Sorry; skipped this:
You know damn well what I mean by this. They don’t change the way I feel about myself, but allowing them and their message of dehumanization to be taken seriously keeps it afloat in society and in the political world.
Read the post again:
I’m NOT taking them seriously–I’mtrying to show how ridiculous their views are. Instead of merely calling them “stupid,” which is easy for them to ignore, I want to show WHY and HOW their views are stupid.
By engaging them at all you are taking them seriously.
Because this is a DEBATE forum!
You know, the more I think about it (or try not to), the more this gets on my tits, gobear.
The institution of slavery depended upon the dehumanization of African (forced-) immigrants. Not a single individual human African American was actually made any less human, but for slavery to exist required the institutionalized dehumanization of the entire race.
Institutionalized homophobia requires exactly the same thing.
H4E and her fellows come to the “debate” with the societally supported presumption that you are less than fully human, and you smile obsequiously and agree to play by their rules.
As long as you continue to roll over and agree that your humanity is open to debate, you are as much a part of the problem as she is.
I’m sorry, autz, did we wake you?
Here’s a tip, for when you join the grownups’ “DEBATE forum”: it’s considered bad form to delete, without ellipses, that part of the debate you’re quoting that answers your own stupid question. Cute, but stupid.
Yes; you’ve proven mighty hard for them to ignore.
We’re not debating our humanity nor our rights. We’re debating their beliefs. If we’re lucky we get one of them to open their minds. But the side benefit is that we strengthen our position with undecided observers. If both sides are shrieking insults at one another, the folks on the side can walk away shaking their heads and dismissing both as unreasonable.
Moving the middle towards us, I think, is the most effective tactic.
[sub]And I smile condescendingly BTW[/sub]
Well, lissener, you seem to be engaging them rather extensively.
And I have still to see where anyone in this thread has “denied you your humanity”. How is this accomplished? By disagreeing with you? By disapproving of some of your behavior?
If it is so non-debatable, what are you doing in Great Debates?
Your position seems to be “His4ever is wrong because she simply states her position and won’t back it up. But I am right, because I will simply state my position, and won’t back it up.”
I thought Jack Chick pamphlets were the only places where a position is stated dogmatically, and everyone simply falls at their feet and worships.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, pay attention: my point is that it’s not a position: it’s a person. It’s me in fact. I* am not debatable.
And to state the obvious, I’m not engaging H4E, I’m engaging gobear and Apos, et al.
And where have I not “backed it up”? What am I, typing in Sanskrit?
Well, IMVHO, debate seems to have worked with dreamer.
She’s now ‘focussing on grace’ (WTM). Maybe H4E is just a tougher nutty to crack.
Lissener, you are invited to the Pit.
Have fun, gobear, you’ve put me to sleep. I’m going back to bed.
I do have to agree with hansel on one point: Debate is obviously pointless when one side of the argument can not support their argument, yet people with no honor nor sense of logic will still claim they have a valid opinion.
As tagos’ post shows, anyone worth caring about has the sense to see through the idiotic arguments of the fundies- there is no use in trying to debate them, especially when they are either incapable or unwilling to back up their position.
Your point is ridiculous. And you haven’t “backed it up” anywhere - you keep saying it is non-debatable and non-negotiable. In Great Debates.
If you don’t want to debate, then don’t debate. But don’t complain that you are being dehumanized because a) people disagree with you, or b) that they expect you to abide by the same standards as everyone else.
You disagree with some behavior of posters here. You decline to present any reasoning as to why we should agree with you. His4ever disagrees with some behavior of yours, and declines to argue why. This you consider dehumanizing and horrid.
If it is dehumanizing to dismiss you for having gay sex, why is it not dehumanizing to dismiss everyone else in GD?
Regards,
Shodan
—This is just theory and academic debate for you and Apos, hansel.—
No, it’s a theory of HONESTY for me, lissener. It’s a question of hearts and minds on an issue that’s one of the most important out there today.
It’s a question of you getting so used to these sloppy tactics that you start using them indescriminately: telling people like me what I think and feel, confusing your and my ultimate moral opinions with the valdity of a particular biblical exegesis.
Shodan, one distinct difference between Lissener and His4Ever is that fundies don’t live in fear of being beaten and murdered for expressing themselves. When we are dealing with real world consequences of the hate that H4E chooses to spread, we have a right to stand up and say no, we will not listen to your hate filled bullshit anymore!
You’ve seriously misinterpreted me; I hope it wasn’t intentional.
I said that there’s no point in posting to a message board, in a forum called Great Debates, if you have no intention of engaging in a useful conversation. There is purpose in responding, though, as gobear and Homebrew have done, because there are lurkers who may read the thread and find something worth thinking about, and there’s the odd possibility that an intransigent position may crack under the prolonged assault of reason (it’s happened before here).
Your backhanded slap at gobear and Homebrew (“people with no honor nor sense of logic”) is certainly not my position, which is that opposing such instransigence with more of the same is just as useless. To rationally debate a fundamentalist position (from any ideology) does not validate it, if what one’s doing is using reason to dismantle it.
Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, believe that this response was called for?
After giving my opinion, do you really think it is appropriate to call (or imply) that I am a) asleep b) childish c) stupid
If you haven’t figured out yet why you are turning people off (despite the righteousness of your position), then really thinking about this response might give you a clue.
That is where the mistake lies. You cannot “use reason to dismantle” something that is completely unreasonable. You might as well use an allen wrench to undo a phillips head screw.
If you want to use reason against the unreasonable, go ahead I won’t stop you. What irks me is that the fundie bigots always start the fight, and the rest of us are held to standards our opponents don’t even understand. They started it, yet we are the ones berated for not “respecting their opinions”.