# 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:** 5
**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, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/81 "2001-06-10T19:33:31Z")
I agree that **Lib** would have been better served to be fully familiar with Ross’ website before citing it as an example, but his failure on that account does not make his post disingenuous. Since he retracted his characterization of Ross after **hardcore’s** post, I believe that he was unaware of Ross Creationist stance when he introduced Ross as an example. A simple, “Hey – you do know Ross is a Creationist,” might have served your purpose better. Again, I agree that your assumption was reasonable. I simply would not have leveled the charge of disingenuousness based upon that assumption. My 2¢. Worth every penny, in our inflationary time. > [@](#): > > 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. Well, if it is established that Ross professes a belief in Biblical inerancy, this would validate your characterization. Have you seen him profess such a belief? The passages quoted in this thread do not seem to support it. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/82 "2001-06-10T19:47:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > \*\*My 2¢. Worth every penny, in our inflationary time. > \*\* respectfully disagree. A 2 cent piece of advice from **Spiritus Mudi** here is worth, (getting calculator out… punching numbers wildly… digging around for sliderule… punching more numbers… consulting experts in physics, economy, mathmatics, and political science… adding in other related factors… consulting the price guides… getting new calculator…) damn. Nope, it’s **priceless**. ---
**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, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/83 "2001-06-10T20:02:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > \*\*Again, I agree that your assumption was reasonable. I simply would not have leveled the charge of disingenuousness based upon that assumption. My 2¢. Worth every penny, in our inflationary time. \*\* Well, let me put it this way: I think that at the time, my comments were reasonable. Now, however, I see that Lib was- to me, surprisingly- unaware of Ross’s true beliefs, and I retract the accusation of disingenuousness. (Although I still feel that Lib was extremely disingenous in his subsequent discussion of Ross’ beliefs.) > [@](#): > > \*\* > Well, if it is established that Ross professes a belief in Biblical inerancy, this would validate your characterization. Have you seen him profess such a belief? The passages quoted in this thread do not seem to support it. \*\* It’s on his website- it appears to me that he wants very much to assure his readers that he believes in inerrancy, even though he is an OEC. One could debate whether technically speaking he is “twisting his faith,” but I think that the best you can say is that reasonable people can disagree on the issue. I, for one, think that he’s going through a lot of contortions that wouldn’t be necessary if he were more honest with himself. -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, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/84 "2001-06-10T20:37:49Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s on his website- it appears to me that he wants very much to assure his readers that he believes in inerrancy, even though he is an OEC. You are correct. It seems he hedges this with, **"While God the Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects the words and literary styles of its individual human authors.** This apparently allows him to reconcile “inerrancy” with statements that he clearly believes are not literally true. Well, I cannot say I am impressed with the consistency of his viewpoint. > [@](#): > > One could debate whether technically speaking he is “twisting his faith,” but I think that the best you can say is that reasonable people can disagree on the issue. True. I would be more likely to say that “his faith is twisted (logically convoluted)”. I don’t imagine that many of his sympathizers would find that an improvement, though in my mind it is a more generous assessment of Ross’ character. > [@](#): > > I, for one, think that he’s going through a lot of contortions that wouldn’t be necessary if he were more honest with himself. I agree in principle, though I would substitute “consistent with his reason” for “honest with himself”. I suspect that honesty with his faith/belief/heart is what led him to the convolutions of an inerrant yet metaphorical scripture. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2001, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/85 "2001-06-11T02:46:26Z")
**SM:** \*I have developed an unhealthy respect for **mistress kimstu**. I’m sorry. \* Wooo-HOO! Thank you, **Spiritus**! 🙂 (…Oopsie. Mistress Kimstu does not bounce up and down or make smiley faces, and Mistress Kimstu does not thank people. Try again: ) And you’d better not forget it, either. Worm. 🙂 (ack! I held out as long as I could.) ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2001, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/86 "2001-06-11T14:17:49Z")
See, **Ben** , this is exactly why I’m not going to have this dance with you–because you have a habit of misrepresenting both your own and everyone else’s arguments to represent yourself in the best possible light. You’ve accused **cmkeller** on these pages of being disgustingly, unrepentantly “bigoted” and “homophobic.” Your words. Now, let’s go back to first principles, folks. I have added some emphases in the following quotes, to point out that, in fact, if there is anyone around here who is a liar, it is Ben. Here is Chaim’s original, unadulterated quote: > [@](#): > > By the same token, the Canaanite socities that the Israelites were told to wipe out in Joshua’s time did some pretty awful things. Check out Leviticus 18. **it describes all sorts of incest, homosexuality, bestiality and human sacrifice** and caps it off by saying (verse 24): “because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled.” This is where Chaim mentions homosexuality in the thread for the first time. And, keep in mind, he did so in the context of **explicitly discussing** not whether the “real” God is good, but whether God as described in the OT, whether real or fictional, is good. He made certain to frame the argument in these terms, and everyone else implicitly agreed to them. Within those constraints, if the God of the OT says that homosexuality is a sin (which he did), **then it is**. No ifs, ands or buts. Therefore, it is within his purview to punish for that transgression, among others. How did Ben respond to this? [quote] If I might add to your excellent post, Opus, let me point out that **CMkeller has already excused the genocides on the grounds that some of the people killed were homosexuals,** and therefore had to be exterminated for their “evil.” 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.** How, then, is CMKeller any different from the neo-Nazis who praise Hitler for “serving God” by exterminating homosexuals? \*\* This is the first instance of Ben isolating homosexuality from the context of what _Chaim actually said_ to make it appear that Chaim said something substantially different from, and worse than, he did say. Drop homosexuality from the equation, and watch in amazement as Ben defends incest, bestiality and human sacrifice. You don’t think so? I don’t either. Second, he accuses Chaim of saying “Killing homosexuals is a praiseworthy act.” Well, unless there’s a code there, maybe an acrostic or something, hell if I can tell, Chaim said **no such thing**. He said, in no uncertain terms, that it is God’s prerogative (and keep in mind, we’re talking of God within the constraints of the OT representation, whether he really exists or not) to pass judgement on those who commit what God has said are sinful acts. He furthermore says that it is **only** God’s prerogative, and that humans are **not** qualified to make those judgements because they are not possessed of the authority, knowledge or judgement of God. Therefore, it would stand to reason that Chaim would **oppose** humans taking it upon themselves, without the permission or urging of God, to judge homosexuals as “sinful” and to exterminate them. Ben goes in another post to say: > [@](#): > > Instead of simply declaring our comments to be “harsh,” I think it would be better if you addressed them substantively. Why is a neo-Nazi praising Hitler for killing homosexuals any different from CMKeller praising Joshua for the same thing? Here, he goes far beyond the bounds of what Chaim originally (or in any subsequent post) actually said. Chaim didn’t praise **anyone** for “killing homosexuals”; if anything, he praised God for exercising God’s righteous judgement, _within the constraints of the OT_. He **certainly** did NOT praise Joshua, or anything even remotely like it. Ben is, ergo, a liar. That is such an egregious misrepresentation of anything that Chaim said that it is really easy to call it a lie. But Ben will continue having the discussion as if Chaim advocated killing homosexuals. Which, obviously, he did not do. In fact, Chaim has gone to great lengths in past discussions with me to point out that he does **not** consider homosexuality to be particularly or especially sinful, any more than violating any of the other mitzvot. He has said that he considers comitting homosexual acts (not even **being** homosexual, but having homosexual sex) to be akin to doing business on the Sabbath or violating kosher laws. If anything, he **downplays** the severity of it, in contrast to the more rabid Fundamentalist types. I certainly have never seen him advocate gay-bashing, or any other type of violence towards them, nor suggest that they not be permitted to share equal rights. To characterize him as a “bigot” and a “homophobe” (Ben’s words) is, again, such a rash mischaracterization as to qualify as a lie. Hey, I disagree with Chaim on a lot of things. Almost everything, it would be safe to say, at least in the realm of politics and religion. But I’m not going to see the guy slurred for something he didn’t even say, and for an opinion that anyone who has read any of his posts can obviously see he does not hold. Anyone who liked the “South Park” movie is OK in my book. **Spiritus** , what I said to Ben was not an insult; it was a statement of fact. Ben’s ego is fed by having these public pissing matches, and I’m not helping him out with it. I offered to discuss it with him in e-mail, and he got all in my shit. If it can’t be had out in public, Ben isn’t interested in having it out. If that’s insulting, I’d submit that it’s more Ben’s problem then mine. He’s obviously got a sharp scientific mind, but he’s also got this little lying problem when he gets engaged in these discussions. **jab** and **Ben** , [Here](http://listserv.american.edu/anglican/bcp/bcpspecl.txt) is the portion of the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer than contains the sections dealing with baptisms and confirmation. [Here](http://www.lcms.org/cic/apostles.htm) is the Apostle’s Creed, [here](http://www.lcms.org/cic/nicene.htm) is the Nicene Creed, and [here](http://www.lcms.org/cic/athanasi.htm) is the Athanasian Creed. These three, together or separately, are used by various churches, including the Lutheran Church-Misouri Synod, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Episcopal church, and many others. [Here](http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-faith.htm) is the Statement of Faith of the Presbyterian Church of the USA. [Here](http://www.ucc.org/aboutus/family.htm) is the statement of faith from the Constitution of the United Church of Christ. You guys take a look-see through those, which I think can accurately be described as the major statements of faith for mainline Protestant denominations in this country and around the world, and when you find the words “Ten Commandments,” you let me know, OK? Once you do, we can proceed from there. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2001, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/87 "2001-06-11T19:02:12Z")
No, Spiritus, I suppose it isn’t. I shouldn’t have gotten so emotional. I apologize. As to Phil, however, I will not concede that he insulted 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 11, 2001, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/88 "2001-06-11T19:38:20Z")
**pldennison** Accuracy and insult are not mutually exclusive categories. As to **cmkeller** , I too have great respect for him. My comments on his exchanges with Ben were restricted solely to the aptness of using Naziism as a foil for other genocides. I am uncertain, now, whether you wish to let this matter drop from public discussion or continue to post further criticisms of **Ben**. I imagine that he will respond to your last post. I will not until I am clear on your intent in making it. **Lib** > [@](#): > > I shouldn’t have gotten so emotional. I apologize. No apology was necessary, but I accept it nevertheless. As I said earlier, it seems to me that this conflict has been characterized by people on both (all?) sides interpreting posts in as negative a light as possible. I was hoping to escape that particular baggage. > [@](#): > > I shouldn’t have gotten so emotional. I apologize. As to Phil, however, I will not concede that he insulted Ben. Fair enough. I cannot see that the phrase could have been meant as either a compliment or a value-neutral observation, but I feel no need to persuade you to my point of view. It is a fairly trivial matter, in the scale of accusation in this thread. Having told **ben** that I thought he should be more gracious in allowing **pldennison** to disengage, though, I felt obligated to recognize that **Phil’s** withdrawal was also less than gracious. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2001, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/89 "2001-06-11T20:41:45Z")
**Spiritus** , my intent in making the post was to sum up for the benefit of whoever cares exactly what I’ve been saying throughout the thread: that **Ben** treads on thin ice – thin enough to drink – when he calls any poster a liar or a hypocrite. To utterly mischaracterize someone’s words as **Ben** did with **cmkeller’s** , then to call someone else a liar, is simply offensive, not to mention mind-boggling. I have no doubt that Ben will respond, and that’s fine. I am, however, monumentally uninterested in watching him attempt to defend himself. I offered him the opportunity to take it to e-mail and he declined, insinuating that I owe him some public duel. Well, I don’t. I posted Chaim’s words and I posted Ben’s words. I linked to the thread. It’s my opinion that they speak for themselves, and that Ben owes Chaim an apology for his foul mischaracterization and his gratuitous attempt to label Chaim a “bigot” and a “homophobe,” and to imply that he advocates violence against homosexuals. As far as “using Naziism as a foil for other genocides,” I would submit that such a thing was outside the scope of the discussion as framed. It wasn’t “Does God exist?” or “Is genocide ever justified?”, it was “Did God as described in the OT act cruelly?” Within those constraints, the genocides described consisted of the Creator of the Universe using the Israelites to exercise His judgment against people who broke the rules that He made and that He had the authority to punish for. Insofar as Nazis are, obviously, not the Creators of the Universe, any such comparison is invalid. ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2001, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/90 "2001-06-11T20:47:15Z")
**pldennison** : > [@](#): > > He made certain to frame the argument [whether God as described in the OT, whether real or fictional, is good] in these terms, and everyone else implicitly agreed to them. Within those constraints, if the God of the OT says that homosexuality is a sin (which he did), then it is. No ifs, ands or buts. Therefore, it is within his purview to punish for that transgression, among others. This is where you are making your biggest mistake. Simply stating that if God did something, it is therefore “good” is a logical fallacy known as [assuming the conclusion](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#circulus). How could you even debate the morality of God if you use this type of logic? No one is questioning whether a supreme being CAN define something as a sin or punish for whatever he wishes. As a supreme being, who could stop him from doing so anyway? The debate centers on whether these actions can be construed as “good”. Concluding they are by virtue of emanating from God does nothing to further anyone’s understanding of anything. > [@](#): > > This is the first instance of Ben isolating homosexuality from the context of what Chaim actually said to make it appear that Chaim said something substantially different from, and worse than, he did say. Drop homosexuality from the equation, and watch in amazement as Ben defends incest, bestiality and human sacrifice. Isolating the homosexuality portion of what **cmkeller** said makes it appear offensive _only if it actually is._ Though I could support an argument challenging the righteousness of killing someone simply for committing bestiality or incest, there is nothing inherently wrong with focusing on the homosexuality punishment. If this seems to portray **cmkeller** in a bad light, it is up to him to defend his position or denounce it. If the State of Texas claims to have executed 100 people because they were either rapists, thieves, or Hispanics, how does eliminating from consideration the individuals executed merely for being Hispanic excuse their actions? Regardless of whether I agree with the executions of the rapists and thieves, I can still challenge the morality of executing the Hispanics. > [@](#): > > …it is God’s prerogative (and keep in mind, we’re talking of God within the constraints of the OT representation, whether he really exists or not) to pass judgement on those who commit what God has said are sinful acts. Again, no one questions if a hypothetical God has the prerogative to do anything, since it would be beyond our abilities to do anything about it. Please try to understand that the debate is about the “goodness” of a being who would carry out these executions, and whether such a being should be worthy of praise. > [@](#): > > Second, he accuses Chaim of saying “Killing homosexuals is a praiseworthy act.” Well, unless there’s a code there, maybe an acrostic or something, hell if I can tell, Chaim said no such thing. See if you can follow this logical progression: [ul] [li] The OT describes God as killing people for homosexual acts[/li][li] cmkeller believes the OT is authentic, and accurately portrays God’s actions and motivations[/li][li] cmkeller praises the God described therein[/li][li] Therefore, cmkeller thinks a God that kills people for homosexual acts is worthy of praise.[/li][/ul] There it is, harsh and distasteful as it may be. Perhaps you wish to challenge something within this chain of logic, or **cmkeller** wishes to disagree with a statement ascribed to him. As far as I know, he has not done so. But dismissing the argument without addressing the logic does nothing to refute it. > [@](#): > > He furthermore says that it is only God’s prerogative, and that humans are not qualified to make those judgements because they are not possessed of the authority, knowledge or judgement of God. Therefore, it would stand to reason that Chaim would oppose humans taking it upon themselves, without the permission or urging of God, to judge homosexuals as “sinful” and to exterminate them. This is the scariest of all your (or **cmkeller** ’s) leaps in logic. How can anyone objectively know whether “God” permitted someone to exterminate another human for a sinful act? NOBODY should be allowed to execute another in the name of “God”, for anyone can claim to be doing so, and there is no way to verify it without assuming your conclusion. This logic _might_ hold concerning “acts of God” (e.g. the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah), though obviously I object to the morality of even these acts. Using it to justify acts by humans upon other humans is vile and disgusting. **pldennison** , I know you have stated you do not wish to pursue this topic, yet you keep coming back to it. Though I might have framed some of **Ben** ’s positions in a slightly less contentious manner, blustering with righteous indignation over the treatment of **cmkeller** does nothing to address the underlying logic, and you would be well advised to do so if you wish to be taken seriously on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2001, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/91 "2001-06-12T09:40:11Z")
**Hardcore** It is an undistributed middle. Praising the act of killing homosexuals is a much broader mediate object than praising a God Who has killed people who have engaged in homosexual activity. The former implies a license granted to any and sundry who might kill people for their identity. The latter implies a license granted to a specific Entity Whose action is completed, and Whose action was against other action, and not mere thought. Chaim praises God for what God IS. He does not presume to judge what God HAS DONE. Chaim concedes a gap in mediate knowledge, and allows that God had justification for His actions that no other entity has. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2001, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/92 "2001-06-12T18:10:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **The latter implies a license granted to a specific Entity Whose action is completed, and Whose action was against other action, and not mere thought.** IOW, it’s all right for God to kill people who engage in homosexual acts because He’s God? I thought you despised tautologies. > [@](#): > > **Chaim praises God for what God IS.** And what God is is a mass-murderer. > [@](#): > > \*\*Chaim concedes a gap in mediate knowledge, and allows that God had justification for His actions that no other entity has. \*\* “I dunno why God killed all them queers, but He must of had a good reason since He’s God.” ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2001, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/93 "2001-06-12T19:40:26Z")
**Libertarian** , I don’t think the comparison can accurately be called the [undistributed middle](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#isatype). In fact, you may notice in my logical progression that I was careful to limit it to only those individuals who had committed homosexual acts, not merely had a self-image of being gay. This does not improve the Supreme Being’s worthiness in my view. However, I do agree that **cmkeller** (and most everyone else for that matter) probably doesn’t consider God praiseworthy for his killing of those engaged in homosexual activity. Instead, I find it far more likely they find other, more compelling reasons to worship God, and choose not to think about any of God’s less palatable actions, or rationalize it in just the manner you and **pldennison** have presented (i.e. God’s actions are inherently good). The rest of us are simply unable to take this “leap of faith” and praise anyone without question, as this leaves open the possibility of worshipping someone undeservedly. BTW, I appreciate the compliment earlier, but I’m not quite sure how to take being called a fly. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2001, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/94 "2001-06-12T19:40:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > **Anyone who liked the “South Park” movie is OK in my book.** I liked that movie A LOT. **jab** and **Ben** … you guys take a look-see through those, which I think can accurately be described as the major statements of faith for mainline Protestant denominations in this country and around the world, and when you find the words “Ten Commandments,” you let me know, OK?\*\* [/QUOTE] I don’t have to. I just need to ask you one question: If the TC are not important, then why do so many (presumably) Christians want them posted on the walls of public schools and government buildings? Aesthetics? Is it your belief that these people are not true Christians? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2001, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/95 "2001-06-12T22:41:47Z")
**Hardcore** You know that I respect you, so I won’t belabor the point, except to say that the undistributed middle in your argument to Phil is due to the broader mediate object not applying necessarily to the narrower one. All cats die. Elvis Pressley is dead. Therefore, Elvis Pressley was a cat. I can’t speak for how Phil or Chaim (or you) rationalize God’s acts, but I’d like to remind you that I do not believe that God _cannot_ do evil, but rather that He _freely chooses_ to do good. And I would remind you that I believe the seventy-year fart in the wind not only is not of any consequence, but is not even our life. Please grant that it is not necessary to “excuse” God’s actions, depending upon one’s worldview. ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2001, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/96 "2001-06-13T00:35:29Z")
I understand what the undistributed middle means, I just don’t see how you are applying it in the case of my argument with **pldennison**. Don’t worry about belaboring the point – I often need to be hit with a clue-by-four to grasp a concept. But the converse holds also. Once I understand something, I rarely forget my interpretation of it. I think we have a different interpretation of what **Ben** meant by “CMKeller has stated that doing so _[killing homosexuals]_ is a praiseworthy act”. I read that as indicating **cmkeller** thinks a God who kills homosexuals is worthy of praise, and therefore my logical progression listed earlier is valid. I suspect you believe **Ben** is saying that **cmkeller** thinks killing homosexuals is a good thing in and of itself. I certainly grant that anyone may hold whatever worldview they desire, particularly in a sensitive area such as religious beliefs. One man’s rationalization is another man’s fundamental religious tenet. Likewise, I’m sure you accept that I may challenge these worldviews, especially when I do not agree with them. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2001, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/97 "2001-06-13T04:00:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > \*\*See, **Ben** , this is exactly why I’m not going to have this dance with you \*\* Pldennison, either quit discussing this, or quit complaining about discussing it- but please, don’t continue to discuss it _and_ complain. I mean, no one is holding a gun to your head here. You can quit any time you like, and if you remain in the conversation, you have no one to blame but yourself. > [@](#): > > \*\* > –because you have a habit of misrepresenting both your own and everyone else’s arguments to represent yourself in the best possible light. \*\* A habit? Please provide examples of times when you felt I’ve misrepresented arguments in the past. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Here is Chaim’s original, unadulterated quote: \*\* Who’s taking things out of context now? Let’s look at the original, unadulterated quote, with the context that pldennison conveniently snipped rendered in italics: (emphasis mine.) > [@](#): > > \*The short answer for most of these is that while what you read in the OT tells you about the ultimate end of the societies being punished, it gives you little understanding about the scope of what they did to deserve that punishment. However, even without details, those societies come out looking pretty bad. **In cases like these, G-d’s decision to wipe out these societies is a form of surgery, to remove the cancer of immorality from the still morally healthy portion of humanity.** The decision is never made hastily, is never made without warning the sinful society to change their ways, never made without justification, and is never one that G-d makes flippantly. \* > … > By the same token, the Canaanite socities that the Israelites were told to wipe out in Joshua’s time did some pretty awful things. Check out Leviticus 18. **it describes all sorts of incest, homosexuality, bestiality and human sacrifice** and caps it off by saying (verse 24): “because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled.” So if Chaim defends genocide on the grounds that the people killed were a “cancer,” and one of the reasons they were a “cancer” was homosexuality, and I call him a homophobe as a result, Pldennison calls me a liar? Huh? I don’t want to go rummaging through hate sites to prove a point, but I think this proves it nicely: > **[Penguin Random House](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/)** > > Committed to publishing great books, connecting readers and authors globally, and spreading the love of reading. > [@](#): > > “Hitler’s experience of his mother’s last illness,” Binion concludes, “looms behind his later tireless diatribes against ‘the Jewish cancer,’ the ‘Jewish poison,’ the Jewish profiteer.’” > > He cites telling examples from Hitler’s rhetoric of the spectral presence of his mother’s medical trauma: “How many diseases have their origin in the Jewish virus!.. [The Jews are] poisonous abscesses eating into the nation…an endless stream of poison…being driven by a mysterious power into the outermost blood vessels” of the body politic. Much more purple and verbose than Chaim’s phrasing, but the basic point (ie, that genocide is justified because it is removing a “cancer”) is there. The analogy was also applied in reverse: > **[Discovery](https://www.ctv.ca/discovery)** > > Discovery > [@](#): > > German doctors and scientists portrayed cancers as being like Jews … eating away the country from withing, and having to be removed to save the (Aryan) body politic. So the Nazi war on cancer was, in fact, an outgrowth of their own twisted ideology. And here’s a snippet of a poem, which I find quite interesting in this context: [http://members.aol.com/spiritandflesh/homo.html](http://members.aol.com/spiritandflesh/homo.html) > [@](#): > > I have felt the pain of countless thousands > who are forced to live their lives in secrecy > because of one word: homosexual. > > A seemingly harmless word to me, > and yet, to others it is a threat, > a cancer that needs to be wiped out. > [@](#): > > \*\* > And, keep in mind, he did so in the context of **explicitly discussing** not whether the “real” God is good, but whether God as described in the OT, whether real or fictional, is good. \*\* Yes, but to Chaim the “real” God is the real God. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Within those constraints, if the God of the OT says that homosexuality is a sin (which he did), **then it is**. No ifs, ands or buts. Therefore, it is within his purview to punish for that transgression, among others. \*\* Had Chaim said, “I know it seems harsh to kill people over a little thing like homosexuality, but God’s decisions are by definition just” then I would have made very different criticisms. As is, he made this argument: 1. It seems cruel of God to order genocide, but 2. Those societies were “cancers” which needed to be removed, because 3. They did “pretty awful things,” and 4. One of those “awful things” was homosexuality. > [@](#): > > \*\* Drop homosexuality from the equation, and watch in amazement as Ben defends incest, bestiality and human sacrifice. You don’t think so? I don’t either. \*\* Other posters have already dealt with this, so I won’t waste further time on it. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Second, he accuses Chaim of saying “Killing homosexuals is a praiseworthy act.” \*\* This, too, has already been addressed by others. > [@](#): > > \*\*He furthermore says that it is **only** God’s prerogative, and that humans are **not** qualified to make those judgements because they are not possessed of the authority, knowledge or judgement of God. Therefore, it would stand to reason that Chaim would **oppose** humans taking it upon themselves, without the permission or urging of God, to judge homosexuals as “sinful” and to exterminate them. \*\* Phelps thinks that God gave him the permission to do all the things he and his church does, and he hasn’t even killed anyone. And you know something? I think he’s a bigot, and a homophobe. I don’t think that his belief that God tells him to do it excuses his actions one whit. Somehow, I don’t expect to see you defending him anytime soon. > [@](#): > > \*\* He **certainly** did NOT praise Joshua, or anything even remotely like it. Ben is, ergo, a liar. That is such an egregious misrepresentation of anything that Chaim said that it is really easy to call it a lie. \*\* So if I accidentally state that Chaim praised the person who _carried out_ the orders in addition to praising the person who _gave_ the orders, that’s an “egregious misrepresentation”? Fine, Chaim didn’t praise Joshua, but his rhetoric is still reminiscent of Nazi rhetoric all the same. > [@](#): > > \*\* > He has said that he considers comitting homosexual acts (not even **being** homosexual, but having homosexual sex) to be akin to doing business on the Sabbath or violating kosher laws. If anything, he **downplays** the severity of it, in contrast to the more rabid Fundamentalist types. \*\* Given that Chaim has said that homosexuality is one of the things that marked ancient societies as “cancers” that had to be excised from the body geopolitic, I think it’s reasonable to ask for a cite. > [@](#): > > \*\* I offered to discuss it with him in e-mail, and he got all in my shit. \*\* I didn’t “get all in your shit.” I pointed out that it’s irresponsible to make serious accusations if you aren’t prepared to give them the attention their seriousness deserved. I also pointed out that I have a right to defend myself publically against public accusations. > [@](#): > > \*\* > If it can’t be had out in public, Ben isn’t interested in having it out. \*\* Why did you raise this issue in public? Was it not worth your while to discuss it with me privately from the start? And another question, this time of the yes-or-no sort: If someone is accused publically, do they have a right to defend themselves publically? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Here is the Apostle’s Creed, [here](http://www.lcms.org/cic/nicene.htm) is the Nicene Creed, and [here](http://www.lcms.org/cic/athanasi.htm) is the Athanasian Creed. These three, together or separately, are used by various churches, including the Lutheran Church-Misouri Synod, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Episcopal church, and many others. \*\* Focussing on these three (because I don’t have time to plow through all of them) let me point out that there are statements of faith, not of morality. These statements clarify matters pertaining to the nature of God and the Trinity, but nowhere delineate what is or is not sin. Neither the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, nor the Apostle’s creed forbids murder. Does that mean that Christians are free to commit murder? My original question, which you declined to acknowledge, still stands: which of the Ten Commandments may Christians violate with impunity? If we look on your own site, we find a link to the “Creeds FAQ.” And what does it say? “Rather, these creeds are time-tested expressions of some of the most central teachings of the Christian faith.” Some, not all. The fact of the matter is that I used to be a Christian, and we were taught to follow the Ten Commandments. Arnold Winkelreid has told you the same thing. What more do you want? Moving to your second post: > [@](#): > > \*\* > I offered him the opportunity to take it to e-mail and he declined, insinuating that I owe him some public duel. \*\* I insinuated no such thing. Again, if you wanted to deal with this in private, you shouldn’t have accused me in public. It seems to me that ideally, you would prefer a situation in which all could hear your accusations, and none could hear my defense. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Insofar as Nazis are, obviously, not the Creators of the Universe, any such comparison is invalid. \*\* As I already pointed out, the Nazis, like the ancient Israelites, claimed divine sanction for their genocides. You’ve simply mischaracterized my argument, pldennison. -Ben ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2001, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/98 "2001-06-13T08:05:05Z")
**Hardcore** > [@](#): > > I certainly grant that anyone may hold whatever worldview they desire, particularly in a sensitive area such as religious beliefs. One man’s rationalization is another man’s fundamental religious tenet. Likewise, I’m sure you accept that I may challenge these worldviews, especially when I do not agree with them. Absolutely. And I’m sure you will accept that your challenges themselves might reasonably be viewed as rationalizations. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2001, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/99 "2001-06-13T15:31:02Z")
Yes, Ben, much like my “arguments” are “gripes,” your “accidents” are “egregious mischaracterizations.” Fair’s fair. You also need to decide whether you’re talking about what _God_ did or what the _Israelites_ did. If we’re discussing what God did, and the premise is that God did what the OT says he did, you can’t make Nazi comparisons by claiming, “Much like the Nazis, the Israelites also claimed divine inspiration.” If you’re going to keep switching horses midstream, I’ll just let you drown on your own. You decide. Here are your cites. I don’t expect you to admit you’re wrong–you’re so hell-bent on making Chaim Keller into a homophobic bigot that nothing, at this point, could possibly dissuade you. From [sexuality and choice: a metaphor and a god question](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57032): > [@](#): > > No, your view of G-d is messed up. You make it sound like gay sex is the only thing forbidden by the Bible. Hell, even heterosexual sex is forbidden is you’re not married to the other partner. > > Amend your statement: homosexuals have to make that choice but heterosexuals do not. > > On the other hand, let’s think about another biblical prohibition, say, that of working on the Sabbath. Let’s say you have a homosexual who’s easy-going and not particularly money-hungry and a heterosexual workaholic. Whose choice, vis a vis obedience to G-d’s rules, is tougher? > > Everyone has their temptations. To get hung up on the sex thing is myopic and lends itself to a view of religion that is just plain wrong. > [@](#): > > Thanks for shedding some more light on my post. I just want to make one other point, based on the above statement of yours. > > The choices that each of us must make…i.e., if one feels bound by the Bible as the word of G-d may be different. However, such a difference is entirely subjective. Hard though it may be for you, an outsider, to believe, to the person making the choice between indulging his desires, the magnitude of the choices is the same. > > To outsiders (and, of course, to homosexuals themselves), the prohibition on homosexual sex might be a bigger thing to have to give up than work on the Sabbath (and yes, Eve, it’s only about sex. There’s no Biblical prohibition on feelings, there’s only a Biblical transgression for, forgive the explicitness, penetration.). But you’re not inside the head of the workaholic. You’re not that business owner who’s tormented by, “If only I could give my customers 7-day-a-week service, I’m sure they would give me their business. I’ll bet I lose five customers for every Saturday I stay closed. Rent is due in a week, energy prices just went up again…” To that guy, despite what outsiders might think, the fact that he’s heterosexual is little comfort for his own personal choices he must make. His blood pressure is > rising, his palms sweating just as much when he’s forced to make the choice to lay off business for a day as a homosexual’s do when lusting after a member of the same sex. > [@](#): > > spooje, I want to ask you an honest question here, and I am not trying to be inflammatory: > > Is the only concept of G-d that is acceptable to you one that includes no form of sacrificing one’s preferred pleasure? If the answer to this first question is “no,” then by what standard to you determine whether a certain kind of pleasure is a fine one for G-d to request that his adherents sacrifice for his sake? > [@](#): > > As I said earlier in the thread, there is no Biblical prohibition on love. Only on sex > [@](#): > > smaft: > > > [@](#): > > > > Yes, but sex with someone you love is more than simply a “preferred pleasure”. > > I knew someone was going to say that. > > Then to you I repeat the question I asked spooge: where do you draw the line as far as what pleasures are “acceptable” for a G-d to request of its followers? > > > [@](#): > > > > You seem to be trivializing homosexual relationships; I think that’s what was unfair. > > I am doing nothing of the sort. However, you and the others are trivializing the temptations and personal struggles that non-homosexuals face in their own lives by being completely