When diversion is the purpose.

[marylandblue]

Some people like to divert attention. It really doesn't matter why or how. It only matters that they do it. They do it so much they become diversionary experts.

There are a lot of ways to divert attention. Some are fallacies. Some are not. Some diversionary tactics have a name. Some don't.

At any one time, there is one topic. It's simple. But diversion is complicated. There are infinite number of methods and an infinite number of other topics to choose from. So it's hard to pin down exactly what kind of diversion it is. There is no point to pinning it down anyway, because the point of the diversion is to avoid the real topic. For the diverter, talking about the type of diversion works just as well as any diversion. Anything so long as the real topic is avoided. Even arguing about what the real topic actually is can be a diversion.

If the diverter senses the diversion is not working, he doesn't return to the topic. He simply abandons the whole line of thought and goes somewhere else.

It helps if the diverter is shameless. Then there is no limit to what he can say. The bounds of normal human conversation are no constraint. He can create ever more distracting diversions if he needs to.

So next time you see a diverter diverting, just don't go there. It's not a fallacy, it's not a lie, it doesn't matter what was said before. It's just a diversion. Don't let yourself be diverted. Stay on topic.

I'm speaking of Trump, of course. But he isn't the only one.

[NeoGreen]

1. Are you trying to change our forum's favorite topic of discussion?..

...what about our whataboutism problem?!


Oh and, I think I need to add... - OFF


In all seriousness, thanks for the post.

Spot on.

[edhopper]

2. I thought our favorite topic

was Chinese atheists?

[NeoGreen]

3. I will concede that point (nt)

[Major Nikon]

4. Won't someone please think of the Trump supporters?

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. Atheists in Boston were mean to a Trump supporter.

So intolerance, or something.

[trotsky]

6. It just "proves" that intolerance is simply a human characteristic...

and that religion is NEVER responsible for ANY intolerance ANYWHERE so you need to stop talking about it!

[Major Nikon]

7. Leviticus, schmeticus

Metaphorical Jesus sez it's all good.

[guillaumeb]

8. It is good that straw exists in such abundance.

And can so easily be used to construct opponents.

[trotsky]

9. Straw, eh?

Give me ONE example where you think a religious belief is responsible for intolerance.

[guillaumeb]

10. You built the argument.

You made the assertions.

Understood?

[trotsky]

11. As I figured, you proved my point.

You clearly do not think religious belief can ever be responsible for intolerance, or else you would have been able to give me just one example.

You've humiliated yourself yet again - you must love this more than I do, which I didn't think was possible.

[guillaumeb]

12. Your style of "debate" is interesting.

But from my experience, your grade in a debate class would not be high.

[trotsky]

13. Yes you have made it clear many times you think I am stupid.

Your personal attacks have never deterred me.

Resolved: You believe religious beliefs can never be responsible for intolerance.

[guillaumeb]

14. Not stupid.

Driven by an agenda? Perhaps.

But you made the original assertion. Do not lose sight of that fact as you construct a variation of your unsubstantiated assertion.

[trotsky]

15. Your insults will never deter me.

And my assertion, if that's what you need to call it so you think you can try and wriggle away, still stands.

All you need to do to disprove my assertion is give ONE example of intolerance supported by a religious belief. If you think that's possible, you should have at least one example, shouldn't you?

Or maybe you could just answer a fucking question for once. Do you feel religious belief can be responsible for intolerance? EVER?

Ha, silly me, you will never answer that. You'll just go back to screaming that I made an "assertion" and will refuse to dialog because you know very well what your answer is, and you're too ashamed to admit it publicly.

[guillaumeb]

16. Yes, your unsubstantiated assertion stands

as evidence that you cannot substantiate your assertion.

As to your second question, which is in direct contradiction to your assertion, it has been answered numerous times.

[trotsky]

17. Substantiated with every post you've ever made.

You have NEVER allowed an example of intolerance to be linked to religion. NEVER.

You lose again, g. Everyone sees your bias.

[guillaumeb]

18. Perhaps you should research the word unsubstantiated.

And your new assertion builds on your previous assertion.

A skyscraper of straw.

[trotsky]

19. Nope. Proven and documented.

Of course you COULD just provide that one example of you admitting a religious belief is responsible for intolerance.

Just one.

That one little example could easily knock down my alleged "skyscraper of straw."

But you can't even provide one example.

This is your game, g. I'm done playing it. I've made my case more than enough on a simple discussion board. Your bias and agenda are completely clear for all to see.

Feel free to throw another "straw" accusation at me. Insult me again if you really need to. Have your precious last word.

[guillaumeb]

20. You made an assertion that you apparently cannot prove.

And now, you are trying to divert and insist that I must disprove what you cannot prove.

Next time, do your research first.