>Mike: "Now, unlike you, I do have experience with being labeled as such.
And in
every case, the word was clearly being used, by the one who labeled, as it
is in the dictionary. What's more, it usually carries with it all sorts of
negative connotations. It's a cheap, and thus common, debate trick that taps
into the preconceptions of others instead of dealing with the
points/arguments actually being raised."
DNAunion: Yes, my thoughts exactly. And what's more, apparently the
thoughts of Susan ("what?? Creationists being dishonest??") and Chris also!
>Chris: based on the historical and fairly blatant tendency of many
creationists to
1. Quote out of context.
2. Quote things that people did not say.
3. Modify quotes to change their meaning.
4. Lie about facts that they could check for themselves (such as physics,
computer science, information theory, chemistry, genetics, biology, etc.)
5. Lie about what evolutionists claim.
6. Grossly and willfully misrepresent (i.e., lie about) evolutionary theory
in order to have a version stupid enough to refute easily -- and then claim
(dishonestly) to have refuted naturalistic evolutionary theory, even though
the theory they refuted is not one that any serious evolutionist holds.
7. Etc.
****************
>DNAunion: Yes, those are exactly the attributes she wanted to thrust upon
me
and others at ARN without having a shred evidence, and without having to
supply a single shred of evidence. Just the mere implication that we (or I)
are creationists is enough to establish all the above shortcomings of the
opponent's position effortlessly - that is why it is wrong, and generally an
underhanded tactic, to call someone a creationist when you have no idea what
that person or persons actually believes.
****************
>Chris: I will agree with Susan's implication that their [creationists']
actual evidence is pretty pathetic. If they actually *did* have strong and
relevant arguments,
they would not need to bother with such dishonesty.
**************
DNAunion: As Mike and I both pointed out, the term Creationist does carry
with it many negative traits (from Chris and Susan we see that Creationists
are dishonest, deceitful, manipulative, liers who use strawman tactics and
overall are scientifically repugnant). And to call someone a creationist
without knowing whether or not those traits actually apply is a cheap,
underhanded tactic aimed at scoring some quick "discredit points" without
having to lift a finger.
The use of equivocation is nothing new (not saying that Dorris does this, as
she does keep distinctions clear). The term creationist is often used in its
broadest (uncommon) sense - allowing in non-religious views and/or
alien-oriented origins - to get ID under its umbrella, then upon success, the
definition is unscrupulously switched (by others or the original person) to
the narrow Bible-thumping, fact-distorting common definition.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 04 2000 - 14:25:28 EDT