[Vision2020] "The War of the Rose" Re: Trinity Fest
Donovan Arnold
donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 22 21:48:30 PDT 2005
Rose,
You wrote, "As much as I hate puncturing Donovan's
self-righteous view of being a champion of free speech
on the Palouse, I have to correct some erroneous
impressions of the Trinity Festival, he continues to
hold."
(Logical fallacies used by Rose in this statement
"Complex question" and (Argumentum ad hominem)
(argument directed at the person).)
Rose, I am not claiming to champion anyone's freedom
but my own. I am making sure that if I want to someday
rent the Kibbie Dome it does not have to have to meet
a religious litmus test established by Rose Huskey.
Your attack by claiming I am self-righteous is both
untrue and does nothing for justifying your arguments.
I would suggest you dispense with the mud slinging.
"The University of Idaho has not established that the
sponsor of the Trinity festival is a non-profit
entity."
(Logical fallacy used this statement "Complex
question"))
Yes it has, that is why it is getting the non-profit
rate.
"Jim Meyer is exactly right, proof of 501(c)(3) status
would provide a fair and equitable way to ensure that
only non-profit groups received the non-profit price."
("Fallacy used by Rose, Circulus in demonstrando
(circular argument)" AKA "begging the question")
So what Rose and Jim are saying is, if we change the
rules so that Christ Church is not defined as a
non-profit, then it would only be fair to be able to
exclude them as a non-profit. The fact that the rule
change was unfairly made to be unfair seems irrelevant
to them in being fair.
"Perhaps Donovan will elaborate on the 'legal
complaint' filed to prevent people from celebrating
'worship with wine. Who made the complaint, Donovan?"
(Logical fallacy used "Straw man" argument and
circular argument)
Perhaps you should read what I wrote more carefully,
Rose. I do not recall making the claim that a
complaint WAS filed. I simply asked how such a
compliant would be logically connected to the purpose
of fighting bigotry and discrimination. Why do you
avoid answering this question?
"In the meantime, perhaps the Trinity Festival folks
could apply for and receive the alcohol permit that
they were told to get when they signed the contract
with UI last November."
(Logical fallacy, Red herring and Complex question"
Perhaps they did. Maybe you can write your members of
congress to stipulate a clause be put into the law
that when Christ Church files for a license that Rose
Huskey be given a copy. But again, this is better than
answering the question that a complaint about wine use
for religious purposes does nothing for your stated
cause of fighting against bigotry.
"With that in mind perhaps he can help us to
understand (if he understood it himself) why the
Trinity Festival is paying $750/day rental for the
Kibbie Dome instead of the $2000/day rental listed on
the UI fee schedule for non-profit organizations."
(Logical fallacies used Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
(with this, therefore because of this)"Complex
question" and Argumentum ad hominem )Dicto simpliciter
(spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization)
Rose, it is clear that you naturally assume that
because Christ Church is paying $750 a day (which they
are not) instead of $2000 to rent the Kibbie Dome that
you think it is obviously because the students,
employees, and administrators working at Campus Events
conspired to give Christ Church an illegally reduced
rate. And any evidence given to you to the contrary is
because I am stupid, or anyone who presents it, and
incapable of understanding that if the general average
rate listed to rent the entire Kibbie for a day is
$2000, that means that CCers must pay at least $8000.
So it is pointless, for anyone to argue with you about
details of the $2000 number, usage, labor costs, and
extended stays and group packages that we give
everyone else too as being the possible reasons for a
rate less than the average per day listed. A
conspiracy is the more logical conclusion and easier
to believe because someone we disagree with is
involved with it.
"Lofty sentiments that urge us to make friends with
people we disagree with ring a little hollow, Donovan,
when your letter to Jim Meyer begins with the question
'Are you serious, sane, and sober?'"
("Logical Fallacy used by Rose, Tu quoque ("you
too")")
Rose, if your argument was to say I was wrong to use
that statement because it was offensive to Mr. Meyer,
you would have been correct. His personal attacks made
me angry, and I should not have responded in kind, I
apologize.
However, your argument that my making personal attacks
invalidates my argument that personal attacks are
wrong, does not logically follow. If a murderer says
murder is wrong, it is still wrong.
"What is it, Donovan, that makes you continue to
dismiss Christian Reconstructionists as a group of fun
loving, friendly fellows, who don't really mean what
they say?"
(Logical Fallacy made by Rose, "Straw man")
I never made the statement that "Christian
Reconstructionists as a group of fun loving, friendly
fellows, who don't really mean what they say"
I just do not believe that attacking individuals,
rather than the beliefs of the individual is the
answer to ending discrimination. Nor do I believe that
the prevention or limitation of free speech is the way
to fight bad ideas. I think that bad ideas, such as
bigotry and intolerance, usually die when forced to
live in a world of free speech.
"Somehow you imagine that you are persuasive enough or
nice enough to breach the barriers of misunderstanding
and miscommunication between the Kirk and rest of us."
(Logical Fallacy used, another Straw man)
I never made the claim that "I" was "persuasive enough
or nice enough to breach the barriers of
misunderstanding and miscommunication", Rose.
However, I do believe that being nice to our neighbors
is more effective in trying to reach mutual
understandings and living in peace than attacking
people's character when you disagree with them on an
issue.
"You mistakenly believe, that there is a happy middle
ground where differing opinions should be given equal
merit and equal respect. The fact is, some ideas are
without any merit and deserve no respect."
(Another straw man.)
I never claimed that I believe that there is a "happy
middle ground where opinions are given equal merit",
Rose. Some people are just wrong, and some are more
wrong than others, Rose, and in some cases they are
both equally WRONG but for different reasons.
However, in a civilized world, we still give people
equal rights and respect to people even if their ideas
are not as meritorious as that of some of their peers.
Nor does anyone have the right to prevent another
person from expressing those ideas even if they are
almost 100% wrong, almost 100% of the time.
All of your arguments Rose, are based on fallacies and
emotional appeals. I decided to list some of them this
time so maybe you could see that everything you are
doing is solely based on emotion and not logical
reasoning. I believe, somewhere along the way, Rose,
that this has become not about protecting people from
bigotry, but instead has transformed into you trying
to dig up and throw anything and everything you can to
"get" a person on a personal level. Your opponent in
this war you created does not even try to retaliate
against your for what you do and say. You have an
opponent that does not even punch back.
Your efforts at personal attacks against people does
nothing to help the poor, minorities, gays and
lesbians, women's rights or any member of this
community that you claim it does.
Freedom of speech should not be contingent on the
notion that we agree with the ideas or those that
speak. Freedom of speech was designed to protect those
that we disagree with and do not like. For those with
popularity and those expressing popular ideas are
already protected by the majority.
Donovan J Arnold
--- DonaldH675 at aol.com wrote:
> Visionaries:
>
> As much as I hate puncturing Donovan's
> self-righteous view of being a
> champion of free speech on the Palouse, I have to
> correct some erroneous
> impressions of the Trinity Festival, he continues to
> hold.
>
> 1. The University of Idaho has not established that
> the sponsor of the
> Trinity festival is a non-profit entity. UI asked
> for proof of non-profit status
> and they didn't get it. Instead, they got a copy
> of a routine filing with
> the Sect. of State that makes the claim that they
> are non-profit. That claim
> is worthless. Jim Meyer is exactly right, proof of
> 501(c)(3) status would
> provide a fair and equitable way to ensure that
> only non-profit groups received
> the non-profit price.
>
> 2. Perhaps Donovan will elaborate on the "legal
> complaint" filed to prevent
> people from celebrating "worship with wine." Who
> made the complaint,
> Donovan? Saundra Lund and I do wonder, and have
> asked publicly about the possible
> conflict between church and state, when an activity
> that is prohibited by
> law, that is, serving wine to children, takes place
> in a state owned facility.
> We have filed no legal complaint about the matter -
> although, speaking for
> myself, I would certainly appreciate it if someone
> did. This is an
> interesting constitutional question, and I have no
> idea what the answer would be. In
> the meantime, perhaps the Trinity Festival folks
> could apply for and receive
> the alcohol permit that they were told to get when
> they signed the contract
> with UI last November. (And, it is possible that
> they have done so since my
> public records request for the UI Trinity Festival
> contract was filled early in
> March.)
>
> 3. Donovan is right that the UI should treat people
> fairly. With that in
> mind perhaps he can help us to understand (if he
> understood it himself) why
> the Trinity Festival is paying $750/day rental for
> the Kibbie Dome instead of
> the $2000/day rental listed on the UI fee schedule
> for non-profit
> organizations.
>
> 4. Lofty sentiments that urge us to make friends
> with people we disagree
> with ring a little hollow, Donovan, when your letter
> to Jim Meyer begins with
> the question "Are you serious, sane, and sober?"
>
> 5. What is it, Donovan, that makes you continue to
> dismiss Christian
> Reconstructionists as a group of fun loving,
> friendly fellows, who don't really
> mean what they say? If there is a single lesson
> that I wish the folks in Moscow
> could or would learn about Doug Wilson, it is this:
> he is not kidding.
> Because much of his social commentary seems so
> ludicrous or peculiar to us,
> don't think for a moment it is funny or peculiar to
> him. Your wish to "make
> friends" is breathtaking in its innocence, naivete
> and frankly hubris. Somehow
> you imagine that you are persuasive enough or nice
> enough to breach the
> barriers of misunderstanding and miscommunication
> between the Kirk and rest of us.
> A word of advice, Donovan, Doug Wilson and I
> understand each other
> perfectly, and neither one of us is fooled or
> mislead for a nano-second by the other.
> You mistakenly believe, that there is a happy middle
> ground where differing
> opinions should be given equal merit and equal
> respect. The fact is, some
> ideas are without any merit and deserve no respect.
> Consider what George
> Grant has to say on the subject of religious and
> civic tolerance - and, by the
> way, if you think Doug Wilson believes differently,
> I invite you to ask him
> to publicly repudiate the following. Hint: he
> won't do it.
>
>
> "Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a
> commission, a holy
> responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ
> - to have dominion in the civil
> structures, just as in every other aspect of life
> and godliness.
> But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a
> voice.
> It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
> It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
> It is dominion we are after.
> World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned
> us to accomplish. We
> must win the world with the power of the Gospel.
> And we must never settle for
> anything less.
> If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says,
> and if our commission is
> to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship,
> as the Bible says, then
> all our activities, all our witnessing, all our
> preaching, all our
> craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our
> political action will aim at nothing
> short of that sacred purpose.
> Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent
> the conquest of the land
> - of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies,
> courts, and governments for
> the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the
> authority of God's Word as
> supreme over all judgments, over all legislation,
> over all declarations,
> constitutions, and confederations. True Christian
> political action seeks to rein
> the passions of men and curb the pattern of
> digression under God's rule.
> George Grant, The Changing of the Guard (Ft. Worth,
> TX: Dominion Press,
> 1987), pp. 50-51.
> _http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/_
> (http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/worldcnq.htm)
> worldcnq.htm
> Rose Huskey
>
> "Find out just what people will submit to, and you
> have found out the exact
> amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed
> upon them; and these
> will continue until they are resisted with either
> words or blows, or both. The
> limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance
> of those whom they oppress."
> Frederick Douglass
> >
_____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step
> Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>
> http://www.fsr.net
>
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list