I'm going to voice this objection to this very invalid argument going on in this forum because the perpetrators of this stupid fallacy are most guilty of using it here.

When a Moderator who isn't Bill, James Still, or Richard Carrier posts an opinion, do not use any established mantra from the II boards against them.

What does being a moderator have to do with Rodahi's and turtonm's opinions on Judaism, Islam, and Christianity?

Does anybody even know who we Moderators are? A few months ago, would Rodahi's or turtonm's status as "Secular Web Regular" have caused anybody to suggest that the future of the II boards are in doubt?

Stop it. We are regular users, just like the rest of the visitors to these boards. We have been asked to volunteer to fix broken links, move off-topic posts, and once in a while, archive old posts. Oh, and when someone mentions a book, we try and link it to the II Bookstore so the website makes a little money and stays up. That's it. The Administrators and Board of Directors of the II websites are now free to fill the library, schedule debates, organize meetings/conventions, and otherwise coordinate this website. All because some of the more active and caring users have volunteered to push buttons in these forums.

It is silly to use this volunteer status against us in our arguments. Argue the points and issues... it is ad hominem to bring up the "Moderator" issue. I say that if you can't argue the points and need to resort to ad hominems, then you have no business participating in mature debates.

Good grief. Now we have the "ad hominem" police. Turton and Rodahi can, presumably stand up for themselves.

We weren't using their positions against them, we were surprised that such established users of the SecWeb would choose to defend such silly positions.


[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 05, 2001).]

Just a couple of points.

First, I consider the position of moderator to carry a certain level of authority within the Boards as a whole, and when a particulariy ridiculous claim is advance or defended by them, then I think it needs to be countered. Quite simply, the position carries extra weight, especially for lurkers, and by definition constitutes a kind of authority that is not (and should not) be extended to other members.

Secondly, if a moderator engages in mere ad hominem attack, and refuses to address the issues, nor retract or apologizes for those attacks, then he or she is setting a tone for the type of debate that is acceptable on that forum. Having participated on boards where moderators regularily attack members as a matter of course, I am well aware of how this stifles debate, and leads to expulsions of controversial members.

Personally, I come to the Secular Web for a number of reasons, and one of them is that I can expect to express my views, and I do not have to worry about them being arbitrarily deleted or edited, even when my fight is with a moderator or executive of Infidels.org. That kind of freedom is rare on the internet, and it is important to me to be able to have this kind of freedom in the exchange of ideas.

Now, allow me to offer an example to help make my point more clearly:

If a moderator made the claim (even as an opinion) that the Holocaust never happened, and quoted Ernst Zundel, the Aryan Nation, the KKK or some other wing nut person or organization as a supporting authority I (and I presume many others both theist and atheist) would be all over him like a hair shirt. The claim is so outrageous and beyond the pale as to be riduculous, and should be shown as such. The same would be true if a moderator made some kind of extreme racist/sexist/homophobic or whatever other kind of bigoted remarks.

Now, if a moderator comes here and offers an absurd claim (like Christians worship Satan, for example), and a second moderator jump in to support the claim, then lurkers may well think that the view has some merit.

This is how the worst forms of bigoted opinion begins. A respected person in a leadership position (and the status of professional or volunteer does not matter in this case) offers a left field idiotic claim. They quote from some equally idiotic sources to support that claim. People who are less well read or informed than many of the regulars then read this assertion, and consider it to now be at least respectable to hold this opinion.

On this basis alone I will not stand still when such a thing is done. I will personally put up with whatever slanders anyone wishes to hurl at me. They can even bad mouth my religion to the point of equating it with the Nazis or whatever. But when they make ignorant, bigoted, or factually wrong statements about the Christian faith and what we teach, I will call them on it. Period.

In all honesty when I saw the opinion expressed that Christians worshipped Satan, I thought it was just an error, and wanted to tweak the person for saying it (a part of the fun of participating on discussion boards is catching people in a foot-in-mouth moment, and I would expect as much quarter as I give on this one). I then figured that the subject would be dropped, or even better, an apology would be issued. Instead, I saw this lie defended, and by two people who easily should know better. At that point exposing that lie for what it was became an important issue. Had either of these gentlemen stuck merely with the accusation that Christians were polytheists, then I would not have a problem. I get that from the Jews for Judaism crowd, some Muslims, and lots of other people. I actually consider it to be a valid point of discussion.

Christians worshipping Satan does not fall into this catagory.

Thus, I will continue to view moderators as having a certain level of authority on these boards. Their opinions automatically carry additional weight because of the position they fill. When they lie, or express an opinion that is plainly bigoted and wrong, I will do all that I can to expose it for what it is. And this is not ad hominem attacks on my part, it is what I consider to be one of my primary roles as an apologist and defender of the faith.

I will debate people on a wide variety of subjects with which I am familiar. At the same time, I will continue to call spades spades, wherever they come from, holding those in positions of authority to a higher standard than those that are only members of the community.

Nomad

Again, what does their position as Moderator have to do with their arguments? That is ad hominem. Why don't you attack their "silly positions" rather than bring up their user status?

And that is one of the misconceptions I am trying to dispell. Honestly, we have no authority other than over housecleaning chores. My very publicly saying this over and over in threads such as these will hopefully be enough to convince most everyone, lurkers and active members alike.

It is certainly not my intention to in any way censor yourself or Layman in your critique of the issues at hand... I am merely pointing a particular logical fallacy that is a pet peeve of mine... especially since I myself am a moderator!

But, if the position is silly, or obsurd, or an outrageous lie against Christianity, then by all means bring the errant poster to task. However, using someone's position/job/educational background/hair color/etc. against them in that debate is an ad hominem fallacy.

If I or any other Moderator makes an argument that is wrong or controversial, I am trying to get people to attack the argument, and not the poster... in any way.



[This message has been edited by sentinel00 (edited April 05, 2001).]

The fallacy here, which IS an ad hominem, is that you are assuming that we did not attack the silly ideas. If you will recheck the thread you will notice that combined we spun out about 100 posts on this issue yesterday. Of course, since you only quoted two small paragraphs from the dozens of posts Nomad and I put out, you have completely distorted the nature of the discussion.

And, you've managed to create another useless thread completely unrelated to Biblical Criticism or Archeology.

Thanks.

Untrue. I never meant to intimated that I thought the ONLY critiques being used in the Polytheism thread were ad hominem. I noticed that they were being used, and I wanted to voice my opinion on its use, however rare it was in the 100+ posts.

It was not my intention to distort a particular discussion. Frankly, this sort of thing happens alot in the Political Forums, as well as elsewhere. However, it happened in this forum quite recently, and in higher volume than elsewhere.


The Moderators of this forum are more than welcome to move this off-topic post to another forum. Far be it from me to tell them how to Moderate their forum...

Now, if a moderator comes here and offers an absurd claim (like Christians worship Satan, for example), and a second moderator jump in to support the claim, then lurkers may well think that the view has some merit.

Those poor lurkers! Too dumb to make judgements on their own! Luckily Nomad is here to tell them which viewpoints are reasonable and which are ridiculous. Of course Nomad thinks it is reasonable that gods impregnate human females....

I have an idea for you, Nomad! Why not start an Index of Forbidden.....no, wait, somebody did that already, didn't they?

Besides, Nomad, all you had to do, instead of chewing your lip in nervous terror over what the poor benighted Lurkers might read, was post! Just post! Show everybody how dumb the idea was through reasoned argument!

As for Christians worshipping Satan, I have already demonstrated there is "SOME merit" in the idea. Otherwise it becomes difficult to account for Old Scratch's appearance in the art, literature, movies and poems of the last 2,000 years, often with secret or open admiration and approval. As I said, Xtians are obsessed, fascinated and attracted to the Devil. Certainly they fall short of open worship, but not very far. Why else would they make everybody's favorite demon the Prince of this Earth?

Michael

[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited April 05, 2001).]

Just curious: are you familiar with Zundel's big show trial that took place in Toronto during the mid-80s?

If a moderator made the claim (even as an opinion) that the Holocaust never happened, and quoted Ernst Zundel, the Aryan Nation, the KKK or some other wing nut person or organization as a supporting authority I (and I presume many others both theist and atheist) would be all over him like a hair shirt. The claim is so outrageous and beyond the pale as to be riduculous, and should be shown as such.

You didn't SHOW anything. You failed to make any argument.

The position that the god of the Christians is a demon is widely held, but rarely voiced, throughout Asia. Just try to get my Asian wife to walk into a Church without shuddering. Christians in turn regard many Asian religions as demon-worship.

Which one of them is the Holocaust Revisionist? Which one is blatantly and horribly wrong? Which one is beyond the pale and ridiculous?

I'd like an answer.

Just asking Nomad, because, along with displaying your usual lack of knowledge about the world outside of the Mediterranean Basin, you have grossly insulted Rodahi, and I, and my wife, and many others, by comparing us to Holocaust Revisionists.

As for Christians not worshipping Satan, I suggest you take a good hard look at the enthusiastic reception of the recent "Left Behind" series. Its portrayal of death and evil is being lapped up by the Xtian Reichsvolk. It is pure worship of death and evil, and pure revel in the misfortune and pain of others. A more open form of Satan-worship can hardly be imagined.

Michael