This short post of your offers good examples of your argument style.
<<<I have already shown
that you made an issue out of Olasky being a social policy advisor, on the basis of his
fundamentalism. >>>
What you did is to say I made in issue of the "social policy that Olasky supports. I demanded that you show me where I did that. Since I hadn't done it, you couldn't do that. So you changed words: "made an issue of Olasky being a social policy advisor on the basis of his fundamentalism" is now what you want to argue.
(Why are we there, when you haven't yet retracted your earlier accusation, btw?)
I note in passing that you use the term "fundamentalism," which is a nice stepping back from "biblical inerrancy."
I note in passing that you've dropped the matter of Biblical inerrancy as the test for ethical advice given to the President (he is "ethics advisor") to "a social policy advisor based on his fundamentalism."
What I have said is that "I do not know, Neocon, what foreign policy advice, for example,
Biblical inerrancy might suggest. I have no idea."
For that reason, Biblical inerrancy is a concern to me of some not yet decided degree. BECAUSE NONE OF US KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE WILL SUGGEST TO AN INERRANTIST HE URGE THE PRESIDENT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO IN ANY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE.
For example, I'd kinda prefer it if his portfolio, should he ever get one, didn't include giving ethics advice on curriculum reform, because as a root-and-branch inerrantist, he would be under an obligation to knock the theory of evolution out of the classroom and substitute for it creationism, one would think.
Or... not?
What?
Search me. |
