It's not a private language if you've got a personal relationship with Jesus!
It's hard for me to imagine the voter who says, yeah, I guess I'm ok with the no-abortion-ever thing and the teach-the-controversy thing, but the Pentecostal affiliation is just too weird.
No, it's common, I think. Southern Baptists, for example, are often eager to distance themselves from those crazy snake-handlers and people who speak in tongues. Kind of like Mormons wanting to distance themselves from polygamous sects.
Do people who speak in tongues know what they're saying? Like they could after the fact give an English translation?
Do people who speak in tongues know what they're saying? Like they could after the fact give an English translation?
I half-remember reading a paper arguing that people who speak in tongues don't produce phonemes not found in their native language, so even when God is speaking through you he's speaking in units of English or Spanish or whatever it is you speak. You'd think He'd either not bother (and just speake in Godese) or go the extra mile (and have them produce full sentences).
On the morning show I was listening to this morning, the host was differentiating her Southern Baptist church from "the crazy churches" by saying, "At my church, if anyone's going to speak in tongues, we're going to have someone right there, translating. I think it's crazy when they have all these people speaking in tongues without anyone translating."
(Granted, she's the conservative third of the morning show. But still.)
"Get these motherfucking snakes out of my motherfucking church!"
It's not a private language if you've got a personal relationship with Jesus!
Merganser is on fire today.
I just don't think this issue gets much play with middle of the roaders.
Do people who speak in tongues know what they're saying?
People who speak in tongues are performing for the other people in the congregation. They know perfectly well they're speaking gibberish.
Goddamnit how did I miss the Samuel L. Jackson joke?
I used to be proficient in tongues, so I'll claim some authority here.
3: some claim to. I couldn't.
8 is unfair. (Of course I can't say for all cases, but it's definitely untrue for many cases, perhaps most.) Plenty of poeple do it at home, alone.
To answer Labs, I don't know how many people would like her policies but dislike her tongue-speaking-church. (I'm sure plenty of people would dislike it personally, but I don't think there's many who would dislike it so much that the fact of her attendance would be a problem for them. If we had a video of her convulsing in the Spirit that would be one thing; absent that, I think it's a non-issue. (And would certainly be a highly problematic issue for Democrats to raise.)
FWIW, Here's an extended clip of her addressing her church.
Do people who speak in tongues know what they're saying? Like they could after the fact give an English translation?
There's the gift of speaking in tongues and the gift of the interpretation of tongues. Two separate spiritual gifts. Often, one person will speak in tongues and then another person will stand up and interpret -- usually some prophecy or call to repentance.
Palin's the first real-live Religious Rightie to be nominated for national office by a major party, right?
People who speak in tongues are performing for the other people in the congregation. They know perfectly well they're speaking gibberish.
True for some segment, I'm sure. But I think there is also a segment who wants so badly to be touched by the spirit that they sort of psychologically convince themselves that they have been -- performing for themselves, as it were. I can remember as a young born-again really feeling envious of the people in the pews rattling off their gibberish -- what must the experience be like? how must it feel to be special enough to God to be given that gift? Etc. In retrospect, it would have been interesting to have asked someone about the experience, but at the time it would have seemed rather like outing oneself as a spiritual inferior.
I think there's a little point in thinking this could be used politically, though. I mean, the diversity of weird religious stuff out there is pretty impressive -- transsubstantiation if you are not Catholic (or even if you are), Christian Scientists not going to doctors, Jews not eating bacon, Quakers forsaking violence... Weird stuff that doesn't infringe on anyone else is just weird stuff.
I used to be proficient in tongues
IYKWIM.
segment who wants so badly to be touched by the spirit that they sort of psychologically convince themselves that they have been
I file those people next to the ones who honestly believe they have been abducted by aliens.
Well, what does it say about this woman that God apparently doesn't like her enough to give her the gift of speaking in tongues?
17: Oh, come on now. tongues may not be mainstream, but the process of convincing oneself of implausible things which one really wants to believe is nigh universal. See, e.g., "He really does love me," or "I could stop [drinking/gambling/commenting on Unfogged] anytime," or (for a century of Cubs fans) "Maybe next year*."
* But this really could be it this time!
If every thread is the Palin thread, then which is the Palin thread? A koan for today.
