briar rose

Aren't you using the slippery slope fallacy? Ad slipperamus slopium? :)

Withdrawing advertising from a website does NOT equate with shutting it down. Save that argument for any internet filter fascists still lurking in the wings.

Also, it's a bit ironic that you bring up Fox News - albeit as just a throwaway example. Let's face it. Would The Oz have taken up this 'cause' if the offending article had been slagging Anzac Day or our boys in Afghanistan? There are more than enough indications in Pearson’s article to suggest the whole kerfuffle is just an excuse for an attack on gays, greenies and that old News Corp obsession ‘political correctness gone mad’.

(Ooh, did I just commit an ad hominem Murdochorium horribilis?)

As for MTR ... I suspect you may be resorting to 'most of us' fallacy. (Mostofusicum fallashismus?)

A quick scrutiny of The Drum commentariat for the sexy-dead-women article, reveals a pro- to anti-Melinda ratio of about 60:40 to start with, descending to about 50:50 midway, and then about 10:90 towards the end (as the poor old anti-Melinda tragics failed to realise that it was well after closing time and the lights had been turned out).

As for the OLO commentariat on Melinda's article, I did a VERY quick scan and found much the same unmoderated anti-feminism hate speech that caused me to leave OLO in disgust nearly 2 years ago - so I guess it's fair to say that 'most' OLO commenters don't agree with her.

Look, you think MTR hates men. That's your prerogative. I think MTR hates the cultural messages that are drip-fed to both men and women about what it means to be a woman or man in this society. That's her prerogative. I agree with her and will continue to do whatever is available to me to take a stand on this - sign petitions, write letters, comment on blogs, withdraw my business etc. That's my prerogative.

I have to admire your stickability, Dan S de Merengue. Continuing to fight on in the face of insuperable odds is the sign of a man with a mission.

(Others define this state of mind somewhat differently, but since this is a thread concerning argumentum ad hominem, I will refrain from drawing it to your attention.)

>>No one has realised a proof for God's existence or non existence after centuries of reasoned debate.<<

It has long been understood that "proving a negative" cannot be done, despite the prevalence of dumb websites asserting that it can. Here's one of my favourites:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

It relies - as they all do - on the redefinition of a "negative".

"...there really isn't such a thing as a "purely" negative statement, because every negative entails a positive, and vice versa. Thus, "there are no crows in this box" entails "this box contains something other than crows" (in the sense that even "no things" is something, e.g. a vacuum). "Something" is here a set restricted only by excluding crows, such that for every set S there is a set Not-S, and vice versa, so every negative entails a positive and vice versa. And to test the negative proposition one merely has to look in the box: since crows being in the box (p) entails that we would see crows when we look in the box (q), if we find q false, we know that p is false. Thus, we have proved a negative.<<

What has been proven, of course, is the positive statement "this box contains no crows". Re-defining it to mean "something other than crows" is nothing more than mental legerdemain.

To show how ridiculous it is, try rephrasing "this universe contains no God" to "this universe contains something other than God".

Well, of course it does. But the fact remains that even as we continue to explore the universe, there is no sign, anywhere, of a God.

So we can actually stop at "No one has realised a proof for God's existence", since this is all that needs to be said.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1194

Pericles: Three thoughts from your erstwhile Athenian, Socrates, are appropriate:

First, with regard to you brilliant exposition on the unprovability of negatives: I think that you have possibly missed Dan's real strategy- it is not to co-opt reason to demonstrate God's existence, but to use the veil of reason as a medium to repeat his assertion that God exists. Your rebuttal only keeps Dan's assertion at top-of-mind. Socrates said "don't repeat the lie" (or words to that effect) because of what George Lakoff more recently called "framing" ("don't think of an elephant"). We are focussed on this belief about the "God-thing" rather than other things that may be more important.

The second Socratic point, which relates to the substance of the thread- belief as compared with knowledge. As I understand it, Socrates was advocating "justified true belief", rather than simply belief. A chain of cause and reason is required to make the belief durable.

Thirdly, Socrate's triple test of "true, good and useful" needs to be applied to statements before they are made. Otherwise the lie might be repeated and give durability to falsehoods.

Praise the Lord and pass the hemlock, Socrates!

Jedimaster,
Why deter Pericles from giving his comments unless he's talking waffle?

You say Socrates was advocating "justified true belief". A justifed belief is what I was asking of Briar Rose. I questioned her 'belief' that Muehlenberg was DELUSIONAL. I say that that is but ad hominem. 

Or can she justify her belief? To do so she must show what FACTS Muehlenberg ignores to demonstrate his state of psychosis. It otherwise reveals that she is simply of a different opinion to him over gay marriage, and subsequently wants to call him names. 

Why isn't anyone else calling her to account?
 

Probably because this thread has degenerated into an argumentum ad nauseam.

Loudmouth: Your interjection is an example of the core issue that we are struggling with here- rather than making a constructive comment- one that might pass Socrates 3-way test- you claim that the thread has "degenerated". In this case "degenerated" is quite insulting- an ad hominem if you will.

Although I don't agree with much of what Dan says, he seems to be trying to keep to the point. So is Pericles. They are trying to root out the basis of this ad hominem issue as well as determining whether people (such as Briar Rose) are consistent with their views. All good stuff. This is a hard issue.

So if you have not got a contribution to make that is true, good or useful, then why not keep silent, rather than sully the thread with unhelpful and unedifying utterances?