Do it or don't time for Gavin

[Bryan]

Everyone is entitled to a few mistakes, to be sure, but to make them repeatedly, in a single post, is a sign of weakness. So, Bryan, your fallacious arguments are numerous, not few, as you claim. I have pointed out several, but not all of them, in my post replying to your critique of my first post in the "We have a settlement" thread.

(...)

In a single exchange with me, you comit fallacies of special pleading, ad hominem, begging the question, false dichotomy and appeals to ignorance and that's nowhere near an exhaustive analysis of your post in terms of the fallacies it contains. That's five fallacies Bryan, five, in a single post. Had I the time, or inclination, I might find another five, or ten, or more.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ic=8741&st=220#

Quite the devastating attack, eh?

I've supposedly made repeated mistakes and Gavin says he pointed out "several" in the "We have a settlement" thread.

The context suggests that he has this post in mind:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=55825

Is there anything to this accusation?

Gavin:

The basic issue in all of this, for me, is the whole church and state seperation idea. I see this as being very important in a country such as the US which on the one hand espouses a secular system of government and yet which demands religious belief from its politicians so comprehensively. To an outsider, it seems like a populace winding itself in ever tighter fundamentalist circles as its lawmakers plod steadfastly on in the original spirit of the republican and democratic ideals that the nation was founded upon.["]

Bryan:

It kind of amplifies your hint of anti-Christian bigotry to object on church/state bounds not because of U.S. law but because of the threat to the world posed by those crazy Christians, don't you think?

Gavin:

Why would you say I might think I made a mistake? Bryan!! Your tactics are appalling. You put words in peoples mouths and think that the mere mention of my making a mistake, when no mistake has in fact been made, in some way diminishes my argument. So, no, I do not think that suggesting that the basic issue was the church/state seperation is a mistake. Again, shame on you. This isn't reasoned argument, you are just flinging mud pies and trying to personalize the debate. And, as you should be quite aware by now, I am not anti-Christian per se, I am against all forms of organised religion having an influential role in government and education. I have spelled that out rather emphatically. If you insist on personalizing things then at least try to get it right. I have issues with car manufacturers too, but to say I am anti-Honda would be missing, by a considerable margin, the point. To say I am anti-christian is to commit the fallacy of special pleading perhaps?

1.

A. I said I thought Gavin might think he made a mistake? Where? In my (short) comment, I took note of the fact that Gavin objected to what Paszkiewicz did not because of U.S. law but because of his fear of religious folk--specifically fear of Christians (no other religious group is in a position to have substantial control of the U.S. government). That's an "appalling" technique? Why?

B. Baloney, thinly sliced: "I am not against Christianity per se." Against all ("organized"--more baloney) religions, eh? Does that include Christianity, per se? Or is there Christianity that Gavin does not oppose based on its religious status (per se)?

C. Finally, the accusation (almost) of a fallacy: "To say I am anti-christian is to commit the fallacy of special pleading perhaps?" Perhaps? Not sure, eh? Take person X, who is anti-woman for whatever reason. He makes a specific criticism applicable to the women of Chile. One of the women of Chile notes that he is against the women of Chile. No, no, no, he responds. I am not against the women of Chile. I am against all women!

Is this a valuable distinction? Is it reasonable to think that the women of Chile were accusing the man of being only against the women of Chile? No. They simply noted that his comments were directed against them, and drew the appropriate conclusion--just as I did by analogy.

It's not a fallacy of special pleading. Gavin fits the definition of "bigot" with respect to Christians; it is immaterial that he might also fit that description with respect to adherents of other forms of organized religion.

Really? He was a Christian? Damn, that means I can't use him in any anti-theitical argument? Sheesh, I was referring to his precept! ad hominem fallacy once again Bryan, you really should be more careful.

2.

I've addressed this response of Gavin's elsewhere. He unaccountably thinks that pointing out that William of Ockham was a Christian theist counts as an ad hominem fallacy. I can't imagine that there is any reasonable way to support that notion, but I eagerly look forward to Gavin's explanation.

This is apparently not the first ad hominem by Gavin's reckoning, so let's backtrack for a moment:

Gavin:

Anyway, if we get hung up on what is or isn't true we'll be here forever.

Bryan:

Nonsense. Paul LaClair will settle it for you. Or sue you if you fail to agree.

Gavin:

Cheap and ad hominem.

3.

Cheap? Maybe, but it happens to be true that Paul argues his points by simply asserting his position (repeatedly) and then either insisting that he is correct or simply remaining silent without apparently altering his position.

Ad hominem? It's fair to construe my words as an attack on Paul's behaviors; plausible to see an inferential attack on Paul's character--but insult is only a fallacy in certain circumstances. If Gavin takes other categories of insult and classifies them as ad hominem fallacies he may be guilty of a fallacy of equivocation.

Bryan:

That's technically true, but public school employees tend to steer away from it because of the threat of lawsuit.

And, of course, college professors are able to receive a government paycheck while advocating their own political views, such as communism, in the classroom. That area of concern is less legally volatile, apparently.

Gavin:

You have evidence for this, of course. Even if you do, then the fallacy of generalization from the specific could be invoked.

"All public school employees tend to steer away from it because of the threat of lawsuit."? Perhaps a few of them have more backbone than you give them credit for.

4. This one is especially funny. Gavin takes "public school employees tend to"--which to the reasonable reader should imply a tendency of some school employees among the whole of that group--and adds "All" at the beginning to try to support his unreasonable inference that a generalized rule has been proposed.

"AMC Pacers tend to have transmission problems."

"All AMC Pacers tend to have transmission problems"?

Nutty.

"That's five fallacies Bryan, five, in a single post."

I was unable to locate Gavin's case for fallacies of false dilemma (false dichotomy), begging the question, or appeal to ignorance. I'm skeptical; hopefully Gavin will take the opportunity to make clear where he thought he detected those fallacies.

No plausible case has been made for any fallacies on my part, Gavin. Either rectify that situation or issue a retraction of your accusation (and consider making your accusation fit the evidence in any event). Feel free to go after the other five or ten you talked about.

[Bryan]

I made the mistake of not including sufficient context to make sense of Gavin's asking m about asking him if he thought he made a mistake.

Bryan:

So you think you made a mistake by suggesting that the basic issue is the church/state separation issue?

Gavin (from an earlier comment, quoted by me to contrast with another statement he made):

The basic issue in all of this, for me, is the whole church and state seperation idea. I see this as being very important in a country such as the US which on the one hand espouses a secular system of government and yet which demands religious belief from its politicians so comprehensively. To an outsider, it seems like a populace winding itself in ever tighter fundamentalist circles as its lawmakers plod steadfastly on in the original spirit of the republican and democratic ideals that the nation was founded upon.["]

Bryan:

It kind of amplifies your hint of anti-Christian bigotry to object on church/state bounds not because of U.S. law but because of the threat to the world posed by those crazy Christians, don't you think?

I was responding to this comment of Gavin's:

"This seems no more relevant to this issue than to, say, tax law. raotflmao"

where Gavin was responding to my references to the federalist arrangement of the United States government (which very palpably touch on the legalities of church/state separation, especially as understood by the Framers).

It appears at first blush that an objection to the Paszkiewicz statements based on church-state separation would be grounded in the law (as the LaClairs have sought to do from the start, regardless of any religious motivations they might have).

Gavin, on the other hand, seemed to blurt out from the start the position I wrung from Paul after much conversation: the motivations for objection stem from a belief that what they define (however inconsistently) as religion should not be encouraged in school (or however they'd like to phrase it).

This issue has little to do with Gavin's accusations, of course, but my wondering where I asked him if he thought he had made a mistake requires no explanation from Gavin.

Since he apparently took the somewhat surprising stance that Paszkiewicz should have been silenced regardless of the law, he might well wonder what I intended with my question--but of course he could have asked.

[Gavin]

I made the mistake of not including sufficient context to make sense of Gavin's asking m about asking him if he thought he made a mistake.

I was responding to this comment of Gavin's:

"This seems no more relevant to this issue than to, say, tax law. raotflmao"

where Gavin was responding to my references to the federalist arrangement of the United States government (which very palpably touch on the legalities of church/state separation, especially as understood by the Framers).

It appears at first blush that an objection to the Paszkiewicz statements based on church-state separation would be grounded in the law (as the LaClairs have sought to do from the start, regardless of any religious motivations they might have).

Gavin, on the other hand, seemed to blurt out from the start the position I wrung from Paul after much conversation:  the motivations for objection stem from a belief that what they define (however inconsistently) as religion should not be encouraged in school (or however they'd like to phrase it).

This issue has little to do with Gavin's accusations, of course, but my wondering where I asked him if he thought he had made a mistake requires no explanation from Gavin.

Since he apparently took the somewhat surprising stance that Paszkiewicz should have been silenced regardless of the law, he might well wonder what I intended with my question--but of course he could have asked.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See shellfish thread for an interim reply (I think I was not logged in when I posted it though). I'll get round to this when I can.

Pip pip,

Gavin

[Bryan]

See shellfish thread for an interim reply (I think I was not logged in when I posted it though).  I'll get round to this when I can.

Pip pip,

Gavin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Take your time. There's no clock running on you.