Demonizing people

[Trippy]

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.

Wait, wut? My points were simply:
1. Contrary to Syne's assertion, and regardless of the factuality of the insult, an insult is not an ad hominem unless it's actually used in a certain way.
2. You're correct - an argument that is a fallacy is not neccessarily untrue, or for that matter, invalid. An argument that is a fallacy in one context might be perfectly valid in another context, that was the point of raising Mandy Rice-Davie's testimony in the Profumo affair, and that includes the examples I gave in this post. There are many contexts where writing off anything Syne has to say as the ramblings of a homophobic bigot might be perfectly valid. This can also be true for other fallacies as well.

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.

It's one of my pet peeves. Ad-hominem is a word that people like to bandy about without actually understanding what it means and it annoys me.

OK, that's cool.

Sweet as.

 

[Sorcerer]

Wait, wut? My points were simply:
1. Contrary to Syne's assertion, and regardless of the factuality of the insult, an insult is not an ad hominem unless it's actually used in a certain way.
2. You're correct - an argument that is a fallacy is not neccessarily untrue, or for that matter, invalid. An argument that is a fallacy in one context might be perfectly valid in another context, that was the point of raising Mandy Rice-Davie's testimony in the Profumo affair, and that includes the examples I gave in this post. There are many contexts where writing off anything Syne has to say as the ramblings of a homophobic bigot might be perfectly valid. This can also be true for other fallacies as well.


It's one of my pet peeves. Ad-hominem is a word that people like to bandy about without actually understanding what it means and it annoys me.


Sweet as.

And my point was even clearer: I don't care about your fallacies or technicalties, I only care that religionists are persecuting gay men and women, and they should be called out on that, and referring to someone on this thread as a homophobe is not an insult if he is a homophobe, it's a statement of fact.

I would not write off anything Syne or anyone else says here as the ramblings you describe; everything should be taken as it's said. If he says something sensible then I'll listen to it.

I never use 'ad-hominem' so you're safe.

What does 'sweet as.' mean?

 

[Trippy]

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.

Actually, no. The idea that marriage is exclusively between males and females is a relatively moder invention by european christians. Same sex marriage was accepted by the roman republic and accorded the same legal rights as mixed sex marriages up until the 4th or 5th century, when christianity became the official state religion, for example, the Codex Theodosianus forbids same sex marriage and mandates a punishment of death.

 

[Trippy]

And my point was even clearer: I don't care about your fallacies or technicalties, I only care that religionists are persecuting gay men and women, and they should be called out on that, and referring to someone on this thread as a homophobe is not an insult if he is a homophobe, it's a statement of fact.

I care about them when a wrong argument is presented based on a misunderstanding or a dishonest representation of a fallacy, or a fallicious argument, which is then used to substantiate discrimination of some form or another.

When I say "calling syne a homophobic bigot is an insult, not an adhominem fallacy" I'm not commenting, one way or another, on the factuality of the assertion that Syne is a homophobic bigot, I am simply couching my argument in the terms that Syne used (remember, the original post was addressing Syne's fallacy abuse).

I would not write off anything Syne or anyone else says here as the ramblings you describe; everything should be taken as it's said. If he says something sensible then I'll listen to it.

Then, for the most part, things are as they should be.

I never use 'ad-hominem' so you're safe.

Personally, I think that anybody engaging in debate of any nature should learn to recognize fallacies. Being able to spot them in anothers argument and avoid them in your own is to be desired.

What does 'sweet as.' mean?

http://www.chemistry.co.nz/kiwi.htm#sweet-as:

 

[Randwolf]

Actually, no. The idea that marriage is exclusively between males and females is a relatively moder invention by european christians. Same sex marriage was accepted by the roman republic and accorded the same legal rights as mixed sex marriages up until the 4th or 5th century, when christianity became the official state religion, for example, the Codex Theodosianus forbids same sex marriage and mandates a punishment of death.

Careful with the history lessons. The sheriff around these parts doesn't always appreciate them. I know, I already tried this approach:

Historically, marriage represents the union between male and female.
That's not a lie.

jan.

That's a lie Jan. I've watched you repeat it over and over but that doesn't make it less a lie. Can't you at least google something first? Or, maybe visit Wiki if you're not capable of tracking original, secondary or even tertiary sources? Is that too much to ask of a member of an "intelligent" forum? Really?

Although state-recognized same-sex unions are becoming more accepted, there is a long history of same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned, and temporary relationships to highly ritualized unions that have included marriage


Wiki

More:

A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [5]


Further:

After the Middle Ages in Europe, same-sex relationships were increasingly frowned upon and banned in many countries by the Church or the state. Nevertheless, Historian John Boswell argued that Adelphopoiesis, or brother-making, represented an early form of religious same-sex marriage in the Orthodox church. Alan Bray saw the rite of Ordo ad fratres faciendum ("Order for the making of brothers") as serving the same purpose in the medieval Roman Catholic Church. However, the historicity of Boswell's interpretation of the ceremony is contested by the Greek Orthodox Church, and his scholarship critiqued as being of dubious quality by scholars such as Robin Darling Young, Associate Professor of Theology at the Catholic University of America.[42]

In late medieval France, it is possible the practice of entering a legal contract of "enbrotherment" (affrèrement) provided a vehicle for civil unions between unrelated male adults who pledged to live together sharing ‘un pain, un vin, et une bourse’ – one bread, one wine, and one purse. This legal category may represent one of the earliest forms of sanctioned same-sex unions.[43]

While the church father, Augustine of Hippo, presented marriage as an important sacrament of the Christian Church in the 5th century CE,[44] it wasn't until the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard, in the middle of the 12th century, that marriage became a part of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Christian Church.[45][46]

A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.[47]

For which effort I received this:

Mod notes

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3178425&viewfull=1#post3178425

Advice about content
10. Post personal information at your own risk.​

Members cannot be credibly accused of trolling or being disingenuous solely on exercising their right to privacy.
___________________________________________________________

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3178008&viewfull=1#post3178008

I could take any of this members post in this thread. None offer any argument other than name-calling. Ad hominems are generally a violation, but without any attempt to support them they also constitute trolling.
___________________________________________________________

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3178477&viewfull=1#post3178477

Repeatedly calling someone a liar and refusing, even when repeatedly told, to read the earlier posts in the thread to clear up your misunderstanding is trolling.
___________________________________________________________

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3178627&viewfull=1#post3178627

Considering the general hysteria here about comparing homosexuality to a variety of things (and it not helping your case), perhaps you should not use a Wiki page that discussed pederasty (what we would now call pedophilia or child molestation) as the "history of same-sex unions".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis#.22Same-sex_union.22_or_.22brother-making.22.3F
___________________________________________________________

Generally, commenting on the posting style of others is off-topic, especially without any substantial on-topic content in the post.



Many posters in this thread could have received warnings/infractions, and many of those would have been due to their behavior while criticizing that of others. Perhaps it is a better idea to argue the subject of the thread rather than the assumed character traits of others.

I imagine his next step in ascendance to total megalomaniac will be an attempt to moderate a moderator. Better watch yourself there Trippy...

 

[Trippy]

Careful with the history lessons. The sheriff around these parts doesn't always appreciate them. I know, I already tried this approach:

For which effort I received this:I imagine his next step in ascendance to total megalomaniac will be an attempt to moderate a moderator. Better watch yourself there Trippy...

I'll see Syne's Wikipedia article and raise him Peer reviewed literature

 

[Sorcerer]

I care about them when a wrong argument is presented based on a misunderstanding or a dishonest representation of a fallacy, or a fallicious argument, which is then used to substantiate discrimination of some form or another.

When I say "calling syne a homophobic bigot is an insult, not an adhominem fallacy" I'm not commenting, one way or another, on the factuality of the assertion that Syne is a homophobic bigot, I am simply couching my argument in the terms that Syne used (remember, the original post was addressing Syne's fallacy abuse).


Then, for the most part, things are as they should be.


Personally, I think that anybody engaging in debate of any nature should learn to recognize fallacies. Being able to spot them in anothers argument and avoid them in your own is to be desired.



http://www.chemistry.co.nz/kiwi.htm#sweet-as:

kiwi slang: everyone should understand it.

 

[quinnsong]

kiwi slang: everyone should understand it.

Oh great Kiwi Ebonics, got me some new slangs I can mangle!

 

[Aqueous Id]

I'll see Syne's Wikipedia article and raise him Peer reviewed literature

I really liked the way Randwolf brought that back into focus and the way you perfected it with evidence. The threads get so interlaced with ideas that continuity like this helps bring it back home. It's a very powerful argument, because it establishes that Christianity is the exception to the rule, not the rule. I was reminded that there is some primitive culture (but I forgot which one) which has a marriage ritual in which the groom goes off to a hut with the groomsmen, where they bring him out of his virgin naivete through a same-sex encounter, after which he is ready to bed his bride. Obviously this is done to ensure the success of the honeymoon. This adds another dimension to the issue at hand, but further adds to the argument which debunks the myth that only hetero sex is "moral" or "accepted" or "normal". I think the references back to Greco-Roman cultures is powerful because we understand that these were the prevailing attitudes during the early Christian era, and they come from the most advanced civilizations that then existed in that part of the world, to include intelligent, well-educated people who could have arrived at the same homophobic attitudes through logic and reason, if that were the basis for it. Obviously it isn't. Considering how cruel and barbaric those cultures were in matters of slavery and punishment, it's almost an endorsement of same-sex partnering that they did not criminalize it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Trippy,

Actually, no. The idea that marriage is exclusively between males and females is a relatively moder invention by european christians.

I didn't say it was exclusively between anyone, and you're wrong about the Christian invention thing.

Same sex marriage was accepted by the roman republic and accorded the same legal rights as mixed sex marriages up until the 4th or 5th century, when christianity became the official state religion, for example, the Codex Theodosianus forbids same sex marriage and mandates a punishment of death.

Some real info (aside from wiki) would really help your plight on this, but I will offer this wiki link on ''marriage in ancient rome'' to shed real light on something we all know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome
http://www.humanities360.com/index.php/the-history-of-ancient-babylonian-marriage-contracts-24244/

jan.

 

[Trippy]

I didn't say it was exclusively between anyone...

Right... So when you said:

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.

You didn't mean to state that the original idea of marriage was that it was exclusively between men and women?

...and you're wrong about the Christian invention thing...

The only Roman law on the matter was the Lex scatania which appears to have been passed sometime around the second century BC. As near as we can tell, the only thing it outlawed was the homosexual rape of young male roman citizens. It wasn't until 342 AD that a law was passed that survived in both the Theodosian Code and the Code of Justinian as a decree that "Marriage based on unnatural sex should be punished meticulously".

Some real info (aside from wiki) would really help your plight on this, but I will offer this wiki link on ''marriage in ancient rome'' to shed real light on something we all know.

I'll stick with the Journal of Family History for now, thanks.

Addendum:

Rome and the Middle Ages

For the first three and a half centuries of its history, christianity probably had relatively little impact on the world around it. In the world's most powerful nation at the time, Rome, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage were not uncommon nor prohibited (see Chapter 1). With the acension of the first Christian emperor, Constantine, that situation changed. Christian doctrine on many issues, including same-sex relationships, became incorporated into Roman law. In 342 CE, for example, the emperor Constantius II issued a regulation making same-sex marriage illegal. The regulation survives in the Theodosian code of 429, a compilation of laws adopted since the time of Constantine. It said in part anyone who "'marries' in the manner of a woman ... when venus is changed into another form" shall be subjected to "exquisite punishment".​

David E. Newton, Same-sex Marriage: A Reference Handbook.

 

[Randwolf]

Some real info (aside from wiki) would really help your plight on this, but I will offer this wiki link on ''marriage in ancient rome'' to shed real light on something we all know.

Typical obfuscation and disingenuity BS from jan. Just put your hands over your ears and go "naaa, naaa, naa" really loudly and you can pretend it isn't real.



Just an excerpt, not that Jan will ever bother to read the paper from Yale (page 35):

...recent research by Professor Boswell argues that these ceremonies represented a more general acceptance of same-sex unions by the early Church.

In 1989, Boswell claimed in print that:

Gay clerics apparently took part in homosexual marriage ceremonies, which were widely known in the Catholic world from the fifth century on. Such ceremonies were performed in Catholic churches by priests and either established what the community regarded as marriages, or commemorated special friendships, in both cases in devoutly Christian terms. 13

Boswell's claim was based upon information acquired while researching medieval Christian liturgical collections, evidence that will be revealed in a forthcoming book.

Boswell has reportedly uncovered manuscript versions of Christian same-sex marriage liturgies taken from collections found in libraries and ecclesiastical collections throughout Europe. References to same-sex marriage ceremonies were discovered in legal texts from the fourth through the sixth centuries, as were references to the actual performance of such ceremonies occurring in the fifth through the nineteenth centuries. Boswell distinguishes between the enfraternization liturgies described above, of which scholars have known and written for some time, and these newly-discovered marriage liturgies, which he believes to confirm the existence of genuine, Church-sanctioned same-sex marriages.​

Further...

Significantly, this early brotherhood liturgy was acted out in a ceremony that was virtually identical to the liturgy later developed by the Church for different-sex marriages.

The main difference between the brotherhood liturgy and the one originally used to wed different-sex couples was that the former emphasized the companionate 10 rather than the procreative 11 nature of the relationship. Hence, rather than orating on procreation, one version of the enfraternization liturgy read:

O Almighty Lord, you have given to man to be made from the first in Your Image and Likeness by the gift of immortal life. You have willed to bind as brothers not only by nature but by bonds of the spirit Your most celebrated Apostles Peter, the Chief of them all, and Andrew; James and John the Sons of Zebedee; Philip and Batholomew. You made as very brothers Your Holy Martyrs Sergius and Bacchus, Cosmas and Damien, Cyrus and John. Bless Your Servants united also that, not bound by nature, (they be) joined with bonds of love. Grant them a love mutual and without offense and a brotherhood upset by naught of hatred all the days of their lives, through the might of Your All-Holy Spirit and through the intersession of our All-Holy spotless ever-Virgin Lady ....​

​

Carry on Jan and Brother Syne...

 

[Trippy]

This, incidentally, is a classix example of poisoning the well:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3178627&viewfull=1#post3178627

Considering the general hysteria here about comparing homosexuality to a variety of things (and it not helping your case), perhaps you should not use a Wiki page that discussed pederasty (what we would now call pedophilia or child molestation) as the "history of same-sex unions".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis#.22Same-sex_union.22_or_.22brother-making.22.3F

It also serves as an example of a genetic fallacy. The fact of pederasty in ancient rome has absolutely no relevance what so ever to the discussion of the status of same sex marriage.

 

[Aqueous Id]

This, incidentally, is a classix example of poisoning the well:


It also serves as an example of a genetic fallacy. The fact of pederasty in ancient rome has absolutely no relevance what so ever to the discussion of the status of same sex marriage.

Exactly, in fact it's pathological to suggest it. Once again, generalizing to a stereotype. And of course if the logical conclusion is: marginalize same-sex partners since it increases pederasty--then we need to marginalize all heteros too since it leads to heterosexual abuses of children. That leads to only one feasible solution: ban all sexual conduct; live as monks and nuns, or even surgically remove the libido. :bugeye: