| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Robibnikoff" |
| Date: |
23 Nov 2004 05:44:33 AM |
| Object: |
Another baby murder in Texas |
While it doesn't state specifically that this woman was a christian, she was
playing christian music at the time she called 911. Terrible tragedy.
Woman Charged With Killing Baby in Texas
1 hour, 43 minutes ago U.S. National - AP
By LISA FALKENBERG, Associated Press Writer
PLANO, Texas - With a calm and dispassionate voice and a hymn playing in the
background, Dena Schlosser confessed to the unthinkable, telling a 911
operator she'd cut off the arms of her baby girl.
The woman was sitting in her living room covered with blood when police
arrived Monday. Her nearly 11-month-old daughter lay fatally injured in a
crib in a bedroom of the family's apartment in Plano. The child died shortly
afterward at a nearby hospital.
Police have charged the 35-year-old mother with capital murder, but declined
to reveal where she is being held.
Schlosser, who had a history of postpartum depression, had been investigated
on child neglect allegations earlier this year, but Texas Child Protective
Services had recently closed a seven-month investigation, concluding that
Schlosser did not pose a risk to her children. Neighbors said she seemed to
be a loving, attentive mother.
"There were never any indications of violence with this family," agency
spokeswoman Marissa Gonzales said. "The children had always been healthy,
happy and cared for."
But, on Monday, authorities discovered a grisly scene at the family's
apartment after the child's father called a day-care center, and asked them
to check on his wife and daughter.
Day-care workers called 911 after talking to the mother; an operator then
called Schlosser.
Asked if there was an emergency, Schlosser calmly responded "Yes," according
to 911 tapes released by police.
"Exactly what happened?" the 911 operator asked.
"I cut her arms off," Schlosser replied, as the hymn "He Touched Me" played
in the background.
"You cut her arms off?" he repeated.
"Uh huh," she answered.
It was not immediately clear what instrument was used to sever the baby's
arms or why the child's father called a day-care center to check on his
family.
Schlosser lived at the apartment with other family members, including her
two older daughters. Authorities said the girls, ages 6 and 9, were at
school when police arrived, and that their father was at work.
No one answered the door Monday night at the family's apartment in suburban
Dallas. Children's bicycles rested near the entrance along with angel garden
statues.
Neighbors said Schlosser took her children swimming in the summer, had
picnics in the courtyard and walked her baby around the complex the same
time each afternoon.
Dena Livingston, 43, said she saw Schlosser making her rounds with the
stroller on Sunday. Two days earlier, she saw Schlosser waiting with the
baby outside the elementary school where her two other daughters attend.
"She didn't give off like she was in a distant world or didn't care about
the baby," Livingston said.
Livingston's husband, Brad, added: "To see her with the girls, you would
just think she was a great mother."
Child-protective officials were interviewing Schlosser's daughters and would
talk to the father before deciding whether to remove the girls from the
home.
In January, the agency was called to the home after Schlosser was seen
running down the street, with one of her daughters bicycling after her,
authorities said. When officials arrived, the child told them her mother had
left her 6-day-old sister alone in the apartment.
Schlosser appeared at the time to be suffering from postpartum depression
and having a psychotic episode, Gonzales said.
Schlosser was hospitalized, and later agreed to seek counseling and saw a
psychiatrist, Gonzales said.
"At the time we closed the case, we had been assured that Mom was stabilized
and that she was not a risk to herself or her children," Geoff Wool,
spokesman for the Family and Protective Services Department, said.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
23 Nov 2004 09:01:21 AM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:30gm4tF30h3i7U1@uni-berlin.de...
While it doesn't state specifically that this woman was a christian, she
was playing christian music at the time she called 911. Terrible tragedy.
This is sad.
Two posts about this in here...about a woman who was diagnosed with severe
post partum depression, psychotic post-partum depression...
and the blame is placed, not on the husband who knew about this and should
have been paying attention (and evidently was, sorta, since he called the
day care center to check up on the kids) or the medical establishment that
was so very wrong about the woman's having been 'cured' and was no longer a
'danger to herself or her children'.
Nope, the concentration is all on the fact that she was probably a
Christian.
Post partum depression is a very real, very physical disease. It's also
very, very nasty, entirely the result of out of control hormones. Believe
me, I know; my sister suffered from it. SHE had a mild case with her first,
a really out of control break with her second, and then got her tubes tied,
her husband got a vasectomy...and three years later got a hysterectomy.
And there is no better mother than she is. None. But when her babies were
very, very new....it was a frightening time for all of us, and especially
for her.
And all that is mentioned in HERE is that she is a Christian, as if being
Christian was the cause, or the excuse.
If you want to place blame here, the psychiatrists, child services and the
husband stand way in front of her religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "X" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
23 Nov 2004 10:03:44 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
...
her husband got a vasectomy...and three years later got a hysterectomy.
Wow! That is a first, a man getting a vasectomy AND a hysterectomy!
What was that you said about you being an English major, Diana darling? 8^)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
23 Nov 2004 02:34:31 PM |
|
|
In article <AbJod.557303$mD.247368@attbi_s02>, X <x@nospam.net> wrote:
DianaC wrote:
...
her husband got a vasectomy...and three years later got a hysterectomy.
Wow! That is a first, a man getting a vasectomy AND a hysterectomy!
What was that you said about you being an English major, Diana darling? 8^)
Depends a lot on what was in those ellipses.
As they could have been several paragraphs each, there is no evidence
here that DianaC's English is anything but perfect.
Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, is notorious for deleting things in
such a way as to mangle meanings, so there is more evidence against
Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, than against DianaC, here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
23 Nov 2004 05:27:27 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-4E8D74.13343023112004@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <AbJod.557303$mD.247368@attbi_s02>, X <x@nospam.net> wrote:
DianaC wrote:
...
her husband got a vasectomy...and three years later got a hysterectomy.
Wow! That is a first, a man getting a vasectomy AND a hysterectomy!
What was that you said about you being an English major, Diana darling?
8^)
Depends a lot on what was in those ellipses.
As they could have been several paragraphs each, there is no evidence
here that DianaC's English is anything but perfect.
Nope, in this case it was a typo and my fault. It was supposed to read that
my sister got the hysterectomy.
Sorry about that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
23 Nov 2004 03:17:52 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <AbJod.557303$mD.247368@attbi_s02>, X <x@nospam.net> wrote:
DianaC wrote:
...
her husband got a vasectomy...and three years later got a hysterectomy.
Wow! That is a first, a man getting a vasectomy AND a hysterectomy!
What was that you said about you being an English major, Diana darling? 8^)
Depends a lot on what was in those ellipses.
The ellipses were part of Diana's original post.
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&as_umsgid=5hIod.6573%240k1.4236@trnddc08&lr=&hl=en
or
http://tinyurl.com/6vkhc
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
23 Nov 2004 10:22:38 AM |
|
|
In article <5hIod.6573$0k1.4236@trnddc08>, DianaC
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:30gm4tF30h3i7U1@uni-berlin.de...
While it doesn't state specifically that this woman was a christian, she
was playing christian music at the time she called 911. Terrible tragedy.
This is sad.
Two posts about this in here...about a woman who was diagnosed with severe
post partum depression, psychotic post-partum depression...
and the blame is placed, not on the husband who knew about this and should
have been paying attention (and evidently was, sorta, since he called the
day care center to check up on the kids) or the medical establishment that
was so very wrong about the woman's having been 'cured' and was no longer a
'danger to herself or her children'.
Nope, the concentration is all on the fact that she was probably a
Christian.
If she had been playing Black Sabbath in the background when she called
the cops, you can bet the Religious Right would have made a huge deal
out of the "Satanic" influence of the music.
Sean C
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
23 Nov 2004 11:57:46 AM |
|
|
"Sean C" <redhawk@/burnspammersalive/hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:231120041122386461%redhawk@/burnspammersalive/hvc.rr.com...
In article <5hIod.6573$0k1.4236@trnddc08>, DianaC
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:30gm4tF30h3i7U1@uni-berlin.de...
While it doesn't state specifically that this woman was a christian,
she
was playing christian music at the time she called 911. Terrible
tragedy.
This is sad.
Two posts about this in here...about a woman who was diagnosed with
severe
post partum depression, psychotic post-partum depression...
and the blame is placed, not on the husband who knew about this and
should
have been paying attention (and evidently was, sorta, since he called the
day care center to check up on the kids) or the medical establishment
that
was so very wrong about the woman's having been 'cured' and was no longer
a
'danger to herself or her children'.
Nope, the concentration is all on the fact that she was probably a
Christian.
If she had been playing Black Sabbath in the background when she called
the cops, you can bet the Religious Right would have made a huge deal
out of the "Satanic" influence of the music.
Possibly.
And that would have simply been missing the point from the other direction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
23 Nov 2004 02:22:02 PM |
|
|
In article <uSKod.7916$1B2.3355@trnddc02>, DianaC
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Sean C" <redhawk@/burnspammersalive/hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
If she had been playing Black Sabbath in the background when she called
the cops, you can bet the Religious Right would have made a huge deal
out of the "Satanic" influence of the music.
Possibly.
No "possibly" about it; Robertson would have had a field day with this.
And that would have simply been missing the point from the other direction.
The point that neither God or Satan have anything to do with matters
such as this, but the belief in such beings just might play a role?
Sean C
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
23 Nov 2004 05:23:40 PM |
|
|
"Sean C" <redhawk@/burnspammersalive/hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:231120041522027139%redhawk@/burnspammersalive/hvc.rr.com...
In article <uSKod.7916$1B2.3355@trnddc02>, DianaC
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Sean C" <redhawk@/burnspammersalive/hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
If she had been playing Black Sabbath in the background when she called
the cops, you can bet the Religious Right would have made a huge deal
out of the "Satanic" influence of the music.
Possibly.
No "possibly" about it; Robertson would have had a field day with this.
And that would have simply been missing the point from the other
direction.
The point that neither God or Satan have anything to do with matters
such as this, but the belief in such beings just might play a role?
Do they play a role? Yes. But....not a causitive one. And that is what was
insinuated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
24 Nov 2004 09:08:33 PM |
|
|
In article <0EPod.8239$1B2.71@trnddc02>, DianaC
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Sean C" <redhawk@/burnspammersalive/hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:231120041522027139%redhawk@/burnspammersalive/hvc.rr.com...
In article <uSKod.7916$1B2.3355@trnddc02>, DianaC
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Sean C" <redhawk@/burnspammersalive/hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
If she had been playing Black Sabbath in the background when she called
the cops, you can bet the Religious Right would have made a huge deal
out of the "Satanic" influence of the music.
Possibly.
No "possibly" about it; Robertson would have had a field day with this.
And that would have simply been missing the point from the other
direction.
The point that neither God or Satan have anything to do with matters
such as this, but the belief in such beings just might play a role?
Do they play a role? Yes. But....not a causitive one. And that is what was
insinuated.
I don't think Robyn insinuated anything. She merely stated a fact. But
religion can and does play a role in preventing people from seeking
proper medical care, or getting the help they need. The whole package
of psychological/emotional baggage that goes along with membership in
many religious faiths ("good girls don't...") can also play a role.
Whether these things played a role here remains to be seen, but there
are just too many lives destroyed by religion to pass off the
possibility so casually.
Meanwhile, I just read an article in the NY Daily News where Bush in
2001 appointed a controversial physician, Dr. W David Hager, to head
the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, and who
believes that post partem depression, PMS and other women's problems
can be cured by reciting scripture, and sends his patients home with
specific Bible verses which they are supposed to read to get better. He
is going to be part of the current panel discussion on new drugs for
low sexual desire in women, though he no longer chairs the committee.
This guy is a quack and a fraud, and he is not treating women in
accordance with the standard of care. Any woman following his advice
could be grievously harmed. But if this kind of thinking is relatively
rare in the medical profession, it is exceedingly common among many
religions, who routinely dispense prayer as a panacea for all ills. So
let's not pretend that this kind of mindset has a strong probability of
playing a role in cases where religious women with post partem
depression fail to seek the help they need.
Sean C
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
25 Nov 2004 09:14:07 AM |
|
|
"Sean C" <redhawk@/burnspammersalive/hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:241120042208335172%redhawk@/burnspammersalive/hvc.rr.com...
In article <0EPod.8239$1B2.71@trnddc02>, DianaC
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
Do they play a role? Yes. But....not a causitive one. And that is what
was
insinuated.
I don't think Robyn insinuated anything.
Now, Robyn was careful, yes. However, her very care pointed up the salient
points of the post; that the woman was listening to Christian music in the
background. Robyn, however, was not the only person to post this article.
She was the most polite. The inference was there, however.
She merely stated a fact. But
religion can and does play a role in preventing people from seeking
proper medical care, or getting the help they need.
Indeed, it can. Even you have to admit that mostly it does NOT. It certainly
didn't in this case, did it? At least on the face of it; the woman was given
medical care; she was treated...and released. I believe that we can with
some confidence figure that if she or her husband had made a religious fuss
over her hospitilization, that would have been mentioned in the article.
After all, they were paying attention to such details as the religious music
she was playing in the background.
The whole package
of psychological/emotional baggage that goes along with membership in
many religious faiths ("good girls don't...") can also play a role.
Whether these things played a role here remains to be seen, but there
are just too many lives destroyed by religion to pass off the
possibility so casually.
I'm not passing it off casually. I am putting it really low on the list. The
reason I do so is that if reporters were paying enough attention to the case
to report the music she was listening to, and that she WAS treated for post
partum depression, any hint that her religion caused her to leave treatment
early or to refuse to go back would have been too juicy to leave out. Given
this, there is no evidence in the story that points to the idea that her
religion caused her to avoid treatment.
Her condition may have. Psychotic people are not known for their willingness
to seek medical care. That's not religion talking. That's the illness.
Meanwhile, I just read an article in the NY Daily News where Bush in
2001 appointed a controversial physician, Dr. W David Hager, to head
the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, and who
believes that post partem depression, PMS and other women's problems
can be cured by reciting scripture, and sends his patients home with
specific Bible verses which they are supposed to read to get better. He
is going to be part of the current panel discussion on new drugs for
low sexual desire in women, though he no longer chairs the committee.
So now it's not only religion, it's BUSH'S fault???
Good grief, is there nothing you guys won't blame the man for?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
25 Nov 2004 11:10:11 AM |
|
|
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3Fmpd.9612$5v1.6133@trnddc06>, DianaC
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Sean C" <redhawk@/burnspammersalive/hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
Now, Robyn was careful, yes. However, her very care pointed up the salient
points of the post; that the woman was listening to Christian music in the
background. Robyn, however, was not the only person to post this article.
She was the most polite. The inference was there, however.
Then you shouldn't have lumped her in with the other posts. It was her
post you were responding to.
She merely stated a fact. But
religion can and does play a role in preventing people from seeking
proper medical care, or getting the help they need.
Indeed, it can. Even you have to admit that mostly it does NOT. It certainly
didn't in this case, did it? At least on the face of it; the woman was given
medical care; she was treated...and released. I believe that we can with
some confidence figure that if she or her husband had made a religious fuss
over her hospitilization, that would have been mentioned in the article.
After all, they were paying attention to such details as the religious music
she was playing in the background.
The impression I got was that she was forced into it by child
protective services. She may have had some religious opposition to it,
but not enough to keep her from going if forced.
The whole package
of psychological/emotional baggage that goes along with membership in
many religious faiths ("good girls don't...") can also play a role.
Whether these things played a role here remains to be seen, but there
are just too many lives destroyed by religion to pass off the
possibility so casually.
I'm not passing it off casually. I am putting it really low on the list. The
reason I do so is that if reporters were paying enough attention to the case
to report the music she was listening to, and that she WAS treated for post
partum depression, any hint that her religion caused her to leave treatment
early or to refuse to go back would have been too juicy to leave out. Given
this, there is no evidence in the story that points to the idea that her
religion caused her to avoid treatment.
Not in that article, true, but reporters often omit a lot of details
for the sake of brevity. The phone call to the police is somewhat
sensational for the coldness with which she reported the murder. The
idea of her playing a hymn contributes to that feeling.
Other articles have stated that religion may in fact have played a role
in her mindset at the time of the killing:
"Schlosser's husband, John, told an official with Texas' Family and
Protective Services that his wife had referenced a Bible scripture the
night before the killing and said she wanted to "give her children to
God," according to an affidavit that led a judge to award the agency
temporary custody of the couple's two older children."
http://www-cgi.cnn.com/2004/US/11/23/severed.arms.ap/
or
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SEVERED_ARMS?SITE=OHLIM&SECTION=U
S&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Now whether religious belief prevented her from getting help is
debatable, but it clearly played a role in her mindest. My impression
from a lot of the more high profile cases like the Yates murder is that
a lot of the times when women commit these crimes, they cite some
religious reason like "the Devil was in them" or "I wanted to bring
them home to God."
Her condition may have. Psychotic people are not known for their willingness
to seek medical care. That's not religion talking. That's the illness.
True, but in many cases, it is religion that feeds the psychosis. That
could be the case here, that's all I'm saying.
Meanwhile, I just read an article in the NY Daily News where Bush in
2001 appointed a controversial physician, Dr. W David Hager, to head
the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, and who
believes that post partem depression, PMS and other women's problems
can be cured by reciting scripture, and sends his patients home with
specific Bible verses which they are supposed to read to get better. He
is going to be part of the current panel discussion on new drugs for
low sexual desire in women, though he no longer chairs the committee.
So now it's not only religion, it's BUSH'S fault???
I didn't say it was Bush's fault. I am pointing out that this kind of
thinking is hardly rare amongst the religious, and in fact, the
religious are trying to impose it on the FDA and thus, on the rest of
us. If the FDA actually followed Bush's apparent wishes and approved
prayer and Bible-reading as a treatment for post-partum depression, do
you think that would help, or hurt, people like this woman?
Good grief, is there nothing you guys won't blame the man for?
You're responding to me, not "you guys." Do try to learn the
difference. Many of the atheists on this group are Bush supporters.
Your bias is showing again.
Sean C
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
24 Nov 2004 10:09:04 AM |
|
|
On Tue 23 Nov 2004 09:01:21a, "DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net>
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:30gm4tF30h3i7U1@uni-berlin.de...
While it doesn't state specifically that this woman was a christian,
she was playing christian music at the time she called 911. Terrible
tragedy.
This is sad.
Two posts about this in here...about a woman who was diagnosed with
severe post partum depression, psychotic post-partum depression...
and the blame is placed, not on the husband who knew about this and
should have been paying attention (and evidently was, sorta, since he
called the day care center to check up on the kids) or the medical
establishment that was so very wrong about the woman's having been
'cured' and was no longer a 'danger to herself or her children'.
Nope, the concentration is all on the fact that she was probably a
Christian.
Post partum depression is a very real, very physical disease. It's
also very, very nasty, entirely the result of out of control hormones.
Believe me, I know; my sister suffered from it. SHE had a mild case
with her first, a really out of control break with her second, and
then got her tubes tied, her husband got a vasectomy...and three years
later got a hysterectomy.
And there is no better mother than she is. None. But when her babies
were very, very new....it was a frightening time for all of us, and
especially for her.
And all that is mentioned in HERE is that she is a Christian, as if
being Christian was the cause, or the excuse.
If you want to place blame here, the psychiatrists, child services and
the husband stand way in front of her religion.
I don't think anyone here is blaming her religion -- at least, I'm not.
What I *am* thinking of when I see things like this are all the people
who daily pound home their belief that morals come from religion and
atheists, having no religion, are immoral people. The argument is that
atheists have no reason to be moral because they're not compelled by a
higher power. Stories like this are evidence that compulsion from a
higher power isn't proof against depravity, either, and kind of make the
whole argument fall flat.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
24 Nov 2004 11:26:05 AM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AB6959E30B0Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
<snip to>
If you want to place blame here, the psychiatrists, child services and
the husband stand way in front of her religion.
I don't think anyone here is blaming her religion
At least one poster went out of his way to do so.
-- at least, I'm not.
What I *am* thinking of when I see things like this are all the people
who daily pound home their belief that morals come from religion and
atheists, having no religion, are immoral people.
This incident had nothing whatsoever to do with 'morals'. This infant was
the victim of a great many people, and the ones who really fell down on the
job didn't do it because they were immoral, they just made a huge mistake.
Certainly the mother wasn't in control of her own morality at the time,
that's what 'insanity' is.
And when they do, they are incorrect. Mind you, postconstructionists are
moral relativists and all post constructionists are atheists by definition,
but there aren't many of 'em left.
The argument is that
atheists have no reason to be moral because they're not compelled by a
higher power.
I've noticed that this theory is generally proposed by those who insist
that
'higher power' MUST mean deity, and their version of it, at that. While
there IS a version of atheism that does this, insists that there is no
absolute morality, Derrida has been out of fashion for awhile; the idea just
doesn't work.
Nevertheless, a tu quoque argument is still a fallacy. Saying 'you too'
isn't saying that YOU are moral, it's saying that he is immoral AS WELL. Not
the message, I think, that was intended. ;-)
Stories like this are evidence that compulsion from a
higher power isn't proof against depravity, either, and kind of make the
whole argument fall flat.
Stories like this are evidence only that people will do what people will do.
'Free will'. Everybody in here, except the two most affected victims, the
baby and his mother, acted according to their free will. And a child died
and a woman's life is shattered.
If I were her, personally, I would hope that I remain utterly insane, and
die that way. I would not be able to live with myself, being sane and
knowing that I had killed my child while insane.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
24 Nov 2004 11:54:04 AM |
|
|
On Wed 24 Nov 2004 11:26:05a, "DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net>
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AB6959E30B0Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
<snip to>
If you want to place blame here, the psychiatrists, child services
and the husband stand way in front of her religion.
I don't think anyone here is blaming her religion
At least one poster went out of his way to do so.
-- at least, I'm not.
What I *am* thinking of when I see things like this are all the
people who daily pound home their belief that morals come from
religion and atheists, having no religion, are immoral people.
This incident had nothing whatsoever to do with 'morals'. This infant
was the victim of a great many people, and the ones who really fell
down on the job didn't do it because they were immoral, they just made
a huge mistake. Certainly the mother wasn't in control of her own
morality at the time, that's what 'insanity' is.
And when they do, they are incorrect. Mind you, postconstructionists
are moral relativists and all post constructionists are atheists by
definition, but there aren't many of 'em left.
The argument is that
atheists have no reason to be moral because they're not compelled by
a higher power.
I've noticed that this theory is generally proposed by those who
insist
that
'higher power' MUST mean deity, and their version of it, at that.
While there IS a version of atheism that does this, insists that there
is no absolute morality, Derrida has been out of fashion for awhile;
the idea just doesn't work.
Nevertheless, a tu quoque argument is still a fallacy. Saying 'you
too' isn't saying that YOU are moral, it's saying that he is immoral
AS WELL. Not the message, I think, that was intended. ;-)
No, Diana, it's not a 'tu quoque' argument. The reason it's not is that
there is no objective evidence that atheists are immoral. The evidence
presented to "prove" that idea is the fact that theists have a God or
gods and atheists do not. If, in return, atheists can show that belief
in deity is *not* proof against immorality, then that is evidence
against the argument. A "you too" argument usually doesn't work because
the fact that the other person does it too doesn't vindicate you.
However, when the other person's morality is specifically used as
evidence against you, then showing that the other person *isn't* moral
actually does work as a valid argument.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
24 Nov 2004 09:22:56 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AB7B26635C6Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
<snip to>
Nevertheless, a tu quoque argument is still a fallacy. Saying 'you
too' isn't saying that YOU are moral, it's saying that he is immoral
AS WELL. Not the message, I think, that was intended. ;-)
No, Diana, it's not a 'tu quoque' argument.
It is when the argument BEGINS with an accusation of immorality on the part
of Christians, and when the fallacy of the argument is pointed out because
it doesn't apply to the particular situation it's in, the response is well,
maybe it is illogical, but they do it to us!!
Tu quoque.
The reason it's not is that
there is no objective evidence that atheists are immoral.
No, there isn't. But that wasn't the point. Nobody was accusing atheists of
being immoral, actually. Certainly I'm not. The argument was that it was OK
for atheists to criticise this insane woman because she was playing
Christian music in the background, that it is OK for atheists to infer from
this that her Christianity was to blame for her actions, BECAUSE 'they do it
to us'. I.E., that atheists are accused of being immoral.
That is the very definition of 'tu quoque'. It's true; atheists are accused
of being immoral. It's also true that the accusation is false, the vast
majority of the time; all 'atheism' does is leave the field open to
non-theistic moral systems, which in the most part are at least as 'moral'
as theistic ones.
Atheists were accusing the insane woman of being evil because she was a
Christian. That was most certainly the insinuation made in the stories about
her actions and in the comments about them. When called on it, those
atheists defended themselves by saying that 'they accuse US of being immoral
because we are atheists!'.
And it is true, 'they' do. Often. But..is that an ethical reason to return
the favor? I don't think so, but more to the point, doing so is the very
definition of a 'tu quoque' fallacy, arguing that something is acceptable
behavior if your opponent indulges in it.
Shoot, any parent knows this one. "She did it first" doesn't work for kids,
why should it work for adults...and if we are ethical beings, doesn't that
rather demand that we act ethically?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
25 Nov 2004 03:16:09 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 03:22:56 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AB7B26635C6Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
<snip to>
Nevertheless, a tu quoque argument is still a fallacy. Saying 'you
too' isn't saying that YOU are moral, it's saying that he is immoral
AS WELL. Not the message, I think, that was intended. ;-)
No, Diana, it's not a 'tu quoque' argument.
It is when the argument BEGINS with an accusation of immorality on the part
of Christians, and when the fallacy of the argument is pointed out because
it doesn't apply to the particular situation it's in, the response is well,
maybe it is illogical, but they do it to us!!
Tu quoque.
The reason it's not is that
there is no objective evidence that atheists are immoral.
No, there isn't. But that wasn't the point. Nobody was accusing atheists of
being immoral, actually. Certainly I'm not. The argument was that it was OK
for atheists to criticise this insane woman because she was playing
Christian music in the background, that it is OK for atheists to infer from
this that her Christianity was to blame for her actions, BECAUSE 'they do it
to us'. I.E., that atheists are accused of being immoral.
That is the very definition of 'tu quoque'. It's true; atheists are accused
of being immoral. It's also true that the accusation is false, the vast
majority of the time; all 'atheism' does is leave the field open to
non-theistic moral systems, which in the most part are at least as 'moral'
as theistic ones.
Atheists were accusing the insane woman of being evil because she was a
Christian. That was most certainly the insinuation made in the stories about
her actions and in the comments about them. When called on it, those
atheists defended themselves by saying that 'they accuse US of being immoral
because we are atheists!'.
And it is true, 'they' do. Often. But..is that an ethical reason to return
the favor? I don't think so, but more to the point, doing so is the very
definition of a 'tu quoque' fallacy, arguing that something is acceptable
behavior if your opponent indulges in it.
Shoot, any parent knows this one. "She did it first" doesn't work for kids,
why should it work for adults...and if we are ethical beings, doesn't that
rather demand that we act ethically?
I think most people are pretty tolerant, and it's tempting for
atheists to blame Christians for being so and vice-versa.
It appears to me that some nuts do heinous things whether they belong
to a religion or not. I'm sure people would offer up statistics to
"prove" that Christians commit more crimes, or that atheists do. It's
*not* going to prove anything no matter how you count.
But we get too deep into the woods, I think, and we wind up yelling at
each other.
I've always wondered what makes a person "nuts" enough to actually
kill someone, I think it would be difficult even in self defense
because I'd be judging my attacker as someone who would kill me. I
don't think I'll find the answer but I doubt it's unique to atheism or
religion.
It's one of life puzzles that mankind has not solved through religion,
law, science or politics.
So let's stop trying to think that imbuing the government with any one
mind set (or religion) is going to eliminate these one-in-a-million
nuts.
Life's imperfect, starting with the story of Adam and Eve, (or so I
read).
Just live and let live, try your best.
And lets not obsess about other's lifestyles.
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
25 Nov 2004 06:06:57 PM |
|
|
<drift@lost.net> wrote in message
news:mmhcq0pol5tl03k1jt0d525eb49p5h052e@4ax.com...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 03:22:56 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
I think most people are pretty tolerant,
It's nice to think so, anyway.
and it's tempting for
atheists to blame Christians for being so and vice-versa.
It appears to me that some nuts do heinous things whether they belong
to a religion or not. I'm sure people would offer up statistics to
"prove" that Christians commit more crimes, or that atheists do. It's
*not* going to prove anything no matter how you count.
But we get too deep into the woods, I think, and we wind up yelling at
each other.
I've always wondered what makes a person "nuts" enough to actually
kill someone, I think it would be difficult even in self defense
because I'd be judging my attacker as someone who would kill me. I
don't think I'll find the answer but I doubt it's unique to atheism or
religion.
No...and it may not be possible for a sane person to understand what would
motivate an action like the one this woman took.
It's one of life puzzles that mankind has not solved through religion,
law, science or politics.
Solved, no. Worked on, yeah. For instance, we do know that a solid ethical
background is helpful when faced with moral dilemmas, (relition and law) we
do know, for instance, that the sort of psychotic break this woman had is
not only physically caused, but is actually very treatable. (science)
As for politics, that's a lost cause.
So let's stop trying to think that imbuing the government with any one
mind set (or religion) is going to eliminate these one-in-a-million
nuts.
OK. That's the last thing *I* want to happen!
Life's imperfect, starting with the story of Adam and Eve, (or so I
read).
Just live and let live, try your best.
And lets not obsess about other's lifestyles.
Indeed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
25 Nov 2004 08:09:34 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:06:57 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<drift@lost.net> wrote in message
news:mmhcq0pol5tl03k1jt0d525eb49p5h052e@4ax.com...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 03:22:56 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
I think most people are pretty tolerant,
It's nice to think so, anyway.
and it's tempting for
atheists to blame Christians for being so and vice-versa.
It appears to me that some nuts do heinous things whether they belong
to a religion or not. I'm sure people would offer up statistics to
"prove" that Christians commit more crimes, or that atheists do. It's
*not* going to prove anything no matter how you count.
But we get too deep into the woods, I think, and we wind up yelling at
each other.
I've always wondered what makes a person "nuts" enough to actually
kill someone, I think it would be difficult even in self defense
because I'd be judging my attacker as someone who would kill me. I
don't think I'll find the answer but I doubt it's unique to atheism or
religion.
No...and it may not be possible for a sane person to understand what would
motivate an action like the one this woman took.
It's one of life puzzles that mankind has not solved through religion,
law, science or politics.
Solved, no. Worked on, yeah. For instance, we do know that a solid ethical
background is helpful when faced with moral dilemmas, (relition and law) we
do know, for instance, that the sort of psychotic break this woman had is
not only physically caused, but is actually very treatable. (science)
Worked on, yes. Probably for longer than you and I could imagine,
still with no solution in sight.
The dilemma is who to treat *before they do a crazy thing, and you
can't do that.
I recently had a tenant that really, really tested my restraint. I
know other people that would have taken illegal, physical action
against this person. I'm a large person, I could have hurt him. I
elected not to. It was difficult. Why? I don't know. There is a
boundary in my mind I suppose that restrains actions that lead to the
undoable, like murder or other destruction. I've done every type of
drug there is, and drink alcohol. So there are a lot of "demons" I
could blame, but the fact is nothing has influenced me past whatever
that boundary is in my mind. I'd love to find out why and offer it up
to the scientific community. I once tended to lean toward violence,
but during my drug years, smoking pot led to lots of introspection,
and changed my perspective away from the destructive. I regret the
other drugs which were not only expensive, but probably *did take
years off my life. But they were easier to quit than tobacco!!! Damn!!
That tobacco is the worst addiction anyone can have.
end rant before it goes too far.
As for politics, that's a lost cause.
Given.
So let's stop trying to think that imbuing the government with any one
mind set (or religion) is going to eliminate these one-in-a-million
nuts.
OK. That's the last thing *I* want to happen!
Life's imperfect, starting with the story of Adam and Eve, (or so I
read).
Just live and let live, try your best.
And lets not obsess about other's lifestyles.
Indeed.
Yep.
drift
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
26 Nov 2004 10:28:26 AM |
|
|
On Wed 24 Nov 2004 09:22:56p, "DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net>
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AB7B26635C6Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
<snip to>
Nevertheless, a tu quoque argument is still a fallacy. Saying 'you
too' isn't saying that YOU are moral, it's saying that he is immoral
AS WELL. Not the message, I think, that was intended. ;-)
No, Diana, it's not a 'tu quoque' argument.
It is when the argument BEGINS with an accusation of immorality on the
part of Christians, and when the fallacy of the argument is pointed
out because it doesn't apply to the particular situation it's in, the
response is well, maybe it is illogical, but they do it to us!!
Tu quoque.
The reason it's not is that
there is no objective evidence that atheists are immoral.
No, there isn't. But that wasn't the point. Nobody was accusing
atheists of being immoral, actually. Certainly I'm not. The argument
was that it was OK for atheists to criticise this insane woman because
she was playing Christian music in the background, that it is OK for
atheists to infer from this that her Christianity was to blame for her
actions, BECAUSE 'they do it to us'. I.E., that atheists are accused
of being immoral.
That is the very definition of 'tu quoque'. It's true; atheists are
accused of being immoral. It's also true that the accusation is false,
the vast majority of the time; all 'atheism' does is leave the field
open to non-theistic moral systems, which in the most part are at
least as 'moral' as theistic ones.
Atheists were accusing the insane woman of being evil because she was
a
Christian. That was most certainly the insinuation made in the stories
about her actions and in the comments about them. When called on it,
those atheists defended themselves by saying that 'they accuse US of
being immoral because we are atheists!'.
And it is true, 'they' do. Often. But..is that an ethical reason to
return the favor? I don't think so, but more to the point, doing so is
the very definition of a 'tu quoque' fallacy, arguing that something
is acceptable behavior if your opponent indulges in it.
Shoot, any parent knows this one. "She did it first" doesn't work for
kids, why should it work for adults...and if we are ethical beings,
doesn't that rather demand that we act ethically?
Diana, I'm going to try to make this very simple for you:
/Ad hominem to quoque/ arguments do not work because claiming that the
other guy does it too doesn't prove that oneself is innocent. That is,
an accusation directed at you cannot be deflected by accusing the
accuser.
However, this is not a case of a simple accusation directed at us. The
claim made is, "You are immoral AND WE ARE NOT, because you don't have a
God AND WE DO." The ALL-CAPS portions are the important part. The
argument made against us is not a claim that we are bad people (which
could not be deflected by proving that Christians can also be bad
people), but a claim that Christians are better people than we are
(which is logically false if it can be proven that Christians are
similarly disposed to human moral failure).
If you can't see it after that extremely simple explanation, all I can
say is that you're a fucking idiot. I happen to know what /tu quoque/
means and I've known it almost as long as I can remember. For you to
walk in here and tell me I'm making such an argument when I know it is
no such thing by the formal definition of the /tu quoque/ argument as
found in any logic textbook, is simply mindboggling. Do some fucking
research before you grab the first plausible argument that comes to
mind, Diana.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
26 Nov 2004 12:41:26 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AD6CA519A6AMekkala@199.45.49.11...
<snip to>
Diana, I'm going to try to make this very simple for you:
Oh, do try.
/Ad hominem to quoque/ arguments do not work because claiming that the
other guy does it too doesn't prove that oneself is innocent. That is,
an accusation directed at you cannot be deflected by accusing the
accuser.
I believe that was my point, yes.
However, this is not a case of a simple accusation directed at us.
There WERE no accusations directed at you. This thread was begun with a
comment about how this infant was killed by a mother who was listening to
Christian music in the background. The implication being, of course, that
the religious music meant that she was a Christian and that her Christianity
was a causitive factor in her child's death. When I mentioned that this was
fallacious reasoning, a generalization at best and downright bigoted at
worst (and I did it on Robyn's thread, not the other one, because the OTHER
guy was considerably nastier about it than Robyn was. I thought that at
least under her post, there would be reasonable comments made), the argument
made to ME was that it was acceptable to attack this woman because of her
Christianity BECAUSE so many theists attack atheists for being 'immoral'.
In other words, they were making a 'tu qouque' argument.
Is that simple enough for you?
The
claim made is, "You are immoral AND WE ARE NOT, because you don't have a
God AND WE DO." The ALL-CAPS portions are the important part. The
argument made against us is not a claim that we are bad people (which
could not be deflected by proving that Christians can also be bad
people), but a claim that Christians are better people than we are
(which is logically false if it can be proven that Christians are
similarly disposed to human moral failure).
So? They make this claim about you, and you figure that it's OK to accuse
them illogically BECAUSE they make this claim about you? Isn't that the very
definition of 'tu quoque'?
Simply?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
26 Nov 2004 01:51:21 PM |
|
|
On Fri 26 Nov 2004 12:41:26p, "DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net>
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AD6CA519A6AMekkala@199.45.49.11...
<snip to>
Diana, I'm going to try to make this very simple for you:
Oh, do try.
/Ad hominem to quoque/ arguments do not work because claiming that
the other guy does it too doesn't prove that oneself is innocent.
That is, an accusation directed at you cannot be deflected by
accusing the accuser.
I believe that was my point, yes.
However, this is not a case of a simple accusation directed at us.
There WERE no accusations directed at you. This thread was begun with
a comment about how this infant was killed by a mother who was
listening to Christian music in the background. The implication being,
of course, that the religious music meant that she was a Christian and
that her Christianity was a causitive factor in her child's death.
When I mentioned that this was fallacious reasoning, a generalization
at best and downright bigoted at worst (and I did it on Robyn's
thread, not the other one, because the OTHER guy was considerably
nastier about it than Robyn was. I thought that at least under her
post, there would be reasonable comments made), the argument made to
ME was that it was acceptable to attack this woman because of her
Christianity BECAUSE so many theists attack atheists for being
'immoral'.
In other words, they were making a 'tu qouque' argument.
Is that simple enough for you?
The
claim made is, "You are immoral AND WE ARE NOT, because you don't
have a God AND WE DO." The ALL-CAPS portions are the important part.
The argument made against us is not a claim that we are bad people
(which could not be deflected by proving that Christians can also be
bad people), but a claim that Christians are better people than we
are (which is logically false if it can be proven that Christians are
similarly disposed to human moral failure).
So? They make this claim about you, and you figure that it's OK to
accuse them illogically BECAUSE they make this claim about you? Isn't
that the very definition of 'tu quoque'?
Simply?
No, lady, it isn't. Read a fucking logic textbook. I'm not going to
sit here and argue with you about a concept that's already so clearly
defined in formal logic.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
26 Nov 2004 03:00:00 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AD8F0C463CCMekkala@199.45.49.11...
On Fri 26 Nov 2004 12:41:26p, "DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net>
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AD6CA519A6AMekkala@199.45.49.11...
<snip to>
Diana, I'm going to try to make this very simple for you:
Oh, do try.
/Ad hominem to quoque/ arguments do not work because claiming that
the other guy does it too doesn't prove that oneself is innocent.
That is, an accusation directed at you cannot be deflected by
accusing the accuser.
I believe that was my point, yes.
However, this is not a case of a simple accusation directed at us.
There WERE no accusations directed at you. This thread was begun with
a comment about how this infant was killed by a mother who was
listening to Christian music in the background. The implication being,
of course, that the religious music meant that she was a Christian and
that her Christianity was a causitive factor in her child's death.
When I mentioned that this was fallacious reasoning, a generalization
at best and downright bigoted at worst (and I did it on Robyn's
thread, not the other one, because the OTHER guy was considerably
nastier about it than Robyn was. I thought that at least under her
post, there would be reasonable comments made), the argument made to
ME was that it was acceptable to attack this woman because of her
Christianity BECAUSE so many theists attack atheists for being
'immoral'.
In other words, they were making a 'tu qouque' argument.
Is that simple enough for you?
The
claim made is, "You are immoral AND WE ARE NOT, because you don't
have a God AND WE DO." The ALL-CAPS portions are the important part.
The argument made against us is not a claim that we are bad people
(which could not be deflected by proving that Christians can also be
bad people), but a claim that Christians are better people than we
are (which is logically false if it can be proven that Christians are
similarly disposed to human moral failure).
So? They make this claim about you, and you figure that it's OK to
accuse them illogically BECAUSE they make this claim about you? Isn't
that the very definition of 'tu quoque'?
Simply?
No, lady, it isn't. Read a fucking logic textbook. I'm not going to
sit here and argue with you about a concept that's already so clearly
defined in formal logic.
Look, bub, I am GOING from a 'logic textbook'. However, since I can't
exactly hand you the book to read, go here:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_tuquoque.htm
or here: http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm
or here: http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000661.php
or here: http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?tu+quoque
or indeed, just type "tu quoque' into a google search and figure it out for
yourself.
If the atheist is condemning the mother for her deed and claiming that the
Christian music in the background means that A; she is not only Christian
but that her Christianity was a causitive factor in the murder of her
child...and DEFENDS that argument by saying that the Christians accuse the
atheists of being immoral, then that defense is a tu quoque argument.
And your defense OF it is in itself a tu quoque argument; you aren't talking
about the reasons why anyone would conclude that Christian music would
promote infanticide, you simply continue to talk about how nasty Christians
are when they accuse atheists of being immoral. And that, too, is tu quoque.
If you have been laboring under a misunderstanding as to what I was talking
about, I'm sorry. However, you are getting supercillious and condescending,
and quite frankly, that's rather dangerous when you are also wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
26 Nov 2004 03:13:09 PM |
|
|
On Fri 26 Nov 2004 03:00:00p, "DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net>
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AD8F0C463CCMekkala@199.45.49.11...
On Fri 26 Nov 2004 12:41:26p, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at
length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again
after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AD6CA519A6AMekkala@199.45.49.11...
<snip to>
Diana, I'm going to try to make this very simple for you:
Oh, do try.
/Ad hominem to quoque/ arguments do not work because claiming that
the other guy does it too doesn't prove that oneself is innocent.
That is, an accusation directed at you cannot be deflected by
accusing the accuser.
I believe that was my point, yes.
However, this is not a case of a simple accusation directed at us.
There WERE no accusations directed at you. This thread was begun
with a comment about how this infant was killed by a mother who was
listening to Christian music in the background. The implication
being, of course, that the religious music meant that she was a
Christian and that her Christianity was a causitive factor in her
child's death. When I mentioned that this was fallacious reasoning,
a generalization at best and downright bigoted at worst (and I did
it on Robyn's thread, not the other one, because the OTHER guy was
considerably nastier about it than Robyn was. I thought that at
least under her post, there would be reasonable comments made), the
argument made to ME was that it was acceptable to attack this woman
because of her Christianity BECAUSE so many theists attack atheists
for being 'immoral'.
In other words, they were making a 'tu qouque' argument.
Is that simple enough for you?
The
claim made is, "You are immoral AND WE ARE NOT, because you don't
have a God AND WE DO." The ALL-CAPS portions are the important
part.
The argument made against us is not a claim that we are bad people
(which could not be deflected by proving that Christians can also
be bad people), but a claim that Christians are better people than
we are (which is logically false if it can be proven that
Christians are similarly disposed to human moral failure).
So? They make this claim about you, and you figure that it's OK to
accuse them illogically BECAUSE they make this claim about you?
Isn't that the very definition of 'tu quoque'?
Simply?
No, lady, it isn't. Read a fucking logic textbook. I'm not going to
sit here and argue with you about a concept that's already so clearly
defined in formal logic.
Look, bub, I am GOING from a 'logic textbook'. However, since I can't
exactly hand you the book to read, go here:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_tuquoque.ht
m
or here: http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm
or here: http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000661.php
or here: http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?tu+quoque
or indeed, just type "tu quoque' into a google search and figure it
out for yourself.
If the atheist is condemning the mother for her deed and claiming that
the Christian music in the background means that A; she is not only
Christian but that her Christianity was a causitive factor in the
murder of her child...and DEFENDS that argument by saying that the
Christians accuse the atheists of being immoral, then that defense is
a tu quoque argument.
Dear, I am in no way claiming that Christianity caused this event. I am
claiming that Christianity did not *prevent* it. You know both of these
facts, because I *explicitly* stated them at the very start of this
argument. Are you deliberately acting this idiotic, or are you really
mentally deficient?
You are simply determined to discredit me, lady. First you argue that a
/tu quoque/ argument is something it is not. When I point out that you can
get the proper definition from any logic textbook, you immediately start
using the proper definition but pretend that I said something I did not in
order to force the correct defintion to falsely apply to my argument.
You're a dishonest twit, and I have no respect for you.
Shut up and climb back into your hole.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
26 Nov 2004 03:51:54 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AD9CEA024CCMekkala@199.45.49.11...
On Fri 26 Nov 2004 03:00:00p, "DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net>
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AD8F0C463CCMekkala@199.45.49.11...
On Fri 26 Nov 2004 12:41:26p, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at
length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again
after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AD6CA519A6AMekkala@199.45.49.11...
<snip to>
Diana, I'm going to try to make this very simple for you:
Oh, do try.
/Ad hominem to quoque/ arguments do not work because claiming that
the other guy does it too doesn't prove that oneself is innocent.
That is, an accusation directed at you cannot be deflected by
accusing the accuser.
I believe that was my point, yes.
However, this is not a case of a simple accusation directed at us.
There WERE no accusations directed at you. This thread was begun
with a comment about how this infant was killed by a mother who was
listening to Christian music in the background. The implication
being, of course, that the religious music meant that she was a
Christian and that her Christianity was a causitive factor in her
child's death. When I mentioned that this was fallacious reasoning,
a generalization at best and downright bigoted at worst (and I did
it on Robyn's thread, not the other one, because the OTHER guy was
considerably nastier about it than Robyn was. I thought that at
least under her post, there would be reasonable comments made), the
argument made to ME was that it was acceptable to attack this woman
because of her Christianity BECAUSE so many theists attack atheists
for being 'immoral'.
In other words, they were making a 'tu qouque' argument.
Is that simple enough for you?
The
claim made is, "You are immoral AND WE ARE NOT, because you don't
have a God AND WE DO." The ALL-CAPS portions are the important
part.
The argument made against us is not a claim that we are bad people
(which could not be deflected by proving that Christians can also
be bad people), but a claim that Christians are better people than
we are (which is logically false if it can be proven that
Christians are similarly disposed to human moral failure).
So? They make this claim about you, and you figure that it's OK to
accuse them illogically BECAUSE they make this claim about you?
Isn't that the very definition of 'tu quoque'?
Simply?
No, lady, it isn't. Read a fucking logic textbook. I'm not going to
sit here and argue with you about a concept that's already so clearly
defined in formal logic.
Look, bub, I am GOING from a 'logic textbook'. However, since I can't
exactly hand you the book to read, go here:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_tuquoque.ht
m
or here: http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm
or here: http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000661.php
or here: http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?tu+quoque
or indeed, just type "tu quoque' into a google search and figure it
out for yourself.
If the atheist is condemning the mother for her deed and claiming that
the Christian music in the background means that A; she is not only
Christian but that her Christianity was a causitive factor in the
murder of her child...and DEFENDS that argument by saying that the
Christians accuse the atheists of being immoral, then that defense is
a tu quoque argument.
Dear, I am in no way claiming that Christianity caused this event.
I know, darling. That's not the point.
I am
claiming that Christianity did not *prevent* it. You know both of these
facts, because I *explicitly* stated them at the very start of this
argument. Are you deliberately acting this idiotic, or are you really
mentally deficient?
If that were the point of the conversation, that would be true. However,
since it is not, I shall go through this ONE more time. Slowly.
First argument: FROM atheist about Christian (or supposedly Christian) woman
who killed her child. The criticism is that either Christianity caused the
deed or failed to prevent it, whatever...all determined by nothing more than
the fact that there was religious music in the background. (and that IS all
that was available in the first article)
Second argument: FROM me, saying that making this accusation of causation or
neglect by theism because of a choice of music was illogical, and being at
the very least an overgeneralization.
Third argument FROM the atheists TO me... defending thier first criticism of
the role of Christianity in the killing by saying that Christians have
accused atheists for being immoral because they don't believe in God. THIS
is a classic tu quoque argument. It's what I have been talking about and ALL
that I have been talking about. Atheists telling me that it is perfectly
acceptable to blame the woman's Christian beliefs for her acts, BECAUSE
Christians have accused atheists of immorality because of their non-belief.
And you keep going back to the same thing; telling me that it's OK to blame
the theism because the theists blame atheism for your alleged imorality.
If you had been reading any of MY posts, you would have known that I'm not
one of the theists doing the attacking.
You are simply determined to discredit me, lady.
No, just trying to get a point across.
First you argue that a
/tu quoque/ argument is something it is not. When I point out that you
can
get the proper definition from any logic textbook, you immediately start
using the proper definition but pretend that I said something I did not in
order to force the correct defintion to falsely apply to my argument.
You're a dishonest twit, and I have no respect for you.
I never changed the definition. It's the definition I have ALWAYS used. My
posts are here. Go back and read 'em again. Only this time, read the actual
WORDS and not just what you think I wrote.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
26 Nov 2004 04:09:39 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AD9CEA024CCMekkala@199.45.49.11...
On Fri 26 Nov 2004 03:00:00p, "DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net>
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
Look, Mekkalla. here is a quote from you from the beginning of the thread. I
will mark the relevant passage:
I don't think anyone here is blaming her religion -- at least, I'm not.
(Ok, so you aren't criticising Christianity because Christianity deserves to
be criticised in this instance)
****What I *am* thinking of when I see things like this are all the people
who daily pound home their belief that morals come from religion and
atheists, having no religion, are immoral people.****
(Please note the above. You are responding to a criticism of those who DID
blame the woman's religion by commenting on 'all the people who daily pound
home their belief that morals come from religion and atheists, having no
religion, are immoral people".
That is classic, as in "could be used to demonstrate the meaning of the
term", tu quoque. )
The argument is that
atheists have no reason to be moral because they're not compelled by a
higher power. Stories like this are evidence that compulsion from a
higher power isn't proof against depravity, either, and kind of make the
whole argument fall flat.
(and here is the rest of the change dropping.....you say first that "people
who daily pound home their belief that morals come from religion" and who
accuse atheists, who have no religion, of being immoral. Then you say "a
compulsion from a higher power isn't proof against depravity, either". In
other words, 'nya, nya, if you accuse me of being immoral because I'm an
atheist, well look at you, you aren't doing all that well as a theist,
either". Classic, CLASSIC tu quoque.)
And YOU made it...and don't have any excuses, either; if, as you say, her
religion is NOT to blame for her actions, what is your explanation for doing
so anyway? Why, you go on to say, because Christians have accused atheists
of being immoral because they don't believe.
You goofed. Sorry, but...you goofed, and I'm not being dishonest in this.
You are simply not reading what I was writing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
26 Nov 2004 04:17:08 PM |
|
|
On Fri 26 Nov 2004 04:09:39p, "DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net>
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AD9CEA024CCMekkala@199.45.49.11...
On Fri 26 Nov 2004 03:00:00p, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at
length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again
after thoughtfully blurting out:
Look, Mekkalla. here is a quote from you from the beginning of the
thread. I will mark the relevant passage:
I don't think anyone here is blaming her religion -- at least, I'm
not.
(Ok, so you aren't criticising Christianity because Christianity
deserves to be criticised in this instance)
****What I *am* thinking of when I see things like this are all the
people who daily pound home their belief that morals come from
religion and atheists, having no religion, are immoral people.****
(Please note the above. You are responding to a criticism of those who
DID blame the woman's religion by commenting on 'all the people who
daily pound home their belief that morals come from religion and
atheists, having no religion, are immoral people".
That is classic, as in "could be used to demonstrate the meaning of
the term", tu quoque. )
The argument is that
atheists have no reason to be moral because they're not compelled by a
higher power. Stories like this are evidence that compulsion from a
higher power isn't proof against depravity, either, and kind of make
the whole argument fall flat.
(and here is the rest of the change dropping.....you say first that
"people who daily pound home their belief that morals come from
religion" and who accuse atheists, who have no religion, of being
immoral. Then you say "a compulsion from a higher power isn't proof
against depravity, either". In other words, 'nya, nya, if you accuse
me of being immoral because I'm an atheist, well look at you, you
aren't doing all that well as a theist, either". Classic, CLASSIC tu
quoque.)
And YOU made it...and don't have any excuses, either; if, as you say,
her religion is NOT to blame for her actions, what is your explanation
for doing so anyway? Why, you go on to say, because Christians have
accused atheists of being immoral because they don't believe.
You goofed. Sorry, but...you goofed, and I'm not being dishonest in
this. You are simply not reading what I was writing.
Reading comprehension, baby, reading comprehension. Go back and read my
posts again, VERY SLOWLY, and see if maybe a glimmer of understanding
starts to grow in your feeble brain. As I said, go climb back in your
hole. Oh, and try to brush up on those ABCs, hmm?
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Another baby murder in Texas |
26 Nov 2004 07:10:27 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95ADA7C3B834FMekkala@199.45.49.11...
On Fri 26 Nov 2004 04:09:39p, "DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net>
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AD9CEA024CCMekkala@199.45.49.11...
On Fri 26 Nov 2004 03:00:00p, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at
length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again
after thoughtfully blurting out:
Look, Mekkalla. here is a quote from you from the beginning of the
thread. I will mark the relevant passage:
I don't think anyone here is blaming her religion -- at least, I'm
not.
(Ok, so you aren't criticising Christianity because Christianity
deserves to be criticised in this instance)
****What I *am* thinking of when I see things like this are all the
people who daily pound home their belief that morals come from
religion and atheists, having no religion, are immoral people.****
(Please note the above. You are responding to a criticism of those who
DID blame the woman's religion by commenting on 'all the people who
daily pound home their belief that morals come from religion and
atheists, having no religion, are immoral people".
That is classic, as in "could be used to demonstrate the meaning of
the term", tu quoque. )
The argument is that
atheists have no reason to be moral because they're not compelled by a
higher power. Stories like this are evidence that compulsion from a
higher power isn't proof against depravity, either, and kind of make
the whole argument fall flat.
(and here is the rest of the change dropping.....you say first that
"people who daily pound home their belief that morals come from
religion" and who accuse atheists, who have no religion, of being
immoral. Then you say "a compulsion from a higher power isn't proof
against depravity, either". In other words, 'nya, nya, if you accuse
me of being immoral because I'm an atheist, well look at you, you
aren't doing all that well as a theist, either". Classic, CLASSIC tu
quoque.)
And YOU made it...and don't have any excuses, either; if, as you say,
her religion is NOT to blame for her actions, what is your explanation
for doing so anyway? Why, you go on to say, because Christians have
accused atheists of being immoral because they don't believe.
You goofed. Sorry, but...you goofed, and I'm not being dishonest i | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
