I didn’t even mention that most of those mentions were not used as topics of debate.)
You did not refute these findings. Instead, you responded with a cite, not to any founding documents or writings, but to a contemporary author. One that, understandably, shares your position. Some of the problems with this I’ve addressed above. I’ll just add, that Jacoby simply argues your position, offering no support.
So when I asked you for support for your claim, your response was to present a cite that presented the same argument, but without support for the claim? Does that make sense to you? Not that that should be the litmus test for the rest of us.
I’ve noticed that you’re quick to throw around the idea of someone being an asshole. Now, I can accept that the word is part of your everyday vocabulary, no doubt having heard it so often, but it is not a word that most of the rest of us use as freely. Just thought you’d might like to know.
I’m still waiting for a complete and straightforward apology. Until then, I will not subject myself to you. I hope the whole Board visits my pitting. I can think of no better way to reveal to the world what a cowardly punk you are.
Check the other thread you started. Maybe the lengthier explanation I provided will help you understand what the qualifies as support and evidence, and what supports as someone else who shares you opinion.
You’re nothing but an opinionated, cowardly, fucking idiot. Go stuff your face with a Kotex, you dumb Pussy.
Just a word on terminology.
When you don’t buy someone’s assessment —> ask for factual evidence
When you don’t buy someone’s factual evidence -----> ask for a cite.
It’s inappropriate to ask for a cite regarding something that is clearly an assessment or opinion if what you’re really looking for is evidence. A cite is just asking for an outside reference for verification. Evidence is asking to be persuaded. I think **Ambushed ** literally complied with **Magellan’s ** request - he came up with an outside reference that verified what he was saying. But of course, since what he was saying was not really factual, but was an opinon, no “cite” could really be appropriate or adequate.
So a little blame Magellan’s way for just tossing out “cite please?” in that context. Not a lot. There are cases where it’s much more egregious and snarky. And anyway the bulk of the onus is on Ambushed to recognize what it takes to make an argument and persuade people of your point. The default position here is skepticism - it’s your job to convince, not anyone else’s job to believe you.
You make a good point and I mostly agree with you. However, I have seen many instances in which someone asks for a cite and the person it is asked of understands the type of information that is then required. I can understand if there was the type of confusion you describe in the instance in question—on the initial request. But I feel it immediately became clear what I was asking for. The fact the person in question then stated what he did regarding the dictionary cite (see my previous post in this thread), I think shows that he is unable to comprehend the distinctions you draw. Maybe the post of yours will succeed in doing what neither I nor tomndebb have been able to.
That said, the distinction you make is a good one. One that I will keep in mind.
I am really really tired of people who use pussy as an insult. I have one. I think it’s kinda cute. It’s not an insult.
You are obviously missing the crux of the lesson, kayT. Here, I’ll help you.
magellan01: If you’re a male, you are not a man.
You see, kayT, “real men” write shit like this:
magellan01: You are a pussy of the the most fetid, stanky, and syphillated order.
magellan01: You’re nothing but an opinionated, cowardly, fucking idiot. Go stuff your face with a Kotex, you dumb Pussy.
Try to pay attention, kayT, okay?
regards,
widdley
And the sublime irony of this posted by magellan01…I’ve noticed that you’re quick to throw around the idea of someone being an asshole. Now, I can accept that the word is part of your everyday vocabulary, no doubt having heard it so often, but it is not a word that most of the rest of us use as freely. Just thought you’d might like to know.
Can we safely assume that most of the rest of “us” don’t see a problem with nauseating remarks about female body parts?
I’m startin’ to catch on…
regards,
widdley