I've reluctantly come around the conclusion that the Palin pick was brilliant. What Obama was trying to do was break the old partisan deadlock and be a new, fresh, change candidate. He was going to use his novelty, his charisma, and a new inclusive rhetoric to do that. What McCain has done is pick someone just as new and just as charismatic, except in a way that reflects Republican culture war memes just as well as Obama reflects liberal Democratic culture war memes. So Obama is neatly blocked off from his strategy and here we are back in the deadlock again.
Of course Palin doesn't have a new rhetoric, it's the old GOP stuff. But so far (and I really hope I'm proved wrong about this in the debates) Obama's new inclusive rhetoric is not very successful on the national stage. It can come across as waffly and sort of inauthentic, especially when Obama has been backpeddling to the center anyway. Note I'm making a point about *rhetoric* here -- McCain is actually more of a waffler and on substance he's as insincere as any politician. (He is sincere on his belief in his wonderful maverick-ness, tho). But McCain doesn't speak in lengthy essays where he acknowledges the truth of his opponent's point in the beginning before refuting it in the end. He just boldly, decisively asserts the opposite of what he said a year or two ago and dares anyone to notice.
But Obama's a good orator (as we saw at the Dem convention) and a smart guy, he can fix this.
convincing oneself of implausible things which one really wants to believe
"the ones who honestly believe"
I was amending my 8 to include that phenomenon.
But I think there is also a segment who wants so badly to be touched by the spirit that they sort of psychologically convince themselves that they have been
The two states of mind aren't mutually exclusive. What's amusing is that as a phenomenon of performance and social pressure, it seems really quite similar to vodunistas getting "possessed" by the loa, though Pentecostals would surely be offended by the comparison.
(Alien abduction is more about sleep paralysis, I think.)
Forever War Johnny and the Snake-Handling God Lady are going to drive me to drink even more. I am curious, though; Palin's demonstrated so many wacky beliefs so far that I wonder if she's a Truther, too. Someone should ask her about the Bilderbergs.
Also, in the most astounding event of the campaign season so far, Sifu takes telepathic possession of Richard Cohen's inanimate corpse at the WaPo and writes an op-ed demanding that the Democrats hit back harder at Republican attacks.
My mother spoke in tongues once as a teenager. This was not considered appropriate in the small summer chapel in Quebec. The result was that a family friend who was a doctor came over and gave her a sedative.
Then she got flown back to the U.S. and landed in a psych ward. I don't know whether she knew what she was "saying" since she never told me about it. My aunt says she never talked about it either, and my aunt's the one who told me the story.
Lately I've had the opportunity to view some real upfront loonieness (despite what you think, not mine, a loved one) and from what I see there are degrees to this stuff.
I won't be surprised when neuroscience advances to the point where much of what we experience as a religious experience is explained by brain chemistry and electrical activity.
To be totally non-PC - some of these wackos are crazy or one step from it.
In my experience, non-Pentecostal fundamentalists used to look down on Pentecostals quite a bit - my relatives, at least, always talked about "the charismatics" in mildly disgusted tones, took issue with the theology behind slaying-in-the-spirit, speaking in tongues, etc., and seemed to find the whole thing a bit gauche - but as Pentecostalism has become both more prominent and more popular over the last ten to fifteen years, I think that talk has died down. Bashing the snake-handlers would just rile up the other crazies in solidarity at this point. As FL notes, they're white, which is all that really matters when it comes to Sarah Palin anyway.
24: As my friend the Rev. Wright would say, Goddam Richard Cohen:
It is with extended interviews, such as the Sunday shows, that we get to visit with the man -- and that man, for all his splendid virtues, seems to lack fight. Maybe he's worried about how America would receive an angry black man or maybe he's just too cool to ever get hot, but the end result is that we have little insight into his passions: What, above all, does he care about? The answer, at least to the Sunday TV viewer, was nothing much.
Yes, the only signal we have about what a politician cares about is those things he's willing to lie about, or fling insults about. Guess what Richard Cohen will write about if Obama does decided to go on the attack?
Yeah, this nation was built by insane white religious fanatics. All true americans have a bunch in their ancestry. Insane black religious fanatics are johnny-come-latelies to whom we owe nothing.
28: "Those who restrain the passion to lie and fling insults, do so because theirs is weak enough to restrain."
25 - Bostiangirl
Crap. This is a perfect example of how something I say bluntly makes me look like a dick when it follows another comment I hadn't seen.
Shit.
I was too blunt and should never have used the word crazy. Not only is it non-PC it is hurtful and not even useful anymore to describe a psychiatric condition.
I apologize. People with a mental condition are usually just good people trying to do their best to make it in the world. It pisses me off when others, social dominators, manipulate and use those people, but that is a totally different situation.
This is sincere. I've seen these people and they are relatives and friends and probably people we encounter ever day and I shouldn't have used a word like crazy.
Don't underestimate the degree of solidarity fundamentalists will exhibit when attacked from without. On the question of whether America deserved to be attacked on 9-11, Jerry Falwell and Osama bin Laden found common ground.
Tripp, you can admit it if you think Botsoniangirl's mother should not be US president because of her religious experiences.
Guess what Richard Cohen will write about if Obama does decided to go on the attack?
Do we have to guess? This is the same Richard Cohen that demanded Obama apologize for something Farrakhan said because they must've met the other day at the Black Club, right?
I wonder if she's a Truther, too. Someone should ask her about the Bilderbergs.
She'll deny everything to the media. She's playing the long game. If she lets the Bilderbergs and the Trilateral Commission know she's on to them, how will she ever get to use her national office to become a member and destroy them from the inside?
IYKWIM.
AI (hope that someone nearby is touched with the gift of translation so) TYD.
My grandmother belongs to the Church of God, a Pentacostal, evangelistic, charistmatic type church. I went to church with her regularly as a child, and she would often stand and speak in tongues when the spirit moved her.
There was no translator, and even as a young kid, I could tell that the "words" were really the same syllables over and over. The point of the speaking in tongues was not to convey a particular message, I thought, but to "testify" to the congregation, to show how moved you were by the Holy Spirit, to bring about a feeling of "revival." It fits with the whole aesthetic of the church, which was a rollicking, loud, enthusiastic congregation. (It was the exact opposite of Church of Christ, which I also attended as a kid, where everyone was very quiet and respectful and took their faith very seriously, thankyou.)
Grandmother's church was also equipped with a full band (I had a crush on the drummer), a choir, and the preacher had a microphone, with a very long cord that would reach as he walked up and down the aisles and shouted into it. Now, the sanctuary was maybe 1000 sq feet, so he really didn't need a microphone at all. But that's the way they worshipped--loudly, with gusto. They annointed you with oil at the altar, something I've never seen other Protestants do. At the end of the service, the preacher would do a "call to the altar" and half the church would come up, kneel, and pray their freaking hearts out. My grandmother often took me up with her and prayed over me, out loud, as if my very soul were at stake right that minute.
I couldn't see doing this myself, certainly not as an adult, but these things, while not mainstream, don't strike me as "alien abduction" level so much as "really believe in our God" level. And since religions/churches are exempt from rationality by their very nature, I don't think there's any sense in acting like this type of worship is any weirder than believing that eating a piece of fruit dooms all your descendents to everlasting damnation.
Yeah, this nation was built by insane white religious fanatics.
Nah. The colonies were built by African slaves and English convicts. By the mid 1800s, it was mostly being built by poor Irish Catholics and German Lutherans. Except the west, which was being built by Chinese and Japanese laborers.
All the religious crazies ever built were Boston and Hersey's Chocolate. Not a bad legacy, certainly better than anything they're doing today, but not the nation.
All the religious crazies ever built were Boston and Hersey's Chocolate.
'
AND THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF BREAKFAST CEREAL
And since religions/churches are exempt from rationality by their very nature, I don't think there's any sense in acting like this type of worship is any weirder than believing that eating a piece of fruit dooms all your descendents to everlasting damnation.
The issue on the table, as I understand it, is whether "acting like this type of worship is weirder" moves votes in the Dems' direction.
I'm starting to wonder whether Dem elites lack a sense of the fault lines within Christianity. I certainly do, but I'd hope for more from the fuckers trying to win elections.
re: 40
I think you'll find that my people have been doing breakfast 'cereal' since long before that upstart Kellog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porridge
I have a friend who grew up in a Pentecostal church. Vineyard, maybe. There's huge social pressure there to speak in tongues. You had to do it by 13, I think, or otherwise not be a full member of the church.
His sister told me that she faked the whole thing, but I never got a full answer from him.
AND THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF BREAKFAST CEREAL
Oh yeah! That was pretty awesome. I love the turn-of-the-century religious people who tried to quell carnal desires through appropriate diet:
"SHIT! THE GRAHAM CRACKERS AREN'T WORKING, THEY'RE STILL HAVING SEX! WE NEED TO INVENT CORN FLAKES, STAT!"
