[MD] The End of Faith - Spirituality

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Craig]
It exposed those who aren't interested in real inquiry.

[Ian]
Those quotes are simply people expressing frustration that at the 
umpteen-hundredth time these topics are again raised, real debate is 
avoided by prejudiced rhetoric

[Arlo]
Absolutely. Funny how Craig seems to think I am not interested in 
"real inquiry" when my first reply was to ask two very important 
contextual questions. (1) What does "not free" mean? and (2) How many 
"are hungry"?

Instead of real dialogue I received (no surprise) just idiotic 
distortions about how "the principle of freedom" is somehow 
"secondary" to me (absent only was Platt's outright "Arlo is an evil 
commie who hates freedom" one-liner). Where was the criticism on Ham, 
Craig, for failure to engender "real inquiry"? Where's the criticism 
of Ham for not answering my questions rather than wagging out some 
ridiculously tired cliche? Huh?

And, I point out the inane rhetorical pairing's of the question, that 
set it up to be nothing but a ridiculous strawman. If you want "real 
inquiry" then start with questions that are not ridiculously 
propagandistic to start. And if that's impossible, then respond to 
valid contextual and clarifying questions rather than insipid 
neoconservative bunk about "not valuing freedom".

And this isn't even really necessary. My wager is that "not free" 
means "pays taxes". Okay. So does that public parks, public roads, 
socialized police and military, public libraries... that these things 
make me "not free"? Or is it only when my tax dollars are used to 
feed hungry kids am I suddenly "enslaved"? Is it the degree of 
taxation we are talking? What if it was one dollar, as I suggest? 
Would a mandatory tax of $1 per year which would feed everyone make 
us "not free"? Would it be better to have a hundred thousand hungry 
and no $1/year tax?

[Ian]
PS Remind me - Krim's alter ego ?

[Arlo]
You must be thinking back to the instantiation known as "Case".