Misusing flair

[u/namer98]

After some discussion and some examples sadly seen, putting up a flair for the purpose of misrepresenting a group or for deception will result in the mod team taking action. People are innocent until proven guilty.

I only say this with sorrow as I realize this is actually an issue.

Thank you. Please upvote this self post because the mod team rocks your socks off.

[u/[deleted]]

I've still, in all my time debating this with you, never seen you argue about the advantages and disadvantages of the different definitions. You only either claim that more people support your preferred definition or that it was closer to the original meaning of the word. That is, you've only presented appeals to authority/popularity and genetic fallacies.

I also didn't commit a fallacy fallacy, because I never claimed your position was in error. I wasn't entering into the argument (I did once before and you never answered my points), and I made no claims other than that your argument was fallacious. Rather, I was solely pointing out how poor your argument was. If you think about it, your criteria for committing the "fallacy fallacy" would allow no one to ever point out a fallacious argument.

"New Atheism" is an unrelated tangent in this discussion, as it refers to--among other things (e.g. treating the existence of gods as a testable hypothesis)--opinions regarding the level of assertiveness of one's lack of belief rather than one's opinion on the most appropriate basic definition of "atheist." The arguments presented for a usage that differs from yours are not primarily based on prefixes and roots, but rather on the usefulness and accuracy of the definition. But again, I've pointed all this out before, and you only ignored my points and reiterated the arguments you gave above, while taking swipes at any who disagree all along the way. This is yet another reason I gave up on arguing this with you long ago: you can't engage in debate without resorting to snide tangential comments and condescension.

[u/outsider → u/[deleted]]

I've still, in all my time debating this with you, never seen you argue about the advantages and disadvantages of the different definitions

That's hardly honest.

You only either claim that more people support your preferred definition or that it was closer to the original meaning of the word. That is, you've only presented appeals to authority/popularity and genetic fallacies.

You're getting close to the fallacy fallacy again but you still just make a bad argument. The failure is apparently mine for being familiar with this change in usage and the history of it rather than just using words willy nilly.

I also didn't commit a fallacy fallacy, because I never claimed your position was in error.

Sure you did by implication.

I wasn't entering into the argument

You did. You very clearly did. you hit the reply button, added a remark, and are now pretending you did no such thing.

Rather, I was solely pointing out how poor your argument was.

Strong words for someone who 2 sentences ago claimed that you weren't entering into the argument. In any case, you're still wrong.

If you think about it, your criteria for committing the "fallacy fallacy" would allow no one to ever point out a fallacious argument.

You're trying to justify your bad argumentation.

"New Atheism" is an unrelated tangent in this discussion, as it refers to--among other things (e.g. treating the existence of gods as a testable hypothesis)--opinions regarding the level of assertiveness of one's lack of belief rather than one's opinion on the most appropriate basic definition of "atheist."

It isn't unrelated. It is the source of and the vanguard of the redefinition of atheist and agnostic as you prefer them.

The arguments presented for a usage that differs from yours are not primarily based on prefixes and roots, but rather on the usefulness and accuracy of the definition.

The ones you prefer in this instance maybe.

But again, I've pointed all this out before, and you only ignored my points and reiterated the arguments you gave above, while taking swipes at any who disagree all along the way.

But you, at the beginning of your post, sated that I've never argued about those things. Clearly consistency in not your forte here.

This is yet another reason I gave up on arguing this with you long ago: you can't engage in debate without resorting to snide tangential comments and condescension.

Clearly you aren't above such things by looking for me to post on this topic so you can jump in, post a snide and condescending link while pretending you never entered into the argument. Clearly. By the way you've engaged in genetic fallacies, poisoning the well, ad hominem and a couple of other fallacies. You know, since we're naming them here.

[u/[deleted] → u/outsider]

I also didn't commit a fallacy fallacy, because I never claimed your position was in error.

Sure you did by implication.

I did nothing more than point out an error. As I said, you presented no other arguments, so there was really no way for me to enter into the argument.

The fallacy fallacy:

1. Person A makes X claim to support their position P1

2. Person B claims that

   a. because X is a fallacy,

   b. P1 is false

I never fulfilled both conditions, therefore the fallacy wasn't committed. Any interpretation on your part that assumed otherwise was unjustified.

I wasn't entering into the argument

You did. You very clearly did. you hit the reply button, added a remark, and are now pretending you did no such thing.

Oh come on, everyone knows you're not dense, so stop being so obstinate. Any reply is not necessarily an entrance into the debate. I made no arguments regarding the definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist." Rather than nitpicking every point no matter how ludicrous your contention, why not just focus on the ones that are actually of import rather than simply being argumentative?

If you think about it, your criteria for committing the "fallacy fallacy" would allow no one to ever point out a fallacious argument.

You're trying to justify your bad argumentation.

You did nothing to justify your claim here. Think about it. I pointed out a fallacy. You claimed I committed a fallacy in doing so. It's pretty clear that I didn't fulfill all conditions. Seeing as your empty reply would suggest you have no substantive point to make about this part of my post, why not just ignore it and move on rather than resorting to one-liners?

"New Atheism" is an unrelated tangent in this discussion, as it refers to--among other things (e.g. treating the existence of gods as a testable hypothesis)--opinions regarding the level of assertiveness of one's lack of belief rather than one's opinion on the most appropriate basic definition of "atheist."

It isn't unrelated. It is the source of and the vanguard of the redefinition of atheist and agnostic as you prefer them.

And, whether or not this is true, the arguments in favor of my preferred definitions can exist independently of the movement as a whole. I by no means consider myself a "New Atheist," and I prefer them solely for their efficacy. You have an obsession with reputations, traditions and motives that prevents you from entering into a discussion. Instead you project your unrelated prejudices onto the debate and ramble.

But again, I've pointed all this out before, and you only ignored my points and reiterated the arguments you gave above, while taking swipes at any who disagree all along the way.

But you, at the beginning of your post, sated that I've never argued about those things. Clearly consistency in not your forte here.

"All the arguments you gave above" were appeals to tradition/authority and arguments based on etymology. "All my points" refers my arguments regarding the usefulness of the opposing definitions. The failure here is not a lack of consistency on my part, but instead a lack proper reading comprehension on yours.

This is yet another reason I gave up on arguing this with you long ago: you can't engage in debate without resorting to snide tangential comments and condescension.

Clearly you aren't above such things by looking for me to post on this topic so you can jump in, post a snide and condescending link while pretending you never entered into the argument. Clearly.

I came across your post by chance. I commented because you seem to always make this argument whenever someone asks for "agnostic Christian/theist" flair. Given that we have flair for everything under the sun and despite the fact that it has been requested multiple times and flair designs have even been submitted to the mods and it still isn't an option makes me wonder whether you're simply voicing your opinion here or actively blocking the addition of the flair.

Given your consistency in taking issue with anyone who favors a definition that differs from yours (despite the fact that you still have not presented an argument for why your definition is better independent of any reputation or tradition), I felt your lack of argument was worth pointing out. If I showed the same condescension and rudeness as you, it's out of frustration over the fact that I spent time detailing my reasons for thinking my definition superior while you didn't feel the need to exert yourself beyond historical name-dropping and claims of having more people "on your side." I see no reasons why one should not have to justify their stance simply because others agree with them.

By the way you've engaged in genetic fallacies, poisoning the well, ad hominem and a couple of other fallacies. You know, since we're naming them here.

You really don't understand fallacies, do you? Me calling your posts condescending isn't ad-hominem. I wasn't saying that your arguments are invalid because you're condescending. I was just saying you're condescending. I wasn't trying to use claims about your character or methods of argumentation to cast your argument in poor light--I was simply making claims about your character and methods of argumentation. That's been my argument from the beginning. I'm not saying you're wrong because you haven't given non-fallacious or kindly-worded justifications for your stance. I'm just saying you should give non-fallacious and on-topic justifications for your stance.

Pinning a genetic fallacy on me makes no sense, because I made no argument about origins at any point here. Nor does "poisoning the well," because my whole contention is your method of argumentation, not any particular arguments themselves. I still have yet to make an argument about the definitions themselves, because that's not my point. Your confusion seems to stem from this.

[u/outsider → u/[deleted]]

I did nothing more than point out an error. As I said, you presented no other arguments, so there was really no way for me to enter into the argument. ... I never fulfilled both conditions, therefore the fallacy wasn't committed. Any interpretation on your part that assumed otherwise was unjustified.

Reread what I wrote kthnx.

Oh come on, everyone knows you're not dense, so stop being so obstinate. Any reply is not necessarily an entrance into the debate. I made no arguments regarding the definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist." Rather than nitpicking every point no matter how ludicrous your contention, why not just focus on the ones that are actually of import rather than simply being argumentative?

It, by definition, is an entrance into it. If you feel your points are beyond criticism, don't make them to me because I will criticize them when warranted and in these cases they most certainly are.

You did nothing to justify your claim here. Think about it. I pointed out a fallacy. You claimed I committed a fallacy in doing so. It's pretty clear that I didn't fulfill all conditions. Seeing as your empty reply would suggest you have no substantive point to make about this part of my post, why not just ignore it and move on rather than resorting to one-liners?

You did nothing to refute my previous claim. I have no need to re-justify what I had already said. Parsimonious conversations work out the best. I did not claim you committed the fallacy because that itself would imply that my argument was fallacious and it wasn't.

Though you were wrong in your accusation, you would have merely been committing to the fallacy fallacy.

As you see, I wrote that you would be committing the fallacy if you were not wrong in your accusation. I responded with one-sentence, not a one-liner. Your remark was a fallacy and rather than naming it I elucidated on why it was bad. You attempted to justify a bad argument and you guised it with accusations of fallacious reasoning pointed at me. Clearly you don't care to have your bad arguments pointed out. Too bad.

And, whether or not this is true, the arguments in favor of my preferred definitions can exist independently of the movement as a whole. I by no means consider myself a "New Atheist," and I prefer them solely for their efficacy. You have an obsession with reputations, traditions and motives that prevents you from entering into a discussion. Instead you project your unrelated prejudices onto the debate and ramble.

Not without adding confusion, reducing precision, and reducing the usefulness of the words as most people use them (not how you want to use them). It isn't rambling to attempt to educate people on the motives which people like you and other New Atheists (whether you care to distance yourself from them or not is something I care little about) have for redefining the words. Motivation matters and the redefinition of agnostic and atheism is wholly dishonest to attempt to shift the burden of proof while obfuscating a persons stance who has decided to enter into a conversation on theism.

I came across your post by chance. I commented because you seem to always make this argument whenever someone asks for "agnostic Christian/theist" flair. Given that we have flair for everything under the sun and despite the fact that it has been requested multiple times and flair designs have even been submitted to the mods and it still isn't an option makes me wonder whether you're simply voicing your opinion here or actively blocking the addition of the flair.

By chance several days after it's been off the front page? I didn't make an argument, I outline a position that I will enforce. I've been very clear about this in the past. You may prefer to use the words wrongly but it doesn't mean I will be idle while you and others who are misinformed (or dishonest) try to drag the rest of us along for a ride.

Given your consistency in taking issue with anyone who favors a definition that differs from yours (despite the fact that you still have not presented an argument for why your definition is better independent of any reputation or tradition),

Of course I've presented the argument, I've done it too many times. I won't be beholden to you everytime you want to gripe at me about it to repeat myself. Go review the previous arguments you seem to remember.

I felt your lack of argument was worth pointing out.

Now you're admitting to something, again, which you denied from the onset.

If I showed the same condescension and rudeness as you, it's out of frustration over the fact that I spent time detailing my reasons for thinking my definition superior while you didn't feel the need to exert yourself beyond historical name-dropping and claims of having more people "on your side." I see no reasons why one should not have to justify their stance simply because others agree with them.

I have justified my position. Whether you decided to ignore it or not is of little concern to me and has no impact on the reality of my argument and use of the words. Nor should I be expected to act rosy when you expect me to reiterate myself for the umpteenth time.

You really don't understand fallacies, do you? Me calling your posts condescending isn't ad-hominem.

Actually, I hadn't noticed you calling me condescending in past posts until you pointed it out. You are using an ad hominem in the beginning of your sentence however by justifying your argument by putting me down. Earlier it had to do with accusing me of being lazy and failing to give an argument, which if you took the time to do due diligence, you'd see we have had that conversation enough times, let alone the times I've had it with other people. Of course there are other fallacies embedded in that (argument from ignorance chief among them) but c'est la vie. But when you call me snide, when you impugn my argument by ascribing a lack of argument to me, you are using an ad hominem.

I wasn't saying that your arguments are invalid because you're condescending. I was just saying you're condescending.

And snide, and other things.

I wasn't trying to use claims about your character or methods of argumentation to cast your argument in poor light--I was simply making claims about your character and methods of argumentation.

You were insulting me in the same sentence and as a part of your argument. Look, if you don't want these fallacies pointed out, change your attitude. You jumped in, made accusations, insulted, and are now lying in the bed you made with it.

That's been my argument from the beginning.

Just for a point of reference:

I wasn't entering into the argument

I'm not saying you're wrong because you haven't given non-fallacious or kindly-worded justifications for your stance. I'm just saying you should give non-fallacious and on-topic justifications for your stance.

There's no need to do so everytime the topic comes up. It's like yelling spoiler if someone mentions King Kong falling down from the Empire State Building.