# Libertarian, is there no limit to your hypocrisy? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 25, 2001, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443 "2001-05-25T03:21:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2001, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/61 "2001-06-02T11:01:00Z")
Well, belligerent is as belligerent does. “Inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive.” Synonyms are “bellicose, pugnacious, contentious, quarrelsome.” ([source](http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=belligerent)) Someone started a Pit thread. It wasn’t Phil. It wasn’t I. It was, let’s see, oh yeah! You. Someone called someone a “liar”. It wasn’t Phil. It wasn’t I. It was, oh again. You. Someone said that someone is “dishonest in the slimiest fashion imaginable”. Let’s see. Phil? Nope. I? Huh-uh. Honors go again to you. Are we done with the Opening Post yet? No such luck. We must slog through a bit more gook. There’s “riddled with lies”, “grotesque poor taste as to be akin to Nazi-baiting”, “bizarre moral logic”, and other common phrases used routinely in rational argument. Using some of the fingers on one hand to count your “several” defenders and examine their “copious evidence”, I see that one of them speaks of me, saying, “Of course what irritates me the most is his black/white outlook on life. It’s either them or us, good or evil, cold or hot.” Somehow, your defender missed the false dichotomy between creationists and evolutionists that you drew in your Opening Post. Them versus us. One brush to paint all creationists and one brush to paint all evolutionists, when either common knowledge or a visit to the [Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences](http://www.ctns.org) will show that there is a wide continuum, a broad spectrum of interpretations, all the way from young earth creationists to intelligent design advocates to theistic evolutionists to mainstream evolutionists and more. You can even watch them all debate each other. But Ross is one of the black-hat guys, one of those creationist people who believes his God has had a hand in things here and there. Therefore, by your black/white outlook, he is evil and grotesque, as is anyone who would offer him up as a possible way to begin a dialog with creationists in order to get them to see that they might be wrong. Now, I offered you a list of books written by Ross for you to examine, along with comments by young earth creationists who, interestingly, are as eager to disassociate themselves from him as you are. Maybe you cannot bear to find yourself aligned with those horrible people. Kimstu, of course, offered up a debate on record between Ross and Gish. Actually, she offered up about 0.01% of it, snipped all to pieces, with a link that links to nothing. For one thing, think about what a debate _is_ and why we have them. There is generally the implication that the two people debating **disagree with one another** about the issue of the debate. Perhaps you believe that the difference between them is trivial. After all, there is the One True Way™ (yours), and then there is everybody else. Who knows how a belligerent man might rationalize these things? Now, Ross does indeed reject biological evolution, at least in the sense that you and I accept it. Maybe that’s your one true hot-button. Maybe that’s the black/white line of demarcation which you cannot bear that even a toe slide over. Maybe your acceptance of your own interpretation of biological evolution is so religious that you would crucify men who dare to entertain blasphemous thoughts of any supernatural hand involved in any way. Who knows? Moreover, who cares? Oh. Your legion of supporters care. Well, let’s see. There’s the inimitable jokester, Spoofe, whose post you might count as supportive if you were desperate enough. Then there’s Redboss, a person I’d never heard of. Of course, those two posts weren’t in support of your rant about Ross. They were just general “we hate Lib” posts. Flowbark? Maybe. Though he did defend me against one of your, um, arguments, he made a general comment about almost always disagreeing with me. Euty? Hard to tell. He was vague though a mite inhospitable. I suppose questionable posts fall to you by default. Phil? Moving on… Jab? Hey, I’ll give you Jab. Jab might likely disagree with me if I dug up an old post of his and reposted it under my name. Of course, by now, the ran… er, arguments have shifted to your inexplicable Nazi post to Chaim Keller. Sterra? Not exactly a pillar of support, though you likely claim her anyway, looking at her much the same way Gish looks at Ross, lost but not completely unredeemable. Andros? Well, he said nothing about the matter at hand, but I guess he defaults to you, the Black Hole of intellect and righteousness. Fenris? Ditto. Bosda? Spoofe on steroids. Okay, yours. Drastic? Another Lib hater who said nothing about your Opening Post, but whom you likely see as drifting beyond your event horizon. Quix? Same same. Jeremy? (That’s WaterJ to you.) His character, like Phil’s, in my opinion, is so above reproach, that if he said, “Lib, you’re wrong,” I would stop and re-examine myself. In your vain stupor, however, you likely counted his post as in support of you. You’re the dictator here, so I can hardly defend against your claim. Kimstu. Oh, good heavens. I would have conceded her to you without a fight. She, like Jab, sees a Lib post and begins reading to find The Error™. Capacitor? Let’s see. People who respond to your belligerent ran…, er, carefully crafted arguments are evasive. But, of course, when you answer Capacitor with **“I think that’s a loaded question”** , it’s just a reasonable debating tactic. When, after skipping his question, you change the subject to a misrepresentation of my concession to Hardcore, that’s not diversionary. It’s um, what, getting things back on topic, I guess. Picmr? There’s another poster who would cause me to stop and think. Of course, he was calling you down, but defaults to you by the Ben Is Always Right Principle™. Gaudere? I think it has been established that you get all moderators by default. You are the amazing man who has never stepped over the line, but has merely defined it for us all. Wring? I guess you get the drive-bys. Manhattan? Ditto. Hardcore? By the time he posts, no one is paying attention to your Rant-I-Mean-Argument anymore, but he stepped inside the thread, so he goes to you anyway. Incidentally, speaking of Hardcore, he is the one who changed my mind about Ross, but not in the way you wanted it changed, so therefore he changed it in the wrong way. It isn’t the only time Hardcore has changed my mind. I consider him to be one of the most excellent debators I’ve ever known. But of course, that’s moot. This is your web, so you get all the flies. Arnold? I can see where his arguments about the Ten Commandments would lead you to claim him as among your minions. Kabbes? I guess if you eat pizza the right way (and surely there is no right way but yours), you can count her. And finally, Amedeus. The one who disdains black/white, who nods and smiles, who is irritated with me because I sometimes use big words. Why, he _must_ be yours, because, as everyone knows, you don’t see things as creationist versus evolutionist, and you never use big words. So, there we are. I guess you win by near unanimous consent. Of course, there is no stronger supporter of you than, well, you. You’re the one who called me out for using the term “rant” while you yourself were the first to use it in this thread. It must be another one of those terms that Providence has appropriated for your sole use. You’re the one who calls his own rant a “proof” :D. No undefined terms. No definitions of defined terms. No axioms. No modus ponens. No modus tolens. But a proof none-the-less because why? Because it came from the Inerrant Brain of Ben™. Copious my ass. It’s a copious pile of dung on top of which you proudly sit and survey all that is yours. This thread isn’t about me. It’s about you and how wonderful you are. It’s a poll. It’s a waste of bandwidth. I’m outta here. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2001, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/62 "2001-06-02T20:31:44Z")
**Libertarian:** _Kimstu, of course, offered up a debate on record between Ross and Gish. Actually, she offered up about 0.01% of it, snipped all to pieces, with a link that links to nothing._ Sorry about the link **Lib** , it came up originally when I tested it. Anyway, it was the same debate that **hardcore** cited more briefly in the earlier thread. Here is the URL spelled out : [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-ross-debate.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-ross-debate.html) \*Kimstu. Oh, good heavens. I would have conceded her to you without a fight. She, like Jab, sees a Lib post and begins reading to find The Error™. \* Aw now, **Lib** , that’s hardly fair. (And please note also that I think **Ben** inadvertently misquoted my term “belligerent disingenuousness” as “belligerent dishonesty”. I apologize if I offended you by the adjective “belligerent”, but you haven’t exactly proved me wrong.) Yes, I do disagree with many of your opinions, and yes, I do think that many of your arguments are kind of weak and depend more on hyperbole and overstrained analogy than logic, and I’m not shy about pointing that out when I think it’s having a significant effect on a debate I’m interested in. But I certainly don’t jump all over every post of yours that I see. However, in order not to disappoint you: 🙂 _But Ross is one of the black-hat guys, one of those creationist people who believes his God has had a hand in things here and there. Therefore, by your black/white outlook, he is evil and grotesque, as is anyone who would offer him up as a possible way to begin a dialog with creationists in order to get them to see that they might be wrong._ Believing that God “has had a hand in things here and there” is quite an understatement of what Ross actually says in that debate, namely that he completely rejects the entire scientific theory of evolutionary biology. He considers that the Big Bang theory provides objective scientific **evidence** for the existence of God and for the falsity of non-Judeo-Christian religions. He considers that events described in Genesis such as a universal destruction of humankind must be taken literally. No, of **course** this doesn’t mean Ross is necessarily “evil and grotesque”, or that anybody else who mentions him sympathetically is “evil and grotesque” (lucky for me!), and I can’t find any place where **Ben** called him “evil and grotesque” or anything like it. It does mean that he **can’t** be accurately described, as you described him back in the thread that the OP referenced, as someone who has “no problem reconciling [his] faith with science.” He performs that “reconciliation” only at the cost of **distorting** a great deal of scientific data and theory; it really doesn’t seem unreasonable of **Ben** to have pointed that out, and it certainly doesn’t constitute “smearing” Dr. Ross. What **Ben** said about Ross in his OP of this thread was that he’s a “creationist, not an evolutionist” and he “twists science and religion to make them fit.” Neither of those statements seems unreasonable. They certainly don’t seem inflammatory enough to support your diatribe about Ben perhaps being willing to “crucify men who dare to entertain blasphemous thoughts of any supernatural hand involved in any way”, which I really doubt reflects his views on theistic evolution. I know it’s no fun to be called a “hypocrite” and a “liar”, but don’t you see how your unwillingness to admit that you goofed makes you look very evasive and disingenuous? Is this sort of shrill reaction really more constructive than just turning the other cheek and saying “Sorry, **Ben** , I made a mistake”? ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2001, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/63 "2001-06-02T21:34:00Z")
And just who was it who told us we should turn the other cheek? I’ll give you a hint, **Lib** : His initials are “J.C.” ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2001, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/64 "2001-06-02T21:36:06Z")
Ah, Kimstu. If I were to leave you hanging, I would think it ungentlemanly of me. Despite our differences, I have a certain healthy respect for you, and we have even agreed before on a thing or two. I already admitted the mistake in judgment that I made abut Dr. Ross. Here is what I [said](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1329486#post1329486): > [@](#): > > **You’re right. I was wrong.** I found Ross’s cite when someone asked about theistic interpretations about black holes. I didn’t see the detail you presented. That was to Hardcore. Now, my admission to Hardcore followed [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1329442#post1329442) by him: > [@](#): > > Libertarian, to me the issue is not whether Dr. Ross believes in a Creator or creation event, but his obvious denial of some basic scientific facts. **His personal views are irrelevant** , unless he proposes teaching his version of a creation story in a science class. But it is misguided to reference his website in an attempt to sway towards rationality those involved in an Evolution vs. Creation debate, based upon my understanding of his views. He then listed his objections in a respectful manner, and left it to me to make up my own mind. I came around to his way of thinking, and then Hardcore and I began to explore other scientists of faith who might help in the fight against creationism. Ben, on the waaaaaaay other hand, started [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1329282#post1329282): > [@](#): > > Of course, creationists like Ross never have a problem reconciling their faith with science. **They just falsify and distort their faith** and their science until the two agree! That broad swipe includes people like my sister and my sainted mother. I don’t consider either of them falsifiers or distorters, and I think they are exactly the kind of people (thought too late for my mother) that we ought to be trying to reach. > [@](#): > > This is more than a little disingenuous. Ross is an old-earth creationist, and he regularly debates young-earth creationists. So I’m disingenuous and there is no difference between a young-earth creationist and an old-earth one — two statements made from ignorance. As far as the question in his thread goes, Hardcore gave him a lesson in how to do exactly what Ben claims he wants to do, sway people to his side. Now, Ben says that he made the same points Hardcore did and that I ignored his. That’s a bit like saying that the Inquisitors made the same points Jesus did. But Ben couldn’t just couldn’t drop it and move on. He went on with [these](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1329477#post1329477) even as I was composing my admission: > [@](#): > > DITWD did it quite reliably until he got kicked off, so it seems Libertarian now feels the need to pick up the slack. > [@](#): > > This is simply a lie, Libertarian. > [@](#): > > I said nothing about his credentials, liar. > [@](#): > > What is it with these nine-commandment “Christians”? > [@](#): > > You’ve hijacked my thread long enough as is. See, if Ben were satisfied with an admission of a mistake, we wouldn’t be here in this Pit thread, would we? No. Ben doesn’t want just an admission of a mistake. He wants blood. He wants an admission **to him**. He wants to be right. He reminds me of Genghis Khan, who said, “It is not enough that I succeed. Other men must fail.” Now Kimstu, I ask you. Blind yourself to prejudice for just a moment and tell me which poster, Hardcore or Ben, **you** would have responded to and accorded the decency of an admission. As to turning Ben a cheek, I’ve already told him to get behind me. ---
**Author:** ![Amedeus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Amedeus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amedeus)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2001, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/65 "2001-06-02T21:43:03Z")
Now Now Lib, I didn’t say anything about you using big words. Big words are easy, its called a dictionary. Some of the philosophical ideas and mathmatical concepts you bandy about is what turns my brain to mush. Please get that right. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2001, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/66 "2001-06-02T22:30:32Z")
I stand corrected, Amedeus. I was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2001, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/67 "2001-06-02T22:32:08Z")
**Libertarian:** \*Despite our differences, I have a certain healthy respect for you, and we have even agreed before on a thing or two. \* Yay! Common ground! (I wonder why it is I never seem to inspire unhealthy respect, though. Maybe I should start calling myself “Mistress Kimstu”. :)) _I already admitted the mistake in judgment that I made abut Dr. Ross._ I know. I think that what just frosted **Ben** ’s chitos is that you didn’t say it to him, but instead scolded him for “smearing” Ross. \*Ben, on the waaaaaaay other hand, started here: “Of course, creationists like Ross never have a problem reconciling their faith with science. They just falsify and distort their faith and their science until the two agree!” That broad swipe includes people like my sister and my sainted mother. I don’t consider either of them falsifiers or distorters, and I think they are exactly the kind of people (thought too late for my mother) that we ought to be trying to reach. \* Whoa now, with every effort not to be prejudiced, it doesn’t seem evident to me that **Ben** meant that statement to mean that all creationists are falsifiers and distorters. Many simply do not understand the science involved, and many simply distrust and reject science if it disagrees with Scripture, which although not the most openminded position is at least honest. But I don’t think you can claim to be a scientist and to be explaining scientific opinion, while denying the validity of biological evolution, without “falsifying and distorting” science. I personally would agree that such a position falsifies and distorts faith also, in its refusal to admit the possibility of error in one’s human interpretation, but I don’t insist on that point since I can’t speak for the faithful. \*“This is more than a little disingenuous. Ross is an old-earth creationist, and he regularly debates young-earth creationists.” So I’m disingenuous and there is no difference between a young-earth creationist and an old-earth one — two statements made from ignorance.\* Umbut, the statement **Ben** was referring to by “This” was your remark “The Creationists (against whom Dr. Ross debates regularly)…” This does indeed give the impression that Ross himself isn’t a creationist, which isn’t true. I agree it would have been nicer to assume (as in fact turned out to be the case) that you were just unaware of this, not being disingenuous. But I don’t see at all how you get from **Ben** ’s statement that he is implying that “there is no difference” between a YEC and an OEC. _See, if Ben were satisfied with an admission of a mistake, we wouldn’t be here in this Pit thread, would we? No. Ben doesn’t want just an admission of a mistake. He wants blood. He wants an admission to him. He wants to be right._ Well gee **Lib** , I know **Ben** does take these things pretty personally, but after all, you did take him up pretty sharply on his remarks about Ross: “to smear either his faith or his science credentials […] is a most unfortunate tactic. The Inquisition-level tolerance displayed by faith-bashers […] With respect to bigotted scientists, fighting ignorance needs to begin at home.” All for making criticisms of Ross that were indeed disapproving but not fundamentally unfair. Yowch! I’d probably feel kind of miffed too if I got caught on the receiving end of that, and I’m not sure that a statement just to the effect that “I already corrected my factual mistake in responding to a different poster” would seem sufficiently soothing. _Now Kimstu, I ask you. Blind yourself to prejudice for just a moment and tell me which poster, Hardcore or Ben, you would have responded to and accorded the decency of an admission._ Being as honest as I can, I hope and trust that I would respond to both with such an admission, and an apology if they wanted one, although I agree I’d probably respond more freely and generously to the poster who seemed less angry with me. But then, I kind of enjoy apologizing just for its own sake. (Hmmm, maybe this is why I never get any unhealthy respect. What would Mistress Kimstu do? “You snivelling blathering coprophagic WORM!! Do you seriously imagine I’d consider apologizing to YOU!!!” …Nah, I don’t think this is going to work. :)) \*As to turning Ben a cheek, I’ve already told him to get behind me. \* Oh, har de har har. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2001, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/68 "2001-06-08T19:09:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\*Whoa now, with every effort not to be prejudiced, it doesn’t seem evident to me that **Ben** meant that statement to mean that all creationists are falsifiers and distorters. \*\* Thank you, Kimstu, you are entirely correct. And yes, I inadvertently misquoted your “belligerent disingenuousness” statement. -Ben ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2001, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/69 "2001-06-08T19:27:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gaudere \* > \*\* However, in Ben’s case, geneocide was indeed involved, so I am kind of hoist by my own petard here. \*\* Why “hoist by your own petard”? For that matter, I’d like to ask Fenris why he’s referring to my moral outrage as a “sleazy tactic” over on Fathom. It seems to me that declaring it a “tactic” implies that Fenris thinks I had an ulterior motive. Fenris, could you clear this up for me? -Ben ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2001, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/70 "2001-06-08T19:53:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > pldennison, you should read the Bible more often. From the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:17-19: > > > [@](#): > > > > Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. **Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven:** but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. > > I doubt very much Jesus was excepting the 10 Commandments in the bolded phrase. I’m