Several days ago, after ignoring multiple posts from me because of some undefined unreasonableness, David posts:
Oooooh, goody! I get a second chance to meet David’s standards of reasonableness. And the fact that he’s hoping he won’t regret this shows him to be SO open-minded about all this. And he’s willing to respond to my (implied one & only) “legitimate” question! How nice of him! But wait, what about the other questions I’ve asked?
- How are your views about Christmas different than a fundamentalist Christian’s view towards Halloween? (At that point, David wasn’t even responding to posts asking if he did observe Halloween. He does. He considers it just a bunch of kids dressing up in costumes. But to a judge who considers Santa Claus a lark, he says “Fuck You”)
- Would attempts to work with the school in advance of the program have helped to make them more inclusive?
Who the hell is he to get to decide what is and what is not a legitimate question? And why should it take some “special” dispensation for him to be willing to exchange posts with me? And what about his accusations that I’m just here to parrot a friend of mine (who he’s also conveniently ignoring)? I guess the fact that I wasn’t invited to this thread bashing the Christian society that tramples the rights of atheists & Jews by David, but rather was invited by Melin (also out in Coventry because her repeated posts showing the inconsistency of David’s position) necessitates this special act of tolerance by David.
Oh, but it’s Christmas. A time to eschew skepticism, and cynicism, and see the innocence and good in one another. To look at the world with the eyes of a child and re-experience wonder & magic. So I posted back in good faith, and even answered his accusations with honesty & candor, and waited for David to respond. But, alas, it is not to be. Something in my posts has offended his Lord Moderator, and I am once again I find myself relegated to the wilds of Coventry, never to be listened to by him again. Oh, the horror.
He talks about straw man arguments, and yet exploits the fact that he is Jewish as his reason for not participating in the Christmas season. But he’s not willing to share any of his Jewish heritage with his son’s pre-school class. (Apparently, it’s the schools responsibility, not his. How convenient.) Not his Jewish faith, for he has little, or none, and we’ve all agreed that religion is out-of-place in a publicly funded pre-school, but he is apparently unwilling to share his Jewish culture. So, he objects to his son’s pre-school’s way of handling the holidays, but is unwilling to do anything except complain to change that. Is it really the exclusion of Jewish traditions, then, that galls him so and triggered this rant? No, I believe that the real reason is much simpler than that. It is the fact that erstwhile normal, reliable, sound-thinking adults voluntarily suspend rational thought and enter a world of wonder, whimsy, and fantasy and encourage their children to do likewise that is an anathema to this hard-hearted skeptic.
You know, we all have our little pseudo-religions (mine is logical consistency), complete with demons, windmills, and thou-shalt-nots. David’s pseudo-religion is skepticism, and he styles himself as it’s high priest. But is he really all that skeptical about everything? Or just of the things that foolish people believe like psychic hot-lines, alternative medicine, Christianity (especially as practiced by fundamentalists), and creationism? Which, of course, after several posters explained their view that creationism & evolution weren’t mutually exclusive, he decided to define in his terms:
just as he felt he had the authority to decide what symbols of Christmas were and were not of Christian origin in the “Christmas in Schools” thread.
But what about evolution? Does that receive some special exclusion in that it doesn’t have meet the same strict standards to which he holds other things? In one thread, he challenges:
Isn’t that the OPPOSITE of how skeptics are supposed to work? Nothing is accepted until completely proven? But evolution is proven, you might say, pointing to the emergence of more & more antibiotic-resistant bacteria. And I agree that the natural selection portion of Darwin’s theories have been proven and are fact. But the origin of the species portion (that divergence of species is the ultimate outcome of natural selection) has not been proven as fact. True, we’ve only been watching for a little over a hundred years, but how many new species have emerged? Has anyone proven that a series of small mutations explains the differences between humans & chimps, and their common ancestor? No, there are gaps for which we don’t have fossil records for the in-between organisms. But when Phaedrus asks:
David answers:
Instead of applauding someone expressing a healthy skepticism for a scientific tenet with some weak underpinnings, David B. flames the guy. Now Phaedrus may not be anyone’s idea of a model poster, but isn’t a moderator supposed to encourage discussion & work to create an environment in which posters are encouraged to post reasonably? Does David do this? No, he first adopts a patronizing attitude in pointing out all the flaws in what anyone has to say that is wrong (= not in agreement with David). If this doesn’t work, he simply labels the poster as unreasonable & banishes them to Coventry. And if they keep coming back despite his disdain for them & gain support from other posters, he then whines about their not coming to discuss issues (read: learn & adopt David’s viewpoint) but of trying to win arguments! Who’s deluding who here?
And this person has been chosen to act as a moderator. As such, he’s supposed to facilitate discussions, not figuratively eliminate people with opposing viewpoints. Can he participate in the debates as a poster? Absolutely. Does he have the responsibility to try to make everyone express themselves reasonably? Yes. Should he call on all posters to eliminate ad hominem attacks? Yes. Yet he not only participates in such attacks, he initiates them.
And then wonders why some of us consider him a pompous bag of wind.
Sue from El Paso
Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted.