Science vs Religion

[Stella_Omega]

Our moral structure is pretty fundamental to human tribes no matter what their religion. "Do unto others" was formulated by a Greek philosopher who lived long before Christianity. Turning the other cheek and forgiving your neighbor's trespasses are better exemplified in Buddhism than in christian sect except maybe the Quakers. Ghandhi was Hindu, not Christian.

And then there's the "eye for an Eye" stuff, not to mention letting the kids be eaten by bears. JudeoChristian ethics would dictate that women are chattel.

You heard the words in your Sunday school, spoken in Biblic inflections. But these basics have been formulated over millennia of human time Your two-thousand-year-old book is a newbie to the field, and kids of other religions hear the same things.

 

[teknight]

Our moral structure is pretty fundamental to human tribes no matter what their religion. "Do unto others" was formulated by a Greek philosopher who lived long before Christianity. Turning the other cheek and forgiving your neighbor's trespasses are better exemplified in Buddhism than in christian sect except maybe the Quakers. Ghandhi was Hindu, not Christian.

And then there's the "eye for an Eye" stuff, not to mention letting the kids be eaten by bears. JudeoChristian ethics would dictate that women are chattel.

You heard the words in your Sunday school, spoken in Biblic inflections. But these basics have been formulated over millennia of human time Your two-thousand-year-old book is a newbie to the field, and kids of other religions hear the same things.

It's not even a wholly cultural thing, I don't think. Under regular circumstances, most won't kill, and, really, it's only theft if you don't share property. You can't steal that which you don't own. Even if property is assigned, I'd say kids learn fairly early on, and fairly easily that theft is bad... unless their circumstances are so dire that they can't feed themselves, for instance, in which case, theft, though still a violation of someone else's property, is an understandable necessity.

To reiterate: human beings aren't evil and lacking in morals without religion. As social animals, some things are more ingrained in us than fairy tales...such as the sharing of stories.

 

[Chiara_searches]

So, you're harping on my personal attack, because you have nothing to say to anything else?
And, it's not closed minded to state that JC thought forms the basis of morals in the west? Why is that a fact, and a well thought out argument?

He's a nice guy, and therefore he can spread untruths?

Alright, J, maybe you are not a creep, but, then, come out and explain why that is "truth" and what you were tying to say by emphatically stating that morals in the west are judeo christian.


P.S. There's no evidence of thought if you don't support your claims. Stating something and calling it a "fact" serves as proof of nothing.

ETA: Oh, the virtue of speaking from IGNORANCE (since you might know him, but don't know me ): You don't think it's an attack to say that morals have a religious fundament. Well, then, what about all those non christian judgmental creeps? What? Do they have no morals? Or are they benefiting from the munificence of the church's benighted moral position?

Tek: It is not my intent to harp on you. It is my intent to ask you to consider his words in their totality.

Objectively, I will also say from my years of making arguments, that when you stick to factual debate and avoid personal attacks, your position is more credible. Please don't call out someone for not citing chapter and verse on things when you have failed to do so yourself.

I think it's pretty easy: "thou shall not kill" is a law. Does he or I need to cite you various statutes in the U.S. that say "don't kill someone"? Or can we accept a generalized understanding that laws such as this, and others that correlate to the ten commandments, actually exist? We ("the generalized we") also know the U.S., for example, benefited greatly from thinkers who also rejected religious beliefs. I believe other countries have as well. I did not interpret his words as saying JC was the sole foundation; your argument implies that he used the word "sole."

As I said, I'll leave it to him to decide if he wants to expound on his belief system. I interpreted his words in the post as indicating how there are truths in JC that have become laws in this and other westernized countries, just as there are truths in other religions that have become laws. I did not interpret his words as meaning JC is the only thing out there. In fact, his last paragraph is contra such an interpretation.

I don't find anything in his statement that indicates non-religious people are without morals. On the totality, I believe he is simply advocating tolerance and acceptance of those different from ourselves. Isn't that a common ground we can all agree upon? If his point of view is founded on residual beliefs from JC, and yours on scientific analysis that being tolerant is beneficial, then you've both gotten to a point where supporting tolerance is appropriate in your belief system. Why is that bad?

Finally, in case others have not figured it out, I care for him a great deal and it offended me that you called him a judgmental creep without reading the totality or knowing him in the least. If I came across as harping it was because I was feeling protective even though he is intelligent enough to defend his position. Name calling has been consistently something I don't like happening to people in general on Lit, which is why, as you know Tek, I now avoid the GB. I like it substantially less when it is directed at someone I care about.

 

[welkin]

Teknight, I think you are digging yourself a hole here if you were to deny JC's influence on western system of justice and ethics.

Yes without JC we would have come to similar conclusions about what is right and what is wrong; it didn't have to be JC. But just because it didn't have to be doesn't mean it isn't. Read John Locke or Descartes or any historical philosophy text and chances are you'll find plenty of references to the JC God.

 

[Felix_Jones]

Dinner Parties

Because of their religious beliefs, some guests may not eat certain foods; be sure to call them beforehand and remind them God does not exist.

 

[Felix_Jones]

Laws

Oh and hey, Christians, our legal system is not based what you call Christian values. It's based on the rule of precedent, stare decisis, all the way back to the year of legal memory. In the west it has more to do with the Magna Carta than the jumbled filler you find in the bible. If we looked to your bible for morality we'd be coming up pretty short.

 

[Chiara_searches]

Our moral structure is pretty fundamental to human tribes no matter what their religion. "Do unto others" was formulated by a Greek philosopher who lived long before Christianity. Turning the other cheek and forgiving your neighbor's trespasses are better exemplified in Buddhism than in christian sect except maybe the Quakers. Ghandhi was Hindu, not Christian.

And then there's the "eye for an Eye" stuff, not to mention letting the kids be eaten by bears. JudeoChristian ethics would dictate that women are chattel.

You heard the words in your Sunday school, spoken in Biblic inflections. But these basics have been formulated over millennia of human time Your two-thousand-year-old book is a newbie to the field, and kids of other religions hear the same things.

And this is an example of when I go "hmmm, I thought something similar years ago, but forget to articulate it now." For me, since I was a teenager, I viewed the Bible as a compilation of oral traditions and moral foundations handed down for generations before the 2,000 year old newbie book was ever put together. I also know that editors have great power over the words that make it into any book and those who compiled the Bible chose what they wanted, rejecting other transcribed tribal belief systems. Unfortunately, in the intervening 2,000 years, people have forgotten the Bible is a selective history book and have used the power of words to abuse others.

 

[teknight]

Tek: It is not my intent to harp on you. It is my intent to ask you to consider his words in their totality.

And, that means I can't point out the flaws in his statements?
Should I have commended him on his nice sentiments first, before pointing out the glaring flaws? Would that make my posts more palatable? Ass kissing?

Objectively, I will also say from my years of making arguments, that when you stick to factual debate and avoid personal attacks, your position is more credible. Please don't call out someone for not citing chapter and verse on things when you have failed to do so yourself.

I was asking, crudely, and horribly, obviously, why what he said was fact. What's more I followed up with the potential implications (one very skewed set thereof).
OK. What do I need to cite?

I think it's pretty easy: "thou shall not kill" is a law. Does he or I need to cite you various statutes in the U.S. that say "don't kill someone"? Or can we accept a generalized understanding that laws such as this, and others that correlate to the ten commandments, actually exist? We ("the generalized we") also know the U.S., for example, benefited greatly from thinkers who also rejected religious beliefs. I believe other countries have as well. I did not interpret his words as saying JC was the sole foundation; your argument implies that he used the word "sole."

Oh, my argument implies, but his doesn't imply anything? Interesting, that. Funny, he called it a "fact." That's supposed to bear weight.
And let me get this straight: the commandments say "don't kill" and the rule books say "don't kill," so, obviously, the source is the commandments?
How about what I've said above about human beings not being killers by default? How about: murder is bad regardless of whether the rules say so or not?

As I said, I'll leave it to him to decide if he wants to expound on his belief system. I interpreted his words in the post as indicating how there are truths in JC that have become laws in this and other westernized countries, just as there are truths in other religions that have become laws. I did not interpret his words as meaning JC is the only thing out there. In fact, his last paragraph is contra such an interpretation.

And, your interpretation, by virtue of being yours, is more correct than mine? What's more, I can't question him on what has gone unsaid?

I don't find anything in his statement that indicates non-religious people are without morals. On the totality, I believe he is simply advocating tolerance and acceptance of those different from ourselves. Isn't that a common ground we can all agree upon? If his point of view is founded on residual beliefs from JC, and yours on scientific analysis that being tolerant is beneficial, then you've both gotten to a point where supporting tolerance is appropriate in your belief system. Why is that bad?

I don't like untruths. My interpretation of what he said (since we're making personal arguments now) was that his fact was the only fact at least for the Western world. Everybody else came up with their own fairy stories, and they're good too, but western morals are steeped in nothing but Christianity, (and here's my addition) 'cause human beings are obviously so wrong, that we need the ten commandments to quell the beasts within. A forceful point? Perhaps.

And, no, I don' analyze murder and find it to be bad- it's innate to most, or else, there'd be a lot more murdering (or crime in general) going on. What I'm saying is that you don't need the commandments for morality, and to state that laws and morals flow from that particular set of rules is a rather obtuse point of view. I'd say that those commandments that deal with other people (and not sculpted faces and Sundays) were codified as "commandments" because they embodied a preexisting moral system, which wasn't steeped in religion.

Finally, in case others have not figured it out, I care for him a great deal and it offended me that you called him a judgmental creep without reading the totality or knowing him in the least. If I came across as harping it was because I was feeling protective even though he is intelligent enough to defend his position. Name calling has been consistently something I don't like happening to people in general on Lit, which is why, as you know Tek, I now avoid the GB. I like it substantially less when it is directed at someone I care about.

I didn't know you avoid the GB. I don't post stalk you. I did see you reacting out of hurt emotions, and I honestly have come to expect that.
OK, fine. Let me soothe your emotions: I don't know him, and therefore I can't say that he is a creep. However, the implications I read into his words were creepy. Is that an OK statement to make, since it's my OPINION?

Teknight, I think you are digging yourself a hole here if you were to deny JC's influence on western system of justice and ethics.

Yes without JC we would have come to similar conclusions about what is right and what is wrong; it didn't have to be JC. But just because it didn't have to be doesn't mean it isn't. Read John Locke or Descartes or any historical philosophy text and chances are you'll find plenty of references to the JC God.

If we'd have come to the same conclusion with JC, then JC's effect is in merely claiming the credits for something not its own doing. Don't sap your own argument before it's over.

And, these great thinkers you present...did they grow up in a vacuum, where they were presented with all modes of thought equally, and they chose JC as the best and only true mode of being/thought? Or, did they grow up under the influence of the Church?

 

[welkin]

If we'd have come to the same conclusion with JC, then JC's effect is in merely claiming the credits for something not its own doing. Don't sap your own argument before it's over.

No... If I did some work that anyone else could have also done, surely I cannot say "the work would not be done if it were not for me", but I think I still get to take some credit for it

If nothing else, religion for its persuasive power did provide an effective vehicle for the teaching of many moral principles.

 

[Chiara_searches]

And, that means I can't point out the flaws in his statements?
Should I have commended him on his nice sentiments first, before pointing out the glaring flaws? Would that make my posts more palatable? Ass kissing?


I was asking, crudely, and horribly, obviously, why what he said was fact. What's more I followed up with the potential implications (one very skewed set thereof).
OK. What do I need to cite?


Oh, my argument implies, but his doesn't imply anything? Interesting, that. Funny, he called it a "fact." That's supposed to bear weight.
And let me get this straight: the commandments say "don't kill" and the rule books say "don't kill," so, obviously, the source is the commandments?
How about what I've said above about human beings not being killers by default? How about: murder is bad regardless of whether the rules say so or not?


