Dear Ozpen,

Sigh.

This is going to take a while by the looks of it.

Again with the fallacious use of one of the logical fallacies.

This is the definition of Ad hominem 

“it refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”

Instead as you were the one avoiding discussion of the topic at hand and I was attempting to draw you back to it this logically can not be regarded as an ad hominem attack by whatever tortured definition you would want to apply.

Instead you were committing the logical fallacy of avoiding the issue.

“Description: When an arguer responds to an argument by not addressing the points of the argument.  Unlike the strawman fallacy, avoiding the issue does not create an unrelated argument to divert attention, it simply avoids the argument.”
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Avoiding-the-Issue

Now I earlier put to you the following;

“You blessed someone who used the term Christophobic and said “Thank you for standing against the anti-God/Christ promoters.” Then you said of Banjo P “What's my explanation to you, a God-denier and Christophobic?” This is the very definition of the use of ad hominen attack, of “Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself”. “

Why isn't the use by you of those terms deemed ad hominem and why aren't you retracting them?

As to your link to a definition of a cultural Christian I am hardly going to accept one coming from an admittedly evangelical, protestant, conservative site am I.

The Wikipedia one does just fine; “Cultural Christians are deists, pantheists, agnostics, atheists, and antitheists who adhere to Christian values and appreciate Christian culture. This kind of identification may be due to various factors, such as family background, personal experiences, and the social and cultural environment in which they grew up.”

Dear NNS,

As I am loathed to let a misapprehension stand there is a difference between a cultural and a cultured Christian although there is no doubt they can be one and the same in a person.

Therefore you are welcome to rethink your apology.

To SteeleRedux.

My mistake. I thought you meant something more then just enjoy the fruits of Christian values. Though I guess at least admiting that you are proud of those values is a step in the right direction away from where I thought your position was.

To Banjo Paterson.

The difference between civil court and criminal court is that civil courts deal with loss and repayment, divorces and civil conflicts as a whole. Criminal courts deal with actual crime. An accusation in a civil court woun't put you in prison, whereas in criminal court any accusation that isn't justified can harm a person's livelihood by losing their license, bankrupt them with massive fines, or imprision them.

The stakes are higher when going to a criminal court, so the justification and the proof should be more solid as well.

I don't like that rape is a crime that is rarely is ever proveable, and so that is a crime that often goes unpunished in the courts. However if you think that a justice system like you described would be better then innocent until proven guilty, then I disagree greatly. Rape would be an accusation like any other crime would be, but because it's emotionally charged more then most other crimes, just the accusation would be enough to charge a defententvas guilty.

Keep looking for solutions. There might be other ones out there, but this one won't do,

SteeleRedux,

<<“You blessed someone who used the term Christophobic and said “Thank you for standing against the anti-God/Christ promoters.” Then you said of Banjo P “What's my explanation to you, a God-denier and Christophobic?” This is the very definition of the use of ad hominen attack, of “Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself”.>>

You are correct. I sincerely apologise to you and Banjo P for using the Ad Hominem against you, instead of dealing with why you are anti-God in relation to the topic being discussed.

<<As to your link to a definition of a cultural Christian I am hardly going to accept one coming from an admittedly evangelical, protestant, conservative site am I.>>

There you go again with committing a Genetic Logical Fallacy: 'You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came', http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic.

Here you admitted the origin was from an evangelical, Protestant, conservative site, thus making it unacceptable for your consideration.

You thus engaged in fallacious reasoning to make my citation look negative because of its source. To avoid this error in reasoning, you need to deal with the content of the quote and not discard it because of your opposition to those who are evangelical, Protestant and conservative.

Dear Ozpen,

Once again you are using the Genetic Fallacy incorrectly.

I was not disputing the notion of a cultural Christian but rather making the argument for accepting one definition of it over another.

In doing so I was challenging your 'False Attribution'.

False Attribution is “A specific fallacy where an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased, or fabricated source in support of an argument.”

So I was perfectly within my rights to reject the definition offered by you from a small, religiously fundamentalist, and indisputably biased group who does not even represent the wider Christian community as opposed to a definition from a far more broadly accepted source.

As to apologising for using an ad hominem against me there really is no need. The crime is more the fact you were employing the charge whist indulging yourself, that was the affront.

NNS,

Then - than. I read your post, then I was annoyed by the confusion between those two words - well, more irritated than annoyed; more resigned than surprised.

No, all charges against anyone should have to be proven, with material evidence if possible. Until then, anybody charged, Shorten, Kavanaugh, Pell, Biden, are innocent until proven - shown - to be guilty. An assertion is worthless on its own. Otherwise we would have something like a Chinese system where anybody charged would somehow, while incarcerated, have to prove their innocence, thereby offending the system and its upholders - and probably being penalised with a longer sentence.

And of course, where possible, institutions should minimise opportunities for any sort of assault - in schools, offices, churches, etc., potential perpetrators and potential victims should not be alone and/or in compromising positions; doors should be kept open when appropriate; a potential predator should not get between a potential victim and doors and other escape routes; potential victims should try to have company; etc.

Hi SR,

Yes, I agree, atheists can most certainly have what you call Christian values, i.e. without the supernatural aspects of course. Christians per se don't have any monopoly on treating each other properly, equally, kindly. I still love the Good Samaritan story - especially because so few 'Christians' seem to live by it :)

Cheers,

Joe