Well I don't see what the post from other boards has to do with anything...
..and then you spend nearly the whole thread, and your whole post which I am responding to talking about it.
There are about five threads on it at the forum in question. Quite comical in a meltdown sort of way. Apparently someone did post something and pass it off as their own...and so did Pubic. I guess now he's a liberal, too.
Uh
Nooouue...
Publius posted; as the result of a specific request to do so by the opposition; a dictionary definition for three commonly used words which are routinely employed by those with a minimal command of the english language; the definition was constructed as such... and the citations were summarily recognized BY THE OPPOSITION, AS SUCH; he did not pass it off the definitions as his own; he was asked for a definition; cited a definition; and when asked for the source; advanced the source; noting how ridiculous such was given the pedestrian nature of the relevant concepts; oka: commonly used words.
Any accounting of Publius posts, will find hundreds of posts where I cite that same source and readily offer clear and present attribution to same...
The distinction here is that the subject concepts; the words; were of such a pedestrian nature that no attribution was necessary; as first; the basic command of the language demonstrated by the evidence of the opposition's daily, prolific contributions; require the reasonable expectation that she is readily familiar with the defining composition of those concepts; and second; there is no reasonable means to contest the definitions, due to their elementary nature; and third; such definitions are readily available from nearly ANY dictionary resting in the English language; without disruption of their defining continuity.
Now, sadly... it falls to me to defend from the specific charges advanced by no less an authority, than an official of this site; the status of such requiring that it is reasonable to believe that the humble authority inherent in common membership is insufficient to overcome; absent a citation of the referenced record itself... which inherently bears the final authority...
I've stripped the evidence of any Link to the forum itself, in keeping with site policy... and have corrected for syntax, spelling and grammatical errors, advanced in the haste of the original exchange and highlighted the points which are key to my argument...
Publius Infinitum: from a forum somewhere in the ether... said:
.
.
.
Well, in the "
It's a Fact!" Column...
We have the
incontrovertible FACT; newly established; that BobbyO... An ATHIEST Leftist.... is:
A person of FAITH!
Now that's noteworthy
ONLY because BobbyO has, rather
emphatically, declared that she is
NOT a person of faith... well, here... see for yourselves...
Roll TAPE!
Bobby O. date='27 February 2010 - 08:22 PM said:
BobbyO overtly revising the comments of PubliusInfinitum - in order to demonstrate the superior IQ and tolerant compassion which the Left desperately needs people to believe are common to Atheist Liberals' said:
I am PubliusInfantileScrotum, and I am a pampas ASS!! I think my [excrement] doesn't stink and that I am better than anyone on this forum!! I think I should be killed, slowly, with a cattle prod!!
YOU PAMPAS Piece of SHIT!! Who the FUCK do you think you are? It's just that kind of attitude that is killing this country!! Your kind has taken the heart out of this place. When you show me true, physical evidence of your God, then i will believe. Until then you will be looked upon as a brainwashed IDIOT!! Now go lay down before you hurt yourself!!
[quote='PubliusInfinitum' date='27 February 2010 - 08:33 PM]...
The evidence of the Creator's existence rest in your existence... unless you're hear to claim that you created yourself... and frankly Bob.. given your demonstrated intellectual means... that's fairly unlikely. And given that your existence is of the physical variety... I think that fills the billing of your request...
So there ya go...
you've been exposed to the evidence... as you requested; so where do ya stand on God now, Bob?
And so it went... with Bobby's chronic denials of any and all evidence of A Creator... even as she sits amongst the creation... wherein she desperately clung to her own likely preconceived notions of a white haired and while invisible, an all too human, being; sitting on high, overlooking the earth... with little baby angles flittering around fluffy white clouds, pickin' on the obligatory golden harps... until ...
[quote='Bobby O.' date='28 February 2010 - 07:12 PM]... you live on faith. I can't do that. To me faith is bullshit!! ...[/quote]
Form there; the conversation; which was already on a dangerously steep angle, given Bobby's starkly limited intellectual means... went directly over the philosophical cliff for the little lady... whereupon, as the transcript below indicates; Bobby actually
establishes herself as a person of absolute faith.
She's proves in indisputable terms that she is a person who believes
deeply in things which she cannot prove... She knows them to be
true; yet despite being unable to
see the truth; which she desperately needs to be there; she can't actually
touch that truth... thus; and quite naturally, she can't physically
feel that truth. And unlike religious folks... Bobby doesn't even have the comfort of being able to turn to the ancient scriptures... at best all she can do is sit on the internet and rant on about her beliefs... professing her addle-minded, empty faith: 'IT'S TRUE! I TELL YOU! I don't care WHAT you say...'
[quote='Bobby O.' date='28 February 2010 - 11:18 PM][quote='PubliusInfinitum' date='28 February 2010 - 10:06 PM][quote='Bobby O.' date='28 February 2010 - 09:02 PM]
PubicInfantileScrotum, you are a self righteous TWIT!! YOUR arguments have NO merit whatsoever!! You think that just because you say it, then it is. God is just an idea. There has NEVER been proof outside of a single book, which was written by men. Life came about through chemical process combined with temperature and pressure. There was no Invisible being involved. Science has more than enough evidence to prove that. God didn't create us, and he didn't give us rights. Rights were given to us by MEN who wrote the documents giving us our rights!! You are a fool, who has been proven wrong again, and again, and again. You just refuse to accept it. Go get a life you insignificant piece of crap!!!
[/quote]
ROFLMNAO...
and you claim that you can't live on faith...
Yet here ya are demonstrating profound faith... And your faith doesn't even have the benefit of a book...
Now you'll no doubt need to deny that... which is fine... as that is what a person of faith SHOULD DO!
So we're going to test your faith...
You've made a number of assertions here...
1.God is just an idea.
2.There has NEVER been proof outside of a single book, which was written by men.
3.Life came about through chemical process combined with temperature and pressure.
4.There was no Invisible being involved.
5.Science has more than enough evidence to prove that.
6.God didn't create us, and he didn't give us rights.
7.Rights were given to us by MEN who wrote the documents giving us our rights!!
Take each one of the elements of your faith and demonstrate to the extent of your means, their respective factual underpinnings...
Now I will tell you that you GOING TO FAIL...
As there is no potential fact in ANY of them... not the least of which is
the last of them.
Now IF you truly
believe... and it's fairly clear that ya do... as a matter of fact; it's patently clear that you're DESPERATE to believe... you'll not rush to respond with your usual vacuous, anti-theist boilerplate... and you'll really give these; the specific elements of your faith, serious consideration
and return to show the factual underpinnings which sustain these elements of your faith... in order to lead the unwashed who will otherwise recognize that your faith is rather sad, empty and a function of deceitful evil, which will only bolster their tangible, intellectually sound faith which is anchored in the ancient scriptures and which emanates directly from their soul...
And of course Bobby...
you will concede, to me; by default... when you return to this thread and we find that your response fails to sustain any of these elements of your faith; and as I said, this is an absolute certainty... that you Sis... despite your protestations to the contrary... you will inevitably prove yourself to be a person of unbridled faith.
But... BEST of luck... nonetheless.
[/quote]
Sorry, I was watching the closing ceremonies. I have a better idea, for you. Instead of saying "look around you and you will see evidence of God" give me some solid, undeniable proof that God does truly exist. Until you do that, shove yourself and your ASSUMPTIONS about me up your ass.
[/quote]
So it was written; as it was done... Bobby returns to concede that she is a Person of DEEP... anti-Religious faith.
And THAT kids is all there is to THAT!
I hope you enjoyed it... feel free to take these methods and apply them to your own anti-theists... they work every single time that they're tried. [/quote]
[quote='PubliusInfinitum' date='01 March 2010 - 08:59 PM][quote='gailybee' date='01 March 2010 - 07:21 PM' ]
I'd like a definition of 'anti-religious faith'.
[/quote]
No problem...
Anti-: opposed to something: expressing or holding an opposing view, especially with regard to a political issue or moral principle
Religious: believing in a higher being: believing in and showing devotion or reverence for a deity or deities
Faith: belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something
Thus "
Anti-religious faith" is simply
being opposed to something; expressing or holding an opposing view, especially with regard to a political issue or moral principle; which provides for the belief in and shows devotion to and/or reverence for, a deity or deities; Opposition which requires belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something."
LOL... Now the cool part here... Gail would be quick to tell you that she represents a respect for intellect... meaning; mental ability; somebody's ability to think, reason, and understand; and this while she rejects the combining of three simple words to express a succinct point derived from the construct term.
Now I am old enough to remember when Leftists were sufficiently educated to actually be recognized as intellectuals.
And look at 'em now... Compound words confuse 'em...
