RESOLVED: Atheist Airman Allowed To Modify Oath

[WestRedMaple]

Reread the post.

I'm asking questions?

Are you asking me if you're asking questions? Because if you were I'd say that there's an argument in there disguised as a question. But I was referring to this: "like violating religious protection by ordering the sacrifice of religious beliefs which you seemed to favor"

Now, admittedly, the lack of punctuation makes it impossible to tell exactly what you're saying, but the most sensible interpretation is that you're accusing Dya of favoring the violation or religious protection when it is in opposition to religion. Which is absolutely a strawman.

No, it has a question mark because my iPad makes really weird 'corrections' which I do not always catch.

That is absolutely not a strawman, as we were just discussing that very topic, in fact.

How is reality a strawman?

[Laerod]

How is reality a strawman?

The "that you seem to favor" is what's rather strawmanly.

[Dyakovo]

How is reality a strawman?

The "that you seem to favor" is what's rather strawmanly.

Also definitely thread-jacking, and possibly griefing since it pertains to a discussion in another thread...

[WestRedMaple]

How is reality a strawman?

The "that you seem to favor" is what's rather strawmanly.

I'm just making it clear that I can only know what they've posted, not read their mind.

[WestRedMaple]

The "that you seem to favor" is what's rather strawmanly.

Also definitely thread-jacking, and possibly griefing since it pertains to a discussion in another thread...

No, I'm trying to figure out how you differentiate. You brought up the issue

[Dyakovo]

Also definitely thread-jacking, and possibly griefing since it pertains to a discussion in another thread...

No, I'm trying to figure out how you differentiate. You brought up the issue

You're trying to drag the discussion from another thread into this one.

[WestRedMaple]

No, I'm trying to figure out how you differentiate. You brought up the issue

You're trying to drag the discussion from another thread into this one.

Not true. I actually want an answer on how one differentiates. Again, I'm not bringing up the issue of such a thing being a problem. Here, I'll even edit it to not mention anything else for you, just the question

There, edit complete, just for you.

So?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Is it ALWAYS a problem (like violating religious protection by ordering the sacrifice of religious beliefs which you seemed to favor) or do you pick and choose? How do you differentiate between when it is a real problem and when it is desirable?

The Establishment Clause is really not hard to understand.

It clearly is when someone thinks any law whatsoever imposed to the people is tyranny.

[Sun Wukong]

Are you asking me if you're asking questions? Because if you were I'd say that there's an argument in there disguised as a question. But I was referring to this: "like violating religious protection by ordering the sacrifice of religious beliefs which you seemed to favor"

Now, admittedly, the lack of punctuation makes it impossible to tell exactly what you're saying, but the most sensible interpretation is that you're accusing Dya of favoring the violation or religious protection when it is in opposition to religion. Which is absolutely a strawman.

No, it has a question mark because my iPad makes really weird 'corrections' which I do not always catch.

That is absolutely not a strawman, as we were just discussing that very topic, in fact.

How is reality a strawman?

Since you love to accuse me of committing some ambiguous logical fallacy that you never could be bothered to elaborate on, I'm going to go ahead and point out that you're begging the question.

[WestRedMaple]

The Establishment Clause is really not hard to understand.

It clearly is when someone thinks any law whatsoever imposed to the people is tyranny.

Which doesn't really have much to do with anything being discussed, as I haven't seen any of that extremely small minority here

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It clearly is when someone thinks any law whatsoever imposed to the people is tyranny.

Which doesn't really have much to do with anything being discussed, as I haven't seen any of that extremely small minority here

I'm looking at one right now.

[WestRedMaple]

No, it has a question mark because my iPad makes really weird 'corrections' which I do not always catch.

That is absolutely not a strawman, as we were just discussing that very topic, in fact.

How is reality a strawman?

Since you love to accuse me of committing some ambiguous logical fallacy that you never could be bothered to elaborate on, I'm going to go ahead and point out that you're begging the question.

No, you're just throwing out inapplicable fallacies again.

[Sun Wukong]

Since you love to accuse me of committing some ambiguous logical fallacy that you never could be bothered to elaborate on, I'm going to go ahead and point out that you're begging the question.

No, you're just throwing out inapplicable fallacies again.

"How is reality a strawman?"

That's begging the question.

[WestRedMaple]

Which doesn't really have much to do with anything being discussed, as I haven't seen any of that extremely small minority here

I'm looking at one right now.

But whoever is over at your place is still irrelevant to the discussion.

[WestRedMaple]

No, you're just throwing out inapplicable fallacies again.

"How is reality a strawman?"

That's begging the question.

No, that's just you unable to grasp the concept of 'begging the question'

What's funnier, is that you misapplied that trying to defend your failure to accurately use 'straw man'

[Soselo]

That's square, square...

It's such a square oath.

I can't imagine one recanter of such an oath having a pee in the shower.

[Indira]

The story of an airman who was intolerant of christian beliefs. It's not like asking for an oath to Allah who has caused more than a few deaths in the last 50 years. It's an oath to a god that is mentioned in the constitution, the god that is considered to have made america a thing, the god who allows scumbags to stomp on his name and openly show extreme hatred for him and his followers.

Nah man, the airman is in the right to insult others personal beliefs with something as trivial as a fucking sentence. This guy is a total troll and deserves nothing more than to be de-serviced, the ignorance he shows dwarfs that of a bird to the concept of swimming.

This little thing called the Constitution would like a word

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

The story of an airman who was intolerant of christian beliefs. It's not like asking for an oath to Allah who has caused more than a few deaths in the last 50 years. It's an oath to a god that is mentioned in the constitution, the god that is considered to have made america a thing, the god who allows scumbags to stomp on his name and openly show extreme hatred for him and his followers.

Nah man, the airman is in the right to insult others personal beliefs with something as trivial as a fucking sentence. This guy is a total troll and deserves nothing more than to be de-serviced, the ignorance he shows dwarfs that of a bird to the concept of swimming.

This little thing called the Constitution would like a word

The whole point of the Military is you gotta trust the rest of your unit. A regiment of hypocrites cannot trust each other.

I want each soldier etc to swear an oath that they MEAN. Believers swear by their gods; Non-believers omit god-names.

If I were Sauvage, I would only give true believers in the Church of Sauvage the Right to bear Arms.

Sauvage graciously permits Non-believers in the Church of Sauvage to serve in the Military etc as long as they hypocritically swear an oath to Sauvage's god.

[Genivaria]

The story of an airman who was intolerant of christian beliefs. It's not like asking for an oath to Allah who has caused more than a few deaths in the last 50 years. It's an oath to a god that is mentioned in the constitution, the god that is considered to have made america a thing, the god who allows scumbags to stomp on his name and openly show extreme hatred for him and his followers.

Nah man, the airman is in the right to insult others personal beliefs with something as trivial as a fucking sentence. This guy is a total troll and deserves nothing more than to be de-serviced, the ignorance he shows dwarfs that of a bird to the concept of swimming.

Persecution Complex much?

[Imperializt Russia]

Doesn't the M16 not work with bayonets anyway? Or is that just the A1 model?

A rifle butt to the head does the same thing in combat anyway.

On a series of levels, it does not. Using the rifle butt requires a much more awkward (and slow) swing to execute and probably halves your reach.
It also doesn't kill your opponent and may not even incapacitate him. Rifle butts are good for hitting people with but are not an overlooked thing to phase bayonets out over.

[Estado Nacional]

As a Christian, it's a good thing that he was allowed to modify his oath.

[Natair]

Let me just make the point that, while it may seem small, that is the equivalent of asking a Christian to sign a contract saying there is no God. It's unreasonable to expect someone to lie about their beliefs to go along with some outdated bullsh*t that a bunch of dead racist guys wrote 200+ years ago. This guy is being more honest than a lot of people, and I respect that right.

(Yeah, I'm back. Intelligence level on NSG just took a massive hit.)

[Arkinesia]

The military is supposed to swear an oath to the Constitution.

Muh gawd is more important than your damn atheist constitution!!