And, yes, it is a biggie. Don't call me a bigot for standing up for equal rights. Don't lie about what I said and how I said it, as you just did yet again. Count me in the ranks of those that don't wish to deal with you anymore you lying troll.

By separating it from the text that clearly outlines what I was saying "Yes" to. Highly dishonest.

Yet, as the blockquote feature demonstrates, you responded "Yes" directly to the statement I quoted. No separation occurred!

It translates to disgusting, vile, repugnant, detestable, etc. And, although I don't make it a point to say that I hate, because I really don't, you're rather vile, tedious, and a royal pain in the ass. But, let's look at once again how you've quote-mined me.

Hmmm.... sounds similar to, "What we were all doing was not illegal..." But Mr. Nixon, is that the full definition, or are you only quoting the parts of the definition that support your point, ie, quote-mining? In fact, does not the root of the word come from the Latin for hate?

Odious: Arousing or deserving hatred or repugnance, hateful... (Merriam Webster)

Odious: Via French odieux, "odious", from Latin odiosus, from odium, "hate", -osus, "-ous", from odisse, "to hate"... (Wikipedia)

Odious: Highly offensive; repugnant; disgusting... deserving or causing hatred; hateful; detestable... (Dictionary.com)

...but think nothing of intentionally distorting our message in order to win a debate...

If you don't want to be perceived as a bigot, perhaps you shouldn't use words whose root meaning comes from hate? I mean really, you put your own foot in your own mouth this time.

I said that you are what you are because you are a nitpicking, quote-mining, annoying little POS.

That's fine, and remember, no one's forcing you to continually talk to me. I've certainly had some negative reactions to you as well, but I don't feel the need to resort to sandbox methodology and talk like this. I'm sorry you're so angry, but again, perhaps you should just watch your mouth? No biggie.

I didn't know it was possible to quote-mine a single-word statement, and how does one break a single-word statement into parts?

By separating it from the text that clearly outlines what I was saying "Yes" to. Highly dishonest.

Interesting.

Yes, interesting that when your arguments go awry, you have to resort to such dishonest tactics. You're still doing it. Not to emulate you here, but the two statements of mine that you quote are NOT equal. You'd do well to take some of your own medicine here you quote-mining, dishonest liar.

Now, will you actually deal with what I said? I highly doubt it. You're too busy ignoring what I say, inputting strawmen, whining, and looking for excuses to call me bigoted and intolerant. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Seems in this version of the script, you're Nixon, and I'm Frost. Does not odious translate to "deserving of hate" in your dictionary?

It translates to disgusting, vile, repugnant, detestable, etc. And, although I don't make it a point to say that I hate, because I really don't, you're rather vile, tedious, and a royal pain in the ass. But, let's look at once again how you've quote-mined me.

You're contesting that I said you are deserving of hate because I disagreed with your argument, yet this is NOT what I said or why I said it. Even if you take the word "odious" to mean what I didn't intend (instead intending other definitions that what you use, way to look before you leap) I did not do so because I disagree with your argument. I said that you are what you are because you are a nitpicking, quote-mining, annoying little POS. This proves it. You are dishonest. I had hoped that with all your high-fallutin' talk about parsing sentences to get at meanings that it would be more than one dimensional, i.e. that we had to parse your sentences to make sure we knew what you meant and that you would do the same. But, that's not the case. You feel free to continually claim that we don't know what you mean and accuse us of all kinds of things, but think nothing of intentionally distorting our message in order to win a debate point or whine or be a martyr. This is despicable and dishonest. I guess my original assessment of you was spot on.

First:

And, all I can say is nice quote mine. You should deal with the full argument and not break it into parts when it is not warranted.

Here's the full context:

My argument is very simple: Atheists are just as prone to any definition of hatemongering, bigotry and intolerance as anyone else. Will you really deny this? (cl)

Yes. (OMGF)

I didn't know it was possible to quote-mine a single-word statement, and how does one break a single-word statement into parts?

Second:

Did you not just tell me that all people who want to display religious icons during the holidays should not have those rights, even though the highest court in the land has determined that such displays can exist for purely secular purposes?? I mean really, thank you for making this so easy. (cl)

then,

No, that's a strawman. (OMGF)

but,

Then stop advocating for the inclusion of religious symbols on government grounds, because - as I've previously explained - it creates a situation where the government is showing preference for religion over irreligion. (OMGF)

Interesting.

Third:

BTW, when you tell someone they are "deserving of hate" because you disagree with them, such is at least equally hateful, bigoted and intolerant as telling someone they have no right to be in a certain place, right? (cl)

and my new, all-time personal favorite from you to date:

I never did that. Once again you misrepresent me. I've already corrected you on this and yet you persist in misrepresenting me. This is highly dishonest. Perhaps you are speaking in generalities? If that is the case, then I fail to see what you are getting at. I highly doubt that you are doing the latter, and I take this as a very serious matter. Do not print lies about me.

problem is,

...I'm mocking you because you are odious. Comment by: OMGF | November 24, 2008, 9:18 pm (emph. mine)

Seems in this version of the script, you're Nixon, and I'm Frost. Does not odious translate to "deserving of hate" in your dictionary? If you don't like it when people expose the hateful statements that you've made, instead of accusing them of lying, perhaps you should simply watch your mouth!

I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. I'm sorry you don't. Perhaps you should write a letter to them?

Argument from authority. The SCOTUS also ruled in favor of slavery at times in the past. Simply because they rule for one way or another doesn't make it right.

All I can say to that is, "WOW^100.

And, all I can say is nice quote mine. You should deal with the full argument and not break it into parts when it is not warranted.

Did you not just tell me that all people who want to display religious icons during the holidays should not have those rights, even though the highest court in the land has determined that such displays can exist for purely secular purposes?? I mean really, thank you for making this so easy.

No, that's a strawman. I said that people don't have the right to co-opt the government to push their religion. You are misrepresenting me and my argument.

I can't speak for other theists, but I've no desire to take away atheist's rights, because "atheist's rights" are all of our rights.

Then stop advocating for the inclusion of religious symbols on government grounds, because - as I've previously explained - it creates a situation where the government is showing preference for religion over irreligion.

BTW, when you tell someone they are "deserving of hate" because you disagree with them, such is at least equally hateful, bigoted and intolerant as telling someone they have no right to be in a certain place, right?

I never did that. Once again you misrepresent me. I've already corrected you on this and yet you persist in misrepresenting me. This is highly dishonest. Perhaps you are speaking in generalities? If that is the case, then I fail to see what you are getting at. I highly doubt that you are doing the latter, and I take this as a very serious matter. Do not print lies about me.

Just so you know, you have two separate posts with the same title of "Theocracy Watch XIII."

OMGF,

As I've pointed out, Ebonmuse has cherrypicked the parts of the definition of intolerance that he feels "no atheists" commit. Notice that the definition of intolerance is not limited to the denial of civil rights!

Saying that person X has no right to express their opinion in an open forum is bigotry, etc. Saying that no one has a right to co-opt the government to push their religious views is not.

Ah, I see. Since when is the House State Government Administration Committee floor an open forum as opposed to a government entity? And since when is the mere presence of a nativity scene alongside other religious icons tantamount to "the government pushing their religious views?" I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. I'm sorry you don't. Perhaps you should write a letter to them?

My argument is very simple: Atheists are just as prone to any definition of hatemongering, bigotry and intolerance as anyone else. Will you really deny this?

Yes.

All I can say to that is, "WOW^100." I'll freely admit that those who share my belief system are as prone to any definition of hatemongering, bigotry and intolerance as anyone else. Why you cannot or will not follow suit is interesting, and reeks of special pleading.

As Ebon pointed out, and you haven't defeated yet, atheists are not seeking to deny rights to certain classes of people...

