Moderating The Forums: a suggestion

[John Feeney]

John -- By a strict definition I think ShakeZula06 is right that Dynasty's comments were not an ad hominem attack. Shaka's comment is, however, the kind of smart-aleck BS these forums could do without.

More importantly, I am as baffled as Andy as to where Cyrus has made anti-semitic comments. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....you know, Dynasty,

It is exactly this kind of post that encourages the further polarization surrounding this issue.

Is it too much to ask you to be constructively pro-active without resorting to ad hominem attacks?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think [censored] needs to start banning people for calling things ad hominem when they're not. It's getting incredibly annoying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh gee.....

Calling for a ban, are we?

Appeal to authority when one cannot bring forward any kind of logical counterpoint?


Pray tell me, where did I err in calling Dynasty's personal attack 'ad hominem'.

Go home, sonny boy. In a battle of wits, you are unarmed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ad Hominem is the most misused "logical fallacy" on these boards. It is quite clear that most of you either never took a logic course, or failed to understand it.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....you know, Dynasty,

It is exactly this kind of post that encourages the further polarization surrounding this issue.

Is it too much to ask you to be constructively pro-active without resorting to ad hominem attacks?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think [censored] needs to start banning people for calling things ad hominem when they're not. It's getting incredibly annoying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh gee.....

Calling for a ban, are we?

Appeal to authority when one cannot bring forward any kind of logical counterpoint?


Pray tell me, where did I err in calling Dynasty's personal attack 'ad hominem'.

Go home, sonny boy. In a battle of wits, you are unarmed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha you got that one wrong too, what I said was not an appeal to authority. Cunsult wilkipedia-

for ad hominem-An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Dynasty was not claiming Cyrus was wrong because of his character. he pretty much told him to quit lying, which he may or may not be doing, either way it is not an ad hominem attack.

For appeal to authority-
The first form of the appeal to authority is when a person presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who also holds that position, but who is not actually an authority in that area. For instance, the statement "Arthur C. Clarke recently released a report showing it is necessary to floss three times daily" should not convince many people of anything about flossing, as Arthur C. Clarke is not a known expert on dental hygiene. Much advertising relies on this logical fallacy in the form of endorsements and sponsorships.

The second form, citing a person who actually is an authority in the relevant field, carries more weight in that the authority is more likely to be correct. However the possibility of a mistake remains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

I have said nothing similar to either of the two forms. This is why I volunteered to write up a logic faq, so I didn't have to explain why you were wrong every time.

As for calling for a ban, it's called a joke. Try turning on your sarcasm detector.

[ QUOTE ]
Go home, sonny boy. In a battle of wits, you are unarmed.


[/ QUOTE ]

How's your foot taste? Come back when you know the terms you're using, or can out-debate an 18 year old.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Ad Hominem is the most misused "logical fallacy" on these boards. It is quite clear that most of you either never took a logic course, or failed to understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I have found something both me and Jman agree on [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
John -- By a strict definition I think ShakeZula06 is right that Dynasty's comments were not an ad hominem attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

correct

[ QUOTE ]
Shaka's comment is, however, the kind of smart-aleck BS these forums could do without.


[/ QUOTE ]

BS is distoring facts or lying none of which I have done. As for smart-aleck, maybe if people stop taking a serious as a heart attack attitude and lighten up it would be better. This is an OT sub forum for a poker message board, not a philibuster in the senate.

If someone honestly thinks I'm serious that Cyrus should be banned for his very [oor knowledge on logical fallacies, then they are being way to serious, or assuming I am.

It is also quite a pet peeve of mine when people run around using terms they no nothing about incorrectly, when I took the time out to actually learn what they mean. It's really not hard it sholdn't take more then an hour or so to actually learn what the most used logical fallacies are and examples of them.

[Cyrus]

Thanks for the reference and the quote, Bluffy. I appreciate it. May I now point out, amidst the text, the operative phrase ?


[ QUOTE ]
Proof by verbosity should not be confused with proof by exhaustion, the latter being a valid form of proof.

[/ QUOTE ] I readily confess to trying for exhaustive, rather than sketchy analysis and for the examination of as many sources as possible. Guilty as charged - and always eager for the substance of my posts to be addressed and discussed.

But, I could use an editor !

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
BS is distoring facts or lying none of which I have done.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, BS is just plain crap.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I have in the past debated a lot in the SMP forum defending my own conservative christian views, and arguing against the views of others. A lot of religion and culture is of course subjective and not 100% provable. But that doesn't mean that the premises upon which various religions or cultures are based aren't much more far-fetched than those of others.

[/ QUOTE ]Bluff, what I do remember is this:

A Jewish poster appeared, namely BossJJ, and to the delight of David Sklansky and others (me included, natch), proceeded (to use Copernicus' vernacular) to tear new ones to every pro-Christian amateur theologician who dared go up against him!

BossJJ did not use any "Judaic axioms" to confront and refute the Christian tenets; he used, devastatingly, the Christian tenets themselves! BossJJ demonstrated the inherent contradictions in the Christian contraption. This utterly effective method destroyed almost all Christian arguments, to the point that other posters started taking pity on the participants who were aguing with BossJJ. (I would even speculate that 2+2 became a little jittery, seeing as how that situation could be misconstrued by anti-semites : "Jewish man claims on poker website that Christianity is likely an offshoot of the Mythra cult", etc.)

So, yes, religions are based on "axioms" and one cannot really refute axioms. But one can surely proceed along logical (Goedelian) routes and show the basic hollowness of all religions. (And yes, that, naturally, includes Judaism. And Islam. Sklansky was very specific about that; see, inter alia, his pointed questions to BossJJ e.g. abt miracles, which went, understandably, unanswered.)

In any case, thank you for taking me back to the period when the Science, Math & Philosophy forum was seriously rocking.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BS is distoring facts or lying none of which I have done.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, BS is just plain crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

"That's bull [censored]!"
"No that's horse [censored]."

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Dynasty ... told [Cyrus] to quit lying, which he may or may not be doing, either way it is not an ad hominem attack.

[/ QUOTE ] (Emphasis added.)

You can't be serious. Substantiation is not important??

If we discuss a certain issue, whatever that might be, and I call you an anti-semite without substantiating that term, is that a personal insult to you or not? If I call you a liar, again without substantiation, is that an attack on your person rather than on your ideas, or not? When I attack your presumed motives rather then the positions you are supporting, is that constructive dialogue or a personal smear?

How can we seriously dispute that this kind if idle name-calling is attacking the person rather than the ideas the person supports? (Has no one bothered to look up the definition of ad hominem? Nobody cares for exactitude here? It's saddening and puzzling.)