Thursday, July 13, 2017


Okay, so I'm going to be more removed from my computer for a week or so, but I am interested in questions of honesty. Or, put another way, my honesty has been questioned on a blog post that is older and more difficult to reach, so I'm starting this new blog post to give a chance to address it.

The charge has been made that I've "lied," or, if not lied, presented myself in a "dishonest" manner in my blog posts and interactions with commenters. Now, of course, I am not a perfect man and of course I make mistakes. But I can honestly say that, at least in the blogosphere, I have never intentionally lied. I've never intentionally made a claim that I knew to be false in hopes of, whatever, making my case "stronger..." (Who would do that? I don't get it... I don't think I'm unique in this regards... I suspect that most people who are arguing a point or defending a belief in formats like this are, of course, trying to tell you honestly and without lies what they believe and why. Again, who would do that?)

If not lies, then the charge has been that I've been "dishonest" in presenting myself or answering questions (or something, it's still not clear to me).

Given that it's not clear to me what in the world the charge is and given that I of course, do not wish to even appear dishonest, I've requested these gentlemen to present ONE SPECIFIC charge and defend it as to why they think what I've said MUST be a lie, or MUST be dishonest. Make your case. As a point of fact, I have never intentionally done or said anything on the blogs that was intentionally dishonest or less than factual (short of jokes and rants, of course).

So, fellas, this is your chance to briefly present ONE instance of me lying that you can prove I said something intentionally dishonest, or of me being dishonest somehow in something I've said. Present the words and why it must be the case that I'm intentionally being dishonest or lying, as opposed to simply disagreeing with your hunches or hold another view than you do or another interpretation.

For example, I think that reasonable people across the spectrum can look at Trump's words and see that he has repeatedly made false claims. Abundantly and foolishly made false claims in unprecedented numbers. There are records of these claims on line.

Now, whether or not he is lying or just ignorantly making the false claims or doing so because he simply doesn't care about truth and may not recognize the difference (I fear the latter may be the case), the point is, he has made an unprecedented number of false claims.

Now, this is not a lie. It has been documented. Google it, I won't do your work on something so obvious. It's not a lie that I've pointed to this reality. Now you may disagree with this opinion and say, "Well, it's not documented but Clinton made more lies and bigger lies!" and you are welcome to your opinion, but I'm speaking of what is documented. There is nothing dishonest in my claim. You may ultimately disagree with the opinion, but it is not dishonest.

So, I'm asking you to provide, briefly and clearly, one instance of me actually being dishonest and then prove it.

If you can't do so, then admit it. If you can prove it, then I won't have any choice but to admit that I can see how that at least appears dishonest, but only if you can prove it.

What I suspect is that Bubba, at least, is speaking of me not answering questions in a timely enough (to his feelings) or clear enough (to his tastes) manner and that this is "evidence" of dishonesty. As opposed to a simple misunderstanding/difference of opinion, which is how I would describe such problems/disagreements.

After all, I have routinely experienced people not answering the question I'm asking and instead, taking the conversation off in a different direction or answering a different question... or just not answering it at all. And yet, I would never suggest the many, many (dozens?) of conservatives who have done this are arguing dishonestly or in bad faith. Just that they're either not understanding the question or are unable (for whatever reason) to answer the actual question asked of them. Now, I could certainly start calling all these conservatives dishonest, I just don't think that's a reasonable or fair guess as to their motivations.

Don't abuse this and load up dozens of comments please. I'm asking for brevity and clarity and hard data, not hunches based on wild interpretations of what I've written (as opposed to what I've actually written). I'll answer as I get a chance.


Craig said...

I've pointed one out in the comments of the thread in question. I also believe I've done this at my blog. So if you'd like to prove me wrong, go ahead.

Marshal Art said...

I'm still waiting to see my last comments posted at the previous thread. You don't seem to anxious, willing or interested to see if I've tried to post any comments, as you've said they are not appearing in the normal manner and required you to seek them out. As I have no way of knowing how to resolve this issue from my end, I'm left with only you to do what needs to be done, without which I have no way of knowing if you've received them at all, haven't yet chosen to look for them or have chosen to dismiss, reject or otherwise deny their posting.

Anonymous said...

Again, I don't have much time. Briefly, the posts that you all put on the last entry did not meet my request that you provide ONE simple, brief example of why you suspect this false thing. You all posted many words, many charges, not much in the way of actual support.

Marshall, you at least did refer to my thinking that when Trump says he just grabs them by the pussy as a false charge. It's not. YOU appear to think that when he said he just grabs them by the pussy, that it was hyperbole, not real world. I DO NOT THINK that is a rational understanding of his words and all that we know thus far about him.

Thus, it is a difference of opinion on the meaning of his words, NOT a false charge and certainly not a lie.

Do you understand the difference?

I am looking for something pretty specific:

Dan, when you said "x" it was false, or dishonest or a lie. Here is the proof that it is false.


If you all can do that, do it. If not, admit your mistake.

I don't want any other words or explanations. I'm giving you a chance to put up or shut up.

Ball's in your park.


Bubba said...

The comment I posted and which you did not publish directly addresses that request, Dan: I should know, I wrote it -- but apparently that sort of direct, authoritative knowledge only matters when it's yours.

Bubba said...


You continue to ask for proof of a lie, but in the previous thread, I asked you, "When is it not some gross offense against humility to attribute bad faith to a person's motivations?"

Your answer?

"I don't know. If they do something that is CLEARLY and unmistakably bad faith. I don't know what that looks like." [emphasis mine]

As I pointed out then: Since you don't know what it looks like, we have no reason to expect you to be a good judge of a particular example. And since you've never given a standard of evidence that you would accept, there's nothing to keep you from rejecting ALL evidence as insufficient.

You now say, "If you can prove it, then I won't have any choice but to admit that I can see how that at least appears dishonest, but only if you can prove it."

But you would always retain the option of declaring that the evidence doesn't meet your standard of proof, because you have not defined what that standard is. Your claim that you would have no choice but to admit dishonesty (or "at least" its appearance) is inaccurate.


From that last thread, there's one carefully written paragraph of yours that is a buffet of hypocrisy and dishonesty, double standards and at least one outright lie.

"Read slowly. Understand.

"IF someone claims that they know something perfectly - something which can not be proven and which they certainly have not proven - that is the very definition of arrogance. If I note, 'That claim fits the dictionary definition of arrogance,' I'm not judging their character. I'm stating that the comment they made IS ARROGANT BY DEFINITION.

Your position has been that the meaning of a text can never be clear beyond all reasonable, good-faith disagreement -- and in this very paragraph you're disputing those who disagree -- but here you act as if the meaning of an entry in a dictionary (and the meaning of a person's claim) is unmistakably clear: there's nothing here about how you're only pointing to your merely human and fully fallible interpretation of that dictionary definition (or that other person's claim). No, you think it's fine FOR YOU to treat a text's meaning as unmistakable, even as you castigate others for doing the exact same thing.

Moreover, having griped about the figurative language of personification in my writing that the Bible teaches the existence of God and the historicity of Jesus...

"I would say that, as a point of fact, the Bible does not 'teach' anything. It is text. We can find facts or truths or points to think about in the text, but the Bible isn't 'teaching' us. It CONTAINS teachings of people, but the Bible is not teaching. now have no problem telling us that a text -- a claim, a comment -- is itself arrogant. An inanimate artifact of human communication doesn't teach, but this lifeless object CAN be arrogant: it's an incoherent claim, except that it's another example of your attitude that an act is okay only if AND when **YOU** do it.

And your attributing arrogance to the comment and not the commenter is one of the clearest examples of your dishonesty.


Bubba said...


In defending my use of personification, I explain that I see no meaningful difference between saying that a text teaches and that its author teaches through that text, seeing an essential unity between the writer and what he writes.

You're using personification in denial of that unity, to disassociate the communicator and the communication.

You write, "I'm not judging their character."

You most certainly are. This is an obvious lie.

You have repeatedly criticized the persons who would make that claim and NOT JUST THE CLAIM ITSELF.

"Indeed, if anyone is pretending, it's those who insist that no possible different understandings can exist when, clearly, in the real world, they do exist." [May 14, emphasis mine]

"And I only accuse people of being arrogant readers when they insist that they and they alone (well, and those who agree with them) are the True Readers and those who disagree with their human interpretations are objectively wrong or immoral or God haters or liars." [June 23, emphasis mine]

You used to recognize that you were criticizing other people and not just their comments, acknowledging the obvious fact that people are responsible for what they say and write, but only now do you absurdly try to disassociate the writer from his writing.

The reason you're trying this is obvious, to deny my charge of hypocrisy, you're grasping for straws to distinguish your accusation of arrogance (a lack of humility) with my accusation of deceit (a lack of honesty): I'm criticizing the person, but (only now) you say you're just criticizing the comment.

That's nonsense.

And while I do think your m.o. is generally to avoid deliberate falsehoods in favor of obfuscation and equivocation, here I think is very strong evidence of a deliberate lie.

You're lying that you're not judging the other person's character, and if you really think you've been nothing but honest, it seems you're lying even to yourself.

It seems you'd rather tell a lie (and maybe even swallow your own lie) -- no matter how implausible that lie, and no matter how obviously false the statement is in the context of what else you've written -- rather than face up to your flagrant hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

Again and to make it even clearer, here is the format I'm requesting...

Dan, you said, "X"

X is demonstrably false, here's why


Not only is it demonstrably false, but YOU know it is demonstrably false. Here's how we know you know...


Like that. Short. Simple. Clear.

Your many rambling words are undoing you.

More later.


Bubba said...

Dan, last week you wrote:

"IF someone claims that they know something perfectly - something which can not be proven and which they certainly have not proven - that is the very definition of arrogance. If I note, 'That claim fits the dictionary definition of arrogance,' I'm not judging their character. I'm stating that the comment they made IS ARROGANT BY DEFINITION."

You are indeed judging that person's character, so it is a falsehood to claim that you're not: "I'm not judging their character."

We know that you're judging the person's character because, in your previous reiterations of your position, you disparaged the person and not just the comment.

1. On May 14th, you said that, if anyone is pretending, it is "those who insist that no possible different understandings can exist," criticizing the person and not just the comment.

2. On June 23rd, rather than say you were only accusing comments of being arrogant claims, you were quite explicit in accusing people of being arrogant readers: "I only accuse people of being arrogant readers when they insist that they and they alone (well, and those who agree with them) are the True Readers and those who disagree with their human interpretations are objectively wrong or immoral or God haters or liars."

We know that that you do not really mean that you're not evaluating comments wholly independent of the commenters who made them, for a few reasons.

1. Comments are inanimate objects, artifacts of communication, so they cannot possibly possess an arrogant attitude or any other kind of attitude; the only arrogance that can be exhibited in a piece of writing is the arrogance of the writer, and I don't think you're quite so stupid as to believe that a text has a literal life of its own.

2. Earlier in that thread, you lectured us about the difference between the writer and the writing, saying that a text doesn't actually teach; this pedantic quibble over personification implies either an effort on your part to avoid figurative language or an attempt to be seen to do so, because (as you put it) "in instances where this is a disagreement about meaning/intent/understanding of various texts, I think it helps to be more precise."

3. The entire point of the original blog post was to urge people like Stan to practice humility, implying that they don't. Asking about "if we are both using our human judgement to make this call," you say the "thing" is humility:

"We all have our opinions when we read the Bible...But they are human opinions... we can't prove our opinions. They are human opinions and thus, it is not rational or fair for some to say that they are the ones who speak authoritatively for what God intends."

"In all things, humility, this is a reasonable opinion on unprovable matters and, I'd say, consistent with biblical teachings."

In NONE of this were you telling "comments" to be humble, you were telling the COMMENTERS to be humble: it is the commenters who "have [their] opinions" as they "read" a text. The claims they subsequently write don't THEMSELVES read the Bible, nor do those claims have their own opinions.

4. The motive for this lie is obvious: in responding to my charge of hypocrisy -- that you're calling people arrogant based only on what they've written, while you balk at my calling you dishonest on the very same grounds -- you'd rather grasp any thin reed to explain that there really is some significant difference than admit that you don't play by the rules you seek to impose on others.

Marshal Art said...

"Marshall, you at least did refer to my thinking that when Trump says he just grabs them by the pussy as a false charge. It's not"

Yes it is. It is a lie, because he did not actually say that he grabs them by the crotch, though you continue to insist that he actually engages in that behavior. Without absolute, rock-solid proof (of the level and degree you demand of us), then you cannot claim he actually engaged in the specific behavior to which he did not admit. Indeed, in the very quote above, you lie. "...when Trump says he just grabs them..." He absolutely did NOT say that. Go to the tape again and listen, hear and then tell the truth.

Anonymous said...

"You (Trump) can do anything.."

"Grab 'em by the pussy..." -Trump

YOU, Marshall, interpret that as a hypothetical.

I interpret it as literal.

That I interpret his words differently (more rationally, given the data, I'd say) than you is not the same as lying. It's just not.


Craig said...

I guess my pointing out in a simple direct manner an example of you lying doesn't fit this new format. Of course since you refused to post it, no one will know for sure.

Clever, dishonest but clever.

Marshal Art said...

"I interpret it as literal."

Of course you do. You need it to be true because your hatred for Trump is even less rational, less Christian and certainly far less gracious if you don't. (Of course, it's not at all Christian or gracious either way.)

The point here is more specific, however. It's not a matter of your self-serving interpretations of what he said. It's about what he actually said versus what you have been saying he said. You lied about what he said, and lied about what he did (given you've never provided any proof that he actually did/does what you claim he did/does).

And once again, I've pointed you to the link and transcript representations more than once. So it's not like you were mistaken beyond your first misrepresentation of the facts. From that point, you clearly lied, preferring to portray him in the worst possible light (itself a form of lying) as if his actual record wasn't bad enough.

For example, it was quite enough for me that he was divorced multiple times, owned or ran a strip club (or an establishment that included nude women as a profit draw) and was in general, a blowhard and braggart who shot his mouth off. As such, he was never a consideration for my vote throughout the primary season. It was only when he was up against the other low character candidate with any chance of actually winning the presidency that I gave him any support at all. It was a good move on my part. The point is that I saw no reason to lie about the guy given all that was well known already. You seem to have no problem doing so in one way or another.

Stretching the truth, exaggeration...these are examples of dishonesty...lying...even without need to provide definitive examples of the absolute extent of his speech or actions. Indeed, even calling him "evil" is a lie...not necessarily because he is or isn't, but because his predecessor and his main opponent for the presidency are staunch supporters of evil themselves (abortion, SSM). Calling him evil, as a reason to oppose him, while ignoring the evil of those you support suggests the evil you support isn't evil. That's lying as well.

The question now is, are you doing this intentionally, or is there something wrong with you that you can't see this clear reality?

Craig said...

Dan continues to claim that someone somewhere has claimed to have "perfect knowledge" or to "know something perfectly", yet I've never seen anyone make those claims, nor any evidence of such claims. Seems to me that making false claims about what people have said could reasonably be considered lying. Especially when the falsehood has been pointed out repeatedly.

Anonymous said...

So,you are saying that your opinions are your opinions, not something you know perfectly? I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with people treating their opinions as if they are facts. So, are you and I in agreement on that?

And, before moving on to Bubba's last, can we agree that Marshall is simply mistaken in treating his opinions (that Trump meant that he can commit sexual assault only in theory, not as a confession of actual actions he's done? And that my interpretation that his comments are tantamount to an admission of sexual assault is somehow a lie?) as known facts?


Craig said...

We're not talking about my opinions, but about your claims. If you can't prove your claims, your claims are false, if you continue to repeat said claims after being corrected, you are lying.

If you change the subject from your claims to my opinions, your obfuscating.

Craig said...

In the absence of any actual data relating specifically to actual acts engaged in by Trump, neither of you is dealing in fact.

One factor against your opinion is the lack of women accusing Trump of committing this particular act against them in an unwanted manner.

But that's only if facts are important.

Anonymous said...

Marshall made a claim: Dan is lying about what Trump said. As a point of fact, I am not lying, I do think that is what Trump was admitting and even bragging about. Thus, Marshall has made an incorrect fact claim. Agreed?

Are facts important to you?


Craig said...

By diverting the discussion away from claims you have made, to claims that others have made, you simply reinforce the questions that have been raised about you.

You specifically wrote a post about your behavior, yet now choose to focus attention away from the topic of the post.

One wonders why.

Anonymous said...

I'm "diverting" the conversation directly TO Marshall's claim about me (IE, about my behavior), that I lied. I have now demonstrated why that charge is false, a mistake on his part.

I'm checking to see if you all understand why it's a mistake and if you truly agree with me that people should not confuse their opinions with facts. Do you?

Will you answer the question?


Craig said...

Sure, facts and opinions are not the same.

But that doesn't mean you've proven your claim or not been dishonest.

That doesn't change the factyou are diverting the issue from your honesty to the issue of opinion v. facts and Art's honesty.

But keep it up.

Marshal Art said...

You've demonstrated nothing...except that I am correct in referring to your anti-Trump assertion as the lie it is. Again, we're not talking about interpretations, but what you have actually been saying. He did not admit to grabbing women that way. That's simply and absolutely clear by the very words recorded 11 years ago and broadcast by anti-Trump forces now. By saying you consider it (now) a clear admission is only YOUR opinion, not in the least bit a fact or evidence that you didn't lie about his behavior. YOU said he admitted doing it. THE ACTUAL RECORDED CONVERSATION makes no such statement whatsoever. You'd have had no argument had you simply stated from the beginning that it suggests he might have grabbed women in that manner. THAT would have been a rational implication of his words. But it was in no way an admission that he actually does it, and your initial claim was that it was. You continued to make the assertion after having been corrected by the presentation of the actual video, so you lied...blatantly and without question. NOW, you're pretending you were only making an inference that you think is likely the case. Tap-dancing is lying as well.

In the meantime, I'm making absolutely no suggestions as to whether or not Trump engages in such behavior, or ever has. I'm only referring to the words that he said on the video and nothing more. Unlike you, I don't need to "infer" what can't be proven to have problems with his character. There is enough that is beyond doubt and easily researched that I don't have to make shit up. I didn't do it about Obama, or Clinton or anyone else. YOU lied. And now you lie by pretending you didn't.

Bubba said...


I strongly prefer a substantive reply to my comment, of course, but I would appreciate, at the very least, an estimate for when you expect to return online AND when you expect to be "moving on" to my comment, since those two events might not be simultaneous.

- On July 11th, I submitted to the previous thread a comment that directly addressed your demand that I demonstrate your dishonesty "and prove that [you] have made the argument in an effort to be dishonest and misleading." Having pointed out that dishonesty entails material omissions and not just deliberate falsehoods, and having pointed out where I believe you're being hypocritical, I also noted quite explicitly my belief that you're not being honest in writing that you're judging someone's comment but "not judging their character."

- You never did approve that comment and allow it to be published.

- On July 14th, in this thread, you explained, "the posts that you all put on the last entry did not meet my request that you provide ONE simple, brief example of why you suspect this false thing." I then disagreed with that assessment outright, but you *STILL* haven't published my comment.

(I would also point out quite explicitly that, if you REALLY believe that a text's meaning is NEVER clear beyond any reasonable, good-faith disagreement, you could never conclude that a comment doesn't meet the standards you demand.)

- I subsequently commented here about the obvious dishonesty in your claim that you're "not judging [the commenter's] character," and you refused to address the comment because it didn't meet the format you requested.

(You also griped about the length of my two-part comment -- "Your many rambling words are undoing you." -- but I was fairly succint, certainly meeting your original request not to "load up dozens of comments." That original post of yours was some 808 words, and my two-part comment was some 877 words; I had no idea that the line between brevity and rambling was so razor-thin.)

- I then immediately reformulated my criticism to fit within a single comment AND fit your arbitrary formula. You still haven't addressed the substance of it.

It's now been a week, Dan.

Certainly, you've evidently been offline most of that time, but you still had time enough to post another couple hundred words (~260) in three comments asking pointed questions to Craig and Marshall.

For the second time in two threads, you seem available to comment, just NOT interested in addressing my questions or criticisms. Previously, I asked a simple yes-or-no question that you STILL haven't answered (since "clear" and "meaningful" aren't synonyms), and here I'm ANSWERING a request you made quite directly to me, calling me out by name in your original post.

That first thread began with your claiming, "I like reading conservative Christian commentary. Call me crazy, but I do. It helps me to think through positions and invariably raises questions." Here you claim, "I am interested in questions of honesty."

Really? Where's the evidence? And at what point should a reasonable person conclude that your evasive behavior undermines your claims of intellectual honesty?

There's another question from the earlier thread, one you haven't answered: you say you don't know what proof of dishonesty looks like, but you insist that we submit such proof to your evaluation.

"If you can prove [the charge of dishonesty], then I won't have any choice but to admit that I can see how that at least appears dishonest, but only if you can prove it."

You've always had other options, including ignoring the evidence or claiming that it just doesn't meet some standard of evidence that you never get around to defining, much less adhere to in your own writing.

Only an honest person gives himself no option but to face up to the ugly truth.

Anonymous said...

Still out of town, still limited access. Should be home today, but then, I should have been home yesterday.

I dealt with Marshall's first because it was the easiest to deal with. Agreed? I mean, clearly that I disagree with his (exceedingly naive) interpretation of Trump's words is not evidence of lying, correct?


Marshal Art said...

Again, Dan...and you lie by pretending this isn't the case...the point did not revolve around "interpretation" of Trump's words, but was about what he ACTUALLY said versus what you CLAIMED he said. You continued to insist he admitted to having grabbed women by the crotch after having a link to the video provided to you in which he never makes any such admission. Now, as you do with Scripture, you infer what you need to be true as if "interpretation" relieves you of admitting that you lied about what he said.

What's more, there is no "naivete" in my "interpretation" as I offered no interpretation of what he said in the first place, but merely referred specifically and distinctly to the ACTUAL words he spoke in the taped conversation.

IF the point had been about what either of us think he meant or intended to imply, you might have a defense against a charge of lying, as it would have all been opinion in the first place. But that wasn't the case at all. It was simply:

1. Trump said A.

2. Dan insisted Trump said B even after having A been confirmed by the link to his words provided for you.

That's called "lying". Now you lie again if you are insisting it was all about interpreting his words.

Bubba said...


I appreciate the reply, but I would still like an actual date for when I can expect a substantive response to my criticism, because checking this thread gets old fast, even when you're commenting but only about other subjects.

I generally avoided the present argument over Trump, choosing instead to focus on my questions. Fat lot of good that has done, you still haven't answered my yes/no question on whether the Bible is clear on the virgin birth, since "meaningful" is not synonymous with or even necessarily related to "clear."

I think the whole Trump thing is a distraction, and I *do* wonder whether it's deliberate, since you brought up the issue in a new post after I raised that yes/no question, and the issue revolves around a months-old article on the threat of violence from the right and an old audio recording of Trump's that came to light last year.

Honestly, I think Marshall more accurately describes what you've written, but I'm certainly not going to waste time on the question of which disagreement is more readily resolved.

I will say only this:

I do believe that a genuinely honest man could address my complaint, e.g., by recognizing the inconsistent behavior, apologizing for it, and making an honest effort to insist only on the standards that he himself is willing to live by.

But I can see how you would find my complaint quite difficult, and I can understand why you'd want to focus on other subjects, even if I think it's increasingly contemptible that you do so.


And on the subject of your hypocrisy -- and this ties back quite directly to the criticism I've posted here, the second time in a single comment conforming to your arbitrary format -- there's one other point worth making about this argument over Trump.

You've been judging a man by his verbal communication -- an audio recording of his impromptu speech rather than online writing -- and you haven't had any hesitation in condemning the man himself and not just his statements. In the previous thread, you repeatedly called Trump a pervert and a sexual predator and even an oppressor.

You have no problem using only Trump's words to condemn him for a lack of chastity and self-control, just as you have had no problem using only our words to condemn us for a supposed lack of humility.

But you object to our using only your words to condemn you for a lack of honesty.

By your own behavior across multiple subjects, you have no grounds to object. You can dispute our conclusions -- an honest man would deny charges of dishonesty, BUT SO WOULD A LIAR -- but you are in no position to demand evidence above and beyond that which you use to castigate the character of others.

If you can judge others only by their words, we can certainly judge you only by yours.

Anonymous said...

I'm asking about Marshall's specifically because it is such an easy and obvious example of me not lying and Marshall apparently not understanding that it's not a lie. I'm trying to understand if you all understand reality as it relates to something so easy and so obvious because if you do not understand reality that might be an explanation of why you find lies and dark meanings everywhere. If you can't see it in Marshall's misunderstanding and misstatement then how can you hope to see you in anything else?

It's an easy question a simple yes or no question...

I have never said that Trump's actual recorded words as it relates to "grab them by the pussy" are anything other than what he actually, literally said. I am not saying he has other words beyond the actual quote.

I have never said that. I am not saying that.

Do you understand this simple and easy reality?


Craig said...

I tend to agree that this Trump fixation is more smoke than substance.

I'm pretty sure the Bible talks about being judged by the standards we use to judge others. Personally I'd be a little concerned if I was judging folks as harshly as Dan.

Anonymous said...

Holy shit.

The man is a self-confessed serial adulterer, a naked teenager ogler who has boasted and laughed freely about his sexual exploits and exploitations... I'm being judgemental for pointing out what he freely and openly giggles about with like-minded teenage boys?

So that appears to be a "No, I do not understand reality" from you, Craig, is that right?


Craig said...

Only if pointing out reality means "do not understand reality".

You conveniently ignore the fact that I've been critical of Trump's moral failings for months.

But, grab this distraction and run with it.

Craig said...

Oh and my point still stands, are you prepared to be judged by the same standard you apply to others.

Anonymous said...

God, yes! If I EVER start hanging out backstage at beauty pageants to sneak peeks at naked teenage girls, having serial affairs with women and treating them as objects to be ogled, owned and manhandled, by God Almighty, judge me! Hell, punch me in the mouth!

Yes, we will be judged by our actions and if they're harmful in the way Trump's actions have been harmful, we should take action.

That is my point and it stands.

As does my question: do you understand that I never argued that Trump said some words that he didn't say?

Do you understand reality?


Anonymous said...

Re: judgement and grace... Understand, let us all embrace grace. And part of Grace is protecting the innocent, stopping victimization. We, in my circles, work with people who have done awful things. I understand about grace and forgiveness. But allowing an unrepentant serial abuser and oppressor to run free, to give him the keys to the presidency!... That is not grace. It's stupidity and naivete and the opposite of Grace!

Let's embrace grace, but not stupidity.


Craig said...

Thank you for such a straightforward and unambiguous response, it didn't actually answer the specific question I asked, but it was direct.

It does raise some questions, but given the nature of Bubba being left hanging on so many things I think it's best if I leave those aside and allow you to direct your full attention to Bubba. Given the patience and restraint he's shown I'd hate to be the reason why his comments get short shrift.

Marshal Art said...

"Trump IS a pervert and a sexual predator. By his own repeated admissions and boasting. Not a pervert in the sense of "ew! he does things my religion does not approve of...!" but a pervert in the sense of oppressor, of one who ogles teen aged girls who are half or all naked and then boasts and laughs about it publicly... in the sense of grabbing women by the pussy and boasting and bragging about what he can get away with because of his position of power..."

From Dan's post "Threats" May 29,2017, though Trump never actually said he actually grabs women in that way.

"You are taking the word of a man who laughs about grabbing women by the fucking pussy..."

"I know that the man makes false claims at the drop of the hat, but why would you doubt that he does grab women by the pussy when he jokes about doing so, but accept his claim that "they let me" because of his celebrity?"

From Dan's comment of July 5, @ 9:27PM, though Trump never actually said he actually grabs women in that way. But then of course, there's the "quote" of Trump from the "Stupid Lies" post of Nov. 28, 2016:

"I grab them by the p$%#y... I can't help myself."

The most egregious lie, since the video clearly shows he did NOT say that. One would think that if one intends to use quotation marks to surround a statement, the point is to relate what was ACTUALLY said. But, as Trump didn't ACTUALLY say that, Dan ACTUALLY lied in presenting those words as an actual quotation of Trump's actual words.

So as to interpretations, I interpret Dan's intention was to portray Trump in the worst possible terms, as if the guy doesn't do enough without Dan's help. I'm told doing such is referred to in Christian circles as "bearing false witness", for which Dan needs to both acknowledge and apologize. I relieve Dan of the obligation of apologizing to me as if I had actually engaged in "exceedingly naive interpretations" of anyone's words...Trump's OR Dan's.

Bubba said...


In the prior thread, I submitted a comment that directly and explicitly addressed your demand for evidence of dishonesty, but you still have not approved that comment for publication, claiming that it was off-topic, a claim I continue to dispute.

Instead, you created a new thread demanding evidence, and I provided that evidence again, in a two-part comment that was only 70 words longer than your initial post, but you refused to address that evidence claiming that my comment was too wordy and demanding that I submit your evidence in an arbitrary format of your choosing.

I then re-reposted that evidence, in a single comment that fit your template, and your reaction has been to delay a substantive response and to focus on your disagreement with Marshall.

I then asked for an actual estimate for when I could expect that response, and you refuse to give one, instead demanding that I chime in on this other argument.

At some point this kind of filibuster DOES become evidence of bad faith and intellectual dishonesty.


You write that you ask, "because it is such an easy and obvious example of me not lying and Marshall apparently not understanding that it's not a lie."

Well, I'm not interested in answering because it's hard enough to get you to answer my actual questions or address the substance of my criticisms: you still haven't answered my question whether you personally believe that the Bible's teaching on the virgin birth is clear, since your comment about whether the doctrine is "meaningful" is an answer to a question I didn't ask.

This whole routine is very familiar, Dan. Late in the previous decade, you evaded addressing any of six areas of apparent disagreements between your beliefs and the Bible's clear teachings, by subsequently insisting that I first address some supposedly awful comment by another online commenter named Mark: I was supposed to denounce that comment sight unseen, because you deleted it *BEFORE* ever making it some vital issue between us and then insisted that I take your word on just how awful the comment is.

Here, we're in better luck, since I believe that all the comments remain in the public record.

I'd appreciate your relaying the precise details of what went down.

1. Trump said something: quote what he said -- complete sentences, unabridged by ellipses -- and link to a complete and accurate transcript of the entire conservation so his comment can be judged in context.

2. You said something about Trump's comment: quote what you said verbatim -- again, complete sentences -- and link to where you said this so YOUR comment can be judged in context.

3. And Marshall said something about your comment: quote it verbatim -- complete sentences -- and link to where he said it so HIS comment can be judged in context.

Giving the whole issue a cursory glance, I have thought that Marshall has the better end of the argument, but I haven't followed it closely -- and so I could be wrong.

Marshall and I tend to agree on things, I certainly hold him in higher esteem than I do you, and I like him on a personal level more than I do you, *BUT*: If it is as you say, I'd be HAPPY to take your side on this and reproach Marshall for his comment.

"Do you understand this simple and easy reality?"

I hope that I will, if you will simply show me what was said.

Marshal Art said...

"Let's embrace grace, but not stupidity."

Stupidity would have been allowing Clinton to become president. That is beyond dispute based upon her policy positions alone, without having to deal with her own egregious character flaws. It's sad that we were left with the choices we had, but not stupid to vote for the lesser of the two low character of whom was certain to win. And so far, he's not as bad as I had feared, though I still wish it was Ted Cruz.

Anonymous said...

For what it's worth, I'm going to repost the comment which I submitted to the previous thread, the comment that Dan did not approve for publication: one can see how it directly addresses his complaint, but I also want to direct everyone's attention to another part of the comment -- my noting how Dan treats a dictionary definition as evidently clear beyond any honest and reasonable disagreement.

I have more to say on that subject, momentarily.

First, below is what I submitted to that other thread, on July 11th...

Bubba said...

[From July 11:]


Dishonesty doesn't just entail deliberate falsehoods, it also entails material omissions, which is why the oath before giving legal testimony involves telling "the whole truth" and not just "nothing but the truth." A truly honest man wouldn't seek to define dishonesty down.

About your demand that I demonstrate your dishonesty "and prove that [you] have made the argument in an effort to be dishonest and misleading," you required no such proof for yourself in insisting that a person's statements is proof of arrogance, that his external behavior is sufficient evidence for his internal state of mind.

Instead, you wrote that the claim that a text is unmistakably clear "fits the dictionary definition of arrogance."

Even apart from previous discussions -- where it took several threads and literal months to induce you to admit the obvious, that you deny the causal connection between Christ's death and our forgiveness; and where you never did tackle Stott's actual arguments from the text of Matthew 5 that Jesus didn't overturn Scripture, only going so far as to google his name and ramble about the person apart from the arguments (a literal ad hominem) -- there is plenty of evidence of your dishonest behavior here.

- You have never proven that knowledge of a claim REQUIRES an ability to prove that claim (so by your own standards, your assertion remains nothing but an opinion -- a hunch).

- You have never answered my question about whether the virgin birth is a clear teaching of Scripture; the closest you came was to say it's not clear "in the sense of being a meaningful 'teaching' of the Bible/of biblical authors," but "clear" and "meaningful" aren't synonyms or near-synonyms or EVEN necessarily related concepts: a meaningful idea can be quite obscure, and a clear idea can be quite trivial.

- And there's that argument about the dictionary definition of arrogance.

Take another look at your defense of your position:

"If I note, 'That claim fits the dictionary definition of arrogance,' I'm not judging their character. I'm stating that the comment they made IS ARROGANT BY DEFINITION."

The comment is arrogant, but not necessarily the commenter? Are you saying that a humble person can make an arrogant claim? Are you saying that the concept of arrogance applies to sentences and other inanimate objects wholly separate from the person responsible for those sentences?

And weren't you the one who insisted that texts do not teach? Texts cannot teach, but they can somehow be arrogant?

And if that's the case, what was the point of your initial blog post? To criticize "arrogant claims" WITHOUT implying anything about the character of those making the claims?

"The thing is, humility...

"In all things, humility, this is a reasonable opinion on unprovable matters and, I'd say, consistent with biblical teachings.

Do you really expect us to believe you were urging inanimate sentences to practice humility and not the conservative Christians who wrote those sentences?

You can't be serious -- and it's obvious you're not being honest.


You feel free to reach negative conclusions about others' character based on what they say, but you don't extend that freedom to others, and you have not persuasively argued that there is a difference, on the question of epistemology, between arrogance (an absence of humility) and mendacity (an absence of honesty).

If you want to have any credibility in insisting that I can't criticize your character based only on your comments, you should disavow your willingness to criticize the character of others based only on their comments -- either that, of provide proof of their internal state of mind beyond their external writing.

Bubba said...

(That first, anonymous comment was from me. --Bubba)

Dan Trabue said...

I'm back after a week of being away in Canada and then a weekend of helping my mother in law and doing church. Still haven't had much of a chance to sit at the computer and I'm back off to work for now. Will return as I'm able.

Dan Trabue said...

But for a short comment: Bubba, I'm dealing with the comments raised here. If I deal with Marshall's first and that hurts your feelings or you feel entitled to demand I deal with your questions first and if I fail to do it your way, then I'm being dishonest, well, if you're saying that, I hope you can see how that is a dishonest and irrational demand.

You'll just have to wait and get over it.

Being busy and doing things in a different order than you wish it would be is not dishonest. And it would be dishonest to say it is, or irrational, perhaps.


Bubba said...

Dan, I appreciate your providing feedback even while I don't find it completely persuasive -- and, since my own time is short today, I'll explain why I reposted that comment another time.


A good friend of mine works for a small business that has hourly employees, salaried employees, and salaried employees on commission, and there are occasional payroll problems across all three groups.

The paychecks are usually correct, but when they're wrong, they are ALWAYS short, with the owner underpaying the employee for the hours worked or the bonus accrued. The supposed accounting errors are always in the owner's favor, never in the employee's favor, and this is a very long-standing problem.

I *DO* agree with Hanlon's razor in that one should never attribute to malice what could be explained by incompetence, but at some point it's no longer plausible that a person's so-called mistakes are accidental.


You say you're dealing with this thread, but you began by making this thread a pretty explicit continuation of that earlier thread, where I believe my criticism came first: "my honesty has been questioned on a blog post that is older and more difficult to reach, so I'm starting this new blog post to give a chance to address it."

And even if Marshall was the first here to comment, I don't see where he formulated his comment to meet your arbitrary format, even though you insisted that he do so before I even commented in this particular thread:


Marshall, you at least did refer to my thinking that when Trump says he just grabs them by the pussy as a false charge. It's not. YOU appear to think that when he said he just grabs them by the pussy, that it was hyperbole, not real world. I DO NOT THINK that is a rational understanding of his words and all that we know thus far about him.

Thus, it is a difference of opinion on the meaning of his words, NOT a false charge and certainly not a lie.

Do you understand the difference?

I am looking for something pretty specific:

Dan, when you said "x" it was false, or dishonest or a lie. Here is the proof that it is false.


If you all can do that, do it. If not, admit your mistake.

I don't want any other words or explanations. I'm giving you a chance to put up or shut up.

Ball's in your park.


Marshall replied but not in that format, but you're still addressing his point.

I explained the rationale for my criticism, and you reiterated your request for that format, I MET THAT REQUEST, AND YOU'RE STILL FILIBUSTERING.

Beyond delaying a response to the evidence THAT YOU REQUESTED, in the format that you demanded, you're now dragging me into that other argument with Marshall:

"I'm trying to understand if you all understand reality as it relates to something so easy and so obvious because if you do not understand reality that might be an explanation of why you find lies and dark meanings everywhere. If you can't see it in Marshall's misunderstanding and misstatement then how can you hope to see you in anything else?" [emphasis mine]


If you want to tackle Marshall's complaint first, fine, but give me an actual date when I can expect a substantive reply to my criticism, so I don't have to continue wasting my time checking this thread until then.

Or if you will not do that, lay off with the additional requests; you say you want to tackle one subject at a time, AND SO DO I. Put our conversation on hold instead of insisting that I chime in on a different conversation.

Or if you cannot do even that, give me the tools that will allow me to answer your question: quote the relevant statements in full and provide links to the complete context.

Demonstrate that we have the give-and-take of a good-faith disagreement by actually giving on your part.

Marshal Art said...

Just to clarify, I do believe I've met the requirements to satisfy Dan's format for response, even if I did not do so initially. The proof of his lie was in the repeated references to the actual Trump video wherein Trump's exact words are easy to understand. Thus, what remained was to focus on the lie, which was that Trump didn't actually say what Dan said Trump said. About a half dozen or so comments above, I listed several examples of Dan misrepresenting what Trump said, as well as pointing out to Dan in other comments that his, or anyone's, interpretation of what Trump meant when Trump uttered his words is irrelevant to the charge of lying.

If one intends to point to examples of that which exposes the low character of another, one must be truthful in providing actual examples. Making claims about what that other person said requires that evidence bears out the claim, not interpreting the other person's words to fit one's charge of low character. The lie Dan told is clear: Trump grabs women by the crotch. Dan bases this on words that were not an admission that he actually engages in this behavior. I provided evidence of Trump's actual words that clearly demonstrates this truth. Trump could just have easily said, "Shoot 'em in the head." as an example of what women will let celebs like him do. Dan expects us to assume it means he actually has shot women in the head. It's absurd and it's an irresponsible suggestion as bad as any made by Trump himself. The worst that can be said is that Trump used "Grab 'em by the pu**y" as an example of what women will let celebs like him do. To suggest it means he has actually done it, when he never actually said he's done it, is bearing false witness...lying.

This is true even if I believed he actually grabs women this way. That is, I may be inclined to believe he does such things, but for me to say he actually in fact does it would be a case of me lying. And it would be even more true if I said it after having heard what he actually said. I would have to admit that, no, he didn't actually say he grabs women that way even though I might continue to believe he's capable and likely may have.

Dan lacked the grace and honor to admit he said what wasn't true, and he continues to demonstrate he lacks grace and honor by refusing to concede that Trump never said it and that his words don't in any way confirm that he behaves in quite that way.

By the way...lying? That's kind of a sign of bad faith discourse.

Anonymous said...

Still catching up and not yet had any significant time to sit at computer. Will answer as I have time.


Bubba said...

This thread was started because the previous thread was so old that comment moderation kicked in.

It's going to be pretty funny if comment moderation is automatically enabled for THIS thread before Dan gets around to addressing the substantive response to his demands.

Craig said...

Yes, that would be amusing.

Marshal Art said...

So you're harboring illegals immigrants?

Anonymous said...

Ain't no such thing. Don't be an ass.


Craig said...

Several things.

First, in the absence of actual proof, you claim that we're making "false statements", is just one more example of the lack of honesty you want examples of.

Second, the worthiness of your endeavors notwithstanding, the simple fact is that there is s fair degree of both humor and irony in the fact that the thread you started due to moderation issues, might go into moderation due to your inactivity.

Third, Harboring people to prevent them from being deported sounds a lot like helping illegal immigrants. But if you want to deny the reality of immigration law, and the reality that the people who break immigration laws are in fact here illegally, that's your prerogative.

Fourth, we've done what you asked. You asked for examples, we gave examples. The ball is clearly and entirely in your court to provide proof that counters our examples. Your lack of doing so (for whatever worthy reasons), isn't our fault. It's also not unreasonable for us to draw conclusions based on your lack of response.

Fifth, we've all got "real life" responsibilities and commitments, yet we all seem to be able to balance them to the extent that we either finish what we start or don't start something we can't finish. Somehow, I've managed to balance my three jobs, weekends full of classes and tests, entertaining my motherless nieces from out of town, and managing a significant construction project at my home with fulfilling your requests for examples of your dishonesty here. Oh, one of my jobs involves building affordable housing for families who might suffer harm and possibly death without shelter. If we can do it, I suspect you can too.

Sixth, it's telling that while Bubba, Art, and I deal with your silence using humor, you choose to respond very defensively. It seems like it might be reasonable to reach certain conclusions based on those very different responses, but who knows.

Any chance you all would give Sergio Jose Martinez some sanctuary so he doesn't get deported?

Marshal Art said...

"Ain't no such thing. Don't be an ass"

An "ass" would be someone who pretends we don't have immigration laws, procedures and protocols that regulate entry into our country. Those who enter without going through these processes are here illegally. "Illegal immigrant" is merely a nice way of saying "invader". Saying there "ain't no such thing" stands as yet another lie you consciously utter. I've no doubt you'll defend this particular lie in the way you've been doing with saying you truly believe what you say it true and thus you are not truly lying. That, too, is a lie.

Dan Trabue said...

There is not a law that says it is "illegal" to be an immigrant in this nation. There IS a law that says it is a misdemeanor to cross the border without proper permission, but once over, you are not an "illegal immigrant." That doesn't exist in our laws. It's a made up crime.

And those crossing the border without permission make up only about 45% (give or take) of those here without the proper permissions. A large portion of those called "illegal immigrants" came here legally (under student or work visas, for instance) and just stayed beyond the end date of those visas. It's not even a misdemeanor, it is a civil infraction. Like getting a parking ticket.

To the point we prosecute it, it is also an immoral crime... that is, the law itself is immoral and irrational. It is a random and whimsical thing to say that "it is a 'crime' to cross this imaginary line..." Especially when it comes to those coming to this nation to escape violence or oppression or hunger.

Don't be an ass and buy the notion that people merely trying to survive or "criminals..." What is criminal is oppressing people for merely striving to live.

But that is off topic here. Just pointing out the asshattery you're suggesting. "Invader." Damn. Have you read the Bible you say you honor and follow?


Dan Trabue said...

To the point at hand:

I asked a simple question:

DO YOU UNDERSTAND that I have not said that Trump's quotes in question are not exactly what they are?

Not one of you all answered the question. Not directly, not clearly and not correctly. (I can't recall now, maybe Marshall DID answer it, but if he did, no doubt he said YES, which is a wrong answer. Demonstrably wrong.) I was looking for a simple Yes or No (with No being the correct answer and Yes, indicating not understanding reality).

But this gets to the point of Bubba's question: You all conflate not understanding with being dishonest or telling lies. I don't think Marshall has told a lie. I think he genuinely does not understand the mistake he has made. But he has made a mistake and neither of you other two have agreed with that reality. Why?

Is it because you are being deliberately dishonest? Because you are arguing in bad faith?

OR, is it because you don't understand or somehow have an opinion contrary to reality. The point being: I do not suggest that you are being dishonest or arguing in bad faith, just that there is a misunderstanding.

Bubba, to your question: I am NOT saying that people are being intentionally arrogant. I'm saying that the conclusion they are reaching/saying is wrong and arrogant in reality, even if they're making it in ignorance (which I believe to be the case).

Read and understand again: I AM NOT SAYING that they are arrogant. I am not saying that they are choosing to be arrogant. I'm saying the conclusion they had reached was arrogant.

Do you understand?

Consider: People all the time, in good faith and with sweet intentions, tell people who've just lost a child or beloved one to death, "Well, don't you worry, honey. They're better off..." That is an awful thing to say. Counselors and therapists and other experts attest to this. (and, of course, with the caveat that maybe there ARE circumstances where someone might find comfort in such an insensitive statement, but still...)

It is insensitive as hell. BUT, I'm not saying that those who say that ARE insensitive, just that they are, in ignorance, offering in good faith an insensitive comment.

When people insist that they perfectly know something that is not perfectly knowable, they are offering an arrogant claim. I am SURE that people, by and large, who do so, do not INTEND to be arrogant, just that it is arrogant, by definition and no doubt, told from a place of ignorance and misunderstanding, rather than any intent to be arrogant.

I have been busy and you all seem to have a hard time understanding my explanations (whereas, any progressive types who read my words don't have that same problem, so it's not just my explanation), so I have been, in my limited time, trying to find the right way to explain it.

Thus, there is no dishonesty or ill intent in my taking a while to answer a question that I offered as a special post to deal with (why would I offer a special post just for dealing with these claims if I was not trying, in good faith, to deal with our misunderstandings??, Think about it!). My slow response, in addition to being caused by being very busy, was specifically because I'm trying to find words to help you understand.

And yet, in that effort to be transparent and clear, you all appear prepared to find ill intent and ill will. And you'd be wrong to reach that conclusion.

I'm just not sure that you all are able to see it.



Craig said...

I'm confused, you seem to be suggesting that breaking the law is somehow not illegal.

Either that or it's just another semantic game.

The problem is not that we don't understand you, it's that we take your words at face value. That coupled with the complete lack of definitive proof that all of our examples are wrong doesn't bode well.

As long as you can obsess on one example given, to the exclusion of all of the others it gives the impression that our impressions could possibly be correct.

Anonymous said...

Not a game.

You're just not understanding. Why don't you find a progressive person and ask them politely to explain it to you. Clearly, anything I say is not being understood by you all.

That you take my words and apply a meaning to them that I do not hold would cause a more prudent person to be more careful about how they read the Bible and jump to conclusions about what God "must" be saying.

Again, find a liberal you trust and ask them to explain it to you. Maybe you can understand it from a trusted friend where you can't understand it from me.


Craig said...

Or you could just answer. It's not that hard. Why do you think some random liberal could explain why you appear to be hatboring people who have violated immigration laws?

Or, you could just provide actual proof that the examples we've given are false. That might be a more effective strategy than trying to argue that it's not illegal to violate the law.

Just a friendly helpful suggestion.

Anonymous said...

Your comments do not appear to be in response to what I've said, so I don't know what to reply to or what question you're asking.

I asked you to find a liberal friend you trust (do you have one?) and get him to explain what I've said here to you, as your comments indicate that you do not understand what I'm saying. No matter how many times I repeat and clarify.

Just a friendly helpful suggestion.


Craig said...

Once again, if you can't or won't explain what you mean, why would you think some random liberal would do a better job articulating your position than you.

You do realize that the more time you spend doing things other than dealing with the specific examples we've given you, the more it appears that you can't deal with them.

Craig said...

You almost got me. I almost fell for your diversion by commenting on your new post. But I realized that if your time is so limited that you can't deal substantively with us providing what you demand, that spending your limited time on a new post might just be another diversion.

Maybe, if you focused on the fact that we've done what you demanded, and that simple decency would suggest some minimal level of specific response to the specific examples given, your credibility would increase.

Marshal Art said...

Golly gee, Craig. Dan did indeed respond to my example. He just says I'm an idiot by suggesting I don't understand the alleged mistake I made. But I made none. Dan claimed Trump said one thing, I provided proof he didn't, but Dan continued to say that Trump said what I proved he didn't say. That's the lie. Not the first time he misquoted Trump, but all the subsequent references to "grabbing pussy" (which leads me to wonder if Dan just loves an excuse to type "pussy"). The investigative work I'd have to do to find the first time Dan claimed Trump said he grabs women that way, then to find where I corrected him, provided a link to the actual video and then find the next instance of when he again said that Trump claimed that he grabs women that way...that would be intensive and exhausting. It would certainly be a way for him to prove that he didn't lie, but good gosh he's so busy right now that ain't gonna happen.

As to finding a lib to back up what Dan is saying...whatever the hell that is...I have a close friend I've known since 1st grade. That's about 56 years. This dude is like a brother, but sadly he's afflicted with a horribly strong liberal bent. I've tried to get him into a twelve step program, but it's no use. He's flamin'. That said, he's read my blog quite a bit and has never offered anything that suggests he finds Dan compelling in his arguments. But I might ask him to peruse the last several posts of Dan's, with all the attendant comments, and see what he thinks. Don't that he'd actually be up for it, but what the hell.

Craig said...

Art, this whole "find a liberal" is an example of how Dan is much more comfortable with the notion of monolithic groups all thinking exactly the same way, than with dealing with individuals as individuals.

For example, he blasts Bubba and I for not answering a question specially directed to the example you've given as if we all speak for each other. This is something I've been pointing out for some time, yet it doesn't seem to break through.

It's just easier to deal in groups as opposed to individuals.

Dan Trabue said...

I did explain why Bubba's and Marshall's examples are instances of misunderstandings, not of lies or of dishonesty.

If you don't understand that, then ask a friend to explain it to you, as clearly, no amount of explanation on my part is helping you to understand. I'm not asking for you to ask if they even AGREE with me, just to explain to you what I'm saying and how I've answered the instances offered by Bubba and Marshall. Maybe they'll think I'm doing a bad job of explaining it, but given how I've never met a progressive who had the problems understanding what I'm saying, I'm thinking that they will at least understand it.

Dan Trabue said...

I would rather respond to any immigrant stuff on the new post where it's on topic, but just to deal with the "dishonest/lie" thing here one more time (not that you'll understand it): Marshall has said that I'm being dishonest when I said "there ain't no such thing (as illegal immigrants)," it's an instance NOT of me lying, as Marshall incorrectly suggested, but of Marshall NOT UNDERSTANDING my point.

My point is that "illegal immigrant" is a bad term to try to describe undocumented immigrants (SOME of who have violated a non-serious misdemeanor by crossing the imaginary border in a way that does not comply with the law). BEING HERE is not a crime, even if one committed a misdemeanor in crossing the border (as only ~HALF have done). And again, half of them are literally not "illegal" in that they've never committed a crime.

As to the non-serious misdemeanor of crossing the border, it is a one time act. Like smoking a marijuana cigarette. I bet Marshall has done that, am I right in my guess?

Does that make you an "illegal citizen," because of that one time misdemeanor?

Do you understand the point I'm making, any of you?

It's NOT that those who cross the border wrong have not committed a misdemeanor "crime." It's that it's a one time misdemeanor, but there is no "crime" of "being here illegally." It's not a crime. It's inappropriate to call the ~half of immigrants who ONE TIME committed a misdemeanor "illegal immigrants" just as it's inappropriate to call Marshall an illegal citizen for having smoked at some point in his life (or committed another non-serious misdemeanor). And it's not a lie to point that out. It just isn't.

I'm making a point, not lying.

Do you understand that?

Do you understand the point I'm making?

I don't think that any of you all do, based on your words, but you tell me.

And now, I'm done talking about immigration on this post.

Dan Trabue said...

Well, except to leave this list of misdemeanors so Marshall can tell us if he is an illegal citizen...

"petty theft, prostitution, public intoxication, simple assault, disorderly conduct, trespass, vandalism, reckless driving, discharging a firearm within city limits, possession of cannabis and in some jurisdictions first-time possession of certain other drugs, and other similar crimes."

Ever been publicly intoxicated, Marshall? Ever trespass? Driven recklessly?

You illegal citizen, you.

Craig said...

Another semantic argument, and still no actual proof that any of the examples asked for are wrong. But still insisting that random liberals can explain your position better than you can.

Well done

Dan Trabue said...

I doubt that you'd understand it from someone else, but it might be worth a try, since you do not appear to understand that I have answered the questions already.

One simple question, Craig:

Is it the case that you do not understand that, for instance, Marshall's claim that I "lied" about "illegal immigrants," is NOT a lie, but a failure of Marshall to understand my point?

One simple question. Yes or no. I will entertain no other comments from you except an answer to this, in a last ditch effort to help us reach understanding. You can answer, "Yes, but..." or "No, but..." but I am seeking a brief and clear answer to this one question. The "proof" you seek is in understanding this reality. I'm not sure that you are able to, for some reason, but you tell me.

Or I will ask you politely to step out of the conversation if you don't want to abide by this simple polite request.


Craig said...

You do realize that your list of misdemeanors only does one of two things.

1. It points out that misdemeanors are not the minor offenses you try to claim they are.

2. It provides an argument to legalize everything else on your list.

Look, if you want to argue that you don't like immigration law and that it should be changed, then make that argument. But to argue that breaking existing law isn't a criminal act, is just ridiculous.

So, like it or not, if you are actively sheltering people who are at risk of being deported, then you are aiding and abetting the commission of a federal crime. Personally I have a ton of respect for people who are willing to stand up to unjust laws by publicly breaking them, acknowledging that fact, and accepting the consequences. I have virtually zero respect, for playing semantic games.

Craig said...

In the absence of a quote of which of Marshall's claims you are referring to and proof that he is objectively wrong (intentionally wrong), I have no basis to answer your demand. I'd be glad to if given specifics.

Craig said...

Can you please point out the section of the US legal code where it specifically criminalizes "seeking safety"?

Anonymous said...


So you're harboring illegals immigrants?


Ain't no such thing. Don't be an ass.


Saying there "ain't no such thing" stands as yet another lie you consciously utter.

Dan: It is NOT a lie. It is a point. There is no such thing as an "illegal immigrant" in our system. There is the one time misdemeanor of crossing the border, but that does not make one an "illegal immigrant."

It is not a lie, it is a point and a legitimate, rational one to those who aren't being an ass.

Is it the case that you do not understand that, for instance, Marshall's claim that I "lied" about "illegal immigrants," is NOT a lie, but a failure of Marshall to understand my point?

Keeping in mind that a lie is a deliberate effort to deceive, to make a false claim. My claim is not false, it is clarifying.

Answer that, please, or move on.


Anonymous said...

And, in re-reading that question, allow me to clarify, as it is perhaps a bit confusing. I'm really asking two things, there...

1. Do you understand that Marshall is mistaken?

2. Do you agree that Marshall is mistaken?

Of course, answering No to the latter indicates a Yes on the former, but we'll see...


Anonymous said...

Indicates a NO on the former, I should have said.


Marshal Art said...

I explained the idiocy of the "illegal citizen" argument and also why "illegal immigrant" is entirely appropriate and accurate at the other post. Here, I'll continue waiting in vain for Dan to admit he was lying about what Trump said.

Craig said...

Given that a commonly used term for those who enter the country in violation of immigration law is "illegal immigrant", there clearly is "such a thing". Having said that you aren't so much lying as making a semantic distinction without a difference.

Ultimately, this digression ignores all of the other examples (including one recent instance), where you have engaged in false claims.

But now that I've jumped through one more hoop, I'll be expecting you to substantively address the remaining examples.

Craig said...

I don't think it's as much a failure on Art's part as it is an exercise in semantics

Craig said...

Since you're determined to belabor this.

1. I don't think either of you are mistaken. Art is using a common and accepted term to describe those who violate immigration law, and you are trying to re-cast the term semantically to diminish the breaking the law aspect of the act and your potential complicity.

2. I agree that it was a mistake for Art to use the term "lie" (or a derivative) to characterize your actions. Especially given the number of much more clear cut examples you've not addressed. However, your assertion that "illegal immigrant" is not actually a thing is not an objectively true statement.

So, now I've really jumped through your hoops.

Craig said...

Once again, where in US immigration law (specifically) does it criminalize seeking safety?

Craig said...

Because y'all want more folks like Sergio Jose Martinez to avoid being deported, right.

Anonymous said...

Don't know who that is, but given the context, I'm assuming he's a murderer or rapist who happens to be an immigrant, am I right? If so, yes of course, that is what we are saying. We want to let in rapists and killers.

Is that what you suspect?

Don't be ridiculous. You embarrass yourself by such nonsensical suggestions.

However, if we want to consider reducing crime in this conversation, we should encourage MORE immigrants, as they commit crimes at a lower rate.



Anonymous said...


Craig said...

Actually, the fact that Mr. Martinez is being charged with sexual assault is beside the point. The point is is that he has been deported somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 times and folks just like you are actively trying to help him stay in the country.

Anonymous said...

Again, if you're concerned about crime, you should encourage more immigrants.

Using your model of dialogue...

Too bad your side is seeking to encourage more and more rape and murder.


Anonymous said...

Oh, and please cite the news story that says liberals are specifically trying to keep sexual assailants in the country and free.

Or admit no such stories exist.


Craig said...

Ahhhh, the misrepresentation. Liberals are trying to keep him and folks like him in the country through the establishment of sanctuary cities.

When you harbor people, do you ascertain any background information at all?

While I acknowledge complicity, I have to point out that you've managed to continue to increase the distance between the various examples of your "honesty", and actual proof that those examples are wrong. Which usually means the chances of substance decrease.

Marshal Art said...

Looking to verify Dan's claim, I found this, which provides a pro/con comparison on the question of immigrant crime. Most compelling is the difference in argument style. The side arguing that immigrants commit more crime provides more stats, while the other side offers anecdotal evidence and excuses. Being a leftist, Dan will naturally side with whatever "evidence" suggests his position is credible, verified and legitimate. It seems to me that this argument is another case of touting raw numbers rather than to accept the level of representation.

We see this with the case of black criminality. They are disproportionately represented in prisons with respect to their total population. Homosexuals are disproportionately represented concerning issues like pedophilia, mental/emotional dysfunction, substance abuse, suicide versus their heterosexual counterparts. Such is true with illegal immigrants, as the stats presented by the "pro" side of the link indicates. To ignore this is deceitful, but commonly is the manner in which people like Dan argue in favor of allowing the breaking of the law by those not here legally.

When you defend the entry into our country without adhering to immigration law, and defend those who overstay their visas, you are complicit in the suffering of those who are in any way victimized by those who have skirted the law to be here.

Here's something anecdotal that I can't escape should I continue to read the local paper: most reports of criminal behavior in my area involve perpetrators who are of Hispanic descent or black. I doubt my liberal newspaper purposely avoids posting articles of white criminality in favor of only portraying blacks and Hispanics as lawbreakers. Unless those two groups exist in this area in greater numbers than do whites, I would expect to see more reports of white criminality.

Anonymous said...

The data does not support your claim, Marshall.

But sure, go on and argue that "the blacks" and "the browns" are inherently more criminal than you good white guys. That will help you win arguments.

