[devonin]

Originally Posted by Vendetta21

That is the the precise distinction I seek. I disapprove of the former, but the latter is the exact type of thing which is worth discussing. I seek things that are on an "if we assume _____ then what does _____ actually imply" etc. What is the purpose of a thread on fallacies if we do not illuminate the common fallacies used, and evaluate the weight of said fallacies in terms of discussion.

People use the former, are corrected, and either learn from it, and contribute, or don't learn from it, and are generally summarily ignored. If the other random people pile on random comments, what should you care? Just do as we do, pass the thread over in favour of more appropriate discourse, and it will eventually sink down off the page, or be closed by a mod.

This area is "specifically for higher-level thinkers" and to promote things that do not perpetuate that idea turns away higher level thinkers. Can you see where I'm coming from when I find something innately distasteful about a thread in which the majority of responses add nothing and clarify nothing in a particular discussion? I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to read the forum, I think we should just be more "stringent" on the expectations of the content in the forum. If the expectation is raised, so then is the quality of the post.

So now failing to forbid is the same as promoting? The rules that apply here are clearly stated, and those who step too far out of line are dealt with. I'm not sure from whence comes your authority to supercede the moderators in deciding what is or isn't "valid" for this forum.

Further, how are these stringent standards to be enforced? Should moderators cover the CT subfora every minute of every day to close off "unacceptable" threads? Should there just be surprise thread closing and locking when a mod comes by and decides? What are your standards? Can you express them in a way that makes it easily and readily clear to all moderators -exactly- where the line between valid and invalid is?

And to clarify the ambiguity, I used "rampant apologetics" because of the common connotation with apologetics in the Christian church,

Christian apologetics is as large a field as it is, because christianity is a large religion, and has many supporters as well as many detractors. I hardly think that constitutes "rampant" apologetics.

and moreover I meant that when someone sticks to a claim no matter what without giving any support and without actually allowing themselves to evaluate any of the argument.

Well, since that isn't what apologetics is(are?), I rather think that you've misapplied the term.

I have no problems with the defense of an argument.

But this is the fundamental definition of apologetics. If you have a problem with apologetics but no problem with defending your argument, perhaps you should restate your argument in a way that actually says what you want it to.

My supports have left my original point in some tangent at some point, but truly the problem I see is people who beg the question as their primary support, and arguments where begging the question is all that can be done.

People who post threads whose only support assumes you grant them their view as correct tend to attract two things: People pointing out the untenability of the argument and mods closing the thread, depending on who got to it first. Many times, if the more practiced critical thinkers don't want to turn the discussion into something more valid, the thread is simply closed. At the worst case, it lives on the front page for a week or two, with the odd person poking their head in to correct the more egregious errors, and try to get them onto a useful track. I fail to see how this is necessarily a bad thing.

And yes, I am outwardly pretentious, and I do use ad hominem attacks (you may always consider it a fallacy, but an ad hominem attack within an argument does not mean that it will necessarily follow that the form of the argument itself is invalid or unsound or non-cogent, and does not necessarily mean that the argument itself is less effective due to that attack.) My pretension has no true impact on the validity value or soundness value of my claims, just like another person's humor doesn't. Linguistic style and validity are not mutually inclusive. I prefer my style because it disposes people to argue against me, and, which I hope has become quite clear, is the thing I come to a forum like this for.

If you'd read the thread in which you are posting, you'd know that I make the distinction between ad hominem attacks and the ad hominem fallacy. However, I disagree with your assertion that it doesn't impact the soundness of your claims. You say being this way disposes people to argue with you, well I'd say it disposes people to think that you're an arrogant jerk, and just ignore you, or wish that you would go away, which disinclines them to grant the rest of your argument the attention it would otherwise deserve. "Point A, Point B, and also, you're a moron" and "Point A, Point B" send very different messages.

Antagonistic argument style is all well and good in formal debate, but as youv'e taken great pains to try and show, the CT section of this website forum is a far cry from formal debate.

In conclusion, I don't know if you've straw manned my arguments or if my statements have been ambiguous, because the argument you suppose that I claim is not the argument I claim.

I think I've done a fairly adaquate job of pointing out where the ambiguities are in your logic, and the faults I personally find with your attitude towards this forum. As Abraham Lincoln said: "For the people who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing those people will like." I'm sorry if this forum as it is, is something that you don't like, but demanding, even strongly suggesting that it change to suit you is a pretty silly course of action, especially coupled with your self-stated attitude towards things.