How we can all make the Celestial Forum a better place

[_Dr. Shades]

I think we've finally boiled this issue down to its bare bones. Observe:

dartagnan wrote:

I'm going to do what I can, with what limited time I'll have, to make sure others hear the counter argument to his claims.

Then marg replied:

In other words what you intend to do is use fallacious argumentation, poison the well tactics in order to discredit JAK because you fear he is a threat and influencing others against your goals.

Now, observe just what it is that marg considers to be ad hominems:

1)First of all, I see marg's eternal need to bicker is still obvious.

2) This back and forth has been boring, but it amazes me how much time and effort marg spends trying to squabble with anyone who will listen, usually in the cause of defending her internet man, JAK.

3)JAK has done enough to make sure he'll never ever speak with credibility on this forum.

4)I can't think of anyone aside from marg, who thinks he is what he says he is.

5)Pointing out a poster's lack of credibility and history as a derailer is not ad hominem. It is an effort to keep order when ranting goobers try to pollute every thread with previously refuted cut and paste jobs.

6) Marg still doesn't know what ad hominem term means. She interprets any criticism as ad hominem.

7) The simple fact is, JAK gets what he asks for because he insists on jumping into threads and derailing with his standard sermon about how religion is dangerous, the Bible is untrustworthy, etc.

8) JAK rarely knows what he is talking about, he relies on google as his authority, he uses any website that suits his purposes (even Muslim ones!), he ignores detailed refutations while offering subterfuge and filibustering by pumping out long-winded "responses" to any observer who makes a single comment. And when he has been shown to know nothing of what he speaks, he disappears for a week, only to return with the same nonsense as if it was never refuted to begin with. It is a never ending cycle with people like these.

10) I will point all of these out as long as JAK continues to spread ignorance and as long as it interests me.

The only one of the above that I would consider ad hominem was the "ranting goobers" comment. The rest were merely observations from Kevin's point of view. As such, the Celestial Forum can accommodate them.

So yes, marg, we're interested in curtailing ad hominem remarks in the Celestial Forum, just like you say we should be. You and the rest of us merely differ in our opinions of just what, exactly, qualifies as ad homimen, as I've tried to explain before.

[_marg]

Nice try Shades, but no cigar. What is obvious to me is your penchant bias in favor of Kevin.

Did you notice I didn't write fallacious ad hom?

Before I continue to respond to your post, I'd like you to explain to me the difference between fallacious ad hom and ad hom in discussion/argumentation. And in my previous post in this thread I pointed out ad homs in a thread about Logic in Theology and Science. In that post I listed comments from C.C. to JAK and from Gad to JAK, could you kindly explain to me whether you think those ad homs were fallacious or not. Thanks

[_Trevor]

Source: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

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."

[_Trevor]

The only one of the above that I would consider ad hominem was the "ranting goobers" comment.

That, Shades, is a juvenile insult, not an ad hominem argument.

[_harmony]

I obviously missed out on a really good knock down drag out fight... in Celestial, of all places.

Good grief.

Shades, I just want you to know I continue to be totally devoted to you and your concept of this board.

Amen, and amen.

[_dartagnan]

I notice marg is back to the same ole bait and switch. She claims I make an assertion that X is true, but when pressed to produce, she provides irrelevant citations that say nothing even close, attached to a bunch of rhetoric to make you think that was the "implication."

Again, where did I admit I was "intentionally harassing"? Marg cannot produce. What she alludes to doesn't even come close to establishing her case, so again, she is lying and is unrepentant about it.

As far as ad hominem is concerned, I follow David Zarefsky's take, professor of argumentation and debate at Northwestern University:

"it is not even the case that ad hominem arguments are always fallacious. Ad hominem arguments may sometimes provide valid reasons for questioning the arguments put forward by others. One such instance would be if the person putting forward an argument had a bias or vested interest that prevented them from being impartial about the claim they were putting forth."

So it is not going to do to simply cry foul every time "ad hominem" is presented unless one can show that it isn't valid. I present valid criticisms of JAK based on his own presentations. I deal with what he says, I never ignore it. JAK has no credibility because he ignores refutations and remains fixated in his utter refusal to let anything pro-religion sink in. He is the forum's broken record, that keeps playing the same tune ad nauseum, no matter what anyone else says.

Now marg is doing the same thing he does. When refuted, she has to rely on this silly nonsense that Shades is just favoring me over her. Yes, of course that is how it has to be, right? I mean it can't simply be that marg is wrong. No way.

[_richardMdBorn]

I notice marg is back to the same ole bait and switch. She claims I make an assertion that X is true, but when pressed to produce, she provides irrelevant citations that say nothing even close, attached to a bunch of rhetoric to make you think that was the "implication."

Again, where did I admit I was "intentionally harassing"? Marg cannot produce. What she alludes to doesn't even come close to establishing her case, so again, she is lying and is unrepentant about it.

As far as ad hominem is concerned, I follow David Zarefsky's take, professor of argumentation and debate at Northwestern University:

"it is not even the case that ad hominem arguments are always fallacious. Ad hominem arguments may sometimes provide valid reasons for questioning the arguments put forward by others. One such instance would be if the person putting forward an argument had a bias or vested interest that prevented them from being impartial about the claim they were putting forth."

So it is not going to do to simply cry foul every time "ad hominem" is presented unless one can show that it isn't valid. I present valid criticisms of JAK based on his own presentations. I deal with what he says, I never ignore it. JAK has no credibility because he ignores refutations and remains fixated in his utter refusal to let anything pro-religion sink in. He is the forum's broken record, that keeps playing the same tune ad nauseum, no matter what anyone else says.

Now marg is doing the same thing he does. When refuted, she has to rely on this silly nonsense that Shades is just favoring me over her. Yes, of course that is how it has to be, right? I mean it can't simply be that marg is wrong. No way.

I agree with Kevin. Here's a typical post by JAK which is completely wrong.

Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:33 pm
According to the doctrine of “Immaculate Conception” (Christianity), Joseph was not the father of the claimed “Messiah” in Jesus.

Here is one doctrinal statement of Immaculate Conception

The doctrine is that neither Mary nor Joseph were biologically connected to Jesus. Mary was a “virgin.” The doctrinal claim is that the whole of Jesus was immaculate Conception and birth. Mary was merely the carrier of God’s creation.

[_Trevor]

As far as ad hominem is concerned, I follow David Zarefsky's take, professor of argumentation and debate at Northwestern University:

"it is not even the case that ad hominem arguments are always fallacious. Ad hominem arguments may sometimes provide valid reasons for questioning the arguments put forward by others. One such instance would be if the person putting forward an argument had a bias or vested interest that prevented them from being impartial about the claim they were putting forth."

I'm no expert in logic, but this sounds like a "circumstantial ad hominem" argument, which goes something like this:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.

or

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false.

This comes from my favorite list of logical fallacies at the Nizkor Project. See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

The site does say:

"There are times when it is prudent to [be] suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false. For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false."

I am increasingly suspicious of anyone who resorts to insults in an attempt to discredit others instead of addressing the argument. I think I should watch myself on this too. Really, if you want to defeat an argument, go after the argument, not the person making it. This particular thread seems hopeless in this regard, because it is all about the personalities involved and subjective measures of the acceptability of their respective behaviors.

[_Jersey Girl]

I notice marg is back to the same ole bait and switch. She claims I make an assertion that X is true, but when pressed to produce, she provides irrelevant citations that say nothing even close, attached to a bunch of rhetoric to make you think that was the "implication."

Again, where did I admit I was "intentionally harassing"? Marg cannot produce. What she alludes to doesn't even come close to establishing her case, so again, she is lying and is unrepentant about it.

As far as ad hominem is concerned, I follow David Zarefsky's take, professor of argumentation and debate at Northwestern University:

"it is not even the case that ad hominem arguments are always fallacious. Ad hominem arguments may sometimes provide valid reasons for questioning the arguments put forward by others. One such instance would be if the person putting forward an argument had a bias or vested interest that prevented them from being impartial about the claim they were putting forth."

So it is not going to do to simply cry foul every time "ad hominem" is presented unless one can show that it isn't valid. I present valid criticisms of JAK based on his own presentations. I deal with what he says, I never ignore it. JAK has no credibility because he ignores refutations and remains fixated in his utter refusal to let anything pro-religion sink in. He is the forum's broken record, that keeps playing the same tune ad nauseum, no matter what anyone else says.

Now marg is doing the same thing he does. When refuted, she has to rely on this silly nonsense that Shades is just favoring me over her. Yes, of course that is how it has to be, right? I mean it can't simply be that marg is wrong. No way.

I agree with Kevin. Here's a typical post by JAK which is completely wrong.

Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:33 pm
According to the doctrine of “Immaculate Conception” (Christianity), Joseph was not the father of the claimed “Messiah” in Jesus.

Here is one doctrinal statement of Immaculate Conception

The doctrine is that neither Mary nor Joseph were biologically connected to Jesus. Mary was a “virgin.” The doctrinal claim is that the whole of Jesus was immaculate Conception and birth. Mary was merely the carrier of God’s creation.

That's why I chose to withdraw from the thread, richard.

[_Jersey Girl]

This particular thread seems hopeless in this regard, because it is all about the personalities involved and subjective measures of the acceptability of their respective behaviors.

You summed it up in one sentence, Trevor. Why this thread continues or is of interest to anyone is beyond me. I see no conclusion or consensus that can be reached but if that's how people wish to invest their time, that's their choice.