Demonizing people

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Sorcerer, Feb 24, 2014.

  1. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621
    Asking someone what their position is or what their belief is, is trolling? If I continued haranguing them and baiting them just because they did not take a position or tell me their belief, then I would be trolling. Just letting someone know that I know why they remain vague, is trolling?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Apparently my own notes were too difficult for you to parse. Your comments quoted here have no bearing on mine.

    What makes your quote here a prime example of the trolling you denounce is twofold: First, no one has ever suggested that Jan has no right to privacy; it has only been suggested, and rightly so, that he exploits this ambiguity by using it as a shield against criticism. Secondly, no one is trolling jan. Asking him to be forthright about his views is a perfectly valid request, even if he is not required to oblige. And given his tactics, it's also perfectly valid to criticize him for hiding. The fact that he doesn't have to share is completely irrelevant.

    No, it isn't. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy in which one person attempts to invalidate another's argument through character assassination. It is not mere name-calling.

    But since there are many traditions, it's fair to ask which tradition that person is referring to. It's telling when that person then refuses to actually establish which tradition they're speaking of, and in fact demonstrates a glaring ignorance of history, spends a dozen posts attempting to troll their way out of admitting they were mistaken.

    Do yourself a favor and just stop. As usual, you're on the wrong side of this. Protecting a troll just because he shares your belief system.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,823
    Mod notes that have their own mod notes.. Voondabah!

    No no. We got it the first time.

    There was no need to go all 'respect my authoritah!!' by giving your mod note its own mod note.

    Trust me, we got that you are the ruler of all in the first one.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And those that actually were trolling?

    Where is their mod note?

    Because try as I might, I see the ones you gave to those who weren't trolling.

    So where is the mod note for the actual trolls?

    Soooo busy that you haven't had a chance to write it up yet?

    And if that had happened, you might have had a case.

    The accusation of trolling was actually for that member's performance and not for their refusal to divulge their personal information.. Which everyone understood.. Sooo.. You did not?

    You really need to look up the definition of "ad hominem".

    How has the actual definition of marriage changed?

    Because it has always meant the union between two people that is recognised legally, socially or religiously..
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Admittedly, it is less the tickets themselves (though I appreciate you using the prescribed avenues for bringing these to our attention) and more that, I myself, am just fed up with his crap and have reached the "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore" point. Not exactly politically correct, but eh

    And yes, Syne, you do need to look up the definition of Ad Hominem... but don't worry, I took the leg work out of it for you:

    SO... as you can see, simply insulting someone, calling them names, etc... that is not an ad hominem attack. An Ad Hominem attack ONLY occurs when someone is using an irrelevant fact about a person to try and discredit an argument. While fabricating a false "fact" makes it a personal attack as well, simply calling someone "stupid" is not an ad hominem.

    If you are going to try and selectively moderate those you dislike or who have differing opinions from your own, the absolute LEAST you could do would be to get your terminology right!
     
  8. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    I did not say you were trolling, I said your objection to someone protecting their privacy would not excuse trolling. You know, if you did harangue and bait.
     
  9. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Ad hominem is a genetic fallacy, which uses the targets past against them regardless of actual current content. Where someone has not advocated violence, discrimination, or hate, "bigot" and "homophobe" are, at best, genetic fallacies, and thus ad hominems. In most cases the earlier implication of grounds for such ad hominems is itself a straw man.
     
  10. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Oh my goodness. No one--literally no one--is going to buy that.

    No. Again, you're relying on a concept you have a poor understanding of. (In this case, two concepts, but you've already been corrected on ad hominem, and I don't feel like repeating myself). A genetic fallacy would be what Jan is doing, by suggesting marriage as it "has always been defined" is superior to marriage as it is currently defined. Saying that you're a homophobe because you demonize homosexuals is legitimate observation based on your comments.
     
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,823
    Which she was not doing..

    So when you specifically told her she had no defense for trolling... You weren't saying she was trolling?

    Do your feet catch fire when you backpedal this fast?

    Just curious?
     
  12. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    No, see, you've got it wrong, or rather, you've got it almost right and twisted it, like so many other things...

    Calling you a homophobic bigot is not an ad hominem fallacy, it's an insult - regardless of whether or not it is factually based.

    The insult only becomes a fallacy when presented in the context of Ignore Syne, he's a homophobic bigot, or He's wrong, he's just being a homophobic bigot, or spoken like a true homophobic bigot, or, even as a variation on one of my favourite ad-hominems of all time of course Syne would say that, he's a homophobic bigot.
     
  13. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    But surely, calling someone a homophobe, or a racist or a misogynist for that matter, while it can be meant as an insult, may also just be a factual statement: if someone hates women then he is a misogynist, and he may well agree that that is a true statement. I agree that you shouldn't refer to a person's past homophobic behaviour when discussing other matters, like the weather or the Syrian civil war; but this thread is about the demonisation of gay people in the name of religion, and someone's status as homophobic or not is entirely relevant, imho.
     
  14. Gremmie "Happiness is a warm gun" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,593
    Love the new avatar Trippy... It's well, trippy.
     
  15. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Being a fallacy doesn't make it untrue. That's one of the... I dunno, amusing things... An argument being fallicious doesn't neccessarily mean the argument is actually wrong.

    Consider the Profumo Affair:
    While giving evidence at the trial of Stephen Ward, charged with living off the immoral earnings of Keeler and Rice-Davies, the latter made a famous riposte. When the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her, she replied, "He would, wouldn't he?" ​


    Technically, it's an ad-hominem argument, it addresses the person (Lord Astor) rather than the argument (the denial of the affair). The response, however, is 100% accurate and a factual statement - we can reasonably expect a prominent politician to deny having an affair regardless of the factuality of the denial. Of course he would say that, what else is he going to say? In this case the ad hominem also happens to be a valid circumstantial argument in that although it does not strengthen Rice-Davies' position, it calls into question the credibility of the denial in the first place.
     
  16. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    Well, that's all very nice and very fine, and I hope you enjoy your fallacies and your arguments all the time gay men are being marginalised and persecuted and demonised and killed by organised religion. Maybe you should visit Uganda or Iran or Saudi where things are even worse than in the US. I would tell you what you can do with your technicalities but I'd pick up a warning.
     
  17. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Woah there Sorcerer, Trippy is on the same side here mate! What we are addressing is the fact that Syne keeps writing things off as "ad hominem" when they aren't, mostly because he has no actual facts to back up his homophobic spew; thus, when he is refuted, he looks for any way to worm his way out of it.
     
  18. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    OK, that's cool.
     
  19. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,495
    Balerion,

    There is NO ambiguity. You're just not satisfied with the idea that people can have an opinion that differs from yours specifically on this subject matter, not to mention frustrated because you have nothing (outside of the mainstream script) to offer.

    What's scary is you actually believe that I'm not being trolled.

    I've stated on at least a couple of occasions what my views are, but I will state them here again.
    The originial meaning, and understanding of ''marriage'' is a union between a man and a woman, not between a man and a man, or woman and a woman

    We use the term ''marriage'', ''married'', and ''marry'' in ways that do not mean the original union, but it is based on it.
    For example, one can be said to be married to ones work, or two companies merging together can be described as ''marrying''.
    But they are based on the original meaning, not that they are married in the same sense.

    So whilst it is legal for homo-sex marriage, it falls short of the original meaning and purpose of marriage.

    It's not me you're angry with, it's the opinions I hold, and you are frustrated because (as I said earlier) you cannot counter them.
    I dare say, anyone with the opinion that marriage is essentially between a man and a woman, would be classed as a troll.

    You guys want what you want, and you don't care how many rules, or, meanings, you change, or how many goal post shifts it takes to force an issue you want.

    jan.
     
  20. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,495
    That is classic.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    jan.
     
  21. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    OK, go on, I'll bite. Why is it classic?
     
  22. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,170
    No, what's scary is that you pretend not to know that you often troll. Blatantly...



    @Syne:

    I have a few comments on your latest "Notes on the Mod notes" (how ridiculous) but I am extremely busy at the moment. Rest assured, I will get around to taking apart your latest back pedaling equivocation. Why don't you just do us all a favor and resign?
     
  23. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Uh, what's the difference?

    There are some opinions so vile that I hate them (homophobia, racism, male supremacy, reliance on violence as a way of resolving disagreements, etc.), and I also hate the people who hold them.

    How can you make a distinction? A person who thinks like an asshole is an asshole.

    But a person whose opinions merely make me angry, is a person at whom I am merely angry.
     

Share This Page