[ExI] CALL: H+ call for papers

[Eschatoon Magic]

I should of course have written "_some of_ those who jump..." or
"_many of_ those who jump...".

Also, this is not referred to those who oppose bad things done by or
in the name of religions. I am the first to condemn priests raping
children or fundamentalists murdering people. I refer to the attitude
of condemning _a priori_ everything related to religion, which I do
not consider a constructive position.

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Harvey Newstrom
<mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> On Friday 20 February 2009 2:32:51 am Eschatoon Magic wrote:
>> I think those who jump at the first mention of religion are persons
>> who had to make a big effort to free themselves from religious
>> superstition, and are afraid of falling back into it anytime. Like
>> those ex-alcoholics who avoid all parties because they know they would
>> not be able to resist the temptation.
>
> Wow.  This set off a lot of my warning bells.  There are at least four logical
> fallacies being made here, and maybe more.
>
> FIrst, this is a stereotype.  You are ascribing the motives for some people
> who jump on religion to all people who jump on religion.  This is a known
> logical fallacy which is known to lead to unproven assumptions where you are
> right and erroneous assumptions where you are wrong.  None of the cases are
> logically good.
>
> Second, this is a strawman.  This "conclusion" of yours will literally lead
> you into arguing against your own imagined position for the other person
> instead of what they actually profess.  Think about it.  Nothing they can
> influence your response since your response is based on your statements, not
> theirs.  There literally would be no talking to you.
>
> Third, you are applying the motives of a subset of people (for which this may
> be true) and are applying it as a universal for the entire set of people.  You
> really don't know that everyone does this or that no one has a legitimate
> reason to jump on religion.
>
> Fourth, you are poisoning the well.  You are literally ascribing bad stuff to
> anybody who would "jump on religion".  This pre-emptively states that religion
> is good and anybody who disagrees is bad.  Anybody who objects will be labeled
> in the way you are doing now.  Anybody who respond negatively (such as myself)
> will be assumed to be anti-religion (even though I have said nothing about
> religion).
>
> Not to be too harsh here, but such "rules" or "assumptions" do not encourage
> debate.  They hinder rational debate.
>
> --
> Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
aka Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco