IT.COM

What's going on with Epik and Rob Monster?

NameSilo
Watch

MapleDots

Account Closed (Requested)
Impact
13,169
I'm catching the tail end of this, seems to be some kind of controversy...

https://domaingang.com/domain-news/rob-monster-off-twitter-after-christchurch-massacre-controversy/

Must be something odd to evoke this type of a response from one of our members.

Picture0016.png
 
8
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
I couldn't disagree more. Your posts and comments regarding the New Zealand mosque killer were inappropriate and inflammatory. @MapleDots OP was a rational response.

And your repost of the article "Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment" shows that you, @Rob Monster, support hate speech. What's legal doesn't make it moral.

You, sir, are on the wrong side of history.

The problem with "hate speech" is that it has no definition, other than the subjective determination that someone's sensibilities were offended. To suppress objectionable content is to advance "Group Think".

Media outlets and politicians can be bought, or can be manipulated into operating within prescribed boundaries. A free press is needed to preserve intellectual integrity and to offset groupthink.

Like it or not, the USA was built on this foundational principle of free expression. I believe it has been instrumental to keeping subversive forces in check .

As for the problem of "Fake News", it is not a new problem. It is just that now anyone can do it which puts unprecdented burden on the consumer of news to apply discernment and filter effectively.
 
1
•••
The problem with "hate speech" is that it has no definition, other than the subjective determination that someone's sensibilities were offended. To suppress objectionable content is to advance "Group Think".

Wrong. Hate speech has a universal definition. Look it up. It goes beyond offensive speech. If someone threatens you and your family with a gruesome death, would you accept that as "free speech" and let it go?
 
Last edited:
0
•••
So if someone says, "I really hate white people," you get to call the police on them?
 
0
•••
@Slanted, who are the bigots and bullies? Let's call them out.

Within this thread, I have already criticized bigoted views and pushed back against bullies. That should be clear enough.

Making a list of bigots would brand people in a rather permanent and absolute way. People who are left off the list aren't necessarily innocent. And people who are on some "Bigot List" aren't all equally abhorrent. I’m sure my deceased grandparents held some old-fashioned views that might be judged harshly today. Most people hold a variety of opinions, some of which may be intolerant, dogmatic, or employ negative stereotypes. But it's a matter of degree.

I think what you're trying to do is get me to add the name "Rob Monster" to such a "Bigot List". But I'm not going to do that. I prefer to criticize people's statements and actions in a more nuanced way, and not to damn anybody irrevocably.

There’s nothing half-hearted about my choice here. Gab is full of bigotry, and I have always condemned that. Likewise Fox News or Alex Jones. From my perspective, Trump is a bigot; and all of his supporters are complicit to some degree. But you wanted me NOT to be polarizing, right? Yet you want me to name and shame bigots?

Internally at Epik, Rob and I had strong disagreements about Epik becoming entangled with far-right views. When Rob circulated a video of the New Zealand massacre, I criticized that privately and publicly immediately. Likewise, without hesitation, I criticized anti-muslim and anti-semitic messages by Gab members, which Rob did not repudiate at the time, when I was shown them. Right away, I asked Rob to repudiate them; and he did. When I resigned from Epik, my public explanation referred to some of this. You already know that.

Does this mean Rob is a bigot? No. I have always found Rob to be tolerant and welcoming of others, including muslims, jews, and atheists. Certainly I would criticize many of Rob’s views. But I’m not ethically obligated to comment on all of my ex-boss’s private opinions, am I? We are rehashing material from 2 months ago at this point. Do you really think that’s productive?

Let’s be honest. When you ask me to name the bigots, you ARE trying to get me to issue a Yes / No judgment on Rob Monster, correct? That is the gist of your question. And I assume that you DO regard Rob as a bigot. Perhaps not. I will let you clarify.

I understand that you are looking for that ammunition from me. But how does that square with what you said earlier:

You can help bigots and bullies if you try. I believe no one is beyond help.

I prefer to criticize ideas and not to label people. Even with @whenpillarsfall, whose intolerant dogmatic view that Religion = Poison / Mental Illness / Plague strikes me as bigoted, my wish is not to permanently label him as a “bigot”. Instead, as you can see, I have been refuting his ideas – ideally so that he will moderate those ideas and behave in a less bigoted way. And I have invited him to present a case for his ideas that will result in a debate about ideas and not brand anybody one way or the other.

We don't need a "Bigots List". And we don't need censorship. We need free discussion. And we need rational debate about ideas – leaving aside the identity or supposed motives of the people involved – so that we can focus on what's right and true.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
So if someone says, "I really hate white people," you get to call the police on them?

No. But if someone starts killing people because you or someone else convinced them, then you should definitely call the police. By then it is too late for the murdered people.
 
0
•••
@Slanted, who are the bigots and bullies? Let's call them

I think he's trying to refer to me, presumably because I don't agree with him. Apparently calling religion poison is the worst thing in the world and makes me a terrible person that has hidden desires to murder and torture people :xf.rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
0
•••
0
•••
Your opening post was inflammatory in the sense that it drew attention to a judgmental Shane Cultra post whose comments were way out of line and gave other folks in the industry air-cover to also render judgment. It started a wave. I did wait several days, until page 16, before engaging the dialog here.

Let me repost it here...

I'm catching the tail end of this, seems to be some kind of controversy...

https://domaingang.com/domain-news/rob-monster-off-twitter-after-christchurch-massacre-controversy/
Must be something odd to evoke this type of a response from one of our members.

My main reason for posting the topic was not what you said or did, it was this...
Picture0001.png


RichardDynas is @uglydork here on namepros and at the time I opened the topic I knew little to nothing about the controversy or events that occured.

I was trying to understand why a member of namepros had such a strong opinion that he was prepared to move his domains.

To this point @uglydork has not responded and I am curious to know if he actually moved his domains.

If you look further down the topic I actually sided with Epik and stated that the owner of GoDaddy shot elephants and I am still with them. It did not empower me to say I'm moving all my domains because I don't like the owner of the company.

So if you follow me throughout this topic I don't think you can really say anything I have done has been inflammatory in any way. Sure I asked questions but the last thing I would ever want to do is harm Epik in any way. I think Epik has some phenomenal services and the demise of the company would be a great loss to domainers.

Now because I represent my company MapleDots I will refrain from contributing in other forms in this topic because I don't think talking about the subjects at hand in an official capacity will be beneficial to my company.

So you see Rob, that is all I keep saying.....

Make a new login, make it incognito and speak your peace. For the sake of Epik you need to control your words and actions or you will alienate more people very similar to what happened to Richard in my opening post.

I say that truly because I do care, both for your well being and that of Epik.

Strong opinions evoke strong reactions, mixing that with company business is never beneficial.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Wrong. Hate speech has a universal definition. Look it up. It goes beyond offensive speech. If someone threatens you and your family with a gruesome death, would you accept that as "free speech" and let it go?

In this case, I agree with Rob. "Hate speech" strikes me as dangerously vague. And I have seen my fellow progressives apply the phrase in an attempt to censor speech that – wrong though it might be – ought not to be censored.

Within a given context, we can define terms however we wish. As long as both sides of a debate agree to use the same definition, that's perfectly fine – indeed, helpful.

Rather than say that there is a "universal definition" for hate speech and urging others to "look it up" without telling them which authoritative website or law or book has the official definition, please supply or cite the definition of "hate speech" that you wish to use for the context of this NamePros thread. Then people can debate the merits of regulating "hate speech". That way, their disagreements will be about the same THING, rather than mere disagreement about what the term applies to.
 
1
•••
If you look further down the topic I actually sided with Epik and stated that the owner of GoDaddy shot elephants and I am still with them.

As terrible as that was, human lives are on a different level than elephants. I think that is what made this situation more repugnant. And your OP was actually understated and completely fair, not inflammatory at all.

In this case, I agree with Rob. "Hate speech" strikes me as dangerously vague.

If it is vague then it is not "hate speech".

Rather than say that there is a "universal definition" for hate speech and urging others to "look it up" without telling them which authoritative website or law or book has the official definition, please supply or cite the definition of "hate speech" that you wish to use for the context of this NamePros thread.

Just Google it:

"abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

The key words are "abusive or threatening". And it is not subjective. It is obvious to anyone.
 
0
•••
I think he's trying to refer to me

Of course. I said so. Read it.

presumably because I don't agree with him.

No. You're not a bigot for disagreeing with me. You're a bigot for denigrating a group of people, disparaging their ideas as "Mental Illness" or "Poison" or a contagious "Plague".

If you were capable of disagreeing with religion WITHOUT referring to it as Mental Illness or Poison or a Plague, then I wouldn't regard you as a bigot.

This is very straightforward. Here is the definition of "bigot":

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

Obviously, that's you. This NamePros thread contains pages of evidence to that effect.

And here is the definition of "bigotry":

"intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."

You have shown that intolerance toward Religion by labeling it a "Mental Illness", a "Cancer", a "Poison", and an infectious "Disease". Nobody is tolerant toward Cancer or Poison or Plague.

Hence referring to you as a "bigot" or your opinion as "bigotry" isn't controversial. You are a bullseye for the dictionary definition.

If ANYBODY believes @whenpillarsfall does NOT perfectly fit the definition of "bigotry", please explain why. I will assume from people's silence on this point that they accept him as a clear example of "bigotry".
 
Last edited:
0
•••
What's abusive
"White people are all stupid racist pigs who revel in their privilege!!!!"
Now can they be punished by law?
 
0
•••
Just Google it:

"abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

The key words are "abusive or threatening". And it is not subjective. It is obvious to anyone.

I think we all agree that THREATS should be taken seriously. Threats of violence are illegal. But a threat to expose someone isn't illegal – unless it's blackmail, involving payment. Likewise, a threat to transfer domains away from 1 registrar to another registrar is perfectly fine. Not all threats should be made illegal, right? So "threatening" is actually somewhat unclear.

What is "abusive"? That is VERY subjective. Have I been "abusive" to @whenpillarsfall by harshly criticizing his viewpoint here on NamePros? Or perhaps by ridiculing his week-long attempt to escape rational discourse? Ridicule might be "abusive".

What if someone denigrates religious people by saying that Religion = Mental Illness or a contagious Disease or a Poison? That definitely "expresses prejudice against a particular group", and it's "on the basis of ... religion". The people insulted by such remarks might regard it as "abusive".

Please explain whether or not the anti-religious comments by @whenpillarsfall are hate speech. Yes or No? Why or why not?

This post isn't actually a criticism of @whenpillarsfall. I'm simply using his bigotry as a specimen in order to examine your definition of "hate speech" – in order to better understand your definition.

I personally don't find that definition of "hate speech" to be very helpful or meaningful in real life. It's not exact enough for me to use it and expect someone else to understand and apply it in the same way.

Also, it seems to me that not everyone agrees that the definition of "hate speech" you found in Google is THE definition. I believe it is applied rather broadly and indiscriminately by other people. But that's fine. We just need a working definition for NamePros. This one will do as well as any other.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
As terrible as that was, human lives are on a different level than elephants. I think that is what made this situation more repugnant. And your OP was actually understated and completely fair, not inflammatory at all.

And I agree with your statement, the big difference being that the owner of godaddy actually shot the elephants and Rob Monster was only stating an opinion regarding a video of events. If I recollect correctly he said he thought the video was manipulated in some way.

This goes right back to what I was saying....

Rob can have an opinion but when you are so closely connected to a company, and you are that companies public face then you need to temper those type of responses because they will eventually affect the performance of the company.

That for me is why the topic was made, how it evolved makes my point even stronger and one only needs to read the topic to understand the harm it will eventually do to the company.
 
0
•••
Of course. I said so. Read it.



No. You're not a bigot for disagreeing with me. You're a bigot for denigrating a group of people, disparaging their ideas as "Mental Illness" or "Poison" or a contagious "Plague".

If you were capable of disagreeing with religion WITHOUT referring to it as Mental Illness or Poison or a Plague, then I wouldn't regard you as a bigot.

This is very straightforward. Here is the definition of "bigot":

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

Obviously, that's you. This NamePros thread contains pages of evidence to that effect.

And here is the definition of "bigotry":

"intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."

You have shown that intolerance toward Religion by labeling it a "Mental Illness", a "Cancer", a "Poison", and an infectious "Disease". Nobody is tolerant toward Cancer or Poison or Plague.

Hence referring to you as a "bigot" or your opinion as "bigotry" isn't controversial. You are a bullseye for the dictionary definition.

You can only be bigotted against people. My issue is with religion. I don't hate people that are religious, I consider them misguided and, in some cases mentally unwell. I've been very clear about this.

You have tried to imply that means I want to eradicate these people, hurt these people or generally be awful to these people, and time and time I have told you I do not.

Let me say this very slowly for you: religion is poison to the human mind - religious people are not poison.

Please stop misrepresenting me and my position and polarising the debate. You keep backing yourself further and further into this corner.

My views above would clearly fail the bigot test. Although I suspect you think you know more about what I think than myself.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Again, you are misrepresenting me and my position. You keep backing yourself further and further into this corner.

What corner? I have been waiting for a WHOLE WEEK for you to present ANY rational counterargument to ANY of the 17 posts I cited that refute you. Or to present ANY explicit version of your opinion that I have not already refuted.
 
0
•••
You can only be bigotted against people. My issue is with religion. I don't hate people that are religious, I consider them misguided and, in some cases mentally unwell. I've been very clear about this.

Nonsense.

When you say that people who disagree with you are MENTALLY ILL because they believe differently, then you are engaging in a bigoted slur against PEOPLE.

When you say that they are DISEASED and INFECTIOUS because they believe differently, then you are engaging in a bigoted slur against PEOPLE.

You have said those things. Do you wish to retract them?
 
0
•••
Nonsense.

When you say that people who disagree with you are MENTALLY ILL because they believe differently, then you are engaging in a bigoted slur against PEOPLE.

When you say that they are DISEASED and INFECTIOUS because they believe differently, then you are engaging in a bigoted slur against PEOPLE.

You have said those things. Do you wish to retract them?

More misquotes from @Slanted

I never said religious people were infectious or diseased in the manner you state. My phrasing was:

...the only one suggesting violence. If someone you knew had an infectious disease (which religion is) would you kill them or try and cure them?...

For context, this was in response to YOU suggesting that my dislike of religion meant that I secretly desired to kill or hurt religious people 'to get rid of the poison'. You introduced the idea!

Notice how I say religion is infectious? Please point to my quote where I said religious people were infectious or diseased in the derogatory manner you claim? Oh wait, you can't.

You seem to flip flop between wanting to be very precise about language, and then just loosely paraphrasing me to try and put words in my mouth.

On the topic of being mentally unwell, I only referred to Rob and his wider behaviour (which was what caused this thread to be created).

I said :

Replace God with any other entity and people would consider him seriously mentally ill.

Please point me to the quote where I said all religious people are mentally ill? Oh wait, you can't. Technically I didn't even say Rob was.

Yet more made up stuff from @Slanted

Now you're going around calling me a bigot to any other poor soul that wonders into this thread. Maybe I should ask for a public apology.

The hilarious thing is, you've inserted so many of your own ideas into my position you can't even remember what's true anymore.

So, got my quote for when I apparently claimed there would be no censorship without religion yet? :ROFL:

Out of interest, do you consider Rob a bigot in relation to gay people?
 
Last edited:
0
•••
What's abusive
"White people are all stupid racist pigs who revel in their privilege!!!!"
Now can they be punished by law?

Sorry. I am not following. But okay.
 
0
•••
Apparently calling religion poison is the worst thing in the world and makes me a terrible person that has hidden desires to murder and torture people :xf.rolleyes:
Yes that's right
But using religion to make stupid claims that gay people are inviting DEMONS and participating in something SATANIC is ok :ROFL:
I am sorry if this hurts your feelings but the anus was never designed to be a sex organ, no matter how hard the porn industry -- and now the mainstream media -- works to normalize anal as being up there with the mile high club as something heteros should aspire to. The Bible tells you sodomy is a bad idea and does so in just about every translation. In the Biblical sense, it is a great way to invite the demonic realm to take up residence. As you can learn through online research, Satanic initiation through sodomy has a long history.
Using religion to claim that many people are literally DEALING WITH THE DEVIL is ok :ROFL:
Witches and occultists make a deal with the devil by literally onboarding demons. That's the deal. For a season, the power, talent and knowledge that the demonic realm offers someone, can mean money, fame, sex, and power.
OR MAYBE this must mean that Christians want to eliminate or suppress all people who are dealing with the devil, because clearly that is a very dangerous, dare I say poisonous, thing to society.... The DEVIL is THE most evil being..and these people are doing what he wants or inviting him into society!! We must do something about them!
One can certainly choose to ignore the spiritual realm. However, you would be ignoring it at your peril. Even the ~1.5 million practicing witches in the USA alone will tell you that, if they are honest.
1.5 million!!!!


Now if someone comes in this thread and says The Scary Dark Boogaloon is real, and millions of people in my country are doing deals with him or inviting him into their soul!!.... Then it is ok to say the person has the appearance of mental illness, because there is not yet a religion that has created this character yet. Once there is a legitimate religion with this character in it, you may not call it crazy, or you are a BIGOT.
 
0
•••
And I agree with your statement, the big difference being that the owner of godaddy actually shot the elephants and Rob Monster was only stating an opinion regarding a video of events. If I recollect correctly he said he thought the video was manipulated in some way.

It would be incredibly much more horrific if Rob would actually shoot people. Three key issues were: 1) the minimizing of the trauma experienced by the survivors; 2) memorializing the killer, his murderous video, and memoir; and 3) using the tragedy to promote his/Epik’s services.

Any of these could have very detrimental effects on those that suffer PTSD as a result and even encourage other demented potential killers. It showed a lack of empathy and respect for human life.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
More misquotes from @SlantedPlease point me to the quote where I said all religious people are mentally ill?

What you said was that Religion is / causes Mental Illness. And here is where you said it:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-62#post-7247610

Look at what religion has done to Rob's mind. And you see no issue with this? Replace God with any other entity and people would consider him seriously mentally ill.

The implication is that Rob is “seriously mentally ill”, and Religion “[did this] to Rob’s mind”. In other words, Religion causes mental illness. That is what you said, is it not?

And

I never said religious people were infectious or diseased in the manner you state.

What’s this then?

If someone you knew had an infectious disease (which religion is) would you kill them or try and cure them?

So you say that religious people have the “infectious disease (which religion is)”. But you “never said religious people were infectious or diseased”? Explain that contradiction please.

Moving on …

You have tried to imply that means I want to eradicate these people, hurt these people or generally be awful to these people, and time and time I have told you I do not.

No, I never said you wanted that. In fact, I have said repeatedly that you DON’T want that. See here:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-64#post-7249818

By claiming that I say you want violence, you are being disingenuous. We have been over this before, and you know it.

Do you still not understand what a reductio ad absurdum proof is? It starts from a bad assumption, which corners someone in a conclusion they are not prepared to accept.

In this case, a policy of repression toward Religion follows logically from your belief that Religion = Poison. But you are unwilling to accept that.

I explained this days ago. More than once. Let me spell it out for you yet again:

(1) You say you believe X.
(2) I point out that X implies Y.
(3) Y is false.

What you should do next – logically – is one of the following things:

(a) Embrace Y as true.
(b) Abandon X as false.
(c) Explain why X does NOT imply Y.

Specifically:

(1) You said you believe Religion = Poison / Plague / Cancer / Mental Illness.

(2) I pointed out that society always regulates, restricts, contains, bans, eradicates, inoculates against, or quarantines those things – especially if they have NO BENEFIT. You say religion has no benefit. So, logically, society should take a similarly harsh action against Religion.

(3) You say that conclusion is false. Or, rather, you refuse to explain what responsible action Society ought to take to limit the Poison of Religion.

You have been cornered at that point for DAYS and DAYS. Specifically, let me show you what I mean when I say you are cornered. I challenged you to respond to this:

If you take the extremist position that Religion = Poison / Mental Illness / Infectious Disease, that it has absolutely no benefits or use for mankind, and that it leads inexorably to violence, repression and war, then you absolutely ought to explain why you are doing next to nothing at all to contain, cure, inoculate against, quarantine, regulate, restrict, or ban that Poison.

To date, you have NOT responded to it. Because you have no response, you are cornered. You have been saying all sorts of irrelevant things in order to distract from your lack of response to the arguments where I have you cornered. And everybody can see your evasions.

Remember, there are only 3 possible answers to a reductio ad absurdum maneuver:

(c) You have not provided any convincing response regarding why X does not imply Y – because no convincing argument exists.

(b) And I don’t expect you will embrace Y as true – meaning that you would advocate for policies of repression against religion – though I live to be surprised.

(a) Rather, I expect the only viable outcome for you is to abandon X ... and distance yourself from your previous assertions that Religion = Poison / Plague / Cancer / Mental Illness.

It has taken a week, but you are finally doing exactly what I expected and wanted. Here are you are – finally – walking back your earlier inflammatory, bigoted language, pretending you never said it or that it means something less than it means:

I never said religious people were infectious or diseased in the manner you state.

and

On the topic of being mentally unwell, I only referred to Rob and his wider behaviour (which was what caused this thread to be created).

Not true. See my refutations at the top of this post. But I will allow you to contradict yourself. If that is what NEEDS to happen, in this case, for you to abandon your own earlier positions, then so be it.

Really, this contradiction of yours is cause for celebration. Every day for roughly a week, I have given you the opportunity to DENY that you believed Religion = Poison / Cancer / Mental Illness / Plague. Every day, you have seen this characterization of your view and refused to disown it or retract it or back down. But you finally understand there is no other way out. At long last, you are backing out of your corner!

Of course, you reaffirmed those offensive, untrue claims about Religion daily for a week – ever time I confronted you with them and gave you a clear opportunity to disown them. Every day you doubled down. But I’m not going to bother holding you to them. The goal was always to get you to disown the bigoted claims that you began with.

You have accused me of misquoting you, though (as everybody can see above) my characterization of your remarks is pretty fair.

So that there is no ambiguity, please define what you DO or DON’T believe, in this respect:

(1) Does Religion = Poison? If so, how so?
(2) Does Religion = Mental Illness? If so, how so?
(3) Does Religion = Plague (that is, a contagious Disease with possibly fatal consequences for society) If so, how so?
(4) Does Religion = Cancer? If so, how so?

Supposedly you believe Science is the proper source of truth. So if the answer to any of those 4 questions is YES, then please cite a scientific study that substantiates your claim. If these assertions of yours are NOT supported by any science, then you can acknowledge that they are NOT LITERALLY TRUE and are merely metaphors. That’s fine.

I assume you meant this stuff as a metaphor – not as literal truth. But that’s for you to clarify. Most people would only call something “Poison” / “Cancer” / “Mental Illness” / “Plague” – when they know it isn’t literally true in a scientific, objective sense – for rhetorical effect.

I can think of 2 reasons for such an inflammatory, offensive rhetorical effect – either to harass people you dislike (religious people) or else to advocate doing something drastic to regulate or get rid of something that is (metaphorically) Poison / Cancer / Mental Illness / Disease.

Which of those 2 options best describes you? Were you merely a bully engaged in hyperbole, motivated by bigoted intolerance of religious people? Or do you really believe Religion = Poison, etc. in some sense? Or was there some other motivation for your non-factual metaphors? If you wish to assert that the metaphors are true in some sense, that’s fine. But we’ll be back to where we started – with you cornered. And, in that case, you must look for a different escape from the reductio ad absurdum corner you find yourself in.

In that case, you must deny that X implies Y or else embrace Y (repression of Religion, as a poison). If you wish to deny that X implies Y, then you must answer my earlier question:

If you take the extremist position that Religion = Poison / Mental Illness / Infectious Disease, that it has absolutely no benefits or use for mankind, and that it leads inexorably to violence, repression and war, then you absolutely ought to explain why you are doing next to nothing at all to contain, cure, inoculate against, quarantine, regulate, restrict, or ban that Poison.

I will give you a hint to escape the awkward position you’re stuck in. You can change your earlier answer to this related question:

(5) Does Religion benefit mankind? If so, how so?

If you believe in rational discourse, then you should try to navigate the argument I have just laid out – going through it step by step. Or you can continue to run away, if rational discourse is too hard.


You seem to flip flop between wanting to be very precise about language, and then just loosely paraphrasing me to try and put words in my mouth.

Yes, I like precision. If I have ever flip-flopped, then you can cite an example. But I expect you can’t. And you would be better served by presenting your own case, instead of constantly looking for distractions about ME. Say what YOU THINK. If you can.

Paraphrase is a very important part of debate. It ensures that opponents have a mutual understanding of each others’ positions. Otherwise, debate is simply miscommunication.

For the past few days, I must have asked you 20 times to state your own case, or to correct my version of your opinion, or to present some explicit argument. But you have done NONE of those things. Instead, as I’ve pointed out before, you play “Hide and Seek”, daring me to GUESS what your secret mystery opinion really is, and then denying that I have guessed it correctly, hoping that you can avoid refutation forever by simply refusing to present your own ideas.

When dealing with an opponent who runs away and hides, all someone can do is paraphrase that person’s apparent viewpoint or argument, giving the runaway opponent a chance to say either “Yes, that’s what I believe” or “No, what I believe is this”. And that’s what I’ve been doing, though you haven’t been cooperating, since you are not sincerely interested in debating ideas.

When I present a viewpoint or argument that I assume to be yours, I am ASKING you to say YES or NO or to present your own case. If you were engaging in a rational debate in good faith, you would do so instead of playing hide and seek and running away. You would answer direct questions. Or present counterarguments. Or state what you actually believe in your own words.

I expect you will run away from this post like all the others. But I’ve already won. I cornered you long enough that you repudiated your own views. (See quotes at the top of this post.)
 
Last edited:
0
•••
What you said was that Religion is / causes Mental Illness. And here is where you said it:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-62#post-7247610



The implication is that Rob is “seriously mentally ill”, and Religion “[did this] to Rob’s mind”. In other words, Religion causes mental illness. That is what you said, is it not?

And



What’s this then?



So you say that religious people have the “infectious disease (which religion is)”. But you “never said religious people were infectious or diseased”? Explain that contradiction please.

Moving on …



No, I never said you wanted that. In fact, I have said repeatedly that you DON’T want that. See here:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-64#post-7249818

By claiming that I say you want violence, you are being disingenuous. We have been over this before, and you know it.

Do you still not understand what a reductio ad absurdum proof is? It starts from a bad assumption, which corners someone in a conclusion they are not prepared to accept.

In this case, a policy of repression toward Religion follows logically from your belief that Religion = Poison. But you are unwilling to accept that.

I explained this days ago. More than once. Let me spell it out for you yet again:

(1) You say you believe X.
(2) I point out that X implies Y.
(3) Y is false.

What you should do next – logically – is one of the following things:

(a) Embrace Y as true.
(b) Abandon X as false.
(c) Explain why X does NOT imply Y.

Specifically:

(1) You said you believe Religion = Poison / Plague / Cancer / Mental Illness.

(2) I pointed out that society always regulates, restricts, contains, bans, eradicates, inoculates against, or quarantines those things – especially if they have NO BENEFIT. You say religion has no benefit. So, logically, society should take a similarly harsh action against Religion.

(3) You say that conclusion is false. Or, rather, you refuse to explain what responsible action Society ought to take to limit the Poison of Religion.

You have been cornered at that point for DAYS and DAYS. Specifically, let me show you what I mean when I say you are cornered. I challenged you to respond to this:



To date, you have NOT responded to it. Because you have no response, you are cornered. You have been saying all sorts of irrelevant things in order to distract from your lack of response to the arguments where I have you cornered. And everybody can see your evasions.

Remember, there are only 3 possible answers to a reductio ad absurdum maneuver:

(c) You have not provided any convincing response regarding why X does not imply Y – because no convincing argument exists.

(b) And I don’t expect you will embrace Y as true – meaning that you would advocate for policies of repression against religion – though I live to be surprised.

(a) Rather, I expect the only viable outcome for you is to abandon X ... and distance yourself from your previous assertions that Religion = Poison / Plague / Cancer / Mental Illness.

It has taken a week, but you are finally doing exactly what I expected and wanted. Here are you are – finally – walking back your earlier inflammatory, bigoted language, pretending you never said it or that it means something less than it means:



and



Not true. See my refutations at the top of this post. But I will allow you to contradict yourself. If that is what NEEDS to happen, in this case, for you to abandon your own earlier positions, then so be it.

Really, this contradiction of yours is cause for celebration. Every day for roughly a week, I have given you the opportunity to DENY that you believed Religion = Poison / Cancer / Mental Illness / Plague. Every day, you have seen this characterization of your view and refused to disown it or retract it or back down. But you finally understand there is no other way out. At long last, you are backing out of your corner!

Of course, you reaffirmed those offensive, untrue claims about Religion daily for a week – ever time I confronted you with them and gave you a clear opportunity to disown them. Every day you doubled down. But I’m not going to bother holding you to them. The goal was always to get you to disown the bigoted claims that you began with.

You have accused me of misquoting you, though (as everybody can see above) my characterization of your remarks is pretty fair.

So that there is no ambiguity, please define what you DO or DON’T believe, in this respect:

(1) Does Religion = Poison? If so, how so?
(2) Does Religion = Mental Illness? If so, how so?
(3) Does Religion = Plague (that is, a contagious Disease with possibly fatal consequences for society) If so, how so?
(4) Does Religion = Cancer? If so, how so?

Supposedly you believe Science is the proper source of truth. So if the answer to any of those 4 questions is YES, then please cite a scientific study that substantiates your claim. If these assertions of yours are NOT supported by any science, then you can acknowledge that they are NOT LITERALLY TRUE and are merely metaphors. That’s fine.

I assume you meant this stuff as a metaphor – not as literal truth. But that’s for you to clarify. Most people would only call something “Poison” / “Cancer” / “Mental Illness” / “Plague” – when they know it isn’t literally true in a scientific, objective sense – for rhetorical effect.

I can think of 2 reasons for such an inflammatory, offensive rhetorical effect – either to harass people you dislike (religious people) or else to advocate doing something drastic to regulate or get rid of something that is (metaphorically) Poison / Cancer / Mental Illness / Disease.

Which of those 2 options best describes you? Were you merely a bully engaged in hyperbole, motivated by bigoted intolerance of religious people? Or do you really believe Religion = Poison, etc. in some sense? Or was there some other motivation for your non-factual metaphors? If you wish to assert that the metaphors are true in some sense, that’s fine. But we’ll be back to where we started – with you cornered. And, in that case, you must look for a different escape from the reductio ad absurdum corner you find yourself in.

In that case, you must deny that X implies Y or else embrace Y (repression of Religion, as a poison). If you wish to deny that X implies Y, then you must answer my earlier question:



I will give you a hint to escape the awkward position you’re stuck in. You can change your earlier answer to this related question:

(5) Does Religion benefit mankind? If so, how so?

If you believe in rational discourse, then you should try to navigate the argument I have just laid out – going through it step by step. Or you can continue to run away, if rational discourse is too hard.




Yes, I like precision. If I have ever flip-flopped, then you can cite an example. But I expect you can’t. And you would be better served by presenting your own case, instead of constantly looking for distractions about ME. Say what YOU THINK. If you can.

Paraphrase is a very important part of debate. It ensures that opponents have a mutual understanding of each others’ positions. Otherwise, debate is simply miscommunication.

For the past few days, I must have asked you 20 times to state your own case, or to correct my version of your opinion, or to present some explicit argument. But you have done NONE of those things. Instead, as I’ve pointed out before, you play “Hide and Seek”, daring me to GUESS what your secret mystery opinion really is, and then denying that I have guessed it correctly, hoping that you can avoid refutation forever by simply refusing to present your own ideas.

When dealing with an opponent who runs away and hides, all someone can do is paraphrase that person’s apparent viewpoint or argument, giving the runaway opponent a chance to say either “Yes, that’s what I believe” or “No, what I believe is this”. And that’s what I’ve been doing, though you haven’t been cooperating, since you are not sincerely interested in debating ideas.

When I present a viewpoint or argument that I assume to be yours, I am ASKING you to say YES or NO or to present your own case. If you were engaging in a rational debate in good faith, you would do so instead of playing hide and seek and running away. You would answer direct questions. Or present counterarguments. Or state what you actually believe in your own words.

I expect you will run away from this post like all the others. But I’ve already won. I cornered you long enough that you repudiated your own views. (See quotes at the top of this post.)

No, no. Don't try and wall of text your way out. Go back to my last post and address each of my points.
 
0
•••
No, no. Don't try and wall if text your way out. Go back to my last post and address each of my points.

It's not a wall of text. Read it and respond. Or run away.
 
0
•••
0
•••
Back