Calm Dialogue or ACT UP!

Great Debates
101

As you have repeatedly stated you are.

And now we see that in fact, you think you have special insights into the minds of people you have never met, and with whom you refuse to have any real discussion.

Just like Jack Chick accusing Catholics of worshipping statues. Or homophobes who will claim that gays “really” have an agenda of molesting children, and that all this talk about wanting to be left in peace is secret code used to cover up their nefarious intentions.

And when asked to justify such claims, they refuse to discuss it.

Pathetic.

Regards,
Shodan

102

Lissener, I realise you never called fundamentalism a cult. What I was attempting to get across is that even under the worst interpretation possible, let’s say Kirklands over the top rection, anti-fundie attitudes are treated far more harshly than anti-gay attitudes.
Some here will insist on putting your words in the worst possible light, I was just trying to say that even then the reaction is uncalled for and out of line with the reaction that anti-gay bigotry recieves.

103

That’s why I said “what I mean by perversion”. The dictionary definition isn’t always the most useful it’s just the one generally agreed upon. I’m not being Humpty-Dumtyish about this, when I use a word in other than it’s common meaning I try to explain it. I couldn’t think of a closer word for what I mean, ‘aberration’ maybe all the words for this sort of thing seen to have some connotation of disapproval.

As to not getting it, well that’s the sort of non sequitur that gets nowhere. Like saying, “you just like to argue!”. You make it so I can’t disagree and put forth a valid argument. I can’t say anything about “your essence” in the way you use that term, all I can see is what you do. Maybe there is such a thing as mind reading but I’ve never been able to do it. Race, stature or gender are not characteristics which act against the interests of an organism, unless you are a giant which is a deformity and so close to a perversion. I’m not saying you could choose not to be homosexual and I’m not even suggesting you do, all I’m saying is it doesn’t deserve legal protection in the same way as physical appearance (a more accurate term than race). As far as anyone can objectively describe homosexuality it is a behavior, the rest is metaphysics and has no place in law.

In any case the point is how I’d react as ‘homosexuality is essence’ skeptic, and if making a nuisance of yourself is your best argument it is counter productive.

104

Then birth control, especially permanent things such as vasectomies should not have constitutional protection. They are definitely “damaging to the life (including reproduction) of the organism.” And they are certainly a perversion which shouldn’t “be normalized”

And eating hot dogs, drinking Coke, and sun bathing should also be constitutionally banned because they are damaging to the life of the organism.

Let me guess Uncle Toby, you’re not a Libertarian, are you?

105

Uncle Toby

Was it really necessary to come in here and call homosexuality a perversion? The purpose of this thread was to discuss the method used in rebutting a fundamentalist’s argument that homosexuality is immoral. I don’t think we were arguing whether homosexuality is or is not immoral.

If you felt you had to say such a thing, couldn’t you have at least said that in one of the three ongoing threads that seem to be dealing with these issues?

106

Are you literate? I said "not protected " not “banned”. I went to pains to explain that I don’t think homosexual behavior should be banned.

IMHO Sunbathing and birth control can sometimes be perverse and likewise should not be banned. Sunbathing beyond enough to get your vitamin D shouldn’t be normalized.

Birth control is a more complicated question, from the point of view of the individual it can frequently be perverse (it’s not if you can’t support more offspring or if your health would be damaged by pregnancy for example) from the point of view of society it’s in MY interest that YOU practice birth control, if I want to encourage you to be a pervert for my benefit I don’t think government should stop me (if they did the economy would collapse) but I don’t think my views should be officially endorsed.

Am I a Libertarian is an attempt to classify ME as opposed to argue the question. Slap on a label and forget about discussion. It should go to the barbecue pit where you can rant about why you hate Libertarians.

I am not a libertarian, I am an artificially generated cybernetic intelligence. That’s why I don’t believe in ‘essence’.

107

Lissener originally stated

This is what is getting everyone upset. Is it really necessary to resort to name calling because you don’t agree with the methods that are being used by Gobear and Homebrew?

108

Of course you aren’t a Libertarian. That’s the point. It’s called sarcasm. I don’t hate Libertarians at all (although I don’t agree with them). My point is that you seem as far from a Libertarian as can be.

109

:rolleyes: Which is precisely why we generally try to use the correct words to communicate properly. If the “generally agreed upon” definition is not the one you want to use, use a different more accurate word.

110

Heh. HEHEHEHEHEHEH!!!

Here’s a tip-never, EVER tell a woman that pregnancy won’t be damaging to her health.

:rolleyes:

Hehehehe

111

Oh, God. Still, I love this stuff.

  1. I could be very, very much in error; but I think about the STMB in roughly this way. GENERAL QUESTIONS is for matters that presumably have a definite factual answer: the OP justs wants to know what it is. GREAT DEBATES involves, intrinsically, matters of controversy where even which facts are relevant (or whether claimed facts are real facts) is debatable; but there is an implied commitment to methods of logical suasion, as opposed to-- IMHO or THE PIT, wherein the whole idea is to express feelings, ideas, and judgments, whatever their source.

  2. In this thread (and the one or two from whose loins it sprang), just about everyone made an intial attempt to conform to “the method.” No one demands that good faith attempts be perfect, so bringing in some heat is not a “violation.” However–things escalated.

  3. Nevertheless, I think it neither fair nor accurate to say that even many of the posts had spiralled so far out of orbit that the thread shiould have been moved. I don’t see even ONE post that is nothing but abuse. Emotion per se is NOT the enemy.

  4. To illustrate the queer psychological nature of all this: If I had just followed the posts one by one, my first instinct would probably have been to defend Ms. 4ever from what seemed an ungentlemanly attack. (Hey, I’m that kinda guy.) Yet at this point, and I’m surprising myself–I’m more inclined to be supportive of Kirkland and Lissener. Why?–

  5. –I suppose in all honesty, because I’m a sucker for righteous rage and liberal rhetoric. I don’t get to do it, because I’m committed to a mealy-mouthed “let’s be nice and try to understand each other” view of societal ethics. So I have to live vicariously through people like K&L. They may be obnoxious (I choose that term believing they will find it a term of commendation). But they’re OUT THERE STIRRING THE POT for all the rest of us who forget too soon and feel too safe. And we desperately need that, because–

  6. –the symptoms of homophobia are as natural, as innate, as deeply ingrained in some people, as homosexuality is in others. (The whole view preceding a defeasible quasi-fact that I think more true than false.) Homophobia is not going to allow itself to be sweet-reasoned into extinction. It’s a part of our neural heritage. I suspect it’s a recessive part. In most people in gets expressed in fairly mild ways, in subtle choices; in many people, perhaps, it doesn’t get expressed at all. But it can’t be eradicated. And without a degree of counterpressure–not merely in law, but at the home-office-street level–well, I don’t even care to go back to being an “unmentionable,” much less a bleeding scarecrow hanging on a wire fence.

  7. So–to finally come around to the OP’s question–Which method is the more effective? The answer, so obvious it isn’t even interesting, is: NEITHER. Because BOTH TOGETHER constitute THE best method. It’s classic good cop/bad cop, isn’t it? ACT-UP and the Angries threaten disruption and inconvenience (which is only occasional and not exactly life threatening); the compromisers and Mealies offer to love our enemies and turn hate aside…and whoa, by the way, Church X or Political Group Y, we have in mind a certain half-loaf that we’re more than willing to settle for. (For now!)

  8. Does it work? It does. Blacks have fought and marched and organized and worked hard for more than a generation, using the tactics of BOTH Malcolm X and MLK…and it is now all but UNTHINKABLE for a public figure to utter overtly racist remarks (…at least with respect to African Americans…) in public. If you don’t find that a major accomplishment, try again REAL HARD. And the gay movement itself has accomplished wonderful things since embarking upon that very same road, in 1969.

  9. But now a note of caution. By all means let us strive to assure the triumph of The Good as we conceive it to be. And let us not underestimate the enemies’ resources on the basis of a few sugared words. (Remember the calm, innocent-seeming “call for dialogue” ads placed by the Exodus group?) But there is a very sad and dangerous point at which fighters for justice lose a taste for the truth. It’s all too easy to be seduced into believing that you’re fighting the good fight on behalf of generations to come, when in fact you no longer care for anything but today’s battle.

112

—anti-fundie attitudes are treated far more harshly than anti-gay attitudes.—

Ever stopped to question that this might be because virtually everyone here is already against anti-gay attitudes (and for goodness sakes, there are THREE threads going here that are basically exercises in “kick His4ever around a bit”) and get tired of repeating everything other people have already said as far as pointing out the obvious flaws? But some people also seem to think that go pointlessly overboard their attacks on fundamentalists. Both attitudes are wrong. But only the wrongness of one seems particular controversial. Hence…

Anyway, the whole idea of teams, that accept any sort of bullshit as long as it’s from their teamates, disgusts me. The exact passions that motivate me to take on fundamentalists and push for the rights of gay people to live and celebrate their lives also motivates me to strike down illegitimate arguements against fundamentalists. That passion is one for honesty, for empathy, for justice.

113

Um. What?

114

The only “namecalling” I have done in this thread is of the type you quoted: specific references (political, “literary,” whatever) intended to make a specific point. I haven’t called anyone names meant simply to belittle or insult. Referring to someone as an “Uncle Tom” is accepted (if not altogether over-polite) shorthand that communicates a great deal of information about the speaker’s opinion of the referent’s politics, self-esteem, commitment to social justice, etc.

115

Sorry, meant to include this with the above post:

From the dictionary:[ul]Uncle Tom
a member of a low-status group who is overly subservient to or cooperative with authority[/ul]

116

That’s the problem, lissener, neither gobear nor I were being subservient or cooperating with the fundamentalists. We were refuting, rather emphatically, their position without feeling it necessary to belittle them. They belittle themselves with their own attitude. I choose the smug superiority of being right and remaining calm and aloof.

117

I understand, Homebrew (Around and around we go! Where we stop, nobody knows!) that that’s your defense, or contention, or response, whatever, to my accusation; I was defining the term for someone who apparently thought it was a random jab rather than a specific accusation. And furthermore, Homebrew, I think I’ve made it abundantly clear that I’ve never suggested that you agreed with the people under discussion, but that, in this situation, I explicitly defined what you describe yourself as doing–“refuting, rather emphatically, their position”–as cooperation: engagement equals acknowledgment–not acknowledgment of the substance of their “arguments” (again!!!), but the mere acknowledgment that their arguments are worthy of engagement–is specifically what I have been calling cooperation, appeasement, etc.

Now really, why was it necessary for me to restate that all over again?

118

—Now really, why was it necessary for me to restate that all over again?—

Perhaps because bullshit goes bad if not kept warm?

I don’t think anyone would accept your cynical re-definition of “Uncle Tom” as any sort of fair “shorthand” for reasonable arguement. Their arguements, insofar as they are indeed based in religious faith and Biblical exegesis, are worthy of engagement. That you think you have the magical power to read all fundamentalist minds and devine that it’s all working the other way around in their heads is beside the point.

—Um. What?—

I don’t think it was unclear. I don’t like the idea that something is only wrong when the bad guys do it: that it’s okay and reasonable when the good guys do it just because I happen to agree with their ultimate position.

119

Redefinition? I quoted the frikkin dictionary!

Yes; insofar as they are. But when it becomes clear that they are not, but are simply fronts for unreasoned and unreasoning prejudice, they are not worthy of engagement.

This is lazy, cheap “debate” and reminds me why I should have dropped this a long time ago. Putting forth a theory as to someone’s psychological motivations is in no way claiming to read minds. (I don’t believe I’m even responding to this kind of bullshit. Ah, yes; it’s for the lurkers.)

As “clear” as that is, you’ve lost me again. Am I to read your mind, and infer that by “bad guys” you mean fundies; by “good guys” you mean those who would debate with fundies, and by “something” you mean . . . what, shoddy debate techniques?

Oy, my head. Good thing that was so clear.

First of all (I hope I got your riddle right, because I’m NOT going to address it again if not), the pseudochristians under discussion (I’m not going to use your word fundies because (again!!!), I’m not painting with that wide a brush) are so used, in their insular world, to simply saying “the Bible says so” and not being challenged on it. When they come here, and ARE challenged, they are unable to back up what they say, and they retreat, spouting self-righteous twaddle about their beliefs. Thus making it clear to all that their beliefs are unexamined, and that their feeble attempts at debate are insincere. Once that becomes clear, why do I become the bad guy for refusing to further engage them?

In any case, this thread has covered all the important points over and over and over again, and has dwindled to the endless chawing of excrutiatingly inane minutiae, kept warm only by misstatement and misdirection.

I leave you to it.

120

Hasn’t anyone ever heard of catching more flies with honey than with vinegar?