Arizona Bills Require Constitution Loyalty Oath, Pledge Of Allegiance By Public School Students

What does "require" mean wrt loyalty oath? What are the consequences for not? Death? Jail? Expulsion?

 

Martin as so many others have said you demand a proof from others that you are unable or unwilling to provide. All of your comment has the smell of someone who is so invested in a position you will make "fucking stupid" comments and postulates to deflect anything that threatens your point.

 

not sure if we are reading the same thread.

earlier in this thread i mentioned:

"i dunno how many times i have to tell you i cant prove he doesnt exist. i can copy and paste it a thousand times if you want."

 

Then you have no leg to stand on and are just stating your belief. It has as much validity as those who believe there is a god. To be certain of either is "fucking stupid" using your criteria. You can't have it both ways sport.

 

this is what i mean. you guys are a bunch of useless fucks who cant be bothered to read or think one tiny bit. i can explain this concept endlessly and you act like you never heard it before.

 

so your position is that if there is an unknown, then any particular guess is as likely as another? for example if you claim to have the winning lottery ticket for super powerball, simply because you think you are lucky, and i dont believe you do, because i understd the nature of reality and evidence, then we are both equally valid?

how could this concept be so complicated that nobody gets it but mastermind.

you cant make a random claim based on nothing and automatically its is just as likely to be true as not. it geniunely confounds me that guys are so goddamn worthlessly stupid, with the exception of mastermind who seemed to understand after i said it once.

 

not sure I am following you here, please expound and I will respond.

 

yes. i know. i have been doing it here for years, trying to demonstrate that simply not being able to prove somethig wrong doensnt make it true, or "just as likely" as false. thats why ten thousand times i ask if people believe that i am god or red is god. thats the whole point. i have explained it so many times. i demand that these things be proven wrong in order that people understand the absurdity.

do me a favor, be my friend and tell me if you are just messing with me. i am having trouble understanding the extent to which people cannot understand what i am saying.

what do you mean they "called me on it"? called me on what?

and what "subjective opinion"? it isnt a subjective opinion that claims about god are presented without evidence. the believers say it, they say they are believing on faith. they dont have evidence, this is not a question. believers make stuff up, and believe it. thats it, they dont go to a lab and mix chemicals and read charts and do math and say "yeah, here we have it. god." they just say god exist and thats it and then repeat a thousand times that i cant prove them wrong, at which point i bring up obviously untrue things i cannot prove wrong, hoping they understand how my couterexample proves that their logic is stupid, but they dont get it. they even take my examples as sincere arguments, as if i mean the absurd thing!