OK, SHE SAID IT! - Women Bring on Sexual Assault by Their Dress / Conduct...

[Sam]

Not surprising you'd answer a post to JimL - you're becoming more like him. And you're wrong on a number of points, just like him.

You've got an ad hom problem, CP, that ill-suits you. Focus more on the substance and less on comparing every liberal you regularly interact with with the caricature of the "worst" one you perceive at the time.

If I'm wrong on a number of points, deal with those points.

[Joel]

Again, who disagrees with this? Who is saying that women cannot and should not take precautions against assault? How is that an unpopular position to take?

Evidently you missed my Post #92http://www.newsweek.com/controversy-...etector-267126
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014...e-nail-polish/

[Sam]

Evidently you missed my Post #92http://www.newsweek.com/controversy-...etector-267126
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014...e-nail-polish/

That wasn't how the "roofie polish" criticism played out and it doesn't even follow from your source articles:



Bolding added. Does that sound like someone who's arguing that "advising/empowering precautions is not permissible"? Not in the least. And I didn't see much at all, at the time, arguing that women shouldn't take precautions. The criticism was that such products can create situations where the victim is being blamed for not taking each and every precaution deemed by someone else to be necessary.

So you've created a caricature.

[rogue06]

Re-posting because trying to edit a typo on my phone deleted the post...
---

This entire thread is a huge joke, because even the most zealous of the liberal PC brigade can't hold the smallest candle to the outrage and enforcement machine that is conservative Christianity in America.

The amount of projection occurring in this thread is truly incredible as per usual. You're all outraged because someone other than your group dares to have a strong opinion and think other people are wrong in their opinion, but in your minds apparently conservative Christians are supposed to have a monopoly on opinions and particularly a monopoly on forcing them on others via peer pressure.

How dare those PC liberals do 1% of what conservative Christians in the US do on a regular basis! What terrible people those massively oppressive liberals are! How dare they take away our absolute power to oppress whoever we please!

Conservative Christians can protest en masse for years to little or no effect with the media and Hollywood scornfully mocking them for trying to force their values on to others. In contrast a half a dozen liberals can get together and decide to protest something and see results darn near instantly with the target often falling over themselves to appease them in order to avoid a media backlash.

[Cow Poke]

You've got an ad hom problem, CP, that ill-suits you.

I get tired of your crap, Sam, and I really don't have to put up with it.

[Jaecp]

I get tired of your crap, Sam, and I really don't have to put up with it.

Make less ad hom's then

[Teallaura]

Do either of you even know what an ad hom actually is? CP rarely commits the fallacy - it's more than simple name calling.

You, Jae, on the other hand, do regularly commit the actual fallacy. Pot, maybe you shouldn't worry so much about the kettle until you get your own time in the suds?

[Cow Poke]

Make less ad hom's then

Go bop yourself on the head with a foam nunchuck.

[Sam]

Do either of you even know what an ad hom actually is? CP rarely commits the fallacy - it's more than simple name calling.

You, Jae, on the other hand, do regularly commit the actual fallacy. Pot, maybe you shouldn't worry so much about the kettle until you get your own time in the suds?

Pretty familiar with the term, yes, and name-calling definitely falls into the set of particular examples of an ad hom. In this case, CP substituted a critique of the "number of points" for a declaration that I'm becoming "just like" JimL, who he had just accused of "classic JimL Buttdumb ignorant jackass idiocy", while not addressing JimL's point regarding "control of women's lives. So he managed to launch into two ad hom attacks in a short period of time."

CP can and should do better but the first step is recognizing the error and that error is named ad hominem.

Image 1441144257-001.jpg

[Sam]

I get tired of your crap, Sam, and I really don't have to put up with it.

All I asked was for you to deal with the substance of my post rather than engage in an ad hom. Can't see that as being a big ask on a debate forum.

[Cow Poke]

Pretty familiar with the term, yes, and name-calling definitely falls into the set of particular examples of an ad hom. In this case, CP substituted a critique of the "number of points" for a declaration that I'm becoming "just like" JimL, who he had just accused of "classic JimL Buttdumb ignorant jackass idiocy"

Actually, your colleague had just made a buttdumb ignorant jackass idiot statement, to wit:

"I just find it interesting that the conservatives, at least many of you, want to tell women how they should live their lives"

So, since you have appointed yourself his spokesman, please demonstrate how ANY of us are "telling women how they should live their lives".

[Teallaura]

Pretty familiar with the term, yes, and name-calling definitely falls into the set of particular examples of an ad hom. In this case, CP substituted a critique of the "number of points" for a declaration that I'm becoming "just like" JimL, who he had just accused of "classic JimL Buttdumb ignorant jackass idiocy", while not addressing JimL's point regarding "control of women's lives. So he managed to launch into two ad hom attacks in a short period of time."

CP can and should do better but the first step is recognizing the error and that error is named ad hominem.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]9283[/ATTACH]

To be an ad hom you actually have to be arguing rather than just yelling insults at each other. The fallacy, as your graphic points out, is when you attack the opponent's character as an answer to the argument. CP didn't do that because he didn't address the argument at all. He didn't say it was wrong because Jim was whatever - he just called Jim names and you by association, both derived from the argument being wrong to begin with, not being wrong because of those allegations. That's name calling, all right, but not an ad hom. The argument has left the building.

Sadly, it was never IN the building. Virtually every poster has denied that the woman is at fault even when placing herself at risk and almost all stated that Hynde either over stated or chose her wording poorly. The very points you said you were arguing AREN'T AT ISSUE. CP has repeatedly stated his agreement with the main points you made - so what argument can there be minus any actual issue?

[Teallaura]

Actually, your colleague had just made a buttdumb ignorant jackass idiot statement, to wit:

"I just find it interesting that the conservatives, at least many of you, want to tell women how they should live their lives"

So, since you have appointed yourself his spokesman, please demonstrate how ANY of us are "telling women how they should live their lives".

And for the record, calling the argument names is NOT an ad hom...

[Cow Poke]

And for the record, calling the argument names is NOT an ad hom...

Yeah, I was trying to figure out what names I called them. They remind me of NRAJeff... when I would say something he said was stupid, he would go on a rage accusing me of calling HIM stupid. Apparently, he was incapable of understanding that even SMART people can occasionally say something stupid. I just think JimL happens to do it with a lot more regularity.

[Sam]

Actually, your colleague had just made a buttdumb ignorant jackass idiot statement, to wit:

"I just find it interesting that the conservatives, at least many of you, want to tell women how they should live their lives"

So, since you have appointed yourself his spokesman, please demonstrate how ANY of us are "telling women how they should live their lives".

Since it's a pretty familiar trope, I assume JimL was speaking of Conservative's efforts to more strictly regulate abortion and to give employers greater freedom in denying women at least certain types of contraceptives. He can certainly speak for himself but you didn't actually address his point and veered off in a different direction.

And me? You unquestionably and completely avoided taking up the substance of my post, settling into an ad hom. And my rebuttal still stands: such behavior doesn't suit you. Address the points, leave off on the characterizations and personal attacks. If you must be snarky, do it in the context of addressing the points.