raindog: are you fucking kidding me?

Over here in GD, we have just gone through about four pages of exchanges typified by the following:

In response to a different post, but one of essentially the same substance:

Basically, this continues as a couple more (actually, dozens) people asking our erstwhile troll to provide an example of a reasonable argument against same-sex marriage, and raindog performing a bizarre Mexican Hat Dance around the question.

Now, Bricker had also posted something similar, specifically:

…and when pressed, also failed to provide an example of one of these super-secret reasoned, rational arguments. However, since Bricker did not return to the thread and post a dozen more times without ever bothering to actually address the question, he’s not getting Pitted.

raindog, on the other hand, has over the course of two days and four pages constantly trotted out the same not unreasonable idea - that there are reasonable arguments against same sex marriage - without ever bothering to offer one, despite being asked to do so repeatedly and once in all caps.

I have therefore concluded that raindog is either a troll, or a bot, or possibly a complex arrangement of those nodding water-clock bird things from that one Simpsons episode where Homer puts on weight so he can work from home and almost causes the nuclear plant to melt down.

Either way, I’m totally fucking done asking him the same question over and over again, and I should probably Pit myself for wasting so much time on that dipshit.

Discuss.

ETA: For the record, I have never Pitted another poster, as far as I can recall, and I’ve been here for six years.

IIRC, Raindog is a Jehovah’s Witness, though normally a well-spoken one and remarkably open-minded compared to the JW stereotype. This is, however, worth keeping in mind when he posts on religious topics.

To be honest, while we’ve disagreed from time to time in the past, his behavior in that thread is out of character for him.

Speaking of Bricker, why is his “conversion” such a big deal? All he did was decide to be a little less stupid.

Did someone get woken up from his nap Sunday??? :wink:

Ironically, the JWs I’ve known personally on a basis separate from their missionary work have been friendly, accepting, loving people. But the ones that introduce themselves by interrupting the morning after the night before are damned annoying.

My take on the whole chain of events involving Raindog is it was silly on both sides. Raindog stuck his nose into a thread stated an opinion and was immediately attacked for expressing his opinion. As opinions are of little value when it comes to the actual debate is was not a good move on Raindog’s part to even offer it.

After being attacked for expressing the opinion he did what many people do when they are attacked and tried to defend himself(weakly). Instead of offering him the option to withdraw from the debate you continued to hound him demanding he justify his opinion to you. Him already being on the defense refused to elaborate further on his opinion as he likely believed(and correctly imo) you would only use it to further attack him.

Raindog should probably take from this you do not enter a stance in a debate unless you are prepared to defend it.

Really Not All That Bright you could accept people have opposing points of view and allow them to opt out without chasing them into a corner.

Just to really drive the point home how obnoxious this behavior is - I hate excessive quoting, but it’s necessary here - the assertion is made over and over, but never backed up:

“Reasoned, rational” arguments, not borne of homophobia, against SSM - where are they? Not a single one is linked by raindog in the thread.

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up, raindog. You are useless.

Anybody can opt out of a debate, simply by ceasing to post, and RNATB would have no choice but to “allow” it. But if you continue to post in a thread in Great Debates, it’s not unreasonable for others to expect you to support your position.

I agree with you. However RNATB could have refrained for saying Raindog get back in here so I can whip you some more. Hell Raindog did stop posting in that thread now RNATB is calling him out in the pit instead. He could have just moved on and stuck to debating with people who want to defend their positions.

What are you trying to say? “Fags are gross” isn’t a rational viewpoint?

Crazy talk.

Two things:

[ol]
[li]raindog has “stopped posting in that thread” only as much as I’ve stopped posting in this one - his most recent post didn’t indicate intent to discontinue his participation[/li][li]raindog’s behavior in that thread, whether or not he continues posting to it, is obnoxious enough to warrant a pitting[/li][/ol]

Agreed.

Over and over and over he (or she…I do not know) asserted that there are rational reasons for opposing same sex marriages (SSM).

Over and over and over people asked what those reasons might be. He asserted a position then not only flatly refused to provide an example of those reasons but demeaned and misconstrued other posters asking him, very reasonably, to provide an example of that.

Remember this was in GD. Hell, I cannot think it is tolerated anywhere on the SDMB. It flies in the face of good discourse any way you slice it.

I was also disappointed to see Bricker actually fall into this as well. He noted raindog’s evasiveness then asserted the same thing raindog did. Numerous people asked him to provide an example and he has not (albeit not by refusal but by disappearing from the thread).

I disagree with Bricker on many things but mostly respect his posts here as thoughtful. That one seemed unusual for him (IMHO).

Funny thing is I have likewise never pitted anyone (I don’t think…if so very rare to the point I do not recall) and I was going to start this thread but was beaten to it. Raindog’s evasiveness and refusal is completely Pit worthy. I can accept people have different opinions but a drive-by “cuz I said so” has never been enough on this board and he repeatedly went there.

ETA: I am willing to bet raindog would not accept a “cuz I said so” from me either.

Off the top of my head:

– “Preserving marriage as something exclusively for opposite-sex (and therefore presumably child-bearing) couples bestows upon that kind of arrangement a unique cultural significance, thus reducing the percentage of marriages which end in divorce and the proportion of children who grow up in broken homes. Liberals should understand this effect.”

– “We give special consideration to married couples because society has an interest in promoting the birth of children (in particular the birth of children into stable homes). Since promoting the birth of children is inapplicable to same sex couples, there’s no practical reason to give those sorts of pairings special consideration.”
Mind you, no one here has to waste their time poking holes in these arguments; everything that you think is wrong with them, I do as well. They fail, and hard. But they’re reasonable, and a very far cry from “fuckin’ queers, go back to Queertonia!” or “earthquakes are caused by buggery.”

Not that far; both fall flat pretty much instantly. And more to the point, the people making them refuse to back the supposed principles involved, therefore proving them to be dishonest arguments as well as bad ones.

Same sex couples shouldn’t get married because they can’t produce children? If that’s the principle involved, then obviously infertile couples or those that don’t want children should have their marriages forbidden as well - yet the same people who claim that’s why they oppose SSM refuse to call for those marriages to be outlawed. In other words, they are lying and don’t even believe their own argument. And a dishonestly meant, hypocritical argument isn’t a reasonable one.

And as for the other argument; you can’t claim you are preventing broken homes by calling for laws that mandate broken homes. And SSM couples are also child bearing. So it’s an incoherent argument; not a reasonable one.

Isn’t the point of this pitting that Raindog never gave any of these reasons, so there was no chance of discussing their merit. If he would have given these opinions, people would have disagreed, but that would have been that. No pitting would have been called for…

Well…we asked for “reasonable” arguments. Give him credit he did not just put any old bullshit out there and call it “reasonable”. He failed because there are no reasonable arguments. Or at least in all these debates over the years I have yet to see one that when distilled made any sense.

I think the definition of “reasonable argument” in this context is “argument that cannot be argued against”. In that sense, I doubt there are “reasonable arguments” for or against anything on the SDMB.

Fine, you think you have conclusively won the debate. Good for you. After a certain point, you just want to browbeat someone, and you are getting mad if he won’t play along.

Regards,
Shodan

This is raindog’s MO. He’ll pop into a thread, post something like “Oh really?” if someone says something about the Bible or the like, and then will continue to “Oh really?” and “You’re wrong” and “Not everyone agrees with you” until everyone else gives up.

His recent participation in an abortion thread in GD was unusual in that he added lines about Dick Cheney and random politicians to the mix. Oh, and Der Trihs and I are apparently sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

And he’s STILL sticking with the very same “There are rational reasons to oppose SSM, I just can’t tell you what they are” that raindog is. He’s only not getting Pitted because he did in fact recognize and overcome his earlier bigotry, even if he won’t admit that that’s what it was.

I can sympathize, if only up to a point - it has to be hard to the point of impossibility for someone who fancies himself a creature of pure objective rationality , above the level of ordinary mortals, to acknowledge ever having held a view on any other basis.
VarlosZ, do you hold that a flat-out lie can still be “reasonable”? That’s the only way your statement makes sense.

Nonsense.

As someone noted in the thread that prompted this one it is possible to put forward reasonable arguments even if you do not agree with the overall result. Examples given were he (and I for that matter) could give reasonable arguments as to why we should have invaded Iraq or reasonable arguments supporting a flat tax even if we do not agree with it.

Usually what happens is people throw out their reasons for one side or another and then we can bicker if one side outweighs the other to decide on the proper course of action.

In this case there are no arguments that do not fall apart all by themselves. For instance people have put forward that marriage should be between a man and a woman only because it promotes procreation. Almost sounds reasonable till you pick at it a bit and realize that marriage in the US makes zero mention of procreation as a requirement, that couples who do not want or cannot have kids are allowed to marry and that same sex couples have a variety of routes to have children.

So far all “rational” arguments opposed to SSM end up like that. They simply do not stand on their own merits.

I know it isn’t true for all religious folk, but common, you can’t argue with somebody who thinks “God hates fags” is a well reasoned argument.