"I suppose I could try to include some intentional errors in grammar to go along with my all-to-frequent typographical errors, but I don't really see the point of trying to amuse a troll." - JGC

==============

Above, taken from my thread, JESUS CHRIST - NO ROOM FOR DOUBT, JGC commits the classic fallacy of the ad hominem argument.

1. He joins in with the overwhelming majority of left-wing pundits here in condemning ME as "a troll." Now you leftists of course define "troll" as someone who writes contrary to your terribly intolerant liberal agenda, viz.

- Anyone who does not march in Darwinian lockstep with you is a "troll"

- Anyone who is a Christian is a "troll" unless they call themselves a "Christian" while attacking all things Christian

2. JGC also commits the classic fallacy of the ad populum argument by marching in lockstep with the unwashed masses of "Faith Based." And finally,

3. JGC commits the fallacy of spending an inordinate amount of time in a "FAITH BASED" forum, where, like so many other Christophobes and atheists, he expresses precisely the opposite of "faith." It is shameful in the extreme that people of true faith, in the normal context, are relentlessly, even cruelly driven out by JGC and acolytes.

But such cowardice never prevents leftists and atheists from continuing their/your despicable behavior. It is identical to today's college classrooms.

JGC eats your lunch on a daily basis. Shouting in the subject line doesn't change the facts.

CaliforniaDreamin:

Above, taken from my thread, JESUS CHRIST - NO ROOM FOR DOUBT, JGC commits the classic fallacy of the ad hominem argument.

AAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!

The Irony, the Irony... you slay me!!! LMAOSTC... I can't breathe!!

That might be true, Cali....

if you were a Christian.

<link>

With apologies in advance to Tip for replying at all.

CD, I do not think that you are correct in that the FBers label "anyone who does not march in Darwinian lockstep as a troll", nor do I think "all Christians get labeled as trolls unless they attack all things Christian." JV, perhaps our most famous opponent of what he perceives to be evolution, has not ever, to my recollection, been called a troll, although many sharply disagree with him. I don't know if anybody agrees with any of my views, especially regarding marriage, family, etc., and I've never been called a troll. Truett regularly and vigorously defends his understanding of his faith, and again, I don't think he is called a troll generally. When exPounder/MoG posted, he too actively defended his POV and was never called a troll.

Perhaps you should examine your conduct as to why you are perceived to be a troll. Perhaps the name calling, broad and essentially false generalizations, insults, nit-picking about grammar, and general lack of charity that I perceive in your posts are the reason you are perceived as a troll. Or, perhaps it is the all caps titles, or even the calling out of individual posters which I believe is in contravention of the applicable forum rules, which contribute to the issue.

Please consider 1 Peter 3:8-9: . . . be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, being lovers of the brotherhood, merciful, modest, humble; not rendering evil for evil, nor railing for railing, but contrariwise, blessing: for unto this you are called, that you may inherit a blessing. And also, 1 Peter 3:15-19: . . . being always ready to satisfy everyone that asks you a reason of that hope which is in you. But with modesty and fear, having a good conscience . . . ".

I understand that confirming a man in his error is no favor, but I do not see the modesty, mercy, or charity to which I believe one is called as a Christian coming through in your posts. To be sure, I am sure I make the same mistakes sometimes, but I try to be respectful. Please be assured, I do not judge you or your culpability, and am only telling what I see in the posts, not what may be in your heart. Is this type of posting really what you feel you are called to do - - have you discerned that at all? Or are you doing what you do to please yourself? Perhaps that is something to think about.

to k_g: is this what you were thinking of, re: our posts from last week?

What ashame that these standards are not applied to people on both sides of these arguements.

True enough, if I'm following your thinking correctly here, but I think the difference is I don't know what standards everyone holds themselves to, as regards our agnostic/atheist etc. friends, while I do know, fairly specifically, to what standard the Christian is to refer in such matters.

I told you.

I think he is completely right, although not for the reasons he states.

I believe JGC is an excellent example of honesty, integrity, civility, fairness, intelligence, wisdom, patience, well reasoned arguments and an ability to consider the opposite side of the argument and also to agree to disagree.

Yup, JGC is a fine example that we should all aspired aspire to.

Funny how CaliforniaDreamin(sic) calls JGC a coward and yet is unwilling to answer the most basic of questions directed towards him with great politeness.

...is not an ad hominem argument, dummy, and neither was my use of the word "dummy" just then. Those are insults, not ad hominems. The two are not the same thing.

An argumentam ad hominem, or 'argument against the man,' is one in which rather than attacking a person's legitimate argument, you attack their character or ability instead. It's a variety of attacking the source, in fact.

Your own arguments here ("anyone who does not march in...lockstep with you is a troll") are in fact strawman arguments, that is, cases where you've invented an argument and attributed it falsely to JGC.

Ditto your claim that he's committed an ad populam error by "marching in lockstep with the unwashed masses of 'Faith Based'" (whoever THAT is). JGC doesn't march in lockstep with anyone.

And when you say that "spending an inordinate amount of time in Faith-Based" is a "fallacy," it becomes apparent that you are, to put it crudely, full of shit up to your eyeballs.

Cowardice? You exemplify it. You use these forums to lie, slander, and accuse, but never have to back it up or face those whom you attack. What could be more cowardly than that?

Go away, pig.

. . . that, for all the time I've taken to offer you thoughtful response on all matters, you not only neglected to offer me any significant debate, but didn't even extend to me the dubious privilege of your hate.

What I didn't realize was that you'd already posted, in response to this little digression, this little slice of vitriol. Hope you didn't miss the follow-up.

At least I don't feel left out (though I'm a little disappointed that I don't warrant a top-post).

Here's a thought, CaliforniaDreamin--if you don't arrive on the attack, you won't likely provoke defense. If you don't make assumptions about people when you don't have enough information, they won't feel misjudged. And the greater cause of discourse will be well served if you'd try posting about what you DO believe, where you place your faith, what your hopes are for anything, rather than blathering on about how much you dislike people you've never even TRIED to engage civilly.

Not that my advice will be taken, since I'm "[a] Buddhist [the horror!] homosexual [only occasionally] liberal [who knew?] who is married [is that a problem?] on the dole [um . . . no]", but what have I got to lose but your high esteem?

"2. JGC also commits the classic fallacy of the ad populum argument by marching in lockstep with the unwashed masses of "Faith Based." And finally,"

Of course that's JGC to the core. Marching in lockstep is the first qualification for a scientist of JGC's ability. Ye Olde Darwinian Rubber Stamp.

Dd

Sorry, hound. No such thing as part time homo. You suck one cock and you are a cocksucker for life.

Dd

. . . to the women whose clitorises (clitori?) I've teased, caressed, and manipulated to various stages (light shiver to tantric explosion) of orgasm, but I don't think it's a surprise that will phase them much.

If my wife wasn't overly bothered when she found out (years before we were married) that I was bisexual, I think she won't much care if I go home tonight and tell her that according to some Christian conservatives on the Fray, I'm out and out gay. I mean, as long as I don't say I'm giving up sex with her; that might be a let down. But that's not in any of my plans.