And because fig367/dunravin2002 insisted on only consenting to publication if his hugely long messages were posted in full, here they are.
- The straw man is a logical fallacy in which an argument, based entirely on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position, contains logical statements which may be valid, but due to irrelevance fail to refute the opponent’s position.
- The ad hominem is a logical fallacy in which an argument, based solely on the personal demerits of the opponent and the opponent’s cited sources, disregards the logical merits of an opponent’s position in favour of personally attacking the opponent and the opponent’s sources.
- A red herring is a responding argument which may itself be valid, but which deliberately sidesteps and disregards the original issue in an attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.
- One variant of the red herring is the argumentum ad populum (Latin: “appeal to the people”), which is an argument based entirely on the fallacious premise that a proposition is true solely because many people believe it to be true.
If you’re interested in a bit of an exercise, you can try and pick out which logical fallacy applies to which bit of message.
Better you than me. :)
Author : D
E-mail : dunravin2002@…
Submitted on 13 February 2009 at 21:53
Firstly, I fail to see what abortion availability in Ireland has to do with diversity or being ‘different’.
Secondly, it may have been helpful if you quoted the original personal ad to which you attempted to respond or at least linked to it so people can see fully what he requested.
It couldn’t be clearer. This fellow is looking for guys. Guys to respond favourably to his personal ad. Guys only. Only guys. You are a woman. Not a guy. Certainly not a guy who would be interested in anally penetrating another during a bdsm session. Nor a guy who responded previously to his ads and never followed through. Therefore you can only offer, at best, a partial insight into his problem. An insignificant insight perhaps. Maybe even an irrelevant one.
The bdsm-ireland personals website is for personal ads. It is a place for members to post about what they are looking for in the bdsm sense and find partners who may fulfill that requirement . It is not meant to be a discussion forum. The sister group covers that. Anyone should feel free to advertise what they would like without having their messages dissected, analyzed and criticized. I’ve noticed that you, in particular, have felt the need to post responses to messages where the person was looking for someone that patently was not you or something that you were never ever going to offer. Yet you persist in replying to people’s bona fide personal ads (where it takes a certain amount of courage to put one’s deepest and darkest desires out there in full view) often in a condescending and patronising manner. You may think that you’re doing them a service by pointing out how badly the ad is structured or what it lacks. You may feel good about yourself in that you’ve highlighted the foibles of a particular ad to the rest of the membership and as such is a good thing. It is not. It can severely damage the confidence of the original poster and discourage others who might be thinking of posting other ads but hesitate for fear that their open and honest attempt to connect with others will met be with ridicule and patronisation. They then feel excluded and isolated. I’ve talked to people who have specifically mentioned you, Lubyanka, as a barrier to them posting on any site of which you’re a member solely because of your caustic responses to them and others. Therefore, I think you (or anyone else) has no business replying to any personal ad unless there is some remote chance that you might be interested in what they have to offer. If you can’t offer that much then I’d feel any reply you would make could be considered not relevant to the original personal ad.
You seem to have a problem with moderated groups. Thousands of moderated groups abound on the net. There is good reason for this. Moderation filters out the crazy lunatics, the incessant ranters, ‘the chip on both shoulders’ brigade, time wasters, children, trolls and many many more who just want to cause trouble and bring bad energy. It protects privacy and reputation which is essential in the bdsm world and doubly so in a small place like Ireland. It brings some degree of order to the proceedings; otherwise ‘free for alls’ and flame wars ensue.
If you accept that there are malintented folks out there wishing to cause strife and division and have tried to do so in the past then is it not acceptable to have a control measure in place to deal with the problem? This is not a First Amendment issue. I notice that you moderate comments on this blog to your own whim without answer to anyone. It’s your blog and you’ll allow what you please on it. Fair enough. Well it’s their group with their rules so why should they not do likewise? You knew the deal when you signed up and got the group guidelines. Why should you be upset about that? Is this not a double standard at work? There are nearly twelve moderators in the BDSM-Ireland group who each have the facility to see every message coming in and which ones are being moderated. Twelve. A dozen. It’s reasonable to assume that out of this twelve good men and women, most or many are reasonable people and would not moderate, or allow to be moderated, a post or person without good reason. It is not because they are ‘different’. It is usually because they are a trouble-maker. Of course it goes on invisibly. How else could it be done? On your blog you are a jury of one. They are a collective and as such have to answer to each other at the very least. Other malcontents have been moderated there in the past and with very good cause. Some of those have been popping up on sites over the years spewing disinformation, vitriol and bad feeling ever since. It’s pretty clear to me that the decision to censor these types has been vindicated. Do you want to fall into this category of crank? Do you really want every nutso out there to have a voice or full access to everything??? If so, that’s a recipe for anarchy and nothing good will come of it.
Just consider this for a moment Lubyanka. From reading your blog, it seems like conflict, argument and animosity often arise whenever you interact with groups of people over a period of time. And you feel excluded by that happening. Is it possible that some of the exclusion and isolation you suffer could be down to the behaviours and actions taken by yourself? Is everyone else always wrong? Generally they are not. It’s very interesting to note that your ‘appeal’ to others for bdsm horror stories in Ireland did not merit significant response. I have my own theories as to why not. For one, it would be hard to trust any one person as the clearing house or arbiter of potentially unfounded and mischievous allegations. Were you seriously going to post stories (and lets be clear that they would be just that – stories) from anonymous strangers claiming all sorts of grievances and slights going back Lord knows how far back, impugning the reputations of people or groups of people? Were you really going to do that? If so, let the gates of Bedlam open and God help us all.
Now seems a good time to state that I’m perfectly aware that you can moderate or censor this comment as you wish. You have that facility and you have that right. No problem. However, I would ask that if you do post this, you would do so in its entirety and not take selected bits and pieces out of context as you have done before with others I notice. This is an ‘all or nothing’ comment. I do not consent to anything less.
One final thing. And it’s important. You obviously felt you could freely publish private correspondence from the moderators of BDSM-Ireland here. Did you obtain their consent to do so prior to posting your ‘Recent Crap’ rant? You at least had the ‘courtesy’ to inform the guy in the poly-group you’ve been at loggerheads with that you would be posting his private communication even if he didn’t specifically grant you that consent. Is this not another example of a double standard at work? Will you be asking for this important consent in future before you post another’s private email to you?
From : dunravin2002@…
Subject : So wrong :)
Date : 17 February 2009 19:10:38 GMT
To : Lubyanka
My comment must have rattled your cage hard and then some. You’re jumping the gun massively there Sherlock. I am not Fig and he is not me. I am aware of who he is. Nor am I a moderator or linked to any of the current moderators of either group. True, I have been a (mainly quiet) member of BDSM-Ireland and I have a completely different handle in the personals group. That is my prerogative and I don’t apologise for that. Who I am is really unimportant. Who I’m not is. I am not Fig367. The fact that you think it’s ok to make wild unsubstantiated allegations against any person with no proof whatsoever (apart from an ability to add 2+2+2 and come up with 222) speaks volumes about you and your judgment. If ever you wish to be taken seriously again, you should at least do the decent thing and withdraw that falsehood before you look completely ridiculous. I’m not sure how easy or hard it would be for Fig to disprove that he is me but I’m thinking it would be fairly easy for me to verify that I am not him. I may even enjoy doing so :)
You’ve really got this one wrong in spectacular fashion. I don’t expect any apology forthcoming for me (or poor old Fig) as you’ve done us both a disservice. All I did was post a comment on your blog. He had the temerity to moderate your posts. I still can’t grasp the double standard of you whining about being moderated when you do precisely the same thing on your blog. Seriously, to any objective observer, it doesn’t add up. Nor does your explanation about posting private (not personal) emails from people who are not friends and colleagues. Erm, was that Randy poly dude a friend or colleague so? Why on earth did you have to go through the charade of establishing non-consensuality????? Again, more apparent hypocrisy. It’s true I don’t like the way you treat people online but at least admit your erroneous charge against Fig and then maybe there might be a way forward through somewhat civilised discourse. Otherwise, whatever credibility you have left as a crusader for ‘justice’ is gone. The problem with having high standards Lubyanka is that occasionally we are obliged to live up to them. Do the right thing here for your own sake and sanity please.
PS Feel free to post this anywhere you like as long as it’s posted in full.