Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
dianahsieh

NYC Mosque: Respect Property Rights

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

We are not STILL arguing about the issue of reifaction are we? I hope not and that we can agree that it is long past time to move on from such discussion. in this instance. Granted perhaps Amaroq may have been guilty of it, he has made it quite clear what he meant to convey by now. So it is rather pointless to quibble over such semantic issues.

As for what your claiming here : Nobody is accusing anybody of changing anybodies posts. I do not even see where Marc misquoted you, yet you keep asserting this, and unless I am missing something you have not managed to point out exactly how he did this or where. If you wanted to make this case, I would think that you would quote him doing as he said. Perhaps I missed this? If not, I think you are definitely at fault for making such accusation without evidence. Which would be doubly dubious if so given you are demanding evidence from him in a similar case.

Edited by Prometheus98876

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I accused you of changing my quote, not my posts. Which you did. I quoted Amaroq's reification, and you replaced that quote with another one, [...]

Absolutely untrue.

[...] and then called me pedantic for saying it's a reification.

Actually I gave you the option of either being pedantic or too picky for not addressing his actual argument -- a tactic which you have continued to use with me.

In the mean time, Grames also posted, proving that I was right, and wikipedia in fact uses the exact thing Amaroq said as an example of reification.

It is good to know what your standard of proof is. Did you read the rest of Grames's post in which he says that reification can be proper and effective? I guess acknowledging that part of Grames's post would have made it harder for you to continue to ignore your opponent's actual argument.

My post doesn't contain a comparison between Islam and Catholicism. You alleged it did, I asked you to quote it, you didn't. So I left it alone.

Actually I did quote your comparison, twice.

But fine, here's my response: I'm ending the conversation because you're being an irrational bully.

Justice is treating someone as they deserve and the fact is that I have treated you exactly as someone who makes stuff up in order to diminish their opponent's argument and then lies about it deserves. The fact that my tone mirrors your usual treatment of people on this forum makes this a particularly sweet justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is good to know what your standard of proof is. Did you read the rest of Grames's post in which he says that reification can be proper and effective? I guess acknowledging that part of Grames's post would have made it harder for you to continue to ignore your opponent's actual argument.

Just to clarify, that was a different post, post #211.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely untrue.

Fine, I'll go through the trouble of linking to the posts in question.

In Post 204 I quote Amaroq saying the following: "There is only one ideology that I know of that is currently waging physical war against us. Fundamentalist Islam.", and then reply: that is the fallacy of reification. (which it clearly is)

In Post nr. 213 you quote Amaroq saying the following: "Why did I emphasize that they're waging a physical war against us, when it's the ideology we must defeat?", and then write: "He uses the pronoun "they" so it is clear that he is talking about people. So hopefully that clears him of the charges of reification".

My reply was that no, that does not clear up anything. Instead of addressing my quote from Amaroq (the reification), you quoted a different text, to "clear up" the issue. In response, I didn't accuse you of anything, instead I simply replied that your explanation didn't clear up anything. (I explained why: without the reification I quoted and you ignored, Amaroq doesn't link this Imam to physical war)

From that, you went on to complain about me accusing you of lying, and being dishonest. Far from true, I simply rejected your explanations. The rest is in your head.

Actually I did quote your comparison, twice.

No, you quoted my full reply. This:

"Islam is totalitarian. There is no difference between Islam and totalitarian Islam. And the plan to eradicate it would be to start removing Muslims from the face of the Earth, until they either all renounce their religion or they're all dead. Then continue on with Catholicism, which is also a totalitarian religion [...]

I have no desire to eradicate either, because most of their followers are peaceful. "

That text contains no comparisons between Islam and Catholicism. It simply states that Catholicism is a totalitarian religion.

Nor does it contain the fallacy of equivocation, which you also alleged it does. If you continue to make those claims, you should point out the exact sentence in which the comparison occurs and the word I am equivocating on.

If you continue to insult me instead, I will no longer try to explain myself, I will simply report your posts as violations of the board rules.

It is good to know what your standard of proof is. Did you read the rest of Grames's post in which he says that reification can be proper and effective? I guess acknowledging that part of Grames's post would have made it harder for you to continue to ignore your opponent's actual argument.

This is the post I was referring to, in which Grames proves that the phrase Amaroq used is the reification fallacy: Post 221

It contains nothing to suggest that Amaroq made a proper argument, instead it unequivocally dismisses Amaroq's argument as fallacious. So once again, you're accusing me of ignoring things because you're not paying enough attention to get the contents of this thread straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...