| Click here to go to the original topic View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
StrangerWitCandy
Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 5453
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
SavannahMan wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: SavannahMan wrote: Gee I think I remember reading about this guy who was an activist working to stop child abuse and it turned out he was a sexual predator of children. Does this mean I can no longer take seriously the arguments of those who work to stop child abuse?
Or how about the "safe-sex" activist that catches an STD? Does this mean we should no longer take seriously the words of any safe-sex activist?
This thread is pathetic.
No, it's just your interpretation that's pathetic. If someone is working for a particular cause and turns out to be a hypocrite, it will have an impact on their credibility and by extension, the credibility of their arguments in support of that cause and whatever others they support.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I'm simply not that forgiving.
That said, I was not saying that one person screwing up should make us throw out the arguments of all anti-gay leaders. (It should be clear by now that I think there are plenty of other reasons to discount those arguments, but I digress...) If you read my sentence carefully, you should arrive at the intended interpretation - that I think it's unreasonable to ask us to give credence to the anti-gay ideas of a person who has shown us that they don't really believe in what they're preaching, as reflected by their actual practices. When you see that hypocrisy played out repeatedly, you're justified in wondering if there isn't something more going on behind the rhetoric of people who present similar arguments.
Ad hominem certainly can be a fallacious form of argument, but it isn't always entirely without merit.
Edit: For example, if someone shows a pattern of lying, you're justified in treating their future statements with skepticism.
2nd Edit: I'm not saying that appearances are more important than substance. I'm saying that when one gives the appearance of being a hypocrite, it necessarily behooves us to scrutinize the substance of their remarks with greater skepticism. If the hypocrisy is bad enough or takes place often enough to be viewed as widespread or at the very least, significant, it becomes all that much harder to overcome one's natural reaction to it and not dismiss the substance of those arguments outright.
Right so I guess we can dismiss everything this "AIDS activist" ever said about AIDS or safe sex right? www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060110/NEWSREC0101/60110015
By Mystic's logic we can now dismiss any arguements this sicko ever used to garner more support for AIDS awareness or more money for AIDS treatment.
as they apply to him as the carrier of those arguements, yes. would you take anything he has to say seriously, now knowing how he's acted? i wouldn't. thanks for proving our point |
|
| Back to top |
|
F'losrix
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 7999
Location: Michigan, Washtenaw County
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
StrangerWitCandy wrote: SavannahMan wrote: Right so I guess we can dismiss everything this "AIDS activist" ever said about AIDS or safe sex right? www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060110/NEWSREC0101/60110015
By Mystic's logic we can now dismiss any arguements this sicko ever used to garner more support for AIDS awareness or more money for AIDS treatment.
as they apply to him as the carrier of those arguements, yes. would you take anything he has to say seriously, now knowing how he's acted? i wouldn't. thanks for proving our point
Precisely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
connermt
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 1526
Location: CMH OHIO
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
SavannahMan wrote: Gee I think I remember reading about this guy who was an activist working to stop child abuse and it turned out he was a sexual predator of children. Does this mean I can no longer take seriously the arguments of those who work to stop child abuse?
Or how about the "safe-sex" activist that catches an STD? Does this mean we should no longer take seriously the words of any safe-sex activist?
This thread is pathetic.
I think it's funny (in a sad way), but the point I get from this original comment that started this thread, is that most people who vehemently pursue an idea (& by vehemently I mean with hatred &/or ager &/or trying to hurt someone), they are usually guilty of at least what they are against. It is like, instead of working out their own problems, they feel they will be vidicated by 'helping' others with the same problem. If a gym was opened in your area & offered a 'workout' program by a group of obese people, would you go to it? Maybe, but I think you would be more apprehensive of it than if it were started by a group of people who started out obese & worked out & lost they weight. It is like saying 'Our program is so good & it can work for you, but I am too good for it!"
Child abuse (or any abuse) is a serious issue that HURTS someone else, homosexuality is not. So your reply is like comparing apples to alligators. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Click here to go to the original topic |
|