Please. Be honest. At least with yourself.


Anonymous said...


the misrepresentation. Liberals are trying to keep him

Where is the data that shows liberals are trying to keep Mr Martinez (the very specific "HIM" you alleged) in the country? I can't find it.

You're making a serious charge, Craig. Support it. If you can't, don't bother commenting further. The price for staying is to respond honestly either with a source or an admission that you were mistaken.

All other comments from you will be deleted until you answer this.

I hope you can see that honesty demands it. For your own sake.


Craig said...

Honesty should demand that you fulfill to point of this post and deal with the examples of your dishonest behavior we provided.

As to what I really said, as long as the left is into providing "sanctuary", then they're helping folks like this stay here.

Anonymous said...

So, NO, you can't support the statement. Does that make you a liar? But you're not admitting it. Shame on you.

It is a different thing to say, "Liberals are supporting sanctuary efforts" than to say, "liberals want to keep a sexual assailant here."

The first statement is fact based and true. The second, a false claim.

Admit it, Craig. You can't really want to keep trying to accuse me of dishonesty when you boldly stand behind a false claim. Not if you want to be taken seriously.


Craig said...

Of course, I never actually said what you claim I said. The fact is that this gentleman has been deported multiple times and has been repeatedly offered sanctuary by liberals. As I said, the fact that he's a violent criminal is secondary to my point. Although, clearly those who offer this "sanctuary" don't appear particularly concerned with anything but protecting him from his immigration status being discovered.

But please continue to put as much distance as possible between the evidence of your lack of honesty and providing proof that we're wrong.

Of course you misstating my position then claiming that your misstatements represent lies on my part is an interesting tactic in a thread about your honesty.

I'll ask three more questions for you to ignore.

When you harbor the people you harbor, do you actually check for any criminal record? If they have one, do you continue to harbor them? What degree of criminal activity (beyond the obvious violation of immigration law) would convince you that involvement by the police would be appropriate?

Anonymous said...

You said liberals specifically support "him," referring to a known violent person. I asked you to support that. You can't. Correct?

Now, I'm guessing what you are trying to say is that liberals support immigrants, NOT specifically violent immigrants. Is that right?

IF you are saying we specifically support keeping known violent people free, that is a despicable false claim that you can't support.

By all means, clarify.

As to your last,

1. It is off topic
2. I have not said we are harboring undocumented immigrants, I said that we are working for sanctuary, which might take many forms. If I was harboring refugees, I would not be so stupid as to endanger people by announcing it on a public forum.

Read for understanding, Craig, not to seek out attack spots.


Anonymous said...

If by "him" you meant him BEFORE he was known to be violent, sure. I always support people who are not known to be violent. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Are you suggesting that conservatives treat people as guilty by default? That would explain a lot.


Anonymous said...

To address your general and off topic questions about background checks and safety, again, just think. Read for understanding.

We deal with all manner of people at our church, homeless, those with mental illness, etc. These activities happen in our small church building, in our neighborhoods and in our homes. Around us and around our children. We recognize that some people might be some times less than safe and may have unsavory histories. (Although, in our experience, we have much less concern about the marginalized with whom we work and more with respectable conservative white males... Just our experience).

We take precautions, we do checks, we work to get violent people the help they need while still protecting others. We don't tolerate violence and, if that means jail is the most appropriate response, so be it

The point is that liberals do NOT support the violent and sexual assailants.

Would that conservatives would have similar respect for protecting people from a sexual aggressor before this election.


Craig said...

If you can't accurately characterize what I actually said, why should I waste time continuing to try to correct you?

Interestingly this while digression is off topic and you've taken it down that road, but by all means try to blame me for following your lead.

I realize it just puts mire distance between you addressing the actual examples you wanted, and maybe that's good for you.

FYI, you're the one who said you're harboring people to keep them from being deported. If they're in danger of being deported, then they have clearly broken some law. Therefore the conclusion that you are actively harboring people who have violated the law is born out by your very words.

Here's what I'm going to do to help. I'm not going to respond or comment on anything else off of the topic. That means allowing you to mischaracterize what I've said with impunity. I will be happy to deal with any substantive comments regarding the examples we've given.

Anonymous said...

I said, "work for sanctuary." You all are the ones who used the "harboring people."

Do you realize you are literally making a false claim?

While trying to suggest I've been dishonest?

Do you recognize the irony?


Marshal Art said...

It's not a false claim if it's the reality...which it is. You can't be giving a place to stay to people who are hear without legal permission (by sneaking in or by overstaying visas) and then claim you're not harboring them regardless of any efforts toward "working for sanctuary". "Harboring" of non-citizens who lack legal permission to be here is the accurate and appropriate word for what you're doing. "Aiding and abetting" also works if honesty has any place in your life.

"The data does not support your claim, Marshall."

Clearly you didn't read my link, or else you're lying again. The stats absolutely support my position. Here's more facts that you won't read or accept if you do. A key point:

"To extrapolate out these statistics, this means that a population of just over 3.5 percent residing in the U.S. unlawfully committed 22 percent to 37 percent of all murders in the nation. This is astounding."

Here's another:

"In California, there are just over 92 illegal immigrants imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals as compared to 74 citizens and legal non-citizen immigrants. In Arizona, the rate is nearly 69 illegals imprisoned for every 100,000, as compared to 54 citizens and legal non-citizen immigrants."

And this bit supports what Craig was saying about lefties working to ensure murderers remain in the country:

"Hardly any Californian’s know that in 2014, Gov. Brown signed a bill that amended a state statute amending the maximum sentencing for misdemeanor crimes by one day from 365 to 364 days in jail. This was deliberately done to avoid current federal laws that provide for the deportation of illegal and legal immigrants in this country who have received sentences of 365 days or more."

The author of the piece, Ron Martinelli is a nationally renowned forensic criminologist and law enforcement expert, who is fluent in Spanish and worked directly on cases involving illegal immigrants.

Here is another report that affirms my claim and debunks yours. It refers to studies that claim illegals don't commit more crime and finds them wanting. Feel free to not read it and then pretend it's wrong.

And here we have a lefty site reporting exactly what I said about "people of color". Of course you lefties pretend over-representation of blacks in prison is solely the result of "systemic racism", but lie at a time.

Anonymous said...

then claim you're not harboring them regardless of any efforts toward "working for sanctuary". "Harboring" of non-citizens who lack legal permission to be here is the accurate and appropriate word for what you're doing.

Marshall, you are speaking from a place of ignorance. Sorry, that's just the fact.

I literally never said I was harboring non-citizens. Do you recognize this reality?

If you answer "No," don't bother answering.

If you don't recognize reality, I can't help you.


Marshal Art said...

"I literally never said I was harboring non-citizens. Do you recognize this reality?"

Well hey, Dan! I literally never said you said you were harboring non-citizens. I said you were harboring them. Your actions, as you laid it out, suggests you are harboring illegal immigrants. So yes, I most certainly recognize the reality and in actuality only deal in reality. I also actual read closely the comments of others with whom I am engaged in discourse so that I don't make such mistakes. Maybe that's how you continue to misquote not reading or listening closely. You should try it sometime. It prevents a lot of unnecessary confusion.

Anonymous said...

I know you said I was harboring immigrants. So did Craig. But I didn't.

That's the point. I'm not "harboring immigrants," like you two suggested in clear error. If I were, I wouldn't announce it here. Why? Because some idiots might take it upon themselves to try to cause harm to other innocent people who have done nothing wrong.

You all said it when it's not true and it's not anything I've said that I've done.

And you all are worried about my honesty?


I think the problem you all have, in times like these, is that you think you understand the meaning people have when they write things, as if what they write can only have one meaning and it's the meaning you're assigning.

There are many ways to work for sanctuary, for providing safe places to people from idiots who would cause them harm. "Harboring" them in a safe location is only one way to do that work.

Do you now see that your claims are false?

I rather doubt it.


Marshal Art said...

I think I see where the problem resides. You said:

"Or perhaps my church members or the work for Sanctuary we work on together, helping provide safe places for people who face death and harm if they get deported." -August 1, 2017 at 9:26 PM

I then asked...

"So you're harboring illegals immigrants?" -August 2, 2017 at 7:03 AM

Instead of actually answering the question, you chose to attack me personally:

"Ain't no such thing. Don't be an ass." -August 2, 2017 at 12:05 PM

Then you launched into your foolish attempt to discredit the term "illegal immigrant" and my appropriate use of it. All the while, the question of your harboring these people went unanswered. Maybe you're picking nits. Maybe you're engaging once again in semantic games. Maybe, and this is very likely the case, it is YOU who lacks understanding (made quite clear once again with your "illegal citizen" argument). So here is info to help you understand that the question is reasonable and appropriate:

According to everything said about "sanctuary" by Wikipedia, sanctuary is indeed the harboring of one who is sought by another. It is usually a matter of one fleeing from those in power. One doesn't seek sanctuary from criminals. From criminals one seeks outright legal protection.

But sanctuary is seeking protection from some representation of government authority, regardless of whether or not that authority is benevolent or malevolent. Those who provide sanctuary are then harboring the one seeking protection from that authority.

In the case of illegal immigrants, they would have no need of sanctuary if they were actually LEGAL citizens or LEGALLY permitted to be in the country. To provide sanctuary for them is to harbor them. That's what reality looks like, Dan. You're welcome.

Anonymous said...

Instead of actually answering the question, you chose to attack me personally:

For many of us, the epithet "illegal immigrants" is offensive, like other racial epithets. I've reached the point where I, personally, won't put up with it anymore. If you said the N word or some other epithet, I'd say, "don't be an ass." I'm telling you that with this fake term.

And I've already pointed out why the term isn't rationally or grammatically correct. You persist in being offensive, which is to say, being an ass.

Would you take offended if I told a racist don't be an ass if he used the N word? Then perhaps you can understand.

Beyond that, is all of that your attempt to apologize for misunderstanding and misstating what I had said? Because it doesn't seem like much of one.

People who come here from other places (like my family who escaped religious zealots in Europe) are rightly called immigrants. If you break a law, even a misdemeanor, you might say "That person committed a misdemeanor." But you wouldn't call the pot smoker (like you, Marshall?) an illegal person or an illegal citizen.

The person who committed ONE misdemeanor is an immigrant who committed a misdemeanor, NOT an "illegal immigrant." THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING.

Do you understand English? There is no such thing as an "illegal immigrant." It's not a legal term. It's an epithet, much like the N word.

Stop being an ass.

Apologize or just admit you don't understand and move on.


Anonymous said...

I will delete future epithets, Marshall. That term will not be sanctioned here.


Marshal Art said...

It's nothing like a racial epithet, and as race has nothing to do with it's accurate and appropriate application to those who enter our country without permission or stay passed the expiration of their permission. It's what they are. I don't engage in epithets, such as "ass", when I can instead use words and terms that are correct by definition. It's not a fake term, but you're a fake Christian and fake American pretending your antics are accurate representations of either. They are not and because you can't defend your behavior against my arguments, you now resort to this cheap tactic. The "ass" is YOU, for your heinous dispensing of honesty. Talk about arguing in bad faith!!!

And once again, the "illegal person/citizen" angle is worse than lame. But the term I use is, as I said and have proven completely without error, appropriate. If the people in question were here because they came through the border gate, they would not be here illegally. If they came here because they were granted a visa, they would not be here illegally so long as the visa was not expired. If they came with a passport, which identifies where exactly they ARE a legal citizen, they would not be here illegally. Thus, the term relates to their legal status, of which they have none if they entered or stayed without benefit of those three possibilities. It doesn't refer to the misdemeanor, but to their status once they've committed that misdemeanor.

But YOU choose to regard the term as akin to the "N" word, because you have failed in your every attempt to argue your position:

1. You claim my position is in conflict with American ideals. But that failed by virtue of the quotes of the founders I presented that align with my position and conflict with yours.

2. You say there's no such thing as an "illegal immigrant", but have consistently failed to explain why that term is inappropriate and/or inaccurate...especially against my arguing that it is.

3. You say that you're not harboring the people I note are appropriately and accurately labeled despite my explaining what "sanctuary" or "giving sanctuary" means and how by it's very definition it is "harboring". (A more comprehensive discussion of this definition and your abuse of it would pretty much require its own thread. I'd be more than happy to expound under such terms)

4. You fail in denying the relationship between our nation's borders and your home's believing that home ownership is not parallel to United States territory being the home of its citizens.

5. You try to insist that immigrants (legal or otherwise...but mostly the otherwise) are not more likely to commit more crime (beyond their "misdemeanor"), but refuse to accept the numerous sources I provided that speak to the more accurate and relevant stats related to their disproportionate representation in prison/crime stats.

Because of all this and more, you take the dishonest tack of "re-classifying" the term I use to be an offensive term to those who don't care how offensive it is to me that they ignore and transgress the laws of my country. This is cowardice on your part, and/or another lefty attempt to stifle opposing points of view that you find inconvenient to your quest to "fundamentally transform" the nation into something the founders never planned for it to be. It's a petulant tantrum on your part.

Worse, I've been going out of my way to "embrace grace" in how I engage in discourse and you once again show that the rules you impose upon your ideological opponents are not rules you're man enough to follow. I even made great effort to avoid typing "pussy" in our exchange regarding your lie about what Trump said he's done.

Man up, buddy. Stop pretending you're a man of grace on one hand while acting in a less than gracious manner when the going gets tough.

Anonymous said...

I've explained all of it, Marshall. I can explain it again to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Ask an immigrant friend of yours to explain it for you, maybe you'll understand it coming from a friend.


Marshal Art said...

There's no lack of understanding on my part that you've been able to demonstrate in any way. I've responded directly to your every charge, but you've simply ignored my points, pretending I'm not understanding.

And what am I supposed to ask of any immigrant that stats and facts haven't already told me? Maybe you're referring to the use of the term "illegal immigrant". Who would be offended by this term? The legal immigrant? I wouldn't be surprised...but then, I wouldn't be referring to such a person in that manner. The actual "immigrant" who sneaked into the country or overstayed his visa? Boo-hoo! Am I supposed to concern myself with how a lawbreaker feels about being called a lawbreaker? It's quite difficult to speak the truth when the use of appropriate words and terms is prohibited by those defending the breaking of the law.

Craig said...

Of the hundreds of immigrants I've worked with and talked to, they all came in legally. One had the local Al Q chapter put out a fatwa against him, which seems like they might have wanted to him harm. But he got in legally just fine and safe.

Anonymous said...

Nice anecdotes, what of them?

Do you know how long it takes people to get in legally? Do you know the hoops and documentation that needs to be done?

"The wait for a green card can take decades.

Maria has been waiting in line with her husband for 16 years and counting for what the government calls a priority date for legal residency."

Likewise, the process for getting asylum can be years long, or so I've heard from people working with asylees. It can be years long AND THEN, they can be denied asylum.

It is certainly great when people have the wherewithal and support and time to do it legally, I do not oppose that, at all.

For those who don't have those options, I support them, too. You?


Craig said...

So, you tell me to talk to my immigrant friends and they'll set me straight, but when the hundreds of immigrants I help don't agree with you you dismiss that as "anecdotes", and pretend your anecdotes are superior.

You realize that the years of process remove the imminent danger which solves your concerns that

Craig said...

... these people be saved from imminent harm. While living safety in a detention facility with beds, food, and shelter isn't ideal. It is safe and it allowes them to make their case.

Anonymous said...

You fail to understand what I was asking.

You fail to understand that the "years of process" do not fit every situation. Sometimes, the answer is "No, you don't qualify."

What then?

Again, the other post is where this conversation should take place.


Craig said...

Yes, I get that sometimes the answer is "you don't qualify.". The reality is that not everyone qualifies to immigrate to any country they choose to.

The reality also is, that the process takes them out of the immanant harm you keep bringing up, which seems to solve your problem.

Why, are you actually going to bring this thread back on topic and do what you said you'd do.

Anonymous said...

I have.


Marshal Art said...

No you haven't...not in my case. You've only dismissed my example as a misunderstanding on my part, even after I've given the chronological review of events that proved your lie. In addition to that, you pretend interpretation of someone's words covers your blatant misrepresentation of those words.

Craig said...

You haven't addressed the two specific examples I mentioned, nor any specifics with regard to Bubba's example either.

I guess that's just one more example of your honesty.

Art, at least he's dismissed yours. He hasn't even mentioned mine or Bubba's that I've seen. Maybe if he has he'll be kind enough to point out specifically where. I'm prepared to be wrong as long as I see specific evidence.

Anonymous said...

Craig, I've addressed and corrected the concerns raised by the other two. You do not appear to understand why they were mistaken about my honesty, on what basis would I think you'd understand it if I corrected yours?

It's a reasonable question.

However, is this the concern you raised?

Dan continues to claim that someone somewhere has claimed to have "perfect knowledge" or to "know something perfectly", yet I've never seen anyone make those claims, nor any evidence of such claims.

Glenn, your compatriot who often comments over at Stan's, is at least one person who says that he can't be mistaken on some ideas. For instance, God's opinion about gay marriage, Glenn has said he can't be mistaken. I don't know where the comment was made and I'm not going to search for it, the point is, he has said it. If you ask him, he will no doubt tell you. If I ask him, he won't respond, so it wouldn't help for me to ask him.

I believe I've run across others who believe they can't be mistake on some unprovable ideas (ie, "I don't have perfect knowledge, but I can't be mistaken about gay guys marrying... God DOES hate it..." that kind of thing), but I don't have any sources.

If you don't believe me about Glenn, by all means, ask him. He'll tell you.

And thus, it is not a lie, nor is it dishonest. That you are not willing to ask him a simple question (one that I can't, since he doesn't respond to me) does not mean it is false or a lie or dishonest.


Anonymous said...

Well, here, I've even looked one instance of Glenn saying that up for you...

"Don't practice eisegesis with my words the way you do with Scripture. If I remember correctly, I even gave an example as to knowing when I can't be in error and I used 2+2=4. And...

YES, in THAT particular issue you note, my quote is correct"

~Glenn Chatfield

"And Because
I AM accurate about what God thinks of the topic,
then I can be trusted..."

~Glenn Chatfield


You are proving yourself to be a fool. It is NOT my opinion; it is the Word of God...

Or I could go on and on if I had endless time...

You're welcome. I'm sure the understanding will wash over you soon and you'll be glad to admit that I was not being dishonest.


Bubba said...


You had asked for evidence of dishonesty, and when I presented it, you insisted that I re-present it in a particular format. I did exactly that, and as far as I've seen you haven't actually addressed that evidence.

Instead, you act as if I misunderstand you, when the reality is that I disbelieve you: I understand that you claim to have been attributing arrogance to the comment and not the commenter. I explicitly wrote, "your attributing arrogance to the comment and not the commenter is one of the clearest examples of your dishonesty."

(And I wrote this in response to your previous iteration of acting as if disagreement and distrust are rooted in mere misunderstandings.)

In the precisely formatted explanation why, I pointed to your explicit reference to others as "arrogant readers" (Point 2 in the first set of bullets) and to your obvious act of urging humility from your Christian critics and not just their inanimate textual output (Point 3 in the second set of bullets).

You haven't even acknowledged this evidence much less addressed it, and so it seems that you asked for such evidence presuming that none could be presented and wholly uninterested in addressing any evidence that would actually come your way.


In the same way, you have entirely ignored my insistence that you provide the very straight-forward evidence that would allow others to evaluate your take on Marshall's comments re your comments re Trump's comments -- the evidence being, THOSE ACTUAL COMMENTS, verbatim and with links to the complete context.

You write, "I was looking for a simple Yes or No (with No being the correct answer and Yes, indicating not understanding reality)," but you do not provide the resources with which others can evaluate the situation on their own. You evidently want people to accept your word as REALITY ITSELF (and you dare call others arrogant!), and you are not interested in a serious and objective examination of that reality.


That argument regarding Trump is much like the dispute over the dictionary definition of arrogance, which is why I posted here the comment you refused to publish earlier: in both cases, you act as if the meanings of multiple verbal communications are clear beyond dispute, their semantic meaning and not just their syntactic composition:

- You say that some person's claim X fits some dictionary definition (never quoted, never cited) of "arrogance," which implies that you think both that person's claim and that dictionary definition communicate meaning beyond any reasonable, good-faith dispute.

- And you say that your comments regarding Trump and Marshall's subsequent response are so obviously clear that your position corresponds exactly with reality, implying that all those comments' meanings are beyond dispute -- and this is in addition to your denouncing Trump as an abusive, oppressive pervert based only on his words.

Can the meaning of a text be clear beyond reasonable, honest disagreement? Going by your actions, your answer is No UNLESS you want it to be Yes.


But none of this interests you all that much: even when you have time to write at length in response to requests that you yourself have made, you'd rather find some other argument to start, previously it was Trump and now it's open borders.

This sort of evasiveness cannot be blamed on your real-life responsibilities, you will not shame me for calling you out on it, and I can no longer have even the most remote expectation that you will ever act in accord with an honesty that you so rigorously claim to possess.

If that changes, great: Marshall has my contact info, and he can tell me if you ever become serious and write something worth my reading. But I'm not going to hold my breath OR waste any more of my time until then.

Dan Trabue said...

you act as if I misunderstand you, when the reality is that I disbelieve you

No doubt. BUT, your disbelief notwithstanding, the actual reality is that you misunderstand. IF you think I'm being dishonest, you are in fact, misunderstanding, because I'm not. I know because it's my heart that we're speaking of.

For instance, where you write, "this sort of evasiveness cannot be blamed on your real life responsibilities..." that if, quite frankly, bullshit. You can THINK that all you want to, but the reality is, bullshit. I know because I know my real life responsibilities and the time I have. Your hunches do not make for reality. No matter how much you may think they do.

More later.


Craig said...

So, when you said you had dealt with all of the examples given, I guess that wasn't completely honest either.

You still ignored my other example, and still haven't shown anyone claiming to have "perfect knowledge".

But at least you made the attempt, after weeks of time, multiple requests, and one instance of lying about dealing with all the specific examples, it's progress.

Anonymous said...

Do you recognize the reality that I never said that anyone claimed to have absolutely perfect knowledge?

Truly, do you understand that?

Did you really think that I was making that claim?


Anonymous said...

Indeed, you were part of that conversation I linked to, right? The one where I was

1. Abundantly clear that I was speaking to the claim that they can't be mistaken on certain points, and

2. Glenn makes it clear that this is exactly what he's saying?

We've covered this all before, Craig, and still, somehow, you persisting not understanding. What are we to make of that? I think Bubba might say this is evidence of you arguing in bad faith and being dishonest. I prefer to assume you've just made an innocent mistake. One, for which I'm sure you're sorry, even if you can't manage to admit it.


Craig said...

Sure Dan, your always right, Dan, you never said what you said, Dan, everyone else must always be wrong, Dan.

Once again after weeks of nothing, lying about the fact that you specifically addressed thing you hadn't, and still ignoring examples I gave.


Anonymous said...

No, I never said what YOU falsely claimed I said. Do you not understand the difference?

And in spite of being shown you were literally mistaken, you can't back down? All pride, all the time?

Come on, clearly you made a mistake, own up to it. Not for my sake, I don't care that you made a mistake and continue to denigrate me for your mistake.. But for your sake, and for the sake of your faith community, which is being embarrassed by your belligerent behavior. For the sake of the greater Church, which you are representing.

Peace to you, no hard feelings...


Craig said...

You right, your always right, you are incapable of being wrong. Clearly the fact that you haven't specified dealt with all of the examples given doesn't dissuade you from claiming otherwise. The fact that you haven't actually shown evidence to disprove the examples you have addressed doesn't dissuade you from claiming otherwise.

Instead, you just fall back on "no one can understand me" and "I've never ever said anything remotely like that.".

For someone so addicted to demanding that others produce "data" your unwillingness to do so doesn't bode well for any hope of you accurately and honestly assessing your own words.

Once again, please provide the quote and link to anyone claiming to have "perfect understanding.

Anonymous said...

Craig, answer the question or move on:



Answer or move on. No other comments, please.

Once you've answered it, you might answer if you understand how ironic it is to raise concerns about my honesty when you keep making false claims?


Craig said...

Yes, I understand that you used the term "perfect knowledge" to describe people you disagree with. I understand that you have claimed that others claim to have "perfect knowledge about a specific idea".

The problem is, that I also understand that you haven't provided evidence that your claim about the type of knowledge you've said other people claim to have.

Much like you haven't addressed all of the examples of false claims, you haven't proven your claim.

Thank you for reiterating and confirming your view on what others believe.

Anonymous said...

I understand that you used the term "perfect knowledge" to describe people you disagree with.

No, I do not. This is a false claim.

And you are worried about MY honesty?

I understand that you have claimed that others claim to have "perfect knowledge about a specific idea".

The problem is, that I also understand that you haven't provided evidence that your claim about the type of knowledge you've said other people claim to have.

But I have. I gave you the quotes from Glenn. First hand evidence.

Are you seriously saying that he ISN'T saying that he can NOT be mistaken on the topic of gay marriage?

That is the question you need to answer now to keep the conversation going.

If you are, then you are demonstrating that you not only are unable to successfully understand the words of liberals, but also of conservatives.

If you have doubts, you can always solve this by asking Glenn yourself.

Tell me, IF you asked Glenn, "Are you saying that you CAN NOT be mistaken about God's opinion about gay guys marrying?" do you really think he will say, "No, that isn't what I'm saying?

What part of "I AM accurate about what God thinks of the topic, then I can be trusted..." do you think is NOT saying "I can't be mistaken..." (on this topic)?


Marshal Art said...

Of course Glenn is absolutely correct on that which he claims accuracy. I'm in agreement. I don't know that I'd call it "perfect" knowledge, but it's perfectly accurate with regards to God's will on that subject. All Biblical information confirms it...nothing in Scripture conflicts with it in any way...and only the conscious intent to distort or corrupt the meaning of words, terms, verses or passages----in other words, dishonesty----can rationalize any alternative position.

So I wouldn't need to ask Glenn if it's possible he could be mistaken about God's opinion about SSM, because there is no logical, legitimate or intelligent argument that can be made to the contrary. That's a fact.

Carry on.

Anonymous said...

So, Marshall, testify for me: Are there some points (unprovable points) on which YOU CAN NOT BE MISTAKEN? Are there some topics (marriage for gay folk, for instance) where you have "perfectly accurate" knowledge of God's will?

Answer please.


Marshal Art said...

The issue you brought up is indeed provable by virtue of the points I just made regarding what Scripture does and doesn't say, along with the plain and, especially at the time of Biblical authorship, universally understood meaning of the various words related to the issue. Yes. There's no doubt as to what God's will on the subject of SSM could possibly be.

Indeed, it requires conscious and intentional distortions to come to any other conclusion other than that God would NOT, in any way, approve, condone or bless SSMs.

Thanks for asking.

Anonymous said...

So, your problem is understanding the meaning of "provable." Doesn't mean that I'm dishonest if you don't understand reality.

So, you - a mere mortal - CAN NOT be mistaken about God's opinion on the topic of gay guys marrying? Yes, no, otherwise?

Can you answer that specific question directly, just to be clear so that Craig will stop saying I'm misrepresenting you all?

I understand what you're saying, but Craig does not appear to be understanding.


Craig said...

You used it in the title of a post in which you mischaractetized something Stan said. (Technically partially perfect knowledge), but the point remains. You also just acknowledged it in your comment of 5:54 yesterday.

Despite the fact that you have provided quotes that you believe make your point, you still haven't provided a quote of someone saying they have "perfect knowledge". Even if your assumption about Glenn's quote is accurate, then the most you could honestly claim is that Glenn has made that claim about one particular thing.

But honestly and accuracy tend to be casualties when Dan wants to broad brush those he disagrees with.

Craig said...

As Art said, you're making a leap from not being mistaken to "perfect". Again, not that subtle differences have ever really been a big deal to you.

The problem comes when you cast things as quotes, which are not actually quotes. In this case, you made the leap from what was said, to your characterization of what was said and presented it as a quote or an accurate representation of what was said.

In the post I mentioned, you specify "perfect" yet never provide evidence of anyone actually using the term "perfect".

Again, perhaps the difference is to subtle to concern you. But that's not my problem.

Of course you still ignore the example from this very thread.

Craig said...

Is it just a coincidence or is the fact that this digression manages to help you avoid providing data to prove your zero harm claim.

Marshal Art said...

Due to "what Scripture does and doesn't say, along with the plain and, especially at the time of Biblical authorship, universally understood meaning of the various words related to the issue", I absolutely CAN NOT be mistaken about God's opinion on the topic of gay guys marrying, because "it requires conscious and intentional distortions to come to any other conclusion other than that God would NOT, in any way, approve, condone or bless SSMs."

Craig said...

Sorry, the last comment should probably be in the other thread.

Is it possible that Dan is suggesting he couldn't be wrong about how the OT suggestions to Israel must be applied to US immigration law.

Marshal Art said...

"Is it possible that Dan is suggesting he couldn't be wrong about how the OT suggestions to Israel must be applied to US immigration law."

That's a good point given the arrogance required to insist one has perfect knowledge of non-provable points from Scripture.

Craig said...

Well, we do know a few things for sure, because it's in the OT.

1. It can't be a command.
2. It's really only for ancient Israel.
3. The story isn't history, and therefore must by myth.

Which raise the question of why we should even take this seriously as something we should be doing now. Not to mention the problem with basing US law on the Bible.

Marshal Art said...

There is a decided lack of consistency.

Craig said...

That's nothing new.

Anonymous said...

Would it matter to you two if I pointed out that I never said we should implement Welcoming Laws for Refugees because that's the model we see in the OT?


No, there's no lack of consistency. Certainly not in you two/three consistently not understanding my points.

And no, Craig, before you say, "I understand fine," you don't. You have to understand that when you say things like you and Marshall are saying about what I've said about the OT and immigrants, it indicates that you do not understand my words or meaning or reasoning. You just don't.

I hope that gives you pause before you claim to know with any amount of authority what ancient writers meant, when you can't get it right what I meant. Even with multiple explanations attempting to clarify.

Good luck, gentlemen.


Craig said...

Ok, your the one who cited OT law as the basis for your desire to scrap existing immigration laws.

But none of that gets you to demonstrate that the examples given are false.

Oh, maybe you should consider that as this winds down there might be a tiny bit of snark involved.

And yes I do understand that you base your views off of the OT writings. I also understand that your position on things like the accuracy of the OT, the fact that the Bible has no rules, and the fact that you're quick to point out that the laws for Israel don't apply any more, make your decision to pick out this one example as a bit strange.
I also understand that consistency demands that you maintain the same positions from post to post.

Or you could do what you promised and deal with the examples given in specificity and detail with quotes and links.

Marshal Art said...

"Would it matter to you two if I pointed out that I never said we should implement Welcoming Laws for Refugees because that's the model we see in the OT?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Exodus, Deuteronomy, Malachi and Jeremiah OT books? Why did you begin the other post with passages of those books if not to the OT model to justify your notion of "Welcoming Laws for Refugees"?

I'm beginning to believe that if we said you claimed your name is "Dan", you'd say we're misunderstanding you.

Anonymous said...

I began the post because I, like many people around the world, love and honor the Bible's teachings. It informs us of long-standing tradition and ideals.

BUT not to say, here's an OT rule, let's insert it into US law because it's an OT rule! You know that isn't my position since I've been abundantly clear to you that the Bible isn't rule book.

One can honor and love biblical stories without say, "so it's gotta be law, cuz, the Bible."


Marshal Art said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshal Art said...

Well, that's pretty lame. To say that you don't wish to insert OT teachings into law, while at the same time pushing for that which is more aligned (as you see it) to Biblical teaching on the treatment of "sojourners" seems quite a contradiction, if not down right fallacious. And when you've said in the past, something to the extent that we're to create heaven on earth, how would that be done without Biblical teaching and how could that possibly come to pass without civil law in some being reflective of Biblical teaching? Don't know why you'd balk at the notion, given the founders were not so shy as to seek to have the nation reflect Christian values in law as well as in the behavior of its people. We'd be better off.

However, with that said, you still have the problems described in my comments above. But then, you've been bobbin' and weavin' over the course of two posts now, so I don't expect to get answers at this point. I'm' willing to step back for a while in order for you to devote your full attention to Bubba or Craig if other duties cramp your time.

Craig said...

Clearly the use of multiple OT scripture proof texts was just a coincidence and in no way was intended to underpin the later screed against the horrifically unjust immigration laws we languish under.

One can't help but wonder why all the proof texts were from the OT, instead of the words of Jesus. Especially given all the problems with reliability and accuracy of the OT.

Finally, given the unlikelihood of this ever getting back to the original topic, and of actually seeing specific and sourced proof that the examples given are false, I see no compelling reason to do anything to prevent Dan from giving Bubba the responses he deserves.

Anonymous said...

Words of Jesus? How about, "What you do for the least of these..." and, "What you DIDN'T do for the least of these.. Depart from me!"


Craig said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig said...

Of course it's completely possible to help the least of these and do so within the US immigration laws, maybe that never crossed your mind.

I guess when you cherry pick you can ignore things like "Render unto Caesar...".

The problem with this dueling proof text situation, is that at some point you'll just decide that some section of scripture doesn't have as much validity as the ones you like and will just decide to ignore it.

For example, your link lists a Romans passage that seems germane, but I'm sure you'll claim something to disqualify that.

Cherry picking proof texts is nice.

Anonymous said...

Are you making the argument against civil disobedience? Against disobeying unjust laws?

If so, fuck that evil shit.

I doubt that you are, but you tell me.


Craig said...

Nope, I'm making the argument that you still haven't dealt with the examples you've been provided using specific and factual evidence.

I'm making the argument that you cherry picking some out of context verses while ignoring others to justify your political opinions not an effective means to make your point.


Dan Trabue said...

I have dealt with the false claims you all made against my honesty. I have dealt with the dishonest/false claims you have made in attacking me for my supposed dishonesty.

That you don't understand it does not mean that I have not done it.

that at some point you'll just decide that some section of scripture doesn't have as much validity as the ones you like and will just decide to ignore it.

You mean like you find some reason to dismiss the ton of passages about accepting the immigrants in your land. Period.?

You would be more credible if you weren't being so hypocritical.

Of course, the difference between you and me is that I don't claim that the Bible is a rule book or treat it as such, and you do, but then ignore the passages where you don't like the rules. But then claim that I am cherry picking.

Again, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Good luck.


Craig said...

Personally I think that your last comment is the perfect ending to a post on your dishonesty. The fact that you insist that you've dealt with all of the examples given specifically and in detail, is just one more in a long line.

Oh, and your assuming that I ignore your proof texts, when I've specifically addressed that issue is just icing on the cake.

Marshal Art said...

"That you don't understand it does not mean that I have not done it."

No you haven't, and when you have made your unsatisfactory attempt, which is nothing more than blowing off the obligation, you expect us to accept it without condition...such as responding to the charge that your answer doesn't actually answer the question. In the case I brought up, an honest answer would have been:

"'re right. Trump really never did say that he grabs women by the crotch (or "pussy" since you enjoy typing that word). I would insist, however, that it is not beyond reason to suggest that he likely may have based on the way he likes to talk about women."

At least then you'd have demonstrated honesty and integrity.

"Of course, the difference between you and me is that I don't claim that the Bible is a rule book or treat it as such, and you do, but then ignore the passages where you don't like the rules."

But that's not happening. What's more, we have maintained, and Craig has just reiterated, that we can and have indeed been "welcoming" without ignoring existing immigration law (and indeed the laws themselves are not designed without the philosophy of "welcoming" taken into account), but are focused only on your claim that the laws are unjust simply because some fall through the cracks, that the laws must be ignored as a result and that there is no harm caused by YOUR philosophy.