I wasn't "Replying To Any Argument" and "Did Not Attack Anyone"!!!
Wasn't even "Debating Anything"!!!



On Mar 3, 12:58 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote:
> You can't pass the buck with finger pointing or being rude to me.
> Follow the guidelines and no name calling:
>
> Ad hominen should be avoided and, in the most serious circumstances,
> could see you moderated or banned. Wikipedia defines ad hominem as
> "replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to
> a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim,
> rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing
> evidence against the claim.
> Debates about a person's deeply held values, beliefs, or way of life,
> should be tempered with a high level of respect and civility. These
> debates have been some of our most interesting over the years, and
> they work, or not, based upon the level of mutual respect and honesty
> extended by each side. If your motive is to ridicule members, or
> spread bad feeling, please do not bother to post.
> We've tackled a fair few sacred cows over the years and these are
> always interesting discussions. However, by their nature, these
> debates are very likely to stir up emotions. Please accept that the
> world is full of people with radically different opinions to yours
> which they hold equally as strongly. Mind's Eye is a forum for you to
> interact with such people and learn more about them. It is not a forum
> for you to attack them, even if they are "pro abortion baby killers",
> "neo-con nutjobs", "pinko liberals", "sinners", or even British. All
> of the above miscreants are welcome.
>
> On Mar 3, 12:09 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It is not an interpretation of anyone's character, it is not a
> > diagnosis or psychological evaluation.
>
> > Shades of color thread:
>
> > Pat to Fiddler:
> > "Then, as an old friend used to say, "You're wired weird".  Have you
> > passed that trait onto any children or do you know, yet? "
>
> > Is Pat making a diagnosis of Fidd, placing him into a psychological
> > category?  Pat used "quotes" too, at least I used the word "MAYBE".
>
> > I can find more examples of ad hom that you seem to ignore.
>
> > You want to follow me to the bathroom too molly, make sure I pick up
> > the seat?
>
> > On Mar 3, 10:19 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > The point is, Slip, that this is YOUR interpretation of a persons
> > > character.  None of us is here to label the others with diagnosis or
> > > psychological categories.  Doing so is ad hom.  Attack the statement,
> > > not the person.
>
> > > On Mar 3, 11:07 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Calling someone an idiot and suggesting that someone might feel like
> > > > one are two distinct applications the later of which would not be
> > > > considered ad hom.
>
> > > > The disposition of being Homophobic does not necessarily have to be
> > > > interpreted as derogatory.  Your interpretation is incorrect.
>
> > > > On Mar 3, 9:37 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Respect is never a waste of time, Slip.  Name calling is not allowed
> > > > > in here.  Saying: "Maybe he feels like an idiot," does not mask the
> > > > > name calling, nor does, "Maybe he got a bit homo phobic"  Knock it
> > > > > off.
>
> > > > > On Mar 3, 10:21 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Well I hope you can see that it is not in the least ad hom and
> > > > > > regardless of the ridiculousness of your post I'll waste some time
> > > > > > responding to it. I would also like second and third opinions on 
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > by Chis and Ian.
>
> > > > > > homo-phobic is a "Viable" reference term:
>
> > > > > > homophobic - Definition
> > > > > > [hṓmə-fṓbē-ə]
> > > > > > (n.)    Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
> > > > > > (n.)    Behavior based on such a feeling.
> > > > > > Dictionary.com · The American Heritage® Dictionary
>
> > > > > > or if you prefer Webster:
>
> > > > > > Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
> > > > > > Pronunciation: \ˌhō-mə-ˈfō-bē-ə\
> > > > > > Function: noun
> > > > > > Date: 1969
> > > > > > : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against
> > > > > > homosexuality or homosexuals
>
> > > > > > In case you hadn't noticed during your zealous perusing of my post 
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > picayune infractions of ad hom, the thread had gone from body
> > > > > > consciousness to homosexuality.
>
> > > > > > My post "IS" tied to Manfraco's as he says:   "Anyhow this tread was
> > > > > > not exactly started to talk about homosexuality,
> > > > > > it was started to talk about consciousness and Slip would like to go
> > > > > > back to talk about consciousness,........" etc,
> > > > > > and the term was used in reference to RP in that "MAYBE" he.....etc.
> > > > > > in light of the thread diversion.
>
> > > > > > We are not all A level logicians in here and most use terms rather
> > > > > > loosely.  I think it would be a fair statement that I never attack
> > > > > > anyone unprovoked.  This is a waste of time and interferes with the
> > > > > > flow of thought that produces good dialogue in threads.
>
> > > > > > On Mar 3, 8:03 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I hope you can see that your statement "Maybe he got a bit homo
> > > > > > > phobic" is an ad hom, as it is not tied to any statement by 
> > > > > > > Manfranco
> > > > > > > in your comment, thus only related to the personal "he" on the
> > > > > > > sentence.  If you feel that particular statements he has made can 
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > categorized as such, pointing them out along with a defination of 
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > term and a request to further explain would be more in the spirit 
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > dialogue and less of a character slur.  Please keep personal 
> > > > > > > attacks
> > > > > > > in check, even when the topics are as touchy as this one.
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 2, 10:32 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Ya mon frac, consciousness and the consciousness of dreams, much
> > > > > > > > better.
>
> > > > > > > > It looks as though Mr. Parker has left for the duration of the
> > > > > > > > thread.  Maybe he got a bit homo phobic, :-)
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 28, 3:41 pm, Manfraco Frank Elder <[email protected]> 
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Lee, it seems to me that we agree in general terms about
> > > > > > > > > homosexuality, except that we have a different opinion about 
> > > > > > > > > it, you
> > > > > > > > > seem to welcome homosexuality with open arms, whereas I 
> > > > > > > > > accept it just
> > > > > > > > > because it cannot be avoided.
> > > > > > > > > Anyhow this tread was not exactly started to talk about 
> > > > > > > > > homosexuality,
> > > > > > > > > it was started to talk about consciousness and Slip would 
> > > > > > > > > like to go
> > > > > > > > > back to talk about consciousness, which could be very 
> > > > > > > > > interesting for
> > > > > > > > > me, as I am interested in personal consciousness of dreams, 
> > > > > > > > > the cosmos
> > > > > > > > > the afterlife and religions, which are all part of our body
> > > > > > > > > consciousness.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 26, 10:02 pm, Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Well I really didn't say that at all Frank, I merely asked 
> > > > > > > > > > you to
> > > > > > > > > > consider it a possibily in light of your assurtion that 
> > > > > > > > > > mother nature
> > > > > > > > > > must do all she can for the survival of the species, and 
> > > > > > > > > > anything that
> > > > > > > > > > runs counter to that cannot be 'natural'
>
> > > > > > > > > > I gave you an example where not breeding was the best thing 
> > > > > > > > > > for the
> > > > > > > > > > survival of the species, and if mother nature governs the 
> > > > > > > > > > nature of
> > > > > > > > > > man, then homosexuality via a process of Darwinian 
> > > > > > > > > > evolution must (in
> > > > > > > > > > the context of this example) be considerd as an 
> > > > > > > > > > evolutionary plus,
> > > > > > > > > > thus my 'more evolved' question.
>
> > > > > > > > > > I do notice BTW that you did not answer my question re: 
> > > > > > > > > > hetrosexual
> > > > > > > > > > sex and masterbation for pleasure, would you also see these 
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > 'unnatural'?
>
> > > > > > > > > > On 24 Feb, 21:17, Manfraco Frank Elder <[email protected]> 
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > OK Lee I see your point there, but to say that the 
> > > > > > > > > > > homosexuals are
> > > > > > > > > > > more evolved that the rest of us is an exaggeration, for 
> > > > > > > > > > > me it is only
> > > > > > > > > > > a way for Mother Nature to adjust the imbalance which 
> > > > > > > > > > > herself/itself
> > > > > > > > > > > created, which gives us all that extra drive about sex, 
> > > > > > > > > > > when to
> > > > > > > > > > > propagate ourselves half as much could have been plenty.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 9:29 pm, Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Then dwell on this one sir.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > If it is true that the earth is going to double its 
> > > > > > > > > > > > population in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > next 20-30 years, then for the survival of the species 
> > > > > > > > > > > > it may be
> > > > > > > > > > > > better not to propogate our species.  Ummm perhaps we 
> > > > > > > > > > > > should all
> > > > > > > > > > > > endulge in only homosexual sex for the survial of the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > species.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps those that already do so is Mother Natures way 
> > > > > > > > > > > > of giving us
> > > > > > > > > > > > all a clue, and these people are in fact more 'evolved' 
> > > > > > > > > > > > than the rest
> > > > > > > > > > > > of us?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 23 Feb, 21:14, Manfraco Frank Elder 
> > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have to follow my own beliefs here, for me God and 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mother Nature
> > > > > > > > > > > > > could be one and the same thing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mather Nature as I see it; it is only a name that we 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > give to the best
> > > > > > > > > > > > > side of the natural things, which to work at their 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > best should follow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a certain order, obviously the best order for Mother 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nature is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > survival and propagation of the species, it cannot be 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > anything else,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > thus anything that does not help to accomplish that 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is not Mother
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nature will.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 8:43 pm, Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Umm not quite true though is it?  As Fidds point 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > out there are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > countless example of same gender sex occouring 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > within other species.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also what do
>
> ...
>
> read more »

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.

Reply via email to