Two of my favorite debaters...Rlent and Turtle..my gawd I've been drooling for months in the hopes of rebuttals and decisive arguements! Yes Rlent...welcome back!
LOL ...... thanks juju ......
I hate to be a wet blanket and disappoint ....... but quite honestly, I've got my hands full with various matters right at the moment, so my available time is pretty constrained.
However ...
As regards
the characterization that my comments were an ad hominem attack, I don't think that's actually the case - since my admonitions that were directed at the OP had absolutely nothing to do with
refuting the premise he asserted, by associating it with some negative personal characteristic (real or imagined) that he supposedly possesses - his premise was actually refuted by the publicized facts that came to light.
While calling it an ad hominem attack sounds very snazzy and all, most words actually do have a precise meaning (and sometimes more than one) - and it appears that there may be some confuzzlement on that point, specifically with regards to what constitutes an ad hominem attack:
Ad hominem
Personally, I'd like to think it was simply just a very strong condemnation of what had been done ....
you know, kinda like when a mod gives an admonishment for violating the Code of Conduct.
Was I pizzed off at what occurred ? .... you bet.
I will certainly admit that some of the comments in my response to LOS were pretty harsh ....
in hindsight, perhaps overly so ....
But then I do not view the transgression as something minor and utterly insignificant ....
others appear to have a different opinion.
I certainly could have been more courteous, and less insulting, in expressing my disagreement.
Layout, for that you have my apology.
However, speaking of the Code of Conduct, one could argue that posting such an assertion as the OP did, as a unqualified
fact, could, itself be considered as a violation of the Code of Conduct itself:
"3. Personal Attacks are prohibited.
Do not post or private message (PM) any threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, profane, hateful or otherwise objectionable material of any kind, including, but not limited to, any material which encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, violate the rights of others, or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, or federal law."
It would appear, at least to me, that a possible direct consequence of the OP's original posts in this, and in another thread he started about essentially the same subject (although that was possibly not clear at the time, so understandable) .....
was for an EO member to subsequently call for the rounding up of all the members of a particular religion ..... based, apparently solely on their religion ....
Assuming that there are at least some of these religion members who also happen to
United States Citizens, then we're talking about advocating for criminal activity (
even if such activity were conducted by the government it would be criminal) ...... and a gross violation of their rights as citizens ....
Simply because one "says it nicely" in no way reduces or minimizes how absolutely disgusting and utterly vile such a call for action is ....
Apparently, the individual who posted that little diatribe is wholly unfamiliar with the actual words and true meaning of the
United States Constitution and
Bill of Rights .....
a fact that would be incredibly ironic .... if it turned out that said individual had been in the armed forces ..... and taken the Oath to support and defend .....
If I were a Muslim (which I am not) reading here on EO, I would certainly find such a call (as well as the original OP's in both threads) to be
threatening,
defamatory, and
hateful .....
at the very minimum ....
Think about it - depriving a United States citizen of their rights ....
solely because of the faith that they profess ......
And yet not a word was said to that individual about what, in at least my own mind, was a
clear violation of the C of C.
I will acknowledge Turtle here for poking fun at said individual, in terms of the erroneousness of said individual's (incorrect) target - however that isn't really the same thing as pointing out a C of C violation.
BTW, I'm not sure ........... but I don't think there is anything in the Code of Conduct about bringing up something
"outside the current thread" ............ Life isn't lived in a vacuum and there is exists such a thing as history ....... which includes the things we have said here previously.
While it may very well be that "things outside the current thread" is someone's
own personal hobby horse that they like to ride, the fact is, it ain't in the C of C. Mebbe it should be .... dunno .........
I rather suspect that if one were to look at most of the threads on EO one would find all manner of things from "outside the current thread" being interjected for one reason or another ......
Context is an interesting thing - sometimes it can be a double-edged sword. One could argue that my interjection of something "from outside the current thread" provides context, in terms of
who the OP was, and is, and why
that in itself merits holding him to a somewhat higher standard than just some average Joe (pun intended
) off the street.
As to the reasonableness of someone's assumption, it may well be entirely reasonable assumption ....
from that particular person's point of view ......
BTW, it's certainly true that Jeffery Dahmer thought eating folks was an entirely "reasonable" activity ....
which just goes to show that there is no accounting for taste .....
However, uttering such assumptions in public, no matter how "reasonable" they might seem to one,
as an absolute fact without any facts or evidence to support it is highly irresponsible (I would say completely and totally) ......
irrespective of whether it turns out to ultimately be true ...... or not ....
There also appears to be some confusion surrounding what exactly it was that I disagreed with. It's certainly true that I reject the contention of the OP that commented on - pretty hard not to, considering the reported facts - but it wasn't
all I disagreed with - I disagreed with OP's conduct, as far as claiming something as
fact, for which he apparently had no
evidence ... and I condemned it.
I never stated in any way that the OP was a completely and totally irresponsible person in all matters and conduct in his life. I believe I confined my characterization of irresponsibility to "this incident" and this particular instance of conduct.
And FWIW, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that (current and former) members of the national defense/intelligence apparatus who have managed to rise to the civilian-equivalent rank of Colonel (full-bird ?) would at least possess some reasonable minimum of analytic capability, along the lines of
".... if there are no facts in evidence to support it, a particular conclusion probably is not warranted ...."
I think most folks do possess such a capability (
although sometimes I really do wonder ...) even if they are not always inclined to use it ........ dunno .... maybe I'm wrong here ....
Additionally, the assertion that it is "logical" to assume that the attack, in this case, was perpetrated by Muslim extremists is .....
a stretch at best ...... particularly when given the accompanying description of the "logic" involved .....
Just because "Muslim extremists" happens to be the first thing that "pops" into one's mind when one reads a headline (likely with less than 20 words) about terrorism doesn't mean it's "logical". That sounds more like a unthinking gut
reaction than something
analytical ....
Logic would seemingly imply that
evaluation of data,
deliberative reasoning, and a
computational thought process are involved ....
and having something just "pop" into one's head sure doesn't sound like too much of a deliberative activity to me .... but YMMV ....
What data was available/present and evaluated/considered to draw that as a conclusion ?
Is the amount of data available adequate to draw a reasonably certain conclusion .......... or does more need to be gathered ?
Are there any missing vital data which might effect the conclusion to be drawn ?
Just exactly how much logic/deliberation/computation is involved there anyways, with processing a
headline ?
In the end, it is certainly true that one can engage in all manner of gymnastics (mental, verbal, and otherwise) to justify, excuse, or otherwise minimize the misconduct of one's self, or another ..... and attempt to point the fickle finger of fate in some other direction ..... but in the end, all it really is, is:
misdirection
The only other thought I have at the moment is:
.......... there are times when it is certainly true that silence can be deafening .....