unwilling to entertain the notion that they could be equal, in the mind of the tempted person, to the temptation of homosexual sex. > [@](#): > > pldennison: > > > [@](#): > > > > The line should be drawn at those activities which cause unwarranted harm to other human beings. > > That’s a fine guideline for human societal co-existence, but what makes this a “G-dly” thing? Those are the compromises you make with your fellow man with the expectation of reciprocity. If one believes in G-d and expects some form of superior treatment from him, it’s certainly reaonable to expect some higher standard of devotion than that. > > > [@](#): > > > > All else is arbitrary and capricious. I realize that a deity, if he exists, has the right to make the rules as arbitrary as he likes. > > Or perhaps, being an all-knowing diety, it’s not arbitrary, it’s merely a standard that humans can’t comprehend. But that’s grist for a different mill. > > > [@](#): > > > > I take issue with that phrasing, though: “the temptation of homosexual sex.” Is it a “temptation” for you to have sex with your wife? No, it’s something you do as an expression of your love. Why, then, is it a “temptation” for, say, matt or Esprix to have sex with their SOs? Why is yours normal, but theirs a “temptation”? Do you see where the problem arises? There’s a disconnect in understanding, to my eyes. > > Absolutely not. This discussion was intended to explain the religious point of view. Religiously, homosexual sex is a sin and heterosexual married sex is not. > > But do you think that I don’t understand such temptation? Do you think I wasn’t attracted to my wife before we were married? You know I’m an Orthodox Jew, and you might be aware that husband and wife are forbidden to even touch when the wife is menstruating. Do you think it’s not a temptation for me to not be able to express my love that way for two weeks out of every month? Of course it is. > > I’m not saying matt’s or Esprix’s feelings aren’t as normal as mine. However, religiously speaking, what’s sinful is an issue of temptation, and what’s not is not an issue of temptation. > [@](#): > > But also, I think your premise is flawed. Not every heterosexual has the same temptations. Not every person has only one source of temptation in his life. Most people have multiple vices, of differing levels of desire. > > I mean, homosexuals are (let’s generously assume) 10% of the population. So maybe 10% of the population is strongly tempted to homosexual sex, and 10% is strongly tempted to work on the Sabbath, and 10% is strongly tempted to eat pork, and 10% is strongly tempted to worship graven images, etc. And there might even be some overlap between the groups. > > We humans are multi-faceted beings. We lead lives with many different aspects. Biblical religion deals with all of them, and all people have, in multiple ways, inclinations and desires that are not in accord with what the Bible proclaims. > > Homosexuals, due to their recent political awakening, have become a group whose differences of desire with the Bible are well-known and understandable. But that doesn’t mean that the differences that others have are not significant. Temptation is a subjective issue, and to downplay the temptations of others is just as wrong as to downplay the temptations of a homosexual. I could go on and on, but I think I’ve made my point. And, see, because of these posts of and exchanges with Chaim, I came to understand him – something you are manifestly uninterested in unless the understanding is, “He doesn’t like gays and thinks they should be killed.” If you can provide me one – ONE – instance where Chaim has advocated gay-bashing, or wholesale violence against gays, absent his claims of God-guided violence in the Bible, I will concede the point. But you’re not going to find one, I promise. I’ll guarantee that had Chaim said that the societies God wiped out were full of incest, bestiality, human sacrifice, and eating shellfish, you wouldn’t have blinked an eye. The “cancer” to which he alludes is the refusal to follow God’s laws– **ALL** of them. Your knee jerked so hard when you saw the word “homosexuality” it’s a wonder you didn’t break your jaw. He could have picked any four violations of the law at random, but because he included that one, he has to suffer your smear campaign. And make no mistake–I’ve met many of the gay and bi people here on the SDMB. goboy, dcnewsman, SqrlCub, andygirl, iampunha . . . I consider them friends. I’ve socialized with them. I like to think I know a bigot when I see one, and cmkeller is not a bigot. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2001, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443/100 "2001-06-13T20:52:32Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by pldennison:_ > I’ll guarantee that had Chaim said that the societies God wiped out were full of incest, bestiality, human sacrifice, and eating shellfish, you wouldn’t have blinked an eye. The “cancer” to which he alludes is the refusal to follow God’s laws– **ALL** of them.\*\* But one of those laws forbids homsexual acts, meaning God thinks it’s just as evil as incest, bestiality, human sacrifice and eating shellfish(!). (Odd that pedophilia isn’t mentioned.) Did God slay those who broke just one of those laws or those who broke all of them? > [@](#): > > **And make no mistake–I’ve met many of the gay and bi people here on the SDMB. goboy, dcnewsman, SqrlCub, andygirl, iampunha . . . I consider them friends. I’ve socialized with them.** I don’t think you are a bigot, **pld** , but saying “Some of my best friends are \_\_\_\_\_\_” is NOT a good defense. You sound like Archie Bunker. What we need to know is what they think of you. “A man’s heart is not judged by how much he loves but by how much he is loved by others.” –_the Wizard of Oz to the Tin Man_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-is-there-no-limit-to-your-hypocrisy/66443.md?page=6)