I’ll say that, since Satan doesn’t exist.
Sir, the OP has already mentioned Rush Limbaugh. I’d say that proves you’re wrong on this point.
A cheap shot, but one that had to be taken.
I will bet that your average right-wing American Christian has no idea whatsoever what the word heterodoxy means.
<APPLAUSE>
He has the right to free speech. We can also exercise OUR same right to call him and his fanboys a bunch of knuckle dragging mouth breathing Limbaugh sucking dumb as shit butt nuggets. 
As an average left-wing American atheist, I have no idea whatsoever the word heterodoxy means.
No matter how much Limbaugh might hate Obama, my hatred for Limbaugh is ten times greater. He hopes Obama fails (he said so) and I hope Limbaugh contracts some fulminating disease that renders him deaf and dumb plus causes him unrelenting agony for years.
That’s a straight prostitute, innit?
He is responsible for the things he says. He makes a choice to do it, in order to make money. It’s not his fault?
Bullshit.
Not his fault? That’s pretty damn stupid. In fact it’s one of the more stupid things I’ve seen and I’ve seen plenty. What’s next? It wasn’t Charlie Manson’s fault all those people were home?
It’s not a fallacy to define a term as meaning one thing and then rejecting other people’s claims because it doesn’t fit.
If I called myself an atheist, but then went on and on about how great my personal relationship with God is, would you claim it a fallacy when someone told someone else not to refer to me as an atheist? That calling me an atheist was a mockery of the concept of atheism?
Qin is not redefining a term in order to make a universal statement true. He is stating a definition, and one that is not really that controversial. It surely is the definition used by the target audience of Rush’s statement, hence why his statement is so misleading.
What definition is that?
And what should they follow? Homodoxy?
Incidentally, here’sa video response to Limbaugh’s comments, from one of the LRA’s victims. I have no illusions that it would evoke anything but mockery from Rush, but it’s an honest try.
I’d check out the link, but I never understand people with bones in their nose.
I HAVE heard that Satan is the Prince of Lies, so there’s something in what you say.
Well, you’re a third of the way there. Rush IS, in fact, deaf without his cochlear implants. He went deaf suddenly about 10 years ago, and has since had the implant. But hell, I don’t know why he bothered, he never really listened to anyone else anyway. And he’s been known to be addicted to pain meds. Apparently he was prescribed these meds legitimately, that is, he was actually in pain.
No, I think that what we should hope for is that every time Rush says or writes something that he knows is untrue, that he suffers agonizing pain. Because even if he was struck mute, he could still write.
Orthodoxy is your doxy; heterodoxy is the other fellow’s doxy.
(Can’t remember where I first read this.)
Now I just need to figure out what a doxy is and I’m golden.
Taking that statement at face value, if unilaterally imposing one’s own idiosyncratic definition of a term upon a discussion doesn’t count as a fallacy, how should one characterize it, in terms of rhetorical flaws?
F’rinstance, I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in thinking of adherence to the tenets set forth in the Nicene Creed as constituting sufficient evidence that one is a Christian. And none of the ones I’ve found on this page say a word about disallowing the behavior Qin decries, above.
Cool.
Can you look up ‘sepulchral’ for me next? I can never remember that one either.
That’s about the closest thing to a useful definition of christianity that I’ve even encountered. Though I’m pretty sure you’d be hard pressed to find any christian group that hasn’t been considered “heterodox” by some other christian group at some point. In other words:
Relevant clip from the Colbert Report last night: