Demonizing people

[quinnsong]

People have the right to protect any information they deem personal. While I suppose you may think that means they should not engage in forum discussions on those sorts of topics, the posting guidelines do guarantee that right, so you would have no defense for trolling on that count, no matter how frustrating you may find it.

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?

 

[Balerion]

Apparently those mod notes were too difficult for many to parse. Each note was separated and stood on its own. Not all noted posters would have warranted warning/infraction, only those that were told they were trolling. And not all noted posts were off-topic, nor commented on the characteristics or posting style of others.

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

Yes, every member has the right to determine what, if any, personal information they wish to divulge, and no amount of trolling should pressure them into doing otherwise than they deem prudent.

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.

Yes, calling people names (even if you think they are warranted) is an ad hominem, especially without even so much as a vague attempt at arguing their validity (which would typically require engaging with the accused and answered their questions).

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.

Yes, when someone refers to what marriage "traditionally" means it is reasonably clear that they are making a distinction between that and the new definition, especially when they repeatedly make it a point to say that "same-sex marriage is legal" by contrast.

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.

 

[Bells]

Mod notes that have their own mod notes.. Voondabah!

Apparently those mod notes were too difficult for many to parse.

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.

Each note was separated and stood on its own. Not all noted posters would have warranted warning/infraction, only those that were told they were trolling. And not all noted posts were off-topic, nor commented on the characteristics or posting style of others.

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?

Yes, every member has the right to determine what, if any, personal information they wish to divulge, and no amount of trolling should pressure them into doing otherwise than they deem prudent.

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?

Yes, calling people names (even if you think they are warranted) is an ad hominem, especially without even so much as a vague attempt at arguing their validity (which would typically require engaging with the accused and answered their questions).

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

Yes, when someone refers to what marriage "traditionally" means it is reasonably clear that they are making a distinction between that and the new definition, especially when they repeatedly make it a point to say that "same-sex marriage is legal" by contrast.

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..

 

[Kittamaru]

Just filling out tickets has turned you from an enemy to one-man anti-Syne machine.

I think I know what I'm doing.

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:

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Definition of AD HOMINEM

1
: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2
: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Origin of AD HOMINEM

New Latin, literally, to the person
First Known Use: 1598

Ad Hominem
Definition of Ad Hominem

Ad hominem (Latin) means “against the man”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments.

There are cases where consciously or unconsciously people start to question the opponent or his personal association rather than evaluating the soundness and validity of the argument that he presents. These types of arguments are usually mistaken for personal insults but they are somehow different in nature and the distinction is very subtle.

Arguers who are not familiar with the principles of making logical arguments commonly end up saying something that would draw the audience’s attention to the distasteful characteristics of the individual. Such people use this fallacy as a tool to deceive their audience. Making such a blatant personal comment against somebody makes it hard for people to believe it isn’t true. Typically, even the arguer himself believes that such personal traits or circumstances are not enough to dispose of an individual’s opinion or argument. However, if looked at rationally, such arguments even if true never provide a valid reason to disregard someone’s criticism.



Examples of Ad Hominem

1. Just look at this common example.

“How can you argue your case for vegetarianism when you are enjoying your steak?”

This clearly shows how a person is attacked instead of being addressed for or against his argument.

2. A classic example of ad hominem fallacy is given below:

A: “All murderers are criminals, but a thief isn’t a murderer, and so can’t be a criminal.”
B: “Well, you’re a thief and a criminal, so there goes your argument.”

3. Another example of ad hominem fallacy is taken from Velonews: The Journal of Competitive Cycling. After an article about the retirement of Lance Armstrong, its webpage shared a post with its readers. A commenter posted a comment saying how great an athlete Armstrong was and that the people should be proud of his achievements.



Another commenter wrote in response to the first commenter:

He’s not a great athlete; he’s a fraud, a cheat and a liar. That’s why not everybody is “happy for Lance.”

The reasons given by the arguer may very well be true but he does not support his argument with reason and logic. He rather takes the disregarding approach. He does not say anything to prove that the premises it proposes are problematic, instead he goes on attacking the person who proposed them.

Functions of Ad Hominem

A writer’s background is considered to be a very important factor when it comes to judging his work. A book written on a particular subject in history will be perceived differently keeping in view the background of the author. Therefore, it is important to understand that a writer’s traits and circumstances have a pivotal role to play in his feelings, thinking and the construction of his arguments.

To put it simply, the considerations regarding the use of ad hominem can explain certain arguments and the motives behind them better. Nevertheless, such considerations are not enough on their own to evaluate an individual’s opinion and are certainly not sufficient to disregard them as false or invalid. The fact is that ad hominem is a kind of fallacy that leaves a great impression on the audience’s mind. It is an argumentative flaw that is hard to spot in our daily life. Although, the personal attack that has been made on the opponent might not even have a speck of truth in it, it somehow makes the audience biased. Ironically, despite being flawed, ad hominem has an amazing power of persuasion.

The worst thing about using ad hominem purposely is that an opponent insults you publicly. Whenever this happens to you, you must recover from the humiliation and then point out the false connection in the argument, which was used a trap for the audience. Moreover, the dilemma with ad hominem is that once it has been used against you it smears your reputation. Once somebody makes such a judgmental argument about you, the audience instead of evaluating it on logical grounds take it to be true.

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!

 

[Syne]

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?

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.

 

[Syne]

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.

 

[Balerion]

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.

Oh my goodness. No one--literally no one--is going to buy that.

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.

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.

 

[Bells]

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.

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?

 

[Trippy]

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.

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.

 

[Sorcerer]

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.

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.

 

[Gremmie]

Love the new avatar Trippy... It's well, trippy.

 

[Trippy]

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.

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.

 

[Sorcerer]

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.

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.

 

[Kittamaru]

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.

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.

 

[Sorcerer]

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.

OK, that's cool.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Jan Ardena]

OK, that's cool.

That is classic.

jan.

 

[Sorcerer]

That is classic.

jan.

OK, go on, I'll bite. Why is it classic?

 

[Randwolf]

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

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?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

It's not me you're angry with, it's the opinions I hold . . . .

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.