Does Uncle Dale Receive Special Protection Here?

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I hope Ray will fill the opening she has left.
...

I second that motion.

UD

[_Rollo Tomasi]

If any of Dale's critics are reading this, I respectfully request that you stick to the Jockers study and/or the Spalding/Rigdon claims and completely ignore the life, character, or person of Dale Broadhurst (although his opinions on Jockers, Spalding/Rigdon, etc. are of course FAIR game).

My response really has nothing to do with this particular thread. But I did want to express my growing uneasiness with the moderating around here. It seems like censorship is picking up, when the best part of this forum has been uncensored thought and expression. I understand why some personal attacks are censored, but that should be very infrequent and only when it goes over the line, but yet the Mods seems to go after the slightest insult, etc. Posters have to have a thick skin in this forum, and when things get heated there will be some words that appear to be personal attacks, but that just goes with the territory. The Mods really need to butt out on this forum; there are exceptions, of course (violent threats, vulgarity, etc.), but I fear this bb is headed down the same road that has destroyed many a good bb in the past, and I don't want to see that happen here. Just my $.02.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The issue with you came about essentially because I never said anything to Mikwut regarding his insult in a post to Dale. I felt bad actually that Dale responded to them, and it wasted his time. I didn't want to see that line of questioning which was off topic completely, nothing to do with the issues, pursued.

This is precisely the type of Mod attitude that destroys bb's. Let Dale decide what to respond to, and what not. Let Dale decide what wastes his time, and what does not. We are all big kids and can take care of ourselves.

[_marg]

The issue with you came about essentially because I never said anything to Mikwut regarding his insult in a post to Dale. I felt bad actually that Dale responded to them, and it wasted his time. I didn't want to see that line of questioning which was off topic completely, nothing to do with the issues, pursued.

This is precisely the type of Mod attitude that destroys bb's. Let Dale decide what to respond to, and what not. Let Dale decide what wastes his time, and what does not. We are all big kids and can take care of ourselves.

Well I disagree with you because the goal of discussion at least good discussion is to have it move forward to a mutual agreement or understanding. Most discussions on message boards deteriorate because of disingenuous fallacious tactics. All the people involved in such discussions employing such fallacious tactics are really not interested in reaching a mutual understanding, or the best fit truths, they are more interested in winning.

Ad hominem or spoiling the well, is just one way of disrupting or discouraging progression of discussion. It wastes time and it's unnecessary, and often the person at the receiving end is in a position of having to counter the attack. So for example when Mikwut says...Dale's response is flippant, simplistic in response, and ridiculous..that's a persuasive ploy meant to spoil the well against Dale. It's basically telling everyone to not listen to him and his argument. It's not just solely a matter of Dale ignoring and the situation is then rectified. Often times an individual is forced to counter. Spoiling the well is a disingenous tactic, and I asked Mikwut to stop. The goal of that discussion is to reach truths, not to win at a game.

In any event, that's my perspective but I won't be moderating anyhow in the future.

Moderation is effective when it encourages the discussion to move forward to mutual understanding and a best fit truth, and when it discourages those who are preventing or trying to sabotage that goal. I wouldn't say no moderation is better than good moderation, but no moderation is better than bad moderation.

[_Nevo]

Mikwut says...Dale's response is flippant, simplistic in response, and ridiculous..that's a persuasive ploy meant to spoil the well against Dale. It's basically telling everyone to not listen to him and his argument.

Sorry, marg. Mikwut's criticism of Dale's response is not an example of "poisoning the well."

[_marg]

Mikwut says...Dale's response is flippant, simplistic in response, and ridiculous..that's a persuasive ploy meant to spoil the well against Dale. It's basically telling everyone to not listen to him and his argument.

Sorry, marg. Mikwut's criticism of Dale's response is not an example of "poisoning the well."

What is it an example of then Nevo?

[_Dr. Shades]

Hi Rollo,

I fully understand your reasons for posting what you did--believe me, I definitely do--but the community was very, very dissatisfied back when we did things that way, so we pretty much had to bend under the pressure.

[_Nevo]

What is it an example of then Nevo?

The Wikipedia page I linked describes "poisoning the well" as "a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say." E.g., ""Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail." This is different than simply reacting to someone's argument: finding it weak, or unpersuasive, or simplistic, or whatever.

[_marg]

What is it an example of then Nevo?

The Wikipedia page I linked describes "poisoning the well" as "a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say." E.g., ""Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail." This is different than simply reacting to someone's argument: finding it weak, or unpersuasive, or simplistic, or whatever.

By their definition, I agree the label "poisoning the well "doesn't fit, but my question to you was not what a "poisoning the well" was but what fallacious reasoning did Mikwut use in argumentation in that particular example which I commented on?

[_marg]

Nevo,

I'll explain what and why I think Mikwut argued fallaciously.


I'm arguing he commited a fallacy of relevance which I called an ad hominem in my warning to him. Let’s look at his words "Not only is UD flippant dismissal simplistic and ridiculous the reply he does give us fails miserably".

Therefore, Dale argues flippantly, dismissively, simplistically, ridiculously, miserably with failure. Is this advancing an argument relevant to the issues? Or is it meant to convince the audience rhetorically that Dale and his argument should be dismissed not on relevance of issues, but because Dale isn’t a serious discussion partner with his flippant response?

Keep in mind the context as well, Dale was asked for a condensed reply, he gave one, prefaced his post he was giving one and yet Mikwut turned that condensation into an personal attack for doing so.

What I consider in determining fallacious argumentation is the following:

From: Argumentum Ad Hominem:A Pragma-Dialectical Case in Point

It may seem odd, but in order to promote the possibility that differences of opinion can be resolved, the open confrontation between the parties needs to be stimulated. Therefore, in a critical discussion the parties have a principal right to advance any standpoint they wish and to challenge any standpoint they wish.6 This implies that any potential obstacles to expressing standpoints or criticizing standpoints are to be cleared away. As a consequence, neither party is allowed to prevent the other party from entering into an unimpeded confrontation by ruling him out as a serious discussion partner. And this is precisely what is attempted in the argumentum ad hominem.7

This chapter precedes the above I linked to, I have the book:

The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Fallacies