And, your interpretation, by virtue of being yours, is more correct than mine? What's more, I can't question him on what has gone unsaid?


I don't like untruths. My interpretation of what he said (since we're making personal arguments now) was that his fact was the only fact at least for the Western world. Everybody else came up with their own fairy stories, and they're good too, but western morals are steeped in nothing but Christianity, (and here's my addition) 'cause human beings are obviously so wrong, that we need the ten commandments to quell the beasts within. A forceful point? Perhaps.

And, no, I don' analyze murder and find it to be bad- it's innate to most, or else, there'd be a lot more murdering (or crime in general) going on. What I'm saying is that you don't need the commandments for morality, and to state that laws and morals flow from that particular set of rules is a rather obtuse point of view. I'd say that those commandments that deal with other people (and not sculpted faces and Sundays) were codified as "commandments" because they embodied a preexisting moral system, which wasn't steeped in religion.


I didn't know you avoid the GB. I don't post stalk you. I did see you reacting out of hurt emotions, and I honestly have come to expect that.
OK, fine. Let me soothe your emotions: I don't know him, and therefore I can't say that he is a creep. However, the implications I read into his words were creepy. Is that an OK statement to make, since it's my OPINION?


If we'd have come to the same conclusion with JC, then JC's effect is in merely claiming the credits for something not its own doing. Don't sap your own argument before it's over.

And, these great thinkers you present...did they grow up in a vacuum, where they were presented with all modes of thought equally, and they chose JC as the best and only true mode of being/thought? Or, did they grow up under the influence of the Church?

I feel like we will argue in circles all day long and I have a conference call in two minutes. But I will just point out something. Please stop assuming things about other people. A concrete example: I did not assume you post stalk me. I made my comment based upon this post of yours. As you said there:

The GB's just made up of ids, with no control whatsoever.
What you've seen in the PG might have been the blurt thread- that's the PG's GB.
The reason is that it's easy to hide behind a computer screen.

Do you see my point about jumping to conclusions? Jumping sometimes leads you far astray of the real point.

 

[JamieJ424]

Reread the post. I never said anything about my feelings about the JC ethic. I said...or implied rather...that most laws were written by people with a Judeo-Christian mindset. Never said anyone not of the same mindest was a creep. Never said we were savages before. Never made a judgment about the laws good or bad.

What you've done here is demonstrate one of my points exactly. This kind of irrational, close-minded emotion-based reaction masquerading as free thinking is the actual cause of many problems that have been blamed on religion.

The moral structure is JC? What the FUCK? What, do you believe that before Christianity spread all over, people were killing each other indiscriminately, stealing and fucking whoever they wanted?! WE ARE NOT SAVAGES WITHOUT YOUR PRECIOUS WORD OF "GOD." You don't need to hear the specific JC lullabies to act like a good person, or at the very least, not to commit evil deeds. Do you really, honestly think we were savages before Christianity spread its balm over us? That just makes you a judgmental, horrible creep.
Because, you know, NO ONE breaks the 10 commandments now that we have them, and all of you turn the other cheek and forgive those who trespass.
The moral structure of laws?!?! YES, the people who made the rules clearly and objectively evaluated all the options, or, YOU KNOW, they'd been spoon fed your stories from the get go, by one of the MOST POWERFUL organizations in history, and weren't at all free to choose. Not to mention that JC is original with its ideas: don't kill, forgive, help. What a crock.

Like it or not, you can't think. Turn the other cheek now, since it's Jesus' word.

 

[JamieJ424]

Cool your jets.

Like it or not, it's a fact. The laws on most western countries were written by followers of Christianity. Their values and beliefs shaped the laws they wrote. Or maybe you have a different theory.

Alright, J, maybe you are not a creep, but, then, come out and explain why that is "truth" and what you were tying to say by emphatically stating that morals in the west are judeo christian.

Well, then, what about all those non christian judgmental creeps? What? Do they have no morals? Or are they benefiting from the munificence of the church's benighted moral position?

 

[Felix_Jones]

Cool your jets.

Like it or not, it's a fact. The laws on most western countries were written by followers of Christianity. Their values and beliefs shaped the laws they wrote. Or maybe you have a different theory.

Have you read any actual legislation? Maybe a few supreme court opinions? Legal decisions? There's never a mention of the bible or god or jesus or anything like that. In fact, our western legal system is constantly being protected by its practitioners from the undue influeance of religion and its ideologues.

Besides, you're playing a little fast and loose with the word 'fact'. Do you know who wrote the laws of most western countries? How can you assume that they were all Christians? In our world, in every part at this time, there are secularists, people who have no inclination towards religion. These are people who write laws as well. I don't think that we can assume that every key decision in the writing and application of laws were done by people who would consider themselves Christians.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Reread the post. I never said anything about my feelings about the JC ethic. I said...or implied rather...that most laws were written by people with a Judeo-Christian mindset. Never said anyone not of the same mindest was a creep. Never said we were savages before. Never made a judgment about the laws good or bad.

What you've done here is demonstrate one of my points exactly. This kind of irrational, close-minded emotion-based reaction masquerading as free thinking is the actual cause of many problems that have been blamed on religion.

A reaction you could have avoided causing if you had worded your post differently.

"Like it or not" for instance, is a flame-worthy phrase, especially when it prefaces something that's debatable. I'm debating it. Not "because I don't like it" but because they way you've phrased it implies some very common and yes, creepy misconceptions. The basics of human interaction are not a JC invention.

The worst laws that face us,however-- Oddly enough, I can lay those at the door of the Christian ethic. Laws that enable people with money being able to buy their way out of trouble? The Protestants brought those notions to these shores.

 

[teknight]

Cool your jets.

Like it or not, it's a fact. The laws on most western countries were written by followers of Christianity. Their values and beliefs shaped the laws they wrote. Or maybe you have a different theory.

My hypothesis is stated above.
OK, so as not to turn this into another ad hominem bout:
Are you saying that followers of another religion would have come up with another set of rules? Christianity is the only one that's figured out that antisocial behavior is bad?
Their values and beliefs shaped the laws. OK. Does that mean that they only wrote those laws because they were aping the decalogue? I've said it before but let me rephrase it: murder, theft, coveting, telling lies are not condoned in human society in and of themselves, without the need for "supernatural" intervention. The decalogue is based on human morals, and not the other way around.

So, your "fact" doesn't follow and isn't a fact. If it were a fact I wouldn't be questioning it and prodding it and pointing out the truck sized flaws in it.
Let me get petty: Do you know that those people who wrote the rules were, in fact, Christians? No. You assume, because allegedly Christianity represents the majority of the population in the west (I say allegedly, 'cause polls show that a bunch of people that identify as Christians don't know their Christian facts, which is akin to me calling myself a Christian, not factual) that those people were Christians. You assume they read the decalogue, and you assume that was the sole basis for their decision making. (Am I pushing the argument too far with "sole"?)

Now if I wanted to get malicious, I could point out that the 10 commandments really don't have to be codified into laws: How's life in prison, or losing a limb, or being executed for a crime on Earth supposed to compare to ETERNAL DAMNATION? Were the Christians taking out an insurance policy? How about the whole forgiveness thing? Wouldn't Christians not want to punish those that have sinned, instead turning the other cheek? If I'm not mistaken, Christ said that and his words trump everything else in the Bible, especially the old testament's 10 commandments.

 

[JamieJ424]

I agree with most of this.

The basic point I was trying to make by saying our laws have a JC slant is to draw a contrast between them and laws in parts of the world where they cut the hands off of thieves and cane people for drug offenses. The JC influence is clearly at play there in the "forgive those who trespass" sense as opposed to the eye-for-an-eye punishment plan. And while I agree murder being bad is a no-brainer, "thou shalt not kill" is also a JC punishment limiter...most western countries have banned capital punishment, and those that haven't rarely employ it. Most executions take place in places like China, Africa, and the Middle East. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

There's no question that the JC ethic is an imperfect model. I never said anything in support of it, merely stated what I perceive to be a fact, that it is the basis for the legal framework in most western countries. I invite vitriol-free debate.

Certainly there are views and laws based on pointless morality that need to be changed, like those that limit marriage to breeders, but I definitely see us moving in the right direction here...consider where we were 20 years ago. At least we're talking about gay marriage now.

Our moral structure is pretty fundamental to human tribes no matter what their religion. "Do unto others" was formulated by a Greek philosopher who lived long before Christianity. Turning the other cheek and forgiving your neighbor's trespasses are better exemplified in Buddhism than in christian sect except maybe the Quakers. Ghandhi was Hindu, not Christian.

And then there's the "eye for an Eye" stuff, not to mention letting the kids be eaten by bears. JudeoChristian ethics would dictate that women are chattel.

You heard the words in your Sunday school, spoken in Biblic inflections. But these basics have been formulated over millennia of human time Your two-thousand-year-old book is a newbie to the field, and kids of other religions hear the same things.

 

[teknight]

I feel like we will argue in circles all day long and I have a conference call in two minutes. But I will just point out something. Please stop assuming things about other people. A concrete example: I did not assume you post stalk me. I made my comment based upon this post of yours. As you said there:



Do you see my point about jumping to conclusions? Jumping sometimes leads you far astray of the real point.

OK. You didn't have time to reply...so you went with another ad hominem. I hope you can get back to the rest of what I said, 'cause you do make valid points.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Actually, we used to cut hands off people, brand them, dunk them in the village pond, brand them, tar-and-feather them, put them in stocks and cane them-- all good approved Christian practices, but also fairly common in many other religions as well.

Brutality is just as Christian as it is Swahili.

 

[JamieJ424]

Brutality is a sad part of human nature, regardless of religion.

Actually, we used to cut hands off people, brand them, dunk them in the village pond, brand them, tar-and-feather them, put them in stocks and cane them-- all good approved Christian practices, but also fairly common in many other religions as well.

Brutality is just as Christian as it is Swahili.

 

[Felix_Jones]

I agree with most of this.

The basic point I was trying to make by saying our laws have a JC slant is to draw a contrast between them and laws in parts of the world where they cut the hands off of thieves and cane people for drug offenses. The JC influence is clearly at play there in the "forgive those who trespass" sense as opposed to the eye-for-an-eye punishment plan. And while I agree murder being bad is a no-brainer, "thou shalt not kill" is also a JC punishment limiter...most western countries have banned capital punishment, and those that haven't rarely employ it. Most executions take place in places like China, Africa, and the Middle East. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

There's no question that the JC ethic is an imperfect model. I never said anything in support of it, merely stated what I perceive to be a fact, that it is the basis for the legal framework in most western countries. I invite vitriol-free debate.

Certainly there are views and laws based on pointless morality that need to be changed, like those that limit marriage to breeders, but I definitely see us moving in the right direction here...consider where we were 20 years ago. At least we're talking about gay marriage now.

I think you might be confusing Christian values with those of the Enlightenment.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Brutality is a sad part of human nature, regardless of religion.

yes. And trust, compassion, and connectedness also.

 

[Chiara_searches]

OK. You didn't have time to reply...so you went with another ad hominem. I hope you can get back to the rest of what I said, 'cause you do make valid points.

As I understand "ad hominem" it means "a fallacy." When you tell someone they have made a fallacious statement, you are telling them they have made a false or deceptive statement. I joined Lit with the intent to post honestly and openly as I possibly can. I don't believe in the "hiding behind the computer" excuse. Everything I have said on the boards is as truthful as I can make it within the bounds of common safety.

It's a truth that your post said: "I didn't know you avoid the GB. I don't post stalk you." It's a truth that you previously responded to me stating I was going to stay off GB and stick to the BDSM forum. It appears to me, therefore, that you assumed I thought you post stalked me and that you forgot your prior comment. Saying you made that assumption is not an "ad hominem," not a "fallacy," not a "false statement," and not a "deceptive statement." It is a truth because if you had remembered your prior comment you would have realized you had that knowledge without having to post stalk, making the post stalk comment nothing more than an attempt to say I would flatter myself into thinking anyone post stalks me. (I assume no one actually notices me here, except for Jamie.)

And why my great debate about an inconsequential comment: if you need to call a simple point in fact a fallacy, it makes me wonder about the validity to your objections to greater points in fact. If you must sling mud by calling my statement "ad hominem" without even admitting I had a valid point, I think it prudent to not invite further unwarranted mud slinging. It smacks of irrationality when you can't say "I might have been wrong." It's not an intellectual debate if you aren't even open to considering someone else can make valid points. If you want to boil it down, it appears you are standing there, stomping, saying "liar, liar, liar" instead of saying, "yes, you're right about my making an assumption." Thus, I'm not sure there is value in debating with you.

I believe in tolerance. I'm ecstatic that we have the right to say what we think here on Lit. I'm sadden that name slinging, or throwing around big words to try to stifle discussion, is going on. When you are ready to evaluate your own behavior, accept and think about what others might be saying, I'll be open to discussion. Until then, I'm not going to be fodder for you to try to slap around just because I have a different perspective. But, of course, I will still read what you and others have to post because they do still cause pause for thought, as have a couple of Stella's comments this morning.

 

[Stella_Omega]

"Ad Hominem" is a digression in which you attack or discuss the person instead of the argument they are making.

I use it a lot, I admit-- because the people who make arguments usually interest me far more than the arguments they make. Sometimes the arguments are so boring and trite that I just want them to shut the fuck up.

(I'm glad that some of my comments have been interesting to you, Chiara. And I am NOT ad-homming you-- I was thinking of the newest batch of partisian politics posts on the Author's hangout! )

 

[Chiara_searches]

"Ad Hominem" is a digression in which you attack or discuss the person instead of the argument they are making.

I use it a lot, I admit-- because the people who make arguments usually interest me far more than the arguments they make. Sometimes the arguments are so boring and trite that I just want them ti shut the fuck up.

Pointing out the very words someone has used before to show why their current words were an assumption is, in some regards, a personal attack. It is a flinging of their words back in their face. I'll agree with that. But it was also meant to be a concrete example of assumptions it appears Tek was making because I did not have then the time, and do not have the desire now, to respond to each and every other assumption he was also making. But time and time again I will say his responses read as if he were adding words into the original statements. I simply hoped he would evaluate if he was applying too many assumptions in how he was reacting. He assumed I thought he post stalked. I did not make that assumption. If I had been writing the same thing to you, I would not have assumed you saw my prior comment about avoiding the GB.

But I'd like to know why it was an appropriate "ad hominem" method when statements were taken out of context and someone was called a "a judgmental, horrible creep," yet the implication is that I should not digress to "ad hominem" by pointing out someone's specific words. I find it problematic that it's suggested by Tek that it's inappropriate for me to engage in "ad hominem" when he himself has done so this morning, and other times.

I'm am not, as I've been accused of, saying "let's all be nice and hold hands and sing songs." I am saying a little more respect, going both directions, may allow your (generalized your) opinions to be heard. I know for a fact I am extremely intolerant in one aspect of my life: when people try to force double standards upon me. Calling someone a creep and then being apparently offended when I point out a prior post is a double standard: you can call names because you think someone is wrong but I can't quote you because I think you are wrong? I have no patience for that kind of play and I simply can't get the image of a school yard bully kicking sand out of my head. I much preferred the debate team when given a choice.

 

[Stella_Omega]

ah well. I can't answer for tek. But phrases like "Like it or not" and "cool your jets" have a deleterious effect on my temper, I can tell you that-- especialy when I don't agree and certainly would not like it if I thought it were true. It implies "Oh, you just wish it weren't so," and I am far more educated than that. And when I am passionate about something, when it affects my life day after day, I will not cool my fucking jets.

So when you jump to Jamie's defense on the grounds that hes a nice guy whom you know-- no, you need to let his arguments stand on their own. otherwise, my ire attaches to you too.

For example, I mean.