OK, I'll give it just one more try, but you have dragged us into argument ad nauseam territory. I DID NOT SAY: "Well, you're staff so I better shut up so I don't get in trouble". Do you believe that I did?
No, I never said you did. I said "when someone says something like....".
In other words, to put it in even more simple terms: when someone points to a staff members badge over the course of a debate, no matter how they do it, it's usually intended to put the staff member on the defensive.
And any way you do it, it's a cheap shot.
If so, go back and look at who wrote the post they originated in. That was a post you wrote. If not, why do you keep repeating that quote as if I had said it? Those are your words that you put in my mouth. I pointed this out in my last post, but you ignored it and just repeated your idea that I somehow made this about your being "staff".
I didn't ignore it, I tried to clarify it. A hopeless endeavor in this case, I know, but I figured it might help anyone else understand what's going on (someone who isn't purposely trying not to I mean).
So whatever point you were trying to make with that quote was utterly irrelevant then, and it remains irrelevant now.
It wasn't a quote.
It was an analysis of your intention.
Let me satisfy your curiosity. I really believe what I posted.
That's sad then.
And I doubt that we are attracting a large audience to play to with these long-winded exchanges. I hope that you weren't counting on one.
I don't generally worry about things I have no control over.
Man, you are like a dog with a bone when it comes to this "staff" business. Read what I said above. My only "staff-related" comments have had to do with my opinion that staff moderators ought not to be encouraging people to make ad hominem attacks.
Once again, trying to make me responsible for something you brought up. Well, I suppose one of us aught to take some responsibility for your posts, since you always put so much effort into avoiding doing so.
Go to post #6. Read it and note who the author of the post was. Then go read some of the other posts by that same author in this thread. You will see a definite approval of the use of the word "anti-theist" as a pejorative label. We went over all of this earlier. I think I've made all of the points I wanted to make, and there is no need to keep going on and on about it.
(*mumbles something best left mumbled*
)
*sigh* OK, yes I said this:
Anti-theism seems to be the new orthodoxy.
It isn't any more tolerant or any less dogmatic or self-righteous than any of it's predecessors.
How does that demonstrate this:
Copernicus said:
My consistent position has been that the label "anti-theist" is prejudicial and inaccurate usage. You load up the label with a lot of negative baggage about how bad "anti-theists" are, and then you hang it on individuals who may or may not fit into your stereotype.
(emphasis mine)
The
bolded part is the accusation I'm addressing. I've tried to make that clear twice now. I never denied that I had my own definitions regarding the term "anti-theist" (and I still maintain that mine are much more accurate and less self-serving then yours).
You accused me of applying the term as I understand it
to a lot of people who don't fit the description.
So for the third time now:
show me where I've done that.
Stripped of a lot of your usual self-serving suppositions about my motives, beleifs, or intentions, the example you give here shows what exactly?
I've gone out of my way all through the course of this thread to clarify that I was talking about certain individuals characterized by their own personality traits and behaviors.
And lets face it: if you didn't believe that that description applied to you, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
Copernicus said:
Fine. You think that name-calling and ad hominem attacks are useful tools in forum debates, because some people just deserve to be "called out". If that is what you really believe, then there is no point in further discussion.
For someone who came back into this thread with something like this:
Sententia, Quag likes to engage in a lot of smack talk. Given how open and well-run this board seems to be, you would expect a more tolerant posting style from him, but that's just the way he is. Try not to let it get to you, or all you will end up doing is talking about his attitude rather than the discussion topic.
And in the third person no less.
Followed by this:
There is a fair amount of bashing done on both sides of the theism/atheism divide, and that is to be expected in a debate forum. I would hate to see moderators try to enforce their version of what counts as "fair treatment" on others. .
Which you and I both know was intended as a backhanded and roundabout accusation of bias.
And here you are accusing me of ad hominem attacks.
You feel free to gossip, make off-hand accusations, twist people's words and meanings, dissemble, and intentionally misrepresent the other persons position, intentions, and actions, and by your personal code of morals, this is all just fine.
But as soon as someone points out that you're doing any of this, they're getting out of line and "attacking" you.
In other words what you're saying is you'd like to be able to stand somewhere safe and talk all the gossipy nonsense you like without being challenged on it.
This is exactly the kind of character and behaviors I've been talking about. And none of it has anything at all to do with religious beliefs or lack their of.
It's all about a lack of something much more vital.
Well then you should feel pretty good about yourself. You've got a winning argument and character to boot. In your mind, at least.
Well, I'm really curious. What is the outcome you expect after you've "exposed" these dastardly folks?
For one thing, the kind of reaction I'm getting from you right now.
Do you expect them to flee with their tails between their legs?
Some do.
Do you think that the RF community will have their eyes opened and shun these people (which I guess includes me, since you keep hinting at that)? What is it that you think you'll achieve by these name-calling tactics? Is this your plan for improving the tone of forum discussions?
It comes down to this, Copernicus: Dishonesty/bad. Honesty/good.
You can answer that better than me. You do consider yourself a theist, don't you?
Well, there it is folks.
Hence, one of your opinions is that at least one god exists. And you do quite often get yourself worked up over people who oppose theism.
No, I quite often get worked up when I see someone intentionally lying, propagandizing, and attacking people who haven't' done anything to deserve it.
I know you consider all of the above "opposing theism". I don't care what you call it, it's still what it is.
Actually, you seem to dwell on the matter more often than I do. My focus here has been on the use of "anti-theist" as a pejorative label that can be used to bash atheists whose opinions you don't like.
Why are you dwelling on this? Thought we solved that problem. Not that it ever really was a problem, but now you have one less windmill to joust with.
Yes, I can be pigeon-holed and stereotyped in the same way that anyone can.
Remember that.
You seem unable to distinguish between ad hominem arguments and valid forms of debate. I don't really see much point in going on with this. Maybe you'll understand one day why personal attacks are not such a good idea.
*cough*
Quagmire said:
Do you expect them to flee with their tails between their legs?
Some do.
Yup.
