# raindog: are you fucking kidding me? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 11, 2009, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151 "2009-11-11T05:05:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/41 "2009-11-11T17:07:42Z")
We’re not the ones who declared a set of arguments as “reasonable” _a priori_, without even saying what they were. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/42 "2009-11-11T17:09:11Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > It’s not about if I disagree or not. It’s that I _can_ disagree. This thread is attacking **raindog** because he said there are arguments that are reasonable, but didn’t present them. I’m saying it’s stupid to demand his reasons because they are already well-known. The liberal mafia on this board call them irrational and unreasonable, but they’re participating in the debate. > > My point is that if you’re actually in the debate, you don’t get the priviledge of deciding which arguments are rational and which aren’t. I don’t care which side you’re on of whatever topic. SSM, healthcare, religion, ice cream flavors…you’re not allowed to reject the other’s arguments just by declaring them invalid. > > That’s like a runner in baseball calling himself safe. It’s like being your own jury. It’s like grading your own test. Ridiculous. This is nonsense. Being actually involved in the debate doesn’t rob you of your power of reason. If your opponent appeals to the existence of pink dragons as reasonable, you’re under no obligation to extend the definition of “reasonable” to include that appeal. It’s sparkle-fairies, regardless of who you are. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/43 "2009-11-11T17:12:17Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > It’s not about if I disagree or not. It’s that I _can_ disagree. This thread is attacking **raindog** because he said there are arguments that are reasonable, but didn’t present them. I’m saying it’s stupid to demand his reasons because they are already well-known. The liberal mafia on this board call them irrational and unreasonable, but they’re participating in the debate. > > My point is that if you’re actually in the debate, you don’t get the priviledge of deciding which arguments are rational and which aren’t. I don’t care which side you’re on of whatever topic. SSM, healthcare, religion, ice cream flavors…you’re not allowed to reject the other’s arguments just by declaring them invalid. > > That’s like a runner in baseball calling himself safe. It’s like being your own jury. It’s like grading your own test. Ridiculous. Huh? “I have reason to believe Gremlins are living in the bushes by your house.” “What reasons do you have for that belief?” you might ask. “I don’t have to give you my reasons.” Good enough for you? You’ll accept that? After all you can’t be your own jury to call me out on that. That would be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/44 "2009-11-11T17:13:31Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > you’re not allowed to reject the other’s arguments just by declaring them invalid. Okay, I will say it again. We are not “declaring them invalid”. We are pointing out the flaws in the argument and providing evidence to the contrary. There are reasons, external to our (apparent) magical ability to decide things are wrong, why we disagree with the arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/45 "2009-11-11T17:17:38Z")
Well, if it weren’t for the homosexuals; **Raindog** wouldn’t be getting pitted right now. Which means all you people would spend just a little bit less time on your computer… Which would mean just a little bit less electricity spent to run said computers Which means just a little bit less green house effects on the planet. There ya see? Homosexuals are responsible for global warming! Gah! What’s wrong with you people? It’s so obvious! Now leave poor **Raindog** alone. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/46 "2009-11-11T18:25:44Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Huh? > > “I have reason to believe Gremlins are living in the bushes by your house.” > > “What reasons do you have for that belief?” you might ask. > > “I don’t have to give you my reasons.” > > Good enough for you? Depends. Are there millions of other people who believe these Gremlins are there? Have they collectively provided their reasons over and over again? Have these same people analysed your counter-arguments and judged them to be worth shit? > [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](#): > > We are pointing out the flaws in the argument and providing evidence to the contrary. From your perspective, maybe. From his, your evidence sucks. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/47 "2009-11-11T18:46:00Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > From your perspective, maybe. From his, your evidence sucks. How would he know? He hasn’t told us what he thought, so we haven’t been able to give him evidence! ---
**Author:** ![little\_bit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@little\_bit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/little_bit)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/48 "2009-11-11T18:46:15Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > From your perspective, maybe. From his, your evidence sucks. If the evidence sucks, refute it and make your point. The point of this pitting is that you don’t show up at a debate and then refuse to debate. If you post in a Great Debates thread you better be prepared to defend you POV. If you can’t, or are not willing to, don’t post. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/49 "2009-11-11T18:47:35Z")
I would have thought this was blindingly obvious, but\* I did not Pit **raindog** for opposing same-sex marriage\*. I pitted him for making an assertion in Great Debates and then refusing to provide any support for said assertion while continuing to whine about its ramifications. If he had offered a religion-based argument, I personally would have accepted it as _reasonable_, if not rational. Same for an argument rooted in “traditional morality”. If he had offered an argument based on the slippery slope (if SSM is legalized, why not polygamy, etc.), I would have accepted it as both rational and reasonable. Is it unreasonable for gay marriage proponents to assume _a priori_ that arguments against SSM are unreasonable? Certainly. However, that is not the case here; gay marriage has been debated to death and some distance into the afterlife on these boards, and clearly they have yet to see such an argument. **Shodan** will of course (actually, already has) claim that any argument however reasonable will be laughed down simply because it is an argument against gay marriage and all arguments against SSM are by librul definition bigoted. He is free to make this claim, of course. However, it is my understanding that people who choose to debate ideas in GD generally do so not in the hope that their debate opponents will be swayed, but that some hypothetical lurker will be inspired to leave his fence post and come down on one side or the other. Assuming that this is the case, **raindog** ’s posts in that thread would certainly appear to serve as pretty conclusive proof of the rightness of the pro-SSM cause. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/50 "2009-11-11T18:47:50Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Depends. Are there millions of other people who believe these Gremlins are there? Have they collectively provided their reasons over and over again? Have these same people analysed your counter-arguments and judged them to be worth shit? What do “millions of other people” have to do with it? So what if they have provided their collective arguments over and over again? They can still be full of shit themselves. For example: > [@](#): > > Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved. > > SOURCE: [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml) Your metric is worthless by itself. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/51 "2009-11-11T18:49:15Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Why is gayness wrong? > Because someone ends up, erm, … what? Fabulous? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/52 "2009-11-11T19:07:38Z")
I find it funny that people here are actually defending someone not supporting their position in a debate. What the fuck else is expected of someone in a debate? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/53 "2009-11-11T20:08:47Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > I find it funny that people here are actually defending someone not supporting their position in a debate. What the fuck else is expected of someone in a debate? To run with your tail tucked between your legs before the newly discovered “liberal mafia” tears you and your non-argument to bits. * * * Seriously, these dimwits have me WTFing quite a bit as well. 'cept for **Shodan** of course – he is just doing his usual shit-stirring bit. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/54 "2009-11-11T21:21:17Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Why do you disqualify moral judgments as valid reasons? That’s the most important arrow in the quiver of the anti-SSM side. You don’t just get to toss out strategies of your opponents by fiat. That’s not how debates work. > > “Why is murder wrong?” > “Because someone ends up dead…” > “Yeah, but _besides_ that?” > “Well, that’s pretty much it, really.” > “Aha! There is no rational or reasonable argument against murder.” How about, “I support outlawing murder because I do not, personally, wish to be murdered, and it is therefore in my best interest that society discourage its members from murdering each other.” Really, the problem with moral arguments is that they aren’t really arguments. Saying you oppose SSM because its immoral doesn’t really tell us anything. We can already assume that you think SSM is a bad thing, otherwise you wouldn’t be opposed to it. What’s significant is _why_ you think it’s immoral. (General “you” there, not you in specific, **Chessic**.) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/55 "2009-11-11T23:07:31Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Why should RainDog post his reasons? You all already know what they are. If he says them, you’ll just call those irrational and unreasonable. So what’s the point of even posting them? Hell, you could do that with any debate: > > raindog: “I think X” > SDMB liberal mafia: “I disagree. Therefore, you have not presented an argument. Please present one.” > raindog: “Y” > SDMB liberal mafia: “I disagree. Thus, it’s irrational and unreasonable.” > > It doesn’t even matter what the topic is. If you’re just going to call everything your opponent says a non-argument, then it’s you that doesn’t belong in the debate. When did raindog give us an X or a Y? Did I miss it? Please link. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/56 "2009-11-12T00:28:42Z")