The Kellogg brothers would have gone mad if they'd known their noble work would later lead to such debauched delectables as Rice Crispie Treats Cereal and Lucky Charms.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
"Obviously the campaign can't make such a big deal of this, since-- and this is just a hunch--I think Tim McGraw is white"
If anything, the reaction to a crazy white preacher will be even worse than the response to Wright. After all, racism against whites is more widespread than racism against blacks (at least, according to this poll, that's what Republicans think -- check out the final graph).
Even though my parents are pretty fundamentalist by the standards of the United Methodist church, they look way, way down on Pentecostals as lunatics. If this manages to find some crack in their current OMGABLACKDUDEisphere then it will be interesting to watch what happens.
This is pretty interesting and relevant.
If she lets the Bilderbergs and the Trilateral Commission know she's on to them ...
According to Chip Berlet, "The Bilderberger conspiracy theory was first widely promoted by ultra-conservative Phyllis Schlafly during the Goldwater campaign in 1964."
So, you know, it's not too far-fetched to suspect that Palin is a black-helicopter-fearing New World Orderist.
I grew up Southern Baptist, and I can attest to 27. We did look down on the "Holy Rollers". But that was twenty years ago, and things may have changed in the meantime. I doubt it could be successfully exploited politically, unless there's a video of Palin actually speaking in tongues.
Tripp, you can admit it if you think Bostoniangirl's mother should not be US president because of her religious experiences.
Nah. Google "lewy body dementia" and "REM sleep behavior disorder" for specifics on some breaking news in neuroscience as an example of advances in the field.
It is not useful to lump many things together or to assume that some of these things are all or nothing. There are degrees to this stuff and some things we are just barely beginning to understand.
SCMT: I'm starting to wonder whether Dem elites lack a sense of the fault lines within Christianity. I certainly do, but I'd hope for more from the fuckers trying to win elections.
Some of these topics are so touchy you may be labeled an ahole for even suggesting the exploitation of the fault lines.
Someone with skillz should, purely for my amusement, edit a recording of Palin's RNC speech so it sounds as though she's speaking in tongues.
On the subject of snake handling and speaking in tongues, I heartily recommend Salvation on Sand Mountain. Short, thoughtful, fascinating.
qaStaH nuq nuqjatlh jIyaj nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'
45, you would be more at home at the South Pole than in Alaska.
52 - I think exploiting these fault line does make you an asshole. It absolutely requires you to anathematize some segment of the religious community. That's not a big deal to me, because I anathematize the lot of them, but to people who value religious pluralism it's a nasty move. For me the issue is less the claim that Pentecostals are wackjobs than the implication that people who don't believe in speaking in tongues but do believe in crap about magic fruit, talking snakes, and chosen people are somehow not wackjobs.
To clarify my 56 - the "you" is generic political strategist, not Tripp.
45, you would be more at home at the South Pole than in Alaska.
True dat. No wonder I'm confused. On the other hand, the firing up of the supercollider could reverse the polarity, so the North Pole would be the South Pole, or something. I'm still confused.
http://techfreep.com/worlds-largest-supercollider-could-destroy-the-universe.htm
to people who value religious pluralism bipartisanism it's a nasty move
David Broder says don't say mean things about Republicans.
people who don't believe in speaking in tongues but do believe in crap about magic fruit, talking snakes, and chosen people
I am free of taint!
58: So will Cthulhu awaken during the reversal of the polarity, or what? This could be crucial.
I'm starting to wonder whether Dem elites lack a sense of the fault lines within Christianity. I certainly do, but I'd hope for more from the fuckers trying to win elections.
You need to be a true insider, have a kind of cynical familiarity, in order to really get that sort of stuff. Democrats do not tend to attract true insiders to evangelical Protestantism. Most of the Democrats religious outreach has been focused on learning to grovel properly so one doesn't get instantly tagged as an atheist. E.g. dropping bible quotes in speeches.
Bill Clinton might have had some idea of fault lines. Ummm, at least in Arkansas.
To clarify my 56 - the "you" is generic political strategist, not Tripp.
No, that is OK. I may be an asshole but I will say this:
I am aware of all internet traditions and the first person to refer to the other person's genitalia loses the argument.
Just to be clear before we start.
Let the name-calling begin.
59: Overly aggressive apophallation?
Tripp, pants are not genitalia
Oh good, a rational discussion about rules.
I agree.
My turn: referring to a male's "whole shtick' as 'entering with his pants down" is a reference to genitalia.
It has the word "shtick" which rhymes with stick and dick and prick and the pant's down refer to the exposure of such.
Do you agree?
I am aware of all internet traditions and the first person to refer to the other person's genitalia loses the argument.
I think it's the first person to compare the other person's genitalia to Hitler who loses the argument.
66: I'd like you to meet Der Furrier.
So will Cthulhu awaken during the reversal of the polarity, or what
When asked specifically whether the super collider would end the universe Dr. Viejo Castro replied "They had shape...but that shape was not made of matter. When the stars were right, They could plunge from world to world through the sky; but when the stars were wrong, They could not live. But although They no longer lived, They would never really die." No other scientist was available for comment.
66: "Hitler's Nutsack" was the name of a white-power band at my high school.
Hitler has only got one ball! Goering has two, but they're too small.
It absolutely requires you to anathematize some segment of the religious community.
I'm OK with that as long as it wins more votes (or more votes that matter) than it loses.
69: You had a white power band at your high school?! Where'd you go to school, anyway?
Mrs. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe called her husband's penis "Herr Schönfuss" (Mister Nice-Foot).
I think it's the first person to compare the other person's genitalia to Hitler who loses the argument.
Ah, a common misconception. Referring to Hitler's testis (switch to arrogant tone here (the plural of testes, from the Latin "test" which means to cause excruciating pain by direct application of pressure) end arrogant tone) ends the discussion immediately. The winner then is determined by the point system.
One point is awarded to one's opponent for each incidence of a logical fallacy, including but not limited to name-calling.
75: Fuhrer's balls but you're a damnable pedant. I'll just bet you rape babies, you Trotskyite Revisionist.
logical fallacy, including but not limited to name-calling.
Name calling is by no means limited to fallacies.
I used to be proficient in tongues
Does that take one or two non-weapon proficiency slots?
"I can do my part in working really, really hard to get a natural gas pipeline, about a $30 billion project that's going to create a lot of jobs for Alaska. ... [but] I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said. "I can do my job there in developing our natural resources, in doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded. But really that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's hearts aren't right with God."
It wasn't all serious, though. At one point during the address, Palin praised the graduating class as "a bunch of cool-looking Christians." Then she picked out one student in the crowd and said with a smile, "Ben, I don't know you well enough yet, but looking at you, I'm thinking, people are going to interested in Jesus Christ through you because of the way you look - this red-headed Sasquatch for Jesus. You look good!" The students cheered. "Times are really changin'. And with the times that change, looks even change."
Silly me. I thought you were making up the Sasquatch bit. Then I clicked through.
The Change You Deserve
Truth in advertising, Mencken style.
That moment defined my life, haters. I went out right after that ceremony and had my name legally changed. Palin or bust!
82: Too bad they overdid the "side-effects" crawl at the end.
I went out right after that ceremony and had my name legally changed
...to Chad Ocho Cinco.
This Red-Headed Sasquatch for Jesus
Apo and Palin go way back.
81 pwned by 12, godammit. 12! And 12 had video. And 81 doesn't even excerpt the best parts.
Name calling is by no means limited to fallacies.
Of course not. When arguing, though, it is in all cases an informal logical fallacy. I will bow to the times and submit wikipedia as an authority on this topic: Logical fallacies
Do you accept that authority? I admit wikipedia is not academically credentialed but in this case I think it will suffice. I am trying to have this blog live up to its byline as the voice of sweet reason.
So are the rules in place and agreed to? Are the authorities assembled and agreed to? If so, let the debate commence.
Then she picked out one student in the crowd and said with a smile, "Ben, I don't know you well enough yet, but looking at you, I'm thinking, people are going to interested in Jesus Christ through you because of the way you look - this red-headed Sasquatch for Jesus. You look good!" The students cheered. "Times are really changin'. And with the times that change, looks even change."
Holy crap! Now what was it you were saying about prosperity theology, Emerson?
it is in all cases an informal logical fallacy.
This is incorrect.
OK, so this is comment is too serious for this site. But the "speaking in tongues" business that these Pentacostal cultists practice drives me nuts. It's based on a story from the Book of Acts, wherein after Jesus's death and resurrection, he told his followers:
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
So a few days later:
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
The point of quoting all that is that the Miracle of Tongues is a miracle of conveying meaningful communication.
So how do these mouth-breathing hicks and the frauds who preach to them and rob them celebrate and recreate this particular miracle? They roll around on the floor - literally! - in a close approximation of a grand mal epileptic attck, ecstatically spewing totally senseless babble which neither they nor anyone else can understand a word of. Meaning? Absolute zero! Communication? With no one at all!
