Here’s another example of Arminian ethics in action:
“Mr. Hays and I debated once some time back, during which time I uncovered evidence (linked below) which suggested that members of his blog had been 'sockpuppeting' (putting up posts while dishonestly posing as other people). I questioned them about the matter repeatedly, but never got a direct answer as we continued our debate…”
i) He never got a direct answer from me because it’s a dumb question. If you suspect someone of being dishonest, why would you ask him if he’s honest or not? Since you wouldn’t ask him the question in the first place unless you suspected his honestly, you’d distrust his answer. So what’s the point? Why ask somebody you distrust if he’s trustworthy? Is that a reasonable thing to do?
I think Thibodaux needs to brush up on the Liar Paradox.
ii) Moreover, I don’t yield to the invidious imposition to disprove a charge in the absence of any supporting evidence. That’s not a precedent I’m going to start.
“…which culminated with Hays relinquishing the debate along with any credibility he may have had when he employed an appeal to ignorance in order to imply that Kangaroodort and I were the ones being dishonest.”
A backwards version of events. He insinuated that I was a sockpuppet, without furnishing any actual evidence, then insisted that I disprove his insinuation.
Since the “appeal to ignorance” cuts both ways–I simply used the same tactic on Thibodaux.
“I am not speaking about Robert, as my dispute is not with him, it's with you.”
Naturally. Like so many Arminians, Thibodaux plays favorites. A respecter of persons.
“Given that accusing another without basis is tantamount to bearing false witness, which is indeed sinful and wrong…”
Which is exactly what Thibodaux did by insinuating that I was a sockpuppet.
“That most surely is a fallacy, since you're attempting to justify wrong behavior as retaliation against the same. That is known as 'Tu Quoque' (you also), which occurs when one party attempts to use wrongs (real or imagined) performed by the other party as justification for its own evil behavior.”
The fallacy lies in acting as if the tu quoque were equivalent to the lex talionis. Thibodaux needs to brush up on the basic rules of argument. There’s nothing vindictive or vengeful about a tu quoque argument. As one logician explains:
“You start from something he believes as a premise, and infer a conclusion he won’t admit to be true. If you have not been cheating in your reasoning, you will have shown that your opponent’s present body of beliefs is inconsistent and it’s up to him to modify it somewhere,” Reason & Argument, 26-27.