Here’s another example of Arminian ethics in action:
http://www.indeathorlife.org/debate/two_wrongs.htm
“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.
That’s it!
Steve,
ReplyDelete"I don’t yield to the invidious imposition to disprove a charge in the absence of any supporting evidence."
There was ample evidence that someone was using sockpuppets. We merely asked if someone on your team had done so.
"Naturally. Like so many Arminians, Thibodaux plays favorites. A respecter of persons."
You've failed to establish exactly how engaging in one's own conflict and letting others handle their own problems rather than jumping into the middle of them is somehow 'respect of persons.'
JCT: “Given that accusing another without basis is tantamount to bearing false witness, which is indeed sinful and wrong…”
SH: Which is exactly what Thibodaux did by insinuating that I was a sockpuppet.
...
"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."
Wrong on several counts:
1. We suspected Paul Manata primarily, not you. But if you had something to do with it, I'm all ears.
2. We did furnish evidence (see above), including the fact that Paul had used sockpuppets before with no apparent moral qualms. We also indicated that the evidence was not conclusive, which is why we asked you to confirm or deny our suspicions.
3. We never asked you to 'disprove' anything about the matter, we simply asked you to tell us the truth of it. That's quite a far cry from your attempts to insinuate that we were being dishonest with the statement, "we have no evidence that Ben and J.C. haven’t been sockpuppeting", which is plainly citing lack of evidence for support (aka 'appeal to ignorance').
4. Voicing some suspicion of foul play, but asking the suspected party whether it's true is hardly an 'accusation,' much less a false one.
"If you suspect someone of being dishonest, why would you ask him if he’s honest or not?"
Because I believed that even if one of the Tbloggers had sockpuppeted and somehow thought that it was morally justifiable, I gave you enough credit to assume that you wouldn't believe the same about telling outright lies. If I were dealing with John Loftus or RRS, of course such a question would be ridiculous; but you're supposed to be Christians, people who strive to serve God in sincerity and truth. Was that assumption on my part mistaken? Are you insulted that I extend to you some benefit of the doubt?
"There’s nothing vindictive or vengeful about a tu quoque argument."
That's a red-herring, Steve. You stated,
"If you accuse me of being a sock puppet without offering any probative evidence to back up your allegation, then, by parity of argument, I can accuse you of being a sock puppet without offering any probative evidence to back up my allegation."
Accusations made without basis are sinful, since they amount to bearing false witness. If two people bear false witness against each other, the one who does it last is sinning just as surely as the one who did it first. 'Parity of argument' doesn't give you a free pass to break the commandments of God by wronging those who you think have wronged you. Not only is such thinking logically fallacious (the tu quoque fallacy), living by such reasoning is iniquitous and directly contrary to the teachings of Christ.