Did you not just tell me that all people who want to display religious icons during the holidays should not have those rights, even though the highest court in the land has determined that such displays can exist for purely secular purposes?? I mean really, thank you for making this so easy.

..yet that's what we see you (apparently) and other theists doing.

I can't speak for other theists, but I've no desire to take away atheist's rights, because "atheist's rights" are all of our rights.

BTW, when you tell someone they are "deserving of hate" because you disagree with them, such is at least equally hateful, bigoted and intolerant as telling someone they have no right to be in a certain place, right?

Now that is a fact, but the first statement is a subjective generalization that is not true in all cases - a stereotype.

I'm not playing the subtlety game with you - it's too tedious.

So I clearly understood the man, in context.

If you understood, then you are clearly arguing against straw.

Hmph. At any rate, when did I say that your claim I am deserving of hate related to Ebon's statement? I didn't. It doesn't. So your proof fails. Ebon is in the context of rights-denial. I'm addressing two separate issues here, so please retract your strawman charge.

Then address it as such in the future, and don't run them together the way you did. And, if you realize that Ebon is not addressing such arguments, don't include further arguments against his position then act later like you meant it to be separate. Admit that you were sloppy.

Incidentally, in Theocracy Watch XIII, Ebonmuse claimed that Monique Davis saying Rob Sherman "had no right to be here" was "bigotry" and "disgusting and virulent hatred against those who do not think or believe like them." I agree, and when atheists tell believers similar things, for example that expressions of their faith have no right to exist in public places, I believe such still constitutes bigotry, and disgusting and virulent hatred against those who do not think or believe like them.

And you would be conflating. Saying that person X has no right to express their opinion in an open forum is bigotry, etc. Saying that no one has a right to co-opt the government to push their religious views is not. I'm sorry that you can't understand the difference, but stop calling me hateful, bigoted, and disgusting for advocating that NO ONE RECEIVES SPECIAL RIGHTS. Again, I ask that since you seem to be advocating that religious symbols can be advocated that you are pushing for special privileges for the religious over the non-religious, so do I get to call you hateful, bigoted, and intolerant?

My argument is very simple: Atheists are just as prone to any definition of hatemongering, bigotry and intolerance as anyone else. Will you really deny this?

Yes. As Ebon pointed out, and you haven't defeated yet, atheists are not seeking to deny rights to certain classes of people, yet that's what we see you (apparently) and other theists doing.

So, you don't object to the statement when I tell you it is a fact, but you do object when I say it isn't a fact?

I object to you presenting opinions and/or isolated observations as blanket truths, which you did in the first statement:

religion is a tool used to subdue the masses and enslave people's minds...

I disagreed, and I object to you saying you are merely pointing out facts, when what you point out is not a fact, then attempting to pass off another statement as equal, when it is actually tweaked ever-so-slightly but oh-so-significantly, which you did with the second statement:

It is a fact that religion has been used and still is used as a tool to enslave and close minds.

Now that is a fact, but the first statement is a subjective generalization that is not true in all cases - a stereotype.

He didn't say that no atheist ever exhibits hatred or bigotry, but that no atheists are asking for special privileges that should not be available to religious people. That you take that to mean that no atheist can be a bigot or intolerant is flat out wrong.

I didn't say Ebon said "no atheist ever exhibits hatred or bigotry." Note what I actually said:

I understand Ebon's claim perfectly, which is that atheists are above the second part of the definition of intolerance he offered.

and what is that second part?

2 a: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted

Note that Ebon cherrypicks which part of the definition we get to argue, and notice that Ebonmuse did say that no atheists do this, right here:

Are you saying no atheists do this? (cl)

Yes, I am. (Ebonmuse)

So I clearly understood the man, in context.

Actually, I said you were deserving of scorn and mockery and derision because you were odious (paraphrased). But, this has NOTHING TO DO WITH EBON'S STATEMENT, thus proving once again that you didn't understand what he said, your claims to the contrary not-withstanding.

Hmph. At any rate, when did I say that your claim I am deserving of hate related to Ebon's statement? I didn't. It doesn't. So your proof fails. Ebon is in the context of rights-denial. I'm addressing two separate issues here, so please retract your strawman charge.

If you persist in making straw man arguments, there's not much I can do either.

I've articulated Ebon's argument correctly. He's claimed that zero atheists are unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression in religious matters, and that zero atheists are unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights. Again, no strawman.

Incidentally, in Theocracy Watch XIII, Ebonmuse claimed that Monique Davis saying Rob Sherman "had no right to be here" was "bigotry" and "disgusting and virulent hatred against those who do not think or believe like them." I agree, and when atheists tell believers similar things, for example that expressions of their faith have no right to exist in public places, I believe such still constitutes bigotry, and disgusting and virulent hatred against those who do not think or believe like them.

My argument is very simple: Atheists are just as prone to any definition of hatemongering, bigotry and intolerance as anyone else. Will you really deny this?

I understand Ebon's claim perfectly...

No, you obviously don't. He didn't say that no atheist ever exhibits hatred or bigotry, but that no atheists are asking for special privileges that should not be available to religious people. That you take that to mean that no atheist can be a bigot or intolerant is flat out wrong.

You yourself argued to me before that absolutely zero religious iconography should exist in public space. That is intolerant!

No, it is not. It is the only way to ensure that no group is given preferential treatment. It is the very opposite of intolerance. Putting religious iconography in public spaces gives preferential treatment to the religious over the irreligious. Since you support that, do I get to call you a bigoted, intolerant, and hateful?

You yourself said that I was deserving of hate in some minor intellectual disagreement we had.

Actually, I said you were deserving of scorn and mockery and derision because you were odious (paraphrased). But, this has NOTHING TO DO WITH EBON'S STATEMENT, thus proving once again that you didn't understand what he said, your claims to the contrary not-withstanding.

That is hateful!

Towards a single person or towards a group? Is it intolerance to hate or be mean to a single person?

I understand human nature, and that people of any and all stripe are equally prone to hatemongering, bigotry and intolerance, here on DA and elsewhere - other atheists have already admitted this to varying degrees in the thread - if you or Ebonmuse won't agree with this simple truth, I'm sorry, there's nothing I can do!

If you persist in making straw man arguments, there's not much I can do either.

I'm almost certain you are not reading or thinking carefully, and moving way too fast for true intellectualism to take place.

I make lots of statements. Which specific one do you take issue with?

This one:

religion is a tool used to subdue the masses and enslave people's minds...

which you changed to,

It is a fact that religion has been used and still is used as a tool to enslave and close minds.

As for,

Please point out where Ebon made this claim. You seem to be misunderstanding what his claim actually is/was. He clarifies in his comment here.

I understand Ebon's claim perfectly, which is that atheists are above the second part of the definition of intolerance he offered. Nonsense! You yourself argued to me before that absolutely zero religious iconography should exist in public space. That is intolerant! You yourself said that I was deserving of hate in some minor intellectual disagreement we had. That is hateful! No biggie though, we were in a heated discussion and it's really no skin off my back. I understand human nature, and that people of any and all stripe are equally prone to hatemongering, bigotry and intolerance, here on DA and elsewhere - other atheists have already admitted this to varying degrees in the thread - if you or Ebonmuse won't agree with this simple truth, I'm sorry, there's nothing I can do!

No. I deny the statement you originally made.

I make lots of statements. Which specific one do you take issue with?

So you do see at least some it seems, and as such you refute Ebon's claim that "no atheists do this."

Please point out where Ebon made this claim. You seem to be misunderstanding what his claim actually is/was. He clarifies in his comment here.

It is a fact that religion has been used and still is used as a tool to enslave and close minds. Do you really deny this?

No. I deny the statement you originally made.

It can, but does it? I don't see a lot of that on DA.

You don't see a lot of it on DA? So you do see at least some it seems, and as such you refute Ebon's claim that "no atheists do this." So we agree enough for my concerns, it seems.