Monday, June 11, 2012

In which I insist on avoiding fallacious argumentation

A Facebook thread at Abolish Human Abortion recently spiraled into near-insanity, thanks to a user named Oliver who, as we'll see, stubbornly refused to acknowledge his application of a logical fallacy. He had been blocked from the page two, maybe three, times before for reasons related to his continual use of profanity, his tendency to drive-by-comment, and his frequent forays into really bad argumentation. However, each time he was blocked he would email us privately and ask to be reinstated. Against our better judgment, we agreed each time.
When he asked what he had done, I said, among other things:

Mainly you were banned for being an often-profane, disingenuous waste of everyone's time. Your arguments are generally terrible and you have shown no inclination to learn from prior correction.
Here's a great example:
 i can answer this easily. Gods decision, the women get no say.
That's not even close, and you should know that. This kind of behavior is not acceptable, and when it becomes clear it's not merely an aberration but is rather a pattern, we know everyone on the page is better off if you're not there repeating your lies and bias.
I'm afraid you'll just have to find somewhere else to lie about us.

The most recent time, he appeared to be willing to be much more conciliatory than before, even going so far as to say:
Furthermore, although on a personal level i in no way agree with the abolishon of abortion, i think that the work you guys do with adopted kids is incredible. if you would feel okay with it, i'd like to discuss the matter further on a less confrontational basis?
He also asked by what rules he would have to abide so as not to be blocked again.
I told him:

No insults of any kind.
No profanity of any kind. Nothing borderline. If you wouldn't say it to someone who is more sensitive than your grandmother, don't say it.
No more bringing up like a broken record things that admins have mistakenly said in the past for which they apologised and offered an explanation why it was a mistake.
No more drive-by derogatory comments. You can object to stuff if you want. If you do, ask questions, be reasonable, listen to what others say, and actually interact with what they say.
I can't possibly list out everything by which responsible, rational adults abide, so if you have questions about something, consider any of us admins available for PM to inquire about whether a given proposed comment is allowable.

Later, he posted the status update which precipitated the thread of conversation that follows it, which I have reproduced below the fold.  At first, he did fine as far as following these rules, but as the reader will note, he made a fallacious argument. Not a huge deal, really - people make mistakes. I asked him to withdraw that argument since it was fallacious.
I even emailed him evidence that it was fallacious.
He refused to withdraw the argument or to concede that it was fallacious. Thus, he convinced me that he was not serious about rational argumentation. I decided to block him for many of the reasons I have laid out elsewhere, and promised to host as much as I could of this thread on my blog. So here we are.

For those who may object to his blocking on those grounds, let me say this. The AHA page on Facebook is not for trolling and constant argumentation. It is for rational discussion and debate between rational people who do not show utter obstinacy and complete refusal to abide by even so much as rules of logic. We can't police everyone all the time, of course, but when someone like Oliver becomes so visible and disingenuously misrepresents his intentions to us and demonstrates a continual stubborn refusal to accede to simple logic, blocking him is not only justified, it's probably obligatory on our part.

Unfortunately, Facebook's user interface leaves an awful lot to be desired. For one thing, it automatically renders as spam any blocked user's content and it moves it out of chronological order. From occasional page saves I have attempted to reproduce most of it in mostly the correct chronological order, but I ask for forgiveness from the reader that a few things will be missing.
Also, ignore the timestamps. The order in which the posts appear is approximately correct and was culled together from various page saves over the course of the day.

  • i mean this in the most respectful way possible, i can only assume that this page wants to convince EVERYONE that abortion is wrong, and evil. (which i do not agree with, but that's a different story) by everyone, i would say it's fair to assume this includes atheists, and people of other religions than christianity. But when i see the posts from this page, it appears that pretty much all the admins are christian, most of the arguments are from a christian standpoints, and many of the arguments use God's word as a valid argument... (which it is not, as there isn't evidence to justify it) much of the time against atheists. When this is considered, would it be fair to say that this campaign's aim is flawed from the start as it relies on people of all backgrounds to succumb to your beliefs on abortion because of the word of a god that may or may not exist

  • Abolitionists What do you think about the British Abolitionists? They had the same foundations, the same means, worshipped the same God, and built their movement on the same theologically driven, unashamed, and Christ-centered approach. Did they fail? Was their cause flawed?

    Before responding, please read:

    Yesterday at 10:20am ·  · 

    • Oliver R this argument is flawed from the first paragraph, "These were devout, evangelical Bible-believing Christians who decried slavery as not only a grave offense to the rights of man, but as an abominable sin against God."-pretty much everyone was christian back then, due to the fact that there was no separation between church and state. you were pretty much forced into christianity in those times, the vast majority of plantation owners were christian too. the fact that it was christians who lead the movement against slavery pretty much just means it was white, western people who lead it. The same group of people who created slavery. i'll continue to read the article anyway, but that it is where the flaw entails.

    • Oliver R ‎*where the flaw begins. Sorry, that didn't make sense. :P
      Yesterday at 10:46am · 

      • Ian John Philoponus FALSE Ollie! The Abolitionists were devout sold-out serious bible believing Christians living in a culture made up primarily of non-devout church going bible-owning and christ claiming Churchians. Wilberforce's book is a direct refutation of what you are saying.

        I know that Caitlin here has told you to Preeeaaaaacchhhh, but before you do that you should LEARN and THINK, then discuss, and when you have something to preach, PREACH!

      • Jake F Yeah to be fair to the Ollie, the bible really doesn't condemn slavery, and there is nothing metaphorical about what it is getting at, it just straight away mentions how a loyal slave is a good slave hahaha.
        Yesterday at 12:08pm ·  · 2

      Oliver R ‎@ian, i'm gunna call false on this also. We all know that history is written by the victors, so is it really surprising that the people who came out on top claimed the others weren't christians? :/ after all, in the bible it says that slaves should serve their christian masters, as in doing so they are serving god doesn't it? so being a devout christian doesn't really mean you couldn't own slaves.

    • Oliver R ‎@ ian, i think that that's a fair response is it not?

    • Oliver R the fact that that page has 52 likes, and 52 likes only sort of proves the point that there is not a decent non-religious argument against abortion doesn't it?

    • Oliver R any response? Go on... i dare you. ;)

    • Oliver R that's the debate. it's not a person, it doesn't have a consciousness net, the fact it's an it until a certain point suggests it's not human.

    • Oliver R ‎(well, not a complete human anyway)

    • Oliver R sorry, pardon?

    • Oliver R pahaha, thankyou connor. But AHA, could you explain your last statement a little further, please excuse me. i haven't slept in a while.

  • Katy C This is a stupid idea, so your going to force a 14year old girl to give birth if she accidently gets pregnant? Obviously i see the point it is horrible when you think of it, but it should be a moral choice of that erson, i hate groups like this, let people live there lives how they want. Ps Oliver R makes a fair point..
    44 minutes ago ·  · 3

  • Abolish Human Abortion Yes, that's unsurprising.
    Anyway, concluding from the fact that "Atheists against abortion" has few likes that there are no good arguments against abortion affirms the consequent. You have made a fallacious piece of reasoning. Your tenth of the day on this page alone.

    43 minutes ago · 

  • Abolish Human Abortion Katy C
    We provide answers to the most frequent questions that we receive, and responses to the most frequent arguments that we encounter.
    42 minutes ago ·  · 

  • Connor L I made a mistake commenting on a thread of what is always the most long winded argument ever.
    41 minutes ago ·  · 1

  • Oliver R 
    No no no, you misunderstand me. I was sent that page as a response to me asking why it seemed that only theistic people wanted to ban abortion, the response was intended to show me that there were many atheists who thought abortion should be illegalised also, but the fact is that when i see a group of around 10,000 strong of theists, and a group of 50 atheists who all believe in the same cause, one can only deduce that it is predominantly a theistic standpoint, thus meaning that anti abortionism is really only a thiestic thing

    39 minutes ago · 

  • Abolish Human Abortion Or not, if one wanted to reason non-fallaciously. Not that you've shown a consistent desire for that.
    38 minutes ago · 

  • Oliver R Sorry, what are you talking about?
    37 minutes ago ·  · 1

  • Abolish Human Abortion Oliver R said:
    --"Oliver R the fact that that page has 52 likes, and 52 likes only sort of proves the point that there is not a decent non-religious argument against abortion doesn't it?"--

    This is the comment to which I refer.

    37 minutes ago · 

  • Katy C Shall we say, that this arguement will never be solved, and so therefore no rules should be made againat or for it. It should be available if neccesary, however it should also be made clear, that abortion is actually killing something that has the potential to develop into a great human.
    37 minutes ago ·  · 1

  • Abolish Human Abortion What if people had said that about slavery, Katy C? Would your argument be valid in their mouths?
    36 minutes ago ·  · 1

  • Oliver R what i said was neither deceptive, nor was it based on a false or invalid inference. thus fallacious is the wrong term.
    36 minutes ago · 

  • Abolish Human Abortion You're simply mistaken.
    35 minutes ago · 

  • Oliver R ‎@AHA, well... yeah. it does imply that really doesn't it, otherwise more atheists would be anti abortionist. that's common sense really?
    34 minutes ago · 

  • Abolish Human Abortion Not common sense; fallacious argumentation. You just don't know when to quit. I recommend sleep.
    34 minutes ago · 

  • Oliver R DO YOU KNOW WHAT FALLACIOUS MEANS. it is an apt comparison.
    32 minutes ago · 

  • Katy C 
    Its a completely different matter, someone should have the right to abort a child if it is what neccesary, ofc i agree it is much too common, and perhaps it could be reduced, through better education, and perhaps charging for it (yet that would make it less available to those who may genuinely need it) however overpopulation is not a solution to any of the worlds problems, i am agnostic and i do believe human life even from the beginning embyro is important, but making facebook groups, wont solve it, nor will banning abortion, as i think everyone has a right to decide whether they bring life into the world or not

    31 minutes ago ·  · 1

  • Abolish Human Abortion Listen Oliver R you are either going to show that you are speaking with us in good faith and acknowledge that this comment:

    --"Oliver Ross the fact that that page has 52 likes, and 52 likes only sort of proves the point that there is not a decent non-religious argument against abortion doesn't it?"--

    commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, or you are going to be blocked for the final time because you have proven to be a king troll.

    Your move.
    28 minutes ago · 

  • Abolish Human Abortion IF you don't know what the fallacy is, go read about it before commenting again. The next comment from you that does not acknowledge that fact will be your last on this page.
    28 minutes ago · 

  • Oliver R what about my argument was fallacious? seriously man, it get's tiring to see you avoid decent arguments all of the time, just pinning it down to "ignorance" or "fallacious reasoning" -even when they're not. as in, not even close. Just respond to the question, and if you're going to ignore my points because of their "fallacious reasoning" then explain WHY
    28 minutes ago · 

  • Abolish Human Abortion I did. Your admission must come right now.
    27 minutes ago · 

  • Oliver R could you first explain to me what you mean by "the fallacy of affirming the consequent"
    27 minutes ago · 

  • Katy C There is ofc a non religious arguement againat abortion!!!! "evil" can be anything and god does not need to exist for that to occur, ofc good and evil exist within each other, but if 'god' is so great he will forgive us 'non believers' for out lack of faith, but also consider our opinions, being atheist doesnt mean Oliver R has no opinion, as there are many non christian people who wols ofc agree that abortion is inhumane.
    25 minutes ago · 

  • Oliver R okay, considering that i am being put under the constraints of time, and being told that consequence of me not saying this is censorship, I admit that the statement is fallacious...
    25 minutes ago ·  · 1

  • Katy C 
    Some people are so ignorant to the feelings of the people in that situation od the abortion, they dont think 'hey lets kill a child' they are desperate and need to be helped. Anyway, seen as this seems to be a place for christians then i ought to leave, i will block this page, i expect no kore notifications, i gope you will at least consider some positives of abortion but also understand that many others would happily join your fight if they did not have to christian to do so.

    20 minutes ago ·  · 2

  • Abolish Human Abortion About time.
    18 minutes ago · 

  • Joe A Oh wow. This resembles this thing called Communism. Don't know if you've heard about it.
    18 minutes ago ·  · 2

  • Oliver R um... you sorta forced me into saying that.
    18 minutes ago · 

  • Joe A Surely if you feel strongly about this subject, strongly enough to make a page on it. Then you should really not make threats to censor valid arguments.
    17 minutes ago ·  · 3

  • Katy C Your so rude. Just cause you are christian, your no better than anyone else.
    16 minutes ago ·  · 1

  • Oliver R i must admit i'm pretty dissapointed. Is there another admin that i can place a formal complaint to? if i'm entirely honest, i think that your behavior was ridiculous. i came here to debate a subject which will affect so many peoples lives, and i'm told that unless i say what you tell me to, i'll be blocked. Just what.
    16 minutes ago ·  · 3

  • Joe A Surely being a Christian would mean you'd want at least respect people's opinions. Because the only people doing that here are the atheists/agnostics.
    14 minutes ago ·  · 1

  • Oliver R i kept to both our private agreement, and the agreement of the general rules on the page, and yet still you resort to that.
    14 minutes ago · 

  • Joe A This debate is thinning and becoming a bit tedious.
    12 minutes ago · 

  • Joe A If you can call it a debate anyway, not many debates involve petty threats.
    12 minutes ago · 

  • Abolish Human Abortion Joe A We respect opinions that merit respect.
    We respect all PEOPLE, and that includes the people that are subjected to trolls like Oliver R who can't admit they're wrong. It's the best thing for everyone including him to insist that he eschew fallacious reasoning, even on pain of being blocked.

    11 minutes ago · 

  • Abolish Human Abortion Yea sure Oliver R, appeal to the other admins and make sure to give them the URL of this convo. Let them know that all of these AHA comments were Rhology and lodge your formal complaint. Cheers.
    10 minutes ago · 

  • Joe A Oh my... This is utterly ridiculous.
    10 minutes ago · 

  • Joe A Maybe you can't admit you're wrong. Ever think of that Sir?
    10 minutes ago ·  · 1

  • Oliver R Okay brilliant. who do i have to talk to?
    9 minutes ago · 

  • Katy C Wrath is a sin and this arguement is certainly full of it. Anyway, i am tired of this. Perhaps delete the entire post? Then all is sorted.
    8 minutes ago ·  · 1

  • Joe A Bunch of arrogant know it alls. Really you should be ashamed that you can't even engage in simple conversation with other people.
    8 minutes ago ·  · 1

  • Ellis Johnson 
    Tbh looking at both a political and scientifically aspect of this debate, abortions are not done upon humans but done upon the classifications of foetus'. Therefore it is not technically and scientifically killing a human being as it hasn't developed into a human, therefore arguments trying to counter act this means that killing sperm is the same as it has not fertilised efficiently to be at the stage of human status. Secondly Religion shouldn't play a part in abortions it shouldn't force people to have an abortion or not too have one . As that is putting pressure and is presumptioning forms of forceful leadership inside certain religions. Now this is not to say that everyone has this way of thinking with in religion. But surely naming a group under a religious group is both Stereotyping Christians which may give yourself a bad name and secondly also will reject your efforts in achieving your goals by not allowing other religions or atheists to join the group. It seems to be self centered more on religion than the goal itself

    7 minutes ago ·  · 4

  • Oliver R ‎@katy, no, i need this status for evidence. :)
    6 minutes ago ·  · 1

  • Abolish Human Abortion Joe A where have I been wrong?
    4 minutes ago · 

  • Michael SC 
    this is ridiculous. I think it is shocking, Abolish Human Abortion, that you are making Oliver admit that his argument is fallacious JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK SO? Else you will block him? Come on, this is childish, reason and discuss and if you come to an impass, move on. If people run discussions by saying "you're argument is fallacious", i.e. "it's illogical", and refusing to continue without any agreement, you're not going to get anywhere so just move on. (It is particularly sad when the accusee's statement is not erroneous at all).

    2 minutes ago · 

  • Katy C Your too arragont to even try to see, maybe god doesnt exist, maybe he isnt so flipping wonderful, maybe actually the rule not to kill doesnt come from him, but from actually being a nice person?
    2 minutes ago · 

  • Joe A You want to censor people who question something you feel strongly about. If you don't want to project your views and make them heard to people, what's the point of starting the page in the first place?

  • Abolish Human Abortion Oh, and Oliver R you were given no time limit. Merely a posting limit.
    Too bad you were too obsessed with posting here that you didn't feel like doing any basic reading. That's a lot of your problem right there.

Oliver R aah fair enough.
  • Michael SC I, too, have lost respect for the admin on this post.
    about an hour ago ·  · 3

  • Michael SC for clarification, you have lost my respect due to your ignorance and childish manner of forcing someone to agree with you. ridiculous. i could call the 'fallacious' argument on the majority of your religious arguments. Hey look: "God exists" "Fallacious".
    about an hour ago ·  · 1

  • Oliver R Actually rhology, you said "Abolish Human Abortion I did. Your admission must come right now.
    35 minutes ago · Like"

  • Oliver R ‎^time limit, just a very short one. I'd imagine you did it to apply pressure, and to force me into doing something you knew i wasn't comfortable with saying.

  • Rhology ‎\\Actually rhology, you said "Abolish Human Abortion I did. Your admission must come right now.\\

    Yes, which refers to THE NEXT COMMENT, as I'd made clear in the previous comment.

    58 minutes ago · 

  • Rhology ‎\\force me into doing something you knew i wasn't comfortable with saying.\\

    Yes, how dare I pressure you into arguing logically?

    58 minutes ago · 

  • James P I think this sums it up brilliantly.
    Imgur is used to share photos with social networks and online communities, and has the funniest pictures from all over the Internet.
    56 minutes ago ·  · 3 · 

  • Oliver R ‎@rhology, then forgive my confusion, as the term "now" implies present tense, which implies time, the term "must" stresses a sense of urgency. that seems like a time constraint.
    55 minutes ago · 

  • Rhology James P that's old and we've already seen and dispensed with it around here.
    55 minutes ago · 

  • Oliver R it is illogical to assert what you perceive as logic in a debate by force.
    54 minutes ago ·  · 1

  • James P I'd like to know how you dispensed of it - and if you did.
    53 minutes ago · 

  • Rhology ‎"Force" - so melodramatic.
    53 minutes ago · 

  • Sam Lee ‎@rhology - isn't that fallacious?
    53 minutes ago · 

  • Rhology James P It's there.
    We provide answers to the most frequent questions that we receive, and responses to the most frequent arguments that we encounter.
    52 minutes ago ·  · 

  • James P ‎"Rhology "Force" - so melodramatic."

    That's a nice lack of argument you have there.

    52 minutes ago ·  · 3

  • Rhology No argument was required.
    51 minutes ago · 

  • Michael SC You did force him by threatening to block him from the page unless he said what you wanted to hear.
    50 minutes ago ·  · 2

  • Rhology sigh
    49 minutes ago ·  · 1

  • Oliver R well... you did.
    47 minutes ago · 

  • Rhology ‎"Force" - so melodramatic.
    46 minutes ago · 

  • James P Also, in that FAQ, i saw that you likened your crusade to abolish abortion to abolishing human slavery, so I stopped reading. One is abolishing a moral injustice, and another is forcing a moral injustice by applying old and dated doctrines - a flawed argument if I have ever seen one so blatant.
    45 minutes ago · 

  • Oliver R hey kids, ya know what they say... if you don't have a good argument the first time... Just repeat what you said, exactly the same. then it'll be sure to make an impact. :D
    44 minutes ago · 

  • Rhology Sorry to hear your bias is so strong, James P.
    43 minutes ago · 

  • James P ‎"A crusade to abolish abortion based on dated doctrines that ignore advances in medical technology, just to please an ancient wizard in the sky" - so melodramatic.
    43 minutes ago · 

  • Robert W Christianity is stupid (Y) It bullys into following a faith that cannot be proven, nor justified. Basing any arguement on any religion doesn't carry any moral value to the majority of the modern, atheist society. Religion has lost its touch, not because we have fallen out of reach of religion, but religion itself has pushed people away. A perfect example of this being the childish way in which this has been handled.
    41 minutes ago via mobile ·  · 2

  • Oliver R ‎^ironically, the vast majority of slave owners for about 500 years were christian... and pretty much all the slave owners at the time the christians abolished slavery were christians too.
    41 minutes ago ·  · 2

  • James P Rhology, my "bias" is strong due to the fact that I have heard solid arguments towards one side of this argument as opposed to the other. I will naturally side with Oliver here because he has provided an argument, not because it sides with my opinions - but because it holds the most logical truth.
    38 minutes ago · 

  • James P Are we going to get a response anytime soon?
    32 minutes ago · 

  • Oliver R he's responding to me privately, where i can actually voice an uncensored honest opinion :)
    30 minutes ago · 

  • Rhology To what, may I ask?
    30 minutes ago · 

  • James P Just your feedback on what has been voiced in this thread by myself.
    29 minutes ago ·  · 1

  • Rhology I'm tired and you haven't rebutted any of the arguments at the FAQ. Make an argument and maybe I'll respond if it's not too inane.
    28 minutes ago · 

  • Sam J I hate it when Christians just get the wrong end of the stick and do stuff like this. As a Christian, Id like to apologise for the other Christians who put organised religion above following Jesus, which is what the word Christian means, Christ follower. Christians today get way too caught up in things that they do not need too, therefore sending the wrong message...
    28 minutes ago via mobile ·  · 3

  • James P I think you are avoiding the arguments that I have already created because you do not have a response to them, by calling them "inane". You're just dodging the bullet.
    25 minutes ago · 

  • James P This is now twice you have refused to make an argument against the points that have been raised. Once because they did not refer to the "FAQ" and another because, apparently "No argument was needed". Stop bullet dodging and assemble an argument - if you can.
    23 minutes ago · 

  • Oliver R ‎@rhology, i've rebutted all of those arguments multiple times.
    23 minutes ago · 

  • Rhology All of them? Multiple times? There might be hundreds there. Where have you done this?
    20 minutes ago · 

  • Annalise why do you have such an obsession with this page Oliver R? :')
    19 minutes ago · 

  • Oliver R all the ones that you sent me earlier? there were 6 or7 if i remember correctly? you sent them to me to slow me down, and keep me quiet.
    17 minutes ago · 

  • Oliver R ‎@annalise, because in america pro lifers out number pro choicers. This alarms me.
    17 minutes ago · 

  • Rhology sigh
    17 minutes ago · 

  • James P Please, Rhology, stop sighing, and provide valid responses.
    16 minutes ago ·  · 1

  • Oliver R PAHAHAHAHAHAHA! i got reported to facebook, despite strictly obeying both facebooks code of conduct, this pages code of conduct, and a personal code of conduct made SPECIFICALLY for me. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?!
    11 minutes ago · 

  • Rhology To what, may I ask? What arguments have you made>
    11 minutes ago · 

  • Robert W 
    Da rules: 1) Do not use profanity or lewd language. 2) Do not threaten or promote violence toward another person on the page or their family. 3) Do not promote violence toward anyone on either side of the abortion debate. This includes abortionists, clinic workers or women seeking abortion. 4) Do not engage in persistent personal verbal attacks (e.g., false accusations, attacking family/children, making fun of or otherwise attacking anyone with a disability, etc). 5) Do not consistently post content that is either offensive or is not germane to content of the page (e.g., pornographic images or violent scenes that have no bearing on the actual discussion at hand). We have all abided by these rules but, surprise surprise, the admin slander any person willing to exercise their right to free speech by calling their arguements 'inane', threatening to ban people from commenting when they have a fair point that, time after time, is left unanswered by up-tight christians that continue to fail to see that in their haste to change the subject to avoid further questioning, they cause yet further questions and a bad feeling towards them. Religions are beginning to lose followers, its fair to say that one reason could be that anyone that asks a question is asked a question back. There are no answers, only more questions. Maybe if people stopped burrying their head in the sand then they may have less questions to answer to?

    8 minutes ago via mobile ·  · 1

  • Rhology stop whining, Oliver R. I didn't report you but we've been reported for much less. You have a very well-developed persecution complex, I'll grant you that.
    7 minutes ago · 

  • Rhology Robert W, fallacious reasoning is a 'fair point'? What are you talking about?
    6 minutes ago · 

  • Robert W Hey look! Another question! Goodie goodie!

    You proved my point.

    5 minutes ago via mobile ·  · 2

  • Oliver R i see... well all i'll say is before you wrote "stop whining" and then you changed it to that. if you didn't, then fair enough. it wasn't fallacious reasoning. it just wasn't. it was evidence and explanation.
    5 minutes ago ·  · 1

  • Robert W I'm not going to get another reply, they liked my last comment, always a sign that there is no response coming.
    2 minutes ago via mobile · 

  • Rhology ‎\well all i'll say is before you wrote "stop whining" and then you changed it to that.\\

    Actually it was 'stop whining oliver' but the automated name-linker didn't pop in and I'd already hit Enter.

    about a minute ago · 

  • Rhology Tell you what, Oliver. For your own good, I'm going to block you now.
    The entirety of this interaction will be posted at my blog in the next couple of days.
    Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoeve...See More
    a few seconds ago ·  · 

  • Robert W ‎^ no evidence of that possible, you are only going on unproven points. Logic = Fail
    23 minutes ago via mobile · 

  • Robert W Correction, you're blocking him for you're own good. You've failed to answer one question put forward by anyone. You have no answer. But oh wow, this is going on a blog?! Imma say hi for the internetz
    20 minutes ago via mobile · 

  • Sam J 
    This may not be my place to say but I dont care. Firstly just letting you know I am a Christian. Right Rhology, mate, you are seriously getting the wrong end of the stick. Fighting with people and using aggressive and provacative language will a. Not spread the word of God you so desperately want to spread and b. Help you in your cause. Chill the hell out, be understanding of other people and their opinions and try and make people see what you see and if they cant, leave it. Lastly to the other dissing the Christians, the way you phrase your arguments, and the ones you use make you sound just as bias as you say the Christians. You ask questions that you dont want answers for and in doing force people to trip up or get angry. If you genuinely want to know the answer, ask the right question and dont go attacking people. Love God, Love People.

    15 minutes ago via mobile ·  · 5

  • James P Sam, I agree wholeheartedly with you, and your message of Love God, Love People is amazing. I wish more people thought this way, as opposed to screaming "Dirty unclean unbeliever" etcetera.

    I also apologise if my language of debate is sounding harsh or aggressive in anyway, it is not meant to, I am just trying to get my point across.

    12 minutes ago ·  · 1

  • Rhology Too many confuse passion for the truth with "attacking". THanks for your input, Sam.
    12 minutes ago · 

  • Sam J Its cool guys, just way to many debates these days just fire as much ammo at each other without really thinking and trying to understand whats going on, its particularly hard on facebook so how we interact is vital. Passion is great, in the Bible there were men of great passion, but they new when it was time to flame off.
    8 minutes ago via mobile · 

  • James P Also, can I have some feedback from what I said now? I just want to learn what everyones take on it is.
    8 minutes ago · 

  • Sam J I should say men and women, apologies haha :L
    7 minutes ago via mobile · 

  • Rhology ‎\\screaming "Dirty unclean unbeliever"\\

    For my part, I totally agree this is no good. Fortunately I haven't seen anyone here do so.

    7 minutes ago · 

  • James P I have seen many imply, not from here, but similar Christian fundamentalists do the same thing. Also, can we address my argument starting "Okay, since you are refusing to acknowledge my previous arguments, I will create a new one based on some of the pure bigotry I have found in the FAQ."?
    2 minutes ago · 

  • Rhology yes if it's not inane, but not now. I'll try to do so on my blog later.


Anonymous said...

what has been ignored here is the egotism of men on both the part of Oliver and rhology in singling out eachother on their respective personal sites, making your 'plights' to enlighten people less sincere. As a woman, i don't believe that anyone enjoys or relishes the decision of an abortion but i am aware that this planet is not designed (whether it be by a god or not) to sustain the large population of people that is growing on it. If you don't believe that financial difficulties merit abortion, the future of the planet should be taken into account. For the future children that can be accounted for there should be a future for them to live in.

Rhology said...

Well, certainly.
May I ask if you're trying to say that there are too many children, or that without abortion there would be too many?

Josh :D said...

I like trains

Anonymous said...

I see you have written about my friend Ollie and i think that you have blocked him because deep down you know he has a point and you are scared that his argument overpowers yours so it's luck for you that you can block people otherwise he would continue proving you wrong and when i see him tomorrow i will tell him what you have been writing about him.

Rhology said...

Sure, tell him. I already emailed him the URL of this post.

So, do you think that he didn't commit the logical fallacy I identified? If not, why not?

Anonymous said...

hey there rhology, Ollie here. ;) firstly, even if what i said was a logical fallacy (which, upon consultation with several university friends studying English language they said was not) that is preettty much irrellevant, as it was not in anyway the backbone of my argument, just an observation i made-the observation being that as far as facebook is concerned, it appears that there is more christian pro-lifers than there are atheist. The atheist pro-life page was sent to me by one of your followers as evidence that there were many pro-life atheists, as much as there were christian. I deduced that her evidence was invalid, as the group she sent me had 52 likes, rather than the near 10,000 that yours had. that's not a fallacy, that's logical reasoning. i'm sorry you interpreted it wrong.

Rhology said...

What was the argument you made to which I objected, Ollie?

Anonymous said...

the argument that there were more pro-life christians than athiests.

Rhology said...


Anonymous said...

then enlighten me.

Rhology said...

Anyway, concluding from the fact that "Atheists against abortion" has few likes that there are no good arguments against abortion affirms the consequent. You have made a fallacious piece of reasoning.

--"Oliver R the fact that that page has 52 likes, and 52 likes only sort of proves the point that there is not a decent non-religious argument against abortion doesn't it?"--

This is the comment to which I refer.

Of course, I don't know why I'm even bothering with this. It's not as if you haven't had abundant chances to read the thread. You either don't care enough or you lack sufficient reading comprehension skill.

Anonymous said...

yeah, but i rephrased that later in the conversation. Okay, so its not proof. but it's evident which would support that thesis. Essentially you blocked me because of the misuse of the word "proof." which is very ironic considering the fact that when people ask for "proof" of christianity, and that there is a god you send them the same link of rusty arguments every time.

Rhology said...

I have explained numerous times why I blocked you. There is no good reason for you to continue to lie about it.

Anonymous said...

and each time i've refuted it. No reason to lie about that.

Anonymous said...

You are an utter fool Rhology. and a disgrace to your religion.

Anonymous said...

At the risk of sounding cliche, what would Jesus do? need I quote Matthew 18:22? unblock the guy. give him yet another chance.. if not for him, then for a fellow Christian. :)

Rhology said...

Well, Jesus also told us to avoid casting our pearls before swine. The interlocutor proved himself a swine a long time ago.

Anonymous said...

Can I just point out that Ollie has basically shown that Christian anti-abortionists outnumber atheist ones by a ratio of 200:1 (10,000:50) and that he does actually therefore have some evidence to back up his point. It may not be solid 'proof' because other factors may partially account for it, but that doesn't mean that it can just be dismissed.
It is not a logical fallacy to be slightly hyperbolic when talking about the significance of evidence. It is still evidence.