From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Russell's Tactics (was: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:34:56 GMT

In article <BvHI83.3ou@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
Russell Tactic 121:  Refer to self by full name to increase self-importance.

>rl> If you're going to argue that hunting is a "definitive" characteristic
>rl> of our species, don't you think you have an obligation to evaluate
>rl> contrary evidence?
>
>In article <1992Oct2.034448.1724@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, Mary Rita Otto writes:
>mo> This post also deals with the Russell vs. Mike "witch" issue.
>mo> Russell tactic 120: Double standard.  (Example: 
>mo> opponents have an obligation to evaluate contrary evidence 
>mo> but Russell can maintain from reading 8 words of the Bible 
>mo> that Christians have an obligation to kill witches.) 
>
>Not at all.  In posing questions about the statement, "Thou shalt 
>not suffer a witch to live", I was hoping that Mike would explain 
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Russell tactic #2:  Lying.  (Russell wasn't "hoping" for Mike to
                    explain anything.  Russell was bashing and baiting
                    Mike over religious beliefs.)
>the apparent lack of harmony between his frequent use of the word 
>"idiot", as a perjorative label for his opponents, and his own 
>mindless acceptance of the King James bible as the literal word 
 ^^^^^^^^
Russell tactic 109:  Falsely generalize opponent's position to the point
                     of absurdity.
Russell tactic 113:  Reduction of religious beliefs to mere information
                     rather than deeply held convictions and philosophies.
>of his "god".  Given his penchant for labeling non-christians as 
        ^^^^^
Russell tactic 125:  Insult and degrade opponents beliefs.  (Was it
                     really necessary to use lower case *and* quotes?)
Russell tactic 124:  Falsely characterize opponent.  (Did anyone see
                     Mike ask people if they were Christians before
                     calling them idiots?)
>"fools", without regard to the reasons for their non-belief, it 
Russell tactic 208:  Argument by assertion.  (thanks, for this one, Rich)
                     (This has not been witnessed on t.p.a, and is either
                     unsubstantiated or irrelevant to t.p.a.)
>seems to me that his definition of the word "idiot" must differ 
>substantially from the normal english connotation of the word, 
Russell tactic 127:  Go to extremes of illogic to avoid agreeing with opponent.
                     (Based on religious belief, Mike is disqualified to use
                      the word "idiot"??????)
>ie., as a stupid individual who can't think clearly.  
>
Russell tactic #1:  Not answering the question asked.  (The paragraph
                    addressed a double standard, not definitions of
                    idiocy.)
Russell tactic #1B:  Answering a different question that suits Russell's
                     purposes better than the one that was asked.  (Addressing
                     the double standard does not afford Russell an
                     opportunity to bash Mike again for his religious beliefs.)

>mo> Challenge for Russell:  Show evidence that a witch is human.
>
>Why don't you post this challenge in alt.pagan?  I don't know 
>whether any of the remains of the witches burned by the "Holy" 
>Inquisition have been discovered and analyzed, but I'm sure the 
>readers of alt.pagan would be happy to share their opinions about 
>the humanity of witches that are alive today.   
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Russell tactic 130:  Changing definitions in mid-argument.  (For the
                     duration of the argument to this point, the
                     Bible has been characterized by Russell as a
                     invalid reference since it is his contention
                     that a supernatural God is not real and that
                     since the Bible talks at length about God it is not
                     based in fact.  Yet, the internal consistency
                     of that document, which states "Do not allow
                     a sorceress to live." (New International
                     Version, translated from Greek and Hebrew source
                     documents) also describes those same sorceresses
                     as having supernatural powers and being in league
                     with the devil and demons.  Yet we are expected
                     to agree with Russell that witches are real.)

Russell tactic 120:  Double standard.  (Russell thinks witches are legit
                     but God is not.)


*****************************************************************************
Okay, this has been fun so far.  I've enjoyed pointing out Russell's
tactics during this thread.  Now, let's see what happens when we apply
Russell's tactics back on Russell.

So, Russell believes that WITCHES are REAL.

Therefore, anything Russell has to say about animal welfare or
animal rights cannot be taken seriously -- afterall, he believes
in witches.

Since Russell believes in witches, he must believe that animals are
merely the magically altered forms of witches -- temporary polymorphs
of humans, or even people under "spells".  Those crazed beliefs must
affect his thinking about how we should treat animals, and why animals
should have rights.

Animals, since they are really humans in animal form due to magical
enchantment, should, in Russell's opinion, be allowed to vote.

Of course, it makes a difference if the person was unwillingly
placed into the animal form or took the form willingly.  Taking
the form of an animal for nefarious purpose might create an
ethical dilemma.  Would a person who was in the form of a dog be held
accountable for biting someone after changing back to human form?

Please explain, Russell, why you think witches are real and God is not.

I don't understand, Russell, why are you such an anti-Christian bigot?


Please explain, Russell, why it bothers you so much that Mike believes
in God.

Please explain, Russell, why it is worth all the thousands of words
you have posted objecting to Mike's religious beliefs.

Was there something like "Deliverance" in your Appalacian ancestry that
has turned you against hunters?  That causes you to spout homophobic
tripe like knocks against Mike's "manliness"?

******************
Not pretty, is it.

The point is, Russell is stopping the debate.  Russell has diverted
the discussion away from issues like "hunting hunters" which could
have been an interesting discussion into religion-bashing and personal
verbal warfare.  Russell posts volumes of prose, but little of it
contributes to an exploration of the issues and instead acts to
obscure them under a torrent of useless semantics and rhetoric devoid
of original content and rife with distortions, diversions, and absurd
demands for answers to questions off the subject.  The case in point,
the discussion of "hunters hunting hunters", illustrates to what lengths
Russell will go, and how little he has to say.

There are so many vital issues which need to be addressed here in t.p.a.
There are concerns on all sides of every issue.  This forum exists for
the discussion of those issues.  Russell hampers that discussion by
burying the debate in his flood of prose.
burying the debate in his flood of prose, acting as a net tyrant and
controlling the discussion by bullying, intimidation, ridicule,
establishing his own arbitrary rules, and "shouting down the opposition".
So, Russell, what's it going to be?  Will this be an open forum, or
will the debate have to travel elsewhere?

And to the other participants in this forum:  Should we continue to
debate with Russell while he employs his unfair tactics?

Mary Otto