| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/10/2010 05:18:02 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
If I'm doing that what is it that I'm trying to convert people to? I'd love to see which posts I have made that would be evidence of that. Serious question. |
All of "you" collectively, the dis-or-non-believers, give every appearance of trying to "convert" believers. It's just how it looks. There even seems to be a belief among some of you that *ridicule* is a valid tool for proselytizing, as if by mocking a believer's faith you can somehow make him/her accept the idiocy of it, and become apostate. It's an undercurrent that runs throughout these threads and that is, IMO, a much stronger presence than the occasional attempt by some of our more fundamental members to "make Christians" out of you.
R. |
I totally disagree. Ridiculing indefensible positions isn't the same as ridiculing one's personal beliefs. I have yet to see the latter in these forums and if they do occur they are most certainly rare. What often happens is someone like johnnyphoto or DrAchoo tries to make some widely illogical argument comparing apples to oranges and they get called out for it. Granted, there are the occassional ad hominem attacks made through frustration. Louis' DrAchooHatesFags.com was certainly one of them but lets stop pretending one side has the higher ground here. Jason has made repeated personal attacks on me over the years that he tries to laugh off and I've not once returned it in kind. Then again I'm use to that. I live in a world where it's expected that the non-believers simply except all the garbage religious fanatics want to force down our throats legally, socially, economically. |
It probably bears to remember that when you are on the receiving end it feels personal, but when you are on the giving end it doesn't. So while it may feel that I've personally attacked you, it doesn't feel that way to me. And while it seems to you that you have never attacked me, it seems that way to me. It's quite possible neither of us has meant any personal attacks. |
Give me just one example. You've directly called me intellectually light in the loafers one time. Was I suppose to take that as a compliment?
|
|
|
|
09/10/2010 05:18:22 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
In short, believe what you want, but be prepared to back it up when you move that belief into the public square. |
That's where the problems occur. A personal religious belief cannot win a public debate. It's simply not equip to do so, which is why it always loses miserably, and why it inevitably resorts to brute force at some point for it's continual survival. |
(big eye roll) For real? |
For real real.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2010 05:22:55 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by yanko:
DrAchoo tries to make some widely illogical argument
Give me just one example. You've directly called me intellectually light in the loafers one time. Was I suppose to take that as a compliment? |
See above. You don't see the two statements as synonymous? Someone who repeatedly makes a "widely illogical argument" is bound to be intellectually light in the loafers. To say one is to imply the other. LOL. You quoted an insult in this very thread! If you don't think that's a personal attack, then let me give you some advice: Most people who take pride in being intellectual (and we all qualify under that) take it personally when someone contends that you are regularly unintelligent.
I can't remember the instance, but if I said that I was probably intimating that I thought your argument was "widely illogical". If you need me to say it, I assume your IQ is well above the norm.
Message edited by author 2010-09-10 17:34:52. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 05:33:33 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
DrAchoo tries to make some widely illogical argument
Give me just one example. You've directly called me intellectually light in the loafers one time. Was I suppose to take that as a compliment? |
See above. You don't see the two statements as synonymous? Someone who repeatedly makes a "widely illogical argument" is bound to be intellectually light in the loafers. To say one is to imply the other. LOL. You quoted an insult in this very thread! If you don't think that's a personal attack, then let me give you some advice: Most people who take pride in being intellectual (and we all qualify under that) takes it personally when someone contends that you are regularly unintelligent.
I can't remember the instance, but if I said that I was probably intimating that I thought your argument was "widely illogical". If you need me to say it, I assume your IQ is well above the norm. |
No I don't see them as synonymous because they are not, which is probably why you inserted the word "repeatedly" into my quote because just quoting what I actually said wouldn't be proof enough. I don't think of you as lacking intelligence but you do have a tendency to rely on fallacies in logic. Pointing those out is not a personal insult so try again.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2010 05:35:32 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It probably bears to remember that when you are on the receiving end it feels personal, but when you are on the giving end it doesn't. So while it may feel that I've personally attacked you, it doesn't feel that way to me. And while it seems to you that you have never attacked me, it seems that way to me. It's quite possible neither of us has meant any personal attacks. |
This ought to be engraved at the portal or something; it's absolutely correct. Hardly anybody in this thread ever feels, in their heart-of-hearts, that they are getting personal. But to a reasonably neutral observer, it would be obvious that the thread's a long ways away from rigorous debate, that it is enmired in innuendo and low-end name-calling at a fundamental level.
This statement by Yanko is either painfully naive or deliberately obtuse:
Originally posted by Yanko:
Ridiculing indefensible positions isn't the same as ridiculing one's personal beliefs. |
He can make that distinction all he wants, but ridicule is ridicule and there is no real place for it here.
R.
Message edited by author 2010-09-10 17:37:18. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 05:35:50 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
DrAchoo tries to make some widely illogical argument
Give me just one example. You've directly called me intellectually light in the loafers one time. Was I suppose to take that as a compliment? |
See above. You don't see the two statements as synonymous? Someone who repeatedly makes a "widely illogical argument" is bound to be intellectually light in the loafers. To say one is to imply the other. LOL. You quoted an insult in this very thread! If you don't think that's a personal attack, then let me give you some advice: Most people who take pride in being intellectual (and we all qualify under that) takes it personally when someone contends that you are regularly unintelligent.
I can't remember the instance, but if I said that I was probably intimating that I thought your argument was "widely illogical". If you need me to say it, I assume your IQ is well above the norm. |
No I don't see them as synonymous because they are not, which is probably why you inserted the word "repeatedly" into my quote because just quoting what I actually said wouldn't be proof enough. I don't think of you as lacking intelligence but you do have a tendency to rely on fallacies in logic. Pointing those out is not a personal insult so try again. |
What often happens is someone like johnnyphoto or DrAchoo tries to make some widely illogical argument comparing apples to oranges and they get called out for it.
Often does not mean "repeatedly"? I was clarifying.
Message edited by author 2010-09-10 17:36:16. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 05:36:24 PM · #132 |
| People routinely mistake an attack on an idea with an attack on character. It's pretty stupid. :P |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 05:39:40 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
DrAchoo tries to make some widely illogical argument
Give me just one example. You've directly called me intellectually light in the loafers one time. Was I suppose to take that as a compliment? |
See above. You don't see the two statements as synonymous? Someone who repeatedly makes a "widely illogical argument" is bound to be intellectually light in the loafers. To say one is to imply the other. LOL. You quoted an insult in this very thread! If you don't think that's a personal attack, then let me give you some advice: Most people who take pride in being intellectual (and we all qualify under that) takes it personally when someone contends that you are regularly unintelligent.
I can't remember the instance, but if I said that I was probably intimating that I thought your argument was "widely illogical". If you need me to say it, I assume your IQ is well above the norm. |
No I don't see them as synonymous because they are not, which is probably why you inserted the word "repeatedly" into my quote because just quoting what I actually said wouldn't be proof enough. I don't think of you as lacking intelligence but you do have a tendency to rely on fallacies in logic. Pointing those out is not a personal insult so try again. |
What often happens is someone like johnnyphoto or DrAchoo tries to make some widely illogical argument comparing apples to oranges and they get called out for it.
Often does not mean "repeatedly"? I was clarifying. |
Often as in what happens here (i.e. DPC). Not what you do often. Get it???
Message edited by author 2010-09-10 17:41:47.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2010 05:41:10 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Louis:
People routinely mistake an attack on an idea with an attack on character. It's pretty stupid. :P |
Apparently, painfully naive and deliberately obtuse as well.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2010 05:42:51 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Often as in what happens here. Not what you do often. Get it??? |
If you get called out by name as an example of something that often happens, the inference is clearly that you are often implicated, unless I've only done it once and others are responsible for all the other occurences (but why would I be an example worth mentioning then?). Geez. I'm not making quotes up.
We can drop it. We both think the other to be intelligent but guilty of making illogical arguments. Let's be friends.
Message edited by author 2010-09-10 17:43:47. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 05:45:18 PM · #136 |
| On a personal note, I think everyone should just act like Alex. Not only does he look like Jesus, but he's the most mild-mannered, inoffensive person anyone could ever know. His opinions are private, his private life held intimately close to his chest. His views about most things mirror mine, but his need to discuss them in any kind of forum -- real-life or online -- is non-existent. He's satisfied just to be. He's an atheist, and by that one only means that he refutes the existence of any god, and he can't be described in any other way using that nomenclature. Anyone trying to ascribe anything other than that to this sweet, inward-looking, gentle and terribly, terribly empathetic human being is just dead wrong, plain and simple. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 05:55:04 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Let me add that while it's one thing to debate the faith or religion itself, all I see you guys end up doing is ganging up with personal attacks on the people (who happen to be the overwhelming majority of inhabitants of this planet) who hold them.
Speaking of irrational, you should really ask yourselves why you get so fired up at the idea that other people simply believe and choose to discuss their beliefs with people who CHOOSE to listen. |
Oh I dunno... maybe it's because religious people stick their noses in my gayness (and the gay threads here) ALL THE TIME. 'Simple' belief is a falsehood. That belief comes with real consequences for people like me.
I personally feel that religion is pretty much a dangerous blight that's actively harming humanity. Is that not justification enough for me to respond when the faithful use homosexuals as a scapegoat, denigrating either my being or my choices? I'll wade into one of those discussions in a heartbeat until the more sensible among the religious start policing their own peers. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 05:55:38 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Louis:
People routinely mistake an attack on an idea with an attack on character. It's pretty stupid. :P |
Apparently, painfully naive and deliberately obtuse as well. |
Do you disagree with me that ridicule is a weak debating tactic at best, and very likely to be counterproductive, regardless of whether it is directed at individuals or at ideas? Because I guarantee you, it's a rare individual who doesn't take some level of offense when someone who doesn't share his beliefs holds them up to ridicule. It's not a good way to get along in the world. And that's ALL I'm saying.
This all reminds me of people I have known in the past, who said the most amazingly insensitive/offensive things and, when called on it, defended themselves by saying "But, it's TRUE!" So WHAT? There has to be a better way to function than to run peoples' cherished beliefs through the mud and justify it by saying "Hey dude, lighten up! It isn't YOU I have a problem with, it's just your ridiculous beliefs..."
Gimme a break...
R.
Message edited by author 2010-09-10 17:56:53. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 06:43:28 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Often as in what happens here. Not what you do often. Get it??? |
If you get called out by name as an example of something that often happens, the inference is clearly that you are often implicated, unless I've only done it once and others are responsible for all the other occurences (but why would I be an example worth mentioning then?). Geez. I'm not making quotes up.
We can drop it. We both think the other to be intelligent but guilty of making illogical arguments. Let's be friends. |
The inference would be that you've made some widely illogical augments in the past. I included you because you're one of the most active members in rant and you tend to rely on fallacies at one point or another to defend your arguments. This is not to say you're stupid or intellectually light in the loafers. That was never implied.
What I am implying, and this goes back to what I was hinting at earlier which you rolled your eyes at, was that when a personal belief is put to debate the person defending it will ultimately have to commit some fallacy or admit defeat. This isn't a knock on you or anybody's debating skills. It's simply stating an inherit weakness in regards to personal beliefs in general and the impossible task of defending in debate. Of course this doesn't mean personal beliefs don't have any value or purpose.
I'm sorry if this all offends you. That is not my intent.
Message edited by author 2010-09-10 18:46:39.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2010 06:52:39 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by yanko:
What I am implying, and this goes back to what I was hinting at earlier which you rolled your eyes at, was that when a personal belief is put to debate the person defending it will ultimately have to commit some fallacy or admit defeat. |
Come on, Richard. You have to be kidding. Now you are coming across as completely arrogant in your generalities. Maybe you have some specific and limited definition of "personal belief", but this is ridiculous. You are clearly stating that "All personal belief is fallacious." (don't make me deconstruct your sentence, it's there) Do you really think you have the logical arguments to back this up? You probably want to do quite a bit of refining on your statement. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 07:05:56 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Louis:
People routinely mistake an attack on an idea with an attack on character. It's pretty stupid. :P |
Apparently, painfully naive and deliberately obtuse as well. |
Do you disagree with me that ridicule is a weak debating tactic at best, and very likely to be counterproductive, regardless of whether it is directed at individuals or at ideas? Because I guarantee you, it's a rare individual who doesn't take some level of offense when someone who doesn't share his beliefs holds them up to ridicule. It's not a good way to get along in the world. And that's ALL I'm saying.
|
You're right it's a weak debating tactic. However I was referring to an indefensible position not just someone's belief I happen to disagree with but can otherwise be justified.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2010 07:08:15 PM · #142 |
Ridicule has the fringe (core?) benefit of not imparting value to an opinion that has no inherent value in the way that debate otherwise would... by treating it as if it were equally debatable as the hypothetically superior opinion of the ridiculer.
Negotiating/debating with an opponent imparts value to their goals and techniques, and can often bring others to their cause.
Ridiculing an opponent devalues their goals and techniques, and while not bringing that person to your side, can often bring others to your cause. The peanut gallery effect works for the ridiculer, not the target.
The mistake here is to see everything as debatable, when some things are plain old stupid. Ridicule is completely appropriate when the goal is not to debate.
Debate Christians on the validity of the lessons contained in the Bible.
Debate Muslims on the validity of the lessons contained in the Koran.
Debate atheists about the real-world implications of their versions of morality.
Ridicule Christians over their focus on homosexuality as opposed to the 50% divorce rate when it comes to protecting marriage.
Ridicule Muslims over the stoning to death of women who were raped.
Ridicule atheists who trot out a misunderstanding of natural selection to justify being dicks to less fortunate people.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2010 07:09:55 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
What I am implying, and this goes back to what I was hinting at earlier which you rolled your eyes at, was that when a personal belief is put to debate the person defending it will ultimately have to commit some fallacy or admit defeat. |
Come on, Richard. You have to be kidding. Now you are coming across as completely arrogant in your generalities. Maybe you have some specific and limited definition of "personal belief", but this is ridiculous. You are clearly stating that "All personal belief is fallacious." (don't make me deconstruct your sentence, it's there) Do you really think you have the logical arguments to back this up? You probably want to do quite a bit of refining on your statement. |
No I'm not kidding. Can you prove your personal belief? If so I'll stand corrected.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2010 07:14:14 PM · #144 |
Did someone just get called arrogant? ;)
Or is that one of those "I said that you're behaving arrogantly, not that you're arrogant" kind of things? |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 07:18:11 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
What I am implying, and this goes back to what I was hinting at earlier which you rolled your eyes at, was that when a personal belief is put to debate the person defending it will ultimately have to commit some fallacy or admit defeat. |
Come on, Richard. You have to be kidding. Now you are coming across as completely arrogant in your generalities. Maybe you have some specific and limited definition of "personal belief", but this is ridiculous. You are clearly stating that "All personal belief is fallacious." (don't make me deconstruct your sentence, it's there) Do you really think you have the logical arguments to back this up? You probably want to do quite a bit of refining on your statement. |
No I'm not kidding. Can you prove your personal belief? If so I'll stand corrected. |
You will first have to explicitly tell me what you mean by "personal belief" so I don't lose on a technicality. You seem to be moving the goalpost though. Before you talked about "debate" not "proving". I'll await your clarification before I proceed.
Message edited by author 2010-09-10 19:19:28. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 07:27:26 PM · #146 |
Ridicule as Strategic Commnication
Although the suggestion that ridicule and satire are legitimate tools of strategic communication might receive some â dare I say it â ridicule, Wallerâs argument is a good one. Ridicule and satire have a long history in warfare, and they have been deployed both offensively and defensively. In the U.S., ridicule was used in the Revolutionary War, both to mock the British troops and to raise the morale of the American fighters. In WWII, domestic use of ridicule targeted Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito. In a more contemporary example, Waller cites Team America: World Police as an example of effective parody of Islamic terrorists and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. While a movie that features graphic sex between puppets might not have universal appeal, Waller is correct in pointing out that prior to the movie, American audiences would likely not consider the Korean dictator someone to laugh at.
Nor is humiliation merely a Western conception. In pre-Islamic society in the Middle East, law breakers were often mutilated â either whipped or dismembered â as much for purposes of humiliation as pain. They became living symbols of what befell criminals in the community. Ridicule was also used as a weapon of war in both pre-Islamic and early Islamic society and poets were often assassinated because of their power to create and spread ridicule. Today, Waller argues, âmany extremists equate ridicule with pain or death.â Bin Laden himself has been quoted as saying he fears humiliation more than death. Well known strategic advice says âknow your enemy.â If your enemy fears humiliation over death â which would serve to make him a martyr â then the use of ridicule seems highly appropriate.
Ridicule is a Powerful Weapon
O'Rourke: However, that said, ridicule is a powerful weapon and once people and institutions start to make themselves ridiculous -- I don't think any lone humorist can ridicule someone out of office or a system out of an establishment -- but once that system or that person starts to make themselves ridiculous....
There definitely was an element toward the end of the Soviet Union where it was just starting to get silly and the people in the Soviet Union, and even more so, I think, in the western part of the communist bloc, were ceasing to take this entity seriously, it lost some of its power. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 07:42:22 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, we could go down the abortion track, but that would totally derail the conversation (which is probably already derailed). |
Well, we haven't reach the Godwin's law yet, so we're still okay.
As for preaching, as Francis of Assisi once said, "Preach the gospel at all times; if necessary, use words." |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 08:10:44 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
What I am implying, and this goes back to what I was hinting at earlier which you rolled your eyes at, was that when a personal belief is put to debate the person defending it will ultimately have to commit some fallacy or admit defeat. |
Come on, Richard. You have to be kidding. Now you are coming across as completely arrogant in your generalities. Maybe you have some specific and limited definition of "personal belief", but this is ridiculous. You are clearly stating that "All personal belief is fallacious." (don't make me deconstruct your sentence, it's there) Do you really think you have the logical arguments to back this up? You probably want to do quite a bit of refining on your statement. |
No I'm not kidding. Can you prove your personal belief? If so I'll stand corrected. |
You will first have to explicitly tell me what you mean by "personal belief" so I don't lose on a technicality. You seem to be moving the goalpost though. Before you talked about "debate" not "proving". I'll await your clarification before I proceed. |
Sorry, I was referring specifically to religious faith.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2010 08:31:31 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Sorry, I was referring specifically to religious faith. |
I personally believe that the Christian faith teaches that motivation is more important than the deed when considering the "righteousness" of an action.
(I should be explicit that my belief is discussing whether this is truth within the context of Christianity.)
The keystone of this comes from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7. He gives us a few examples of how motivation is more important than what actaully gets done.
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
We can find the roots of this already in the Prophets of the Old Testament. Isaiah quotes God by announcing that the sacrificial system is far inferior to being right in your heart.
I could keep going, but I'll pause at this point to let you point out my fallacy or counter my argument.
Message edited by author 2010-09-10 20:48:38. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 08:39:27 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by yanko:
What I am implying, and this goes back to what I was hinting at earlier which you rolled your eyes at, was that when a personal belief is put to debate the person defending it will ultimately have to commit some fallacy or admit defeat. |
I've posted that challenge many times (several directly to Achoo).
Originally posted by scalvert:
We might appreciate [Jason's notion that disbelief of the supernatural requires mental gymnastics] if you could offer an actual example without resorting to fallacy. You demonstrate the veracity of the position all the time. You don't expect bodies to vanish from tombs or snakes to talk, and I certainly hope you wouldn't prescribe a medication just because some ancient text says it works, but because scientific research has demonstrated efficacy. The church says Daniel can walk safely through a lion's den, yet the Pope travels behind bulletproof glass. If the most devout person you know says he can walk on water, you know darn well he's not going to cross a swimming pool dry. It may be comforting to imagine supernatural beings watching over you, but if a tornado's coming at you I'm quite confident that you wouldn't just stand there and assume you're protected. Faith dares not tread where it can be subject to disproof. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I have no doubt that you are sincere in your beliefs, but I have yet to see you back up any religious claim without resorting to deflection or fallacy. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I believe that a person can use logic and reason to conclude there is a God and come to have faith. |
Not without resorting to fallacy. I defy anyone to demonstrate otherwise. |
Message edited by author 2010-09-10 20:39:48. |
|
