Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Mike, Why do you keep making these kinds of points? I think everyone understands that you have to back up cult claims with examples. And the Lord knows everyone has provided plenty of examples. Have you seen anyone here lately calling the LRC a cult without giving reasons for doing so? If not, why do you keep making this point?
And this kind of statement:
'Even there, "Cult" does not define the problem. It just labels it as bad.'
is fallacious. All words are labels for things. All statements are labels for thoughts. Words convey meanings. "Cult" means something more than just "bad." You know that. Try to understand what people mean, and not dismiss them because you didn't like the way they said it.
I think everyone would appreciate it if you ease up on the micro-analysis a bit. Thanks.
|
All labels are not the same. Don't give me that malarkey.
Shall we start just going along with making comparisons to Hitler? I'm sure some can be found. And if they are there, then they are legitimate and applicable.
But the prudent arguer will avoid those kinds of comparisons like the plague because the result of putting the name into the discussion essentially dismisses the discussion.
No. "Cult" is not as extreme as using a Hitler comparison. But it often has the same kind of effect. We have been over that before.
It is not that we don't have full discussions. We do. It is not that the word cannot legitimately apply. It can.
It is that you are dealing with people who have been indoctrinated by a group that has managed to successfully sue, or scare-off, everyone who uses the word on them. And they are prone to ignore anything that explains why it applies.
I'm not trying to get the word banned. I'm trying to make a case for restraint in its use. And as long as it is being discussed, I will discuss. If you don't like the discussion, don't discuss it.
Labeling the discussion as "micro-analysis" does not make it invalid. You don't want to think about what I an saying, then fine.
And as far as the discussion goes, it has been going on. If no one else responds back to try to persuade on the opposite, it is over.
In the mean time, I am providing reasons as to why I believe that the word should be used less, if at all, in response to some who have a different perspective. I don't think poorly of them for their position. I am just providing a perspective that might change their mind as to the fruitfulness of using the word.
On the other hand,
you are not engaged in the discussion, but labeling it. And in a way that may affect how others view the discussion without actually adding anything to it. Sort of like saying "cult."
Get the point?
And with that, you see one of the reasons that I would not be a moderator, or make a good one.