CHRISTIAN DAYCARE WORKERS FIRED FOR REFUSING TO CALL A LITTLE GIRL A BOY

[createdtoworship]

IMO, your posts are difficult to read. You don't use paragraphs that would give continuity and flow to what you write and only broken up sentences.

your opinion is not science.

I have refrained from my own opinion to quote professionals in the field.

others are quoting off topic, and attacking personal character.

which is usual.

let me help you out here:

I will post a list of adhominems, find the one you are using, and stop doing it.

Ad hominem and abusive Ad hominem:

do you recognize any of these fallacies?:

• A lawyer attacking a defendant’s character rather than addressing or questioning based on the case, e.g., in a case of theft pointing out the defendant’s level of poverty.
• A politician degrading another politician during a political campaign when asked about a specific policy, e.g. “Well, I think we need to look at the other candidate’s failures regarding this topic.”
• Responding in any debate with an attack on one’s personal beliefs.
• Using someone’s known background or beliefs to respond in a way such as “Of course you would say that, because you believe _____.”
• Stating that someone’s argument is incorrect because of her religious beliefs, such as, “Perhaps if you weren’t part of the religious group that you are, you would see this quite differently.”
• Demeaning a teacher’s decision on grading by insulting her intelligence, e.g., “Well, it’s not like you graduated from the best school, so I can see why you wouldn’t know how to properly grade a writing assignment.”
• Using racial slurs to demean a person of another race in an argument about a crime involving people of different racial backgrounds, such as, “People like you don’t understand what it’s like to be of my race so you blatantly have no right to make an argument about this situation.”
• Generalizing views of a political party as an insulting argument to an individual who is a member of a different party, e.g., “Well, it’s pretty obvious that your political party doesn’t know how to be fiscally responsible, so I wouldn’t expect you to, either.”
• Stating that one’s age precludes him from being able to make an intelligent or meaningful argument, such as, “You are clearly just too young to understand.”
• Asserting that someone’s geographical location prevents him from being able to make a clear judgment, such as, “You’ve only ever lived in an urban environment. The issues of those in other areas is clearly beyond you.”
• Using gender as a means to devalue an argument from an opposing gender, e.g., “This is a female issue. As a man, how can you have an opinion about this?”
• Stating that the ethnicity of the opposing individual keeps him from formulating a valuable opinion, e.g., “You are from the United States, so you could never understand what it’s like to live in a country like that.”
• Using someone’s educational level as a means to exploit and degrade the opposer’s argument, such as, “You didn’t even finish high school - how could you possibly know about this?”
• Relying on socioeconomic status as a means to undermine an opposing individual’s opinion, such as, “You wouldn’t understand since you have never had to struggle."

above examples from :

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/ad-hominem-examples.html

 

[createdtoworship]

IF you want to dismiss me and my quote/unquote terminology as you call it that's fine with me. I'm not here to interfere with your opinion of the quality of your opinion.

like I mentioned I typically refrain from my own oppinion and quote professionals.

you have not done so.

 

[bhsmte]

your opinion is not science.

I have refrained from my own opinion to quote professionals in the field.

others are quoting off topic, and attacking personal character.

which is usual.

let me help you out here:

I will post a list of adhominems, find the one you are using, and stop doing it.

Ad hominem and abusive Ad hominem:

do you recognize any of these fallacies?:

• A lawyer attacking a defendant’s character rather than addressing or questioning based on the case, e.g., in a case of theft pointing out the defendant’s level of poverty.
• A politician degrading another politician during a political campaign when asked about a specific policy, e.g. “Well, I think we need to look at the other candidate’s failures regarding this topic.”
• Responding in any debate with an attack on one’s personal beliefs.
• Using someone’s known background or beliefs to respond in a way such as “Of course you would say that, because you believe _____.”
• Stating that someone’s argument is incorrect because of her religious beliefs, such as, “Perhaps if you weren’t part of the religious group that you are, you would see this quite differently.”
• Demeaning a teacher’s decision on grading by insulting her intelligence, e.g., “Well, it’s not like you graduated from the best school, so I can see why you wouldn’t know how to properly grade a writing assignment.”
• Using racial slurs to demean a person of another race in an argument about a crime involving people of different racial backgrounds, such as, “People like you don’t understand what it’s like to be of my race so you blatantly have no right to make an argument about this situation.”
• Generalizing views of a political party as an insulting argument to an individual who is a member of a different party, e.g., “Well, it’s pretty obvious that your political party doesn’t know how to be fiscally responsible, so I wouldn’t expect you to, either.”
• Stating that one’s age precludes him from being able to make an intelligent or meaningful argument, such as, “You are clearly just too young to understand.”
• Asserting that someone’s geographical location prevents him from being able to make a clear judgment, such as, “You’ve only ever lived in an urban environment. The issues of those in other areas is clearly beyond you.”
• Using gender as a means to devalue an argument from an opposing gender, e.g., “This is a female issue. As a man, how can you have an opinion about this?”
• Stating that the ethnicity of the opposing individual keeps him from formulating a valuable opinion, e.g., “You are from the United States, so you could never understand what it’s like to live in a country like that.”
• Using someone’s educational level as a means to exploit and degrade the opposer’s argument, such as, “You didn’t even finish high school - how could you possibly know about this?”
• Relying on socioeconomic status as a means to undermine an opposing individual’s opinion, such as, “You wouldn’t understand since you have never had to struggle."

above examples from :

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/ad-hominem-examples.html

My opinion is not science??????????????????????????????????????????

Did I claim it was science?

I gave you a subjective interpretation of your posts being difficult to read and told you why. And by the way, I am not the only one who has made this observation. If you can, please feel free to connect my comments, to any of the fallacies you listed.

 

[createdtoworship]

lets go ahead and post a work on fallacy for all of us.

that way we can level the playing field.

it's always easy to make fun of others and pick and poke, but if we don't use fallacy, we typically are down to the nitty gritty facts of the matter, unemotional, just raw science.

and I have found this is the best way to debate.

many here are attacking my character and my views but don't quote fact, they are even going as far as attacking grammar.

now we can have every athiest in a group say someone has bad grammar for example, that would be an appeal to the populus.

or popular oppinion fallacy or band wagon fallacy .

you simply have to debate logically and with no emotions.

if you don't you will be in for ride of anger, as people will bait you to get angry at them.

it's bait and switch fallacy.

so anyway, I will see if I can attach a fallacy document, and let's hit above the belt if we are to fight at all.

but better we don't fight.

and when people take off the fallacy generally people don't get their fealings hurt as bad.

so it's all around a better way of doing it.

here are some attack fallacies:

Ad hominem and abusive Ad hominem:

do you recognize any of these fallacies?:

• A lawyer attacking a defendant’s character rather than addressing or questioning based on the case, e.g., in a case of theft pointing out the defendant’s level of poverty.
• A politician degrading another politician during a political campaign when asked about a specific policy, e.g. “Well, I think we need to look at the other candidate’s failures regarding this topic.”
• Responding in any debate with an attack on one’s personal beliefs.
• Using someone’s known background or beliefs to respond in a way such as “Of course you would say that, because you believe _____.”
• Stating that someone’s argument is incorrect because of her religious beliefs, such as, “Perhaps if you weren’t part of the religious group that you are, you would see this quite differently.”
• Demeaning a teacher’s decision on grading by insulting her intelligence, e.g., “Well, it’s not like you graduated from the best school, so I can see why you wouldn’t know how to properly grade a writing assignment.”
• Using racial slurs to demean a person of another race in an argument about a crime involving people of different racial backgrounds, such as, “People like you don’t understand what it’s like to be of my race so you blatantly have no right to make an argument about this situation.”
• Generalizing views of a political party as an insulting argument to an individual who is a member of a different party, e.g., “Well, it’s pretty obvious that your political party doesn’t know how to be fiscally responsible, so I wouldn’t expect you to, either.”
• Stating that one’s age precludes him from being able to make an intelligent or meaningful argument, such as, “You are clearly just too young to understand.”
• Asserting that someone’s geographical location prevents him from being able to make a clear judgment, such as, “You’ve only ever lived in an urban environment. The issues of those in other areas is clearly beyond you.”
• Using gender as a means to devalue an argument from an opposing gender, e.g., “This is a female issue. As a man, how can you have an opinion about this?”
• Stating that the ethnicity of the opposing individual keeps him from formulating a valuable opinion, e.g., “You are from the United States, so you could never understand what it’s like to live in a country like that.”
• Using someone’s educational level as a means to exploit and degrade the opposer’s argument, such as, “You didn’t even finish high school - how could you possibly know about this?”
• Relying on socioeconomic status as a means to undermine an opposing individual’s opinion, such as, “You wouldn’t understand since you have never had to struggle."

