# Let's pit Dopers who engage in debate with Starving Artist **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 28, 2009, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389 "2009-10-28T02:33:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/201 "2009-10-29T14:03:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If this is the yardstick, then **Diogenes the Cynic** is perhaps the worst offender on the boards. He will do precisely what you’ve described: dogmatically stake out a position based on his own experience, and Moses coming down from the mountain would be hard-pressed to budge him. > > Now, it’s true that he’s gotten Pitted for this, but he gets nowhere near the level of vitriol that’s directed at **SA** on a regular basis. And why? I don’t see how you can blame us for that. If there’s a debate occurring in which most of us are busily debating the issues, we’re generally not going to take time out to point out the flaws in **Dio** ’s reasoning as long as he’s arguing from “our” side. I don’t see you calling out **Starving Artist** when he says dumb things either. That’s _your_ job, and while I appreciate that there aren’t many people around to argue the conservative side of a given issue, **Starving Artist’s** participation vastly increases the noise to signal ratio. Anyway, there is a big difference between **Dio** and **SA** ; **Dio** makes original arguments without much basis in fact in each thread; **SA** makes _the same_ argument without much basis in fact over and over again. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/202 "2009-10-29T14:06:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I don’t see how you can blame us for that. If there’s a debate occurring in which most of us are busily debating the issues, we’re generally not going to take time out to point out the flaws in **Dio** ’s reasoning as long as he’s arguing from “our” side. That’s an intellectually bankrupt argument you’ve just made. It is “our job” to make the argument that an obviously flawed argument is flawed, but no evidence will be accepted that the argument is flawed because you are already ideologically opposed to said evidence. The deck is somewhat stacked against that happening, wouldn’t you say? I certainly would. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/203 "2009-10-29T14:07:59Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Anyway, there is a big difference between **Dio** and **SA** ; **Dio** makes original arguments without much basis in fact in each thread; **SA** makes _the same_ argument without much basis in fact over and over again. And I have conceded that DtC is more effective a rhetor than SA. > [@](#): > > I don’t see how you can blame us for that. If there’s a debate occurring in which most of us are busily debating the issues, we’re generally not going to take time out to point out the flaws in Dio’s reasoning as long as he’s arguing from “our” side. I don’t see you calling out Starving Artist when he says dumb things either. At one time or another, I have disagreed with a conservative position espoused by each of the few other conservatives here. While I don’t now remember any specifics with respect to SA, I’m certain I haven’t left him off the list. ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/204 "2009-10-29T14:18:32Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > A person for whom the Enlightenment never happened? Hah! Here we go again with faux liberal superiority. > > Still, your damn right I never experienced the Enlightenment. Neither has the country. Unless you call a couple of generations of people who don’t know the difference between ‘there,’ ‘their’ and ‘they’re,’ or ‘your’ and ‘you’re’ and who think every word that ends in “s” takes an apostrophe…where college students say shit like “_Me and her were at the mall last weekend_” or “_Have you went and put down your deposit yet_?” > > Or where criminals in their twenties and thirties with a dozen or more convictions under their belt are roaming the streets shooting and stabbing and raping people. > > Or where millions of people have had their lives destroyed by drugs and/or the criminal activity associated with it. (I’d wager that at least 90% of this board’s population either knows someone whose home has been broken into by someone looking to get money for drugs, and who knows how many people have been killed in drug-related crimes. And that doesn’t even touch on the anguish and misery the family members and loved ones of drug addicts have to go through.) > > Or where kids are growing up in broken or single-family homes in an environment virtually guaranteed to make sure they are doomed to live lives of crime and deprivation. > > So American society is defined these day by the breakdown of the family unit, rampant STD rates, crimes committed by people who ought to be in jail, widespread drug use and addiction, high school graduates who couldn’t have passed the fifth grade in the fifties; etc., etc., etc. > > This is serious shit. Peoples’ lives are lost, made miserable, or permanently ruined by all this, and on a scale that dwarfs whatever ill-doing you want to lay at the feet of conservatives. > > And yet, incredibly, people like you think this is a more enlightened time? > > William F. Buckley once said “_Liberals mean well but do ill, and then excuse their ill-doing by their well-meaning_,” but it’s obvious he never discovered this place. Not only are the ill consequences of liberalism not excused around here, they aren’t even acknowledged. > > And yet you have the gall to call _me_ unenlightened. With enlightenment like you’ve wrought, who needs enemies? I LOL’d. But, seriously, this is how you see America? No wonder you’re so mad. I’ve seen a lot of old people turn to local news for their window to the world, and they end up sounding just like this. Turn it off, and go meet some people. Go talk to the young people in your neighborhood. It isn’t this bad, really. You’re letting them scare you. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/205 "2009-10-29T14:36:20Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > That’s an intellectually bankrupt argument you’ve just made. It is “our job” to make the argument that an obviously flawed argument is flawed, but no evidence will be accepted that the argument is flawed because you are already ideologically opposed to said evidence. > > The deck is somewhat stacked against that happening, wouldn’t you say? I certainly would. I don’t see why it would be _your_ job. You have taken several people to task before for describing you as a conservative, as I recall. In any case, that’s (to quote H. L. Mencken, I believe) a bunch of horseshit. If you really think no evidence offered from the opposing perspective is going to be accepted, you may as well not debate at all, since the same logic ought to apply to issues as it does to posters. Look, I’m not saying that nobody _should_ ever disagree with anyone who is arguing from their own viewpoint even if they’re making silly arguments. I often do just that (and probably more often people do that for/to me). I’m just saying that it’s only natural to deal with your opponents\* first. Call it inertia, if you like- we’re already going that way, why turn around? Or consider that **SA** says things that make us angry, and ask yourself who you’re more likely to engage- the guy who says something that makes your eyes roll, or the guy who says something that makes your blood boil? > [@Bricker](#): > > And I have conceded that DtC is more effective a rhetor than SA. Well, then you already answered your own question, to some extent. I think a large part of it is also that **Dio** does not (always) blame everything on conservatives or conservative permissiveness (actually, I guess conservative authoritarianism would be the logical analogue). So, where **Starving Artist** would have blame and condemnation for anything and everything on liberals, **Dio** would have blame and condemnation disappear into the ether, applied to nobody, for the most part. He is generally positive; **SA** is almost wholly negative as it relates to the here and now, pining away for a more genteel time that never really existed. > [@](#): > > At one time or another, I have disagreed with a conservative position espoused by each of the few other conservatives here. While I don’t now remember any specifics with respect to SA, I’m certain I haven’t left him off the list. Well, fair enough, but you are in something of a minority among the minority here. Even **Scylla** usually shows up in **SA** -related threads (or **SA** -related-hijackings) to say something about how racism = disagreeing with liberals, or somesuch nonsense. \*debate opponents, not people actually across the line of battle or whatever. I mean, really, aren’t we all on the same side? Group hug? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/206 "2009-10-29T14:59:56Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I don’t see why it would be _your_ job. You have taken several people to task before for describing you as a conservative, as I recall. You recall incorrectly. I am not a Republican. By most people’s standards I am quite centrist (although that was not always the case). However, I am still considered to be one of the board’s conservatives. I take people to task because when I object to the conventional wisdom I’m insulted, but when I do not I’m lauded for my “open-mindedness”. In any event, that does not detract from the larger point: if you are either unable or unwilling to note and denounce a fallacious argument because it’s made by someone you are ideologically aligned with, how is it reasonable for the “opposition” to have any expectation that their argument will be met with anything but instantaneous rejection? But you would put the burden of convincing you on people whose evidence is rejected out of hand in favor of a flawed argument that you unabashedly admitted that you can’t be troubled to reject? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/207 "2009-10-29T15:04:55Z")
A lack of response does not denote acceptance, and again, if your evidence is rejected out of hand, why debate? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/208 "2009-10-29T15:15:40Z")
The bottom line remains: If a poster ignores cites from reputable sources because the facts contained therin do not align with their personal worldviews, then that particular poster has no place in Great Debates, no matter what their political allegiance. For example, dismissing a statistical historical analysis of teen pregnancy based entirely on “I strongly suspect a great many girls get pregnant and no one ever knows about it or the information is confidential and protected.” This is ridiculous on its face. “no one ever knows about it?” It’s a rare pregnancy that goes completely undetected from start to finish. Usually when the baby comes out, people suspect. “information is confidential and protected”? Not from those collecting statistics. HIPPA protects individual identities, not the collection of anonymous statistical data. And all this presupposes that pregnancies were better reported in the past compared with today. But if a poster simply refuses to engage in actual debate about factual points, and only talks about “I think” or “I feel” or “I know” or “I strongly suspect” ------ They need to go to MPSIMS. (not that there’s anything wrong with that) They should stay away from Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/209 "2009-10-29T15:37:39Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > A lack of response does not denote acceptance, and again, if your evidence is rejected out of hand, why debate? Because there’s an audience of readers, and they may be swayed by your reasoned rebuttals, even if the direct target of those rebuttals is not. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/210 "2009-10-29T15:42:02Z")
Presumably the audience of readers will also be swayed by reasoned rebuttals of things **Diogenes** says, too. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/211 "2009-10-29T15:48:32Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Presumably the audience of readers will also be swayed by reasoned rebuttals of things **Diogenes** says, too. Yes, indeed. In fact, I said as much directly to him not a month ago. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/212 "2009-10-29T15:52:51Z")
Well then, no harm no foul. Perhaps I don’t understand AD properly but he seems to be saying that the only people who can rebut faulty arguments are the people arguing from that side- in which case the only person who can establish the innocence of a defendant is the prosecutor. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/213 "2009-10-29T16:06:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s a tough question. Your evaluation is extremely skewed by your biases and partisanship. One poster presents material with reference to past education and training, in regard to current literature or publications, with recognition of new information and with a logical underpinning. The other posts strictly from gut impression relying almost exclusively on his own experiences alone, with interpretations that are completely at odds with any rational consideration of the issues. Furthermore, almost every issue is described by this poster through a single prism. There’s no doubt that Diogenes is highly opinionated and often adamantine in the expression of those opinions. There’s equally no doubt that his beliefs and the material he presents here is far more likely to be derived from an empirical consideration of the matter than from a gut-based singly-minded worldview. If you honestly wanted to find a like for Starving Artist, kanicbird or that other hoo hoo out of body experience my blog is my cite guy would be a better match. As another take on the matter, I can say that Diogenes seems to be an expert in the study of religion. Do you agree? What do you think Starving Artist is expert in? I can’t say I honestly have seen any topic or subject matter that he has any particular grasp of common knowledge in, let alone expertise. I’d rather have a frustratingly obdurate empiricist as a poster here than one who spouts ill-formed bizarre opinions. If you really think the comparison is a tough call, you’re simply an idiot. > [@](#): > > Frankly, I didn’t answer your question because it seemed blindingly obvious to me, and because I was convinced that most readers, having read my OP and your response, would not need me to spell out that which was inferentially obvious. However, I have now answered it. Feel free to prod me by PM or by additional posts if this situation comes up again and you feel I’m ignoring a question in an effort to dodge it. Nice dodge, and especially ironic in the midst of a complaint about someone who you feel does not adequately consider other perspectives on the topic. I don’t recall that you ever answered how a voter ID would prevent the fraudulent submission by mail of an absentee ballot. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/214 "2009-10-29T16:11:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well then, no harm no foul. > > Perhaps I don’t understand AD properly but he seems to be saying that the only people who can rebut faulty arguments are the people arguing from that side- in which case the only person who can establish the innocence of a defendant is the prosecutor. What I take from AD’s complaint is not that the only people that may rebut faulty argument are on the other side, but that the lack of willingness to rebut faulty argument from your own side is evidence of intellectual dishonesty – by implicitly accepting faulty argument when it favors you but rejecting it when it does not, you signal that what actually matters is the advancement of your position, regardless of the means used. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/215 "2009-10-29T16:18:25Z")
Oh. That makes more sense, but I think I outlined the reasons for that fairly well above. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/216 "2009-10-29T16:19:59Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > What do you think Starving Artist is expert in? I can’t say I honestly have seen any topic or subject matter that he has any particular grasp of common knowledge in, let alone expertise. Metamucil and lawn chairs. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/217 "2009-10-29T16:28:45Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Your evaluation is extremely skewed by your biases and partisanship. One poster presents material with reference to past education and training, in regard to current literature or publications, with recognition of new information and with a logical underpinning. The other posts strictly from gut impression relying almost exclusively on his own experiences alone, with interpretations that are completely at odds with any rational consideration of the issues. Furthermore, almost every issue is described by this poster through a single prism. Yes, DtC brings a full and deep understanding of a number of different topics to the table, and his arguments often reflect that understanding. SA does not give the impression of technical expertise in any area that comes to mind. > [@](#): > > There’s no doubt that Diogenes is highly opinionated and often adamantine in the expression of those opinions. Yes. > [@](#): > > There’s equally no doubt that his beliefs and the material he presents here is far more likely to be derived from an empirical consideration of the matter than from a gut-based singly-minded worldview. No. Here is where I part company with your analysis. I find that OFTEN, DtC’s posts result from a gut-based view. He is skilled at marshalling evidence to support his viewpoint, but not able to critically evaluate opposing posts and acknowledge where he’s wrong. I > [@](#): > > As another take on the matter, I can say that Diogenes seems to be an expert in the study of religion. Do you agree? Yes. I’ve studied the subject a bit myself, and I can say his knowledge is quite admirable and thorough. I’d put him in the top five posters on the board on the subject, knowledge-wise – maybe even the top two. > [@](#): > > What do you think Starving Artist is expert in? I can’t say I honestly have seen any topic or subject matter that he has any particular grasp of common knowledge in, let alone expertise. I’m not aware of any particular expertise of his, no. > [@](#): > > I’d rather have a frustratingly obdurate empiricist as a poster here than one who spouts ill-formed bizarre opinions. If you really think the comparison is a tough call, you’re simply an idiot. The close call was not for which poster we’d rather have here, or which poster is overall more valuable. It was in response to yuor question about which poster values empiricism more: > [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > It may be comforting to you to think about Starving Artist being somehow equivalent to Diogenes. However, I really have to ask if you honestly believe that the two posters have the same regard for empiricism. > [@Bricker](#): > > That’s a tough question. In the end, i would say that Diogenes has more regard for empiricism than Starving Artist. SA has acknowledged his purpose is not to debate, but simply offer a contrasting view. DtC, at least ostensibly, remains open to convincing, although in practice it is practically impossible. As i said before, DtC is clearly a more accomplished debater, and in that respect he has more “regard for empiricism” than SA does. But he has effectively zero regard for it when its results run counter to a point he has decided to defend. > > So it’s a close call, not remotely the sort of runaway victory I suspect you imagined when asking the question. But I will concede that ultimately the answer is yes, DtC has more regard for empiricism than SA does. Your question now seems to generalize that position to some overall expression of value or desirability as a debate participant. I certainly did NOT have DtC in mind when I said “there are at least two.” The only reason I mentioned him was this post by **Princhester** : > [@Princhester](#): > > I had an exchange with SA which (paraphrasing) went basically like this: He inferred something based on his personal experience. I pointed to a book containing actual studies of the phenomenon in question which showed he was wrong, or at least his personal experience was atypical. He said words to the effect of: “who am I going to believe, my own eyes or some book?”. If he’d said that he had a counterstudy, or pointed out holes in the study, that would be fine. But he didn’t. As I said at the time, he is a person for whom the Enlightenment never happened. He doesn’t accept research, he just accepts that however he feels or whatever his experience has been is How It Is and he simply isn’t able to accept that the world has moved on (and for the better) to the point where we have tools and techniques for study of things that are simply better than the confining walls of one’s own experience. I responded: > [@Bricker](#): > > **If this is the yardstick** , then Diogenes the Cynic is perhaps the worst offender on the boards. He will do precisely what you’ve described: dogmatically stake out a position based on his own experience, and Moses coming down from the mountain would be hard-pressed to budge him. (Emphasis added). Note that I was referring precisely to his “frustratingly obdurate” and “adamantine” qualities. > [@](#): > > Nice dodge, and especially ironic in the midst of a complaint about someone who you feel does not adequately consider other perspectives on the topic. I don’t recall that you ever answered how a voter ID would prevent the fraudulent submission by mail of an absentee ballot. In the case I linked to, the absentee ballots were picked up in person, without the need to show ID. It was by this method that they were fraudulently obtained. Requiring ID for an in-person pickup of an absentee ballot would solve the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/218 "2009-10-29T16:29:53Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Oh. That makes more sense, but I think I outlined the reasons for that fairly well above. Of course, I may be wrong, and I certainly can’t speak for AD; he is more than capable of clarifying his own statements. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/219 "2009-10-29T16:51:20Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I am not dishonest. And I fail to see how it’s even possible to be too dismissive of religion. Dude, i agree with much of your politics, and as an atheist i also nominally share some of your core views about religion. I’m completely dismissive of religion as it pertains to my own life. I have no use for it, and am not willing to make concessions on that front. But just because i believe religion to be rather irrational, i don’t believe its adherents are all somehow delusional in a broader sense, or that the simple fact of being a believer automatically makes a person fundamentally untrustworthy in matters of logic and reason. I make a distinction between religion, on the one hand, and people who are religious, on the other. You, as far as i can tell, make no such distinction. More problematically, you seem to extend this position to an assumption that any individual or social institution that is involved with religion should therefore be dismissed out of hand, rather than being willing to concede that even in its irrationality, religion can, and sometimes has been, a motivating force for good in the world. I really didn’t mention you in order to begin a debate about this. In fact, i mentioned you to point out that you get piled on quite a bit around here as well. But your attitude to religion is one that not only brooks no argument, but is stubbornly and comprehensively dismissive, and that refuses to see any nuance or shades of grey in the issue. And i think that this sometimes leads you to argue dishonestly in debates where religion is a factor. Just MHO. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389/220 "2009-10-29T17:49:15Z")
There are big differences between **Starving Artist** , **Der Trihs** and **Diogenes** , imho: **Diogenes** debates and responds in a seemingly reasonable fashion, but sometimes (not always) stakes out a position and then gets into this mode where he is absolutely furiously unwilling to concede even a single inch of ground no matter how bizarre the position he originally staked out. A good example of this is last week’s thread about **The Office** , in which he claimed that there was no basis for Pam to be upset that her mother was dating Michael Scott, and that in fact Michael Scott treats women well. A position which, if you watch **The Office** , you will realize is just stunningly bizarre. **Der Trihs** I believe honestly holds the positions he proclaims, and is willing to back them up with not-prima-facie-ridiculous evidence and arguments. It’s just that the positions he holds are incredibly extreme, and he is extraordinarily rude and dismissive in the way he presents them. He’s basically an asshole about a lot of topics; which doesn’t necessarily make him wrong but certainly makes him unpleasant to discuss them with, and also makes him unlikely to convince anyone of anything. **Starving Artist** is frustrating because he writes long and seemingly thoughtful posts which seem like the jumping off point for interesting debates, and then the interesting debates never materialize. If he just groused short little grouses about “kids these days” or whatever, it would be easy to ignore him, except that he writes nice long posts with multiple paragraphs and basically coherently and politely states a position. “A-ha!”, one exclaims, “a coherently stated position in a long polite post, but one that I strongly disagree with. By gum, surely an interesting debate will ensue”. And then it doesn’t, and he plays the victim card and grouses about how he’s outnumbered and people are rude to him (both of which are certainly true to at least an extent), and how none of us liberals have ever before been confronted with the idea that liberalism might have a downside (which is clearly ridiculous), and then it all begins again and again and again. And then there’s that douchebag **maxthevool** who feels justified in passing judgment on other board members. What a tool! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-pit-dopers-who-engage-in-debate-with-starving-artist/515389.md?page=12)