Bill Maher on Fundies and The South

Religions > Atheism > Bill Maher on Fundies and The South

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 3

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"ta"
Date:	23 Jul 2004 03:11:31 PM
Object:	Bill Maher on Fundies and The South

CALLER: Yes, do you think President Bush is sincere in supporting
Ariel Sharon's position, the government with denying the Palestinians
right of return or do you think this is just a ploy to get the Jewish
vote?
MAHER: I think this is all -- this has everything to do with the fact
that George Bush is a born-again Christian. OK, and this is why
religion is so dangerous in our society. Because George Bush is not
just a Christian. He's a born-again, they believe Jesus is coming back
any day now. And they want everything to be perfect for him. They call
it the rapture, right?
KING: Why is that bad?
MAHER: Well, Thomas Jefferson said the book of revelations was the
ravings of a lunatic. George Bush organizes his foreign policy around
it. That's why it's bad. Because his decisions about Israel are
affected by his religious beliefs.
KING: You mean that Christ is coming back Israel.
MAHER: Jesus is coming back, and he's not coming back to Toledo,
Larry, he's coming back to his home, which is Jerusalem, which has to
be in Jewish hands because the Jews have a very important role to play
when Jesus comes back, which is, of course, to be dead. Because there
can't be any Jews around.
KING: That's right, yes.
MAHER: I mean, this is scary stuff. Because it's completely
irrational. It's like half this country wants to guide our ship of
state by a compass. A compass, something that works by science and
rationality, and imperial wisdom. And half this country wants to kill
a chicken and read the entrails like they used to do in the old Roman
Empire. And I'm with the compass people.
.. . .
KING: Carbondale, Illinois.
CALLER: How do we get southern voters voting Democrat again? Thank
you, Bill. Thank you, Larry.
KING: Will the South ever vote Democratic?
MAHER: You know, that's a sore point with me, the south. The way that
they have the stranglehold over the electorate. Because, excuse me,
and I love playing to red states, because when I play the red states
my stand-up act I get all the people 40 don't usually have someone
like me come to their state. So there's a great bonding.
And I feel for them, because there's a lot of smart people in the
south. But in general, it is the dumbest part of the country. Excuse
me. It is. And also, they're the super patriots. The one part of the
country that ever actually seceded. The one part of the country that
ever actually committed treason. And they seem to lead in how we are
supposed to think. Because they're more religious, they're more
patriotic and I think it's just a disservice to our...
KING: You think in modern-day America you could still claim a whole
region is dumber than another region?
MAHER: They lead the region in dumbness, yes, they do. Because there's
just too many people who think that every problem can be solved by
either more guns or more Jesus. And like I said, I'm with the people
who are following the compass. Not the people who are reading the
entrails of the chicken. They're the people who are reading the
entrails of the chicken.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/22/lkl.00.html
.

User: "William Daffer"
Title: Re: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South	24 Jul 2004 07:41:10 PM

etaJ <ta33@bellsouth.net> writes:

"ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> writes:

[snip]

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush was one.

whd

I'm sorry for the nym-mangling mixup here. This post was supposed to
be under my real name, whdaffer@wabcmail.com, not
"etaJ <ta33@bellsouth.net>", which is a mangling of the nym of the person
to whom I an responding.
In another newsgroup I wrote a piece of software that mangles the
email address of certain posters and then posts back with a version
of their nym. This software is only supposed to kick in for these
posters in certain newsgroups, but it's clear that it has a bug.
I'll vet my responses more carefully in the future to make sure this
doesn't happen again and, of course, I'll fix the bug.
Sorry for any confusion I've caused.
whd
--
DARING, n. One of the most conspicuous qualities of a man in
security.
-- Ambrose Bierce: _The Devil's Dictionary_
.

User: "ta"
Title: Re: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South	24 Jul 2004 04:07:04 PM

etaJ wrote:

"ta" <

> writes:

Rafeek wrote:

On 23 Jul 2004 13:11:31 -0700,

(ta) wrote:

MAHER: Well, Thomas Jefferson said the book of revelations was the
ravings of a lunatic. George Bush organizes his foreign policy
around it. That's why it's bad. Because his decisions about Israel
are affected by his religious beliefs.

KING: You mean that Christ is coming back Israel.

MAHER: Jesus is coming back, and he's not coming back to Toledo,
Larry, he's coming back to his home, which is Jerusalem, which has
to be in Jewish hands

Is there any documented evidence that Bush thinks this way? I.E.
has he actually SAID any of this stuff? (aside from the usual vague
pandering to bible-thumpers)...?

Bush is an admitted born-again Christian, and there is plenty of
evidence to document how born again Christians think. If you
subscribe to a particular ideology, doesn't it go without saying
that you adhere to the principles contained within that doctrine? Do
you think one could be a born again, or a communist, or a klu klux
klan member, or zionist without having those ideas affect your
policy decisions?

Not all born-again Christians are dispensationalists. I doubt, for
instance, that Jimmy Carter, who is a self-described 'born-again
Christian', is a dispensationalist.

True, good point.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush was one.

I don't know that he has ever come out and explicitly said that (I highly
doubt it), but I certainly would not be surpised either. Dubya is no doubt
an evangelical christian, and you'd probably have to be a blind man in a
roomful of deaf people to not see the influence of his religious views in
his political behaviour. Related article:
"Thanks to some recent books, we know quite a lot about the governing
style - and the fervent faith - of the president. Both Paul O'Neill, the
treasury secretary fired by bush in 2002 (profiled in Ron Suskind's The
Price of Loyalty) and Richard Clarke, the former White House
counter-terrorism officer and author of Against all Enemies, noticed Bush's
refusal to consider alternatives. Bush told O'Neill that, "I will not
negotiate with myself," when the then treasury secretary questioned the
wisdom of vast tax cuts. Clarke heard him say, "you are either with us or
against us" and wrote that the president "looked for simple solutions, the
bumper-sticker description of the problem".
Bob Woodward, in Plan of Attack, writes that when he asked the president
whether he consulted his father, Bush seemed surprised by the question.
"There is a higher father that I appeal to." And, when replying to a
question about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush
said to Woodward: "But you run in different circles than I do. Much more
elite."
The remark pulls you up short. Bush - the son of patricians on both sides,
educated at Andover and Yale, a member of Skull and Bones, the most
aristocratic, secret society on the Yale campus, former governor of Texas,
president of the United States of America - does not run in elite circles?
But the alcoholic, upper-class, Episcopalian playboy Bush no longer exists.
The reborn Bush is a Texas Evangelical Christian, a Methodist, who feels at
home among ordinary folks at the Midland Men's Community Bible Study Group
in Midland, Texas. He has, in effect, become one of them. He talks like they
do and believes what they believe: the Bible is the literal truth. Good and
Evil oppose each other. There can be no middle ground. Hence, when Woodward
relates how he asked the president whether he had ever doubted his course of
action in Iraq, the president replied: "Yeah... I haven't suffered any
doubt." "Is that right?" Woodward asked. "Not at all?" "No. And I'm able to
convey that to people." To those who had lost sons or daughters in the
conflict, he said, "I hope I'm able to convey that in a humble way."
To doubt his policy would be to doubt his God-given calling. Shortly after
the State of the Union Message of 2002, in which he had called Iraq, Iran
and North Korea "the axis of evil", Bush addressed an audience in Daytona
Beach, Florida. "We've got a great opportunity," he said. "As a result of
evil, there's some amazing things that are taking place in America. People
have begun to challenge the culture of the past that said, 'If it feels
good, do it.' This great nation has a chance to change the culture."
In the State of the Union address of January 2003, President Bush repeated
his theme of moral transformation: "Our fourth goal is to apply the
compassion of America to the deepest problems of America. For so many in our
country - the homeless and the fatherless, the addicted - the need is great.
Yet there's power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and
faith of the American people."
Non-Evangelicals will not recognise "wonder-working power", but the "base"
does. It comes from the refrain of a famous revivalist hymn, composed by
Lewis E. Jones at a campfire revival in 1899, "There is Power in the Blood":
"There is power, power, wonder-working power / In the blood of the Lamb."
The White House, the cabinet and the Congress of the US all contain strong
supporters of Bush's Evangelical crusade. Bush appointed a devout
Pentecostalist and member of the very conservative Assemblies of the Church
of God, John Ashcroft, to be attorney-general. Michael Gerson, the
president's speech writer, graduated with a degree in theology from Wheaton
College in Illinois, a leading Evangelical institution. Bush's electoral
strategist, Karl Rove, whom many consider the most important member of the
entourage, received an honorary degree in May 2004 from the controversial
Evangelist, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, at his Liberty University, for his
"commitment to conservative ideas". And according to Peter Singer, in his
recently published The President of Good & Evil: The Ethics of George W.
Bush, the majority leader of the House of Representatives, Tom DeLay of
Texas, has said: "Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the
realities that we find in this world - only Christianity." By this, DeLay
means "a biblical world view" that rejects the teachings of Charles Darwin.
DeLay believes that the shootings at Columbine High School took place
"because our school systems teach our children that they are nothing but
glorified apes who have evolutionised out of some primordial mud".
Exit polls in 2000 showed that 55 per cent of those who voted for Bush
placed moral reform as their highest political objective. All the so-called
"hot-button issues" of this campaign - conflicts over gay marriage,
abortion, guns, feminism or stem-cell research - reflect that. All those
issues grow out of what Evangelicals call "secular humanism" - a movement
which, they believe, has debauched American life in the form of feminism,
moral relativism, bible criticism, Darwinian evolution and, worst of all,
abortion. US representative Mark Souder of Indiana, who accepts the Bible as
literally true, told the interviewer for "The Jesus Factor", an episode of a
PBS documentary on Evangelicals and politics: "I believe that the
fundamental change in America was the legalisation of abortion."
For conservative Christians, the election of 2004 represents the ultimate
struggle between good and evil in American life. Republican Congressman Tom
Cole of Oklahoma told supporters that a vote against George Bush was a vote
for Osama bin Laden. He later strengthened that to comparing it with a vote
for Adolf Hitler.
Evangelical Christianity holds Jews in special regard and works toward their
conversion as a necessary stage for the Second Coming of Christ. As early as
1711, German Pietists, the ancestors of many modern American Evangelicals,
founded an Institutum Judaicum in Halle to train missionaries to the Jews.
Today, Evangelical Christians regard the state of Israel as a wonder wrought
by God, a stage in the great epic of redemption. These attitudes have
immediate political implications. The Pew Trust's public survey of September
10 2003 concludes that "fully 44 per cent of Americans believe that God gave
the land that is now Israel to the Jewish people", while a substantial
minority (36 per cent) think, "The state of Israel is a fulfilment of the
biblical prophecy about the second coming of Jesus." White evangelical
Protestants and, to a lesser degree, African-Americans accept both of these
propositions.
One powerful source of Evangelical support for Israel is "pre-millennial
dispensationalism". Dispensationalists believe that the world has reached
the sixth age, or "Church age", the final stage before the "Time of
Tribulation", a crisis that will lead to the rebuilding of the Temple in
Jerusalem, the conversion of the Jews and the Second Coming of Jesus.
Is it far-fetched to see Bush's acceptance of Sharon's plan for withdrawal
from Gaza as partly Evangelical faith and partly electoral calculation?
Among the best-selling books in America are the Left Behind series by Tim
LaHaye, a dispensationalist theologian, and Jerry Jenkins. The 12 novels
describe the world after "the Rapture", when the godly are plucked bodily
from this world of sin and disappear. Those "left behind" are to be ruled by
the forces of evil. The books have sold an estimated 45 million copies.
According to The Economist (April 17 2004), the core buyer is a married
evangelical woman with a college degree, who attends church weekly.
Like their president, conservative Evangelicals accept a peculiarly American
version of Christian rebirth. They rarely mention Christ's command: "Sell
all that you have, and give to the poor" (Mark, 10:21). American Christians
in general have never obeyed that command. As early as 1648, the Puritan
preacher Thomas Shepard claimed that the New World was the Kingdom of God, a
covenant between God and the colonists. In today's mega-churches, that
message is known as "prosperity preaching". As a disillusioned Evangelical
told The Philadelphia Inquirer on May 9 2004, "Prosperity preaching tells us
that God wants us all to be super-rich right now." Poverty still exists in
America, as Bush argued in the State of the Union address of 2003, because
the poor fail to find true Christian charity among their neighbours. Hence
his "compassionate conservatism" requires "faith-based initiatives" by local
churches and not progressive taxation.
In a survey like this, nuances get flattened. My account of Evangelical
Christians concentrates on the majority who place moral reform above social
reform, but not all Evangelicals today, nor in the past, have done so.
African-American churches share the theology but not the politics of the
white churches. Not all white Evangelical churches accept "consumerist forms
of worship". Professor Tony Campolo, an evangelical Baptist minister, told
an interviewer in the PBS documentary on Evangelicalism that he had counted
some 2,000 references in the Bible that command us to help the poor. The
main body of Evangelicals ignore that. They have apparently forgotten their
long history of radical protest against the evils of this world, their
campaign against slavery, or for prison and social reform.
Just as the president sees nothing wrong with his Iraq policy, he can't
accept the view that his tax cuts are immoral. Bush is not disturbed by the
huge transfer of wealth from poor to rich. He believes returning moral
choice and economic liberty to individuals matters more than any obligation
on the rich to help the poor. He was entirely consistent when he urged his
fellow citizens to react to September 11 by going shopping.
Today's American Evangelicals are descendents of the radicalism of the
"dissenters" in Britain. They believe the state takes away the liberty of
the Christian believer and relieves the taxpayer of the moral responsibility
of stewardship. Moral choice requires moral freedom. When the president
repeats the mantra, "it's your money", he reiterates too that very American,
individualistic morality that makes each of us the architect of our own
salvation. The state stands for alien power and, in the black-and-white
morality of Conservative Christians, it - together with the United Nations -
shows the power of the Antichrist.
Whereas in traditional sacramental Christianity (Roman Catholic, Greek
Orthodox or Anglican), the priest, the church, the sacraments and the
liturgy are necessary for salvation because the Church is God's
manifestation on earth, Evangelical Christians of whatever denomination
emphasise the individual experience of God's love. Doctrine or denomination
play little part. A new life witnesses to a new faith. It is a very
individualistic, hence deeply American, faith.
This version of the Evangelical message has substantial benefits for Bush
and the Republican party. Large corporations are delighted to accept the
Evangelical attack on the state. They like to see the Federal Communications
Commission relax regulations on media mergers; the Federal Power Commission
ease strictures on energy companies; the Environmental Protection Agency
modify air pollution regulations, and the Interior Department condone
logging in the national parks. Bush easily raises record-breaking sums for
his presidential campaigns from all the biggest corporations, even though
only a few have Evangelical CEOs.
September 11 added urgency to the president's sense of mission. The
subsequent reverses - the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the
absence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorists,
the failure of Iraqis to greet the Americans as liberators, the mounting
death toll among US servicemen and women, the stories of abuse of Iraqi
prisoners, the incoherent planning for an Iraqi interim government - none of
these has shaken George Bush's faith in God's purpose, or the faith of the
"base" in him. His public justifications for making war on Iraq have, of
course, changed, but his religious zeal has not lessened. He has repeatedly
described Saddam Hussein in the blackest of biblical phrases. In the State
of the Union address of 2003, he asserted categorically of Saddam that, "If
this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."
Fighting evil must be accompanied by doing good. In a recent press
conference, the president asserted that the real objective of the war in
Iraq was freedom. "Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in
the world." The Philadelphia Inquirer, in its May 2 2004 edition, asked two
theologians, one Evangelical and the other Catholic, what biblical
foundation there was for this doctrine. Neither could find any. Greg
Thielmann, former acting director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation
and Military Affairs in the Department of State, observed recently that,
"The main problem was that the senior administration officials have what I
call faith-based intelligence. They knew what they wanted the intelligence
to show."
"Faith-based intelligence" abroad and "faith-based initiatives" at home
reflect the essence of the Bush administration. The president and his
Christian followers want nothing less than to transform the domestic values
and the international actions of the US. They know that they have divine
sanction for their policies. Hence neither doubts nor uncomfortable
complexities trouble them. They have accomplished the first stage in their
crusade. The next is to win the presidential election of 2004 at whatever
cost and by whatever means.
As the Evangelical Centre for Christian Statesmanship in Washington DC puts
it, "Today, in our nation's capital, a new call is going forth. It is a call
to serve that invites us to embrace God's providential purpose for this
nation." That "new call" is how Evangelicals see the administration of
George W. Bush."
http://tinyurl.com/45fae
.

User: "ShrikeBack"
Title: Re: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South	28 Jul 2004 02:37:51 PM

"ta" <

> wrote in message news:<MskMc.21467$yF.21105@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...

Rafeek wrote:

On 23 Jul 2004 13:11:31 -0700,

(ta) wrote:

MAHER: Well, Thomas Jefferson said the book of revelations was the
ravings of a lunatic. George Bush organizes his foreign policy around
it. That's why it's bad. Because his decisions about Israel are
affected by his religious beliefs.

Is there any documented evidence that Bush thinks this way? I.E. has
he actually SAID any of this stuff? (aside from the usual vague
pandering to bible-thumpers)...?

Bush is an admitted born-again Christian, and there is plenty of evidence to
document how born again Christians think. If you subscribe to a particular
ideology, doesn't it go without saying that you adhere to the principles
contained within that doctrine? Do you think one could be a born again, or a
communist, or a klu klux klan member, or zionist without having those ideas
affect your policy decisions?

Actually, Bush is a Methodist. Have you ever known a Methodist?
.

User: "formerly known as cat arranger"
Title: Re: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South	28 Jul 2004 03:05:35 PM

Two questions: What's wrong with Methodists? And
I've heard Methodists played a big role in the Civil War
re: slavery, but I don't know if they were pro-abolition
or pro-slavery... Anybody know?
.

User: "ShrikeBack"
Title: Re: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South	30 Jul 2004 03:19:26 PM

"formerly known as 'cat arranger'" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<tGTNc.1663$pT5.1297@lakeread05>...

Two questions: What's wrong with Methodists? And
I've heard Methodists played a big role in the Civil War
re: slavery, but I don't know if they were pro-abolition
or pro-slavery... Anybody know?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with Methodists. In
fact, Methodists seem pretty tame compared to what most people
think of as "Born-Again Christians".
.

User: "formerly known as cat arranger"
Title: Re: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South	31 Jul 2004 02:22:56 AM

"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:59b8bc96.0407301219.12d685f6@posting.google.com...
: "formerly known as 'cat arranger'" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:<tGTNc.1663$pT5.1297@lakeread05>...
: > Two questions: What's wrong with Methodists? And
: > I've heard Methodists played a big role in the Civil War
: > re: slavery, but I don't know if they were pro-abolition
: > or pro-slavery... Anybody know?
:
: I didn't say there was anything wrong with Methodists. In
: fact, Methodists seem pretty tame compared to what most people
: think of as "Born-Again Christians".
Apparently John Wesley, one of the founders
of Methodist Church was anti-slavery. The
church broke into two factions over slavery.
There wasn't any indication that Methodists
were pro-slavery, from a small search. Other
than the regional: north/south fight that lead to
the split of the church but that was created
by the strong anti-slavery stance of the northern
church, apparently.
.

User: "Lord Calvert"
Title: Re: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South	31 Jul 2004 09:51:24 PM

: I didn't say there was anything wrong with Methodists. In
: fact, Methodists seem pretty tame compared to what most people
: think of as "Born-Again Christians".

Apparently John Wesley, one of the founders
of Methodist Church was anti-slavery. The
church broke into two factions over slavery.
There wasn't any indication that Methodists
were pro-slavery, from a small search. Other
than the regional: north/south fight that lead to
the split of the church but that was created
by the strong anti-slavery stance of the northern
church, apparently.

The Baptists in this country underwent a split over the slavery issue as well.
Northern Baptists believed that God would not treat one race as superior and
another as inverior while Baptists in the south believed that slavery was
explicitly ordained by God. In 1845 there was a major schism with the founding
of the pro-slavery white-supermacist Southern Baptist Congress. Although their
dreams of a white-supremacist confederacy were smashed in the failed
anti-constitutional counter-revolution, the Southern Baptists actually gained
power and strength during and soon after reconstruction.
Today the Southern Baptist Congress is the largest protestant denomination in
the United States and they remain firmly tied to their neo-confederate,
white-supremacist and Christian reconstructionist roots.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.

User: "formerly known as cat arranger"
Title: Re: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South	30 Jul 2004 06:24:26 PM

"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:59b8bc96.0407301219.12d685f6@posting.google.com...
: "formerly known as 'cat arranger'" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:<tGTNc.1663$pT5.1297@lakeread05>...
: > Two questions: What's wrong with Methodists? And
: > I've heard Methodists played a big role in the Civil War
: > re: slavery, but I don't know if they were pro-abolition
: > or pro-slavery... Anybody know?
:
: I didn't say there was anything wrong with Methodists. In
: fact, Methodists seem pretty tame compared to what most people
: think of as "Born-Again Christians".
Sorry, I misinterpreted your question. There was an author
on one of the C-SPAN channels talking about his book and
about Methodists (for a short time, he spoke about them)
and their participation in slavery but I couldn't tell from the
short amount of time whether they were pro or con? I guess
I'll do a google.
.

User: "Immortalist"
Title: Re: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South	24 Jul 2004 09:59:04 AM

"ta" <

> wrote in message
news:MskMc.21467$yF.21105@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

Rafeek wrote:

On 23 Jul 2004 13:11:31 -0700,

(ta) wrote:

MAHER: Well, Thomas Jefferson said the book of revelations was the
ravings of a lunatic. George Bush organizes his foreign policy around
it. That's why it's bad. Because his decisions about Israel are
affected by his religious beliefs.

1. "Because his decisions about Israel are affected by his religious beliefs."
2. "Dubya's decisions about Israel are affected by his religious beliefs."
3. "Dubya's decisions about X are affected by his religious beliefs."
4. "Dubya's decisions about X are affected by his (y) beliefs."
5. "Some (Z's) decisions about X are affected by their (y) beliefs."
6. THEREFORE Some people's decisions about political choices are affected by
their personal beliefs.
Truely a revelation!

Is there any documented evidence that Bush thinks this way? I.E. has
he actually SAID any of this stuff? (aside from the usual vague
pandering to bible-thumpers)...?

5. "Some (Z's) decisions about X are affected by their (y) beliefs."

Bush is an admitted born-again Christian, and there is plenty of evidence to
document how born again Christians think. If you subscribe to a particular
ideology, doesn't it go without saying that you adhere to the principles
contained within that doctrine? Do you think one could be a born again, or a
communist, or a klu klux klan member, or zionist without having those ideas
affect your policy decisions?

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is
rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person p
resenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps.
First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her
circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or
actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be
evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or
presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character,
circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on
the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument
being made).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

User: "William Daffer"
Title: Re: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South	26 Jul 2004 06:37:34 PM

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> writes:
[snip]

5. "Some (Z's) decisions about X are affected by their (y) beliefs."

Bush is an admitted born-again Christian, and there is plenty of
evidence to document how born again Christians think. If you
subscribe to a particular ideology, doesn't it go without saying
that you adhere to the principles contained within that doctrine?
Do you think one could be a born again, or a communist, or a klu
klux klan member, or zionist without having those ideas affect your
policy decisions?

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
author of or the person p resenting the claim or
argument.

[snip]
Except that this isn't an ad hominmen. The proposition being
asserted is that Bush's religious beliefs adversely affect his
foreign policy. It certainly isn't arguing ad hominem to adduce
evidence for that assertion, even if that evidence is delivered with
a bit of a sneer.
whd
--
RESPECTABILITY, n. The offspring of a _liaison_ between a bald head
and a bank account.
-- Ambrose Bierce: _The Devil's Dictionary_
.

User: "Immortalist"
Title: Re: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South	26 Jul 2004 10:15:46 PM

"William Daffer" <whdaffer@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:QridnY7EmOokCJjcRVn-vg@giganews.com...

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> writes:

[snip]

5. "Some (Z's) decisions about X are affected by their (y) beliefs."

Bush is an admitted born-again Christian, and there is plenty of
evidence to document how born again Christians think. If you
subscribe to a particular ideology, doesn't it go without saying
that you adhere to the principles contained within that doctrine?
Do you think one could be a born again, or a communist, or a klu
klux klan member, or zionist without having those ideas affect your
policy decisions?

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
author of or the person p resenting the claim or
argument.

Bush is a born again Christian
Born again Christians behave in paricular ways
therefore;
Bush behaves in particular ways because he is a born again Christian.
Clear case of circumstantial ad hom.

whd
--
RESPECTABILITY, n. The offspring of a _liaison_ between a bald head
and a bank account.
-- Ambrose Bierce: _The Devil's Dictionary_

User: "William Daffer"
Title: Re: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South	27 Jul 2004 08:46:41 PM

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> writes:

"William Daffer" <whdaffer@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:QridnY7EmOokCJjcRVn-vg@giganews.com...

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> writes:

[snip]

5. "Some (Z's) decisions about X are affected by their (y) beliefs."

Bush is an admitted born-again Christian, and there is plenty of
evidence to document how born again Christians think. If you
subscribe to a particular ideology, doesn't it go without saying
that you adhere to the principles contained within that doctrine?
Do you think one could be a born again, or a communist, or a klu
klux klan member, or zionist without having those ideas affect your
policy decisions?

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
author of or the person p resenting the claim or
argument.

Bush is a born again Christian
Born again Christians behave in paricular ways

therefore;

Bush behaves in particular ways because he is a born again Christian.

Clear case of circumstantial ad hom.

1. Heinrich Himmler was a Nazi.
2. Nazis believe certain things and they act upon those beliefs.
3. Among those beliefs is the justification and advisability of
murdering Jews.
Therefore, Heinrich Himmler behaves in certain ways because he is a
Nazi: he murders or causes Jews to be murdered..
Surely you're not going to claim that we commit the error of arguing
'ad hominem' when we acknowledge that Himmler believed deeply in a
racist ideology and, therefore, that fact should be considered when
attempting to determine his motivation for killing Jews! That would
be patently absurd!
And ad hominem only occurs when the references to the person's
circumstances or beliefs distract from the issue being argued, such
as when one argue that someone can't discuss racism unless one is
the victim of racism. But that is not the case here.
I really don't think you've fully grasped what an argumentum ad
hominem is.
whd
--
EUCHARIST, n. A sacred feast of the religious sect of Theophagi.
A dispute once unhappily arose among the members of this sect as
to what it was that they ate. In this controversy some five hundred
thousand have already been slain, and the question is still unsettled.
-- Ambrose Bierce: _The Devil's Dictionary_
.

User: "Immortalist"
Title: Re: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South	28 Jul 2004 10:42:54 AM

"William Daffer" <whdaffer@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:aeGdnTgTVNLnmJrcRVn-hw@giganews.com...

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> writes:

"William Daffer" <whdaffer@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:QridnY7EmOokCJjcRVn-vg@giganews.com...

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> writes:

[snip]

5. "Some (Z's) decisions about X are affected by their (y) beliefs."

Bush is an admitted born-again Christian, and there is plenty of
evidence to document how born again Christians think. If you
subscribe to a particular ideology, doesn't it go without saying
that you adhere to the principles contained within that doctrine?
Do you think one could be a born again, or a communist, or a klu
klux klan member, or zionist without having those ideas affect your
policy decisions?

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
author of or the person p resenting the claim or
argument.

Bush is a born again Christian
Born again Christians behave in paricular ways

therefore;

Bush behaves in particular ways because he is a born again Christian.

Clear case of circumstantial ad hom.

It appears that you are unkowingly tinkering with "quantities" here. As long as
you leave open the possibility that Himmler could be good to his family then all
of his behavior is not manipulated by his Nazi beliefs. You have equivicated the
quality of beliefs from the orininal post.

If you
subscribe to a particular ideology, doesn't it go without saying
that you <-(adhere)-> to the principles contained within that doctrine?

THE VAGUITY; is he saying "always adgeres" or is he saying "sometimes adheres?"
That is the question. If the first then you have equivicated the qualification
with your analogy.

Surely you're not going to claim that we commit the error of arguing
'ad hominem' when we acknowledge that Himmler believed deeply in a
racist ideology and, therefore, that fact should be considered when
attempting to determine his motivation for killing Jews! That would
be patently absurd!

And ad hominem only occurs when the references to the person's
circumstances or beliefs distract from the issue being argued, such
as when one argue that someone can't discuss racism unless one is
the victim of racism. But that is not the case here.

I really don't think you've fully grasped what an argumentum ad
hominem is.

whd
--
EUCHARIST, n. A sacred feast of the religious sect of Theophagi.
A dispute once unhappily arose among the members of this sect as
to what it was that they ate. In this controversy some five hundred
thousand have already been slain, and the question is still unsettled.
-- Ambrose Bierce: _The Devil's Dictionary_

User: "William Daffer"
Title: Re: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South	28 Jul 2004 07:57:23 PM

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> writes:

"William Daffer" <whdaffer@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:aeGdnTgTVNLnmJrcRVn-hw@giganews.com...

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> writes:

"William Daffer" <whdaffer@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:QridnY7EmOokCJjcRVn-vg@giganews.com...

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> writes:

[snip]

5. "Some (Z's) decisions about X are affected by their (y) beliefs."

Bush is an admitted born-again Christian, and there is plenty of
evidence to document how born again Christians think. If you
subscribe to a particular ideology, doesn't it go without saying
that you adhere to the principles contained within that doctrine?
Do you think one could be a born again, or a communist, or a klu
klux klan member, or zionist without having those ideas affect your
policy decisions?

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
author of or the person p resenting the claim or
argument.

Bush is a born again Christian
Born again Christians behave in paricular ways

therefore;

Bush behaves in particular ways because he is a born again Christian.

Clear case of circumstantial ad hom.

It appears that you are unkowingly tinkering with "quantities"
here. As long as you leave open the possibility that Himmler could
be good to his family then all of his behavior is not manipulated by
his Nazi beliefs. You have equivicated the quality of beliefs from
the orininal post.

That's a very strange turn of phrase: ..."manipulated by his Nazi beliefs..."
I'm not talking about Himmler the family man. His family weren't
Jews. I'm talking about Himmler the head of the SS, where his views
about Jew are most certainly pertinent!
Likewise, by analogy, if part of Bush's motivations in policy issues
flow from his religious beliefs, I really don't see what problem
there is in remarking upon that fact! It certainly isn't an 'ad hominem.'

If you
subscribe to a particular ideology, doesn't it go without saying
that you <-(adhere)-> to the principles contained within that doctrine?

Why did you interpose this section without any editorial indication?
It's from another post and another poster!
That's bad netiquette. If you wish to quote me from another source,
you should indicate it with a 'but in ... you said.' But *first* you
have to quote *me*.
However, since I DID NOT say the above, I really don't see why I
bear any responsibility answering your objection. It isn't to any
point I've made.

THE VAGUITY; is he saying "always adgeres" or is he saying
"sometimes adheres?" That is the question. If the first then you
have equivicated the qualification with your analogy.

Since I didn't write what you're replying to I really don't know
what to say here.
To return to *MY POINT*: surely we're allowed to point to
motivations in a person's beliefs without being accused of the
fallacy of argumentum ad hominem!

No answer?
whd
--
NOTORIETY, n. The fame of one's competitor for public honors. The
kind of renown most accessible and acceptable to mediocrity. A
Jacob's-ladder leading to the vaudeville stage, with angels ascending
and descending.
-- Ambrose Bierce: _The Devil's Dictionary_
.

User: "Immortalist"
Title: Re: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South	28 Jul 2004 08:06:25 PM

"William Daffer" <whdaffer@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:Oa-dnRMGy7ju1pXc4p2dnA@giganews.com...

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> writes:

"William Daffer" <whdaffer@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:aeGdnTgTVNLnmJrcRVn-hw@giganews.com...

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> writes:

"William Daffer" <whdaffer@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:QridnY7EmOokCJjcRVn-vg@giganews.com...

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> writes:

[snip]

5. "Some (Z's) decisions about X are affected by their (y) beliefs."

Bush is an admitted born-again Christian, and there is plenty of
evidence to document how born again Christians think. If you
subscribe to a particular ideology, doesn't it go without saying
that you adhere to the principles contained within that doctrine?
Do you think one could be a born again, or a communist, or a klu
klux klan member, or zionist without having those ideas affect your
policy decisions?

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
author of or the person p resenting the claim or
argument.

Bush is a born again Christian
Born again Christians behave in paricular ways

therefore;

Bush behaves in particular ways because he is a born again Christian.

Clear case of circumstantial ad hom.

It appears that you are unkowingly tinkering with "quantities"
here. As long as you leave open the possibility that Himmler could
be good to his family then all of his behavior is not manipulated by
his Nazi beliefs. You have equivicated the quality of beliefs from
the orininal post.

That's a very strange turn of phrase: ..."manipulated by his Nazi beliefs..."

I'm not talking about Himmler the family man. His family weren't
Jews. I'm talking about Himmler the head of the SS, where his views
about Jew are most certainly pertinent!

Likewise, by analogy, if part of Bush's motivations in policy issues
flow from his religious beliefs, I really don't see what problem
there is in remarking upon that fact! It certainly isn't an 'ad hominem.'

If you
subscribe to a particular ideology, doesn't it go without saying
that you <-(adhere)-> to the principles contained within that

doctrine?

Why did you interpose this section without any editorial indication?
It's from another post and another poster!

This is the part of the argument you equivicated therefore I am justified in
pointing out the location of the vague "quntification."

That's bad netiquette. If you wish to quote me from another source,
you should indicate it with a 'but in ... you said.' But *first* you
have to quote *me*.

It is not bad netiquette to point out the source of your error.

However, since I DID NOT say the above, I really don't see why I
bear any responsibility answering your objection. It isn't to any
point I've made.

You used the Himmler "analogy" in reference to the other posts analogue and you
determined a contained vague quanity determiner, therefore your busted.

THE VAGUITY; is he saying "always adgeres" or is he saying
"sometimes adheres?" That is the question. If the first then you
have equivicated the qualification with your analogy.

Since I didn't write what you're replying to I really don't know
what to say here.

Which means that now you have absolutely no justification for your Himmler
analogy and you are agreeing to retract it or decline from the debate right?

To return to *MY POINT*: surely we're allowed to point to
motivations in a person's beliefs without being accused of the
fallacy of argumentum ad hominem!

Now that you put it that way, in some cases yes.

No answer?

Not necessary since a response higher up in the post was required first.

whd
--
NOTORIETY, n. The fame of one's competitor for public honors. The
kind of renown most accessible and acceptable to mediocrity. A
Jacob's-ladder leading to the vaudeville stage, with angels ascending
and descending.
-- Ambrose Bierce: _The Devil's Dictionary_

User: "William Daffer"
Title: Re: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South	29 Jul 2004 12:38:19 AM

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> writes:
[snip]

Bush is a born again Christian
Born again Christians behave in paricular ways

therefore;

Bush behaves in particular ways because he is a born again Christian.

Clear case of circumstantial ad hom.

It appears that you are unkowingly tinkering with "quantities"
here. As long as you leave open the possibility that Himmler could
be good to his family then all of his behavior is not manipulated by
his Nazi beliefs. You have equivicated the quality of beliefs from
the orininal post.

That's a very strange turn of phrase: ..."manipulated by his Nazi
beliefs..."

I'm not talking about Himmler the family man. His family weren't
Jews. I'm talking about Himmler the head of the SS, where his views
about Jew are most certainly pertinent!

Likewise, by analogy, if part of Bush's motivations in policy issues
flow from his religious beliefs, I really don't see what problem
there is in remarking upon that fact! It certainly isn't an 'ad hominem.'

No answer?

If you
subscribe to a particular ideology, doesn't it go without saying
that you <-(adhere)-> to the principles contained within that

doctrine?

Why did you interpose this section without any editorial indication?
It's from another post and another poster!

This is the part of the argument you

Which part of "it's from another post and *another poster*" did you
not understand?

equivicated therefore I am justified in pointing out the location of
the vague "quntification."

Except that I didn't write the passage in question.

That's bad netiquette. If you wish to quote me from another source,
you should indicate it with a 'but in ... you said.' But *first* you
have to quote *me*.

It is not bad netiquette to point out the source of your error.

Unless the supposed 'error' occurs in a passage I didn't write.
And even if I wrote the passage, the mere fact that you post
something from another post without any indication is bad
netiquette. It's like combining two passages from different books by
the same author without indicating that they came from different
books. Such behavior destroys the context which may be important in
understanding their meaning.
At best juxtaposing disparate quotes is merely bad practice; at
worst, it's dishonest.
Please tell me you understand this much.

However, since I DID NOT say the above, I really don't see why I
bear any responsibility answering your objection. It isn't to any
point I've made.

You used the Himmler "analogy" in reference to the other posts
analogue and you determined a contained vague quanity determiner,
therefore your busted.

"other posts analogue?" Is there a missing possesive there?
"therefore your busted?" Missing contraction?
I'm sorry, but your response makes no sense. The comment about
quantification is vague to insubstantiality.

THE VAGUITY; is he saying "always adgeres" or is he saying
"sometimes adheres?" That is the question. If the first then you
have equivicated the qualification with your analogy.

Since I didn't write what you're replying to I really don't know
what to say here.

Which means that now you have absolutely no justification for your
Himmler analogy and you are agreeing to retract it or decline from
the debate right?

Of the two of us, I'm pretty sure that it's you who's been busted.
I guess it's time to let the cat out of the bag. Here goes.
I didn't write the passage you quoted.[sic] [actually, you didn't
even 'quote' it, by any accepted meaning of the word 'quote.'] I
tried to tell you that, but you seem impervious.
I mean, really! If I read a response that said "It's from another
post and another poster..." I would go back and check my work!
Apparently that alternative didn't occur to you.
So, if you have a point about that passage, I suggest you address it
to its author: ta33.
Unconvinced? See http://tinyurl.com/3zauj

To return to *MY POINT*: surely we're allowed to point to
motivations in a person's beliefs without being accused of the
fallacy of argumentum ad hominem!

Now that you put it that way, in some cases yes.

Yes what? I've been putting it the same way all along. Discussing
whether Bush's policy decisions are motivated by his religious faith
is not an example of 'argumentum ad hominem.' That assertion may be
true, it may be false, but it isn't 'ad hominem.
I'm coming quickly to the belief that you really haven't a clue what
you're talking about. You have some bizarre idea that one can't ever
say anything personal about someone or else one is arguing 'ad
hominem.'
Perhaps you'd care to explain the following two phrases.
'goes to credibility.'
'voire dire'

No answer?

Not necessary since a response higher up in the post was required first.

Unhun, right. So I guess you couldn't have included that part in the
answer to this part?
Oh wait! Are you talking about that post I didn't write?
whd
p.s. To assembled readers: what's the book on 'Immortalist'
acknowledging his (her?) mistake and apologizing?
--
VIRTUES, n.pl. Certain abstentions.
-- Ambrose Bierce: _The Devil's Dictionary_
.

User: "Immortalist"
Title: Re: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South	29 Jul 2004 10:52:10 AM

"William Daffer" <whdaffer@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:KOmdndPOY5fdEJXcRVn-iw@giganews.com...

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> writes:

[snip]

Bush is a born again Christian
Born again Christians behave in paricular ways

therefore;

Bush behaves in particular ways because he is a born again Christian.

Clear case of circumstantial ad hom.

It appears that you are unkowingly tinkering with "quantities"
here. As long as you leave open the possibility that Himmler could
be good to his family then all of his behavior is not manipulated by
his Nazi beliefs. You have equivicated the quality of beliefs from
the orininal post.

That's a very strange turn of phrase: ..."manipulated by his Nazi
beliefs..."

I'm not talking about Himmler the family man. His family weren't
Jews. I'm talking about Himmler the head of the SS, where his views
about Jew are most certainly pertinent!

Likewise, by analogy, if part of Bush's motivations in policy issues
flow from his religious beliefs, I really don't see what problem
there is in remarking upon that fact! It certainly isn't an 'ad hominem.'

No answer?

Nope, the presuppositions leading up to it were left unanswered on your part and
then were snipped by you. Maybe you should learn how to communicate on the
internet.

If you
subscribe to a particular ideology, doesn't it go without saying
that you <-(adhere)-> to the principles contained within that

doctrine?

Why did you interpose this section without any editorial indication?
It's from another post and another poster!

This is the part of the argument you

Which part of "it's from another post and *another poster*" did you
not understand?

You made an analogy to my example with an example of Himmler and you are now
trying to act like you did not make such an analogy. Pathetic really.

equivicated therefore I am justified in pointing out the location of
the vague "quntification."

Except that I didn't write the passage in question.

You referred to the passage in order to make the analogy unless you are now
retracting the analogy based upon the passage.

That's bad netiquette. If you wish to quote me from another source,
you should indicate it with a 'but in ... you said.' But *first* you
have to quote *me*.

It is not bad netiquette to point out the source of your error.

Unless the supposed 'error' occurs in a passage I didn't write.

But the analogy you made depended upon the passage in question so it is a valid
area in any debating class on most campuses.

And even if I wrote the passage, the mere fact that you post
something from another post without any indication is bad
netiquette. It's like combining two passages from different books by
the same author without indicating that they came from different
books. Such behavior destroys the context which may be important in
understanding their meaning.

Not claiming you wrote the passage, but am referring to an analogy that you made
which had a reference to the passage.

At best juxtaposing disparate quotes is merely bad practice; at
worst, it's dishonest.

Unless the passage was used as a reference by you to make an analogy about
Himmler.

Please tell me you understand this much.

I will tell you that you have lost this debate already and you do not know it
yet. You might be better off just going away before you embaress yourself further
with your inferior knowledge of rhetoric.

However, since I DID NOT say the above, I really don't see why I
bear any responsibility answering your objection. It isn't to any
point I've made.

You used the Himmler "analogy" in reference to the other posts
analogue and you determined a contained vague quanity determiner,
therefore your busted.

"other posts analogue?" Is there a missing possesive there?

"therefore your busted?" Missing contraction?

I'm sorry, but your response makes no sense. The comment about
quantification is vague to insubstantiality.

You made the mistake of creating the Himmler analogy and now are trying to back
out.
Here is the particular message where you entered the analogy:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1388789072d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=aeGdnTgTVNLnmJrcRVn-hw%40giganews.com

THE VAGUITY; is he saying "always adgeres" or is he saying
"sometimes adheres?" That is the question. If the first then you
have equivicated the qualification with your analogy.

Since I didn't write what you're replying to I really don't know
what to say here.

Which means that now you have absolutely no justification for your
Himmler analogy and you are agreeing to retract it or decline from
the debate right?

Of the two of us, I'm pretty sure that it's you who's been busted.

I guess it's time to let the cat out of the bag. Here goes.

I didn't write the passage you quoted.[sic] [actually, you didn't
even 'quote' it, by any accepted meaning of the word 'quote.'] I
tried to tell you that, but you seem impervious.

I mean, really! If I read a response that said "It's from another
post and another poster..." I would go back and check my work!
Apparently that alternative didn't occur to you.

Clearly a lie since you first introduced the himmler analogy proved by this link;
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1388789072d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=aeGdnTgTVNLnmJrcRVn-hw%40giganews.com
That analogy was referencing a definition of as hominum you contended which
turned out to make you analogy an equivication based upon a vaguity of
"quatities."

So, if you have a point about that passage, I suggest you address it
to its author: ta33.

Unconvinced? See http://tinyurl.com/3zauj

I remain unconvinced since this is not the post where you entered the fallacious
analogy about Himmler. That was entered at this point in the conversation;
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1388789072d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=aeGdnTgTVNLnmJrcRVn-hw%40giganews.com
for reference it was at this point in the threading;
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&threadm=aeGdnTgTVNLnmJrcRVn-hw%40giganews.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl1388789072d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26c2coff%3D1%26selm%3DaeGdnTgTVNLnmJrcRVn-hw%2540giganews.com
don't try to push off a totally unrelated post as if it were evidence that
invalidates the claim to your usage based upon a vaguity.

To return to *MY POINT*: surely we're allowed to point to
motivations in a person's beliefs without being accused of the
fallacy of argumentum ad hominem!

Now that you put it that way, in some cases yes.

Even this is more acceptable but you are now trying to "save face" by acting like
you did not make the mistakes I pointed out. In a debate class the points would
tell the tail of your failure in this conversation and speaks to the weakness
that allows people like you to lord it over people with good and strong ideas.

I'm coming quickly to the belief that you really haven't a clue what
you're talking about. You have some bizarre idea that one can't ever
say anything personal about someone or else one is arguing 'ad
hominem.'

Now you try and seal the passage you believe you have escaped through.

Perhaps you'd care to explain the following two phrases.

'goes to credibility.'

'voire dire'

Later, we can bring up some new things after we settle your mistakes first.

No answer?

Not necessary since a response higher up in the post was required first.

Unhun, right. So I guess you couldn't have included that part in the
answer to this part?

You made the analogy which miscinstrued the vaguity about quantities of as
hominum and the points are against you on your card. Don't try to make your
mistakes look like mine.

Oh wait! Are you talking about that post I didn't write?

You did write the post we are talking about that refered to Himmler.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&threadm=aeGdnTgTVNLnmJrcRVn-hw%40giganews.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl1388789072d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26c2coff%3D1%26selm%3DaeGdnTgTVNLnmJrcRVn-hw%2540giganews.com
But the analogy you made referred to another part of the conversation that had a
vaguity about the quantity of the state of ad hominum. You may confuse the people
that you have convinced that you have beaten but not this debater.

whd

p.s. To assembled readers: what's the book on 'Immortalist'
acknowledging his (her?) mistake and apologizing?

We could get to that after we clear up your multiple mistakes which you compound
in an attempted retreat of embarrasment.

--
VIRTUES, n.pl. Certain abstentions.
-- Ambrose Bierce: _The Devil's Dictionary_

User: "William Daffer"
Title: Re: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South	29 Jul 2004 09:58:26 PM

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> writes:
In response, see
Subject: An apology to Immortalist (was: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South)
Message-ID: <C7udnUEm3LJwMJTcRVn-tA@giganews.com>.
It hasn't arrived on google yet.
[snip]
whd
--
QUORUM, n. A sufficient number of members of a deliberative body to
have their own way and their own way of having it. In the United
States Senate a quorum consists of the chairman of the Committee on
Finance and a messenger from the White House; in the House of
Representatives, of the Speaker and the devil.
-- Ambrose Bierce: _The Devil's Dictionary_
.

User: "William Daffer"
Title: An apology to Immortalist (was: Bill Maher on Fundies and TheSouth)	29 Jul 2004 09:10:02 PM

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> writes:
Talk about getting hoisted on my own petard!
Okay, I'm wrong, for which I apologize forthrightly. I did make
reference to the quote in question in my very first response to
you. I didn't remember because I was thinking very generally
(namely, it isn't necessarily ad hominem to discuss motivations
arising from someone's beliefs) not about the specifics of that
particular quote. Then there's the additonal oddity, I missed
that post when I went looking for the source. How that happened I
simply don't know.
But that's entirely my fault. I will try to be (very much) more
careful in the future.
Okay, back to the debate about 'ad hominem.'

"William Daffer" <whdaffer@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:KOmdndPOY5fdEJXcRVn-iw@giganews.com...

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> writes:

[snip]

Bush is a born again Christian
Born again Christians behave in paricular ways

therefore;

Bush behaves in particular ways because he is a born again Christian.

Clear case of circumstantial ad hom.

It appears that you are unkowingly tinkering with "quantities"
here. As long as you leave open the possibility that Himmler could
be good to his family then all of his behavior is not manipulated by
his Nazi beliefs. You have equivicated the quality of beliefs from
the orininal post.

That's a very strange turn of phrase: ..."manipulated by his Nazi
beliefs..."

By the way, I still think that's a strange turn of phrase. How do
Himmler's Nazi beliefs 'manipulate' him?
And no, I don't think I have 'tinkered with the quantities' or
'equivocated the qualities of beliefs' from the original post. Nor
did ta, from my reading. Speaking of my analogy, I never said, nor
would I ever say, that we must see in every single one of Himmler's
actions the operations of his Nazi ideology, that the *only* thing
we may use in our assessment is his Nazi beliefs. Hence the fact
that Himmler was a good father (if he was a father, I'm not sure)
really has no implication when considering the motivation of his
genocidal policies. (except, perhaps, to ask why he didn't question
his Nazi beliefs when they compelled him to kill children). No, what I'm
saying is that we may look to his Nazi ideology to understand some
of actions without fear of commiting the fallacy of 'argumentum ad
hominem.'
Analogously: nor do I say, nor would I ever, nor do I think that ta
said, that we must attribute Bush's *every* action *only* to his
religious convictions. Hence, by analogy, we may be able to look to
Bush's religious convictions for motivations for his policies.
Certainly it's true of his policies concerning abortion, gay
marriage and 'faith-based' social work. He's said as much. So why is
it impossible to say the same for his foreign policy, for instance?
Such assertions may be true, or they may be false, but asserting a
connection isn't fallacious.
Really, I see nothing controversial about this at all!
By the way, I'm sure that there are political motivations in all of
these issues as well. For example, I'm sure that Bush's handling of
the stem-cell research debate was partly motivated by election
politics. That doesn't diminish the point, in fact it highlights
it. People are seldom motivated by only one thing.
In fact, isn't it usually a sign of a deeper understanding of human
nature to acknowledge that actions arise from an alloy of
modivations? Do we always commit the fallacy of argument ad
hominem when we point out one component of that set of motivations?

I'm not talking about Himmler the family man. His family weren't
Jews. I'm talking about Himmler the head of the SS, where his views
about Jew are most certainly pertinent!

Likewise, by analogy, if part of Bush's motivations in policy
issues flow from his religious beliefs, I really don't see
what problem there is in remarking upon that fact! It
certainly isn't an 'ad hominem.'

No answer?

Nope, the presuppositions leading up to it were left unanswered on
your part and then were snipped by you. Maybe you should learn how
to communicate on the internet.

As deserved as that cirticism may be, I submit that the analogy is
fine. And as far as I've seen, nothing which I snipped (and I went
back and read them all again) changes my mind. We have a perfect
right to comment on Bush's motivations, whatever they may be --
whether religious or as part of a social or economic theory or part
of his political re-election strategy -- just as we have a right to
point out that Himmler was motivated by his Nazi ideology to murder
Jews. (as well as others) while also acknowledging, for example,
that toward the end of the war he tried to save his own skin by
releasing Jews. Such self-interested motivation certainly doesn't
contradict assertions about his genocidal motivations.
Since the remainder of your response is more about 'the imbroglio of
the quote' and my mistake surrounding that issue, perhaps we should
just get back to the topic at hand without further ado, if that's
alright with you.
[snip]

We could get to that after we clear up your multiple mistakes which
you compound in an attempted retreat of embarrasment.

I'd say there was only one mistake, my actions following hard
upon it, and there was no compounding by 'attempted retreat of
embarrassment.' I can hardly be accused of that when I come right
out and admit the error.
Would you be willing to tell me why you think the analogy isn't apt?
No, I don't think your responses have rebutted my position.
whd
--
MALEFACTOR, n. The chief factor in the progress of the human race.
-- Ambrose Bierce: _The Devil's Dictionary_
.

User: "Immortalist"
Title: Re: An apology to Immortalist (was: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South)	30 Jul 2004 10:00:55 AM

"William Daffer" <whdaffer@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:C7udnUEm3LJwMJTcRVn-tA@giganews.com...

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> writes:

Talk about getting hoisted on my own petard!

Okay, I'm wrong, for which I apologize forthrightly. I did make
reference to the quote in question in my very first response to
you. I didn't remember because I was thinking very generally
(namely, it isn't necessarily ad hominem to discuss motivations
arising from someone's beliefs) not about the specifics of that
particular quote. Then there's the additonal oddity, I missed
that post when I went looking for the source. How that happened I
simply don't know.

But that's entirely my fault. I will try to be (very much) more
careful in the future.

Well it is "political season" and regretably I am getting old enough to know that
the attack dogs are about to be let lose on society. Rabid pit bulls that wanna
bite anything. Soon us wankers will be able to take a break when these dogs test
their 4 year jaws.

Okay, back to the debate about 'ad hominem.'

"William Daffer" <whdaffer@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:KOmdndPOY5fdEJXcRVn-iw@giganews.com...

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> writes:

[snip]

Bush is a born again Christian
Born again Christians behave in paricular ways

therefore;

Bush behaves in particular ways because he is a born again

Christian.

Clear case of circumstantial ad hom.

It appears that you are unkowingly tinkering with "quantities"
here. As long as you leave open the possibility that Himmler could
be good to his family then all of his behavior is not manipulated by
his Nazi beliefs. You have equivicated the quality of beliefs from
the orininal post.

That's a very strange turn of phrase: ..."manipulated by his Nazi
beliefs..."

I mistakenly referred to "qualities" when I always meant "quantities." In the
claimed vaguity Ta's post didn't claime that Bush's religious fundamentalism was
influencing hiw "always" or "sometimes" and I picked up an "always" in your
analogy about Himmler. Actually a minor detail of insignifigance but in a debate
class, the end of the debate. But this isn't debate class. The political attack
dogs are barking since it is their 4 year leg humping season and I was just
practicing. (Once ounce of logic is 100 proof dog burn this time of ever 4 year)

Analogously: nor do I say, nor would I ever, nor do I think that ta
said, that we must attribute Bush's *every* action *only* to his
religious convictions. Hence, by analogy, we may be able to look to
Bush's religious convictions for motivations for his policies.

Thats what I was looking for and we could then move on. But as you said it
weren't your fault because the post didn't show up properly.

Certainly it's true of his policies concerning abortion, gay
marriage and 'faith-based' social work. He's said as much. So why is
it impossible to say the same for his foreign policy, for instance?
Such assertions may be true, or they may be false, but asserting a
connection isn't fallacious.

Really, I see nothing controversial about this at all!

By the way, I'm sure that there are political motivations in all of
these issues as well. For example, I'm sure that Bush's handling of
the stem-cell research debate was partly motivated by election
politics. That doesn't diminish the point, in fact it highlights
it. People are seldom motivated by only one thing.

In fact, isn't it usually a sign of a deeper understanding of human
nature to acknowledge that actions arise from an alloy of
modivations? Do we always commit the fallacy of argument ad
hominem when we point out one component of that set of motivations?

Now your making me think about the relationship between "groupthink" and "ad
hominum."
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&threadm=ha-dnZEvMaURw3LdRVn-tA%40comcast.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dgroupthink%2Bgroup:alt.philosophy.*%2Bauthor:reanimater_2000%2540yahoo.com%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26c2coff%3D1%26selm%3Dha-dnZEvMaURw3LdRVn-tA%2540comcast.com%26rnum%3D1
You see my position in this debate about perspective/ad hominum seems to
contradict my position on groupthink. So I have to think now.

No answer?

Nope, the presuppositions leading up to it were left unanswered on
your part and then were snipped by you. Maybe you should learn how
to communicate on the internet.

As deserved as that cirticism may be, I submit that the analogy is
fine. And as far as I've seen, nothing which I snipped (and I went
back and read them all again) changes my mind. We have a perfect
right to comment on Bush's motivations, whatever they may be --
whether religious or as part of a social or economic theory or part
of his political re-election strategy -- just as we have a right to
point out that Himmler was motivated by his Nazi ideology to murder
Jews. (as well as others) while also acknowledging, for example,
that toward the end of the war he tried to save his own skin by
releasing Jews. Such self-interested motivation certainly doesn't
contradict assertions about his genocidal motivations.

Since the remainder of your response is more about 'the imbroglio of
the quote' and my mistake surrounding that issue, perhaps we should
just get back to the topic at hand without further ado, if that's
alright with you.

[snip]

We could get to that after we clear up your multiple mistakes which
you compound in an attempted retreat of embarrasment.

I'd say there was only one mistake, my actions following hard
upon it, and there was no compounding by 'attempted retreat of
embarrassment.' I can hardly be accused of that when I come right
out and admit the error.

Would you be willing to tell me why you think the analogy isn't apt?
No, I don't think your responses have rebutted my position.

whd
--
MALEFACTOR, n. The chief factor in the progress of the human race.
-- Ambrose Bierce: _The Devil's Dictionary_

User: "formerly known as cat arranger"
Title: Re: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South	29 Jul 2004 12:48:44 PM

So far Immortalist is winning, but not
by much. Was the quote from William
Daffer really written by someone else?
Does it matter since Immortalist says
that Daffer referred to the quote? Stay
tuned.
.

User: "William Daffer"
Title: Apology to Immortalist (was: Bill Maher on Fundies and The South)	29 Jul 2004 09: