JDHillFan Posted September 26 Posted September 26 27 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: “What makes you think” was a question to “doc” but thanks for reminding me where I proved his fraud. He thought I was a neurologist. I’m not. But I have seen demented patients 100s of times your stalking is slightly unsettling. After criticizing the topic, you post in it insufferably You aren’t the only one that finds something about this thread to be insufferable. You proved your own fraud. It’s right there in your words. You are a clown from the word go. 2 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted September 26 Posted September 26 The very topic of "what is truth" is funny coming from the side that argued men can be women, 2020 was a peaceful summer, and Biden is competent. I am a believer that 75% of life is fact and 25% is arguable/sliding scale. 1 1
Neo Posted September 26 Posted September 26 (edited) 8 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: They are banned in schools. Not enough for you? Too delicious … the “book banning” accusation in a thread addressing truth, reasoning and logic. Ethos (Credibility) Labeling conservatives “book banners” equates ordinary parents and school boards with regimes that outlaw entire ideas. In reality, these citizens are participating in the long-standing democratic practice of selecting age-appropriate material for publicly funded schools. This is stewardship, not censorship. Pathos (Emotion) The phrase “book banning” summons images of locked libraries and government purges. That framing is emotionally powerful but misleading. The books in question remain available in public libraries, online, and in stores. Conservatives appeal to a different emotion—protectiveness—arguing for developmental suitability, not for erasing ideas from society. Logos (Reasoning and False Equivalency) Removing a book from a school library is not banning a book. A ban prohibits all access under penalty of law; a removal is a curation decision about one venue. Public schools must choose what they stock, and communities have a right to set standards for minors. Equating selection with censorship is a classic false equivalency—it mistakes a limited, age-based decision for universal suppression. Conclusion (Avoiding Sophistry) Using “book banning” as a blanket label substitutes rhetorical force for accurate reasoning—what Aristotle (and Plato before him) would call sophistry. It obscures the genuine question of how schools choose materials suited to children. By separating emotion from logic, we see the accusation collapses under scrutiny. The real debate should focus on age-appropriate education, not caricatures of censorship. Edited September 26 by Neo 1 1 4 1
JDHillFan Posted September 26 Posted September 26 1 hour ago, Neo said: Too delicious … the “book banning” accusation in a thread addressing truth, reasoning and logic. Ethos (Credibility) Labeling conservatives “book banners” equates ordinary parents and school boards with regimes that outlaw entire ideas. In reality, these citizens are participating in the long-standing democratic practice of selecting age-appropriate material for publicly funded schools. This is stewardship, not censorship. Pathos (Emotion) The phrase “book banning” summons images of locked libraries and government purges. That framing is emotionally powerful but misleading. The books in question remain available in public libraries, online, and in stores. Conservatives appeal to a different emotion—protectiveness—arguing for developmental suitability, not for erasing ideas from society. Logos (Reasoning and False Equivalency) Removing a book from a school library is not banning a book. A ban prohibits all access under penalty of law; a removal is a curation decision about one venue. Public schools must choose what they stock, and communities have a right to set standards for minors. Equating selection with censorship is a classic false equivalency—it mistakes a limited, age-based decision for universal suppression. Conclusion (Avoiding Sophistry) Using “book banning” as a blanket label substitutes rhetorical force for accurate reasoning—what Aristotle (and Plato before him) would call sophistry. It obscures the genuine question of how schools choose materials suited to children. By separating emotion from logic, we see the accusation collapses under scrutiny. The real debate should focus on age-appropriate education, not caricatures of censorship. Best post in ages. Thank you. 2 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 26 Author Posted September 26 (edited) 8 hours ago, Neo said: Too delicious … the “book banning” accusation in a thread addressing truth, reasoning and logic. Ethos (Credibility) Labeling conservatives “book banners” equates ordinary parents and school boards with regimes that outlaw entire ideas. In reality, these citizens are participating in the long-standing democratic practice of selecting age-appropriate material for publicly funded schools. This is stewardship, not censorship. Pathos (Emotion) The phrase “book banning” summons images of locked libraries and government purges. That framing is emotionally powerful but misleading. The books in question remain available in public libraries, online, and in stores. Conservatives appeal to a different emotion—protectiveness—arguing for developmental suitability, not for erasing ideas from society. Logos (Reasoning and False Equivalency) Removing a book from a school library is not banning a book. A ban prohibits all access under penalty of law; a removal is a curation decision about one venue. Public schools must choose what they stock, and communities have a right to set standards for minors. Equating selection with censorship is a classic false equivalency—it mistakes a limited, age-based decision for universal suppression. Conclusion (Avoiding Sophistry) Using “book banning” as a blanket label substitutes rhetorical force for accurate reasoning—what Aristotle (and Plato before him) would call sophistry. It obscures the genuine question of how schools choose materials suited to children. By separating emotion from logic, we see the accusation collapses under scrutiny. The real debate should focus on age-appropriate education, not caricatures of censorship. A word can evoke different meanings to different people. That's up to the interpreter in much the same way as a piece of art or music can. However, in this case we have a well accepted definition (from Websters): ban 1 of 3 verb ˈban banned; banning; bans Synonyms of ban transitive verb 1 : to prohibit especially by legal means ban discrimination Is smoking banned in all public buildings? also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of ban a book ban a pesticide The fact hat Websters chose to include an example about all public buildings illustrates that a ban is possible only in some. Schools are public buildings. Therefore there can be bans in some schools. additionally, some schools prohibit certain books by legal means. Therefore they ban them. The only pertinent premise that you present towards your conclusion is the logos part. and it is invalid. The rest are semantic red herrings. It's a much more simple argument than you present. Perhaps you can diagram it for us. Edited September 26 by Joe Ferguson forever
B-Man Posted September 26 Posted September 26 17 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: I’m not the one trying to redefine “banned”. So apparently (with some) Truth does not exist. . 1
Neo Posted September 26 Posted September 26 1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: A word can evoke different meanings to different people. That's up to the interpreter in much the same way as a piece of art or music can. However, in this case we have a well accepted definition (from Websters): ban 1 of 3 verb ˈban banned; banning; bans Synonyms of ban transitive verb 1 : to prohibit especially by legal means ban discrimination Is smoking banned in all public buildings? also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of ban a book ban a pesticide The fact hat Websters chose to include an example about all public buildings illustrates that a ban is possible only in some. Schools are public buildings. Therefore there can be bans in some schools. additionally, some schools prohibit certain books by legal means. Therefore they ban them. The only pertinent premise that you present towards your conclusion is the logos part. and it is invalid. The rest are semantic red herrings. It's a much more simple argument than you present. Perhaps you can diagram it for us. It is clear to me, as you say, that words can evoke [sic] different meanings to different people. Best of luck to you … 1 1 1
B-Man Posted September 26 Posted September 26 5 minutes ago, Neo said: It is clear to me, as you say, that words can evoke [sic] different meanings to different people. Best of luck to you … True. But when I can legally obtain something, the use of the word banned is questionable. . 1
Neo Posted September 26 Posted September 26 18 minutes ago, B-Man said: True. But when I can legally obtain something, the use of the word banned is questionable. . It’s not merely questionable, it’s deliberately absurd. 1 1 2
Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 26 Author Posted September 26 29 minutes ago, Neo said: It is clear to me, as you say, that words can evoke [sic] different meanings to different people. Best of luck to you … so the rest was all distraction... and explain the (sic): evoke /ĭ-vōk′/ transitive verb To give rise to; draw forth; produce. "words that evoked a smile; actions that evoked mistrust." To call to mind, as by suggestion, association, or reference. "songs that evoke old memories; a speech that evoked the words of Jefferson." To create anew, especially by means of the imagination. "a novel that accurately evokes the Depression." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik 23 minutes ago, B-Man said: True. But when I can legally obtain something, the use of the word banned is questionable. . It's not questionable. It, by definition, is true. Perhaps I should also post the definition of "definition" and then you can keep going round in circles. But thank for proving, that a least for some magas here, truth is not important. 7 minutes ago, Neo said: It’s not merely questionable, it’s deliberately absurd. all hat, no cattle
Wolfgang Posted September 26 Posted September 26 16 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: so the rest was all distraction... and explain the (sic): evoke /ĭ-vōk′/ transitive verb To give rise to; draw forth; produce. "words that evoked a smile; actions that evoked mistrust." To call to mind, as by suggestion, association, or reference. "songs that evoke old memories; a speech that evoked the words of Jefferson." To create anew, especially by means of the imagination. "a novel that accurately evokes the Depression." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik It's not questionable. It, by definition, is true. Perhaps I should also post the definition of "definition" and then you can keep going round in circles. But thank for proving, that a least for some magas here, truth is not important. all hat, no cattle
Orlando Buffalo Posted September 26 Posted September 26 (edited) 19 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: They are banned in schools. Not enough for you? why are you so adamant that 7th grader learns what an open marriage is? This is something I had to deal with for my 7th grade daughter, not a hypothetical. Edited September 26 by Orlando Buffalo The actual word was blocked out for being inappropriate
T master Posted September 26 Posted September 26 On 9/24/2025 at 11:00 AM, Joe Ferguson forever said: This is not about one particular issue. It's about absolutes. Are there any? Does logic exist? Does truth exist? Is it important? We all use logical fallacies in our arguments, some more than others. But would it be preferable to avoid them or not purposefully use them at all? I think there are absolutes and that logic exists and is vital towards the search for truth which we all should want. https://academicinfluence.com/inflection/study-guides/logical-fallacies#tu-quoque A common fallacy deployed here lately has been "everyone does it so it's ok for he/me to do it". I think this is a variation on #7 in the above link. Ad hominems, appeals to authority, straw men and non sequiturs are in abundance here as well, from both sides.. Would it make for better debate if we tried to avoid these? Or is that unrealistic or simply wrong? I believe it does but you have to find it through research & then you can't be positive with out practical application or from some one that has a personal experience to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is truth ! You sure as hell can't believe a Career politician because usually if their lips are moving they are lying !! But if it's on the internet or Face book it has to be true !
Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 26 Author Posted September 26 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: why are you so adamant that 7th grader learns what an open marriage is? This is something I had to deal with for my 7th grade daughter, not a hypothetical. Strawman. I’ve never mentioned books on open marriage. There are plenty of banned books that have nothing to do with sex. The sexes.however are a concern of mine. Why do you think a book about subjugation of women like “The Handmaids Tale” should be banned? Plenty of other examples of banned books that are benign and harmless other than to present varied ideas on non sexual subjects. 21 minutes ago, JFKjr said: Probably the weakest argument is to claim “.victory “ when none has been achieved. Edited September 26 by Joe Ferguson forever
Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 26 Author Posted September 26 (edited) 22 minutes ago, JFKjr said: More “truth” from maga. Were we expected to believe trump posted it?, Donaldo ? He didn’t https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/storm-is-upon-us-tweet-attributed-to-trump-and-shared-online-is-fabricated-idUSL1N353243/ so you’re q, huh? I thought y’all dissolved after your spectacular failures. Edited September 26 by Joe Ferguson forever
Wolfgang Posted September 26 Posted September 26 47 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: I thought y’all dissolved after your spectacular failures.
Tenhigh Posted September 26 Posted September 26 1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Strawman. I’ve never mentioned books on open marriage. There are plenty of banned books that have nothing to do with sex. The sexes.however are a concern of mine. Why do you think a book about subjugation of women like “The Handmaids Tale” should be banned? Plenty of other examples of banned books that are benign and harmless other than to present varied ideas on non sexual subjects. Probably the weakest argument is to claim “.victory “ when none has been achieved. I think this thread would have gone a lot better for you if you first apologized for historically acting like an asshat and THEN went on to suggest we all argued in better faith and fashion. But to follow it up with the "banned book" argument about porn in middle school in the same thread was just 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 26 Author Posted September 26 6 minutes ago, Tenhigh said: I think this thread would have gone a lot better for you if you first apologized for historically acting like an asshat and THEN went on to suggest we all argued in better faith and fashion. But to follow it up with the "banned book" argument about porn in middle school in the same thread was just nah, that comes in the evening. been out chipping, putting and hitting bunker shots....all I can do til they fix my back. Cannabis is legal in Va. Just harvested my 4 permitted plants. They did very well. I didn't initiate the banned book discussion but I won it!
Orlando Buffalo Posted September 26 Posted September 26 2 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Strawman. I’ve never mentioned books on open marriage. There are plenty of banned books that have nothing to do with sex. The sexes.however are a concern of mine. Why do you think a book about subjugation of women like “The Handmaids Tale” should be banned? Plenty of other examples of banned books that are benign and harmless other than to present varied ideas on non sexual subject. Since I want through it it is the opposite of a straw man you illiterate moron. Saying strawman when I went through it is the most disingenuous response possible. I have not read the handmaids tales but it has a very sexual nature with sexual scenes. I ask again why do you want to discuss sex with a middle schooler so much? You keep acting like no one wants to discuss sex with an 11 year old but you get upset when we make it illegal.
Recommended Posts