Just look at poor Billy... She desperately wants to sustain her now long-since discredited point... and all can she do is glum onto a half baked screed from Gaily which offers little more than the
color or reason... wholly incapable of recognizing that Gaily's argument is simple-minded fallacious twaddle.
ROFL...
Schmuck...
[/quote]
[quote='gailybee' date='01 March 2010 - 09:14 PM][quote='gailybee' date='01 March 2010 - 09:10 PM]
Speaking of schmucks--I wanted a real definition, not something you pulled out of your ass.
* NOTE: Now stay sharp here kids: this is where Ravi's argument is laid to the ignorant bone... Notice that the opposition states her clear recognition that the definitions of the pedestrian words were quoted; she specifically inquires as to the sources reference... despite such being ridiculous; given that the definitions are indisputable; evidenced in part by the absence of a dispute regarding the definitions themselves; with her would-be dispute being limited to the source itself; implying in her next breath that the source may potentially lack the authority essential to the employed usage... exposing the purpose for the inquiry,at that point; which I've highlighted with italics.
I noticed that you quoted your definition-
-from which source did it come?
[/quote]
No, I mean where is the source for your definition?
Or, are you telling me that you made up the term, and you're quoting yourself as the source?
[/quote]
[quote='PubliusInfinitum' date='01 March 2010 - 09:40 PM]
Huh... So you're in need of a source for three pedestrian words, which are routinely used in our contemporary, common language?
Really? Such seems a tap off-putting given your chronic declarations regarding your vocation being rooted education...
Fine... That would be Merriam-Webster's 2010 Collegiate Dictionary... Which, FTR: is my default source for such ...
Is that suitable? If not simply post your grievance and where such is objective, resting in sound reasoning; we can turn to any of the 300+ Dictionary reference resources from my collection; dating back to the mid-seventeenth century.
It should however be noted that references to the definitions of contemporary, commonly used words does not typically rate a citation of the source; particularly where one is engaged with one who is otherwise said to rest at a station where such would readily be recognized.
In such circumstances; where such may be contested; the opposition simply posts a countering definition; which usually rests in disagreements revolving around context or tense...
But... so be it... I suppose this is what one simply needs to expect from the neo-left
intellectual...
Now is it appropriate that I mention that your request for the source implies that where the source is legitimate and valid; and where you have no countering definition from a source of equal or greater authority... then you concede the argument by default? Or should I save that for somewhere down the road?
Actually... Gaily... it's YOUR argument which violates the fundamentals of ad verecundiam... You're crying that the definitions advanced were invalid through the implication inherent in your demand for a source; implying that such were not 'real' and that the principles expressed required a resource to be valid.
It's a nasty combo of ad ignorantum and verecundiam... which is fairly typical.[/quote]
She then went on to demand that the
term constructed of the three elementary concepts does not exist… that Webster’s does not provide a definition for the term; and that that as such; I lied… yadda yadda.
Now that’s the relevant exchange…
The suggestion that a citation of definitions; at the request of the opposition; must be attributed to avoid plagiarism is preposterous… and serves as little more than a common
reductio train wreck, the net effect of which is to render the concept of plagiarism as meaningless.
Which… For the Record Ravi is simply presenting an attempt to diminish the nature of the offense itself; her argument is an implicit advocacy for the lowering of the standard…
Note that where she had the opportunity to not just note the offense; but to take a stand and admonish the contributor for her actions… she sought to diminish the offense by equating it to something which in NO POSSIBLE WAY, reflects the principles at play.
She implies that the citing of a definition of three commonly used words; in response to a specific request to do so; constructing the response to identify each submission
as a sourced definition; thus informing the reader that such was of a formal citation; but simply failing to attribute the default resource…
is exactly the same thing as lifting entire paragraphs of research, from MULTIPLE RESOURCES; on varying POINTS and plopping it into the body of one’s work to project the deceit that the work represents THEIR OWN WORDS… that such represents their innate command of the subject… thus such represents a fraudulent projection of authority… on which the author is entirely leaning.
Thus Ravi is in truth, doing exactly the same thing which the respective contributors have done… defending the indefensible… and right here on USMB. Ravi is once again, defending unsustainable principle… once again the nauseating stench of moral relativism seeps from the intellectual bowels of the ideological Left… A political Progressive; advancing a rationalization that can only undermine a sound, sustainable cultural tenet; advocating by default for policy that can and must result in cultural regression.
