Libertarian recently tore into me with this little rant:
Now, what horrible, “bigotted” comment did I make? I pointed out that Libertarian’s description of Hugh Ross was “more than a little disingenuous,” since Ross is a creationist, not an evolutionist. As a creationist he twists science and religion in order to make them fit- hardly the vision Lib had presented of a man who had no problem reconciling science and faith.
I pointed out that Lib’s post was riddled with lies and false accusations, to wit:
- Contrary to Lib’s claims, Ross doesn’t just see the Bible as metaphor; like any creationist, he takes sizable chunks of Genesis literally.
- I never “smeared” Ross.
- In particular, I never “smeared” his credentials, since I didn’t discuss his credentials at all.
- Lib’s comment about “Why, he hardly deserves to live!” is simply putting words in my mouth.
- To compare my comments about Ross to the Inquisition- in which people were tortured to death for their beliefs- is in such grotesque poor taste as to be akin to Nazi-baiting. (Incidentally, the fact that atheists like myself were killed by the Inquisition makes his Inquisition-baiting all the more disgusting.)
- My comments about Ross aren’t “faith-bashing”; I was bashing dishonesty, not faith.
Did Libertarian retract his false accusations? Did he apologize for making them? No, of course not- if he had, I wouldn’t be making a Pit thread! Instead, he merely apologized for hijacking my thread, and slunk off.
The subject arose again in this thread:
I stated, ‘Let me guess- they (ie. science and religion- Ben) are still at odds because “bigotted scientists” have an “Inquisition-level tolerance” for religion, right?’
To which Lib replied:
Of course, this is dishonest in the slimiest fashion imaginable. My sarcasm and eye-rolling came from Libertarian’s lies and false accusations. But, writing in a thread where most people wouldn’t know the earlier context, Libertarian stated that I must harbor a grudge simply because of the “points” he made in the other thread, as if I he had simply made reasoned arguments, and I couldn’t handle the sight of intelligent disagreement. Moreover, he suggests a certain measure of unfairness: I hold a grudge “despite that (Lib) left from it as (Ben) requested.” Never mind that I didn’t ask him to leave per se; instead, I told him to take his accusations to the Pit. Never mind, too, the bizarre moral logic Lib seems to be using: so long as he leaves the thread “as requested,” he doesn’t have to retract false accusations. By that argument, Lib is no more moral than, say, Der Kommissar, who made a false accusation and ultimately left the SDMB without retracting it.
As if that weren’t enough, Yue Han started a Pit thread over some snotty comments Lib had made to him:
Libertarian explained that the reason he overreacted to Yue Han was because he thought Yue was making a false accusation of bigotry. Libertarian then told the tale of his dispossessed ancestors, concluding as follows:
Libertarian, did you ever think of practicing what you preach? If charges of bigotry are so weighty for you, why do you make them so quickly? Why did goboy say of you:
And if charges of bigotry are so serious to you, and false accusations so offensive that they prompt you to make snotty comments, then why do you not only refuse to apologize for your own false accusations against me- you also try to make it look as though I’m only angry at you because I can’t handle your arguments?