Yes, and as a result you should know how insulting it is to characterize other atheists as being religious about things.
Well, people like to think of themselves as rational. Atheists in particular like to think of ourselves as more rational than average -- some of us even go so far as to propose that other people ought to call us "Brights" -- and the constant exhibition of irrationality by the theists around us only encourages us to persist in looking down on others and imagining our status as nontheists means we're superior life forms. But being treated by others as rational is earned, not awarded based on which box you check on one question of metaphysics. Not all religions are theistic. If you think religiously then you're religious whether what you think religiously about is God or something else. When there are parallels between your thought processes and Christianity, and you have a problem with the parallels being pointed out
but you don't have a problem with the parallels existing, that's on you.
No, that isn't reasonable.
Oh it's not? Well, here is the quote to which you were responding initially:
Yes, everyone who sticks around is subject to and agrees to the laws of the land.
Seems pretty reasonable that you two were talking about being subject to the laws of the land to me.
Um, Gospel made two claims in that sentence you quoted, and I launched into a diatribe about his second claim and didn't say a word about his first claim, and that made it seem pretty reasonable to you to infer that I was talking about his first claim. Lovely.
You do get that I was making a joke, right?
Okay, never mind. [/Emily Litella]
So you say. Got any evidence?
Yes, the fact that they have not espoused the words you attribute to them, or anything remotely similar. If you have any evidence that they have articulated such ideas, then you should probably show those actual words, rather than quoting Arnold Schwarzenegger in his role as Conan.
Come again? I didn't attribute those words to them or claim they articulated such ideas. I attributed that
mentality to them. People do not articulate their entire mentalities in words.
Please note that I explicitly noted that you attributed that mentality to them.
Dude! Your exact sentence is still right there in the quote chain! You didn't explicitly note that I attributed that
mentality to them; you explicitly opined that I attributed those "words" to them.
So, since I didn't spell it out to you before, expecting you to have read my post for comprehension,
Oh, come off it. Your counterargument made no sense as a challenge to an attribution of a
mentality; it only makes sense as a challenge to an attribution of "words" and a claim of "articulation".
allow me to rephrase:
Do you have any evidence that the mentality you attribute to them is anything but your own uninformed opinion?
Yes: the poor quality of the proposed alternative explanations.
... Scardina did not want a cake; she wanted a lawsuit. Scardina's explanation of her reasons for asking for a cake is therefore not pertinent to explaining the reasons of customers who really do want one.
As I have repeatedly pointed out upthread, I don't care if Scardina actually wanted a cake or not. Phillips would have acted no differently in either situation. So what if he fell into her (not so) cleverly laid trap? If he was not violating the law, and being a bigot to his transgender customers he would not have been sued. This kind of thing happens in law enforcement all the time, where it is referred to as a "sting operation".
Have you forgotten what we're arguing about? We're not arguing about whether Phillips is a bigot who deserves to be sued. We're arguing about whether Scardina's reason for asking for a cake qualifies as an answer to my challenge.
You aren't addressing the question I asked.
Perhaps I misunderstood the question, can you point out what question you were asking again?
Dude! You quoted it back to me! It's literally the very next words in your own post!
nd if you have a psychological theory that's a plausible alternative to the "they want to inflict suffering on the baker" theory for explaining why people would genuinely want a cake they've given the baker a reason to spit in, feel free to share that too.
...
You don't have to care if Scardina actually wanted a cake or not, but come on man, if you can't figure out why information about a person who doesn't actually want a cake doesn't provide any information about the motivations of people who do want a cake, keep trying.
A person ordering a cake for a celebration is often excited enough to mention what the celebration is about without even thinking about it. So, Just like I might call a baker and say "I would like to order a cake for my son's birthday" a transgender might call a baker and say "I would like to order a cake for my transgender celebration party" without even thinking about it.
Well, sure, that's entirely likely; but that's not a cake she's given the baker a reason to spit in. That's a cake she's given the baker a reason not to make. The baker says he's not willing to make a cake for that sort of party, so the customer calls him a jerk, walks out, and takes her business to someone nicer. The baker doesn't have a reason to make a cake and spit in it unless the customer pulls a power play and threatens to have the bakery shut down. You're still not addressing the question I asked.
Please ask it again, as I have no idea what you are on about now. I'm not sure why you have all of the sudden decided to bring up this thing about reasons to spit in a cake versus reasons to not make a cake,
Huh? The former reasons are on-topic; the latter reasons are ones you brought up because you keep missing the point. Nothing sudden about it -- I've been consistent on this all along -- but you just keep offering non-answers to my challenge. We got into this because you didn't approve of my answer to
Ruth; she's the one who brought up "what some people do when they are forced to serve people they either don’t like or find offensive in some way. Those of you who have worked in food service know what I am talking about." Well, when you're giving somebody a reason not to make a cake, he has not yet been forced to serve a person he finds offensive.
when they are the same damn reasons with the added step of the baker going ahead and making the damn cake and spitting in it while doing so in the case of the former.
If you believe that then you are not good at putting yourself in other people's shoes. No, they are not the same reasons at all. If somebody asks you for a service and you turn him down,
he hasn't hurt you. You both just walk away from yet another of the million potential bargains that never develop into actual bargains. That's a completely different situation from turning him down and then relenting and doing the service for him
because he threatens you. Do you live in some ivory tower where you're isolated from interaction with normal human beings, that you could fail to grasp the enormity of that escalation?
Once again, I don't care what you think, I have offered multiple theories in this very long thread, as have others, as well as Scardina being quoted in her own words as to her thought process. You still cling to your pet theory. You still refer to other atheists as being religious in their thinking.
Well, your two theories discussed above are every bit as illogical as Christianity. Deal with it.
My singular pet theory still seems more probable to me for the reason stated, but there's a chance you're right.
Your pet theory seems the least probable to me, as it ascribes the worst motives to transgenders in situations where they have had enough of bigotry and decide to push back all the way to the courts.
Are you familiar with the legal term "specific performance"? This is America, where involuntary servitude is illegal; our courts are not in the business of ordering people to perform personal services for other people. When a transgendered person has had enough of bigotry and decides to push back all the way to the courts, it's gone beyond cakes. She's not asking the court for a cake; she's asking the court to award monetary damages; or else the bureaucrats have yanked his license and he's sued them and she's asking the court to decline to order them to reinstate his license. When he isn't willing to make a cake, the only way she's getting a cake out of this is if she takes her business elsewhere, or if she threatens to have his license yanked and he knuckles under and makes her a cake so she doesn't push back all the way to the courts. So yet again you're illogically presenting a scenario that doesn't match the situation Ruth asked about.
But at least you are willing to allow a chance of one alternative being right. That is at least a somewhat reasonable stance.
You're one for four on your proposals actually addressing the issue that was actually raised. That is at least a somewhat reasonable stance.
man understands as force is not what the word actually means. And by 