trying to think of something sillier than one atheist quoting the Bible to another to try to make some point in an argument, and I’m having a hard time . . . jab, do you think that with that statement, Jesus was exempting _the other 603_ commandments/mitzvot in the OT? If not, shouldn’t we then call them “612-Commandment Christians”? To take the point further, since we’re talking about Christians, Jews believe that non-Jews are bound only to follow the [7 Noachide Laws](http://aish.com/wallcam/7-Noachide_Laws.asp). You won’t find “lying” or “bearing false witness” prohibited there, but read them for yourself. Therefore, they are really “7-Commandment Christians,” following the only 7 they are bound by. Furthermore, Jesus says in your quote that nothing shall pass from the law **until it is fulfilled**. Christian doctrine maintains that Jesus’ death on the cross and his resurrection **was** the fulfillment of the law. See, you can quote the Bible at me all you’d like, but I have the benefit of actually having **been** a Christian, thanks. See, we can go on and on like this. Fun, isn’t it?! I maintain that the whole “Nine-Commandment Christian” shtick is perpetrated only by people with poor self-images or belligerent people for the “Aha!” factor. (Not **aha** the poster, with whom I have no beef. 🙂 ) It’s especially repugnant when it comes from another religious person who has publicly disagreed with the tenets of their own religion. I stand corrected by **Arnold Winkelreid** –the Catholic Catechism does explicitly mention the Ten Commandments as important for moral instruction. The point remains, however, that among the bulk of the Christian denominations, the TC may hold a special cultural significance, but they hold no special doctrinal significance. **hardcore** : It isn’t like this is the only thread of Ben’s I’ve ever read, you know. I didn’t form these opinions out of air, thin or otherwise. **Ben** , I’ve said my piece, and have no interest in continuing further. I respect your mind as well as your scientific experience and breadth of knowledge, but I don’t like the way you interact with people and I’m not going to pretend I do. I suppose that runs the risk of me being put on your shit list, but I honestly don’t care (nor, I doubt, do you care if you’re on mine). If you want to take it up further, feel free to e-mail me; it’s [pldennison@yahoo.com](mailto:pldennison@yahoo.com). But I’m not going to feed your ego by repeating myself _ad nauseum_. [fixed da bolding-Czarcasm] [Edited by Czarcasm on 06-10-2001 at 03:04 PM] ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2001, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/71 "2001-06-08T20:15:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ben \* > \*\*For that matter, I’d like to ask Fenris why he’s referring to my moral outrage as a “sleazy tactic” over on Fathom. It seems to me that declaring it a “tactic” implies that Fenris thinks I had an ulterior motive. Fenris, could you clear this up for me? > > -Ben \*\* Then my suggestion would be to ask him over there. My understanding of this place is "if you have a disagreement w/another poster based on other locations (email, chat, other boards, reallife etc.) hash it out with them there. Let me hear an ‘AMEN’! ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2001, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/72 "2001-06-08T21:10:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Ben \* > > \*\*For that matter, I’d like to ask Fenris why he’s referring to my moral outrage as a “sleazy tactic” over on Fathom. It seems to me that declaring it a “tactic” implies that Fenris thinks I had an ulterior motive. Fenris, could you clear this up for me? > > > > -Ben \*\* > > Then my suggestion would be to ask him over there. My understanding of this place is "if you have a disagreement w/another poster based on other locations (email, chat, other boards, reallife etc.) hash it out with them there. > \*\* Unfortuately, this issue is on both boards at once and their mods asked the same thing, so since Ben’s here, and this question’s here and it’s in response to something I said about here, I’ll answer him here (with the understanding that normally I’d agree with **wring** on the “keep matters on their respective boards” issue. It’s always best to agree with **wring** 😉 ) **Ben** : “Sleazy tactic” upon reflection was an overstatement. Gaudere, earlier in this thread pretty much summed up what I was trying to say, but I’d take it further. Even when discussing genocide, to me, Nazi comparisons generally weaken an arguement. They’re overused and I find them distasteful even when apt. As I said there, > [@](#): > > the Nazi parallel, while a sleazy tactic has…some…basis in fact. Nazis supported genocide in part due to their (mistaken) beliefs that God was on their side. Chaim (again in a shorthand version) felt that OT genocides were ok because God wanted it. There is a parallel there, Orthodox Jew or not. (And I don’t share Chaim’s views on his OT interperetation either.) I would have been more accurate if I’d said “distasteful comparison”. I will stand by the rest of what I said, but let me retract the phrase “sleazy tactic” in public (and if you’d like, I’ll do so there too) and apologize for the specific phrase. Fenris ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2001, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/73 "2001-06-08T21:33:21Z")
A thread is not really dead until closed by a moderator. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > **I’m trying to think of something sillier than one atheist quoting the Bible to another to try to make some point in an argument, and I’m having a hard time . . .** Whether we are both atheists or not is irrelevant. It’s no different from telling you if I think you’ve mis-interpreted a passage from _A Tale of Two Cities_, for example. > [@](#): > > jab, do you think that with that statement, Jesus was exempting **the other 603** commandments/mitzvot in the OT? Of course not. > [@](#): > > **If not, shouldn’t we then call them “612-Commandment Christians”?** Okay with me. > [@](#): > > **To take the point further, since we’re talking about Christians, Jews believe that non-Jews are bound only to follow the 7 Noachide Laws.** Why do Jews get to decide what laws non-Jews are to be bound by? I thought only God could decide that. > [@](#): > > **the Catholic Catechism does explicitly mention the Ten Commandments as important for moral instruction. The point remains, however… the TC may hold a special cultural significance, but they hold no special doctrinal significance.** How can the TC be important for moral instruction but have no special doctrinal significance? ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/74 "2001-06-10T03:25:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fenris \* > \*\* > Even when discussing genocide, to me, Nazi comparisons generally weaken an arguement. They’re overused and I find them distasteful even when apt. … > I would have been more accurate if I’d said “distasteful comparison”. > \*\* Thank you, Fenris. Actually, my main concern was with the fact that Chaim, Lib, and PLD all accused me of using the homophobia issue as a red herring. That is, in effect, a serious accusation of lying, saying that I am pretending to be deeply offended by Chaim’s homophobia merely in order to score rhetorical points. When you used the term “sleazy tactic,” I inferred that you, too, felt that it was a red herring- and coming from you, that’s a lot more serious than it is coming from Chaim, Lib, or PLD. If you disagree with my decision to use the Nazi comparison, that’s ok by me, so long as you understand that I fully believe in what I said. I feel that the underappreciated corollary to “I did nothing because I wasn’t Jewish” is “I did nothing, because technically they weren’t Nazis.” To have avoided the Nazi comparison purely in order to avoid offending people’s sensibilities would have been a compromise of my principles. (OTOH, I am willing to listen to anyone who wants to argue that the Nazi comparison was incorrect or not apt.) -Ben ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/75 "2001-06-10T04:36:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \*\*\* > jab, I don’t intend to get into this at lengths \*\* Given the serious nature of your accusations, don’t you think it’s a little irresponsible to start something that you don’t intend to see through? From pldennison’s most recent post: > [@](#): > > \*\ ***Ben** , I’ve said my piece, and have no interest in continuing further. … If you want to take it up further, feel free to e-mail me; it’s [pldennison@yahoo.com](mailto:pldennison@yahoo.com). \*\* If you have no interest in continuing further, then why do you offer to continue further so long as it’s done offlist? It seems to me that the real issue here is that you don’t want to discuss this publically. Why not? And don’t you think it’s a little silly of you to accuse me publically, and then declare that you’re only interested in hearing my defense privately? If you meant this to be a private issue, then you should have emailed me your criticisms from the start. As is, you’ve decided to make it a public issue, and I think it’s best for me to reply publically as well. > [@](#): > > \*\* But I’m not going to feed your ego by repeating myself _ad nauseum_. \*\* Oh yeah? Well, I’m not going to feed _your_ ego by putting on a Carmen Miranda hat and jumping out of a cake on your birthday. I mean, come on- I never asked you to repeat yourself ad nauseam. In fact, I specifically asked that you not simply repeat yourself, and instead try to give a substantive reply to my counterarguments. Let’s go through some of your earlier statements in more detail: > [@](#): > > \*\* > Ben said in re: cmkeller (who is, by the by, Jewish, and Orthodox at that): > … > that asking an Orthodox Jew how he differs from a neo-Nazi is patently offensive \*\* “And Orthodox at that”? What, are Reform Jews less Jewish? Is the Holocaust not as big a deal to inobservant Jews? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Isolating homosexuality from the litany of sins the OT claims that other tribes were guilty of is not arguing fairly. As someone else noted, Ben didn’t seem all to eager to take up the banner of the bestialists or Baal-worshippers. > … > Ben, once again, picked and chose homosexuality out of a longer list of “sins” in order to mischaracterize someone’s argument. \*\* Remember my original comment: “This is, to me, nauseously offensive. We live in a society where plenty of people are killed, in this day and age, simply for being homosexuals- and CMKeller has stated that doing so is a praiseworthy act.” Pldennison, you have accused me of focussing on homosexuality not because I find Chaim’s comments about homosexuality to be despicably bigoted, but because I wanted to score points off him in an argument. In short, you are calling me a liar, one who used the mere appearance of moral outrage in order to further an ulterior agenda. Have I read between the lines correctly? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Also, please note that Ben contributed in large part to getting Danielinthewolvesden (of whom I am no friend) banned from the SDMB for a much less invidious comparison involving little more than the phrases “your buddy Goebbels” and “the Big Lie.” \*\* Ben: stated that Chaim’s homophobic statements are no less offensive than identical statements coming from a neo-Nazi. DITWD: being caught red-handed in a lie, decided to accuse me of being a “pal” of Goebbels and of using his “big lie” technique. Can you really say with a straight face that the second comment is much less invidious than the first? After all, I really believe in what I said. Can you say the same about DITWD? For that matter, DITWD’s comment isn’t solely a “comparison.” He didn’t merely compare my argumentative techniques to those of the Nazis- he effectively accused me of being a Nazi sympathizer as well. > [@](#): > > \*\* > My other point, however stands: Ben is all too eager to explain how much he disbelieves this, that and the other thing in the Bible, but is all too ready to accept the braggadocio-laden accounts of warfare and genocide by the ancient Israelites. If you don’t believe that a literal Creation took place, don’t believe Jonah spent three days in the belly of great fish, don’t believe Elijah was bodily assumed into heaven, don’t believe Jesus was conceived of a virgin, was crucified, died and rose again, why concede or believe for a moment that these genocides actually took place? And if you are willing to believe, to the exclusion of of all other events in the Bible, that these slaughters took place exactly as described, then why not in fact believe that they were the results of God’s judgement and that that judgement was right and just? > … > I believe it is, to put it charitably, unfair to quite purposefully pick and choose which parts you believe and which you do not for the express purpose of putting someone at an apparent moral disadvantage in a debate or argument. \*\* Let me make an analogy. Suppose you meet someone, call him Ted. Ted has a friend named Roger, and he greatly admires Roger and has enormous respect for him. One day he tells you that Roger lynched twelve Black men, and maybe that seems harsh, but the fact is that those men deserved it because they raped virgins of the White race. Would you find it inappropriate, even offensive of Ted to admire Roger? If so, would you feel obligated to believe that the men who were lynched were really guilty of rape? If you believed in the lynchings but not in the rape, would you be guilty of picking and choosing what to believe solely in order to put Ted at “an apparent moral disadvantage”? Suppose you found out that, unbeknownst to Ted, that Roger was really just a braggart and hadn’t really lynched anyone. Would that make Ted’s admiration for him any less offensive? Would Roger’s braggadocio be any less racist for being false? > [@](#): > > \*\* > It is also unfair to pick and choose which parts you believe, as Ben does, and criticize others for doing the same, as Ben has done with such posters as FriendOfGod. \*\* But I don’t claim to believe in Biblical inerrancy. On the other hand, FriendofGod does, and thus it’s appropriate to point out how he falls short of his claims for himself. More to the point: > [@](#): > > \*\* > It’s like Ben calling Libertarian (or anyone else) a “nine-commandment Christian.” It’s not as if Ben is a Christian and is trying to correct the behavior of a brother… \*\* Never mind that I was defending myself against Lib’s false accusations… And do I have to be a Christian in order to correct a Christian’s behavior? > [@](#): > > \*\*Those ten are particularly significant only to the extent that they were written by the hand of God on the tablets, and hold no special place in Christian doctrine or in Jewish teaching. \*\* Here’s a list of the Ten Commandments as defined by Protestants: 1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. 3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. 5. Honor thy father and thy mother. 6. Thou shalt not kill. 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 8. Thou shalt not steal. 9.  Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. 1. Thou shalt not covet. . . anything that is thy neighbor’s. Could you explain to us which of these, exactly, Christians are free to violate with a clean conscience? -Ben ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/76 "2001-06-10T06:19:06Z")
I read the thread. I read the links. For what it’s worth, I have the following observations: [list] [li] **Ben** should not necessarily have assumed that **Lib** knew Ross was a creationist initially, though it was not unreasonable for him to make that assumption after **Lib** cited Ross as an example. Still, the charge of disingenuousness was premature.[/li] [li] **Lib’s** response misrepresented **Ben’s** post and implied that **Ben** was bigoted. Given the importance that **Lib** has stated he associates with such a charge, he should not have leveled it so casually.[/li] [li]After this point, the interaction is poisoned with each person seeking the most negative interpretation possible for every exchange.[/li] [li] **Ben** has valid issues with **Lib’s** lack of consistency re: the seriousness of charging bigotry and with **Lib’s** misrepresentation of the substance of **Ben’s** posts. I do not think that I would have voiced said issues as stridently or using such weighted terms as hypocrite and nine-commandment Christian, but I was not the aggieved party. Serenity is easy when one has not been touched.[/li] [li]Dr Ross does take “sizeable chunks” of Genesis as literal truth.[/li] [li] **Ben** did not smear Dr Ross’ credentials. He did imply strongly that Dr Ross distorted his science in order to deny evolution. Dr Ross’ credentials as an astronomer have no bearing on such a question.