@fmf said
What do you think of the way in which sonship used the issue of gang rape in India in order to retaliate against someone posting some material critical of his religious group?
I thought sonship could have picked a better battle. As stated initially.
@fmf said
And then what do you think of the way in which sonship said nothing about gang rape in India himself and, instead, just disappeared from the thread?
I don't know. Hopefully he is ok.
@fmf said
Do you think, on this thread, sonship has [1] effectively championed the cause of women victims of specific violent crimes in India and [2] pushed back against criticism of his religious group in a principled way?
[1] No, but it seems the primary objective was to elicit a response.
[2] A common way of attempting to refute an argument is to accuse the accuser and try to expose hypocrisy. Principled? I don't know but this is about the last place on Earth I would expect to see principled arguments.
@tom-wolsey saidYou may speak for yourself by all means. As for me, I am a principled contributor. Perhaps if you spent more time here, you might come to realize that.
Principled? I don't know but this is about the last place on Earth I would expect to see principled arguments.
A common way of attempting to refute an argument is to accuse the accuser and try to expose hypocrisy.
Is the hypocrisy you are referring to sonship's? He is the one who brought up the rape of women in India, seemingly only as a rhetorical gimmick, only then to show no interest in it whatsover.
@tom-wolsey saidTom Wolsey [1] No, but it seems the primary objective was to elicit a response.
@fmf said
Do you think, on this thread, sonship has [1] effectively championed the cause of women victims of specific violent crimes in India and [2] pushed back against criticism of his religious group in a principled way?
By starting this thread, sonship was actually running away from a thread where criticisims of his religious group were getting discussed extensively and in depth and he was getting hundreds of responses.
@tom-wolsey saidI didn't say I was "beyond reproach". That is a notion - a straw man - that you have introduced, not me. You should attempt to be more principled about how you conduct yourself.
Apparently, you are above reproach. Nothing wrong with that. Cheers.
@tom-wolsey saidSo, once again, is the hypocrisy you are referring to sonship's? He is the one who brought up the rape of women in India, seemingly only as a rhetorical gimmick, only then to show no interest in it whatsover.
Apparently, you are above reproach. Nothing wrong with that. Cheers.
@tom-wolsey saidYou have capped off this post off by seemingly questioning everybody's integrity and honesty.
I don't know but this is about the last place on Earth I would expect to see principled arguments.
@tom-wolsey saidI'm pretty sure the When in Rome saying is about adaptation and compliance and not about people giving themselves permission to be brazenly hypocritical.
When in Rome and all that.
