Hey Flint, you
make a big, fundamental mistake. By insisting to draw conclusions, to make connections, to assign a causal relationship between the actions of an individual and concept as large and varied and intangible as Christianity, your arguments are weak and unsupportable. When you make unfounded assumptions, use unfair and irrelevant stereotypes, people are likely to react to the inflammatory speech and not to the facts of your point of view. That's great if you're trying to "energize your base" or whatever, but it's not a valid foundation for a fruitful discussion of factual events.
Saying "why" somebody did something is a difficult exercise at best, and the difficulty is multiplied when the somebody is a group of people, like a school board. It's rarely, effectively never, because of "X", and almost always the sum, or better the net effect of many forces.
xoB nailed it when he described Joe Blow, the asshole. Generalizations like yours are as useful as they are specific. You want to say something about a group, fine. It may have some traction. But the harder you try to apply that concept to a specific target, the less traction it has. You just can't persuade reasonable thinking people that someone's
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Flint
opposition to nude art is probably based on an a person's attempt to adhere to the confused teachings of their religious institution (IE, sex is bad, the human body is dirty). That, I base on two points: #1 this is the teaching of these institutions (is it not?) and #2 I can't think of any other possible reason for someone to be opposed to nude art.
|
because the conclusions you're jumping to are just too far from the facts we're all using as the same takeoff point.
btw, xoB, that guy, JB...it was the
Navy.