[/li] [li] **Ben** steps over the line in characterizing creationists as distorting their faith **and** their science. Having a Christian faith that differs from other Christian faiths does not require distortion. Christianity is not a unified church with a codified doctine and dogma.[/li] [li]I do not agree with **pldennison**. The holocaust is not an unreasonable foil for an attitude that accepts the justification for some genocides. Of similar events in modern history it seems more apt than Kampuchea, Rwanda, or Serbia. The parallels are not perfect, of course. That is why it serves as a foil.[/li] [li]I like the idea of Gaudere leveling warnings for violations of sound reason. I’m sure she has nothing else pressing on her time right now. ;)[/li] [li] **Lib** is now accusing other posters of disagreeing with any post that has **Libertarian** in the left column. He once levelled that charge at me. I found it offensive then, and I see no reason to change that opinion.[/li] [li]I could hardly care less whether the _Ten Commandments_[sup]tm[/sup] are emphasized doctrine among the various Protestant sects. It is clear that both **Ben** and **Lib** find them strongly enough associated with Christianity to consider “Nine-Commandment Christian” an insult.[/li] [li]I have developed an unhealthy respect for **mistress kimstu**. I’m sorry.[/li] I have serious doubts about hitting the submit button right now. I suspect no good will come of it. Then again, if I made that my criteria my post count would be hovering in single digits. What will I decide . . . ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/77 "2001-06-10T06:34:40Z")
I got pulled away (Baby Mundi says “waaahhhh” to you all), so **Ben** got in another post. **Ben** , as I said above I disagree with **pldennison’s** take on this issue. That said, I think it is a mistake to criticize someone for bowing out of a poublic dispute. He did not just fire a shot and disapear. He exchanged several posts (with you and others) and then decided that he had little more to add to the discussion. His offer to “take it to email” seems a recognition that someone “taking the last shot and disappearing” is often unsatisfying to the rest of us. That is not to say I think you were out of bounds to respond to his last post publicly, **Ben**. His words were public. Your answer is public. That seems an equitable end to it. That said. **pldennison** I understand well the need to step away when a discusison becomes more frustrating than enjoyable. I do not understand why you would choose to hurl insults on your way out the door. That is a cowardly tactic. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/78 "2001-06-10T09:50:56Z")
What insults, Spiritus? I don’t mind that you’ve judged the situation here and that you’re sending Ben to Heaven and me to Hell. But Phil left with this about the situation: “I respect your mind as well as your scientific experience and breadth of knowledge, but I don’t like the way you interact with people and I’m not going to pretend I do.” Where’s the cowardly insult? ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/79 "2001-06-10T14:41:26Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t mind that you’ve judged the situation here and that you’re sending Ben to Heaven and me to Hell. Is this the understanding that you gained from reading my post with an open and honest heart? > [@](#): > > Phil left with this about the situation: “I respect your mind as well as your scientific experience and breadth of knowledge, but I don’t like the way you interact with people and I’m not going to pretend I do.” Where’s the cowardly insult? **I’m not going to feed your ego by repeating myself ad nauseum.** ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/80 "2001-06-10T18:30:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > \*\*\*\*Ben\*\*should not necessarily have assumed that **Lib** knew Ross was a creationist initially, though it was not unreasonable for him to make that assumption after **Lib** cited Ross as an example. Still, the charge of disingenuousness was premature. \*\* I’m not sure that’s the case. If Lib cites a prominent creationist pundit in his arguments, indicates a familiarity with his debates, and cites his webpage as proof- then I think it’s reasonable to assume Lib knows that Ross isn’t just a theistic evolutionist. Remember Lib’s original post: > [@](#): > > \*\* > I recommend you study Dr. Hugh Ross’s Reasons to Believe site. Dr. Ross has impeccable credentials as a scientist and is active in his Christian faith. You might not agree with how Ross interprets data toward his faith, but you will find that he agrees with you in his interpretation of the data toward an ancient universe. \*\* It took me roughly five minutes of “studying” Ross’ site to find out that he takes sizable chunks of Genesis literally, and I assumed Lib had followed his own suggestion to study the site. [QUOTE] \*\*[li] **Ben** steps over the line in characterizing creationists as distorting their faith **and** their science. Having a Christian faith that differs from other Christian faiths does not require distortion. Christianity is not a unified church with a codified doctine and dogma.[/li][/QUOTE] \*\* Perhaps my comments were extreme, but I think you misunderstand the substance of them. I felt that Ross is being untrue to his belief in Biblical inerrancy when he seems to choose to take parts of the Bible literally or metaphorically depending entirely on how much he knows about the relevant science. As I explained before, I’m not accusing creationists in general of falsifying either faith or science, since many of them don’t know enough about the issues involved. -Ben [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443.md?page=5)