March 09, 2005

Ad hominem Attacks

In replies to some of my posts ad hominem attacks have been made on me and Christians. This post is to serve a notice to those who make these sort of attacks. They are simply not welcome on this blog. If in future posts are made which contain ad hominem attacks the posts will be deleted and re-posted by me, with the ad hominem attacks removed. The rules are simple. This is my blog and I reserve the right to edit out ad hominem attacks. If you cannot come up with an intelligent response, then don’t post at all. Existing posts before this will stand.

- 20 comments by 1 or more people Not publicly viewable

[Skip to the latest comment]
  1. I think you may be misunderstanding the ad hominem fallacy, but thats just my opinion.

    09 Mar 2005, 14:19

  2. I have been attacked, rather than my ideas, this note was written to try to put a stop to this and to further attacks.

    by the way, if you could point out my missunderstanding i'd be grateful

    09 Mar 2005, 14:30

  3. What's wrong with attacking Christians anyway????

    It's an extremely irrational belief and we live in the 21st century, not the dark ages. From what I read on the other part of your blog the point one guy made about what the church has done in the past was fairly sensible too. How can people go on about stopping women making choices to do with their own body "because it's murder" when the church itself has been culpable in massive crimes throughout history causing the death of thousands upon thousands. A bundle of cells is different to a human life, and I'll base my opinions on this upon science, rather than mysticism.

    Thankfully we live in a fairly rational society in this regard and christianity has been steadily been losing it's grip on society. Nowadays it's only a small minority who continue to hold on to such obviously illogical beliefs and my guess is that this minority will get smaller and smaller.

    09 Mar 2005, 14:36

  4. I'm not against attacking the views of christians, I like dealing with these sort of attacks, but I do not tollerate attacks on the christians perosonally. To say "your ideas's are wrong" is one thing, to lable the people as "a narrow midinded fuckwit of a por-life christian fundermentalist" is another and is not acceptable. Besides, my blogs my rules on what is aceptable (subservient of course to the universities rules)

    09 Mar 2005, 14:40

  5. Apologies for the numerous mistakes in spelling in that post

    09 Mar 2005, 14:41

  6. What's wrong with attacking Christians anyway????

    I'll try not to take this too literally, but please, sir, be careful with statements like these. It is highly inhuman to attack people on the basis of their beliefs, and even if some Christians resort to such behavior, that doesn't make it any more valid to attack them as well.

    As far as it being an irrational belief, it all depends on what parts you regard highly. Similarly, I understand you'd argue that the other religions are irrational beliefs, hence dismissing 84% of the world population

    Coincidentally, I do regard the woman's choice to save her own life – before starting a new one that will most probably more wonderful if started later – as a more important issue than the embryo's potential life – leaving aside the issue whether it's actually life or not.

    Rich, as far as ad hominem attacks on your blog go, feel free to remove them. You might want to change your entries to only viewable and/or commentable by staff/students, so at least you know who is commenting. Keep the debate going!

    09 Mar 2005, 14:58

  7. Tom

    The truth of a statement is in no way related to the number of people who believe it to be true.

    An irrational belief would be one without any logical basis.

    However, just because something's irrational doesn't mean it's untrue.

    09 Mar 2005, 15:04

  8. The problem with pro-life is that it places more value on the potential life of the embryo than on the rights and opinions of the 'mother'.

    09 Mar 2005, 15:33

  9. Sorry Tom, I was kind of giving one statement to oppose three of Damian's. The fact of the number of people following some sort of belief was to counter his idea that (any) religion's grip on society is fading and that only a small minority have such 'irrational' beliefs.

    09 Mar 2005, 16:06

  10. oh jimminy

    …oh sweet jesus blogging sucks.

    09 Mar 2005, 17:18

  11. Abraham Derby

    "i have been attacked rather than my ideas"

    1.maybe you shouldn't put put out such distastefull ideas if you dont want to be attacked?

    2. this page published on the web – when you apply for jobs the potential employer is gonna put your name into google and get this shit – then they'll see your a bit of a nutbar and before you know it you'll be signing on. This makes me feel all warn inside.

    09 Mar 2005, 17:23

  12. In responce to the last comment about distasteful ideas;
    First, the comments made on the abortion debate are a statement of how Mr Cowan feels about the result in the union referenda. There is a brief explaination of the pro-life position, in which the only thing I can see that could be construed as a 'distateful idea' is that "the unborn are full human beings". I don't see anything in that which invites this amount of flak.

    Next, the issues of human rights involved, i.e. the right to control your own body, the right to self determination, the right, in fact, to free choice without persecution or opression, and on the other side the 'right to live' of any human, are almost certainly agreed upon by every single person who has commented on this blog, including the blogger.

    Anybody who wishes to blog an argument that opression is justified, or that killing one human is justified if it makes (to whatever extent) someone elses life better is welcome to, preferably on thier own blog, and in a period when they have sufficient time to deal with a bucket load of comments.

    The question is not whether some of these rights do or do not apply to the mother, but whether they apply to the foetus. If the foetus is human, then mortal danger to the mother can justify an abortion, but little else, whereas if it isn't human, all of the pro-life arguements colapse and everybody is happy.

    That the fundamental rights of humans are so emotive can only be a good thing (Trying to avoid being patronising – sorry if I fail!), but having the whole row over a misunderstanding isn't so great.

    Sorry if my discussion of 'human rights' is a bit mixed up in the eyes of those who understand the concepts better than me – hopefully you can see what I'm gettin at.

    14 Mar 2005, 22:55

  13. Hetty Wainthrop

    but the foetus isn't a human being, so the arguments about human rights are false.

    16 Mar 2005, 10:18

  14. LardArse

    Your're a feotus!

    16 Mar 2005, 12:16

  15. Hetty Wainthrop

    No – you're a turd sandwich

    16 Mar 2005, 14:40

  16. Matt Jermyn

    Whether or not a foetus is a human being IS the 'argument'. At least for me. I can see no other reason for opposing abortion.

    It is extreemly unlikely that anyone commenting on this blog is either a foetus, a feotus, or a turd sandwich ;)

    20 Mar 2005, 21:53

  17. Hetty Wainthrop

    Matt – you're a foetus!

    23 Mar 2005, 11:07

  18. Ok, so I might be an exception!!! : D

    23 Mar 2005, 22:19

  19. First of all if you have a problem with this, i would recommend setting all your blog so that only staff/students can comment, that way people have to identify themselves if they are going to insult you. I very much doubt they would continue to do so, the kind of people who post these comments are cowards and would never say those kind of things while identifying themselves and certainly not to your face. Guardian fueled hate-mongerers against the "religious right" are incredibly hipocratic as its practitioners often go against all they claim to defend in venting their hatred.

    14 May 2005, 18:19

  20. OPEN EYES

    I believe there should be no religions just a shared notion of right and wrong and that religion was created to control man. Man will never be controlled man should not even be walking on this earth we were put here for yaldabaoth's own amusement and we are now just fodder left to lead mindless, stupid and pointless lives. Our aim is to leave this planet and return to the cosmos from where we were created. There is no hell except for the lives we are living now nor is there a heavan it's just another prison where they will keep you so that later you are recycled and spat back down to Earth to lead yet another mindless, stupid and pointless life. FREE YOURSELVES AND JOIN THE STARS!!!!!!!!!!!

    03 Jun 2006, 08:50


Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

March 2005

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Feb |  Today  |
   1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31         

Search this blog

Tags

Galleries

Most recent comments

  • Very helpful as we are looking at humility and pride in our home group this evening. 21.2.05 by Sue on this entry
  • I am looking to acquire some audio/video of teachings related to the subject of decision making and … by elliott on this entry
  • I believe there should be no religions just a shared notion of right and wrong and that religion was… by OPEN EYES on this entry
  • hi by kl on this entry
  • First of all if you have a problem with this, i would recommend setting all your blog so that only s… by on this entry

Blog archive

Loading…
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXXI