Flames' Pride Night slotted for March 28 vs. LA

[Yamer]

The Venn Diagram of the people routinely running to the defence of bigots/morons, are bigots/morons, and misuse rhetorical fallacies is a perfect circle.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

What action has Reimer taken?

If he truly believed in inclusion, he would have wore the jersey.

His "concisely worded statement" rings hollow...

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

There has to be a law or word for people using laws like Godwin’s Law wrong, no? Not just acting in a bad faith argument but like being completely wrong about it also like Cannon7 was.

In what way am I misusing it? Genuinely curious.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Oh and then he screws up ad hominem too lol.

So claiming I'm downplaying LGBT struggles because of a personal bias is not an ad hominem?

Let's see...

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

There I go again, reading dictionaries.

Seems like an ad hominem to me. Instead of attacking my position, they instead are attacking me for some perceived personal bias.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

If he truly believed in inclusion, he would have wore the jersey.

His "concisely worded statement" rings hollow...

Thought experiment for you.

Let's say you ran a deli. In your deli you carry a number of sausage varieties from different producers. One day a customer comes in to your deli and asks you to recommend them a sausage. You like all the sausages you carry, but you also have some preferences. You suggest sausage X, as it is your personal favorite. The customer asks about sausage Y. You don't recommend sausage Y over sausage X, but you'll sell it to them anyway. In other words, while you carry and sell sausage Y, as some customers seem to like it, you don't necessarily endorse it as your personal preference. Is that still being inclusive of sausage Y? Or should you have to personally endorse every sausage you carry in order to be inclusive?

Coincidentally I am eating some primo summer sausage as I write this.

[KelVarnsen]

Oy

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Thought experiment for you.

Let's say you ran a deli. In your deli you carry a number of sausage varieties from different producers. One day a customer comes in to your deli and asks you to recommend them a sausage. You like all the sausages you carry, but you also have some preferences. You suggest sausage X, as it is your personal favorite. The customer asks about sausage Y. You don't recommend sausage Y over sausage X, but you'll sell it to them anyway. In other words, while you carry and sell sausage Y, as some customers seem to like it, you don't necessarily endorse it as your personal preference. Is that still being inclusive of sausage Y? Or should you have to personally endorse every sausage you carry in order to be inclusive?

Coincidentally I am eating some primo summer sausage as I write this.

Super bad analogy. The jersey didn't mean Reimer was endorsing a personal preference. It was endorsing inclusion.

[Reggie Dunlop]

[KelVarnsen]

Getting compared to a sausage is not something I expected from today.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Thought experiment for you.

Let's say you ran a deli. In your deli you carry a number of sausage varieties from different producers. One day a customer comes in to your deli and asks you to recommend them a sausage. You like all the sausages you carry, but you also have some preferences. You suggest sausage X, as it is your personal favorite. The customer asks about sausage Y. You don't recommend sausage Y over sausage X, but you'll sell it to them anyway. In other words, while you carry and sell sausage Y, as some customers seem to like it, you don't necessarily endorse it as your personal preference. Is that still being inclusive of sausage Y? Or should you have to personally endorse every sausage you carry in order to be inclusive?

Coincidentally I am eating some primo summer sausage as I write this.

Interesting analogy as 2 sausages is exactly what Reimer, the Staals, Provorov and others are standing against including.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by cannon7

So claiming I'm downplaying LGBT struggles because of a personal bias is not an ad hominem?

Let's see...



There I go again, reading dictionaries.

Seems like an ad hominem to me. Instead of attacking my position, they instead are attacking me for some perceived personal bias.

He is attacking your position of downplaying the LGBT struggles, not the person. Me saying you apparently don't understand ad hominem is not an attack on you, it is refuting your use of the term.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Super bad analogy. The jersey didn't mean Reimer was endorsing a personal preference. It was endorsing inclusion.

I guess what the analogy is getting at is: can you be inclusive without personally endorsing something? Or must you endorse something to be inclusive?

Saying it is endorsing inclusivity is like saying someone doesn't love liking something enough.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

He is attacking your position of downplaying the LGBT struggles, not the person. Me saying you apparently don't understand ad hominem is not an attack on you, it is refuting your use of the term.

You left out the personal bias part. They didn't even elaborate on how I was downplaying such a thing, it was entirely framed around some perceived personal bias.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

Getting compared to a sausage is not something I expected from today.

Expect the unexpected from this thread. It never fails to deliver.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by cannon7

I guess what the analogy is getting at is: can you be inclusive without personally endorsing something? Or must you endorse something to be inclusive?

Saying it is endorsing inclusivity is like saying someone doesn't love liking something enough.

Yes, you can be inclusive without endorsing something. You can wear a jersey which is aimed at inclusiveness. That's all. Reimer is full of it. "I am not against gay people, I just won't wear a shirt that says I'm not against gay people".

Your second sentence is pure gibberish.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yes, you can be inclusive without endorsing something. You can wear a jersey which is aimed at inclusiveness. That's all. Reimer is full of it. "I am not against gay people, I just won't wear a shirt that says I'm not against gay people".

Your second sentence is pure gibberish.

So let's unpack this. According to you, the jersey is endorsing inclusivity. But according to you someone can be inclusive without endorsing something. So how does one go about doing that if the thing being endorsed is inclusivity itself?

[KelVarnsen]

[PepsiFree]

What’s the end goal for people defending Reimer, still, in a thread that wasn’t meant to be about Reimer? What is the main issue you’re actually arguing against and what change would you like to see?

Because, at the end of the day, Reimer got some mild criticism from people who disagreed with his choice and everything then continued as normal with most people moving on. So if one of the 2-3 people obsessing about this would like to clearly and succinctly explain their issue with that then maybe everyone else can provide you with some closure.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What’s the end goal for people defending Reimer, still, in a thread that wasn’t meant to be about Reimer?

To highlight their bigotness

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

To highlight their bigotness

OMG, an ad hominem, I'm offended now! Your argument is now invalid (like the gays). /s.