Apologist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2013, 11:32 PM
RE: Apologist
(06-02-2013 11:17 PM)Ghost Wrote:  So during slavery, would the abolitionist be the apologist?
Yeah...they were Apologists - but they were some good guys nevertheless.

I figure we all agree. I hope we all agree.

Thanks.

Julius
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 12:09 AM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2013 12:14 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Apologist
(06-02-2013 11:17 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Tokutter.

Don't mistake me. I'm just curious about how you view the term. It was just looking for clarification. Thank you for clarifying things.

Hey, Kim.

Interesting.

I've always viewed a devils advocate as a different thing, but I think I see where you're coming from.

I agree. I think controversy is temporally contextual.

So during slavery, would the abolitionist be the apologist?

Hey, fst.

What this thread has demonstrated quite handily is that people don't operate within rigid definitions. So to be angry at people for operating outside of the lines is silly. To post a wikilink or a dictionary definition and assume that everyone will just drop what they're doing and adopt those definitions because they "should" is a little on the delusional side. Definitions help, they don't rule us.

And I don't hate definitions. You've invented that. I just don't allow myself to be ruled by them and I understand that life occurs outside of them.

Quote:We often think of definition as a cornerstone of reason – as our
protection against superstition, prejudice and ignorance. A definition is
therefore intended to clarify things, to free us for action. But what we have
seen in our society is that a definition can just as easily become a means of
control, a profoundly reactionary force.
‘Well what is your
definition of ethics? Ah, well, if that’s your definition…’
And so, rather scholastic conventions
can lock us into assumptions of inevitability and give comfort to received
wisdom. A definition then becomes a crutch for certainty and ideology.

(Saul, On
Equilibrium, p 11-12)

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
I don't see many posts answering the question on where the term comes from.. the wiki link does that quite easily and that's a rather useful bit of information for how one can come to a conclusion on how they use the term. Even if a person was using or thinking of a term in a certain way, having an understanding of it's history like you were asking in that question, can be swayed to think of it in it's more traditional sense.

As for the terms use, I've seen it used in arguments referring to plenty of religions like Mormons or Islamics in debates on youtube or other considered atheist shows. I do not think the term Christian Apologist in anyway redundant because of that standard, it is just within most of our societies that it is still it's most common connection.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 12:44 AM
RE: Apologist
(07-02-2013 12:09 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't see many posts answering the question on where the term comes from..
That's because a term's historical origin, unlike its common usage, isn't subject to opinion.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
07-02-2013, 01:19 AM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2013 04:49 AM by kim.)
RE: Apologist
Ghost Wrote:So during slavery, would the abolitionist be the apologist?

I would say yes, when it was common to own slaves, the abolitionist might take up the debate and might appear to be a devil's advocate. Look at John Brown. Ok, extreme example; the guy was a fucking psycho. Back then, if one thought people shouldn't own slaves one was either thought of as dangerous, insane, or might have been seen as just trying to be provocative.

EDIT NOTE: The above paragraph has been reasoned through and I retract it... The abolitionist wouldn't be an apologist but the slaveowner would be.

Chances are the abolitionist probably wouldn't need to resort to any sort of contentious opinion - in fact, it would probably hurt the defense of their position even more to do so.

The slaveholder, on the other hand would be the apologist and would do what ever is necessary to defend his position including becoming the devil's advocate.
THERE. Just had to work this shit out but didn't want to lead anyone off the deep end with me. Dodgy

***
A devil's advocate is often only being deliberately provocative, usually for the sake of argument, and often may not seem overly passionate about the issue. He's just trying to express a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of opposing arguments.

Emotion is a wild card.

A person who offers argument in defense of a controversial issue is an apologist and may also appear to be arguing for the sake of argument, to provoke, or to test the waters; a devil's advocate. An apologist may not mean to come off that way but they very often do... they may not even realize the issue to be so controversial until argued.

***
It is quite apparent that a great deal of people who live with faith, have difficulty even imagining people not living with faith. To the believer, faith is a non issue.

A theistic apologist will defend faith, often pulling out all the stops with the most provocative arguments because they are defending faith against the faithless. They are defending their issue against people who don't care about their issue. It shouldn't be a big deal but they appear to want to be.

I think the question was asked: why do people get so bent out of shape about apologists?
I think apologists either, are or turn into, devil's advocates ... which accomplishes... a lot of frustration. Shy

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 01:42 AM
RE: Apologist
(06-02-2013 11:17 PM)Ghost Wrote:  So during slavery, would the abolitionist be the apologist?

No, it is the slave owner who must be the apologist. It is he who is defending a system who must make the argument and explanation.

The abolitionist is merely pointing that slavery is inconsistent with "all men are created equal".

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-02-2013, 01:49 AM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2013 02:24 AM by kim.)
RE: Apologist
But would not the abolitionist be defending the controversial side of the issue (to free slaves) and going against the general ignorance of the day?

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 02:40 AM
RE: Apologist
(07-02-2013 01:49 AM)kim Wrote:  But would not the abolitionist be defending the controversial side of the issue (to free slaves) and going against the general ignorance of the day?
Apologetics is the defense of a position, so the abolitionist is attacking a system, the slaveholder is defending it. The slaveholder is the apologist.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-02-2013, 03:41 AM
RE: Apologist
(07-02-2013 02:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-02-2013 01:49 AM)kim Wrote:  But would not the abolitionist be defending the controversial side of the issue (to free slaves) and going against the general ignorance of the day?
Apologetics is the defense of a position, so the abolitionist is attacking a system, the slaveholder is defending it. The slaveholder is the apologist.

Yes, I see the defense of a position by the slaveholder and the abolitionist as attacking that position. At the time it was a widely accepted position so, what about the position of the abolitionist and defense of their position?

For quite some time abolitionists were attacked for their position, and not just in the Southern states. I live the state where a proxy war was fought over this very thing.

When people fight/argue both are defending at one time or another.
So, an apologist... is it just a matter of timing and perspective?

My understanding of an apologist is one who offers an argument in defense of something controversial - that is straight out of my dictionary. My only assertion is that apologists seem to become a devil's advocate.

I think I have to stop or I may become one myself. Shy

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 03:53 AM
RE: Apologist
(07-02-2013 03:41 AM)kim Wrote:  
(07-02-2013 02:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  Apologetics is the defense of a position, so the abolitionist is attacking a system, the slaveholder is defending it. The slaveholder is the apologist.

Yes, I see the defense of a position by the slaveholder and the abolitionist as attacking that position. At the time it was a widely accepted position so, what about the position of the abolitionist and defense of their position?

For quite some time abolitionists were attacked for their position, and not just in the Southern states. I live the state where a proxy war was fought over this very thing.

When people fight/argue both are defending at one time or another.
So, an apologist... is it just a matter of timing and perspective?

My understanding of an apologist is one who offers an argument in defense of something controversial - that is straight out of my dictionary. My only assertion is that apologists seem to become a devil's advocate.

I think I have to stop or I may become one myself. Shy


Hmm, I don't think devil's advocate means that at all.
Being a devil's advocate means taking a position one doesn't necessarily believe in order to further the discussion.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 04:03 AM
RE: Apologist
Yea...
a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments. - according to my dictionary.

Like I say - my only assertion is that apologists eventually become devil's advocates in defense of their position. Which I think they do... annoyingly so.

Blink But... I also very much agree that the slaveholder is an apologist.

I think if it wasn't 4am, I'd be able to wrap my head around it better. Shy

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: