It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Yet you repeatedly make ad hominem attacks. Is this logic?
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Once more, did the Constitution claim all men were equal even those these men did who compsed it not adhere to its tenets? The document was great, they very far from such. Do you not see the difference?
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Because society is typically far from civilized. Rights must be enumerated lest they be taken by the governments which have promised to uphold them.
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Why does it even matter to you?
Originally posted by HarmonicNights
Are you insane? You actually agree with tyrannical laws that force people to mingle?
It should be everyone's right to "discriminate" whenever and against whomever they please.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Unfortunately, Masons are selfish neanderthals, who can't separate their real-world status from their terribly mundane life.
What makes women ineligible for Freemason membership ?
You are going to have to answer this basic question, before we all come to the obvious conclusion that the Masons are a bunch of neanderthal inadequates, who probably need justification for their subjugation of women...
Nonsense. But there is a bit of the initiation where part of the candidate's chest is exposed—generally not a big deal when the candidate is a man in a room full of men; potentially a bigger issue if the candidate is a woman in a room of men and women.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Ah, so someone has to get their penis and testicles out in the ''initiation''.
Thanks for confirming that.
No, but the gay members we have are a minority.
So you bar gay people from joining the Masons ?
You have yet to explain why you believe what we're doing is wrong, you've simply asserted that it is. You've given no foundation to your side of the argument, making logical debate impossible.
Seriously, you come across as a bunch of simple neanderthals who can't understand the most basic points of logic.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Please give me an example of an ad hominem attack that I've made on this thread.
Guilt by association: Association fallacy
Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I repeat that your ''argument'' is based upon a logical fallacy that 10-year-old children can appreciate as not true...
A society whose real-world ''justification'' is based upon a demonstrably illogical premise, tells us all we need to know about this bigoted, neanderthal organisation.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Masons, or at least the ones who have commented on this thread, appear to have the logic of a small child...
Let's ignore any diversionary arguments, and just leave an open question to those who are members of this Naziesque organisation.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
This is a simple question, and I would like the dinosaurs to answer.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
You are going to have to answer this basic question, before we all come to the obvious conclusion that the Masons are a bunch of neanderthal inadequates, who probably need justification for their subjugation of women...
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Damn right.
I'm scorning and ridiculing your neanderthal organisation.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Seriously, you come across as a bunch of simple neanderthals who can't understand the most basic points of logic.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Unfortunately, Masons are selfish neanderthals, who can't separate their real-world status from their terribly mundane life.
The sword of equality is coming crashing down, and unfortunately - who am I kidding ? fortunately ! - the neanderthal and primitive ways of these members will be eased out by the unstoppable force of equal legislation.
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to accept a few female Masons in the next 5-10 years.
Primitive rules and laws are being modified and corrected on a daily basis.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
There's absolutely no difference.
What was ''great'' about the document ?
So then, why would you acknowledge a demonstrably racist and sexist document to get some kind of ''permission'' for your rights, despite the fact that these rules are antiquated and anachronistic ?
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
In what way wouldn't it matter to me ?