–They started it, yet we are the ones berated for not “respecting their opinions”.–
At what point did anyone say that you should respect His4ever’s opinion, as if it’s something you should consider? At what point was her opinion called “respectable”? Gobear and Homebrew said that being abusive or scornful towards His4Ever wasn’t helpful, that the tactic of shouting her down with contempt wasn’t a winner, and for this they were called “Uncle Toms” and “appeasers”. At any time, did gobear and Homebrew concede anything His4ever said? Did they ever utter a “yes, but…” or a “you may be right, however…”?
The problem here is that you, lissener, and Kirkland have taken gobear and Homebrew’s attempts to moderate the debate as an attack on your humanity, which it isn’t. You’re being held to the same standard that they’re applying to His4ever, and you look just as bad as she does when you ignore it.
–You cannot “use reason to dismantle” something that is completely unreasonable. –
Nonsense. You use reason to expose its contradictions, its arbitrariness, it’s near perfect subjectivity. You use reason to show that what sounds plausible on the surface is riddled with idiosyncracy and preference. What happens with every Creationist who shows up here? They post some screed about not being descended from monkeys, and the hordes pour on with evidence and with logic, and the Creationist slinks away under a withering assault of knowledgeable arguments. And lurkers like me find out more about evolution than they ever heard in class.
I do not have a horse in this race, but I feel compelled to make a couple of comments:
I vouch that Homebrew is telling the truth about the change of perspective among some over at the Pizza Parlor. And it comes from speaking the truth forthrightly with evident caring about what the other person things, and engaging in debate, even when it seems unlikely you will succeed.
Second, I am one of the people who has learned a great deal about what injures gay people from reading discussions like this. In particular, I saw how deeply Kirkland was injured by uncaring remarks from a few people who claimed to be his spiritual brothers and sisters.
There is, I think, a place for both rational discourse, even among those who seem farthest apart in their views, and for polemic speech that awakens people to the extent to which evil masquerading as good causes harm to others.
Right, because it’s just not possible for me, a straight guy, to empathize with you, or that I might have close friends who are gay and have seen some of their problems firsthand, or that I might actually know a homosexual or lesbian who got beaten up for being gay. I can’t possibly know what you live with, so my opinions are worthless.
What a load of self-righteous twaddle.
When did I attempt to debate your humanity? The fact that I didn’t offer to fetch the tar and feathers makes me a collaborationist?
You’re trying to demonize His4ever, and anyone who won’t help. Now you’ve equated what I said with racism. Apparently, I’m now the one who held the nails for Matthew Shepherd.
I didn’t demand that you join the debate, and neither did gobear or Homebrew. They said only that being abusive and scornful doesn’t help.
That’s funny, I see two seperate spin off threads (one of them is in the pit and has silently dropped off the radar) berating Lissener. When WVWoman butted into a thread that had previously had nothing to do with fundamentalism, did she get pitted? When H4E joined in and refused to listen to refutations of her points, did she get pitted? Never mind the pit, did anyone start a new thread dedicated to berating them anywhere?
… And goes on to spread their lies elsewhere.
The best that can be hoped for with someone who is completely and utterly unreasonable is to drive them away. They say themselves that their minds can’t be changed. They blatantly ignore reason and logic.
As far as the argument of “what will the lurkers think”- I apparently give lurkers a lot more credit than you guys do.
I’m surprised to be agreeing with Lissener but he’s right up to a point.
There comes a point where it’s degrading to give an obviously insane arguement the dignity of a reasoned reply. When Sweat Willy was spewing his anti-semitic agenda, this was touched on. I don’t think it’s worth debating a Jew-hater rationally as it implies that there’s something of value in what they have to say.
The whole point of Great Debates isn’t to “win” versus the person you’re arguing against, it’s to convince all those undecided lurkers. I feel (and I can’t prove) that the best way to this sort of ‘debate’ is to show that it’s so self-evidently stupid that it can just be laughed at. If one takes it seriously, pull out numbers and graphs one comes across as defensive. On the other hand, if one simply laughs “You’re pulling out the old ‘Jews control the money suppy?’ bit? Bwah-haha! Gimme your paycheck then, punk”, you send a message of contempt and unconcern.
And besides, there’s nothing a bigot hates more than being laughed at.
On the other hand, shreiking and screaming and name-calling just gives the bigot that much more power and makes you look defensive.
Which might indicate to the bigot that he has a valid point.
Bigotry stems mainly from ignorance. Take away the ignorance by showing * why* the bigot’s belief is wrong or that it is at least a relative view, not an absolute truth.
Mostly they’re just repeating catch phrases, give them material to think those over with.
Changing someone’s long held views cannot be done overnight but if you do not sow the seads of doubt, nothing will change for sure.
I imagine your chances of being beaten and murdered on an anonymous messageboard are fairly remote.
So on the SDMB at least, I would say the rules of civilized discourse still apply.
Of course, if you like I will cite some instances of Christians being murdered and persecuted, and then they can have the right to scream as well. Unless you are arguing that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, and so forth aren’t “the real world”.
And to be perfectly honest, Hisever is not the one expressing hate here.
I agree. The first is GD; the other is the Pit. People know, I think, how much weight to give to posts in each forum.
See, I don’t care about the bigot. He’s only one asshole. I care about the undecideds in the audience. And giving the bigot the dignity of taking him seriously gives him creedence. (Which is why I don’t favor the “shriek and call names” approach: it makes the shrieker seem defensive)
Mocking him, laughing at him undermines him. It says “His arguement is so stupid that his opponent doesn’t feel the need to respond except by laughing.”
The technique can be overdone, the technique can be misused, but how else does one respond to (say) Jack Dean Tyler when he claimed that circumcision is ‘a Jewish plot to emmasculate non-Jewish men’?
I don’t think that she was expressing hate. My opinion is that she ws displaying ignorance. That is the difference between her and Sweet Willy.
I also don’t think that the others here were expressing hate. They were expressing anger. Perhaps not just at His4ever, but also at those who people who while claiming to hold similar beliefs have ostracized them throughout their whole lives.
Fenris states
It also feeds into their martyr complex. If you scream at them and insult them, they can then go to their like-minded friends and say thoe non-Christians just tried to drown me out so they wouldn’t have to hear the truth. For some of them, this would constitute a victory. If you politely and ratinally shoot down their theories, you have a chance at changing their minds and you make their theories seem foolish and small. If they keep at it, you can use mockery and sarcasm.
. . . Except that with the people we’re specifically talking about here, you have no such chance: they are–proudly!–immune to logic. Their claim to have gotten their beliefs from a close reading of Biblical text is a straw man–a lie (see my post above: “They don’t hate gays because God says so; they say ‘God says so’ because they hate gays.”)–so an even closer reading of the text will get you nowhere. It will just expose the lie, which they’re not willing to admit even to themselves, and draw nothing from them but the old “It’s what I believe and you will never change my mind.”
In other words, for the ones who won’t debate with you in good faith, debating with them is a waste of your time and theirs. What’s the line? Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
I can think of few other situations which so closely parallel that silly little “axiom.”
But again (and again and again and again), shrieking is just as must a waste of time. Either way, you’re taking them way too seriously.
I’m sorry; I meant to conclude that last post by addressing the “But we do it for the lurkers!” thing.
Well, duh. I’m here, aren’t I? I mean, I advocate basically ignoring them, but I’m not doing so, right? That’s what I’m doing for the lurkers.
In other words, rather than simply and completely ignore anti-gay ingorance, I do of course believe it’s important to tell the ignorant that you’re going to ignore them. Sounds silly, I know, but again it’s for the lurkers, or IRL for third parties.
Which is why, again (Mods: can we change the name of this forum to “Great Cyclical Redundancies Swirling Endlessly Around the Debate”?), my approach is to tell the ignorant that they are the outcasts, and that they should be ostracized from a reasonable society, not me. And that I will refuse to “debate” them politey from inside the closet: They built the closet, they can retreat to it.
That’s the most important thing I’m fighting for here. We need a paradigm shift regarding who’s on which side of the closet door.
First let me say that I think homosexuality is a perversion. The definition of perversion is an important part of this statement. My understanding of it is, a persistent behavior which is damaging to the life (including reproduction) of the organism. It doesn’t matter if it’s genetically determined or not.
Then let me add that nearly every human being I’ve ever known had some kind of perversion, (I smoke a pipe, arguably far more damaging and perverse than homosexuality).
I don’t think perversions should be constitutionally protected but I do think if they don’t directly injure other people they should be indulged. I don’t think perversions should be normalized. I would never think of presenting pipe smoking as being as valuable as more wholesome activities.
Rational argument would be most likely to change my mind. Activism would have no affect on my opinion and would make me less indulgent, if anything, but then I’m bull-headed.
No one is saying get back in the closet. At least I’m not. The only thing I’m saying is don’t sink to their level. If your argument regarding the wrongness of their beliefs is correct, and I think it is, don’t detract from the arguement by adding insults and yelling. The majority of us here will see that you are right without it.
If your reason for opposing Lisseners tactics is to convince lurkers, I think y’all have made a major tactical error.
Anyone can plainly see that Lissener has caught more shit over his statements than H4E has over hers. I think we can all agree that calling homosexuality “unnatural” and calling fundamentalism a “cult” are just about equally supportable statements- Yet the poster who says one thing gets mollycoddled and the other poster gets bitch slapped. What the fuck kind of message are you guys trying to send? It’s OK to hate as long as you don’t hate fundies?
As long as it’s OK on this board to equate who I am as a person with pipe smoking, the battle remains unwon.
Uncle Toby, the point of the debate is that we’re not talking about behaviors but about the essence of a person’s being. Homosexuality can validly be compared to race or stature or gender, etc., but by comparing it to pipe smoking (visual pun unintended, but enjoyed nonetheless) you declare your inability (or at least unpreparedness) to advance the substance of this debate.
And brujo, I very clearly am not sinking to their level: I refuse to debate Biblical minutiae with someone who offers it only as a ruse to refuse to examine their own beliefs. I am (I hope) rising above their level by not “adding insults and yelling.” The only people I’ve intentionally yelled at are not the homophobes, but the Uncle Toms who would legitimize the homophobes by sinking to their level and engaging with their bad-faith debates.
And as far as name calling, I don’t consider pointing out the bankruptcy and hypocrisy of their position (describing them as pseudochristians) to be name calling: as I see it, it’s an attempt to demystify their position by pointing out (largely to third parties/lurkers) that their claims of following the teachings of Christ are hollow and hypocritical.
Sorry, Uncle Toby, your definition doesn’t fit with any of the online dictionaries I’ve consulted. Almost everyone of them indicate that the term “perversion” is used to show disapproval and used two different ways.
The first is “The act of perverting, or the state of being perverted; a turning from truth or right; a diverting from the true intent or object; a change to something worse; a turning or applying to a wrong end or use.”
The second use is to indicate “a form of sexual behavior considered to be abnormal or unnatural”. The instances of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom seems to indicate there is nothing abbormal or unnatural about it.
Both definitions imply a moral judgement and therefore I will not accept being called a pervert.
And grendel72, I do of course appreciate that you understand and appreciate what I’m trying to say, but I would like to clear up one possible misconception:
In case this was your implication, I’d like to point out that I never said that fundamentalism was a cult. I’ve been very careful, I thought, that I’m not talking about fundamentalists on the whole, but only those people who quote the Bible when it supports their own prejudices and dismiss it when it does not; those whom I’ve referred to, for convenience’s sake, as “pseudochristians.” That’s largely why I coined that term for this debate: to define very clearly exactly whom I’m talking about.