Deutsche Börse Prize 2015 nominees announced

[Diego Pigozzo]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

The definition you link didn't support what you're saying.

[Isaac]

…then that is as much an admission of guilt…

"a presumption built into it"

[Diego Pigozzo]

"a presumption built into it"

A presumption [of guilt] built into what?
If you mean "into the homphobe/racist/antisemitic word", I agree.
If you mean "into the question" I don't.

[Diego Pigozzo]

Sorry, I've exhausted my interest in what you do or do not understand.

Whatever.

[jjj]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

Not relevant to my very straightforward question. It was not a loaded question at all, if you are not against gays you simply say so and no 'guilt' is involved which is what I would do.
If however you are antigay you either honestly admit it it or avoid the question as Slobodan has done.
Plus there was a reason for asking the question, Slobodan's attitude seems quite hostile to gay people so asking if he is a homophobe is completely in context. He's already been a remarkably nasty misogynist on LuLa, so hatred of others unlike him won't exactly be a surprise.

[mezzoduomo]

Basically if someone won't simply come out and say they are not a bigot [when asked directly] against say blacks, jews or in this case gays, then that is as much an admission of guilt as them saying 'Yes yes I am a bigot'.

Completely ridiculous assertion. Presumes that bigots would have qualms about lying in the situation you described, and would dodge the question rather than lie.

"Are you a bigot?"
"No."

Proves what, exactly?

"Are you a bigot?"
(silence)

Proves what, exactly?

[Isaac]

Basically if someone won't simply come out and say they are not a bigot…

…they simply have no reason to answer your personal attacks.

It was not a loaded question at all…

In the courtroom of your mind -where you are accuser, judge and jury - "the accused" is apparently guilty by default.

[Diego Pigozzo]

Not relevant to my very straightforward question. It was not a loaded question at all, if you are not against gays you simply say so and no 'guilt' is involved which is what I would do.

Completely ridiculous assertion. Presumes that bigots would have qualms about lying in the situation you described, and would dodge the question rather than lie.

"Are you a bigot?"
"No."

Proves what, exactly?

"Are you a bigot?"
(silence)

Proves what, exactly?

For some "Are you X?" it's a loaded question because:
1) X in socially unaccettable
2) the question is public
3) the asked person's circle of acquaintances is made of people who are X.

So if He answer "NO" he's guilty in the eyes of his circle of acquaintances.
If He answer "YES" he's guilty in the eyes of the public.

That's why "Are you an Homophobe" is a provocation for someone.

[spidermike]

The suffix 'phobe' is banded around far too easily and readily used as a way of ending debate.

Someone may disagree with (to use the current example) homosexual practices on religious but that doesnt mean they are homophobe. Just like there are some people whose business practices i do not like but I quite enjoy their company in a social situation. And in that context the question 'are you a homophobe' is far too loaded because it can mean different things to the questioner and the questioned. At worst, it is used by the questioner to draw the conclusion 'you are a xxxxphobe therefore an obnoxious person therefore your commentsare invalid and I dont have to explain my own biases'. As such a refusal to answer is sometimes the best option lest the main discussion gets divrted.

[Diego Pigozzo]

The suffix 'phobe' is banded around far too easily and readily used as a way of ending debate.

Someone may disagree with (to use the current example) homosexual practices on religious but that doesnt mean they are homophobe.

I agree with this.
And yet, for some strange kind of fashion, those who disagree with homosexual practices are very very often too keen to oppose LGBT rights (like non-discrimination laws, same-sex marriage, same-sex parenting) and equally keen to support harmful practices like conversion therapy.

So branding like "homophone" someone who disagree with homosexual practices makes statistical sense: doing so one may be wrong but is usually right.

And in that context the question 'are you a homophobe' is far too loaded because it can mean different things to the questioner and the questioned.

Just unload the question by asking what the questioner means with "homophobe".

At worst, it is used by the questioner to draw the conclusion 'you are a xxxxphobe therefore an obnoxious person therefore your commentsare invalid and I dont have to explain my own biases'. As such a refusal to answer is sometimes the best option lest the main discussion gets divrted.

The expression "eloquent silence" comes to mind.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...So branding like "homophone" someone....

Yes, I am probably a homophone...when walking and talking on my phone at the same time.

Given that every man, woman and child either already has or soon will have a phone as an extension of their hands, and they are using it while walking, driving, eating, making love...using it in cars, beds, cinemas, schools, during national anthem...it is fair to say that we are all progressing from homo sapiens to homophones.

[Diego Pigozzo]

There are people who think they're smart.

Yet, they can't answer a simple question.

They usually are the same people who think they're funny but don't realize they're just laughing stocks.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

There are people who think they're smart.

Yet, they can't answer a simple question...

Ok, here is a simple question for you:

"Are you that stupid?"

Yes or no?

[Diego Pigozzo]

Enough already!

Whatever

[jjj]

Dear me. So we should not dare to question people who appear to acting in a bigoted way and have a history of abusive posting and denigrating others.

The suffix 'phobe' is banded around far too easily and readily used as a way of ending debate.

It's simply a relevant question to simply see where someone is coming from, people getting antsy about asking such a thing is rather pathetic.

Someone may disagree with (to use the current example) homosexual practices on religious but that doesnt mean they are homophobe.

So if I dislike people because they are black because my church said it was OK to do so, I'm not a racist then?

Just like there are some people whose business practices i do not like but I quite enjoy their company in a social situation. And in that context the question 'are you a homophobe' is far too loaded because it can mean different things to the questioner and the questioned.

No it has a very simple meaning, "Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."

At worst, it is used by the questioner to draw the conclusion 'you are a xxxxphobe therefore an obnoxious person therefore your commentsare invalid and I dont have to explain my own biases'.

Well a bigot by definition is pretty obnoxious/stupid. Biases are also quite different from bigotry and neither does admitting to bigotry necessarily make someone's comments invalid. Giving them context, certainly.

As such a refusal to answer is sometimes the best option lest the main discussion gets divrted.

Really, so how do you think that is working then?

[jjj]

BTW this is a loaded question for those like Isaac who doesn't seem to understand the very thing he brought up.

When did you stop beating your wife?

This isn't

Did you beat your wife?

My question was akin to the latter phrasing. If my question was indeed loaded, it would had to have been something like "How long have you had homophobic tendencies?"

[Diego Pigozzo]

....people getting antsy about asking such a thing is rather pathetic.

Let me tell you, I find it very heartwarming because it means these people are ashamed of themselves.

[jjj]

Not necessarily as bigots have no shame.

[Diego Pigozzo]

Not necessarily as bigots have no shame.

If it was the case you would have a clear answer every time.

[Isaac]

My question was akin to the latter phrasing.

Your personal attack was akin to this nonsense -- If someone won't say they are not a wife beater, then that is as much an admission of guilt as them saying 'Yes yes I am a wife beater'.