Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 184

Thread: Why I have a problem with Islam

  1. #151
    Hit By Ban Bus! pacific breeze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    in the wild blue yonder
    Posts
    15,479

    Default

    I guess I'm an ignoramus then because I've never heard of this technique. I appologize to Mira. But hubby is a university prof and he hadn't heard of it either so maybe it isn't commonly used in this country, or in our respective fields.

    I have learned something new today, which is always a good thing.

  2. #152
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,800

    Default

    I said nothing about your motives. Nothing at all. Can you show me where I'm mistaken in that?

    Fine, you've debated since grade 8. Whatever. But you're trying to apply your schoolhouse structures & jargon here, and you expect everyone to go right along with it like it's the cool thing to do.

    As to your second paragraph, I've explained this ad nauseum. I won't do it again.
    "I've cautiously embraced jeggings"
    Emma Peel aka Pacific Breeze aka Wilde1 aka gogodancer aka maribou

    Yip, yip, yip in your tiny indignation. Bark furiously on, lady dog.

  3. #153
    Hit By Ban Bus!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    11,682

    Default

    Thank you PB, no harm done, no hard feelings!

    The first place I learned about that technique is in the therapeutic setting (my father is a retired therapist), and it's starting to be utilized quite a bit in communications classes in college. Most colleges in the U.S. now require an effective listening class for graduation. A very good idea.

    I'm adding "listening comprehension to that description ^ as well. Most good communications departments have several classes, i.e., non-verbal communication, communication of self-esteem, advanced trust-based cultures, etc. gossiprocks is a good example of a trust-based culture because it is moderated and many people are supportive of each other, and many people are allowed to be "real" without being overly confrontive.
    Last edited by Mira; January 13th, 2007 at 11:06 AM.

  4. #154
    Gold Member ohmygoodness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada.
    Posts
    1,062

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobelia View Post
    I said nothing about your motives. Nothing at all. Can you show me where I'm mistaken in that?

    Fine, you've debated since grade 8. Whatever. But you're trying to apply your schoolhouse structures & jargon here, and you expect everyone to go right along with it like it's the cool thing to do.

    As to your second paragraph, I've explained this ad nauseum. I won't do it again.
    I just always talk like this. My friends tease me for it, actually. I just read a lot so I pick up the big words and it's hard for me to drop it since they're good to have when I'm in school and since classes are back in session, I'm using them often. I don't mean to come off as arrogant or condescending.

    And I take back what I said about you confusing my motives. It wasn't you, it was Mira. I apologize.

  5. #155
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,800

    Default

    Big words? My nickname as a teenager was Dictionary, ok? It's not the big words that are the problem, it's the rigidity, the repetition of the jargon, the absence of any real acknowledgement of what the other person is saying. Just contradiction.

    I don't expect everyone to agree with me, that's completely insane. But nobody likes to be told repeatedly "you're wrong because of the Blah Blah Blah Thingy because I say so." It's as if you are looking at the structure of the argument only, instead of what the person is actually conveying. It comes across as contemptuous disregard.

    However, that said, I do appreciate your last post, because you're saying that this communication style is something that you do acknowledge, and something that you recognize that other people do not always appreciate. I've got plenty of that going on myself, so therefore, I should stop being so judgmental (i.e., un-Christlike ) and try to be more understanding.
    "I've cautiously embraced jeggings"
    Emma Peel aka Pacific Breeze aka Wilde1 aka gogodancer aka maribou

    Yip, yip, yip in your tiny indignation. Bark furiously on, lady dog.

  6. #156
    Hit By Ban Bus! pacific breeze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    in the wild blue yonder
    Posts
    15,479

    Default

    This is getting close to a group hug. *ducks*

  7. #157
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,800

    Default

    Oh shit.
    "I've cautiously embraced jeggings"
    Emma Peel aka Pacific Breeze aka Wilde1 aka gogodancer aka maribou

    Yip, yip, yip in your tiny indignation. Bark furiously on, lady dog.

  8. #158
    Gold Member ohmygoodness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada.
    Posts
    1,062

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobelia View Post
    Big words? My nickname as a teenager was Dictionary, ok? It's not the big words that are the problem, it's the rigidity, the repetition of the jargon, the absence of any real acknowledgement of what the other person is saying. Just contradiction.

    I don't expect everyone to agree with me, that's completely insane. But nobody likes to be told repeatedly "you're wrong because of the Blah Blah Blah Thingy because I say so." It's as if you are looking at the structure of the argument only, instead of what the person is actually conveying. It comes across as contemptuous disregard.

    However, that said, I do appreciate your last post, because you're saying that this communication style is something that you do acknowledge, and something that you recognize that other people do not always appreciate. I've got plenty of that going on myself, so therefore, I should stop being so judgmental (i.e., un-Christlike ) and try to be more understanding.
    Well, I didn't intend for that. It's just on my other message board I go to, there's not time for acknowledgement. Haha. Either you spit out what's wrong, or you're too late and your post is ignored. I need to reform my habits for different sites I guess.

  9. #159
    Hit By Ban Bus! ediebrooks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In another dimension, untouched by time
    Posts
    6,830

    Default

    Blah, blah, blah. I said I would stay out of this thread, but here I am poking my little nose in, which I am sure I will shortly regret.

    As others have stated, Christianity is a lifestyle, not just a mindless ism. The way I was raised, it's definitely not OK to say, "Christ is my Savior, but it's OK to rape, kill, raise hell, and hate anyone who is not like me. "

    I really think it's ridiculous that this thread started out as a discussion about Islam, and has evolved into a argument about Christianity and the rules of debate. I've never been a debater, but from my limited knowledge I recall that when one makes a statement, one needs to back it up with a tangible example, instead of continually parroting "No, what I say is right cuz of the No True Scotsman Fallacy". I'm like Lobelia;what is this much-ballyhooed fallacy? I'm sure we shall soon find out.

    Anyway, sorry if I interrupted the group hug. Just giving you my two cents worth.

  10. #160
    Hit By Ban Bus!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    11,682

    Default

    hee hee hee. I don't think there's really a group hug going on edie but whatever! It was my pollyanna coming out. She is in there, but there's also a Medusa as well.

  11. #161
    Hit By Ban Bus! UndercoverGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Now with ADD added goodness!
    Posts
    6,601

    Default

    And this thread is a perfect example why I don't talk much about my faith here or even comment much in the 'religious' section. Most people on ALL sides of the equation are completely close minded to the posibility that what the other side says might possibly have some truth to it. It's the ultimate in special olympics, you're still retarded even if you win.

    I'm going to have to apply that same principal to arguing on the Irwin threads too, so I have to lump myself in that 'retarded' category too for arguing something that cannot be conclusively proven to the close minded.

  12. #162
    Hit By Ban Bus!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    11,682

    Default

    I think you're right about all this UG. If we had a thread entitled "Moral Ethicist" no one would even post because it's too boring and most people don't even know what it is - yet that's what people argue about a lot of the time. As for the Bindi situation, I'm still on the fence about it, though I don't think it's as bad as some say. Still it's not completely cool either. But we'll just have to wait and see. The girl's an innate prima donna that is for sure. I think she'll get better parenting than other celeb kids though.

  13. #163
    Hit By Ban Bus! pacific breeze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    in the wild blue yonder
    Posts
    15,479

    Default

    http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003086.html
    Unfortuately I found this on a virulently right-wing website, but this should give you an idea of what the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is all about:

    "In his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking, philosopher Anthony Flew outlined a form of argument that he dubbed the "No True Scotsman"fallacy:

    Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
    Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
    Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

    Although this fallacy can be found in almost any debate, it is particularly prone to be bandied about on matters of politics, science, or--as has become increasingly common--politicized science. In fact, the argument is used so often on issues such as intelligent design, global warming, and stem cell research that we could call it the "No True Scientist" fallacy.

    The phrasing of the argument ranges from the bold to the subtle. Critics of intelligent design hypotheses are often quite explicit in their ad hominems and are open about excluding anyone from the fold who disagrees with the party line. A similar hardening of opinion is occurring on climate change.

    Recently, while explaining why he didn't attend a recent Congressional hearing on global warming, Dr. James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, recently told journalists:

    I would get out of my sickbed to testify to Congress on global warming, if they were ready to deal responsibly with the matter. But obviously they are still in denial, inviting contrarians to 'balance' the science of global warming.

    The "contrarian" Hansen refers to is John Christy, professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and one of the lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Obviously, Christy is a contrarian since "No True Scientist" could dispute the fact of man-made global warming.

    Stem cell research is also becoming an area of science that is beyond questioning. In a recent article in Time magazine, Douglas Melton, a co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, said:

    There are camps for adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. But these camps only exist in the political arena. There is no disagreement among scientists over the need to aggressively pursue both in order to solve important medical problems.

    The assertion will certainly come as a surprise to James Sherley, an associate professor of biological engineering at MIT. Sherley is likely not alone in his skepticism. But as he points out, the No True Scientist argument can hinder free expression of opinion on the issue:

    Many scientists who do not support human embryo research are afraid to speak out because of possible reprisals from powerful scientists who can affect grant success, publication acceptances, tenure promotion, and employment.

    Sherley's MIT colleague, Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science, finds the same stifling of opinion on global warming:

    Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

    One of the ur-myths of science (recently retold by biologist E.O. Wilson) is that the community of scientists is open to dissenting views and unique perspectives. Galileo would probably disagree, as would Georges LeMaitre (Big Bang theory), Stephen Hawking (black hole evaporation), Theodore Maiman (the laser), and Mitchell J. Feigenbaum (chaos theory). All of these scientists had their ideas rejected because they did not fit into consensus view of the scientific community.

    As author Michael Crichton notes, "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."

    Science requires the collection and interpretation of data. Consensus, therefore, requires that there be no significant dispute on either the data (e.g., its relevance) or it interpretation. On readily testable theories such as gravity, consensus is possible. On disputed matters such as whether man is the primary cause of global climate change, consensus is neither possible nor necessarily desirable.

    The scientific community is not infallible, which is why disagreements over data and its interpretation should be robust and thoughtfully engaged. While claiming that "No true scientist believes X" or "No true scientist doubts Y" may be the easiest way to dismiss dissenters, it is often counterproductive. The slow-witted and simple minded may be dazzled by academic credentials and institutional affiliations but most thoughtful people are harder to fool. They recognize that No True Scientist should fear honest inquiry and solid arguments -- even when their colleagues disagree."

    And I rarely participate in these discussions for the same reasons as Gator outlined.

  14. #164
    Gold Member ohmygoodness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada.
    Posts
    1,062

    Default

    I did try to explain the No True Scotsman fallacy though!

    I think I'm going to leave the board. I just can't do anything right here. Goodbye, guys.

  15. #165
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UndercoverGator View Post
    And this thread is a perfect example why I don't talk much about my faith here or even comment much in the 'religious' section.
    gator if you don't mind my asking, are you traditionally religious, in terms of attending a church or temple regularly?
    just curious btw, your posts never seemed to indicate a religious slant in thinking/ideas..

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. HELP!! Serious skin problem!!
    By louiswinthorpe111 in forum Beauty and Skincare
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: January 10th, 2007, 11:08 AM
  2. Franklin Graham says Islam evil and wicked.
    By buttmunch in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 17th, 2006, 05:32 AM
  3. Eyeshadow problem
    By Sharlott in forum Beauty and Skincare
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2006, 04:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •