quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
mr cheesy, the only thing left for you to do now is to announce later tonight your own conversion to the beauties of Islam.... You don't seem to have much interest in Christianity any more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
I liked the post where he objected to the Romano-British defending themselves from the Saxons because it might lead to the Saxons getting the wrong idea about Christianity. Personally, if I were a Romano-British warrior in the shield wall at Mount Badon, I might not regard that as top of my list of things I was worried about.

---

quote:

---

a battle "...in which Arthur carried the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights upon his shoulders [or shield]..."

---

quote:

---

quote: Originally posted by Steve Langton: mr cheesy, the only thing left for you to do now is to announce later tonight your own conversion to the beauties of Islam.... You don't seem to have much interest in Christianity any more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This

quote:

---

quote: Originally posted by Steve Langton: mr cheesy, the only thing left for you to do now is to announce later tonight your own conversion to the beauties of Islam.... You don't seem to have much interest in Christianity any more.

---

by me about mr cheesy, was of course somewhat 'tongue in cheek'. It was an alternative to subjecting the thread to yet more lengthy analysis of mr cheesy's illogicalities in his post. I hoped it might give him pause - clearly I was wrong. For now I've nothing more to say to him.

---

Roughly then, you're saying "I was talking bollocks and have nothing more to add".

Story of your life. Life aboard anyway.
 

---

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And now you've been rude to Gamaliel as well. It's just not acceptable, however passionate you may feel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sioni Sais, don't tempt me! Do you really want the analysis of mr cheesy in depth?? Leaving here now for the main thread....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Don't know about peak Langton, but Dead Horses has been consigned to a hell of logorrhoetic vacuity by an excess of Langton.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And another thing you'll probably never hear again in Hell:

Steve, I'm sure you are a lovely bloke. I'm sure you are genuine and sincere and that you are doing your best.

But you just can't go around treating people like that, mate. You just can't turn around what someone has said and then say that they therefore are something they're not. Because that's just rude that is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
so I make serious efforts, and with a fair share of the Aspie logic that Gene Roddenberry didn't quite get right in his portrayal of Spock,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Guys, I am a hyperlexic Aspie who has been reading voraciously from age 3 - I'm very aware of the basic idea that there are 'other opinions' in the world. I've read enough to be nearly drowning in 'other opinions'.

And as I quoted Gamaliel himself pointing out, "They can't all be true" - so I make serious efforts, and with a fair share of the Aspie logic that Gene Roddenberry didn't quite get right in his portrayal of Spock, to examine 'other opinions' and try and sort out the facts and what is at least likely to be true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

Guys, I am a hyperlexic Aspie who has been reading voraciously from age 3 - I'm very aware of the basic idea that there are 'other opinions' in the world. I've read enough to be nearly drowning in 'other opinions'.

---

quote:

---

And as I quoted Gamaliel himself pointing out, "They can't all be true" - so I make serious efforts, and with a fair share of the Aspie logic that Gene Roddenberry didn't quite get right in his portrayal of Spock, to examine 'other opinions' and try and sort out the facts and what is at least likely to be true.

---

quote:

---

And I am open to persuasion; as you'll know from the thread I've bought for my Kindle and have been reading a book recommended by mr cheesy and I'm reporting that on the thread as I go - next instalment hopefully some time tomorrow...

---

quote:

---

Thus far I have found nothing to seriously counter the implications of the widely agreed very-much-not-just-my-personal-opinion historical fact of Muhammad founding a de facto 'Islamic state' first in Medina and then with the aid of a substantial de facto Islamic army expanding to conquer Mecca where he remained effectively king for the rest of his life and continued to order and lead military expeditions.

---

quote:

---

Is mr cheesy seriously denying that Muhammad did that? And if he's not denying it, how does he get round the implications?

---

quote:

---

Take your answer back to the main thread please mr cheesy, and without your own insults to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And now you've been rude to Gamaliel as well. It's just not acceptable, however passionate you may feel.

---

I thought I was being rather moderate considering some of the stuff I'd had thrown at me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
The answer to any sweeping generalisation by an anabaptist about Constantinianism is "King of Münster". It is historical fact that all anabaptists expel at least one Roman Catholic every day, and like getting naked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
I liked the post where he objected to the Romano-British defending themselves from the Saxons because it might lead to the Saxons getting the wrong idea about Christianity. Personally, if I were a Romano-British warrior in the shield wall at Mount Badon, I might not regard that as top of my list of things I was worried about.

---

Like it - but
Of course the Romano British warrior wouldn't be all that worried about his Saxon opponent getting the wrong idea about Christianity - that's one of the ways the state church things works....

But I think the Saxon warriors might well have been registering that this was in effect a Christian Crusade against them. Badon in particular is recorded in one source in these terms;

quote:

---

a battle "...in which Arthur carried the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights upon his shoulders [or shield]..."

---

That's really going to endear Christianity to the Saxons who saw their colleagues killed in the battle, isn't it? And can I suggest that Jesus might have some awkward things to say to the Romano-British about exploiting/misrepresenting Him in a way extremely hard to justify from His recorded teaching, and the teaching for example of Paul about Christian warfare being 'not with physical weapons'...? This could all too easily have ended up with the Saxons developing the kind of attitude and bitter vengefulness we see in Islam against Christendom's later Crusaders....

As a 'kingdom of this world', of course "the Romano-British (would be) defending themselves from the Saxons" The objection is to Jesus being involved in that warfare by them.

I'm a bit disappointed in that one Callan, after I'd thought your contributions to the other thread were quite good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
The answer to any sweeping generalisation by an anabaptist about Constantinianism is "King of Münster". It is historical fact that all anabaptists expel at least one Roman Catholic every day, and like getting naked.

---

And that's the great irony - every time Anabaptists and/or Mennonites have been in a position of power, they abuse it. They create systems which oppress people, they turn to Naziism, they build enclaves of extreme authoritarianism. I've yet to see any Mennonite-majority community which is healthy.

Of course, Steve just dismisses this by saying that they're the wrong kind of anabaptists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
My irony detector might be out of whack, but isn't there an inconsistency between Anabaptists acting contrary to their book and Muslims doing the same?

---

quote:

---

If such a low proportion of Muslims actually carry out terrorism despite their book instructing them to do so (which is, I think, what Steve Langton is getting at) shouldn't we give thanks and welcome them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Dude, I still think that you are missing the point here. You are treating any conflict between the Romano-British and the Saxons as a deplorable instance of the Romano-British embracing the ideology of Constantinism. I think that the Romano-British would have experienced it as a bunch of hairy arsed barbarians invading their kingdom killing, raping and enslaving people and them thinking, "do you know, we might want to do something about that".

---

quote:

---

If you were a member of the Oxford movement in the 19th Century you might be an Anglo-Catholic, you might go over to Rome, but I'm pretty sure that none of them embraced Atenism or Tibetan Buddhism.

---

quote:

---

Dude, I still think that you are missing the point here. You are treating any conflict between the Romano-British and the Saxons as a deplorable instance of the Romano-British embracing the ideology of Constantinism. I think that the Romano-British would have experienced it as a bunch of hairy arsed barbarians invading their kingdom killing, raping and enslaving people and them thinking, "do you know, we might want to do something about that".

---

quote:

---

I don't know what Christians of a different perspective might have done instead - but at least they wouldn't have been there killing people in Jesus' name, which seems decidedly counterproductive for the faith and everyone else involved. As I see it, Christians would be 'internationalist' in such a situation, not taking sides in the worldly battle but doing something else and better.

---

Does it not occur to you, on any level, that most of those fighting would have been doing so because the alternative was being killed or enslaved, not because a religious state was fighting a religious war against the Saxons?
 

---

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
As another aspie, I feel I should point out that Steve Langton's inability to think outside of his own little box, inhabited AFAICT by himself and the ghost of Emperor Constantine, has little to do with him having Asperger's syndrome and a lot to do with him being Steve Langton.

---

quote:

---

Does it not occur to you, on any level, that most of those fighting would have been doing so because the alternative was being killed or enslaved, not because a religious state was fighting a religious war against the Saxons? [brick wall]

---

quote:

---

If such a low proportion of Muslims actually carry out terrorism despite their book instructing them to do so (which is, I think, what Steve Langton is getting at) shouldn't we give thanks and welcome them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I was simply explaining that one factor in how AS affects me is the hyperlexia and voracious reading - a common example, which sometimes leads to AS going undiagnosed because hyperlexics can mitigate the effects of AS by learning through reading of things that don't come instinctively - and how that in turn affects my awareness of there being different opinions and my approach to that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You do realise that one of the symptoms of hyperlexia (which is nothing to do with AS

---

quote:

---

is the ability to read fluently and even voraciously without fully comprehending what is being read? That supports the idea that you've failed to understand views other than your own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Of course it occurs to me - not least because it's blindingly obvious. But it's also pretty obvious that Jesus taught another way of doing things which he wants his followers to do in the world and which I think is well worth exploring.

---

quote:

---

And it's obvious that people who form Christian nations and fight Crusades and bear Christian symbols on their shields and so on, are not in fact obeying Jesus and behaving as Jesus intended but are compromising his message and hindering the progress of Jesus' better way. And in the long run, everyone who chooses Jesus' way is making future bloody battles like Badon less likely.

---

quote:

---

It might help if you assumed that the reason I don't keep stating the blindingly obvious myself is precisely because I DO know it, and I do you the courtesy of assuming you know it too - but I'm concerned with the rethink that can go beyond the current blindingly obvious in a better way....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Oh I get it. If your brain is inhabited by pixies you're not responsible for what you post. It's the fault of the pixies.

---

quote:

---

Of course it occurs to me - not least because it's blindingly obvious. But it's also pretty obvious that Jesus taught another way of doing things which he wants his followers to do in the world and which I think is well worth exploring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

And it's obvious that people who form Christian nations and fight Crusades and bear Christian symbols on their shields and so on, are not in fact obeying Jesus and behaving as Jesus intended but are compromising his message and hindering the progress of Jesus' better way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

Theologically, I think that the Kingdom of God is both a kingdom of peace and a kingdom of justice and sometimes there will be conflicts between the two. I think that you have no business telling people that they have a moral obligation to lay down and die from your comfortable middle class English experience. Granted the Romano-British thing is all blood under the bridge but did you take the same line about Bosnians fighting the Serbs in the 1990s or Syrian democrats fighting Assad. if you do, shame on you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Thinking that a good Christian should not wage war even in defence is a perfectly rational and valid interpretation of Jesus' teachings.

---

quote:

---

However, judging those who choose to defend their families, friends and even themselves is not in line with Jesus' teachings.

---

quote:

---

The problem with the self-defence justification is that it often obscures the conditions that we allow which fertilize the fields of contention.

---

quote:

---

If Christian countries acted in a Christian manner, there would be less need for them to defend themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You do realise that one of the symptoms of hyperlexia (which is nothing to do with AS and is in fact a subset of dyslexia) is the ability to read fluently and even voraciously without fully comprehending what is being read? That supports the idea that you've failed to understand views other than your own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

And it's obvious that people who form Christian nations and fight Crusades and bear Christian symbols on their shields and so on, are not in fact obeying Jesus and behaving as Jesus intended but are compromising his message and hindering the progress of Jesus' better way.

---

It may be obvious to those who base their entire set of religious beliefs on an eccentric interpretation of one short Biblical passage. To the rest of us, it's not.

---

quote:

---

: Originally posted by Steve Langton:

quote:

---

Of course it occurs to me - not least because it's blindingly obvious. But it's also pretty obvious that Jesus taught another way of doing things which he wants his followers to do in the world and which I think is well worth exploring.

---

I don't think it is blindingly obvious and hence reasoned Christian views are available with a range of opinions as to war.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:


That different approach is counter-intuitive, and consequently many people have failed to grasp it and have spent a lot of time trying to argue round it and producing 'interpretations' which in the end don't hold up. One of the classic cases known to me is Ian Paisley's deeply flawed commentary on Romans 13, which goes a long way to explain the violence in NI, but distorts and misrepresents Paul. Check it out for yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure that's entirely fair. This whole don't judge thing is full of contradictions and complexity -

---

quote:

---

These things are not mutually exclusive.

---

quote:

---

A country cannot act in a Christian manner.

---

quote:

---

What I think you're more saying here is that many Western countries - who have a Christian majority or have a legacy of a Christian majority - have got into far too many pointless wars. I don't see anyone arguing with that.

---

quote:

---

Even if they were wrong this is a tragedy of massive proportions which you do not acknowledge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It certainly is if you mix meanings. Judging in the pejorative sense is not the same thing as making an evaluation.

---

quote:

---

To an extreme pacifist any violence, even in defence of self or others, is wrong.

---

quote:

---

Many have claimed this very thing.

---

quote:

---

Not quite what I was saying. I am saying that such countries have gotten into pointless conflicts that they themselves at least tilled and fertilized the fields so that the seeds found good conditions for growth.
It is difficult to find any modern conflict that this is not true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It certainly is if you mix meanings. Judging in the pejorative sense is not the same thing as making an evaluation.

---

OK, you need to unpack that, I'm not sure if I agree or not.

---

quote:

---

Sure. But what is the link between that and Christianity? Pretty tenuous - other than the countries involved often have a majority Christian heritage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Meet John. All you know of John is that he has been imprisoned twice for embezzlement.
If your then, with no further information, conclude he is evil and bound for Hell; you are being judgemental in the pejorative, judge not lest ye be judged yourself kind of way.
If you decide that you will not consider him for a position as your accountant, you are making a judgement in the assessment meaning of the word.

---

quote:

---

I'm not saying that Christianity is a factor. I'm kinda saying the opposite. That if these countries acted in a Christian manner, they would have been less likely to help create such situations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Leave The Great Bird of the Galaxy out of this, you logorrheic typebot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Jesus wept!*
mr cheesy, I am revoking your right to criticise Steve Langton** Your inability to grasp the use of examples implies a level of mental constipation*** only slightly lower than his.****

*Figure of speechº, I do not mean he literally wept.ⁱ
**This is sarcasm¹, I do not have this authority² and likely would not use it if I did.
***Also a figure of speechº
****This is slight hyperbole.³

º a word or phrase used in a nonliteral sense to add rhetorical force to a spoken or written passage
¹ the use of ironyₐ to mock or convey contempt
² the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.
³ exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literallyₔ

ₐ the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect

ₔ This definition is for the benefit of everyone as very few people get it right.


ⁱ Not saying he did not weep, wither. I never met him and, like I said earlier, it is a figure of speech.*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sorry, Soror Magna; but I'm afraid it is a fact that while providing in Spock, Data, Seven-of-Nine and others, a role model for Aspies and a useful example for explaining the condition, Roddenberry also misunderstood it. He is not to be blamed for that as AS was not discovered till the 1980s (apart from Asperger's own work which got obscured by its origins in Nazi Austria), and even in the mid 1990s after the new research had gone public, I found myself dealing with medical professionals who hadn't caught on about it as quickly as absent-minded-professory Aspies like me had.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I wish I didn't have to raise the point here but I'd got heartily fed up of the situation of people constantly telling me I'm ignorant of this that and the other when the truth is I'm well aware and I'm putting my view forward as the well-cooked, rather than 'half-baked', consideration of all the 'other interpretations' I've come across over the years. I don't claim omniscience - if only! - but I'm definitely not ignorant....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I am a great Star Trek fan; but also, as I think Spock would have been, a fan of telling the truth about an issue like this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
[ I'm not really sure what Spock has to do with any of this.

---

quote:

---

However, Officer Callan, as the conclusion of them is that people confronted with violence have no other option than to *kill*, I think that we are justified in questioning the premises from which they are constructed.

---

quote:

---

To others; I raised the issue of Asperger and my hyperlexia simply to defend myself against the constant accusations of ignorance and of being unaware even that other opinions exist. Some comments Callan made sounded very like comments I've come across elsewhere from people who, inspired by the Spock depiction or not, wrongly perceive Aspies as unemotional.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
I scored 26

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
I scored 26

---

Beat you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
I scored 26

---

Beat you.

---

Show off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

My sympathy for Spock was a factor in enabling my self-diagnosis and even the flaws in the portrayal helped me in defining things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sorry, Soror Magna; but I'm afraid it is a fact that while providing in Spock, Data, Seven-of-Nine and others, a role model for Aspies and a useful example for explaining the condition, Roddenberry also misunderstood it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm reasonably certain that the Aspies I know eventually realise when they're being a dick. They also know how to apologise for being a dick when they get told they're being a dick, and they stop being dicks in that particular way.

What they don't tend to do is double down on being a dick in the same way they were dicks in the first place, and demand that people accept their dickish behaviour 'because they're Aspies'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...I am a great Star Trek fan; but also, as I think Spock would have been, a fan of telling the truth about an issue like this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...I am a great Star Trek fan; but also, as I think Spock would have been, a fan of telling the truth about an issue like this.

---

In other words, "I think a fictional character would agree with me, so I must be right." Next you'll tell us you have an Anabaptist puppy that will convince us all of the error of our ways.

---

quote:

---

Steve, I know quite well that many Aspies see aspects of themselves reflected in Spock. But I don't think there's any evidence that Roddenberry intended that, or that in his mind, Spock was what we might now call "on the spectrum." I've looked for such evidence and haven't found it, and I have found evidence to the contrary.

---

quote:

---

What I am doing is claiming that your approach is excessively theoretical. Generally, I am an uneasy supporter of the just war tradition. The two big war and peace issues of my adult life have been the war in the former Yugoslavia - where I was in favour of intervention - and the war in Iraq - where I was opposed. This has left me with a strong view that liberal interventionists, and the peace at all costs people, are both rather dismissive of the fact that their views have rather adverse costs for people that, they themselves, are not in any remote danger of paying.

---

quote:

---

I am somewhat suspicious of self-diagnosis because of the exculpatory possibilities it presents - especially when it attributes instances of particular behaviour to a self-diagnosis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I don't remember my score on the on-line test, but it was well into the "You may have..." area.

---

Try "well above the threshold for a clinical diagnosis", and I still manage to be a functioning adult. Please tell me you've actually been to a psychiatrist for an actual consultation, and you've actually been diagnosed with AS, because otherwise, dear God in Heaven, we are so going to hate you if you haven't.
 

---

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I can't see how Roddenberry could consciously intend something that, as I've just replied to Soror Magna, wasn't consciously known by many people even in the medical world till the mid-1990s.

---

quote:

---

It occurs to me from some of your responses that you and others here may be suffering from the misleading understanding of autism/Asperger's derived from Gene Roddenberry's flawed depiction of the condition in Star Trek's Spock and similar characters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes. But what is interesting is that [mousethief's] disbelief in the state church is apparently not based on the biblical teaching even though a very clear and globally applicable biblical teaching on that is available. Instead it's apparently based on modern secular ideas and the position of a modern secular state [the United States of America].

With the further irony in that that one of the major reasons the modern secular state in question has the constitution it does is because of the influence of Protestant Christian nonconformity of a kind which in a church context he rejects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
I scored 26

---

Beat you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But enough about orfeo, let's get back to you, Steve.

Please tell us that your AS is an actual diagnosis made by an appropriate health professional.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Alan, if people really just aren't going to listen, there's no point anyway. I take a bit of an attitude on that one of get the truth out there and leave God to bring the right people to it.

But I think this is a case where there is a potential audience, created in reaction to the extremists, of people who are both unhappy with the effects of 'state Islam' AND struggling to find a credible alternative within Islam to meet that dissatisfaction. We can offer them an external alternative.

And I also think it's a bit of a logical weakness that after clearly claiming the God of Abraham and Jesus as his God - Muhammad needs to claim the older Scriptures are corrupted - and yet it's the supposedly corrupt scriptures that contain the better way???

And in end, the question is in that contrast - a God who gives a really good way through Jesus and the apostles to spread a religion non-coercively, voluntarily; and then 600 years later changes his mind and tells Muhammad to go back to the essentially coercive state religion where in many ways the state is something of a barrier to preaching and hearing the word' and the 'conversion through force' questionable.....

What I'm saying is confront Islam with that kind of thing, ask the question which is the better way, the most 'God like'? Of course to do it, some Christian repentance and change will be needed as well....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why does anyone care is Stevie Not-wonder suffers from asparagus?

---

quote:

---

This board is not here for you to expound your religious and political views. We're not all here to assist you to "get the truth out" and it is frankly fucking insulting that you don't get that.

---

quote:

---

Context, mr cheesy, is extremely important to interpretation

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Context, mr cheesy, is extremely important to interpretation. My comment there is not about what happens on this board, but about Alan's view of likely Muslim response. No, you're not here to assist me to "get the truth out" - that's neither what I said nor what I meant.

---

quote:

---

I am discussing the origins of Islamic extremism. Alan who is an Admin on the Ship has engaged in that discussion with me - you've evaded what ought to be a very simple question about what most people, as far as I can tell, agree is a historic fact about Muhammad, and you're very openly insulting me.

---

quote:

---

I have a blog - feel free to come and comment; if you expect me to post your comments, rough arguing I can stand; sneering insults like you go in for I won't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
--Doing more and more "long and considered posts" has the opposite effect from what you probably want. You're overwhelming other Shipmates, and making them sick of your ideas and your posting style. Which, unfortunately, can make them sick of *you*.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm confused---is this a hell thread, or a memoir?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm confused---is this a hell thread, or a memoir?

---

It's vegetable porn. Like all porn, ultimately boring. Even if Stevie has asparagus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This being Hell, and me being a Hellhost, means I can tell you to shove your asparagus where the sun doesn't shine. And yes, it does relate to a poo-filled trench, but it's attached to your body, not your garden.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Despicable internet bullies and baiters the lot of you.
ITTWACW. Pity it isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Despicable internet bullies and baiters the lot of you.
ITTWACW. Pity it isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
...but, to the ones who *are* mocking his AS: That's wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
I don't think those are mutually exclusive, lB.

---

quote:

---

And, considering that they substituted "asparagus" for "Asperger's", and went on and on about it, they *were* making fun of Steve's disability, they knew what they were doing, and they did it on purpose.

Except for anyone, like Kelly, who stumbled into it and didn't understand it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
I don't think those are mutually exclusive, lB.

---

AS might be part of the reason for a fixation, but it is not an excuse.

---

Actually, I think we're talking past each other. I was referring to your comment that they might have been mocking Steve's AS, or making a clumsy attempt at humor. I don't think those are mutually exclusive.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Apologies, GK.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
No problem, lB.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Me too. Though the tangent really - as so often - had developed a life of its own, unrelated to its original subject.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Invoking special circumstances (such as a disability) in mitigation is not usually a good idea.

Invoking them as granting special superior insights is definitely not a good idea.

Invoking them as both of the above on different occasions is fully deserving of the attention of Hell denizens.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Yeah, but that's no excuse for someone to comport themselves like they were the love child of Eric Cartman and Donald Trump.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Eutychus--

It's never ok to make fun of someone's disabilty. Period.

If the person is being a jerk, then say that.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Where's the evidence that anyone mocked his disability?

I see a lot of criticism of his use of disability as a justification of his behaviour. I can't see any evidence of mocking the actual disability unless you think the word "asparagus" is sufficient to indicate a general contempt for Asperger's.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Thank you orfeo. Although sanity seems strangely out of place anywhere these days.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I think there are probably thousands of examples of single, isolated words that express contempt. In fact, I bet all of us could name a couple that have been aimed at us personally.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I think there are probably thousands of examples of single, isolated words that express contempt. In fact, I bet all of us could name a couple that have been aimed at us personally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
We can only know if no prophet confesses guilt. If he maintains innocence, then we might believe, but we will not know.
It can appear either way right now. At best, it is an insensitive use of a word in a situation that could appear mocking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Fair enough. So, that's exactly one poster who made use of the term in a way that is insensitive before Jamat marched in to announce that we're ALL horrible internet bullies.[/qb

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, Baptist Trainfan jumped in as well, but it seems he was playing around with np's post and not attacking SL.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not mocking SL's AS. I'm telling him to STFU about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I think GK's " they" popped up because she thought I was in on it, at first. And part of my backpedaling is a direct result of me not liking the feeling that GK thought I was being an asshole.

And I know saying that could potentially subject me to all manner of eye rolling fluffy bunny Too PC comments, but whatever. It pays to check yourself.

---

Actually, "they" referred to anyone who participated in the asparagus posts. From my reading, people had to know what was going on, because no prophet kept pointedly referring to Steve's Asperger's as "asparagus". And people replied.

If anyone questions that, go to pg. 2 of the thread, and search on "asparagus". Then do the same on this page (pg. 3).

However, Kelly, you said you didn't realize what was going on. I believe you, and I did state that as an out for anyone else who didn't realize.

FWIW.
 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Orfeo, thanks for the kind words. Fairly pathetic is high praise for a hell host. On the other matter I have an AS acquaintance that I am in a church band with. It was quickly evident that this person compulsively rose to any kind of bait, simply couldn't help it and over time I realised how tempting it was to wind him up and seriously unkind I was capable of being in jerking his levers for cheap laughs. My comment above does not exclude myself and to not say so after what I wrote above would be hypocritical.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Orfeo, thanks for the kind words. Fairly pathetic is high praise for a hell host.

---

I shall amend it to "fairly clueless".
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Jamat, there is a difference between deliberately winding someone up in a church band to get a rise out of them in an immediate social situation and someone coming onto a message board and responding to something that is obviously as stimulus to him, whatever the topic.

The participants on the Ship of Fools are not, for the most part, deliberately winding Steve Langton up. On many threads there are collective groans when he participates because that means the thread is now derailed (see some of the Dead Horses threads discussing aspects of homosexuality that have been derailed into Biblical interpretation when they started as something else entirely). It is not as if anyone has to respond to a thread immediately. Or keep responding to a thread. And that includes those on the ASC spectrum.

In this text based medium, responses can be considered, researched, pruned (I wish, oh, I wish) and generally mulled over before posting. They can even be reconsidered in editing and not posted. If the thread has moved on or the same points made while the shipmate is composing the post it can even be deleted within the first two minutes of edit time.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
This is the thing.
1. People can have strong, visceral reactions to the behavior of people with communication challenges,

2. They often have just as little control over those responses as the person provoking them does with their behavior. ( and just as much.)


In other words, yes, there are good reasons to tell Steve to hop off the hobby horse. At the same time, if ( oh, for example) a Host has had to warn people multiple times for ad hominem comments, perhaps it would be a good idea to consider that Steve might not be the only one in tne world with triggery impulse control issues.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Kelly
 

---

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
There is also a Steve Langton statement bank which means he doesn't really need to bother. It is so utterly, tediously, souldestroyingly predictable where a thread will be dragged kicking and screaming that there becomes no point in saying anything.

The rest of us don't stand a chance. I'm sick of it.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Dude, it's not like Jesus posted on thread begging everyone to refute Steve's arguments for the sake of His street cred. I'm assuming people are investing in the time they take to argue with him because they get some sort of intellectual charge out of it.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
(Missed the edit window.)

One of my concerns about this: This isn't the first time a Shipmate has been insulted and harassed about disabilities and differences.

Off the top of my head, I can think of about half a dozen incidents, with a variety of targeted people, over the past several years. There were probably more.

That's mean, rude, unacceptable--and it shames the Ship, and any belief/ethical system a Shipmate might have. People not on the Ship are amazed that it happens.

It needs to stop.

(I'm not painting a halo on myself. I absolutely say stupid things. I try not to; and when I'm aware I've done it, I try to apologize.)
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Excuse me, nobody is or was harassing anyone for a disability. Anyone with half-an-ounce of sense can see that there was plenty of opportunity for someone to "harass" Steve Langton for his aspergers long before anyone mentioned asparagus.

Anyone could have rubbished the idea that aspergers was a real condition, anyone could have attacked him for stereotypical traits related to the condition.

Notably, nobody did. Indeed, the main discussion about asperger stereotypes came about because Steve Langton introduced the idea that we all got our ideas about the condition from Star Trek.

Now, it might be the case that Steve Langton's inability to comprehend things beyond the superficial is related to aspergers - I have no idea. He says not and others say not, I'm happy to believe those who know more about it than me.

What I can say is that Steve Langton is being an arse. If that's due to his medical condition, that's very unfortunate. If it is due to him just being an arse then that's a bigger problem.

But attacking his behaviour and mocking the way he continues to bring a medical condition into a discussion (apparently simultaneously as an excuse and a reason why he is right and everyone else is wrong) by introducing a ridiculous and unrelated vegetable into it is not to mock aspergers any more than talking about shoving things up someone's backside is to mock someone with intestinal cancer.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Dude, it's not like Jesus posted on thread begging everyone to refute Steve's arguments for the sake of His street cred. I'm assuming people are investing in the time they take to argue with him because they get some sort of intellectual charge out of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Unless the Ship has moved on from "fucktard".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
your illness makes you unable to detect it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
My understanding ( admittedly limited) of engaging with people who are on the Spectrum is that very often a blunt criticism is more useful to them than a gently offered hint.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
My understanding ( admittedly limited) of engaging with people who are on the Spectrum is that very often a blunt criticism is more useful to them than a gently offered hint. I defer to the experience of those who actually deal with it, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
My understanding ( admittedly limited) of engaging with people who are on the Spectrum is that very often a blunt criticism is more useful to them than a gently offered hint.

---

I think the issue most people have - as Eutychus says up thread - is that he trots it out as the explanation for specific behaviour (as well as claiming it gives him superior insight that we are mentally incapable of comprehending).

---

Oh, did I mention that he needed to take the criticism on board? Let me scroll up. Oh, by golly, I did!

My point was, those who think people with Aspergers need to be treated gently might be less useful to that person than someone who bluntly says, " You're getting obsessive again. Stop it."

Temple Grandin talks about an editor of hers that slammed a can of Aarid on her desk and barked, " This is deodorant. Use it." She said at the time that was exactly the way she needed to hear that.

Its all in the intent. As NP says( and I respect his decision to call himself out in that anecdote) some people are out to improve the course of a conversation, or help someone assimilate, some people are just out to provoke mockable behavior.
 

---

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
Yes, blunt criticism is often more useful to an Aspie than 'hints'. This is because often 'hints' are also couched deliberately for social politeness in ambiguous and metaphorical terms which the Aspie may take more literally than intended and so not feel the full weight of the criticism.

In my experience when I'm concentrating on something I'm able to cope well with the non-literal within it - but may miss it in more peripheral things going on at the same time. It's because most AS things involve quite a bit of anxiety and its management.

by chris stiles;

quote:

---

I think the issue most people have - as Eutychus says up thread - is that he trots it out as the explanation for specific behaviour (as well as claiming it gives him superior insight that we are mentally incapable of comprehending).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And no, I'm not claiming; superior insight that (others) are mentally incapable of comprehending.

---

quote:

---

I am a hyperlexic Aspie who has been reading voraciously from age 3 - I'm very aware of the basic idea that there are 'other opinions' in the world. I've read enough to be nearly drowning in 'other opinions'

(...) I make serious efforts, and with a fair share of the Aspie logic that Gene Roddenberry didn't quite get right in his portrayal of Spock, to examine 'other opinions' and try and sort out the facts and what is at least likely to be true.

---

quote:

---

But please stop the kind of treatment I described above. It helps nobody and muddies the discussion.

---

quote:

---

And as I recently pointed out, I definitely NEVER do that 'ex cathedra' stuff - I'm on the exact opposite wing of the Christian spectrum.

---

quote:

---

The idea that the religion can be immune from criticism in such a situation is simply intolerable. End of!!

---

quote:

---

Read me more carefully, please.

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The idea that the religion can be immune from criticism in such a situation is simply intolerable. End of!!

---

the implication is that you have the definitive word on the subject and get to dictate the terms of the conversation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
AS for "Read me more carefully please", I would accept it actually. And I'd go back and read more carefully.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
"Read me more carefully please" positions oneself in a position of superiority with respect to the reader. It assumes the problem is with the reader and not the writer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
"Read me more carefully please" positions oneself in a position of superiority with respect to the reader. It assumes the problem is with the reader and not the writer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Oh, and while I am at it, I also agree that the whole " Case Against Star Trek" gambit was a tedious, bloviating mess.

---

Fuck, yeah. Spock is obviously not an Aspie, he's a Vulcan. If anything, Spock and the Vulcan ethos demonstrate the use of cognitive behavioural therapy to avoid emotional reasoning.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I'm telling ya, Barclay's the Aspie.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
"Read me more carefully please" positions oneself in a position of superiority with respect to the reader. It assumes the problem is with the reader and not the writer.

---

Exactly.

Steve—if you are constantly getting the same reactions to your posts from a wide variety of readers, you should consider the possibility that means (1) your posts are not as clear as you think they are, and (2) the way you say things is getting in the way of what you're trying to say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'm telling ya, Barclay's the Aspie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Fuck, yeah. Spock is obviously not an Aspie, he's a Vulcan. If anything, Spock and the Vulcan ethos demonstrate the use of cognitive behavioural therapy to avoid emotional reasoning.

---

Funny, I thought he was Jewish.
 

---

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
Kelly;
I do get it, I'm trying (I know, before anyone else says it, "very trying"!).

I've noticed that part of the problem may be dealt with by what appears to be recognition that it's not really 'on' to post stuff to deliberately 'twit' or tease/provoke someone known to have AS; the trouble being that, especially when concentrating on a detailed argument, Aspies may not be too well equipped to recognise let alone deal appropriately with such teasing. It can be really frustrating!! The irony is that there is in a sense misplaced 'respect' by taking seriously others who, by the teasing, don't really deserve it.

A post to clarify some other points will appear shortly after taking quite a while to think about it. Thanks for your forbearance.
SL
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Well, yeah, back on page 2 I said I really wasn't impressed with people who used their annoyance as an excuse to " forget" C3 or high- five each other over stupid personal shots. And several people have said it's not on to lure someone with provocative remarks. I sensed that the conversation was becoming lopsided, though.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I've noticed that part of the problem may be dealt with by what appears to be recognition that it's not really 'on' to post stuff to deliberately 'twit' or tease/provoke someone known to have AS; the trouble being that, especially when concentrating on a detailed argument, Aspies may not be too well equipped to recognise let alone deal appropriately with such teasing.

---

quote:

---

I very strongly believe that if a religion which is trying to claim my allegiance has come over the years to take several different forms not all of which can be true, then as a potential convert I have surely EVERY RIGHT to examine the different forms and assess as best I can both which is the most authentic form of that religion, and then whether that is also a credible world view that I can give my faith to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I agree with the first part of your sentence - as you should have read in my earlier posts, I recognise that Muhammad would probably be worried by some aspects of IS. But the general idea of 'state Islam' and where it originates in Muhammad's teaching is definitely relevant to IS and how we deal with it.

Our local churches are currently dealing with many refugees from various Islamic states - it's a struggle these days to find many such states that would satisfy you as being democratic etc. And the few you might just about approve seem currently to be under attack from those who want something more like Muhammad's own version.


Rephrasing the end of your sentence slightly to "nor does it mean that all Muslims believe in Islam being a state and ultimately global religion with the world being run as Muhammad ran Mecca" I'd have to say that I don't see how they'd disbelieve that and still claim to be following Muhammad's teaching - I think they'd find a lot of Muslims considering them heretical and indeed to be persecuted as such.

Muhammad taught and practised Islam as a state religion - who am I to question his teaching about the nature of his own religion - though I'm certainly prepared to question whether that religion is actually the truth about our world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...most attempts to coerce the state itself will involve the use (or threat) of force – war, rebellion, terrorism.

---

quote:

---

I'll save further exposition for the Islamic extremism thread

---

quote:

---

apart from the options of peaceably winning a majority in a democratic state

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

mr cheesy;
Yes, I wrote that stuff you quoted up there; it is essentially just a paraphrase of my previous post here, and means the same thing. I refer to my previous answer.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Just because I don't waste the Ship's space ...

---

 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
I think Steve has invented a new version of the "No True Scotsman" type: "No true Muslim would not want to establish a dictatorial police state".
That way he avoids having to deal with the millions of Muslims who don't want such a thing. Because, after all, "no true Muslim..."

John
 

---

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
John Holding;
As I've previously pointed out, the Scotsman fallacy is irrelevant to the real world arguments about which of possibly several variants of a religion is the true/original version. Your producing the fallacy here is evidence of a serious slip of logic on your part....
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
John Holding;
As I've previously pointed out, the Scotsman fallacy is irrelevant to the real world arguments about which of possibly several variants of a religion is the true/original version. Your producing the fallacy here is evidence of a serious slip of logic on your part....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
John Holding;
As I've previously pointed out, the Scotsman fallacy is irrelevant to the real world arguments about which of possibly several variants of a religion is the true/original version.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Personally, given my interactions with Muslim folk, ( stereotype-- Their Women make fantastic infant/ toddler teachers) I am inclined to think of Muslims as just folk, trying to wrangle a complicated and archaic religion of the Book the same way we are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Personally, given my interactions with Muslim folk, ( stereotype-- Their Women make fantastic infant/ toddler teachers) I am inclined to think of Muslims as just folk, trying to wrangle a complicated and archaic religion of the Book the same way we are.

---

Hold on a minute. If these women were obedient Muslims then wouldn't they be blowing up infidel Westerners at every opportunity?

---

Clearly Kelly is stereotyping the typical Western liberal too-benevolent-wool-pulled-over-their-eyes approach to nasty nasty Islam.
 

---

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Teekeey Misha;

quote:

---

What you are arguing is "the true/original version" of Islam is exactly that and no more; it's 'what you are arguing is "the true/original version" of Islam'. To insist upon a conclusion being proven when the only premise is your (possibly flawed) interpretation of facts is "evidence of a serious slip of logic on your part..."

---

quote:

---

If these women were obedient Muslims then wouldn't they be blowing up infidel Westerners at every opportunity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Teekeey, contrary to the impression some try to give of me here...

---

quote:

---

I'm not asking people to just all bow down and agree with my view because "The Langton has spoken". I am putting forward an argument - and you would do well not to accept mr cheesy's exaggerated version of what that argument is - and a fair bit of the reasoning by which I've reached that conclusion.

---

1. The question of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" arose.
2. You said "the Scotsman fallacy is irrelevant"
3. You then used the premise that the Scotsman Fallacy is irrelevant to accuse your interlocutor of "serious slip of logic".
4. I agree with you that there are circumstances in which the Scotsman Fallacy doesn't apply, because there are circumstances in which "No True Scotsman" can be a valid defence. In those circumstances, therefore, the Scotsman Fallacy is irrelevant.
5. It is clear, though, that NTS can only be irrelevant if the premise of the argument in which it is used is absolutely irrefutable.
6. In the argument (over two threads), that premise is not irrefutable. Therefore, the Scotsman Fallacy is relevant, whether the "hypothetical Scotsman" is employed by you or by those proposing the counter argument.
7. Therefore it was;

1. your logic that was flawed in the argument about Islam AND
2. your logic that was flawed in reasoning that John Holding's logic was flawed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
I agree with you that there are circumstances in which the Scotsman Fallacy doesn't apply, because there are circumstances in which "No True Scotsman" can be a valid defence.

---

quote:

---

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But it doesn't matter. Scotland has an official church, therefore Scotsman are Constantinian and they are not proper Christians and any logic using Scotsman will be flawed because of this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But it doesn't matter. Scotland has an official church, therefore Scotsman are Constantinian and they are not proper Christians and any logic using Scotsman will be flawed because of this.

---

So you're basically saying, no true Scotsman is an Anabaptist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So are you saying that Anabaptist = logical fallacy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So are you saying that Anabaptist = logical fallacy?

---

I can only speak from my own experience.

---

Coward
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So are you saying that Anabaptist = logical fallacy?

---

I can only speak from my own experience.

---

Coward

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, no, it cannot be. No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy.

quote:

---

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:

So to your "Well, no, it cannot be" I say, "Well, yes, it can be, so stop trying to force your errant opinion on me, you Hitler-esque philosophy-Nazi."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:

So to your "Well, no, it cannot be" I say, "Well, yes, it can be, so stop trying to force your errant opinion on me, you Hitler-esque philosophy-Nazi."

---

You need to get out more.

If you are going to make the assertion that nearly everyone uses the term incorrectly, it would be nice if did more than merely assert this is so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy and its rebuttal the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy that seems to be an atheist v Christian debate. Haven't the time to read those at the moment.

---

So God's a Scotsman?
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy and its rebuttal the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy that seems to be an atheist v Christian debate. Haven't the time to read those at the moment.

---

So God's a Scotsman?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Does that mean Sean Connery is God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So in what circumstances could you say "No True Scotsman would do x" and it not be a fallacy? I thought the whole point was that it was a fallacy because the debater was trying to project his opinion onto a whole diverse group of people who - most likely - do not have an agreed position on the matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
it's a matter of stating a proposition (no Scotsman would do x), and then responding to a counter-example (here's a Scotsman who did do x) not by reconsidering the proposition but by excluding the counter-example (he's not a true Scotsman).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
it's a matter of stating a proposition (no Scotsman would do x), and then responding to a counter-example (here's a Scotsman who did do x) not by reconsidering the proposition but by excluding the counter-example (he's not a true Scotsman).

---

Thanks, I like that explanation, but it still sounds like the debater is imposing his own definition of "true" onto the group of "Scotsman" - so I'm still not clear how one could use a "true Scotsman" in an argument and it not be a fallacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
If you could logically establish the initial proposition—that it is indeed true that no Scotsman* would do x, and therefore no "true Scotsman" would do x.

---

quote:

---

* Just because it's called "no true Scotsman" doesn't mean the proposition has to involve people, or anything animate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
If you could logically establish the initial proposition—that it is indeed true that no Scotsman* would do x, and therefore no "true Scotsman" would do x.

---

Yes, I can see that, I just can't see a circumstance where it could be used without it being a fallacy outside of mathematics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I am COMPLETELY confused and lost by all this.

And my wife is Scottish.

---

Well, that explains it--you're dealing with a Scotswoman. A much more sensible creature!

 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Oh well, SL is going to educate us all about why anabaptist is the only authentic expression of the real Christian faith.

So that's something we've not heard before, I guess.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I guess I ought to say that I find Enlightenment(ish) expressions of free-thinking Christianity really engaging. The anabaptists, the quakers, the unitarians. I lap up that stuff.

But what is incredibly off-putting is the self-righteousness of people who believe that they're a modern-day Fox, Pennington or Wesley (not that the ranting Methodist is much of a thing these days) and that they have a stand-alone argument which can knock every other out when it turns out that the argument refuses to engage with real-world issues and instead resorts to regurgitating phrases and ideas which haven't had much relevance for hundreds of years.

The anabaptists online are particularly obnoxious and self-justifying. Yes, they say, I'm justified in trashing a starbucks on someone else's church building because we're the body of Christ and you're defiling the house of God.

Yes, they say, I'm fully justified in refusing to engage with civil society like police - and oh, by the way, I want justice when someone attacks me.

It's an utterly hollow and corrosive form of ideology that seeks to rubbish everyone else whilst omitting to actually offer any real alternative to anything.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
And of course there are Mennonites who are not like that and who have been able to reconcile their tradition with living in society.

But one can only conclude that the internet ranters look at even those people from their own tradition as sell-outs and traitors from the Real Faith.
 

---

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I just can't see a circumstance where it could be used without it being a fallacy outside of mathematics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:


P1: Champagne is not made in Canada.
P2: I have a bottle of Champagne made in Canada.
C: No true Champagne is made in Canada.
P1 is irrefutable fact and thus the NTS in C is not a fallacy but a logical defence (or at least a partial defence; it would need evidence to be a full defence.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you are going to make the assertion that nearly everyone uses the term incorrectly.

---

quote:

---

You need to get out more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I repeat. Steve and a couple of others are distorting completely the direction, shape and form of debate on the Ship. All live "discussions" become a question wading past his screed in search of real things to actually talk about, rather than restatements of wearily familiar positions irrespective of the subject, which turns into a pretext. This is a crisis, whether people like to admit it or not.

The current magisterial indifference will simply cement this distortion and mean that open-ended debate no longer happens on the Ship. Is this what those aboard really want? I hate it, in case you hadn't noticed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy and its rebuttal the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy that seems to be an atheist v Christian debate. Haven't the time to read those at the moment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
John Holding;
As I've previously pointed out, the Scotsman fallacy is irrelevant to the real world arguments about which of possibly several variants of a religion is the true/original version. Your producing the fallacy here is evidence of a serious slip of logic on your part....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK but surely almost everything is refutable depending on the definitions being used...

---

Oh, if one isn't going to "depend on the definitions" then absolutely everything is refutable, even within mathematics.

P1: All triangles are polygons with three edges and three vertices.
P1: This shape has three edges and three vertices.
C1: Therefore this shape is a triangle.
Rebuttal:
P1: A triangle is only "a polygon with three edges and three vertices" if you depend on the definition of a triangle as "a polygon with three edges and three vertices".
P2: I'm not depending on that definition.
C2: Therefore, this square is a triangle.

If we're not going to depend on definitions being (by definition!) definite, then we can't ever demonstrate anything logically.

P1: Champagne is a sparkling white wine that complies with the regulations of CIVC.
P2: My Canadian "Champagne" is a sparkling white wine.
P3: My Canadian "Champagne" is exactly the same chemically as that French bottle of wine, lasts just as long comes in the same sort of bottle, is the same price, and was made by a Frenchman using French grapes and a French bucket.
C3: Therefore my Canadian "Champagne" is true Champagne.

Rebuttal 1: Your Canadian "Champagne" does not meet P1.
C4: Therefore it is not true Champagne.

R2: Yeah but I'm not depending on your definition.
C5: Therefore my Canadian "Champagne" is true Champagne.

P1: We are not depending on definitions any more.
C6: Therefore, this bottle of Scotch is true Champagne.

To be refutable doesn't just mean "you can produce a refutation" but "you can produce a valid refutation." If we don't define terms, then it is impossible ever to produce a valid refutation of anything because we are not "doing philosophy" on common ground. (Very Wittgenstein!)

THAT is why Steve is wrong to suggest that NTS doesn't apply to his argument: he thinks his P1 is a precise and irrefutable term; everyone else thinks it is a vague and very refutable generalisation.

[ 06. October 2016, 14:22: Message edited by: Teekeey Misha ]
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I am COMPLETELY confused and lost by all this.

And my wife is Scottish.

---

Just do as she tells you, it goes easier that way.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy and its rebuttal the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy that seems to be an atheist v Christian debate. Haven't the time to read those at the moment.

---

There's also a Ship thread a few years ago where this was already nutted out quite well.

You attempting to stumble your way through it, and doing so quite badly against a Shipmate who clearly DOES understand how it works, is not helping this thread's actual purpose in the slightest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I am COMPLETELY confused and lost by all this.

And my wife is Scottish.

---

Just do as she tells you, it goes easier that way.

---

I shall see if I can subtly trick her into making a genuine "no true Scotsman" remark in the next few hours or days ...
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:

To be refutable doesn't just mean "you can produce a refutation" but "you can produce a valid refutation." If we don't define terms, then it is impossible ever to produce a valid refutation of anything because we are not "doing philosophy" on common ground. (Very Wittgenstein!)

---

quote:

---

THAT is why Steve is wrong to suggest that NTS doesn't apply to his argument: he thinks his P1 is a precise and irrefutable term; everyone else thinks it is a vague and very refutable generalisation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In the above you're saying that wine that is chemically the same as the French wine but isn't certified by the French champagne quality board isn't champagne by definition. But why should we accept that definition? Why do the French get to decide what is called champagne but (for example) everyone can randomly call their cheese cheddar?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Now we're getting into the realm of "denomination controlee" and the like. And - as you know - this varies. The use of the word "cheddar" for a certain kind of cheese is so widespread that it's impossible to control, hence we can have "Canadian (or whatever) cheddar". On the other hand "Stilton" cheese is protected by law and can only be made in very specific villages in (I think) Leicestershire, the same is true for Melton Mowbray pork pies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So in what circumstances could you say "No True Scotsman would do x"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, but if that's true surely there must be some debate about what is valid.

---

quote:

---

I see. So validity is determined by a majority vote. Says who?

---

quote:

---

I think your fixed and clear system of logic isn't as fixed and clear as you're making it out to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
When Steve says "This is the true and original Islam" he sets a premise for which there is no consensus and which is not self-evidently true; it is, therefore, invalid. (That doesn't mean it is "wrong" or can't be "true" - just that it's invalid; it's what the Vienna Circle would have called "meaningless".)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:


When Steve says "This is the true and original Islam" he sets a premise for which there is no consensus and which is not self-evidently true; it is, therefore, invalid. (That doesn't mean it is "wrong" or can't be "true" - just that it's invalid; it's what the Vienna Circle would have called "meaningless".)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
No. Something that is not self-evident, and has no consensus, it not meaningless or invalid... Strictly speaking "invalid" refers to arguments or inferences, not propositions.

---

quote:

---

It could be true, even, since before something contingent is accepted as true, it is often rejected by many or most (cf. plate tectonics).

---

quote:

---

I can't see that the statement you've highlighted here by SL can be determined to be invalid in the absence of other information.

---

quote:

---

For example, there are some theologians who say Jesus Christ didn't exist. As a statement, that sounds pretty preposterous, but it is hard to place it into the category of "invalid" just because few other theologians agree with it.

---

quote:

---

In science (and I assume theology), someone would make a statement like this and then set out a load of evidence to show why they believe this statement to be correct - and then everyone would make a judgement about whether there was sufficient evidence to support the claim. It certainly wouldn't just be on a majority vote and dismissing the statement outright before hearing the evidence...

---

quote:

---

As far as I can see, the problem with Steve's statement is not that it is logically "invalid", but that it only works in a very narrow set of parameters; that a person from outside of the religion can read the Koran and get "the truth" of what it is about, that "the truth" of Islam exists as an independent thing outwith of what Muslims actually believe about it...

---

quote:

---

That others do not accept those parameters is not evidence that the idea is logically invalid in my opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well then, oh wise one, it should be easy for you to sum it up then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
It is determined to be invalid (it is a false premise) in the absence of other information because of the absence of other information. It is "meaningless".

Steve then provided other information; the other information was not sufficient to convince his peer group that his statement was valid and, therefore, it was deemed a false premise. That, surely, is exactly the way it works in science? Someone sets out their premise, it's discussed and accepted or dismissed. Steve's premise has been discussed (over 11 or 12 pages at least on this site alone) and is deemed a false premise. Its invalidity has been determined because the assertion (which Steve cannot verify) is countered by other people's assertions (which they cannot verifiy.) Since it is an unverified assertion, it cannot lead to a valid argument - it is a false premise.

---

quote:

---

It's not a false premise because few other theologians agree with it; few other theologians agree with it because it's a false premise. It was proposed; it was discussed; it was unproven; it is a false premise. I would emphasise again that its being "a false premise" does not mean that it must be false, or untrue or wrong; it means merely that it is unproven, unaccepted, invalid as a "true premise". Should "some theologians" provide sufficient evidence to prove the point, then the "other theologians" would accept it and it would no longer be a false premise; it would be a true premise.

---

quote:

---

Quite so, but having determined that the statement is invalid, it would (even in science) be deemed invalid until it was proved otherwise. There are (at least) twelve pages on the Ship alone showing that Steve's statement is unproven and, therefore, a false premise.

---

quote:

---

It was not Steve's initial statement in itself that I was querying; it was his use of it to justify a further argument.

Steve says:
P1: "This is the true and original Islam"
P2: "No True Scotsman" is a fallacy concerning irrational defence of a false premise.
P3: My premise wasn't false.
C: Therefore, NTS cannot apply.

That, of course, is a nonsense. Steve's P1 is false (not "untrue", not a lie, not unbelievable, but unproven and, therefore, logically false) therefore Steve's P3 is false, therefore Steve's argument is invalid.

---

quote:

---

And the reasons you have given as "the problem with Steve's statement" are what makes it logically invalid, because they are the reasons why there is no consensus and why it is not self-evident.

---

quote:

---

It is not just "that others don't accept it" that matters; it is why others don't accept it that makes it logically invalid. Plenty of philosophers have challenged, denied, moved the parameters in debates down the centuries; if Steve can convince the world to move the parameters on what makes a true premise, then his statement might be a true premise. But he hasn't, so it isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You are using a very warped idea of "valid" if you think that being able to persuade others of it is a sign of validity or otherwise.

---

quote:

---

In logic, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. It is not required that a valid argument have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion. A formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation, and an argument form (or schema) is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
"Meaningless", though, I did use "strictly speaking" and correctly. The Vienna Circle asserted that whatever cannot be empirically verified is "meaningless". The statement in question cannot be empirically verified and is, therefore, "meaningless" (strictly speaking) according to the Vienna Circle.

---

quote:

---

My point was not that Steve's statement was untrue, but that it was illogical of him to dismiss logically the "Scotsman Fallacy" since his dismissal relied on his valid premise which is actually a false premise (strictly speaking). It is a false premise because it is "meaningless" (strictly speaking).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:

quote:

---

I can't see that the statement you've highlighted here by SL can be determined to be invalid in the absence of other information.

---

It is determined to be invalid (it is a false premise) in the absence of other information because of the absence of other information. It is "meaningless".

---

quote:

---

Steve then provided other information; the other information was not sufficient to convince his peer group that his statement was valid and, therefore, it was deemed a false premise. That, surely, is exactly the way it works in science?

---

quote:

---

Its invalidity has been determined because the assertion (which Steve cannot verify) is countered by other people's assertions (which they cannot verifiy.)

---

quote:

---

Since it is an unverified assertion, it cannot lead to a valid argument - it is a false premise.

---

quote:

---

It was proposed; it was discussed; it was unproven; it is a false premise.

---

quote:

---

"a false premise" does not mean that it must be false, or untrue or wrong;

---

quote:

---

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

---

quote:

---

Steve says: P1: "This is the true and original Islam" P2: "No True Scotsman" is a fallacy concerning irrational defence of a false premise. P3: My premise wasn't false. C: Therefore, NTS cannot apply.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well then, oh wise one, it should be easy for you to sum it up then.

---

Teekeey Misha is doing just fine without me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Coward.
But she really hasn't yet. But if you think so, just point to one post where you think she has successfully revealed a True Scotsman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The difference may be that there can't be a definition of "true Scotsman" as clearly those words encompass a whole lot of variety.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is an unreasoned assertion followed by an ad hoc defence after the original assertion is disproved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well then, oh wise one, it should be easy for you to sum it up then.

---

Teekeey Misha is doing just fine without me.

---

Coward.
But she really hasn't yet. But if you think so, just point to one post where you think she has successfully revealed a True Scotsman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I note that I'm not the first person you called a coward,

---

quote:

---

and that your deeply intelligent responses have included "you need to get out more".

---

quote:

---

So why would I bother? Seriously. You have no genuine interest in an explanation of what is and isn't a logical fallacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I note that I'm not the first person you called a coward,

---

You mean mousethief? Funny how his knickers are not in a twist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I note that I'm not the first person you called a coward,

---

You mean mousethief? Funny how his knickers are not in a twist.

---

Gee. Maybe he's not tired like I explained and has the energy to deal with this shit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is an unreasoned assertion followed by an ad hoc defence after the original assertion is disproved.

---

I'd say it's defined more narrowly than that. Something like this:

Person 1: All X are Y.
Person 2: a is an X, and a isn't Y.
Person 1: a isn't a REAL X.

(it is assumed that a is, in fact, demonstrably X)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Seriously the No True Scotsman is a valid fallacy. It can be misapplied, but that is not a fault of the applier, not the concept.

It is an unreasoned assertion followed by an ad hoc defence after the original assertion is disproved.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0