|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Do you agree with the new logical fallacy? I've seen it very active on HP. Have you?
An Appeal to Righteous Indignation similarly attempts to place an idea beyond the reach of critique, but it employs a different mechanism. Rather than suggesting that the idea itself is privileged and thus must be immune from criticism, an Appeal to Righteous Indignation implies that a critique of an idea is equivalent to an attack on a person. Intrinsic to an Appeal to Righteous Indignation is the notion that attacks on an idea are morally equivalent to verbal or physical attacks on people, that an attack on an idea justifies a response at least proportionate to an attack on a person.
There are some people who are overly sensitive about their political and religious stances. Oftentimes they have a difficult time staying focused on their ideas without personally attacking someone with a difference of opinion. In other instances they use extreme analogies to back up claims. We believe or not believe!
In the end no one walks away with their mind changed! Therefore it's an exercise of futility to become "emotionally invested" in most debates here. It's a release for them to argue and blow off steam.
At the end of the day some people simply enjoy "stirring the pot". It's up to you to resist taking the bait.
What I've seen most often is a result of a long time coming. Some people are overly sensitive and some are overly critical, and this is anything but unique to the pro-religion side (although there are certainly plenty of people on the pro-religion side who are.) Some people get so hammered by the other side (including personal attacks) that they lose the focus on who is merely asking a question and who is actually making a slur. And many people, under the guise of 'just asking' are in fact making character-assassinating accusations. You're not one of them, but people who have spent time exposed in great depth to certain ones who I will not name here may have stopped distinguishing. And honestly, many are conditioned to see a question of their beliefs as an attack. And again, this is hardly unique to the pro-religion side. To the extent that I've stepped back and tried to think out what is being asked and how to respond, that is an act of will on my part and there's many times I felt attacked when maybe I wasn't. And there were many times when I was attacked, but the other person tried to hide behind, "Just asking!"
So what I'm saying is: Although it would be nice if it were a straight question of logic, what you're more than likely dealing with most of the time is history and emotion. On both sides.
Obviously, everyone should disagree with this new logical fallacy.
If I look at it from my viewpoint, I'm not going to get offended when someone talks about something negative with a view I have, but I'm going to defend it.
I'm not going to think if someone said "I hate atheism" or "I hate lifting" or " I have PE" that it is a personally attack on me, but rather those ideas or things.
I don't really get why those people choose to get offended in a personally manner about the criticism of their idea. Maybe they don't want to have their views questioned.
If one is properly able to defend their viewpoint on things, whether it be religion, politics, or purple flying unicorns, I can't imagine any reason for them to get upset when questioned why they think the way they do.
If one automatically assumes that a simple questioning of their beliefs is somehow akin to abusive interrogation, I can't help but wonder that they know on some level that whatever their beliefs/claims are, its a load of horse manure.
When I first read this, I thought that your were speaking of the current White House. To criticize this Administration means that one is a racist. Is this what you had in mind?
Another example would be that to disrespect someone or something is now evidence of intolerance. So, if one shuns an idea it is a sign of intolerance, which is also bigotry, prejudice and does not play well with others.
I did some research the other day on the concept of Newspeak contained in Orwell's novel, 1984 and I believe your question can best be answered with an understanding of how and why Newspeak changes everything.
In terms of Hub Pages or any where else; when people begin to lose an argument they resort to personal attacks, monosyllabic words or just babble.
I've seen it very actively on HP. Do I agree with it as a way to deal with things? No.
Simply, I find it annoying, and more than slightly hypocritical. It seems as though those who employ this method are quite happy to say what they feel about a topic, but the moment that someone questions said topic, or the person's stance on it - particularly if they differ in opinion - it is seen as a personal attack. However, they will deny that the same could be said about their initial response to the topic. Usually this happens when they are stuck in a place where they can't disprove the comments made disagreeing with their stance. To me it merely shows me they haven't actually thought about it - that they have been told what to think...and take that as what they should think without questioning it....which is sad.
Will my annoyance change anything? Doubt it. But, your bringing it to my attention will change the way I look at it when it happens...mayhaps I'll just walk away now, instead
by sibtain bukhari4 years ago
Every system of laws requires intelligence. Universe is system of laws. therefore universe requires intelligence.
by Billie Kelpin2 years ago
What does "righteous indignation" mean in your life and/or politics?My neighbor and I got into a casual discussion in which I mentioned the word "angry about it". She felt that anger does no...
by SaiKit7 years ago
A lot of skeptics made the following logical fallacy:Skeptics: Can you prove that God exists? if not, then you are illogical if you believe in a God that you can't prove to be existing! This is the fallacy of...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter4 years ago
Why can't people on Hubpages disagree without attacking others?Opposing positions can lead to a better understanding. Personal attacks say a lot about the commenters' inability to discuss a matter intelligently.
by And Drewson7 years ago
I've seen both spellings, but which is correct, accoustic or acoustic?
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
Why do some people insist on making attacks, even personally attacking others for postingposting questions &/or answers because such questions &/or answers are different from, even opposite to...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.