Originally posted by laurence82:Hard of hearing, refusal listen is not my concern
Please provide the specific proof that banning evangelism is unlawful
No dubious self interpretation or Oxford dictionary pls
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Hard of hearing and refusal to listen is not your concern, but it is your problem. Tell you also don't listen. Haiz...
Its not my problem too
Now that we have passed many pages, its very obvious that you have not and will refuse to respond to the issue at hand
Its good enough for me
I also do note there were repeated requests by reasonable atheist and TCMC to ask you not to divert the issue and provide reference/evidence, but i observed you have not
This speaks clearly of your troll character
Originally posted by laurence82:
There are no moderators here, so whoever 'they' are, are just trollsIf you post a interfaith issue, for eg in Buddhism forum, they will be willing to discuss. If its xtian issue in Buddhism forum, they will politely ask u to go xtian forum
You will get none of these politeness here, mod or no mod
Glad you reaffirmed my point that ther eis no moderator here. And when the timing suits you, you become willfully ignorant about that fact.
Originally posted by BadzMaro:Glad you reaffirmed my point that ther eis no moderator here. And when the timing suits you, you become willfully ignorant about that fact.
A fact which is so irrelevant and adds no value to this conversation, just like what BIC has been doing for past few pages
Sigh
Originally posted by laurence82:
A fact which is so irrelevant and adds no value to this conversation, just like what BIC has been doing for past few pages
Sigh
A fact which IS relevant once everything is compiled.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Please explain to laurence why the govt will not ban evangelism. I think he needs another atheist to tell him why he is plain wrong. And while you are at it please explain to him also the Constitution Article 15(1).
They will not ban now, but it does not mean they will not ban in future. I dont know what is the context of your arguments with him.
They might ban it or control it if evangelism threatens the security of the country, but I find this very unlikely.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Why don't you ask why they locked that and other similar threads? My guess is that because they are troll threads.
Maybe I dont know the rules here well enough.
But I did want people to discuss about the similarities between buddha and jesus. It's an interesting inter-faith topic.
We must open up ourselves to inter-faith dialogue.
Originally posted by laurence82:
Its not my problem tooNow that we have passed many pages, its very obvious that you have not and will refuse to respond to the issue at hand
Its good enough for me
I also do note there were repeated requests by reasonable atheist and TCMC to ask you not to divert the issue and provide reference/evidence, but i observed you have not
This speaks clearly of your troll character
Exactly.
I asked BIC to provide evidence, and in turn he asked me to give him the method to provide evidence.
He keeps skirting the question
Originally posted by Tcmc:They will not ban now, but it does not mean they will not ban in future. I dont know what is the context of your arguments with him.
They might ban it or control it if evangelism threatens the security of the country, but I find this very unlikely.
Tcmc,
The point is, we are dealing with the present! Talking about the future is really a moot point. I might as well argue that in future the law will decree that atheism is disallowed and should be banned. Anything is possible right? You wanna waste time arguing over that?
Please check back if you are not sure why laurence is squabbling over a lost cause, as the law now stands. But if you can't be bothered to, let me recap for you, with creative liberty taken to reconstruct the chain of events. ; p
laurence: Ban evangelism la! Public nuisance!
BroInChrist: To do so is against the Constitution which provides for propagation of religion?
laurence: Talk nonsense lah!
BroInChrist: Go check the Constitution.
laurence (probably thinking to himself, "Darn, what is Constitution? Can eat one? Never mind, put on a brave front and try to call his bluff): Hey! Prove to me the Constitution specifically say can propagate religion.
BroInChrist: Sure thing! See Article 15(1) which specifically says blah blah blah....
laurence (probably thinking to himself, "Jia lat, tio owned liao! Oh wait, Wiki also said Singapore courts did not interpret the word propagate so I can still bank on this to weasel myself out of this embarassing situation): SO WHAT? Courts did not decide on the word propagate, so it means evangelism can be banned!
(Of course one must also remember that reasonable.atheist did try to talk some sense into laurence's fallacious argument but he simply refuses to even see the fallacies being pointed out)
BroInChrist: What the??? Argument from silence? Courts never interpret each word of the law means we can't know what that word means? Check dictionary, check Oxford, check internet, all will give the same basic meaning, a meaning that cannot be suka suka negated by the courts to mean something entirely different.
laurence: LOL! Oxford cannot be used to determine the meaning of a word that the courts have not decided. Screw Oxford! And you as well! Therefore I win, we can ban evangelism! Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!
BroInChrist: Like that also can? Constitution is clear that we can propagate religion but you say that I cannot say banning evangelism is unlawful? But you admit that court is silent on the word it means banning evangelism is lawful?
laurence: Yes, and if you disagree with me you are nothing but a troll.
BroInChrist: ??!!!???
OK, that's all for now. Wait I kena whacked by laurence if I keep on going. But even you also agree with me that you cannot ban evangelism because the Constitution as it stands right now protects that as a right and freedom. Can laurence talk about banning evangelism? Of course he can. He can even sing about it on the roof top or shout it out loud on Bukit Timah Hill! I never say he cannot talk about it. All I am saying is that to ban evangelism is unlawful because of what the Constitution is saying right now. If Article 15(1) does not exist, I would not even quibble with his point in the first place. Can things change in the future? Of course, but like I said, it's a moot point.
Originally posted by Tcmc:Maybe I dont know the rules here well enough.
But I did want people to discuss about the similarities between buddha and jesus. It's an interesting inter-faith topic.
We must open up ourselves to inter-faith dialogue.
I also don't know much about the rules of engagement here. But seeing that threads are being locked rather "promptly" I think there are "modeyes" here employing the govt "light touch" way of doing things.
Originally posted by Tcmc:Exactly.
I asked BIC to provide evidence, and in turn he asked me to give him the method to provide evidence.
He keeps skirting the question,
Tcmc,
It's called laying the groundwork first. If there is no common ground agreed on methodology, then what is to stop you from saying "this don't count!"? I am merely trying to hold you to something, why are you so scared? Did I say I am not going to make a case? I am not backing out of anything. But you are refusing to be tied to anything. You just want to sit back and throw rocks.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:I also don't know much about the rules of engagement here. But seeing that threads are being locked rather "promptly" I think there are "modeyes" here employing the govt "light touch" way of doing things.
You mean the govt light touch of "censoring and authoritative rule"?
Sorry I am not pro pap.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Tcmc,
It's called laying the groundwork first. If there is no common ground agreed on methodology, then what is to stop you from saying "this don't count!"? I am merely trying to hold you to something, why are you so scared? Did I say I am not going to make a case? I am not backing out of anything. But you are refusing to be tied to anything. You just want to sit back and throw rocks.
BIC
Yes lay the groundwork, you who made the claim.
Seriously, get that into your head.
Academically speaking, you really fail
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
Yes lay the groundwork, you who made the claim.
Seriously, get that into your head.
Academically speaking, you really fail
Ad hominem accusation again.
So till now you still don't know how to evaluate matters of history?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Ad hominem accusation again.
So till now you still don't know how to evaluate matters of history?
1. No really you fail. Its not a fallacy. Its a fact that you fail because you dont know the method of sourcing and you dont know the method of proving. You fail, i say again. It's not a fallacy that you fail because you really fail.......
2. Historical science? This is not a well established subject I think. I am not sure. Maybe you could enlighten me how it works.
Originally posted by Tcmc:1. No really you fail. Its not a fallacy. Its a fact that you fail because you dont know the method of sourcing and you dont know the method of proving. You fail, i say again. It's not a fallacy that you fail because you really fail.......
2. Historical science? This is not a well established subject I think. I am not sure. Maybe you could enlighten me how it works.
Tcmc,
You ASSUME I don't know when all this while it is YOU who could not even tell me what historical science is. Are you sure you were ever a young earth creationist? Mind you, when I first became a YEC the first thing I learned was the difference between historical science and experimental science and how they work.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Tcmc,
You ASSUME I don't know when all this while it is YOU who could not even tell me what historical science is. Are you sure you were ever a young earth creationist? Mind you, when I first became a YEC the first thing I learned was the difference between historical science and experimental science and how they work.
BIC
1. Sorry I fail to see how committing an error of confirmation bias and asking people to give you the methodology to prove your claims has to do with historical science.
2. I admit I dont know what is historical science. But it doesnt mean you can automatically anyhow link things together with my admission of my lack of knowledge. Lol......
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
1. Sorry I fail to see how committing an error of confirmation bias and asking people to give you the methodology to prove your claims has to do with historical science.
2. I admit I dont know what is historical science. But it doesnt mean you can automatically anyhow link things together with my admission of my lack of knowledge. Lol......
Tcmc,
Did you read my three different sources concerning bias? No? Too biased against them to read issit?
If you don't know anything about historical science, then your bluff has been called. You know nothing about being a young earth creationist and the arguments for it. You just use that label to make yourself look credible. Sorry you have just been busted.
Originally posted by BadzMaro:A fact which IS relevant once everything is compiled.
Up to you
i go gather few more people who think this is the shiat worth seeing
hehe
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Tcmc,
The point is, we are dealing with the present! Talking about the future is really a moot point. I might as well argue that in future the law will decree that atheism is disallowed and should be banned. Anything is possible right? You wanna waste time arguing over that?
Please check back if you are not sure why laurence is squabbling over a lost cause, as the law now stands. But if you can't be bothered to, let me recap for you, with creative liberty taken to reconstruct the chain of events. ; p
laurence: Ban evangelism la! Public nuisance!
BroInChrist: To do so is against the Constitution which provides for propagation of religion?
laurence: Talk nonsense lah!
BroInChrist: Go check the Constitution.
laurence (probably thinking to himself, "Darn, what is Constitution? Can eat one? Never mind, put on a brave front and try to call his bluff): Hey! Prove to me the Constitution specifically say can propagate religion.
BroInChrist: Sure thing! See Article 15(1) which specifically says blah blah blah....
laurence (probably thinking to himself, "Jia lat, tio owned liao! Oh wait, Wiki also said Singapore courts did not interpret the word propagate so I can still bank on this to weasel myself out of this embarassing situation): SO WHAT? Courts did not decide on the word propagate, so it means evangelism can be banned!
(Of course one must also remember that reasonable.atheist did try to talk some sense into laurence's fallacious argument but he simply refuses to even see the fallacies being pointed out)
BroInChrist: What the??? Argument from silence? Courts never interpret each word of the law means we can't know what that word means? Check dictionary, check Oxford, check internet, all will give the same basic meaning, a meaning that cannot be suka suka negated by the courts to mean something entirely different.
laurence: LOL! Oxford cannot be used to determine the meaning of a word that the courts have not decided. Screw Oxford! And you as well! Therefore I win, we can ban evangelism! Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!
BroInChrist: Like that also can? Constitution is clear that we can propagate religion but you say that I cannot say banning evangelism is unlawful? But you admit that court is silent on the word it means banning evangelism is lawful?
laurence: Yes, and if you disagree with me you are nothing but a troll.
BroInChrist: ??!!!???
OK, that's all for now. Wait I kena whacked by laurence if I keep on going. But even you also agree with me that you cannot ban evangelism because the Constitution as it stands right now protects that as a right and freedom. Can laurence talk about banning evangelism? Of course he can. He can even sing about it on the roof top or shout it out loud on Bukit Timah Hill! I never say he cannot talk about it. All I am saying is that to ban evangelism is unlawful because of what the Constitution is saying right now. If Article 15(1) does not exist, I would not even quibble with his point in the first place. Can things change in the future? Of course, but like I said, it's a moot point.
Nice fictitious story
But again, pls prove that banning evangelism is unlawful under the eyes of the law
Originally posted by laurence82:
Up to youi go gather few more people who think this is the shiat worth seeing
hehe
ok
*waits for people to come in and give a shit*
*sees dustball rolling over*
Originally posted by laurence82:
Nice fictitious storyBut again, pls prove that banning evangelism is unlawful under the eyes of the law
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I have already proved that evangelism is lawful, the ball is in your court to prove that banning evangelism is lawful in the eyes of law, and as the Constitution now stands.
Try the christian couple form of evangelism .
Remember, that couple who distributed christian material that tear down other religions?
What do you think about those form of evangelism, BIC?
Originally posted by Tcmc:Try the christian couple form of evangelism .
Remember, that couple who distributed christian material that tear down other religions?
What do you think about those form of evangelism, BIC?
Tcmc,
What was their crime? They were distributing materials that were deemed offensive to other religions. Distributing tracts itself was NOT the offense they were indicted for. If I distribute Christmas tracts that preach Jesus as the reason for the season, you think this is against the law? Of course not. You can throw away the tract just like you throw away the housing agent tracts.