above examples from :

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/ad-hominem-examples.html

this is a quote from a report I did on fallacy which can be found here:

 

[createdtoworship]

My opinion is not science??????????????????????????????????????????

Did I claim it was science?

I gave you a subjective interpretation of your posts being difficult to read and told you why. And by the way, I am not the only one who has made this observation. If you can, please feel free to connect my comments, to any of the fallacies you listed.

your opinion is not science.

I am keeping my posts to the scientific, not doing the IMO thing.

 

[bhsmte]

lets go ahead and post a work on fallacy for all of us.

that way we can level the playing field.

it's always easy to make fun of others and pick and poke, but if we don't use fallacy, we typically are down to the nitty gritty facts of the matter, unemotional, just raw science.

and I have found this is the best way to debate.

many here are attacking my character and my views but don't quote fact, they are even going as far as attacking grammar.

now we can have every athiest in a group say someone has bad grammar for example, that would be an appeal to the populus.

or popular oppinion fallacy or band wagon fallacy .

you simply have to debate logically and with no emotions.

if you don't you will be in for ride of anger, as people will bait you to get angry at them.

it's bait and switch fallacy.

so anyway, I will see if I can attach a fallacy document, and let's hit above the belt if we are to fight at all.

but better we don't fight.

and when people take off the fallacy generally people don't get their fealings hurt as bad.

so it's all around a better way of doing it.

here are some attack fallacies:

Ad hominem and abusive Ad hominem:

do you recognize any of these fallacies?:

• A lawyer attacking a defendant’s character rather than addressing or questioning based on the case, e.g., in a case of theft pointing out the defendant’s level of poverty.
• A politician degrading another politician during a political campaign when asked about a specific policy, e.g. “Well, I think we need to look at the other candidate’s failures regarding this topic.”
• Responding in any debate with an attack on one’s personal beliefs.
• Using someone’s known background or beliefs to respond in a way such as “Of course you would say that, because you believe _____.”
• Stating that someone’s argument is incorrect because of her religious beliefs, such as, “Perhaps if you weren’t part of the religious group that you are, you would see this quite differently.”
• Demeaning a teacher’s decision on grading by insulting her intelligence, e.g., “Well, it’s not like you graduated from the best school, so I can see why you wouldn’t know how to properly grade a writing assignment.”
• Using racial slurs to demean a person of another race in an argument about a crime involving people of different racial backgrounds, such as, “People like you don’t understand what it’s like to be of my race so you blatantly have no right to make an argument about this situation.”
• Generalizing views of a political party as an insulting argument to an individual who is a member of a different party, e.g., “Well, it’s pretty obvious that your political party doesn’t know how to be fiscally responsible, so I wouldn’t expect you to, either.”
• Stating that one’s age precludes him from being able to make an intelligent or meaningful argument, such as, “You are clearly just too young to understand.”
• Asserting that someone’s geographical location prevents him from being able to make a clear judgment, such as, “You’ve only ever lived in an urban environment. The issues of those in other areas is clearly beyond you.”
• Using gender as a means to devalue an argument from an opposing gender, e.g., “This is a female issue. As a man, how can you have an opinion about this?”
• Stating that the ethnicity of the opposing individual keeps him from formulating a valuable opinion, e.g., “You are from the United States, so you could never understand what it’s like to live in a country like that.”
• Using someone’s educational level as a means to exploit and degrade the opposer’s argument, such as, “You didn’t even finish high school - how could you possibly know about this?”
• Relying on socioeconomic status as a means to undermine an opposing individual’s opinion, such as, “You wouldn’t understand since you have never had to struggle."

above examples from :

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/ad-hominem-examples.html

this is a quote from a report I did on fallacy which can be found here:

Making comments about your posts being difficult to comprehend is attacking your character?

Should we just ignore then, that we have difficulty with comprehending your posts?

 

[bhsmte]

your opinion is not science.

I am keeping my posts to the scientific, not doing the IMO thing.

Understanding one's posts, who claims to be using science, tends to factor into any discussion.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

like I mentioned I typically refrain from my own oppinion and quote professionals.

you have not done so.

You didn't quote anyone. At the most you posted links to which I provided a link of my own, which you have yet to comment on

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

your opinion is not science.

I am keeping my posts to the scientific, not doing the IMO thing.

Understanding one's posts, who claims to be using science, tends to factor into any discussion.

My friend, I've made up my mind that this person is not worth debating.

 

[createdtoworship]

Making comments about your posts being difficult to comprehend is attacking your character?

Should we just ignore then, that we have difficulty with comprehending your posts?

yes, it is.

what if I said you were illiterate?

and therefore we should wait for you to learn to read before you go on the major things of science.

would that not be an attack on you character?

it would be an ad hominem attack, on a minor level, but the major issue would in fact not be ad hominem but a straw man.

they are two legs of a bait and switch tactic, I see it nearly every day in one form or another.

when I am doing debates full time.

(note: I am not saying you are illiterate, it was an illustration)

 

[createdtoworship]

Understanding one's posts, who claims to be using science, tends to factor into any discussion.

the only issue is that I did extensive quotes of someone other than me.

so basically it is the grammar of scientists and doctors that you are not agreeing with, in the which I would tend to take the side of the person with an advanced degree over someone like you or me.

 

[createdtoworship]

You didn't quote anyone. At the most you posted links to which I provided a link of my own, which you have yet to comment on

I quoted several authorities, one of which I believe wrote dozens of peer review and was quite influential at johns' hopkins university, the first university to attempt sex reassignment.

I will not do your homework, you will have to search for them.

I posted them at least 2 times, maybe three.

so please do your own homework regarding this matter before again posting assumption.

because unless you have an advanced degree in the area of study, you nor I are an authority, and all else is oppinion.

(as far as your link, I will check it out)

 

[createdtoworship]

My friend, I've made up my mind that this person is not worth debating.

very well, I will keep posting my science and you can debate about things that interest you, which obviously is not (science).

 

[createdtoworship]

Good will be called evil and evil will be called good

most of the issues satan uses is attacks against actual logic.

most of the time satans devices are meaningless long term and make no sense logically speaking to do them.

so one who defends the devices of the enemy against devices of God such as verses that state that active homosexuals are not bound for heaven, (as all sin is sin, even the politically correct ones).

one must repent of all known sin, including fornication in general and homosexuality if one should see grace.

now no one is perfect but to live in denial that our actions are in fact forbidden and are not sin,

is exactly what you say,

"evil will be called good."

which I believe is a verse as well, am I right?

I don't rememmber the address but I seem to recollect it as a verse.

I have read a few books on logic, and 90% of logical errors related to ad hominems, some strawmans, and some bait and switch.

some appeals to authority, and populus and bandwagon thinking.

but by far most if not all of attacks on logic come from ridiculing the position of the enemy in the mind.

christians have verses forbidding such retaliation, such as verses against gossip and other demeaning things,

those who don't beleive in the bible, simply do not have the hold back and the wisdom to know that it is wrong.

it takes a moderator to come in threatening to close the thread due to flaming, to wake up many people I debate.

I look at it as cognitive dissonance.

they know they are wrong, but they can't defend themselves against the light of God's rules, so they make fun of anything associated with God.

that has been my experience.

but we count it as glory when others ridicule, sue, and defame our beliefs because we are at that point counted worthy of suffering like Christ did.

and that is truly an amazing thing..

 

[createdtoworship]

Man, I just get tired of people who Try to sound like they are knowable about something by using as many words as they can to say absolutely nothing. I call it word salad and It simply isn't worth my time engaging these people.

What is mind blowing is they run to the same science they run from to argue Evolution, when they think it will help their argument. Then denounce any links you bring up as if they were qualified to make that analysis.

I have learned simple rules for quoting sources.

my first tier of reference is someone with a phd in related field.

by second tier is a peer reviewed or referreed journal citation.

my third tier is a peer reviewed from a phd in related field.

ultimately anything other than the third tier has weaknesses as far as being authoritative.

as far as Intelligent design and evolution, that too applies the same way.

I have personally over a dozen referreed journals regarding intelligent design.

there is one called

Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian

Respiration

a summary review of this particular journal is found at evolutionnews.org:

Peer-

Reviewed Pro-Intelligent Design Article Endorses Irreducible Complexity - Evolution News & Views

again the same quality of citation I give, I require from others.

if you don't have scientific explainations for your views, then it really is not science.

science relies on observation on a fundamental level.

if you don't have observation it canot be called a hard science, or emprical science.

hard truth, or fact.

the rest that is not hard science or fact relies on non science or faith.

so if you do not have any citations for your view, then I can argue that you simply have faith in your perspective.

sort of like how someone has faith in an unseen God.

(which I would agree to)

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

CHRISTIAN DAYCARE WORKERS FIRED FOR REFUSING TO CALL A LITTLE GIRL A BOY



http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015...e-worker-fired-refusing-call-little-girl-boy/

If you can't follow company policy you get fired. If you don't agree with policy changes then quit. Pretty simple. I bet they signed the dotted line agreeing to that.

 

[createdtoworship]

If you can't follow company policy you get fired. If you don't agree with policy changes then quit. Pretty simple. I bet they signed the dotted line agreeing to that.

but say for example you wear a religious hat to work every day, and company policy requires you to comb your hair nicely for office duty.

you can file a complaint with the EEOC, and have the goverment sue them.

I have seen it many times.

religious descrimination.

I remember hobby lobby stating religious invocations related to having insurance claims for morning after pill.

again, company policy is not always right, in the case of hobby lobby they sued obama and won.

other situations where obama administ. sues against equal opportunity relating to religious descriminiation.

it happens all the time.

call the EEOC if you think you were fired for a religious reason.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

but say for example you wear a religious hat to work every day, and company policy requires you to comb your hair nicely for office duty.

you can file a complaint with the EEOC, and have the goverment sue them.

I have seen it many times.

religious descrimination.

I remember hobby lobby stating religious invocations related to having insurance claims for morning after pill.

again, company policy is not always right, in the case of hobby lobby they sued obama and won.

other situations where obama administ. sues against equal opportunity relating to religious descriminiation.

it happens all the time.

call the EEOC if you think you were fired for a religious reason.

Businesses don't fire people over religious reason. Businesses fire people if they fail t meet their standards. Because businesses care about money, not you the employee. If you aren't benefiting the business you are no longer needed.

edit: does anybody know if Texas an at-will state?

 

[Cute Tink]

so one who defends the devices of the enemy against devices of God such as verses that state that active homosexuals are not bound for heaven, (as all sin is sin, even the politically correct ones).

one must repent of all known sin, including fornication in general and homosexuality if one should see grace.

Transition and being transgender have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Dr. Paul McHugh is not a good authority on gender dysphoria. Sorry to say, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association disagree with his assessment on the proper treatment.

John's Hopkins University stopped doing the surgery because of a poorly framed study designed to shut the program down because that's what Dr. McHugh wanted.

For the record, WPATH is staffed by people with degrees as well, so disregarding their documentation is inappropriate.

 

[createdtoworship]

if a child is transgender i have never heard of a child under 12 deciding they are trans this is coming from the parents and they are wanting this she is only 6 years old .

I saw an older guy have confusion of thoughts relating to this:


here is earlier post in this thread:
CHRISTIAN DAYCARE WORKERS FIRED FOR REFUSING TO CALL A LITTLE GIRL A BOY