I think wikipedia defines ad hominem argumentation fairly well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem It always surprises me how poor some people can be at such a basic skill like communication, which discussion, debate and rethorics is a subset of. I remember a discussion on GitP where someone expressed her opinions so poorly that noone would ever listen to her despite the core of her point actually being good. It made me feel very sorry for her and I wanted to help her but unfortunately she didn't want it. There was also the issue on this forum between myself and OneTrikPony where his style of discussing clashed completely with mine. After some talks though I think we managed to reach an understanding and I will always read his posts through a different filter from now on. That had mostly to do with how to present opinions vs. facts, also a sore issue for me. So, while I am rather busy this weekend and while I hope to get back to this thread more soon but I will leave it with a statement: I believe presenting arguments on the internet in a good and civil manner to be rather easy and certainly a skill that can be tought, learned and improved. Furthermore, I believe it is the responsibility of the one who is communicating to make sure they have the basic skills required. Failure to communicate constructively while not actively seeking to improve oneself has the implication that the goal is simply to disrupt and antagonise.

There are a few points I want to make regarding stuff on Evolution vs. Creationism. First off is the need to filter bad ideas from the good ones. The stance that many creationist take is, "If God isn't real, then prove it!", is a bad one. Not only can you not prove the non-existence of something, but even if you tried it would be easy for a bunch of people to come up with enough crazy ideas keep you busy and waste your time. While you waste your time, other people could be out there pushing their agenda and be doing stuff. The better stance to take is to assume that all things are false until proven otherwise. It shifts the work load back to the people making the claim and it allows you to do stuff (instead of being bogged down by the demands of others). If the people with bizarre claims really cared about it, they would go about finding proof for their claims and tell you about it. Hell, many already find bad evidence for their claims and try to tell you about it as is. A problem that many creationist seem to have is that they are unwilling to accept the idea that they are wrong. I think this can go so far as some might come to believe that bad reasoning methods have merit because they allow their idea(s) hold merit, and that good reasoning methods are actually bad because they deny the truth of their belief(s). This might be why some take a stance that they will never change their minds no matter what, because it is a way that allows them to continue holding their beliefs. Goddidit. An all powerful God can, by its definition, be always be called upon as the explanation of something yet never be seen doing it. Its terrible because it is a cop out. It is a lazy way of saying I don't know something, but saying that somehow makes it seem like I know something because I didn't say "I don't know.". It is also terrible because it doesn't provide a useful explanation of something. Being cured of cancer and "knowing" that goddidit (while others didn't get better) isn't nearly as useful as knowing a good scientific explanation of cancer and being able to treatments that can be used to cure people. I have more points, but I'll save them for latter.

Lorsa wrote:

I'm still not sure if you're trying to bring some light to the issue or just trying to make me depressed. :) It often counfounds me how people can think in bad ways, treat others poorly in conversation (and in general) etc. I don't understand it and I'm not sure this brings more insight into how that is so. The Scientific method isn't the one and true answer to good thinking, it's quite possible to have it without. It most certainly doesn't explain why people aren't calm, patient and mature in discussions or why they wouldn't try to do good in the world. So yes, it does surprise me. EDIT: I'll get to your post here later. :)

Well, I was being pragmatically pessimistic. I think it is useful to consider bad situations or scenarios and use them as models to avoid potential problems and very real risks. I can see why it can be depressing, but I think it leaves me well prepared. It allows me to avoid being disappointed when the worst happens, and be glad when something better happens. Unfortunately, there are situations where you don't want to be debating certain people. For instance, some atheist argue that they don't think it is a good idea to debate creationists. If you have credibility, then if you debate a crazy, the crazy looks more credible because of it. Because of that, many crazies don't care about winning arguments, they are just seeking the air of credibility. They value getting into the debate with someone respectable more than winning a debate (or even making a good argument), because they look better afterwards. Take for instance, the debate between Bill Nye the science guy vs. Ken Ham (the guy who built the creationist museum). Ken Ham is a crazy. His museum is clearly an attempt to promote the bible, showing dinosaurs living along side humans (because they would have to be around at creation if God created all animals then) and other creationist beliefs. Ken Ham was promoting the bible throughout the program, while Bill Nye was there to explain science and why it matters. I want to say more but I'm busy right now.

Alright, time to answer DivineWrath and hope I have time before my friends comes here and it's time to study special relativity.

DivineWrath wrote:

There are a few points I want to make regarding stuff on Evolution vs. Creationism.

Not that I don't like discussing Evolution vs. Creationism, but wasn't this a topic of rhetoric and discussion in general? It seems like that particular discussion could merit a thread of its own. But anyway!

DivineWrath wrote:

First off is the need to filter bad ideas from the good ones. The stance that many creationist take is, "If God isn't real, then prove it!", is a bad one. Not only can you not prove the non-existence of something, but even if you tried it would be easy for a bunch of people to come up with enough crazy ideas keep you busy and waste your time. While you waste your time, other people could be out there pushing their agenda and be doing stuff. The better stance to take is to assume that all things are false until proven otherwise. It shifts the work load back to the people making the claim and it allows you to do stuff (instead of being bogged down by the demands of others). If the people with bizarre claims really cared about it, they would go about finding proof for their claims and tell you about it. Hell, many already find bad evidence for their claims and try to tell you about it as is.

I am curious as to why you feel the burden of proof would have to be on the one making the claim. Science for example, never proves anything and asking it to do so would be pointless. As a matter of fact, in the strictest sense proof is impossible. What you can do however is to disprove things. This is what science does, it spits out theories and hypothesis with an alarming rate and then goes about disproving them. Whatever remains is what we use as a model today. However, and this is an important point, for a theory to be "scientific" it has to be disproveable. There needs to be some way in which you can test it that would yeild the result "sorry, but this was false". If there isn't then it is a statement that could still be true for all we know but it doesn't work within the scientific method. God is one of those things that can never be disproven. Trying to gather "proof" either for or against the existence of a God is equally fruitless. It's an exercise in futility. Thus God isn't scientific. There are other things too that lies outside of what Science can deal with. The existence of the universe itself for example. Science can never prove, or disprove, that there is a universe, that we are indeed real. It's up to each and every person to believe that it exists or not. The same goes for God. Following the assumption that "no things exist until proven" is certainly possible, but it does lead to not actually believing in Anything. The universe hasn't been proven, Big Bang hasn't been proven, Evolution hasn't been proven, Quantum Mechanics hasn't been proven, etc etc. At some point, most people accept that everything is a matter of faith. Whatever you choose to place it on is up to you.

DivineWrath wrote:

A problem that many creationist seem to have is that they are unwilling to accept the idea that they are wrong. I think this can go so far as some might come to believe that bad reasoning methods have merit because they allow their idea(s) hold merit, and that good reasoning methods are actually bad because they deny the truth of their belief(s). This might be why some take a stance that they will never change their minds no matter what, because it is a way that allows them to continue holding their beliefs.

A problem that many PEOPLE seem to have is that they are unwilling to accept the idea that they are wrong. The same goes for atheists. In fact, the only ones that might accept the idea that they are wrong are probably the agnostics and the sceptics. Where I live, fundamental Atheism, people that don't even accept the possibility of a God while claiming that believing such is scientific, is as much of a problem as creationists seem to be where you live. Personally I dislike everyone who are unwilling to accept that they may be wrong equally and discussing with fundamental Atheists is as pointless as doing it with fundamental Creationists. I agree that good reasoning is preferable to bad one. But all good reasoning have to start with an understanding of how logic works, what it is based on and when it fails. Discussion of Creationism vs. Evolution also needs to be based on an understanding of the scientific method and its limits. And as always, if you aren't willing to accept the idea that you are wrong, you probably shouldn't be in any sort of discussion.

DivineWrath wrote:

Goddidit. An all powerful God can, by its definition, be always be called upon as the explanation of something yet never be seen doing it. Its terrible because it is a cop out. It is a lazy way of saying I don't know something, but saying that somehow makes it seem like I know something because I didn't say "I don't know.". It is also terrible because it doesn't provide a useful explanation of something. Being cured of cancer and "knowing" that goddidit (while others didn't get better) isn't nearly as useful as knowing a good scientific explanation of cancer and being able to treatments that can be used to cure people.

The statement of "God did it" is perfectly valid if one has the assumption that there is an almighty God. Belief in God is no more or less logical than the belief in the existence of the universe, and no more or less scientific either. Science simply doesn't care or bother about those kind of questions. It gives us tools for understanding how the universe works, assuming there is one. All logic is based on assumptions, unproveable statements that you hold true. Everyone has them and those that believe in God simply has one that you don't. Following that assumption to its logical conclusion means that "God did it" is a perfectly valid answer for everything. You might feel it is a cop out but it's a fundamental property of following that particular paradigm. However, you are completely correct that it IS more useful to know how cancer works and developing reliable treatments that functions without the direct interference of a supposed deity. God and Sceience aren't enemies after all. It is sometimes easy to forget that the scientific method arose in Europe much because of christianity and not despite it. Learning more about how nature works used to be seen as a holy task since it was a study of God's creation. The sooner believers in God stop using it as an excuse not to study nature scientifically and the sooner non-believers in God stop trying to claim their view is somehow more scientific and actually do what science CAN do the more progress we will have. And if I get cancer I will most definitely both seek medical treament AND have people pray for me. The more things that could possibly keep me alive the better!

Lorsa wrote:

Not that I don't like discussing Evolution vs. Creationism, but wasn't this a topic of rhetoric and discussion in general? It seems like that particular discussion could merit a thread of its own. But anyway!

I did not intend to distract from the main topic. I wanted to provide examples and, from what I've seen, many of the big offenders are religious people. I suppose I could use things like alternative medicine instead of religion as examples. Religion can bring its own set of problems.

Lorsa wrote:

I am curious as to why you feel the burden of proof would have to be on the one making the claim. Science for example, never proves anything and asking it to do so would be pointless. As a matter of fact, in the strictest sense proof is impossible. What you can do however is to disprove things. This is what science does, it spits out theories and hypothesis with an alarming rate and then goes about disproving them. Whatever remains is what we use as a model today.

What do you mean that? The burden of proof being on the one making the claim is the standard that science and law stand by. If you think that is wrong, then what do you think is a better system then? I am curious. Science does work. It might not be able to prove anything 100%, but it can provide a great deal of evidence to show that a belief is quite reasonable to have. It can even provide enough evidence that no other belief, not even doubt itself, is a reasonable belief to have. There are mountains of evidence for evolution. It is better understood than gravity itself. It is not reasonable to believe that evolution didn't happen. For someone to say that there is no evidence for evolution either speaks of the person's ignorance or reveals the person as a liar (or one who spews bullshit). Science also does not spit out theories and hypothesis just because it can. The theories it creates, and the theories it incrementally improves are done in such a way to ensure that the theories support the evidence. With that, science then can make new predictions, and from those predictions one can create new tests that can be done to gather more evidence. Even the evidence itself can be brought into question, possibly bringing forth better ways to collect and evaluate evidence, and bring forth better ways to create and evaluate tests.

Lorsa wrote:

God is one of those things that can never be disproven. Trying to gather "proof" either for or against the existence of a God is equally fruitless. It's an exercise in futility. Thus God isn't scientific. There are other things too that lies outside of what Science can deal with. The existence of the universe itself for example. Science can never prove, or disprove, that there is a universe, that we are indeed real. It's up to each and every person to believe that it exists or not. The same goes for God.

God, probably. Unicorns, probably. The flying spaghetti monster, probably. The universe, probably... or should those be a maybe. We have no conceivable means of testing many things, but that does not mean that will hold true forever. There have been many times in science that research has pushed understanding beyond what was once considered the impossible. I don't there is any good reason that it can't do so again in the future.

Lorsa wrote:

Science can never prove, or disprove, that there is a universe, that we are indeed real. It's up to each and every person to believe that it exists or not. The same goes for God.

It is not reasonable to believe that the universe doesn't exist. I can't stop myself from being bombarded by sensory input from the world (short of doing something dangerous like killing myself). I am bombarded every moment of my conscious existence. I can't actually doubt my own existence (an answer from philosophy, if I can doubt my own existence then I must exist to do the doubting). But one can have reasonable doubt about God...

Lorsa wrote:

Following the assumption that "no things exist until proven" is certainly possible, but it does lead to not actually believing in Anything. The universe hasn't been proven, Big Bang hasn't been proven, Evolution hasn't been proven, Quantum Mechanics hasn't been proven, etc etc. At some point, most people accept that everything is a matter of faith. Whatever you choose to place it on is up to you.

No. It can be very reasonable to believe that those things are real. It is not an assumption that one needs to apply to every aspect of one's life (there would be too much work and time required to test everything scientifically), but it is something that can and should be done with science. One of the important features of science is that anyone can build off the work of someone else, so a job well done in science can have a lasting impact. ---- I'll see if I can get to the rest later.

DivineWrath wrote:

I did not intend to distract from the main topic. I wanted to provide examples and, from what I've seen, many of the big offenders are religious people. I suppose I could use things like alternative medicine instead of religion as examples. Religion can bring its own set of problems.

It's certainly a valid example to use.

DivineWrath wrote:

What do you mean that? The burden of proof being on the one making the claim is the standard that science and law stand by. If you think that is wrong, then what do you think is a better system then? I am curious.

I guess that depends on what we mean by proof. The burden of making sure your theory does not contradict any currently done experiments is certainly on the scientist proposing the theory. Strict proof is never achieved, all we ever have is correlations and given enough of those we accept things as being true for now. In order to prove that Evolution (that is, man evolved from organic compounds on a pre-historic Earth) happened one must have observed the entire process. It's a bit too late for that (unless we discover time-machines) so all we can do is to make sure that there are no evidence that disprove it. If there were, the theory should be discarded. If I propose a scientific theory, I don't have to prove that it is correct. As long as it doesn't contradict any current data, is falsifiable it can be assumed to be right. However, since Science wants as good theories as possible, gathering more data to falsify more theories is the most important part of it. Technically there is the demand that you have falsified the logical inverse of your theory as well...

DivineWrath wrote:

Science does work. It might not be able to prove anything 100%, but it can provide a great deal of evidence to show that a belief is quite reasonable to have. It can even provide enough evidence that no other belief, not even doubt itself, is a reasonable belief to have.

Science does work. It takes a great deal of data, eliminates all things that contradict it and supports models that can be shown to have much correlative evidence. Whether or not doubt itself is reasonable is up to the interpreter. Science doesn't care what you believe to be true or not, but it will tell you what is NOT true.

DivineWrath wrote:

There are mountains of evidence for evolution. It is better understood than gravity itself. It is not reasonable to believe that evolution didn't happen. For someone to say that there is no evidence for evolution either speaks of the person's ignorance or reveals the person as a liar (or one who spews bullshit).

There are mountains of correlative data for Evolution. That is not the same as evidence and I believe it's an important distinction. Discussing what is reasonable or not is a bit of a pointless exercise I believe. Every person will have their own idea of what is reasonable. What Science does is basically saying "if Evolution happened, then these things must exist and be able to be found in nature", then goes looking and see "yes, these things did exist, so Evolution isn't disproven". That's still not proof. For all we know, the world was created with those fossils or whatever already in place. It could happen. Whether or not you believe it to be reasonable is not my place to decide. For someone to say that Evolution is disproven is speaking from ignorance. It isn't. It's still a valid and working scientific theory. That will never be proven. Reasonable doubt is up to each and every individual.

DivineWrath wrote:

Science also does not spit out theories and hypothesis just because it can. The theories it creates, and the theories it incrementally improves are done in such a way to ensure that the theories support the evidence. With that, science then can make new predictions, and from those predictions one can create new tests that can be done to gather more evidence. Even the evidence itself can be brought into question, possibly bringing forth better ways to collect and evaluate evidence, and bring forth better ways to create and evaluate tests.

Yes you are right. The theories has to support the experimental data. I admit my statement was a bit coloured by the fact I discussed this matter with a friend that said that science works because people are opportunistic. Scientists will give out any theories they can get away with and then it's up to the rest to prove them wrong. In any case, I do believe it is a bit true. Science does throw out theories whenever it can. Those theories will ALWAYS be of such type that there is no experimental data that disprove them. Even then they can often be "working models" under some assumptions though. So yes, experimental data will always be fundamentally important to Science. That is what falsifies your theories (or correlate them).

DivineWrath wrote:

God, probably. Unicorns, probably. The flying spaghetti monster, probably. The universe, probably... or should those be a maybe. We have no conceivable means of testing many things, but that does not mean that will hold true forever. There have been many times in science that research has pushed understanding beyond what was once considered the impossible. I don't there is any good reason that it can't do so again in the future.

Well, there's a difference between "these things can logically be disproven but we do not possess the experimental methods to do so yet" and "these things can not be logically disproven regardless of experimental methods". God falls in the latter category, which is why Science doesn't bother with it. There is no experiment that could be done that would disprove the existence of an entity such as the God defined by Christianity. So caring about that is a waste of anyone's time, regardless of which side of the "do you believe in God" fence you are.

DivineWrath wrote:

It is not reasonable to believe that the universe doesn't exist. I can't stop myself from being bombarded by sensory input from the world (short of doing something dangerous like killing myself). I am bombarded every moment of my conscious existence. I can't actually doubt my own existence (an answer from philosophy, if I can doubt my own existence then I must exist to do the doubting). But one can have reasonable doubt about God...

Again with the reasonable. Can you make a definition of what is objectively reasonable doubt? Do you have any evidence or data to support your claim that your definition is what is objectively true? If you define the universe as your sensory input then it's reasonable to assume that the universe does exist. Where does your sensory input come from? Does it come from anywhere at all? Are other people as real as you? What about their sensory input? We have assumed that there is a universe that exists outside of our sensory input which is providing this input to us. Most people also assume that the universe itself is more objectively real than the sensory input itself, thus making claims that Schizophrenics see or hear things that "aren't real". So, somewhere you probably made the assumption that there is an objective universe which exists regardless of your sensory input and it is from that you get your input in the first place. It's a claim that can never be Scientific in nature as it can never be proven or disproven. It's an assumption that you subjectively feel is "reasonable". Some people feel that the assumption that God exists is "reasonable". Some of those make this assumption based on their very own sensory input that you value in so high regard.

DivineWrath wrote:

No. It can be very reasonable to believe that those things are real. It is not an assumption that one needs to apply to every aspect of one's life (there would be too much work and time required to test everything scientifically), but it is something that can and should be done with science. One of the important features of science is that anyone can build off the work of someone else, so a job well done in science can have a lasting impact.

Reasonable != True. It might not be an assumption that you need to apply to every aspect of your life, but you need to be aware of the assumptions you have made and that other assumptions may not be any less logically correct. Failing to be aware of your core assumptions make discussions all the more difficult. For everyone.

Erulastant wrote:

Epistemologists refer to this as "Knowing with low epistemic/skeptical standards". I think it's probably a good idea to just take as a given that we are operating under low epistemic standards and go from there. Trying to discuss knowledge to high epistemic standards is sort of pointless (Since pretty much all we can know to those standards is our own existence.) In other words, since we're discussing rhetoric and logic here, we assume the universe exists, our sensory perceptions are more or less accurate in normal circumstances, and that the scientific method and standard inductive reasoning are both valid knowledge-seeking methods. Because anything else and you're just arguing in circles. Debating these points should really be a separate thread, if we feel the need to debate them. (I, for one, don't. Epistemic skepticism is an exercise in futility.)

Epistemology... Its been a while since I read that stuff. Might be worth while reading it again. Yes. I'm arguing from a low epistemic/skeptical standard. It allows for pragmatic actions and decision making.

Lorsa wrote:

What Science does is basically saying "if Evolution happened, then these things must exist and be able to be found in nature", then goes looking and see "yes, these things did exist, so Evolution isn't disproven". That's still not proof. For all we know, the world was created with those fossils or whatever already in place. It could happen. Whether or not you believe it to be reasonable is not my place to decide.

I don't like how you keep saying things like that. A good saying is "We should be open minded, but not so open minded that our brains fall out.". We need standards of when it is a good time to take something as truth (or close enough), and when to act. Failing to do that will fail to maximize the good that we can do. Without good standards, we might adopt a bad belief system, or fail to act due to indecisiveness. ---- Anyways, aren't we a bit off topic now? Wasn't this thread about discussing Rhetoric, not putting it into practice?

@ Lorsa I think I'm going to withdraw from this discussion (if you can call it that). You seem to keep retreating to impossibly high standards for knowledge. Such high standards break down pragmatic courses of action you can do with lower standards of knowledge. What does this absolute uncertainty in everything you are creating do for us? You keep saying things like "...for all we know the universe could have been created a mere second ago with all the fossils and stuff that makes us think this world has had a history...". In what way is that useful for us? If all the evidence points to a universe with a history (and it functions correctly as one), then should we think it came into being 5 minutes ago? How could we come to a correct conclusion that the universe was created 5 minutes ago without a lucky guess? If we come to a correct conclusion through the use of evidence, then it is not a lucky guess, it is a product of hard work. I don't see anything in your arguments that offer us a good course of action.

Please take all further discussion of Epistemology to a different thread. I already created one for it. I would like this thread to return to its original topic. http://eclipsephase.com/epistemology-general-discussion

As you're likely aware, over in the [url=http://eclipsephase.com/regarding-mras]Regarding MRAs[/url] thread, [url=http://eclipsephase.com/comment/45006#comment-45006]SpikedYum[/url], the first MRA to be banished from the forums for spouting MRA bullshit, made a massive, huge screed as his first post, and was banished for it. I've spent the last two and a half hours [i]dismantling[/i] his post, piece-by-piece, only to be ready to post and find the hammer had already been dropped. At Bibliophile's suggestion, I've brought my response here, so as not to waste it and so as to gain some insight into good argument techniques. [hr] [hr] Oh, bother. Okay, here we go. Banzai!

SpikedYum wrote:

[u]I am someone some consider an MRA[/u]*, hell, one someone a feminist a few times, however I do not support feminism, I more so support the MRM. [u]I find your statement here to be the fine reason why so many people reject the group you advocate for (feminism), your hypocrisy. You claim to be inclusive, however you claim that those that oppose your ideology are not welcome.[/u]✝ How you could not realize this blatant hypocrisy when in your thought process baffles me, however in my experience it is not uncommon and is also the same type of hypocrisy that the MRM and anti-feminists notice a lot from feminists, that is including their stance on equality and their hypocrisy to create more sexism.

*ProTip: When you're trying to sway a group of Jews to your side, don't self-identify as Palestinian or a Neo-Nazi. When trying to sway a group of African-Americans, don't self-identify as a Klansman or a Eugenicist. And when trying to sway anyone on the internet who's heard of that Rodgers asstard in the last week, don't self-identify as an MRA. [sub][size=20]÷[/size][/sub] ✝Not everyone who objects to legal advantages for African-Americans (intended to compensate for the inherent social and economic biases they still endure even in this age) is a Klansman. However, the KKK most certainly rank amongst those who object to said legal advantages. Likewise, not everyone who objects to the legal framework which was set in place to help boost women above the disadvantages they found themselves under when we, as a society, got our shit together and said "Hey, this whole oppression of women thing is bullshit," is a Man's Right's Advocate. In this day and age, however, MRAs are [i]not[/i] simply those who oppose legal framework specifically favoring women as a way to make them economically and socially equal to men (a feat which they have not achieved yet,) they are specifically a name which untold legions of male misogynists have flocked towards to give themselves the sheen of validity, claiming that they support equality, when in fact what they want is inequality - with them being more equal than men. I will point out that it has been [b]less than a full century[/b] since universal women's suffrage was enacted by law in the country in which I was born - the United States. My own grandfather was born before then, and my grandmother only two years after it - in 1920.

Quote:

[u]Basically, what you are doing here is censorship[/u]*, [u]showing that you are close-minded[/u]✝, and that's a shame. [u]As a supported of MRM and a self-labled anti-feminist[/u]✜, I always listen to the side of feminists regardless of how ignorant, offensive, or radical they can be, and all I do is expect the same in return, [u]listen to my side[/u]✠. This would result in a trading of perspectives and reach a better understanding of the issues we face in society, however it can't happen if people such as yourself are being close-minded and only accept people like you and think like you. It is a primitive mindset that if held would result in us not having half of what we see today.

*It isn't, actually. Censorship is when a government chooses to silence a particular viewpoint by the force of law. This is a private organization - in this case, Posthuman Studios - saying that that kind of screed is not welcome within their walls and that those who choose to argue for it are not welcome here either. ✝Actually, what they're doing is saying that bigotry and intolerance aren't welcome, which is the exact opposite of close-mindedness. ✜Generally speaking, when you're labeling yourself "anti-X", where X is a thing which is a condition of birth or circumstances otherwise beyond the control of the person who is X, you've lost. Feminism isn't, [i]strictly[/i] speaking, the same thing as being a woman, but feminism is the position which argues that women and men should be economically, socially and legally equal; and further acknowledging that although that is what [i]should[/i] be, it is not what [i]is[/i], therefore legal, economic and social pressures to restore the balance must be applied. So what you're saying is that you oppose the equality of men and women because you don't want those pressures applied, therefor allowing things to return to the imbalanced way they were in which men enjoyed inherent social, economic, and legal advantages. It's a bit like saying you're "anti-charity." ✠Not everybody's side is worth listening to. Amongst others, I don't care to listen to anything the Westboro Baptist Church have to say, I don't care to listen to anything the Ku Klux Klan have to say, I don't care to listen to anything Al Qaeda has to say, and after my experiences here on the EP forums with numerous vocal MRMs, I don't really care to listen to anything an MRM has to say. (Side note: I'm a little gleeful that I managed to make that point without Godwinning.[/Smug Mode].)

Quote:

[u]Yes, there are self proclaimed MRAs that are misogynists[/u]*, I will never deny that, [u]just as there are self proclaimed feminists that are misandrists[/u]. [u]Using that as an excuse to not hear anyone in the groups such people claim to be in support of will result in ignorance, it's an excuse.[/u]✠

*When it began, the Men's Rights Advocation movement was a positive thing, a scholastic study of positive things masculinity has given to the world, such as organized sporting competition (the original Olympic Games are a good example here.) That lasted all of about five minutes before the MRA movement was clubbed over the head, dragged into a back alley, [i]skinned[/i], and oozing, viscous misogyny emerged wearing it like an aztec priest wears a sacrifice. Those who truely support equality between the sexes identify as feminists, even the men. ✜This is also not in dispute, and when and if one of those virulently misandrist "feminists" would arrive, I'm certain it would take approximately three posts for Posthuman Studios to show them the door. ✠If anything, it's been a boon of education. This shit-storm has sparked discussions far and wide, I even saw it come up in an Exalted IRC channel I lurk which has, as far as I know, precisely two cross-posters here, and I'm one of them. However, we have heard enough, seen enough, of that which is spewed under the Man's Rights Advocation banner to come to the conclusion that no-one who marches under that banner has anything worth listening to on the topic of gender quality, just as one might reasonably conclude that anyone who marches under the banner of the Westboro Baptist Church has nothing worth listening to on the topic of sexual orientation.

Quote:

"Feminism's basic princible: Women are people". [u]This is not exclusively a princible to feminism, this is a princible of common decency[/u]*, and [u]something you and many other feminists need to comprehend is that you cannot claim things like common decency and "equality" as feminist made concepts or concepts exclusive to feminists[/u]✜.

*Common decency, like common sense, is so rare as to be a god-damned superpower. ✜Unfortunately not true. Before the whole concept of women's suffrage came along, women were denied almost all "commonly decent" equalities, such as the right to vote being the obvious one. They won that fight, and then there were many other things they realized they did not have: the ability to take work in a field of their choice, or when they found work in a traditionally male field, the right to have pay equal to the men who were just as capable and productive as they. From that came feminism, and at the time, it [i]was[/i] bloody well exclusive to feminism. Hell, it still is, as women still "enjoy" many economic and social hardships compared to men: the pay thing [i]still[/i] has not been enshrined in law, and men are still considered more attractive hires and more hired than women, even equally qualified. And even in traditionally female fields such as nursing, men enjoy advantages. I'm not even joking about that. I've actually heard this advice being given out at a major nursing college: if you're a man, nursing is a great field to enter. You endure a year or so of scut-work, then they move you to a nursing administration position and you won't hardly ever have to change a bedpan again, just keep your qualifications up and do paperwork.

Quote:

The problem with your statements on why you are feminists is that you do not explain "why" you have those beliefs, as if you close yourself off from discussing the issue. Now, this may not be the case and I hope it isn't, however this is what it appears to show to me. [u]Why do you find the politics of the MRA toxic, offensive, and completely removed from equality?[/u]* [u]Why? How? I have convinced feminists of how and why they are wrong before with an open mind for them to change my views, too, so I am hoping you are also that type of person that is open to altering your beliefs when presented with information and reasoning feminism does not give you.[/u]✜

*NickNumbers. He actually said, in as many words, that women who were raped got what they wanted: Attention. Elliot Rodger. He went out to slaughter an entire sorority because he felt entitled to sex and no woman had given him any. (And yes, he killed more men than he killed women, but I'd say that's entirely up to the circumstances of when targets presented themselves to him for the duration of his rampage.) We've also had prominent misogynists who didn't identify here as MRAs by name: Smokeskin and Extrasolar Angel. I could go on, but frankly, I don't want to: we've had enough crawl out of the woodworks here and show their true colors. ✜I [b]highly[/b] doubt that. And quite frankly, I have no interest in listening to a regurgitated MRM screed about why equality isn't and other such hogwash. I would, however, like to see you try to "convince" Bibliophile, unquestionably our most talented debate gladiator. I'm [i]almost certain[/i] it would wind up with you infuriated and devolving into a mysogynist rant, an attack upon him personally, shedding the mantle of MRM, making some screed about how he's not being a good debator and refusing to debate again, or just quietly stopping the debate when it becomes clear you couldn't win. Personally, I'd make book on those outcomes at about a 10:10.25/2:3/25:1/2:1/3.5:1 split. I wouldn't even give 1,000:1 odds on you convincing anyone.

Quote:

[u]"We do not appreciate that MRAs are driving other fans away from our forums" How are MRAs doing this? What is causing these people to go away?[/u]* [u]If they are merely presenting their beliefs as MRAs, then the reason others are leaving is their lack of accepting diversity, other "ideas" and "beliefs" offend them enough to stay around.[/u]✜ [u]If that is the case, would your action be the same if it was the case of blacks coming on to this forum and other people on the forum are driven away due to there being blacks? No? Why not? I would only assume it is because diversity should be acceptable, not made to be a villain.[/u]✛

*NickNumbers. Extrasolar Angel. Smokeskin. They all fostered an extremely woman-unfriendly environment. I've heard from female gamers who've said, in as many words, "now that the MRAs are banned, I might actually make an account on the EP forums." Enquiring about this, I learned that they'd always been attracted to the idea of the setting, but having heard how toxic the forums were with essentially unregulated assholes running around free to tell them they were valueless as human beings by dint of possession of a vagina, they wouldn't go. ✜Allow me to turn this around on you and see if you can spot the problem. Replace "MRA" with "KKK"; suppose a place allows the KKK to present their point of view. Would it surprise you [i]at all[/i] that certain groups; say, primarily African-Americans but also Jews, Asians, Latino/Latina-Americans, etcetera, would find a place to be inhospitable and unwelcoming to them? If you [b]honestly[/b] can't see why a place allowing a hate group (and yes, MRAs are generally considered a hate group,) to spew their rhetoric would make the subjects of that rhetoric feel unwelcome, then... I just don't know, buddy. ✛I am [i]quite[/i] certain that if black supremacists (think the original Black Panthers) were to turn up and start spewing their screed, they would be quickly added to the list of unwelcomed parties, just as I'm sure the WBC would be made unwelcome if they were to turn up.

Quote:

[u]If it is the case of assholes spouting hate talk, then that has nothing to do with being an MRA, and not all MRAs will act that way, so you are punishing an entire group for the actions of a few in that group.[/u]* [u]Would you support gaming coming to an end simply because a certain amount of gamers were assholes online? No. So why do the same in this situation with MRAs?[/u]☠

*Whilst not [b]quite[/b] as cohesive as, say, the Ku Klux Klan or Westboro Baptist Church (which are, I know, not entirely monolithic entities which have had plenty of their own schisms,) MRAs are, almost to a man (and I imagine you'll never find a female MRA, whilst you can certainly find male feminists,) exactly those hate-talk-spouting assholes. All of the ones we've had turn up recently, and those who spouted similar viewpoints, have shown that clearly. ☠This isn't supporting gaming coming to an end at all. Let me make an analogy. Suppose that "gaming" consists of, for an MMORPG. Go ahead, we know you're imagining World of Warcraft. (No? You were envisioning The Old Republic? That's okay, I was too. I miss my Jedi Knight.) Now, suppose that a particular band of assholes united by their desire to grief a specific type of player forms into a guild; I dunno, let's say that they hate, I dunno, Gnomes (Twi'leks,) and form the "Gnome (Twi'lek) Decimation League.) Wherever Gnomes (Twi'leks) are to be found, they turn up, making life generally miserable for any players of Gnomes (Twi'leks,) and also for anyone nearby who happens to not be a Gnome (Twi'lek,) but has no particular beef with Gnomes (Twi'leks.) Suppose you have control over some kind of instance or another that's entirely for your group; maybe a Guild Hall (Guild Starcruiser.) Anybody may freely come aboard, but you have, at your discretion, the authority to selectively banish individuals whom you should so please. After a few incidents like this, you decide that 99 times out of 100, a member of the Gnome (Twi'lek) Decimation Leauge is only going to be trouble, either from the outset or upon encountering a Gnome (Twi'lek), and so you decide to preemptively banish any member of the Gnome (Twi'lek) Decimation Leauge you see. Now imagine that, unfortunately, World of Warcraft (The Old Republic) doesn't have open and obvious clan tags, so you can only enforce this policy either when someone claims membership in the Gnome (Twi'lek) Decimation League, or exhibits signs of Gnome-(Twi'Lek-)trolling behavior. That's where we're at. (Yes, I am using the character map to insert whatever-the-hell I feel like as secondary/tertiary asterisks, thank you for asking.)

Quote:

"We want the Eclipse Phase community to be one that is inclusive of all viewpoints" [u]You can't be inclusive of all viewpoints while censoring people that deviate from your beliefs and telling them to get out.[/u]* That is not how being inclusive works, it is hypocrisy. [u]By banning a group that deviates from your views you are the opposite of inclusive, you're being exclusive.[/u]λ

*On the strictest, most technical level, this is true, like referring to a square polygon as a rectangle. While it is true that all squares [i]are[/i] rectangles, it is generally acknowledged and understood that if a polygon does in fact feature four 90° turns and four sides of equal length, that it is a square, and should not be referred to as a rectangle. Perhaps they should have said “We want the Eclipse Phase community to be one that is inclusive of all viewpoints which are not bigoted or exclusionary of non-bigoted viewpoints.” Because that’s what I took away from it. λTechnically, this is true. However, the difference is that they’re excluding a group which is specifically hateful of approximately 50% of the human race. I have no problem excluding a hate group from these forums.

Quote:

If your view, as a feminist, of being inclusive is being exclusive of those that deviate from you, then how can you expect others to believe that your group is for the things you claim to be when you cannot comprehend when you are the opposite or doing the opposite of what you claim to be promoting?

Funnily enough, I believe they’re doing just that. They’ve stated that they want the Eclipse Phase forums to be an open and friendly place, and to do that, they’ve shown those who espouse viewpoints which are the exact opposite of open and friendly the door. I approve.

Quote:

[u]The existence of the MRM is to help men and boys in terms of equality. Feminism is part of the problem that is harming boys and men, and if feminism is about boys and men as well as men, then the group that is about boys and men will have involvement with that group if what that group is doing is harmful.[/u]* [u]You cannot attack the MRM for opposing feminism when feminists have broken laws and human rights to create problems for the MRM, in order to prevent the MRM from their goals. Of course, I am speaking of the case of the Warren Farrel speech for boys and men where women and men were welcome which was on issues such as male suicide, in which feminists broke laws and human rights to prevent the speech from happening or from people attending.[/u]☆

*If you [i]actually believe[/i] that men or boys are enduring inequality in the form of [i]disadvantages[/i], then you’re simply not comprehending the facts of the matter. Men and boys [i]are[/i] inequal from women and girls, and they [i]enjoy[/i] far more privileges as a result than they suffer any setbacks. ☆If you’re going to say something like that, mentioning an event which most people won’t have heard of, then [sup][[color=#0000FF]citation needed[/color]][/sup]

Quote:

You cannot expect one group to look kindly upon another group that prevents helping half of the population while expecting people to think that group preventing help for that half of the population is equally helping them.

I’m sorry, were you speaking positively or negatively of MRAs there? Because for a moment, it sounded like you were speaking about MRAs as the group which prevents helping half of the population, because that’s exactly what MRAs are most well-known for. Or have you been so taken in by the MRA movement that you actually believe them to be the [i]exact opposite[/i] of what they demonstrably are: a pack of he-man-woman-hating misogynists who want to go back to enjoying all the advantages over women.

Quote:

You say you are looking forward, to the future, but sadly your future is humanity's past in the process of being open-minded and accepting opposing beliefs, to engage with such people to reach a better understanding of issues like a civilized society.

Once again, if I didn’t [i]know[/i] you were on the MRA side, I’d say you were actually putting down a pack of MRAs here. I think you’re entirely confused about where you stand and what you are, and you’re unquestionably either deluded or misled about what MRAs stand for.

Quote:

"No matter how MRAs may like to cloak their beliefs in the language of inclusiveness and equality, they support neither" [u]You believe that being inclusive is excluding people that deviate from your beliefs, then you expect me to look upon your criticism of groups you claim are exclusive with legitimacy? Your credibility on this part is at the zero mark, so the only thing you could do in this case is to prove your point with reason.[/u]⁑

⁑[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/ShadowDragon8685/EmoticonYellowca... Logical fallacy: [i]Poisoning the Well[/i]✲. RobBoyle has the penalty kick, you may not leave the goal line.✺ (Yes, this was the part where I ran out of formatting fucks to give and decided I was not obliged to start my first citation with a bog-standard shift-8 asterisk, and could instead start with whatever-the-hell I fancied.) ✲I believe this to be correct. I’m quite certain that “I disagree with [thing you said previously], therefore I do not have to consider the merits of [thing you just said], I consider it uncredible and dismiss it out of hand.” is a logical fallacy. I’m not 100% it is poisoning the well. ✺I am quite certain this is correct. (Irrelevant, but correct.)