But how can you expect anything better from "Christians" who ninety percent of them have never read the Bible in their lives and never will?
Tripp, it's okay. My Mom is crazy.
93. Spoilsport. What else do you want to ruin, stigmata?
Shush, Confused Pentacostalist. We can understand not a word of your senseless babble. Also, you should breathe in the more civilized and acceptable manner, through your nose.
93: "Slaying in the spirit" is pretty annoying too. A centrepiece of faith healing services, many of which learning quickly to employ catchers for those who fall over, because apparently faith healing doesn't extend to concussions and fractured vertebrae.
Xenoglossy and glossolalia literally could not be more different.
The concussions and fractures occur a split second after the faith healing, DS, so there isn't really a contradiction.
You know what's wrong with Unfogged? Too goddamn many people who understand the Pentecostals from personal experience. That's what's wrong with Unfogged. It's like those Christian preachers who go on and on about their youthful drug use. Get over it, guys!
My attempts to help people are often rejected by the very people who need it most, so I'm resigned to contumely and scorn. But that's OK, I can take it.
Actually, M/tch, "Kobe++" would return the value in Kobe prior to incrementation. You want "++Kobe".
KOBE+++. WOULD WATCH THIS BASKETBALL PLAYER AGAIN!!!
Sen. Norm Coleman speaks in tongues when asked his opinion of Pres. Bush.
If 98 had links, I would follow them and take the time to get the joke.
That's sweet. You're sweet, heebie.
Laydeez: Be advised that ben likes it if you follow his links.
I have them cunningly arranged to lead to my bed.
Ben employs sausage-based means of seduction.
'Tis a tortuous path, if one must work through waste.
89: wait! what was the best part? is there a transcript anywhere?
So, the news I read initially at ObWi about a new al Qaeda video release on the occasion of Sept. 11 is somewhat interesting.
In the meantime, I admit that I've felt guilty in ben's general direction for not yet having read the comments on D/v/ds/n he apparently posted on (at?) waste at some point. There was some fretting on ben's part about someone or other Famous having gone to the site, which I hope has been resolved.
Re: 111. Who knew young Ben was such a thorough libertine, and an unprincipled rake?
119: Well, I might as well be, I guess, I'm so out of the loop. And I thought W-lfs-n was merely a stickler for spelling!
He's a stickler for rakishness, too.
92: it is in all cases an informal logical fallacy.
This is incorrect.
Ah, soup, would you like to expand on this?
Or are you simply carping over a spelling error?
Referring to a male's "shtick" is what is known in Latin as an ad homonym argument, which is in all cases an informal logical phallusy.
Or maybe you are trying to redefine the argument space of the internet. Are you claiming that this comment section is not a place for, I think it is called, "the voice of sweet reason?"
Maybe your brain is thinking of something else, I really can't tell, so I'll repeat my opening request.
Would you care to expand on your claim?
Bostoniangirl,
Tripp, it's okay. My Mom is crazy.
Even so it is not my place to say it. Besides, I like you and don't want to be a jerk to you or your Mom.
John,
My attempts to help people are often rejected by the very people who need it most
Amen. People don't want help. They want to be told they are right or they want commiseration or barring that they want a scapegoat. Even otherwise reasonable people will turn on you if you try to help them by explaining how they can get (most of) what they want by making other people the scapegoat. They'd rather try to change human nature and then want praise for their efforts. When they fail and do not get praise they look for the scapegoat.
What can I say - people! Arg. Love em or leave em I guess.
Tripp,
I suppose that a standard abusive ad hominem argument is an argument in which one person says that another person's claim is false *because* there's something bad about that other person. For example:
Tripp's a twit. Therefore, his views about gender are false.
That's quite different from the following conjunction:
Tripp's a twit, AND his views about gender are false.
Nothing fallacious there; there's not even an inference. Nor is there necessarily anything fallacious with this inference:
Tripp has the following false views about gender: A, B, C. His holding these particular false views suggests that he's a twit.
Moreover, not everything that fits the form of the standard abusive ad hominem argument is a fallacy. Sometimes, facts about a person can provide inductive support for the claim that a view that person holds is false. For example:
Tripp's a twit--we've seen in the past that he holds false views about gender such as A, B, and C. Now Tripp is making the following claim about gender: D. So, D is probably false as well.
