Oh, and for those of you who don't know, I have met the person who is the subject of today's wank.

Oh my. That's quite a convoluted soap opera going on.

Oh my. That's quite a convoluted soap opera going on.

Why can't I figure out where fandom_wank is??? Am bored (and a bit dull-witted evidently because I know I once knew where it is) and want to read about other people's drama.

Kids are napping and I'm scarfing a frozen burrito for lunch. I'm rushing to rubberneck the wank right now!

lisah: [link]

I don't understand your logical standpoint, Nutty. He's not calling those things bad.

Anti-Christ isn't bad? He is sorting the entire universe into two suitcases. This cardinal is narrowing the field of discussion, by eliminating the possiblity of gray area or overlap: things are Christ, or Anti-Christ, and there is no thing that cannot be categorized as one or the other (and never both at once). The telltale of the false dichotomy is that of the two possible answers, one of them is The Wrong Answer, causing everybody to want to avoid it (whether the Right Answer is actually true or not).

A dichotomy is a useful cognitive tool; we use it all the time. (Buffista/not-Buffista, knows-the-secret/doesn't, is-allowed-in-my-bed/isn't, e.g.) Reducing all the possibilities of the world to two choices can help us make decisions. But it doesn't stand up to the rigors of logic (with a few possible exceptions), because all the possibilities of the world are -- more than two. And even if all the possibilities of the world were two, by creating only two buckets and labelling one of them as The Wrong Answer, you are essentially creating only one bucket to choose. It is a way of framing a debate such that any opposing view cannot win if they accept your terms, and thus it is not actually part of a debate at all.

Saying "ours is the one true way" within a religion is fine and no less that I would expect. That's part of what a doctrine is for. But I don't think it stands up to logic outside of that given religion, i.e. in the context of no one religion having sole ownership of the soapbox. This is what I am saying when I say that our friend Biffi is saying something perfectly allowable in doctrine, that is a fallacy in logic terms.

In sum: Biffi biffi biffi biffi biffi. Buffy?

Seriously, this is going to bug me. How did anyone find the LJ in the first place?

Cindy, some LJ's are searchable by Google, et cetera. If you were doing some sort of keyword search, you might be able to find a bunch of stuff you didn't know was out there.

Anti-Christ isn't bad? He is sorting the entire universe into two suitcases. This cardinal is narrowing the field of discussion, by eliminating the possiblity of gray area or overlap: things are Christ, or Anti-Christ, and there is no thing that cannot be categorized as one or the other (and never both at once). The telltale of the false dichotomy is that of the two possible answers, one of them is The Wrong Answer, causing everybody to want to avoid it (whether the Right Answer is actually true or not).

Did you read either of the articles, or just the commentary, here? Putting anything over/in place of Christ is, in Christian theology, anti-Christ. So a Christian caring for the environment or being an ecologist? Not bad. A Christian (this is for Christians) abandoning the less-the-more-fantastica-and-less-than-palatable centrality and primacy of Christ to the faith, and waving something else in its place is the bad.

Thanks, shrift!

That's quite a convoluted soap opera going on.

At least I didn't make out with her. Him. Her. Ze reminds me of a guy I knew in high school who suffered from actual delusions of grandeur.