In understanding analogies, its stressed to understand what actually the analogy is.
There is a point of similarity.
You’ve completely missed it.
You say you’re a teacher?
The point was whether or not, having stopped an action, warrants ignoring that an action was attempted. This is pretty simple. You’ve repeatedly used the fact that things have been “corrected” as a way to argue that atheusts shouldnt be on the look out or should just stop caring.
Again…what exactly is the point you are trying to make?
What is that point? And does that point hold for similar things where a student must be present? For example, if a student has to be present for a test he doesn’t want to take, is rape an acceptable analogy? What about if there is a school wide assembly that a student feels would be boring. Is that also an acceptable analogy for rape?
Hilarious. All this obfuscation just because people cant admit that religious groups actively try and have in the past succeeded to cody their beliefs in law.
He wasnt making it analogous to rape. That wasnt the focus of the analogy. The focus was on the stopping of an act, and whether or not the stopping of it warrants not being concerned about it, or whether it negates the action of the aggressor.
I’m trying to decide if you really don’t know what the point of similarity is, or if @DaMan is correct in his assessment of what’s going on here.
I do believe I have never encountered such elaborate defensive fortifications before.
I mean…seriously, I haven’t.
I’ve been here whole thread. She is trying to arbitrarily argue in any way. God forbid we all recognize that religion being codified into law is a real thing in society
First, it is not a defense being encountered. It is boredom over conflation of an incident that many say wasn’t an incident even when it took place ten years ago. Further, being in the presence of religion does not equate to being forced into practicing a religion.
Second, complaining about citizens trying to make laws that favor morality or religious freedoms is no different from complaining about citizens trying to make laws that favor pharmaceutical companies. People who wish to fight either have every right and equal rights to do just that.
If it is being said that no one should ever have to be in the presence of religion, would everyone agree that no one should ever have to be in the presence of __________ (fill in the blank) either.
If so, then you are supporting the argument evolution shouldn’t be taught in science, while I am standing against it. Evolution should be taught in science, even if it does make some uncomfortable (or that they are being raped?).
Right off the bat. You are again arguing against something no one is arguing about. Maybe you are bored because you arent spending enough energy trying to listen to and consider other’s points.
Yes. No one is saying otherwise.
No one is saying that.
No. We are saying atheists care about religion in our society because religions sometimes get codified into law, and we arent religious.
That’s not the argument at all.
DaMan explained to you what the argument was in his last post.
It wasn’t intended to be an argument. All of us can point to things that get codified into law that we don’t agree with, a fact that has been presented from the beginning of this conversation–along with the fact that people can work to change laws they aren’t in agreement with. And…simply because someone is in the presence of something they don’t care for does not mean they are being forced to take part in it.
He was saying it wasnt his argument that you were responding to. If you arent going to respond to what people are saying, dont use the quote.
Aaaaaaand we’re right back where we started.
This thread shows the dangers of the quote feature
It really shows the dangers of people who don’t actually respond to what others are posting…
And the north remembers posts 0 - 100.