…tries transparent rhetorical gambit
Details here:
Will Barry be brave enough to leave his pillow fort to discuss this?
98 thoughts on “Censor and debt collector Barry Arrington …”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
No — though if you were referring to my evolutionary history, that would be ad hominid. 🙂
You are correct. It doesn’t.
And for the record: my comment was not ad hominem; my two comments were not mutually contradictory; and Meyer was wrong on phyla.
Amazing that to a man, Meyer being wrong isn’t the pressing issue for them..
It’s a good thing the internet is so spacious. It’s hard to watch seemingly brilliant minds engulfed in a “Did! / Did Not!” vortex.
It seems that we have an conspicuously excluded term
Position: I do not feel that my statement constitutes an ad hominem logical fallacy {insert relevant details}
Complimentary position: It seems to me that you are using ad hominem reasoning in your statement {and so forth}
Not nearly as much fun.
But the internet would be a much emptier place if everyone simply stuck to arguing facts and theories.
Joshua,
If Lizzie were saying “Meyer isn’t a paleontologist. Therefore he’s wrong”, then that would be an instance of the ad hominem fallacy (and also a kind of inverse argument from authority).
She isn’t saying that. Her criticism of Meyer’s argument depends only on the argument itself, not on the fact that Meyer made it nor on the fact that he isn’t a paleontologist.
keiths,
I get that. I just couldn’t help but feel that more discerning minds than mine were at work taking an opposing position, thus, leading me to think that there might be enough noise in her transmission to justify other models. (heck, there’s ALWAYS noise enough)
That said, I am not so arrogant as to not take her at her word. If she says its not ad hominem, I say “okay”
From memory, my understanding of the argument is something like: Meyer is wrong. He may be wrong because he isn’t a paleontologist.
The assertion of fact is that the man is wrong. The speculation is that he simply doesn’t have the background to overturn the work of thousands of “qualified” experts.
Barry is a lawyer. he must understand the concept of expert witness. Yes, it’s an argument from authority, but over the decades, courts have found it useful to limit expert testimony to — well, experts.
We have a word for laymen who barge into technical fields declaring the experts are all wrong. The word is crank. Sometimes actual experts have ideas that are called crank theories, and once in a while such a person is vindicated.
I’m trying to recall the last time an outsider crank was vindicated.
I’m tempted to say Einstein, but his early papers were peer reviewed and published. I don’t think he was ever regarded as a crank.
By comparison, here (in the OP) and here Kairosfocus shows how to use ad hominem.
For comparison, here (in the OP) and here Kairosfocus shows how to use ad hominem.
Piotr Gasiorowski,
Please remove (accidental duplication)
What if we don’t want to?
Glen Davidson
What if we don’t want to?
Glen Davidson
At the risk of repeating myself, I think Barry’s pissed because Elizabeth quit before he could ban her.
I think he’s pissed because Elizabeth maintains a calm, thoughtful and knowledgeable demeanor that he aspires to but cannot maintain.
That’s the reason he hesitates to ban her.
I haven’t figured out how to avoid being banned, but it seems to involve recognizing Barry’s traps and simply not commenting on threads where Barry is setting them.
It also helps to have some professional credentials or some status outside forum world.
Joshua,
The “discerning minds” of the UD regulars? 🙂
I think the noise is in the reception, not the transmission. Lizzie criticized Meyer, saying “he is no palaeontologist”. The UDers’ knee-jerk reaction was to cry “Ad hominem!”
They don’t get that a criticism — especially a parenthetical one — isn’t automatically an ad hominem.
Barry flounces again:
RB: “Just FYI, I’m not going to have time to read or respond to this for a couple days due to a professional obligation.
ETA: When I do respond, it will be at TSZ. If you really want to engage this topic with me you’ll come there. Your recent actions (disappearing a user and his entire output, and your inability to own up to that) disincline me to put significant effort into an exchange here.”
Barry: “I will translate Bill’s comment at 1 from Darwin-ese to plain English. “I am a coward. Therefore, I will respond only in a materialist echo chamber where I can be sure no one will challenge me.” OK Bill; if you don’t have the nads to expose your arguments to scrutiny, by all means slink back over to TSZ with Lizzie. Maybe she will treat you to some contradictory assertions, and you can affirm both of them.”
There is *nothing* stopping Barry posting here other than has agenda to control dialogue. Bill cannot “be sure no one will challenge me” this is terrible logic and poor rhetoric. When discussing ‘nad exposure’ Barry should pay attention to his tiny ginger ones.
How on earth can he possibly describe TSZ as an echo chamber where “can be sure no one will challenge me”, when I have made it absolutely clear that all UD members are welcome? He could bring a posse!
While all at UD he bans and unpersons (is that a verb?) people who disagree with him? The “unpersoning” having a thorough repressive effect even on the unbanned (who is going to respond to a lengthy OP at any length, if there’s a possibility the entire thing will be rendered as though it has never been?)
How can he possibly not see this? Yet I think he really doesn’t.
I’ve been banned twice. Once by DaveScot, once by Barry.
Yeah, there’s a touch of “hey come back here so I can kick you out” about all this.
I recently posted at UD as Unwilling Participant. But I took a different tack and posted as an ID supporter to see if Barry could handle criticism from an ID supporter. I started off taking KairosFocus to task over his paranoia. In the past, as an ID opponent, this would get me banned. As an ID supporter this did not happen.
Then I criticized Joe for his abusive behaviour. Again, as an ID opponent this has resulted in a banning. Not this time.
But then I started supporting Elizabeth in one of her “discussions” with Barry. I did not support Elizabeth’s arguments, but simply stated that Barry’s declaration that Elizabeth was using a literature bluff was unfounded. After a couple more back-and-forths where i said that i thought that Elizabeth had presented a logical argument, I was quickly called a liar by Barry and banned.
People can conclude from this what they would like. I have my own ideas.
That thread is priceless. Barry is being schooled handily by eigenstate.
Eignestate points out that structure / configuration is critical.
Barry responds “I will believe that the concept of four is a physical brain state when you tell me how much it weighs.”
Oh dear.
Barry then quips “Also, calm down son. Your posts are the virtual equivalent of screaming and spewing droplets of spittle.” Read the post and see if you agree. Spin spin spin, Barry.
Elizabeth,
You’re far more charitable than me. Barry has personal statements about being some sort of great ethical guy that will never reconcile with his personal activities.
That sounds like the mistake I make when holding our Kindle. When we have loaded some more books onto it, I keep (wrongly) thinking that it must have become heavier.
Perhaps by “echo chamber,” Arrington means “a level playing field”.
Lizzie,
A dog cannot conceive of a group of cats without an alpha cat.
Hmm, even more obtuse than my usual. Y’all are insightful enough to get it.
I was banned for using the word configuration.
I decided to commit myself by signing off from UD in the form of a comment to VJ Torley. It is possible the “sign-off” comment will be deleted so I thought I would repeat it here:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
VJ
I don’t know if you were expecting a response from me in particular. But it is a good opportunity for me to sign off from UD.
In the light of the fact that comments may be deleted from UD without explanation and also the extraordinary rudeness of Barry’s responses (others are as rude but it is his blog) after many years I have decided I will no longer post here. You may have noticed that quite a lot of other regular ID sceptics have made the same decision.
In case it is of interest I will be reading UD and may from time to time comment on TSZ. I expect some people will describe this as running away. As far as I am concerned it was not a fight in the first place, so running away does not really come into it. It has however become a frustrating, time-wasting and unpleasant experience.
Many thanks to those of you who have contributed to interesting and polite debate over the years – particularly yourself and Gpuccio. I have learned a lot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I should have done this a long time ago!
Mark Frank,
Well, your decision certainly works out in my favor, because I enjoy your contributions to these discussions and I refuse to participate at Uncommon Descent. Hopefully we’ll be able to converse somewhat more now!
Mark Frank,
Well said, Mark. I hope we can find something for you to disagree with here. 😉
FLOOD WARNING: Barry’s tears continue unabated:
He’s absolutely right, you know. There has never been a disagreement here among the regulars.
And we don’t allow opposition.
*smiles ruefully*
My, he’s so clever.
It only took him a few months to come up with that simple-minded insult. No wonder he’s a high-powered attorney.
To be serious, it does seem as though Barry’s all-too-many failures are driving him to a rather unhinged rule of UD. One that hardly makes ID appear in a very agreeable light.
Glen Davidson
A UD commenter:
I think they are making a rod for their own back here. Some people will come here from UD and wonder where all the bile and hatred is? Especially coming from UD where the usual suspects are saying what they usually say.
And, once they look around and see that ID is actually being discussed here, seriously, what will they think? What will they think of Barry?
What happens when they don’t see that? Their opinion of Barry can only fall.
I think the problem is the equate disagreement with bile. They equate asking for support for claims with hatred.
I can go to any random thread at UD and more likely then not find insults and general hatred. I already quoted some here today!
Yet nobody can seem to quote any bile or hatred here. If they could you can be sure they would! Sure there are outliers, but if we speak of the average tone it’s perfectly fine!
This can only end well!
Well, it’s not like the disagreements here extend to denying logic, physics, or biology. Only denying well-established facts indicates true skepticism, you know.
It’s what ID does, after all.
Glen Davidson
Arrington seems to think that the problem with TSZ is that we’re unwilling to engage with theists or anti-materialists. The fact is that very few of them ever come here. I wish they would. I have a running dialogue with several Thomists (on email and on Facebook) and they continually challenge me to rethink and refine my positions, and several theists (not in the Thomistic tradition) have challenged me on my secularism. If more theists were to participate at TSZ it would be a much more exciting intellectual community.
Barry only does monologue.
As for our alleged group-think, Arrington might also be reacting to the fact that no one here thinks that pure a priori reason alone conclusively proves that (1) same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry and (2) every human zygote has a right to life that trumps the woman’s right to bodily self-determination.
You can spew as much bullshit as you like about whether we are truly skeptical, but it all boils down to one thing: we don’t ban people for disagreeing.
And anyone interested in what we find unacceptable need only check out guano. It’s not hidden.
Why aren’t the female-enslavers like Barry Arrington ranting against “shoot-first-in-self-defense” laws such as Florida’s? Well, besides the probability that Barry is a gun-fondler (his kind usually is, but I don’t have any specific evidence one way or the other). Every women in BA’s nation faces the known odds that the fetus has about 20/100,000 chance of killing her. This is far worse odds of death for her than whatever odds some armed man in Florida faces of being killed by a black teenager unless the man shoots first in preemptive “self-defense”.
When he claims that his (god given objective) morality tells him it’s wrong to kill an “innocent baby” why doesn’t his same morality tell him it’s wrong to kill an innocent teenager? If he weren’t a hypocritical sack of shit, he would admit that every pregnant woman has the right to abort in preemptive self-defense when she’s afraid it will kill her. Either that, or no man has the right to shoot to kill, no matter how much he fears for his own life. But he cannot think that, can he.
Why? Obvious. Because the only real humans in Barry’s world are straight guys (and really, only straight christian guys.) All the rest are, to use his current favorite phrase, meat robots — who don’t have to be treated equally by a real man like him. Women don’t have the inherent human rights of self-determination and self-protection, because women aren’t actually fully human in Barry’s world. Gay people don’t have inherent human rights, because gay people aren’t actually fully human in Barry’s world.
So much for christian so-called morality. Scum suckers.
For your amusement. Beverages down, Irony meters off, please:
Lot’s of people have commented on and even written fiction to comment on what I would call the Star Trek Transporter thought experiment.
Suppose some advanced technology could scan every atom in a human body and either duplicate it or reconstruct it elsewhere.
what would this imply? I have seen science fiction stories that suggest something gets left behind or not duplicated. Other stories suggest that there is nothing wrong with the reconstructed individual, but the original dies.
But I wonder if Barry has ever addressed, in principle, whether a constructed human is a human, or a zombie meat robot. And how he could tell.
I prefer a simpler thought experiment. Suppose that your “mind” is not in your brain, but Somewhere Else. You go walking along, not paying enough attention, and run into a tree limb. You fall down unconscious.
Does your “mind” keep on working while your brain is knocked out?
Of course it does, but it is absent, so it doesn’t notice.
Richardthughes,
Same ol’ Barry, king of the dung heap. No evolution all these years.
I’ll just park this here: http://www.coloradoindependent.com/153706/polis-fire-lawyer-for-maoist-style-thought-reform-camp-jab