> [@Epimetheus](#): > > Huh, asking that is like going to a creationist message board and asking them if you could make any argument for evolution that they would accept. Even if there were some magical argument that was reasonable and thought out (even if ‘technically wrong’) it wouldn’t even be accepted as reasonable or thought out here. No, it is like going to a creationist message board, claiming there are hundreds of reasons to accept evolution, and then not give any. For instance, if he said SSM should be outlawed because it is an anathema to God, that is a reasonable explanation from his point of view, even if not a constitutionally valid reason to ban SSM. BTW, in the thread **Bricker** eventually gave a reason, which he defended as well as probably possible. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/57 "2009-11-12T00:53:56Z")
FWIW, I doubt **raindog** will be showing up – isn’t he the one who says the Pit “cheapens” or is “a disgrace” to the SDMB? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/58 "2009-11-12T01:11:54Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > FWIW, I doubt **raindog** will be showing up – isn’t he the one who says the Pit “cheapens” or is “a disgrace” to the SDMB? From [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11765314&postcount=637). > [@What motivates people to vote other people's rights away](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/637): > > Uh, no thanks. Thanks for thinking about me though. > > I have a long held the position that name calling is the last refuge of the tired mind, and that “The Pit” is the greatest example that the “Fighting Ignorance” mantra is a lie. I have a limited amount of time, and that thread simply splinters this one and offers us (you, actually…) nothing more than the freedom of name calling. > > It is my first pitting, though, and so I do appreciate the honor, dubious as it may be. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/59 "2009-11-12T04:22:20Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > To run with your tail tucked between your legs before the newly discovered “liberal mafia” tears you and your non-argument to bits. That liberal mafia can be pretty rough. My uncle was late with his protection money, and they knocked the Starbucks coffee out of his hand while he was trying to write a blog entry against the death penalty on his Apple Macbook while waiting for his Prius to be serviced. Nasty bunch. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151/60 "2009-11-12T09:05:20Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@VarlosZ](#): > > > > 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. First, I did mention that no one had to waste their time by poking holes in the arguments provided, but thanks for going the extra mile. Second, yes, I’m well aware that you think all (or nearly all) instances of anti-SSM arguments that are not explicitly based in bigotry or religion are willful lies, crafted to disguise one’s true agenda. Because you are psychic, and therefore able to peer into the souls of men, and what you have generally found in those souls is the sort of cartoonish villainy with which we all have so much real-world experience. That said, yes, sometimes these types of arguments will be a socially acceptable cover for a conscious antipathy towards gays. Probably more frequently, they will be the conscious manifestation of a \*subconscious \*antipathy for gays. And sometimes, they will be advanced by honest-to-god social conservatives who don’t care about homosexuality one way or another, but do have some particular ideas about tradition, social structure, etc. Taking a somewhat different tack: you’re saying that these arguments can’t be reasonable because they are logically inconsistent and/or contrary to fact . . . but that’s simply what it means to disagree with something. Your objection makes no sense unless you think that no position which is contrary to your own is reasonable. That’s ok if it’s how you want to use the term, but I don’t think it’s standard. For me, if the argument is emotionally sedate, superficially plausible, and follows an _A, B, and C; therefore D_ structure, that’s good enough to deem it a “reasonable argument” (as opposed to an emotive argument, or a screed, etc.). > [@footballisplayedwithyourfeet](#): > > 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… Sure; I was just trying to address the larger point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/517151.md?page=4)