Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

[Spun off the main thread]

I find these 'guilt by association' arguments very weak. It's about as strong as arguing that Hitler was democratically elected, therefore anyone who believes in democracy condones Nazism (i.e. ridiculously silly).

I personally would be embarrassed to use this as an argument when the other side in the debate are choosing to express their opinions and present the evidence for these.

But then again, if this is the best argument one can muster, then this is the best argument.

Cheers,
Shafique

^^^LOL, Irony!

Shaf, you were using associating people to loon website and labels like that, numerous times as arguments.

And now that s very weak argument?

Yes, if I use / used guilt by association arguments it would be as weak and silly as the ones used in this thread.

I believe your argument is what we call a 'Whataboutery' argument.
dubai-politics-talk/what-about-ery-t42765.html



Cheers,
Shafique

^^^LOL, Irony!

Do pls summarize infact better still do it as long as you want (in your words) what you understood from shafique's message...

Yes, if I use / used guilt by association arguments it would be as weak and silly as the ones used in this thread.

I believe you use/ used guilt by association arguments.
As if anyone criticise you/ you religion, they would be loons and you would/will relate them to your loonwatch.com website.

Do you think guilt by association is therefore a valid form of argument, or just the only one you have right now?

I think it is silly - and I would be embarrassed to read examples of me using this tactic.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Do you think guilt by association is therefore a valid form of argument, or just the only one you have right now?

I think it is silly - and I would be embarrassed to read examples of me using this tactic.

Cheers,
Shafique

So if you think it is silly, please do practice what you preach.

Are you denying that in lots of the threads, you address members as loons? or relate them to loonwatch directly or indirectly?

Mel - with respect, I asked whether you thought that a guilt by association argument was valid.

Let me specify - Saying that Ahmadinejad also doubts the veracity of the official 9/11 explanation means that those here who doubt the 9/11 official line are anti-semitic, is what I'm calling a guilt by association. Others have hinted and overtly called people anti-semites.

I'm flattered that you're implying that your belief that I use this tactic means you are justified in using this silly tactic. And to answer your question, no I don't recall using guilt by association arguments in relation to people who hold loon (i.e. Islamophobic) opinions - there is no need for that, their own words are sufficient.
philosophy-dubai/loonwatch-t42306.html

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Mel - with respect, I asked whether you thought that a guilt by association argument was valid.

no it is not.
In this thread, nobody used it as argument. It was a guess! (this is the third time I m repeating it)

shafique wrote:Let me specify - Saying that Ahmadinejad also doubts the veracity of the official 9/11 explanation means that those here who doubt the 9/11 official line are anti-semitic, is what I'm calling a guilt by association. Others have hinted and overtly called people anti-semites.

Nopes. ahmadinejad is not anti semite. He is not a jew hater, as he announced his enemy is Israel government, not Jews themselves!
So calling someone in line with ahmadinejad doesnt mean calling them anti semites.

shafique wrote:
I'm flattered that you're implying that your belief that I use this tactic means you are justified in using this silly tactic. And to answer your question, no I don't recall using guilt by association arguments in relation to people who hold loon (i.e. Islamophobic) opinions - there is no need for that, their own words are sufficient.
philosophy-dubai/loonwatch-t42306.html

Cheers,
Shafique

I didnt say that because u use this tactic, it is justified!
I asked you to stick to what you preaching. if not, that is hypocricy.
and I clearly remember many threads you calling members loons, I think mostly Event horizon and FD.

I clearly remember many threads you calling members loons, I think mostly Event horizon and FD.

In a series of discussions or debate do you know what loon holds as a meaning?

Calling someone who expresses Islamophobic beliefs an Islamophobe is not a guilt by association argument. See the link I gave in the post above - it states what 'loon' means in the context that I used it.

Linking someone who doesn't believe the 9/11 official story with Ahmadinejad and holocaust denial is.

I'm glad that you have clarified that :1. you don't believe 'guilt by association arguments' are valid (we agree)
and
2. you don't believe Ahmadinejad is anti-semitic

So, now we've clarified your stance on this issue - we can both watch out for 'guilt by association' arguments and point out to those using them that this is silly. I'm sure you will enjoy telling me off if I should use one in future.

Ok folks - let's get back to the evidence for 9/11...

Cheers,
Shafique

Berrin, I understand that you are trying to insult me, but you have to understand I 'm ignoring you.

-- Wed Dec 15, 2010 2:55 pm --

shafique wrote:Calling someone who expresses Islamophobic beliefs an Islamophobe is not a guilt by association argument. See the link I gave in the post above - it states what 'loon' means in the context that I used it.

Linking someone who doesn't believe the 9/11 official story with Ahmadinejad and holocaust denial is.

I'm glad that you have clarified that :1. you don't believe 'guilt by association arguments' are valid (we agree)
and
2. you don't believe Ahmadinejad is anti-semitic

So, now we've clarified your stance on this issue - we can both watch out for 'guilt by association' arguments and point out to those using them that this is silly. I'm sure you will enjoy telling me off if I should use one in future.

Ok folks - let's get back to the evidence for 9/11...

Cheers,
Shafique

I don't agree with your Ahmadinejad and loon argument. If someone criticizes laws in Islam, this doesnt make them Islamophobe, loon etc etc.

I think folks would get back to 9/11 topic, even if you didnt tell them to.

Berrin, I understand that you are trying to insult me, but you have to understand I 'm ignoring you.

I take it as a complete failure of yours...Is it diffucult to give a simple answer rather than start an insult of your own (out of nothing)?

^I agree with Mel - not everyone who criticises Islam is a loon - that is why I linked to the thread specifying this fact.


So - let's get back to 9/11 - hopefully with fewer/none 'guilt by association' arguments.

Cheers,
Shafique

^I agree with Mel - not everyone who criticises Islam is a loon

Sure, she now knows what it means.....

shafique wrote:^I agree with Mel - not everyone who criticises Islam is a loon - that is why I linked to the thread specifying this fact.

I dont see such specification in that thread. There is some specifications of loons and they are some posts about how you relate them to members. there is nothing about criticism in that thread.

^Strange that, in a post mentioning yourself I made that point explicitly. Did you not read it?

shafique wrote:Mel reminded me today that 'loons' feature prominently in recent posts. So here's a reminder of what the term signifies - i.e. that it is a convenient shortcut for irrational Islamophobes who aren't interested in the truth - not to be confused with those wishing to validly question religion in general or Islam in particular.

Edit - indeed the last message in that thread was addressed to you and made it even more crystal clear:

Thanks for your advice Mel, I'll take it under advisement.

We can agree to disagree over what Islam teaches and I'll always welcome debate.

But there's a clear difference between loons and those wishing to discuss religion.

philosophy-dubai/loonwatch-t42306.html

Perhaps now it is highlighted, your confusion will also disappear.

Cheers,
Shafique

So we can conclude,

there was nothing about criticism in the opening posts. you were refering to your last posts, which was actually the answer to my inquiries. The whole aim of the opening thread was name calling and labeling.

The whole purpose of that thread was to clarify what a loon was and wasn't. I clarified my stance with you in the posts in August - so I'm not sure why your confusion over the OP from June is relevant in this thread.

But anyway, I'm glad that you are more enlightened now and can identify loons when you come across them.

The good thing is that we share a common view in relation to 'guilt by association' arguments. They aren't valid.

Cheers,
Shafique

LOL. there is nothing about enlightening here, when you don't like comments towards the religion you will label them as loons.

and then they will be accused for the same guilt as loons.

If you say so Mel.

So, back to 'guilt by association' - not something we think is a valid argument. Agreed?

Cheers,
Shafique

My point is that it is equally foolish to believe 9/11 conspiracy theories as it is to believe the no holocaust theories in light of the credible evidence present for the events. Am I off the hook?

kanelli wrote:My point is that it is equally foolish to believe 9/11 conspiracy theories as it is to believe the no holocaust theories in light of the credible evidence present for the events. Am I off the hook?

I for one have been dying to see the credible physical eveidence and any credible investigation and its results.

Maybe I have been ignorant or just didn't come across this "credible evidence". Could you be so kind as to present me this ?

( ignore the first moments of rethoric in this video )


I posted this video again, The first responding fire fighters who lost their friends and comrades that day. Maybe they have also been ignorant ?

melika969 wrote: when you don't like comments towards the religion you will label them as loons.

You still haven't given your description of a loon.

There are various ways in which a discussion or no discussion takes place. I’ll limit them to three for simplicity..
1- A discussion happens between two individuals where both are sincere(ikhlas) and means to ask/reply questions in order to share knowledge either to clarify what they know or understood is correct/false or simply share more for awareness.. In this case both individual has wisdom (aql) to reason (hikmat) and soon they are expected to settle either way it goes,without leaving gaps for ifs and buts..A pleasant, constructive, enlightening discussion, no place for ego run...

2-A)happens between two individuals where both sides are still sincere but one of them lacks the ability(aql) to reason no matter how hard one describes ...Confused and incapable of serious tought..still no place for ego run but very difficult to converse with..Immature individuals or someone with psychiatric problems or mentally handicapped..
B) One of them pretends to be sincere, has both the ability and access to proper knowledge to reason but somehow will not let the discussion to settle in style which will often end up destructive or just will not let any thought/evidence contrary to his/her opinion to be a conclusive one ..The person is often bias,self-ego obsessed, shows signs of prejudice, subconscious is filled with stereotypes.

3-There is no debate, one is employed to possess certain ideology/fear or argument for malicious attacks to demonize, smear, slander the subject spoken ...The person is misfit for a discussion as it will continue in line of propaganda... people looking for a quick fame or ready to be used as cashcow (on payroll)will be in this category..

shafique wrote:If you say so Mel.

So, back to 'guilt by association' - not something we think is a valid argument. Agreed?

Cheers,
Shafique

aha, so?