Calm Dialogue or ACT UP!

[Apos]

—Redefinition? I quoted the frikkin dictionary!—

So you own a dictionary. Big deal. Your characterization of Homebrew et al as Uncle Toms still isn’t even remotely in line with the dictionary definition either. It characterizes stalwart defenders of a cause as fellowtravelers of homophobes, merely because they refuse to stoop to being nasty and irrational.

—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.—

How is that made “clear” to you, exactly?

—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.)—

You were hardly “putting forth a theory”: you were stating as fact something in other people’s minds. I don’t think there is any tactic I dislike more than this: this fantazing abut all the deep dark evils in the hearts of opponents that they themselves have not agreed to. You’re hardly in a position to criticize others for sloppiness of arguement.

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

I’m getting a feeling that you are simply playacting your “confusion” to be insulting yet again, but that’s just a theory.

—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?—

But you do engage them. You engage them with violence, lies, and sputum. Which, as is the point of the thread, seems counter-productive (at least to any actual goal: it may well be great for you personally).

Unexamined beliefs are indeed bad. But you could at least give a reasonable case for what SORT of unexamined beliefs His4ever has. She seems to be the sort who takes it on faith that those of his sect have a good Biblical case for homosexuality being a sin: she thinks the Bible supports it because that’s what she’s been told by people she trusts as experts on the Bible. So it’s NOT at all clear that this is simply a matter of her prejeduces: it well could be simply that she was swayed by a case for Biblical exegesis which she herself can’t recite now.

But you aren’t going to make people examine them acting like you are. What is going to happen is that His4ever is going to go running back to a religious authority who will then simply arm her with the actual Biblical exegesis of her sect that she is so ignorant of. And we will all sigh with boredom.

What’s misleading is pretending that there is no reasonable Biblical case for considering homosexuality a sin, just because His4ever is ignorant of how all the standard arguements and counterarguements go. I think it’s pretty clear that there IS a reasonable case for it, just as there is a reasonable case for the Bible condoning slavery (and, for that matter, being devoid of many of the modern concepts of justice so important to us today). The point is that it is not the ONLY reasonable case, nor is considering the Bible to be infaliable morally the only way to be Christian.
I think there’s a real case to be made that, whatever the hell the Bible says, it’s morally WRONG to oppose two people who love each other and want to have any sort of consensual sexual relationship they choose. And far from this case being impossible as to changing minds, it’s changed countless minds. Many people have reversed their ideas because they found that they loved their children/friends/parents more than they believed a particular take on the Bible. Many people have done the opposite. You seem to deny all that, despite several examples of posters here on THIS board who have changed their minds when confronted with good arguements and patient, compassionate, and steadfastly moral people.

[lissener]

Apos, you’re the kind of Doper (this’ll make you happy) that drove me to spend a great deal less time here a while back. I’m thinking about how nice that little vacation was. . . .

I talk specifics, you rebut with generalities; I discuss a general point, you contradict with specifics. You attribute to me things expressed by another person (maybe that’s part of your “teams” thing); you revive points brought up, dicussed, and concluded; you claim I haven’t done X or Y or Z, when in fact, if you’d actually read this and related threads, you’d see that in fact I have (mistakes, or lies?); we work our way from A to B to C, and you start to get wobbly on D so you go back and give A another shake to see if it’s got any blood left in it.

Here’s my first clue that you’re just arguing to be arguing, and wouldn’t concede a point if it killed you: for all the “common ground” you say we have–you say we basically want the same thing–you haven’t given any evidence whatsoever that you’ve considered one single thing I’ve said on its actual merits, let alone agreed with one. Dozens of points and subpoints, tangents and subtangents, perspectives, approaches, restatements, explications, on and on and on, and you come back and simply and utterly contradict every single one. Even if you have to twist back on yourself like a pretzel, misquote me, misrepresent me (either intentionally or stupidly, and you don’t seem stupid–though you can’t spell argument and you’ve got exegesis stuck in your head like a bad pop song–so I’m going with intentionally); whatever you need to do to find some little nugget to contradict, you do it.

You brag to your friends that you’re a good debater, right? I know; I was seventeen too once. (Sorry if you’re not seventeen. You debate like a gifted seventeen-year-old. And I mean that as a compliment.) I used to be able to debate anyone under the table. My secret? I never gave up. I outlasted 'em. (My killer tactic on the highschool debate team, when faced with something for which I had no ready reply, was: “So what?” Got me through it every time; I was a star at Extemporaneous.) As time went on and I grew up, I realized that sometimes I had “won” because I had just bored my opponent into submission. Or sometimes, I’d “won” because I wouldn’t even consider giving up the last word. Whatever; I always outlasted 'em, so I always “won.”

I predict–like I said, you don’t seem stupid–that after you’ve spent some time here, gotten called on your tactics a few times, actually debated a few things that mean something more to you than a chance to show off your debate “skills,” you’ll mature into a decent Doper. You can learn a lot here; I hope you do.

But for now, you’ve outlasted me. You’ve “won.”