PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Excellent post, Brian. Well said. I've often used the word 'beliefs' are not people, but I think your word 'claims' makes the distinction even more clear. A claim is an action, distinct from the person making the claim.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
You mean ..this really isn't fox news?
Agreed Brian. People on various bits of the internet can't seem to make this distinction.
One of the things that I find to be quite annoying is when people post something that is a classical fallacy. Such arguments are pretty much automatically bad arguments. They also tend to be bad arguments which are subject to at least one fairly precise definition of a fallacy.
As an example, let's say that someone posts a straw man. Now those of us who are accustomed to regular discourse are aware of the definition of what that is. However, if I tell the poster that he just used a straw man, I have found that this is all too often taken by the individual as an accusation of some type of personal attack.
No and no. A personal attack is an ad hominem. A straw man is a distortion of another person's point when the distortion is refuted but the original point is never touched upon.
Now I am aware that I do not have the right audience here but let me say this anyway:
If you disagree with someone on the internet, that is fine. Say the words “I disagree” and give your reason for the disagreement. You have not attacked me personally (well, unless you have...).
If you think that you have the “real, ultimate killer argument” that proves why you are automatically right and whomever you disagree with is automatically wrong, well then you really need to think about the matter again before you post. Odds are that you are heading in the direction of a known fallacy.
=
We do perceive things differently, even when we agree there are usually small things that may not click. It's what makes the world go round.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
One of the things that I find to be quite annoying is when people post something that is a classical fallacy. Such arguments are pretty much automatically bad arguments. They also tend to be bad arguments which are subject to at least one fairly precise definition of a fallacy.
As an example, let's say that someone posts a straw man. Now those of us who are accustomed to regular discourse are aware of the definition of what that is. However, if I tell the poster that he just used a straw man, I have found that this is all too often taken by the individual as an accusation of some type of personal attack.
(Edited by butterbattle: No advertising please. Refer to the RRS rules of conduct.
Rules of Conduct )
Right on. MOL is a prime example of what not to do. He got a little huffy, so it seems, when every started telling he was wrong.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
I separate the message from the person carrying it every time I click "post reply". It's an obligatory coping skill...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Good, glad you agree Daddy Warbucks. When Oliver asks for more all you do is kick em to the curb.
(Note to self: Did I think that, or type it?)
Answers, you know I am being silly, but in all seriousness it is nice to have atheists will all stripes and settings. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to get my Govment Cheese.
When you punch me, avoid my face, it is ugly enough.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog