All religions are dangerous?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

marg wrote:Moniker
by the way, since Marg, you (I guess), and Schmo are soooo concerned with personal attacks why has no one called JAK out on the numerous ones he's made on me?


For the record I don't complain about personal attacks unless they are used as diversionary disingenuous tools to shift focus off issues and onto the person.

Pointing out that someone "plagiarized" in any discussion is meant as an attack on the person, it is not taking issue with the substance of what was said. Now of course in essays for school, in books or articles published, in science papers submitted for peer review etc. it is a big deal if someone plagairizes and takes credit for work not their own when they are putting their own name to it. On message boards when someone posts information from a source and doesn't cite it is not meant disingenuously. JAK is not looking for personal credit for his knowledge of Shintoism. In this discussion, his focus it getting across ideas, concepts and information which relate to the issues. Accusing someone of plagiarism on message boards is simply a personal attack (fallacious ad hominem). It is a shift of focus off the issues onto the person in lieu of discussing the issues of the argument. It is meant to discredit the person, and has no bearing on the substance of the argument.


I refuted the points in the article before I noticed it was plagiarized. He NEVER replied to my refutations of the information that was in that source. NEVER! I continually attempted to bring in the dogma, beliefs, practices of a religion that he never took on -- this is not my fault he chose not to notice that I was refuting his main assertion that started this thread. So, who was shifting the focus? I repeatedly tried to bring the focus back to my issue with his statement about "dogma" and danger". He FIRST shifted the topic making assumptions about my life, then asking questions about me -- I didn't do it. He called me "disingenuous" and said I made a "personal attack" before I even noticed his plagiarism -- is that personal attack of his (upon me) shifting the focus? No? Please explain how that is. Please -- all eyes.

Plagiarism -- I didn't accuse him of it -- I proved that he did it.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Jersey Girl wrote:Moniker....

Show me the first time he accuses you of making a personal attack on him.


Please meet the above request with no commentary of your own. Just put the applicable JAK quote in front of me.
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Moniker....

Show me the first time he accuses you of making a personal attack on him.


Please meet the above request with no commentary of your own. Just put the applicable JAK quote in front of me.


I already did that, Jersey Girl. A few times now. He called me disingenuous on that same post I've already pointed out to you as well.

sigh

It was on page 3 or 4 of this thread. I also put the link in a few of our discussions already.

This was before he copy and pasted a post (which I replied to and corrected some of the information in -- which he never came back to), and before I noticed his plagiarism. I didn't make any big call on the plagiarism when I noticed it, I said this "Jak! Tsk! Tsk! -- cite your sources". That was ALL. But, notice I replied to the INFORMATION before I noticed. He NEVER came back to the points I made about the information that he provided that was incorrect. So, who is shifting the focus? He later takes on my argument that his original assertion that "dogma" replaces intellect is not applicable to all religions since I ask him to notice Shintoism. He POSTS his own material and attributes it to me! He says that information (that I already corrected) is mine when in all actuality it was his!

This thread is frustrating.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Moniker wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Moniker....

Show me the first time he accuses you of making a personal attack on him.


Please meet the above request with no commentary of your own. Just put the applicable JAK quote in front of me.


I already did that, Jersey Girl. A few times now. He called me disingenuous on that same post I've already pointed out to you as well.

sigh

It was on page 3 or 4 of this thread. I also put the link in a few of our discussions already.

This was before he copy and pasted a post (which I replied to and corrected some of the information in -- which he never came back to), and before I noticed his plagiarism. I didn't make any big call on the plagiarism when I noticed it, I said this "Jak! Tsk! Tsk! -- cite your sources". That was ALL. But, notice I replied to the INFORMATION before I noticed. He NEVER came back to the points I made about the information that he provided that was incorrect. So, who is shifting the focus? He later takes on my argument that his original assertion that "dogma" replaces intellect is not applicable to all religions since I ask him to notice Shintoism. He POSTS his own material and attributes it to me! He says that information (that I already corrected) is mine when in all actuality it was his!

This thread is frustrating.


Frustrating? In the time that I've tried to pull teeth here with you while you hop all over hell's half acre, I've pulled a 4 wheel drive out of snow with another 4 wheel drive. And yet, here I am again.

This is the quote you supplied:

JAK
No comment will be made regarding personal attacks.



That DOES NOT say that you attacked him. It is NOT A CLAIM. It is a simple statement. Do you not see that?

That it was embedded in a post made to you DOES NOT make it A CLAIM that you attacked him.

Jersey Girl

(CAPS because I'm too lazy to bold for emphasis)
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Jersey Girl, I have pointed out that instance amid all his other statements that were made to me. You say it wasn't directed at me. Fine. What about the other instances where he says I attacked him?

Why don't you try explaining to JAK that saying I "insult my own intelligence", am "ignorant", and am "disingenuous" IS a personal attack. K?

by the way, the "insult my own intelligence" and "disingenuous" remarks were before I replied to the information in his plagiarized source. I'm not hopping Jersey Girl -- I am being as patient as I possibly can to explain this to you.

by the way, why do you care? This conversation wouldn't be happening if you hadn't jumped in on his behalf. Why can't JAK speak for himself?

I seriously don't understand why you are concerning yourself with this.

If JAK decides to rejoin the conversation:

JAK -- there are no set beliefs or dogma to Shintoism. Have you retracted the original assertion that started this thread?

To further the talk of Shintoism: JAK the Japanese do have excellent medical care, are healthier than their Western counterparts, are technologically advanced, are highly educated, are a vital part of the world wide community, and are in the culture of our time. Please explain the danger of Shintoism.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Moniker wrote:Jersey Girl, I have pointed out that instance amid all his other statements that were made to me. You say it wasn't directed at me. Fine. What about the other instances where he says I attacked him?

Why don't you try explaining to JAK that saying I "insult my own intelligence", am "ignorant", and am "disingenuous" IS a personal attack. K?

by the way, the "insult my own intelligence" and "disingenuous" remarks were before I replied to the information in his plagiarized source. I'm not hopping Jersey Girl -- I am being as patient as I possibly can to explain this to you.

by the way, why do you care? This conversation wouldn't be happening if you hadn't jumped in on his behalf. Why can't JAK speak for himself?

I seriously don't understand why you are concerning yourself with this.

If JAK decides to rejoin the conversation:

JAK -- there are no set beliefs or dogma to Shintoism. Have you retracted the original assertion that started this thread?

To further the talk of Shintoism: JAK the Japanese do have excellent medical care, are healthier than their Western counterparts, are technologically advanced, are highly educated, are a vital part of the world wide community, and are in the culture of our time. Please explain the danger of Shintoism.



I've made a strong effort to help you here, Moniker. See the part that I bolded? What the flippin' hell has that got to do with me? Anything? That should have been a separate post to JAK. How on earth do you expect him to find a request to HIM when it's embedded in a post to ME?

You are all over the place and I'm done.
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Jersey Girl, next time I need, or want, your help I'll ask for it. K? :)

by the way, Jersey Girl -- do you have any comments that are relevant to the discussion? What say you of "dogma" and "dangers"? ;P
_marg

Post by _marg »

Moniker wrote: JAK -- there are no set beliefs or dogma to Shintoism. Have you retracted the original assertion that started this thread?

To further the talk of Shintoism: JAK the Japanese do have excellent medical care, are healthier than their Western counterparts, are technologically advanced, are highly educated, are a vital part of the world wide community, and are in the culture of our time. Please explain the danger of Shintoism.


I wrote a post on this page in this thread, Moniker. Here is one part:
In this thread it’s been discussed whether or not Shintoism has dogma. At this link http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch27/default.htm it says: “Around 1700 Shinto experienced a revival when the study of archaic Japanese texts was reinstituted. One of the most learned Shinto scholars of the period was Hirata, who wrote:

The two fundamental doctrines are: that Japan is the country of the Gods, and her inhabitants are the descendants of the Gods.”

Without this fundamental belief in personal Gods over Japan, Shintu could never have been used and turned into a state religion which claimed an emperor descended from a God. "


With regards to dogma Jak wrote: "All religions are dangerous. They seek to destroy the intellect replacing it with dogma not derived from reason and evidence."

That the emperor after WW2, was forced to retract the claim of divine descendancy does not take away from the fact that when Shintoism was in the hands of authority, those using it sought to replace reason and evidence with dogma. i.e. the emperor a divine descendant. The Japanese descendants of Gods.

As far as Shintoism, it is and was a contributing factor to the cultural Japanese phenomenon of extreme unquestioning obedience to authority, to one's country, one's group.
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

False Charge

Post by _JAK »

Moniker wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Moniker....

Show me the first time he accuses you of making a personal attack on him.


Please meet the above request with no commentary of your own. Just put the applicable JAK quote in front of me.


I already did that, Jersey Girl. A few times now. He called me disingenuous on that same post I've already pointed out to you as well.

sigh

It was on page 3 or 4 of this thread. I also put the link in a few of our discussions already.

This was before he copy and pasted a post (which I replied to and corrected some of the information in -- which he never came back to), and before I noticed his plagiarism. I didn't make any big call on the plagiarism when I noticed it, I said this "Jak! Tsk! Tsk! -- cite your sources". That was ALL. But, notice I replied to the INFORMATION before I noticed. He NEVER came back to the points I made about the information that he provided that was incorrect. So, who is shifting the focus? He later takes on my argument that his original assertion that "dogma" replaces intellect is not applicable to all religions since I ask him to notice Shintoism. He POSTS his own material and attributes it to me! He says that information (that I already corrected) is mine when in all actuality it was his!

This thread is frustrating.


Moniker,

Without using a specific word here, you are calling me a liar.

Here is why.

Moniker stated:
This was before he copy and pasted a post (which I replied to and corrected some of the information in -- which he never came back to), and before I noticed his plagiarism. I didn't make any big call on the plagiarism when I noticed it, I said this "Jak! Tsk! Tsk! -- cite your sources". That was ALL. But, notice I replied to the INFORMATION before I noticed. He NEVER came back to the points I made about the information that he provided that was incorrect. So, who is shifting the focus? He later takes on my argument that his original assertion that "dogma" replaces intellect is not applicable to all religions since I ask him to notice Shintoism. He POSTS his own material and attributes it to me! He says that information (that I already corrected) is mine when in all actuality it was his!


Notice the bold emphasis. Now in two subsequent posts, I told you exactly my source of information a 1985 edition of The World Book Encyclopedia.

I also told you that I had not see your source which YOU posted and which confirmed the information that I found in my library at home.

So your statement here continues the assertion that I plagiarized the source which you found. I did not. Clearly, you not believe that, but it’s the way it was, and it’s what I told you.

You also may not know that encyclopedia references are often produced or written by the same individuals which accounts for similarity in different encyclopedias particularly on topics which have not changed in any substantive way even over many years.

So your “Jak!Tsk! Tsk!” was an accusation. It was false. I told you it was false. And here you continue to put it on the board entirely ignoring what I told you regarding where I found the information. You did make a “big call on the plagiarism” and it was a personal attack on me. Since you made a false charge in the first place, and since you continue to make the same charge now as you confirm your position that I am lying, why should I respond to anything you say? I should not!

I pointed the way for you to exactly where I obtained information. You chose to disregard it and in so doing, even now, you are calling me a liar. …not by using the word, but by continuing even after my statement to you in two posts where I obtained information, you continue to post as you do. There is no point for me to respond to you, Moniker.

Now, when I quoted from your post, I just took what was on that post and failed to notice accurately which of two statements that stated the same basic information. That was my error. I didn’t distinguish correctly which was which. It was my error in haste to reply trying to refocus on the issue of religion. I apologize for the error.

The attempt to shift from the content of the information which was the same form both sources was your attempt to shift the debate to a personal charge of plagiarism rather than address Shintoism. On this forum, many points of information have been made in which no sources are offered. I did not think it necessary on the original post of mine which contained information on a religion to list a source since the information is general information.

You siezed on that as an opportunity to make personal attack and accusation of plagiarism. YOU attempted to shift the debate to a personal attack rather than address the content.

The flawed technique:

If you cannot attack the evidence, you attack the source.
If you cannot attack the source, you attack the person who used the source.

In this case, the information in the sources plural mine and the one YOU found on line stated virtually the same thing. So the evidence supported my statements about that information.

But, here, now, many posts later and after you surely have read exactly what I told you about where I found information, HERE, you continue your charges of plagiarism which continues to be a personal attack.

As I stated previously, you just go on your merry way and think what you wish inspite of what you have been told and you just go on and continue to regard me as you wish.

But make no mistake, you continue, without use of the word “liar,” to call me a liar as you continue in your wrong conclusion.

There is absolutely no point in conversation with you from me. Your mind is made up and nothing which I could say will alter your opinion.

But for the record, once again, my source for information on Shintoism came from a 1985 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia which is in my home.

I’m sure you will continue with your opinion unchanged.

Again I apologize for picking up on the wrong one of two sources you placed in the same post as you attempted to attack me for plagiarism. It was a mistake by me.

JAK
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Moniker wrote:Jersey Girl, next time I need, or want, your help I'll ask for it. K? :)

by the way, Jersey Girl -- do you have any comments that are relevant to the discussion? What say you of "dogma" and "dangers"? ;P


I actually posted on the first page, Moniker, a post that was never responded to. You did ask for help, you did so repeatedly, Moniker. Here you make an off hand remark when you infact did ask for help on this thread. Next time JAK refers to you as disingenuous, look at these exchanges between youself and I.
Post Reply