Swivel:

Calling someone a moron in the same sentence you say these aren't ad hominem...

It wasn't an accident, Prince James. And it wasn't an ad hominem, either. I'm not saying that LG isn't correct because he is a moron, which is what an ad hominem does. It directs your argument "to the person" instead of to their own arguments.

I called LG a moron because I have explained to him the concept of an ad hominem many times, and he keeps confusing an insult for an ad hominem (just as you have). It is the concept of being a moron that I am discussing with LG, and his refusal to go read up on the term that he tosses around with wild abandon I take as further evidence for him being a complete idiot.

None of this is ad hominem. It is insulting and rude, but not even close to being an ad hominem.

What kills me is that LG is the one consistently GUILTY of ad hominem. Everytime he ignores people's points, and cries "ad hom" instead, he is doing PRECISELY what he is INCORRECTLY accusing others of doing. If any of the other readers here understand the concept of ad hominem, I'm sure you are laughing right along with me.

Swivel:

"Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Calling someone "a moron" is, in and of itself, an ad hominem attack.

As far as I am aware - and please, quote LightGigantic if I am wrong - LightGigantic has never outwardly insulted anyone. He has attacked their premise. He has used similar arguments as he has in the past. But he has never insulted someone.

The same cannot be said for the majority of people on this sub-forum, including the moderators.

Swivel:

"Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Calling someone "a moron" is, in and of itself, an ad hominem attack.

As far as I am aware - and please, quote LightGigantic if I am wrong - LightGigantic has never outwardly insulted anyone. He has attacked their premise. He has used similar arguments as he has in the past. But he has never insulted someone.

The same cannot be said for the majority of people on this sub-forum, including the moderators.


Ad hominems are not insults. Wikipedia is written by the same people that missuse the term all day long.

LG commits an ad hominem every time he attempts to discredit the ideas of others by accusing them of posting with ad hominems, rather than focusing on the logical merits of their points. Please tell me that someone else here sees the irony in this.

The basic flaw in LG's thought process is to miss the fact that ad hominems are a type of logical fallacy. When someone insults another person, they are not trying to make a logical point. They are just asserting an unfounded opinion. Being rude. How can they be making a syllogistic fallacy when there is no syllogism?

Only a complete moron would think that an insult is even related to syllogistic fallacies, much less a perfect example of one. It is a direct assault on reason and intellect, and the rest of you should rise up with me and shame LG into some semblance of intellectual honesty. Do not let him bully you, and commit his ad hominems any longer. Seriously.

Swivel:

Please provide a contradictory source for your assertions.

Moreover, pointing out that he is being disrespected instead of attacked on the merits of his arguments is -perfectly- valid. The fact that the moderation aren't doing more to curb this? Also disgraceful.

Swivel:

Please provide a contradictory source for your assertions.

Moreover, pointing out that he is being disrespected instead of attacked on the merits of his arguments is -perfectly- valid. The fact that the moderation aren't doing more to curb this? Also disgraceful.

the moderation is decidedly one sided.

Sadly, yes.

the moderation is decidedly one sided.

Sides? Is this the only sub forum where it matters what 'side' the moderators are on?

nope, but it is the most lopsided forum in here. no denying that.

Interesting that religion always brings out the 'us and them' notion though.

Interesting that religion always brings out the 'us and them' notion though.

The atheists themselves set the tone here that way.

If you were the Smithsonian, and had bones of giants on your hands which corroborate the Bible, what would you do with them?

In today's politically correct world where people aren't allowed the truth the average curator would hide them for fear of being fire bombed by atheists.

The atheists themselves set the tone here that way.

But why should it come up that mods are on the side of atheists?

In today's politically correct world where people aren't allowed the truth the average curator would hide them for fear of being fire bombed by atheists.

Atheists don't have that much clout as they are still a minority... for now. So it can't be atheists they fear.

Atheists don't have that much clout as they are still a minority... for now. So it can't be atheists they fear.

Atheists outnumber and outpower PETA and PETA alone got the exhibit of Foie Gras cancelled all on their own. Do the math.

I split the above posts from Defining what is god (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=60402&goto=newpost) and moved the new thread to the site feedback since it no longer fit the Religion subforum.

The meta-discussion above may be of interest to others with regard to ad hominem vs. insult and the definitions thereof.

I reversed the infraction given to Swivel in the OP because I had already given the infraction in the original post. The OP in this thread is about that insult and thus an new infraction is unnecessary.

Skinwalker:

Good choice on the move.

But why should it come up that mods are on the side of atheists?

Because this whole site is a co-op effort of united atheists - yo would at least expect to find a theistic mod on the relion sub forum - instead, ironically, you find guys with the hugest chip on their shoulders at the mere suggestion of the word "god" (charcaterized by their tendency to go absolutely senseless in an intelligent discussion on the topic)

Perhaps you should move on to a non-science forum. The religion subforum here is in a Science Forum, so why wouldn't one expect religion to be treated more along rational and critical lines than credulous and faith-based.

In any science forum there is a need to discuss religion: how it intersects with science; how it affects scientific endeavors; the interference by religion on science; the scientific study of religion and its adherents; the anthropology and sociology as well as the psychology of religion and its adherents; and so on.

Yet, what we end up with is credulous believers interested only in defending their credulous ideas rather than discussing these, more important, topics.

But, then, this is only my opinion. One, however, shared by many.

then why have a religion subforum, if posts will be greeted with "god doesnt exist, so you must be stupid for believing so."

the moderation needs to be evened out. i myself have been reading the subforum again, after a long break from it, handing infractions to everyone who breaks the rules of the site.

then why have a religion subforum, if posts will be greeted with "god doesnt exist, so you must be stupid for believing so."


Like it's never been the reverse, just instead of being called Stupid you might of been burnt for not supporting the consensus.

As for Ad Hominem, I usually see a lot of them when a thread doesn't have supporting evidence yet the initial poster becomes hostile to people asking for evidence. This usually in turn causes those people to become hostile and you end up with a flame war. It's all very well trying to deal with one or other poster if it reaches this situation, but for the most part nobody cares who is actually in the wrong as they are more interested in the flaming, which usually just results in a thread closure.

Unfortunately not everyone is nice to everyone and sometimes they way they react is spawned just by a mistake in how someone has said something. (although stupidity so some is not excusable)

the problem i see is that the kind of sentiment i described above is against the forum rules, and yet it flourishes in the religion subforum....and the moderators do little to deter it. in fact, in some cases they take part in the rules violation.

I would also like to point out that, at best, this is a marginal "science" forum. The majority of posts are not to be found in the scientific areas, in fact, they are drowned by the other topics almost entirely. Also, it was originally called "style forum".

Anyway, fairness is definitely needed. See my thread on that in the SF Open Government.

Perhaps you should move on to a non-science forum.
perhaps, as a mod, you could abide by the established guidelines, even if you are unwilling to pull up others who transgress them because they belong to the same value system as yours

The religion subforum here is in a Science Forum, so why wouldn't one expect religion to be treated more along rational and critical lines than credulous and faith-based.

see jamesR's OP here
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=385463&postcount=1

What can we take away from this survey? Well, here are some of my thoughts. I invite you all to comment, too.

First, I think it is interesting that most theists give rational reasons for their belief in God.

and

I think the results show that this is not true. In general, theists <b>do</b> think about the big questions and come to logical conclusions based on their own thinking, rather than on authority handed down to them. I would encourage atheists on this forum to take note.

and, surprise, surprise

Turning to the atheists themselves, we find another somewhat surprising result - that atheists are perhaps not as supremely rational as they would have us believe. It seems that many of the atheists responses on this forum, at least, are emotional rather than rational. They are not based purely on available evidence, but rather on a reaction against the idea of God. There may be many reasons for this. People can react against a religious upbringing, or point to the perceived ills that religion causes in the world.

in other words your comment about 'rationality' reveals your emmotional bias

In any science forum there is a need to discuss religion: how it intersects with science; how it affects scientific endeavors; the interference by religion on science; the scientific study of religion and its adherents; the anthropology and sociology as well as the psychology of religion and its adherents; and so on.
so why is a practicing theist prohibited from discussing such things? After all there are numerous theists in the past, present and future who have made substantial contributions to the advancement of scientific understanding - unless of course you have a bias that an atheist has a better understanding of religion than a theist (which is kind of hard to believe since most of the ones I encounter on this site are not even vaguely familiar with scriptures, the historical commentaries on scriptures and established authorities (i e credible saintly persons) who have established the field

Yet, what we end up with is credulous believers interested only in defending their credulous ideas rather than discussing these, more important, topics.
and having a deluge of mod endorsed ad hom nonsense to the rational analysis of the proper definition of religion as the premise for further ideas some how enables progressive discussion?
It seems that an atheist prefers to argue against religion that innvloves suicide bombers and the like (judging a genre by its worst stereotype), rather than the scientific variety which actually bears an influence of the academic world

But, then, this is only my opinion. One, however, shared by many.
yes shared by many atheists - the KKK also has similar support and popularity in certain areas regarding the treatment of black people

It wasn't an accident, Prince James. And it wasn't an ad hominem, either.

Ad hom is trying to discredit an argument by calling someone a moron.

It might be possible to simply note that they are morons. Since about half of the board are, it's not a bad idea, either.

No, infoterror, it's not. you can call someone stupid all day and that is not ad hominem. It is, as someone has already pointed out, simply an insult.

Personally, I think these "rules of argument" should never have been written anyway. There are too many who will cling to them like the ten commandments and scream "Ad hom!" anytime someone abuses them to the point of being ridiculous.

But these people are just morons and should be ignored.

As pointed out, said person is standing on nothing at all unless he can present contradictory evidence to what I presented.

No, infoterror, it's not. you can call someone stupid all day and that is not ad hominem. It is, as someone has already pointed out, simply an insult.

Personally, I think these "rules of argument" should never have been written anyway. There are too many who will cling to them like the ten commandments and scream "Ad hom!" anytime someone abuses them to the point of being ridiculous.

But these people are just morons and should be ignored.
It gets kind of irritating - like suppose you are discussing something with someone and a person keeps butting in and saying "Moron!" "F*cking Bullshit" "Complete and utter Poppy cock" and when you give them the opportunity to put aside their terse vocabulary and discuss the foundations or general principles behind their stance they reply to the effect that they have no intention discussing anything philosophical because you are a moron - and if such a response comes from a person who is trying to establish themselves as a self controlled intelligent person (like a mod on a discussion site) doesn't it get a bit irritating?

BTW the problem could be solved if you could put a mod on an ignore list - i have had good experience with the ignore list - sometimes I put persons on the ignore list briefly after informing them - if they are more adamant in ad homming I keep them on longer - I don't tell them when I taken them off. Its also effective to put a person on an ignore list and don't tell them too.
;)

No, infoterror, it's not. you can call someone stupid all day and that is not ad hominem. It is, as someone has already pointed out, simply an insult.

Oh come on. Calling someone a moron in the course of argument is absolutely a form of ad hominem attack. Attacking the person instead of the argument. There are many levels of ad hom, from the crude to the sublime.

Sheesh!

i have had good experience with the ignore list - sometimes I put persons on the ignore list briefly after informing them - if they are more adamant in ad homming I keep them on longer - I don't tell them when I taken them off. Its also effective to put a person on an ignore list and don't tell them too.
;)

Yeah, right. Like you've ever really done that...


:D :m:

Yeah, right. Like you've ever really done that...


:D :m:
I think I kept you on for a bit when our communication just got incoherant - of course I took it off later

I have put swivel on ignore for maybe 2 weeks now and I haven't told him - I think he has abated in dogging me to a greater extent, although its hard tell because he is on ignore -lol - anyway it certainly enables me to focus more on addressing the issues of discussion in his absence, so it works fine enough
;)

It might be possible to simply note that they are morons. Since about half of the board are, it's not a bad idea, either.


You have received an infraction at SciForums.com.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1248070

Reason: Insulted Other Member(s)
-------
calling half the community "moron" is not suitable.


This is ludicrous.

This is ludicrous.

[Self edit: Blasphemy deleted by request of fascist overlord but-oh-so-likable mod]

An infraction for making a general statement of opinion directed at no individual?

This is indeed ludicrous.

EDIT: I can't imagine that being validated by any mod in his/her right mind.

I can't tell if it's a joke or not. I did laugh deeply, and without rancor.

You have received an infraction at SciForums.com.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1248070

Reason: Insulted Other Member(s)
-------
calling half the community "moron" is not suitable.This is ludicrous.

Maybe the half that are morons were offended.

Maybe the half that are morons were offended.
if as a mod, you are constantly taking shelter of the principle "two wrongs make a right" you can expect others to follow suit

Maybe the half that are morons were offended.
Uh Oh. Infraction for the rather unsubtle implication that half of us are morons. BTW, which half of me is the moron? Upper or lower???

Post pictures of the lower half?

Post pictures of the lower half?

Ok...

http://rogerphilpot.homestead.com/icon__Horese_ass.jpg

Hmmm... seems more likely you're a horses ass and not a moron, at least on the bottom half.

Hmmm... seems more likely you're a horses ass and not a moron, at least on the bottom half.
double infraction for Q for directly implying the state of being a moron

double infraction for Q for directly implying the state of being a moron

But, I said he wasn't a moron?

Hmmm... seems more likely you're a horses ass and not a moron, at least on the bottom half.

...

But, I said he wasn't a moron?
Yeah, you're right.

Here's my upper half:

http://www.13moons.com/images/newstuff/moron.jpg

This is indeed ludicrous.


Very much so.
Fixed.

double infraction for Q for directly implying the state of being a moron
Apparently mods can't get infractions.

Apparently mods can't get infractions.
Not only that, but you can't put them on your ignore list either

Isn't half of humanity below 100 IQ points? A moron is defined (m-w.com) as a "mildly mentally retarded person." That's probably 80-90 IQ points. Since up to a third of humanity could literally be morons, and we know most successful people don't spend time posting on the internet, could it not be scientifically accurate that 50% of the people here are morons?

"moron" was once a psychological classification based on IQ, specifically 51-70.
That classification system (which also included "idiot" and "imbecile") is obsolete.

The terms are now just equivalent throwaway insults implying low intelligence.