I do not think you see me crying in the corner.
I do believe that there are limits to debate.
Why must I create as many enemies as possible?
Why expect that from me or anyone else?
I was not talking about you crying in the corner. I was trying to say that you were acting like how the woke mob acts. I expect better from you. Otherwise, I would have said that is what you were doing. But I did not say it was you doing that.
Yeah, the limits of debate stop at physical harm or abuse in some other way. I have in no way abused you. I disagree with you. I have not said anything bad about you. I have tried to tell you why you are wrong. That is not abuse.
I never said to make as many enemies as possible. Do you really believe that is what I meant?
I expect people to be able to make arguments based on what I have actually said rather than making up BS about what they think I should think about things.
Do you believe in the First Amendment?
My post that you quoted as to me not fighting the opposition by the logic you came to states the reason atheists have the right to believe or not believe as much as theists do is because abuse happened in the past.
If the abuse happened in the past regarding people's right to believe being taken away, then I was saying that motivated why
@LOGICZOMBIE is opposed to being pinned down. Because if you pin down a person in such a way as to force them to answer questions such that it require them to answer, that is a legal issue. This relates to his libertarian views. The physical reality of requiring people to answer questions regardless of what those questions are means you must be in violation of certain rights in the libertarian view. Forcing people to answer questions is political in nature.
So the ramifications are not if atheism is true or false but what can people force you to do. As a libertairian that is how
@LOGICZOMBIE thinks. He was simply finding the best way he could to show how to argue under deres. I a not so certain that people truly understand the need of the libertarian mindset to not be coerced in any way. basically, he will call into question anything to destroy coercion. The dictionary is a social construct meaning that we get to define for ourselves what words mean, that means we could say if he had to answer in court if he was a theist or atheist he would say that to answer the question you need to define them with evidence, not human conventions because if he were to answer yes or no anything could be held against him in a court of law. And if those people judging him were religious it would make it paramount he defend himself in the way to not be convicted. Libertarians happen to be best at deconstructing anything to secure freedom.
In summary: abuse happened in the past regarding religion, people decided to use the laws to defend themselves from this, and
@LOGICZOMBIE is simply following through that logic to the conclusions that best make abuse impossible as a libertarian would do.
