"You're Just Saying That Because You're A Dogmatist"

[Inspector]

As featherfall suggests here: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...04entry103704

I would like to see a forum rule that recognizes the "you're just saying that because you're a dogmatist" attack as an argument from intimidation and outlaws its use.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

The statement alone is akin to an argument from intimidation, but when it is backed up by evidence that the accused is being dogmatic, as opposed to rational, I see no problem with making that judgment.

I myself have hinted that others on this forum are dogmatic, as an actual response to an argument from intimidation. See this thread:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...indpost&p=95777

Edited December 21, 2005 by Liriodendron Tulipifera

[JMeganSnow]

I think this is covered by the idea that you need to support your statements, whatever they are. Banning specific concrete statements is not the way to go when you need general principles to guide your actions.

[FeatherFall]

After thinking it over, I've come to the conclusion that my suggestion isn't appropriate. Though, perhaps the rules could caution people? In cases where people play the dogma card, it would be simple just to link them to a cautionary aside in the forum rules. Plus, it would make 'em look extra silly.

Edited December 21, 2005 by FeatherFall

[EC]

It doesn't really matter anyways. Besides being annoying and wrong, in most cases the "dogma card" only shows explicitly that the writer is not an Objectivist (wow, what a discovery there) and, more importantly, that the writer does NOT really understand Objectivism AT ALL if he thinks any Objectivist would ever allow "dogma" into his thinking.

[softwareNerd]

It doesn't really matter anyways. Besides being annoying and wrong, in most cases the "dogma card" only shows explicitly that the writer is not an Objectivist ...

Yes. Specifically, it shows that the writer does not understand that "objectivity" can be applied to Philosophy. However, this is only when the writer is asserting something like: "You Objectivists are dogmatic", rather than "You are dogmatic".Those who say that the latter must backed up by evidence.

It is similar to telling a poster: "You are a rationalist". Indeed, in the context of an Objectivist forum, the latter is more insulting; the "dogmatist" accusation is easy to shrug off as ignorance.

Regardless of the facts, such an accusation is going to rankle. So, anyone making it better be willing to demonstrate a good amount of evidence. The forum rules say:

Examples of personal insults include: (a) sarcastic ..., and ( accusations of irrationality or immorality. (emphasis added)

This thread was sparked by a particular post. Though I haven't asked, I'm pretty sure that if the post had been reported, moderators would have acted on it according to the existing rules.

I suspect that posts are not reported because members think that moderators are reading stuff, particularly when they see the moderator active in the thread. Such an assumption might be true at times and not at others. So, I'd second Jennifer's request, asking members to use the Report button for such posts.

[sparky]

It is similar to telling a poster: "You are a rationalist". Indeed, in the context of an Objectivist forum, the latter is more insulting; the "dogmatist" accusation is easy to shrug off as ignorance.

Dogmatic is often not used correctly (guilty myself sometimes). Dogmatic implies an unprovable source for a statement/belief. The above statement is not dogmatic, but fits the definition of "imperious" perfectly.

[HaloNoble6]

Online Oxford Compact Dictionary--

dogmatic: • inclined to impose dogma; firmly asserting personal opinions as true

dogma: • an inflexible principle or set of principles laid down by an authority.

There is nothing about provable or “unprovable”. Again from OCD--

imperious: • arrogant and domineering.

The usage in the quoted passage is correct. I would say that one could be imperiously dogmatic, or humbly dogmatic.

[sparky]

Online Oxford Compact Dictionary--

dogmatic: • inclined to impose dogma; firmly asserting personal opinions as true

dogma: • an inflexible principle or set of principles laid down by an authority.

There is nothing about provable or “unprovable”. Again from OCD--

imperious: • arrogant and domineering.

The usage in the quoted passage is correct. I would say that one could be imperiously dogmatic, or humbly dogmatic.

OCD is wrong/incomplete. OCD doesn't even include arrogance in the definition. Dogmatic should always refer to an arrogant assertion and an unprovable source.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Dogmatic: Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.

WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Dogmatic:

adj 1: characterized by arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles [syn: dogmatical] 2: relating to or involving dogma; "dogmatic writings"

[softwareNerd]

The whole dogma thing has been discussed before. See my recent post in the related thread, where I point to more references.

[Inspector]

After thinking it over, I've come to the conclusion that my suggestion isn't appropriate. Though, perhaps the rules could caution people? In cases where people play the dogma card, it would be simple just to link them to a cautionary aside in the forum rules. Plus, it would make 'em look extra silly.

On further consideration, I'll agree with JMeganSnow and Featherfall. This kind of bad behavior is against the rules already, as it violates them all over the place.

I’d say what we need isn’t a rule, per se, but rather a cautionary warning included in the rules about the whole “you Objectivists (or you non-Kelley Objectivists) are all dogmatists” thing. Something that says “This forum recognizes that the proper way to understand Objectivism is a rational understanding and agreement, and not a dogmatic…”

Well, you get the idea.

I know on my forum I made a “sticky” that explodes the Marxist fallacy of “State Capitalism” when I had had enough of Marxists coming on and using it. It’s less frustrating to be able to say “read this” and give a link.

Just something I found helpful…

Edited December 21, 2005 by Inspector