* To aggressively attack anyone with whom I disagree
* To call people demeaning names of derision
* To overstate my ministry and importance
* To question the salvation of believers
* To pepper my writings with mean and insensitive vitriol
* To present everyone with whom I disagree as a willful apostate
* To suggest that God was on my side
* To get enjoyment from revealing the misfortunes of others
* To ride the blog waves as the truth sheriff
* To so misrepresent the grace and mercy of the Lord Jesus that even the world cannot but be aghast at the unloving destruction from within the one institution they assumed would always err on the side of grace.
If these were my only options…but I thank the love and grace of my Lord Jesus that not only are these not my only options, they are not options at all. That is if I desire to reflect Christ within His body and to the world at large.
Let us crucify ourselves and resurrect HIM alone in our lives
31 Comments(+Add)
Nicely done Rick.
Amen!
Indeed Jimmy. One fine bunch of strawmen.
Ken,
All those things can be found in abundance on both your websites.
Gee Ken, I never mentioned any names. I would find it difficult for anyone to disagree unless they subliminally owned them by finding fault.
“Indeed Jimmy. One fine bunch of strawmen. ” ~ Sayeth the Ken
The King of Strawmen speaketh!
LOL!
Blessings,
iggy
Iggy good use of the King James version in your response.
Rick,
thanks for the list.
“I never mentioned any names. I would find it difficult for anyone to disagree unless they subliminally owned them by finding fault.”
Rick, tell me your critical thinking skills aren’t really this low. Word to the wise: Give up the mindreading, you stink at it.
I find the labyrinth effective in my mindreading ministry. Seriously, Ken, after reading your testimony and finding out you are a musician and you like Keith Green I am more convinced than ever you sometimes know some of the things that are pointed out are accurate.
Being a somewhat right brainer myself I know you feel emotion, which is why you feel so strongly about God’s Word. That I ackowledge but I refuse to accept that you are completely unaware of the fleshiness of some of your wording, even when your premise has validity.
But you never responded to my invitation to come to Florida and play worship music with Chris L., Chris P., me and whoever else wants to come. It won’t be an intervention (LOL) but just a fellowship for believers. Don’t worry, no smoking or drinking allowed and in my pool men at one end women at the other (LOL). You and I could have a great time if you are not afraid (a challenge meant to invoke a yes).
Tell me, is there any circumstance under which you would fellowship with someone like me?
I believe Ken was not only a musician but used to do stand up comedy as well. I think he posted that somewhere in a thread.
Joe – He’s afraid he would like me and after he left Florida he would ask me to be his worship leader!
Rick,
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see Ken’s name in your post anywhere, yet he seemed to recognize himself in the writing. That would definitely not be a strawman…
You guyz really are something. Where did I say anything at all concerning this post here being about me personally. O that’s right, nowhere.
The whole premise is another one of CRN.(Mis)Info?’s lame and tedious attacks on perceived “watchdoggies” and all I said from that perspective is the post is filled with straw men.
It’s your own obsession with attacking me, and others like me that blinds you. Have at it, but you shouldn’t put words in my mouth.
*psst* Why that would have you acting just like you always say I do. Naughty, naughty gents.
Ken, you observed that the things I listed were “straw men” which of couse is a demeaning comment about them. Can we assume you do not agree with behaving like they describe, or by your straw men comment do we deduce you are defending them.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. And I’ll crawl into the sandbox with you and say, “You’ve been outed”. Don’t take it personally, I was referring in general to a growing harvest of blogs that behave in those ways.
FYI – I have yet to link to anything from CRN or SOL although I have copied some things. I cannot put words in your mouth, there’s no more room.
Rick,
“Don’t take it personally, I was referring in general to a growing harvest of blogs that behave in those ways.” Yikes man, for the third time, I do not – nor did I – take the post personally.
But what part of this don’t you understand: The whole premise is another one of CRN.(Mis)Info?’s lame and tedious attacks on perceived “watchdoggies†and all I said from that perspective is the post is filled with straw men.
You remind me of Tom Higgins saying to Sonny Coreleone, “This is business its not personal”. Hey, if you don’t take it personally then it shouldn’t bother you if we think you do. Unless you are taking it personally that we think you take it personally.
Kind of a verbal labyrinth, wouldn’t you think?
The post has no strawmen whatsoever. All the points I made are rampant in the blog nation and, as Tim observed, in abundance on your sites. Now you may quibble with the descriptions and the support for such behavior (you know, scourging of the temple and all that), but I do not understand your straw men label.
Rick,
You wrote:
That would be because Ken still apparently does not understand what a ’straw man’ argument is…
The straw man analogy would be if I had proved that some blogs call people hyperbolic names, and after citing some examples, I concluded that all their doctrinal perspectives were invalid. I made no ascertions at all, my post only said that these behavioral aspects of some posts did not reflect the Lord Jesus.
So instead of calling them straw men, Ken should have said either they were false observations or that they were Biblical methods of confronting evil.
So Ken was claiming it was a strawmen against blogs other than his own. WHich would seem to indicate that Ken agrees this post applies to his blogs, just not other blogs.
It all started out so well…
Ken is really getting to be pretty funny.
Julie you were always funny. BTW I think you should give Ken the Ol’ stink eye.
(I’m ignoring Ken so I can’t “see” him to do it. It’s for blood pressure purposes.)
I’ve said before that I was done with this stuff… but one last comment.
Ken, do you know what strawman means? The post is just a series of observations about poor ways to argue. By definition, that’s not a strawman because it doesn’t ascribe those ways of arguing to any particular individual. Furthermore, it doesn’t misrepresent an argument, so as to then explode it, it merely describes particular ways of arguing. So you *may* argue that it’s inaccurate or unfair, but you can’t say it’s a strawman.
That just doesn’t make any sense.
By accusing them of engaging in strawman tactics, though, you implicitly recognized that those ways of arguing were all about you and your ministry. In essence, you distorted the post so as to make it about you, but then, ironically, accuse everyone here of poor reasoning when they own up to the fact that, yes, Ken, your are really do engage in these types of behaviors.
This is the essence of your difficulties, Ken. You don’t know how to argue.
FYI –
I said earlier: “The whole premise is another one of CRN.(Mis)Info?’s lame and tedious attacks on perceived “watchdoggies†and all I said from that perspective is the post is filled with straw men.” As the subject of this attack we would define our position, not you. You are welcome to criticize our position but you cannot tell us our “only options.”
No one denied that this post was about what you here at CRN.(Mis)Info? consider Online Discernment Ministries aka watchdoggies. Here’s Rick: “…if I had proved that some blogs [i.e. "watchdoggies"] call people hyperbolic names, and after citing some examples, I concluded that all their doctrinal perspectives were invalid. I made no ascertions at all, my post only said that these behavioral aspects of some posts [of said watchdoggies] did not reflect the Lord Jesus.”
Since I personally speak with the majority of those supposed watchdoggies I can tell you that in our view the above speculations in this pedantic post are ideas we “wouldn’t endorse” and therefore you have not “undermined the opponent’s [i.e. we you criticize] actual position[s].”
My use straw man stands.
“Since I personally speak with the majority of those supposed watchdoggies I can tell you that in our view the above speculations in this pedantic post are ideas we “wouldn’t endorse†and therefore you have not “undermined the opponent’s [i.e. we you criticize] actual position[s].â€
OK, that is not a strawman, that is blind denial.
And of course my post was in the context of my personal options.
I reject them.
You reject them.
One of the above statements is not true.
Ken,
Thanks for responding. I appreciate it.
The post is not filled with “positions.” They are descriptions of ways of not to argue. Everyone ought to agree with the basic content of the post. The post, in that sense, is not terribly informative. It’s actually kind of cliched.
When someone commits a strawman fallacy by attributing a position to an individual who does not actually hold it, they explode the argument supporting the misrepresented position with the hopes that people don’t realize that the opponent does not endorse the position. In that sense, the post *may* have been a strawman if it argued that ODMs advocate such terrible reasoning. But no one actually thinks that. The argument is that you, Ken, unwittingly engage in such faulty argumentation.
For example, I would commit the strawman fallacy if I argued that we shouldn’t support Obama’s plan for universal healthcare because of the disaster of Soviet Russia. In such an instance, I would ascribe a particular position, communism, to Obama, when he, in fact, he does not endorse such a position.
Ken, by your definition of strawman, however, any time someone says something about me that I don’t agree with, that would be a strawman. For example, what if someone said, “M.G., you are not very nice.” I certainly do not endorse the position, “M.G. is not a nice man.” Since I fail to endorse the position, “M.G. is not very nice” the strawman fallacy has been committed because it fails to undermine the position that I do in fact hold, namely, that “M.G. is a nice man.” (Ken, the technical problem is that you are confused about endorsing. Endorsing, when used in strawman arguments, refers to *arguments* not *descriptions* There is no argument in the post, since it’s pretty uncontroversial. But you say that you don’t endorse the descriptions. That’s not the case. You merely *disagree* that those descriptions form an accurate portrayal of your ministry. There is no *misrepresentation* of positions you hold, just a disagreement of whether you engage in these types of behaviors.)
Please, Ken, admit that you are wrong. A fundamental difficulty with ODMs is that I have yet to see them admit they are sometimes mistaken. It’s okay to be mistaken. It happens to the best of us. The post *may* be inaccurate. But it is not a strawman.
Ken,
One last note. You call the post “pedantic.” Pedantic refers to language that is ostentatious in its learning or needlessly technical. Nothing in the post is pedantic. The vocabulary is basic, the point is straightforward, and the logic is simple.
From your perspective, a better choice of words may have included “inaccurate” or perhaps “mean-spirited.”
Words mean precise things, Ken. I find that you toss them around frequently without care or concern as to whether you are being accurate or fair to your opponents.
This is dangerous and working on this could make your ministry so much better.
Re: words mean precise things…
M.G.,
Phew! talk about slogging through it…
but I think that’s what it takes to make any of these discussions fruitful–clearly defining terms
but it is ironic…that “meanings” seem to be whatever people want it to be when it serves their purposes…
the perceived excesses/problems of postmodern relativism must really be as pervasive as some think.
OR
it’s a brilliant tactic to be guilty of certain methods, etc. and then deflect by accusing your opponent of those very things.
interesting…
Funny to me is that as we “emergents” engage and deconstruct then reconstruct with “labels” that better fit in their definitions… we are accused of relativism….
Yet,
Those accusers toss words out and regardless to their accuracy, use them relative to whatever situation they see fit… not caring if context, definition, or truth is accurate or at times even close…
Which seems a lot like relativism to me!
But, then is they are, that explains soooo much! LOL!
Be Blessed,
iggy
Ken,
Your silence is deafening! Just kidding. Seriously, though, I would love a response. Do you think I am correct? If you don’t, where is the flaw in my reasoning? I would be interested in some feedback and learning how my reasoning could be improved. Thanks!
Ken,
I’d still love to hear some feedback from you. Do you think I am incorrect? If so, why? What happened to the conversation? I was enjoying it .
Ken,
I see that you’ve commented elsewhere. I’ll “bump” this post a bit by commenting and seeing if you have a response to my comment. I’m still curious as to what you think. Thanks!