Quote:

Your speech of privilege is something I do not agree with, and here's why. The group you claim is of the privilege class are the ones that: [u]- Can, to this day, still be drafted (forced to fight, kill, and die against their will).✢[/u] [u]- Make almost half, if not half of the domestic violence victim statistics. Men are also 80% less likely to come forward about their abuse, so if men are almost half or half in terms of victims and yet men are very much less likely to come forward, yet still make 50% or a little less of the victims that have come forward, you could assume men make the majority of D.V victims. The part on privilege is that despite this, less than 10% of shelters are for men.[/u]✤ [u]- Male genital mutilation is still common practice (legal).[/u]⊛ [u]- Males gain more prison time for the same crimes under the same circumstances as women.[/u]❃ [u]The list goes on and on, and yet none of these issues are being fought by feminists,[/u]╳ [u]none of these "systematic" issues of discrimination are being fought against by feminists,[/u]☦ [u]things like calling women a cunt, or calling women bossy is more important.[/u]☨ [u]So when you claim feminism is for equality, or that men are a privileged class, then I simply have to ask for your proof on this, because the statistics and issues men face indicate otherwise.[/u]✠

Ooooh, a nice tasty list! Pity you didn’t use the list BBCode. ✢So because one inequality is applied to their disfavor, they should get one in their favor? Like, what, I dunno, one month’s PFC salary a year or something whilst they’re eligible for the draft? (That would actually make kind of sense, actually.) However, lest you forget, [i]feminist[/i] organizations have been pushing to have the draft made fully equal for [i]thirty years now[/i]. How many MRAs would fight to have selective service made equal? How many would scoff and say “Of course they only want to draft men, men are more capable!” Thought so. ✤Where do I even start. You’ve managed to nest two things I want to tear into. Here we go: Unlike you, I’m going to cite some [b]numbers![/b] Also unlike you, I’m going to use a trustworthy source: the [url=http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf]The U.S. Department of Justice[/url]. In 2008, females aged 12 and older experienced approximately 550,000 nonfatal violent victimizations - rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggrevated or simple assaults. In the same time, men experienced approx. 100,000 nonfatal violent victimizations. Assuming for the purpose of these statistics that nonfatal intimate partner violence by homosexual intimate partners evens out - IE, for every woman victimized by a woman, there was a man victimized by a man - that’s hardly “almost half,” that’s “less than one fifth.” Now, let’s get on to the [i]murders[/i], the bits that would make an even juicier (or at least more tragic) [i]Law & Order: Special Victims Unit[/i] episode. For these purposes, fatal intimate partner violence has been defined as homicide, murder, or any other non-negligent form of manslaughter; the willful killing of one human being by another. (I don’t know if these rates include justified homicide - IE, self defense, defense of another person with lethal force - or not. I suspect they do not.) In 2007, intimate partners committed 14% of all the homicides in the United States. The total number of intimate partner homicides was 2,340, breaking down to 1,640 women and 700 men. That’s, once again, not “half as many,” that’s “less than one third.” Once again, I’m assuming that same-sex violence balances out: IE, that for every woman who murdered a female intimate partner, there was a man who murdered a male intimate partner. Now that the numbers are out of the way, I would also like to point out that what you have done here is to state that “probably, more than half of the assault victims were male,” turning a group which has historically enjoyed the predator position into the prey, using nothing more than supposition. ⊛In fact, this is truth. I myself was a victim of this as a child and I am [i]bitterly[/i] angry about that fact, to a degree that most people won’t understand. However, I don’t imagine that many MRAs spend much time considering the topic of circumcision, and I’ve yet to see any evidence of any large organizations of MRAs vociferociously attacking it - most feminists who make a cause out of opposing female genital mutilation readily take up the cause against summarily circumcising male infants. ❃This is entirely true; and again, something that many feminists are fighting against, because it [i]is[/i] unequal. ╳Wrong. ☦Wrong. ☨Are you saying that they [i]aren’t?[/i] Because it [i]sounds[/i] like you’re dismissing one of the more vile epithets in the English language (especially the Queen’s,) when applied to a woman, as “unimportant.” I’m not saying that male genital mutilation, draft inequality, prison inequality, etcetera, [i]aren’t[/i] important; they are. Two of them are subjects which have touched me personally, yet I’m not going to claim that fighting the use of denigratory and dehumanising slurs isn’t also important. ✠Let’s see..... At the outset, the 113th United States Congress had a [i]record[/i] high of female participants: 100 members, between Congresscritters and Representatives. Out of a total of [b]531[/b]. So, right from the outset, it’s immediately clear that women are vastly inequally represented in favor of men in the highest legislative body in the land; thus, men enjoy a clear privilege legally. As of 2009, full-time, year-round female workers consistently earned less than men, at about 4/5ths at less than a 9th grade education, with the gap only widening from there, earning (at the top) only 2/3rds what their esteemed colleagues in possession of penises earned. What was that about men being an unprivileged class? I don’t see any MRAs out there screaming about shattering the glass ceiling. If anything, they’re likely to deny it exists at all.

Quote:

"Those who must attack the idea of another's equality to better preserve their own benefits are not the sort we wish to encourage." [u]This is my problem with your idea of equality as a feminist...You don't or simply cannot grasp the concept of equality. You are claiming to be for equality all while doing the same as the thing you are opposing here; being exclusive.[/u]✟ [u]You haven't grasped that by being exclusive of an entire group for some in that group being exclusive, that you are being equally wrong. You cannot grasp that you are being equally wrong, otherwise you could realize you were being wrong in your actions.[/u]✗

✟Posthuman Studios never claimed they were going to treat MRAs equally to all other persons, in much the same way they have never claimed they are going to treat racial bigots equally to non-bigots. [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/ShadowDragon8685/EmoticonYellowca... [i]Strawman Argument[/i]: You are distorting what PS have said in order to facillitate your attack on them. Adam has the penalty kick, you may not leave the goal line. ✗[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/ShadowDragon8685/EmoticonYellowca... [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/ShadowDragon8685/EmoticonYellowca... Two fallacies here: [i]argument by asserton[/i], and [i]non sequitur[/i]. You are indulging in the belief that if you state a thing (that Posthuman Studios is wrong for excluding MRAs) it will make it so (It will not,) [i]and[/i] you are claiming that A implies B, where A is “Posthuman Studios have chosen to exclude MRAs” and B is “Posthuman Studios are wrong.”

Quote:

This is why people do not support the feminist idea of equality, because when you are being equally bigoted, you don't see it as being equally bigoted, you can't make that connection that your actions are the same, and then you expect people to be behind such a group that cannot even understand equality, what it is?

Here is where you’re wrong. Posthuman Studios would be in the wrong if they took the stance that all men are shit and told all men to fire themselves from their forum. They have not, where MRAs, as a group, take the stand that women are shit. Posthuman Studios is excluding misogynists. They are not misandrists for doing so, because they have not excluded men. Merely MRAs.

Quote:

"Here's our stance: If you self-define as an MRA, please fire yourself as an Eclipse Phase fan. We don't want you. We want our forums to be open and inclusive, and we don't see the point of debating with you anymore. You have other places on the internet where you can wallow in the awfulness of your male privilege." "We are a very inclusive forum! So if you deviate from what we accept, then we don't want you here!" ...I have no words...If you cannot understand your hypocrisy when it is that blatant, I don't believe you ever will.

It’s not hypocrisy, you merely believe it is because you’ve been suckered in by MRAs. The “If you claim to be tolerant, you must tolerate the intolerant!” argument is tired and was old when it was first made. Again: would you have us tolerate members of the Westboro Baptist Church or the Ku Klux Klan?

Quote:

"While we will not be actively rooting you out, be forewarned that spouting offensive MRA bullshit will get you banned from our forums." "We are inclusive, but if you spout anything that deviates from what we believe, we will censor you and make you leave". ... ... ... ... You really can't pick up on it, can you?

It’s you who can’t pick up on it. Also, [i]strawmanning[/i], presenting your distorted view as being what the other party said. [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/ShadowDragon8685/EmoticonYellowca... And again: Censorship is when it’s done by law. A private entity has all the right in the world not to tolerate anything they choose not to tolerate under their own roof. Posthuman Studios have chosen not to tolerate the intolerant.

Quote:

[u]The reason why feminism is rejected is because of things like this, friend, and your complete incapability to see it.[/u]* [u]You claim such people are privileged all while using privilege of admins to silence opposing views. Does your view that feminism is allowed to freely speak about their beliefs while MRAs are banned for it not show that you are giving feminists a privilege and refusing men that same privilege (which is again, would be opposing the idea of equal treatment)?[/u]✣ [u]Now, I'm no fool, I know this will most likely get deleted,[/u]✤ [u]it's a common thing for feminists to censor those they do not agree with or people they can't refute,[/u]Ø [u]however given I just recently found one feminist that was actually open-minded and would not use censorship to silence people who are able to reasonable argue against them,[/u]¶ so I am hoping you are like she was, the type of feminism that people can get behind, but if not you only serve as part of the reason why feminism is opposed so widely. [u]You'd be part of the problem.[/u]þ

*Those who reject feminism either do so because they have, unfortunately, only been exposed to the crazy misandrist segment of it, or because they are misogynists who enjoy women being at a disadvantage. ✣I love the brainfart here: You equate MRAs with all men (they are not.) MRAs are “Pro-Men” in the way the Ku Klux Klan is “Pro-White,” and their screeds have brought this forum to a screeching halt no less than three times. So, yes, using the power of the admin to eject MRAs from the forums is being part of the solution. Also, I suspect that if an open vote [i]were[/i] to be taken, collectivist style, that the vote would be overwhelmingly in favor of ejecting the MRAs. ✤Nope. We don’t delete posts here. The admins and moderation staff are doing their best to live up to the ideals of transparency. Ø[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/ShadowDragon8685/EmoticonYellowca... [i]Overgeneralisation[/i]: Because some feminists engage in deleting the arguments of their detractors does not mean that all or most do, or that Posthuman Studios in specific do. Get on the goal line. ¶[sup][[color=#0000FF]citation needed[/color]][/sup] as I suspect this to be [i]argumentum ex culo[/i]. þ[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/ShadowDragon8685/EmoticonYellowca... [i]Argument by assertion[/i] AGAIN. You keep saying this, but it doesn’t make it true. [hr] [sub][size=20]÷[/size][/sub]It has come to my attention that this part of my rebuttal might be taken to link Palestinians and Neo-Nazis. This would be taking it entirely out of context: what I wrote was merely to illustrate that a given group of people can have more than one unique enemy, who are not nessessarily the same entity or even in any way, shape, or form, allied with each other.

The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries wrote:

[h1]29.[/h1] The Enemy of my Enemy is my Enemy's Enemy. Nothing more, and nothing less.

You try to please one person, you piss off another. Thanks a lot, Kindalas. LatwPIAT: You're taking that out of context; the context is "identifying yourself as a Palestinian is going to dramatically, and probably irreparably, damage your chances of convincing a Jew of anything, especially if what you're trying to convince them of is related directly or tangentially to that identification."

Fucksake. I'm not arguing this anymore. You try to be as evenhanded as possible, and use as many reasonable examples as you can, and someone [b]always finds a nit to pick you with and will not let go of it.[/b] If you have further complaint, take it up with kindalas, because he's the one who pointed out that the first paragraph could be interpreted to mean that I was equating Palestinians with Nazis, and approved of my addendum. So clearly, the forum moderators think that "Jews and Palestinians generally do not tend to get along" is a reasonable enough [i]generalization[/i] to use. How's this one instead: Trying to convince a southerner by first self-identifying as a yankee. Does that work for you? Or are you gonna keep picking nits? I don't even fucking care anymore. I'm done with the Off-Topic forum. It never goes well, and someone [i]always[/i] finds a reason to rip into me.

Can I just say; I fucking love this forum! The irony of the above posts (to include a mod warning!) is absolutely deeeeelicious. This thread has brought tears of mirth to my otherwise boring day. I love you all so much right now.

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:

As you're likely aware, over in the [url=http://eclipsephase.com/regarding-mras]Regarding MRAs[/url] thread, [url=http://eclipsephase.com/comment/45006#comment-45006]SpikedYum[/url], the first MRA to be banished from the forums for spouting MRA bullshit, made a massive, huge screed as his first post, and was banished for it. I've spent the last two and a half hours [i]dismantling[/i] his post, piece-by-piece, only to be ready to post and find the hammer had already been dropped. At Bibliophile's suggestion, I've brought my response here, so as not to waste it and so as to gain some insight into good argument techniques.

It bugged me as to how long he made his post. I knew he wasn't there to play nice, but I just couldn't figure out why the length of the reply bothered me. Now I think I know. Talking to someone is a lot like playing a game of catch. You need to pass the ball back and forth in order to play. Likewise, people need to take turns in a conversation. What *I think* SpikedYum did was, he grabbed the metaphorical ball and held on to it. He didn't leave us a small or medium sized post, he made a very long one. He didn't let go of the metaphorical ball until he thought he scored a touch down. He ran the entire length of the metaphorical field to do so. He didn't stop until he wrote down every idea he could come up with. I don't think he posted his reply to engage us in conversation, he posted something so long that it would be difficult to refute him (which he might have mistakenly assumed made him more correct). He had the temerity to think that he could post such a thing and that we wouldn't call him out on his bullshit. Because of its length, it would not be easy to grab every point and debate them. It is a sign that he feels he is so right that he isn't going to bother giving us a chance to get a word in. Its like one of those American news programs where people keep talking, never letting the other guy in, or trying to shout the loudest. I think it would be wisest in the future to dismiss such people on the grounds that they are not willing to engage anyone else in a conversation. You could also insist (if you are feeling nice) that they try again and start the conversation off in a smaller chunk (and keep all future posts in smaller chunks). If people were interested in what they had to say, then they would get more opportunities to say it. There would be no need to say it all at once.