Just by way of amplification as to what it was to which Briar Rose was alluding when she said: "as the ANZ Bank and IBM have withdrawn their advertising from OLO because Graham published [Bill Muehlenberg's article]", I post this link to an item by Christopher Pearson published in today's Australian online: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/oversensitivity-can-only-compromise-debate/story-e6frg6zo-1226000416817

I was alerted to this situation by a tweet by Susan Prior, until recently the articles editor on OLO, in which she posted a link to the item in The Australian. This was her tweet: http://twitter.com/Susan_Prior/status/33641623086694400




Perhaps the key observation of Christopher Pearson's item was:

"Young suspects that the peg on which to hang the
internal decision to withdraw advertising within
both organisations was a code developed by IASH,
the Internet Advertising Sales Houses, WHICH HE
DECLINED TO SIGN.

The code is a triumph of political correctness gone
mad, and badly needs rewriting. Schedule C provides
that IASH Australia members "are forbidden to place
advertising on sites containing barred content - in
other words, any of the inventory defined below - in
any circumstances. Content articulating views intended
or reasonably likely to cause or incite hatred of any
race, religion, creed, class or ethnic group. Content
articulating views calculated to cause offence to or
incite hatred of ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP."

The last sentence is the loopiest in the schedule. It
forbids anything that might offend anyone. This would
neuter not just contentious articles but the free flow
of comment on them that gives blogs their character."




A common denominator, IMO, where ad hominem arguments are resorted to, is a seeming determination to 'be offended' on the part of those using the ad hominem tactic. It thus seems that the IASH is attempting to batten-on to the corporate advertising budget much as a 'standover man' in support of 'the offended'. Full marks to Graham Young for refusing to pay 'protection money' to this association of parasites, this utter trIASH, this adhomination!

Thanks Jennifer and Forest for those links.

As someone who supports removal of unnecessary barriers to equality it is disturbing to see more evidence of such foul behind the scenes behavior by activists supposedly working for a better society.

Contrary opinions should be able to be expressed (and debated), those who seek to force those views underground are no friends of freedom and I suspect that the tye type of activity highlighted here works against acceptance of homosexual rights more than it helps it.

R0bert

Yeah, good one Dan,

Trustworthy and untrustworthy people are given differing status in our economic, social, and legal institutions. Untrustworthy people routinely seek to enjoy the role of trustworthy and only a fool would say "oh that's just ad hominem" and entrust important roles to such.

Remember, Dan's hurt tone is entirely due to being caught out, over and over, but he would love your rationality to be so porous as to let his "alternatives" in unexamined.

Do please, Dan, at any time, give your reference supporting an archaic usage of "expodential". Since I think you work in bible-translation, how about the linguistic roots as well? Do the odds of rolling a "six" on a die at least once approach unity in a large number of rolls?

Oh and did you accept correction on these? or did you filibuster along, hoping to cloud the issue?

If demonstrated untrustworthiness is "ad hominem" and therefore not relevant in a discussion, what is?

Rusty

This thread has been most fascinating, as it goes to the heart of OLO's raison d'etre- ie, the nature and relevance of "opinion".

While Wiktionary defines opinion as "A thought that a person has formed about a topic or issue", examples suggest that those thoughts can range from unfounded expressions of feelings to inferences based on extensive research. That OLO generously invites opinions of all kinds seems to be an invitation to some to sound-off on the former kind and deride those who strive for the latter.

As Socrates and Galileo found, respect for the empirical doesn't mean that the inferences will be pleasant to all ears. Ross Garnaut eloquently put it this week in his "Climate Change Review Update" (page 10):

"The Review noted that it is neither rational nor helpful for someone to reject a recommendation because he or she does not like it. Sound public discussion and, in the end, sound policy require a critic of a conclusion to identify a premise, a set of information or an element of methodology that is erroneous."

Although Garnaut has probably suffered more slings and arrows (aka ad hominems) in the past two years than most people would receive in a lifetime, he still has the grace to say:

"[The Report] acknowledged that the majority opinion remains contested by a small number of dissenters with relevant science credentials and by many without those credentials."

It's a pity that more OLO-ers don't follow Garnaut's example of grace under fire to provide something publicly useful rather than using OLO as a medium to vent their spleens.

Rusty,
For all your petty grievances, go back to those threads in which you raised them and discuss them there (where they might at least have some context).

One might have thought that on a thread discussing AD HOMINEM arguments that you might try to address the author's question and not again make me your preferred target. Alas, no.

Guess what, Rusty? I am not the issue (and I never have been).

Dear Jennifer,
Thanks for making your stand on freedom of speech. 

The soundness of our argument and manner in which we debate are important but become meaningless when we're given no voice or freedom to express our thoughts openly.

I hope that those in positions of responsibility at the ANZ Bank and IBM might wake up and realise how their decisions may effect our most basic of freedoms.