Gone Fisking

Fisking is where an argument is contradicted one paragraph at a time, rather than responded to in its entirety, therby avoiding having to address the overall message. It often includes sarcasm and derision, and can be extremely funny in the right hands. The word comes from articles by the journalist Robert Fisk which were often pulled to pieces by political bloggers.

It is a tactic often used by "keyboard warrior" - people who release their anger through the relatively safe medium of the internet, typically on discussion boards. It involves aggressive language that they would never dare use in real life where there would probably be physical repercussions. 
  
Subconsciously, the keyboard warrior imagines he (and it is usually a "he") is really a warrior, fighting for a cause, with a keyboard instead of a sword, but in a safe and anonymous environment.  Ad hominem is often the result. 

But going back to fisking,  is it really appropriate on a discussion board? If we consider a discussion board to represent, well, a discussion, then fisking is the equivalent of heckling. Imagine you've been asked to provide a justiication for, say, democracy, and as you begin your explanation someone in the audience jumps up and interrupts you after every sentence. Now in real life, that person would be thrown out of the room!

The other downside of fisking a discussion is that instead of a single response to the overall message, we end up with multiple responses. Each of those responses may require a separate response, and if each of those responses is fisked again, then the discussion quickly suffocates under an avalanche as new arguments are spawned exponentially. And that's another way to avoid an awkward topic and disguise a lost argument. 

Essentially, fisking posts on a discussion board is an elaborate avoidance mechanism and a demonstration of passive-agressive behaviour. Here's a case study of how an argument was fisked to death by a Christian Apologist, apparently as a means to avoid the logical arguments being made...

1 – The Unadulterated Post

Firstly, let's put right your incorrect assumptions about what I've said. I have never said that prayer is meaningless in fact I've said the exact opposite - prayer can be very beneficial. I have not dismissed off hand your suggestion that a religious lifestyle can increase life expectancy, and in fact I've agreed that I think it's possible. And I've provided explanations for this.

You suggested a correlation between attendance of "religious service" and life expectancy, but now you have a new hypothesis that "those who pray--and are presumably closer to God through their religious practice--live longer." You could be right on both counts - but you're not providing any evidence or citations. I'm more than happy to speculate about these things in the absence of evidence, as long as we're clear that it is speculation.

Your statistics seem to be limited to Christians in the USA (however without a citation I don't know where your figures come from). I've provided you with research from modern-day secular countries which explains how it's the mainstream community which is the cause, and you ignore this by referring to "atheist-controlled societies" where Christians are "martyred" and "denied care and education". You can't assume a global correlation by limiting your purview to the USA.

You also still seem to maintain that if a correlation supports your intuition, then it is good enough to demonstrate causation. That is a faith-based position, which is as flawed as assuming that spending on science, space, and technology causes suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation where the correlation coefficient between the statistics is a remarkable 99.2%

http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/spurious-correlations_10.html

2 - The Fisked Version from a Christian Apologist

	Commentary
Firstly, let's put right your incorrect assumptions about what I've said. I have never said that prayer is meaningless in fact I've said the exact opposite - prayer can be very beneficial. I have not dismissed off hand your suggestion that a religious lifestyle can increase life expectancy, and in fact I've agreed that I think it's possible. And I've provided explanations for this.
I welcome your correction of your posted perspective.	Very funny and no time wasted before the passive-agressive behaviour appears! The first paragraph was illustrating misrepresentations of what I'd said previously by the Christian Apologist. My perspective is consistent and has not been “corrected”! But 10 points to the Apologist for avoiding having to admit that he used two fallacious straw man arguments!
You suggested a correlation between attendance of "religious service" and life expectancy, but now you have a new hypothesis that "those who pray--and are presumably closer to God through their religious practice--live longer." You could be right on both counts - but you're not providing any evidence or citations. I'm more than happy to speculate about these things in the absence of evidence, as long as we're clear that it is speculation.
I referred to a specific graph that due to some posting error on my part didn't appear here. That graph did correlate attendance at religious services rather than prayer specifically with greater life expectancy, true. I again point out that prayer is part and parcel of "religiosity" and that the two are inextricably linked, and that is beyond "speculation." Prayer remains part of the total package leading to greater life expectancy supported by the study.	The apologist has ignored the two points. First, that providing a graph is not evidence. Graphs are based on numbers. Where did the numbers come from? It seems we will never know. Secondly, the correlation is not disputed. But correlations are meaningless without causation. This piece of fisking is pretty much a non-sequitur. Nothing in this interruption relates to what was said and it's just a means to avoid the points.
Your statistics seem to be limited to Christians in the USA (however without a citation I don't know where your figures come from). I've provided you with research from modern-day secular countries which explains how it's the mainstream community which is the cause...
You for your part have provided no supporting links for that allegation apart from your expressed opinion on the matter. You wish to define my position-supported by a study, at least indirectly--as "speculation," and wish to define your own position as "providing research" when you have done nothing of the kind!	There was a link provided with research from secular countries, but the Apologist can't see it. If he honestly hasn't seen it that's not his fault – I will remind him where to find it later. It's disappointing that he asserts that no research has been provided as if it's a fact, rather than politely asking for a reminder on how to find it. This kind of passive agression is common among fiskers. Also note that the point being made was that the apologist has provided no citations, and the Apologist simply avoids this point. Also note that the Apologist has actually split a sentence so as to fisk each part. This is something I've never seen before. Fisking a paragraph can be valid. Fisking a sentence is a highly dubious tactic. But fisking parts of a sentence? Extraordinary! I can't believe that this person would be so aggressive in real life, and interrupt people in mid-sentence in this way.
...and you ignore this by referring to "atheist-controlled societies" where Christians are "martyred" and "denied care and education".
I'm not ignoring anything--I'm stating a fact. In countries where Christians are persecuted and slaughtered, as has been and still is the case in atheist-controlled societies, they naturally have an overall lowered life expectancy. That's not a "level playing field." A level playing field--in which results would be more meaningful--would be to compare life expectancy in a society where both Christians and atheists have the same rights and privileges.	It's unclear what “fact” the Apologist is “stating” to, but even if he is, it's completely irrelevant to the half-sentence he's referring to. The apologist is using fisking to avoid the evidence provided from Europe which demonstrates that the benefits from attending religious services depends on the culture. That's why the correlation only appears in the USA. Limiting statistics to a single country does the exact opposite of leveling the playing field – it's introducing a bias.
You can't assume a global correlation by limiting your purview to the USA.
You can't ignore the "level playing field" factor stated above. Very few societies have equal rights for all religious views, including atheism. The US is one such society.	Again, the point made about the USA and a global correlation is completely avoided. The data which the Apologist has ignored (or can't see) is from Scandanavia and Northern Europe. The suggestion that these countries don't have equal rights for all religious views is bizarre. And the suggestion that atheists have equal rights in the US is debateable!
You also still seem to maintain that if a correlation supports your intuition, then it is good enough to demonstrate causation. That is a faith-based position, which is as flawed as assuming that spending on science, space, and technology causes suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation where the correlation coefficient between the statistics is a remarkable 99.2%
http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/spurious-correlations_10.html
Drawing correlations based on remarkable coincidence out of thin air may be fun and amusing but doing so has no bearing on matters that are integral to a particular study. Prayer is part and parcel of "religiosity" and inseparable from such.	The point being made, i.e. that correlations must not be equated with causation, is completely avoided. The Apologist is assuming that a particular correlation must be a coincidence because he believes that correlation is a coincidence. But he assumes the correlation he refers to cannot be a coincidence because he happens to believe the cause is real!
Again though I'm glad you mention that because you have again demonstrated holding a faith-based position yourself. You have faith that there is research somewhere--which you have not provided--that supports your viewpoint, and most of what you offer on this board--however you might wish to disguise it--is an invitation to "take your (unsupported) word" on matters.	An irrelevant postscript given that the research was previously provided but the Apologist didn't see it. Again, a polite enquiry as to where the evidence was posted would have saved this hostility. Anyway, this false accusation is then used to create an argument about having faith which is factually incorrect, and in any case, totally irrelevant. It's just more avidance. The final piece of aggression involves applying the incorrect assumption of an unsupported argument in this thread and extrapolating it to dismiss “most” of what I say!