quote: There's no such thing as group loyalty or groupy enmity; there's only people. There are only individuals.
Really? That seems to be the complete opposite of everything that (what I understand of it, through OSC's books and Hatrack) your religion is all about. For some reason, I always thought that individual happiness came from establishing a family in a community (collective). That individuals willing to sacrifice for the whole (collective) were sometimes necessary.
If this isn't the case, then what is the argument against homosexual marriage? As I understand it, you are against it for religious reasons, and while I haven't memorized your position, I've read from more than one poster that it would be bad for society. But if you don't believe that there is a collective, then how could homosexual marriage affect it? And if it's just because you believe it to be a sin, then I still don't understand why it would matter to you as no one is trying to force you into a homosexual marriage and you can't be your brother's keeper if there is no collective. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why the sarcasm and belligerence, Caleb? ScottR hasn't done anything to you, and his post wasn't made in sarcasm.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You owe Scott an apology.
Gosh, Kat. It sure is swell of you to leap to Scott's defense like that, especially when Caleb's most offensive remark was that Scott was using a ridiculous and -- in light of Scott's argument -- hypocritical argument against homosexual equality.
Golly, I wonder if you read it at all? Or just Scott's response? Here's the relevant part of the post, just for you.
quote:Scott, thank you for the entirely relevant example from 1883, where the Governor of Missouri--no doubt because he saw no problem in letting his religious views hinder the rights of those with alternative views--proclaimed that it was okay to kill Mormons, because, after all, they were Mormon.
I can totally understand how this historical example of one group of believers oppressing a whole group of people because of their differences in beliefs would lead you to the conclusion that it was perfectly okay for modern Christians to keep homosexuals from their entitled pursuit of happiness.
Wow! Caleb sure is an offensive bastard, isn't he? But for silly little minds like mine, Kat, do explain how Scott could possibly be offended by that, and why Caleb has any obligation to apologize for a reasonable and logical argument?
Actually, what's most surprising about this, Kat, is your insistence of Caleb's apology to Scott for an imagined slight (or for a reasonable, coherent post, if that's what he's supposed to apologize for). I mean, hey, haven't I given you a week to respond to my lengthy analysis of your lies in just this thread? Not only have you refused to challenge a single point I raised, you've failed to even acknowledge the post's existence!
So, let's follow the line of thought, here. You make unwarranted attacks on my character (all of which were blatant lies). Caleb refutes them, and you dismiss him, declaring that you want only my response to your lies. I make a post that declares I was about to post a response to your lies -- and you declare you're leaving for a weekend! So I post and wait a weekend. Then I wait a week. No response.
Gosh, Kat. Don't tell me I'll have to add "craven" below "deceitful" on my list of adjectives about you. I mean, if you can work yourself into a self-righteous tizzy over Caleb's non-offensive (and dead on) post, surely you can spare a few moments to respond to my criticism of you? Perhaps, dare I dream, apologize for your lies?
But I guess that was too much to hope for.
Here's the post, in case you've forgotten how far back it is. Eighth post down.
I doubt you can convince anyone here that you're not a liar, after that. Maybe, though, you can try to tell everyone you're not a coward?
Though going back to the same old bullshit within a week of my analysis of your last pack of lies seems a bit much. Heh. Christ. Out of interest, now that you've started your bit on Caleb, how long were you going to take before you declared him anti-Mormon or spineless? Maybe hypocritical or collaborating with Martians?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I am one step away, what does that make me? One step away is still one step away. But I think you didn't understand me. For the record, I don't think homosexuality is a crime. It is a free country and I believe in free will. I just don't think marriage is about any consenting relationship. In my fantasy totalitarian state, citizens would be under the same burdens of proof to form a marriage as green card applicants obtaining citizenship through marriage. :evilaugh:
And by establish orientation, I didn't mean to exclude those who are different from birth (or conception in your case). What word would you prefer? (please interpret this as a genuine question and not snarkiness).
So should the polygamists have been jailed? Should polygamy be permissable as free exercise of religion? If an Arab with four wives converts to LDS, must he divorce his three latest wives or does he get to pick? I don't know...
Part of the trouble with the laws were they were enforced after the fact. This is typical of the level of constitionality of that process. And I don't know why it being in the 1880's makes it unlikely to happen again. The internment of Japanese was about midway between then and now. A lot of people think out actions in Iraq and with the Al Qaeda are similar.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Gosh, Kat. I sure didn't expect you to completely avoid every question and accusation I provide.
So, out of interest, does anyone still believe you to be an honest or moral person after this constant bullshit? I have trouble believing that anyone reading my thread (and especially posts by me or Caleb responding to your constant lies and avoidance) can see anything but repeated affirmation of your complete lack of ethical spine.
I'm disgusted, Kat. I don't know why I expected better from you, except by judging you as any other member of Hatrack, but from here on out any honesty from you would come as a complete surprise. Go on lying about Caleb -- I doubt anyone's still gullible enough to believe that accusations of dishonesty or rudeness from you are worth anything.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
So you can't prove that I was belligerent--quite naturally, because I wasn't--and you take that back. But you still think I owe Scott an apology for being sarcastic, even though you yourself (and many of us here) use sarcasm all the time to point out a flaw in someone's argument? (See above, where I do you the courtesy of quoting your actual text instead of putting words in your mouth)
Why exactly are you so intent on being my mother? I need to apologize to Scott? Where exactly do YOU fit into that assertion? Or are you just putting on a show for some wierd 'court of public opinion'?
Oh wait, now you say that you DON'T care what other people think. Which begs the question, why do you care so much about whether I should apologize to Scott for doing something that you haven't even shown to be a bad thing?
I have acknowledged that I was being sarcastic because I was being sarcastic. I do that sometimes, just like the rest of us.
What you are doing is incomprehensible to me. You are steeped in contradiction and hostility and for some reason you feel it is necessary to show everyone why I'm guilty of your crimes.
Well, Kat, I've responded to your allegations that I was belligerent. I disproved them. I responded to your allegations that I was being sarcastic. (Though to be technical, I "admitted" it before you ever tried to "pin" it on me)
I'm still waiting for one honest post from you detailing the multitude of objections that you have, using actual words from my posts rather than lies and innuendos, or putting words in my mouth.
Why are you so in love with the personal attack? Can't you just leave me alone like I asked you to? Did you take the time to find out if Scott was offended before you started demanding that I apologize to him? Did you ever--EVEN ONCE--quote anything from me to show that I was being offensive? Did you ever--EVEN ONCE--make a case that sarcasm in and of itself is inherently rude? And did you afterwards address your own use of sarcasm in this very thread?
How about some FACTS, please?
Oh look, another lie:
quote:Caleb's said a few times his goal is to completely discredit me and point out what a horrible person I am.
Ah, so my goal in this situation isn't to defend myself from you: "Why the sarcasm and belligerence, Caleb? ScottR hasn't done anything to you, and his post wasn't made in sarcasm." My real goal is just to hit you personally with a smear campaign. Right.
Have you even noticed that the only times I've addressed you lately on Hatrack were to point out where you were lying? Could it be that I'm defending myself, because, yeah, I defend myself when someone slanders me?
Oh and NOW look. Lalo shows you, again, how my post was not offensive in any way. And in spite of reason and logic and human decency, you respond "You're a good friend to Caleb. That's nice."
Please do me a favor and just leave me alone, as I don't need this particular insanity in my life.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay, I didn't read all that, but I did read Caleb's last line.
How about a truce?
Man.
I'm at a loss for words.
Caleb, dude, don't let idiots get to you. After reading (and experiencing) this entire thread, Kat's assertations are proven worthless hundredfold. If it makes you feel better, the rest of Hatrack is reading her lies, too.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. You'll ignore all of our points--even skip over my whole post--AND refuse to own up to your audacious behaviour, AND you'd ask me to participate in a 'truce' that would have no meaning for me, since you certainly haven't given the impression that you intend to clean up your act. Again, I would prefer that you simply leave me alone.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And out of interest, how could you possibly be comforted by knowing the rest of Hatrack is learning how often you lie shamelessly? Unless you're somehow titillated by spreading lies about other people, I don't see how you would enjoy being proven a liar.
Though it would explain the sheer volume of your outrageous lies, and avoidance of any responsibility regarding them.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have already demonstrated that I don't discuss things with you unless it is to defend against your lies. It is a promise I needn't make, but sure. Given the fact that you never treat me or my posts with respect, logic, or truth, I have no difficulty promising not to engage you unless I have to defend against a lie, which was my only purpose in responding to you THIS time.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So after Katharina posts saying she’ll do what Caleb wants and leave him alone you still feel the need to insult her?
Yes, the rest of us are reading and experiencing this entire thread and her disagreements with you two.
And your bullying and insults, too.
I knew some uninformed poster would pop in and offer an opinion.
Kat is offering a "truce" -- as though Caleb had performed any fraction of a degree of the lies and bullshit she's hurled his way. She takes no responsibility for her repeated lies, and has yet to offer even a single retraction. Let alone an apology.
It's not "bullying" to demand that she take responsibility, nor to be disgusted by her frantic self-righteousness in the face of her constant deceitfulness.
You have not, obviously, "experienced" this thread if you've never been given this ridiculous treatment by Katharina. Obviously you haven't, given that you're somehow offended that I've repeatedly requested some sort of acknowledgement of my repeated, accurate analysis of her constant lies. (Obviously you've skipped constant, polite criticisms of her lies. Click the link I provided in an above post. Or better yet, read the thread from the beginning. Then return and pretend nobody should be outraged by Katharina's egregious lies and irresponsibility for her own words.) Heh, god forbid that either of us receive an apology.
But from observation on this thread alone, Katharina'll be back to lying about other posters within a week of any major analysis of her moral character. I realize it's hopeless and useless to get a worthless apology from her, but at least other posters will know better than to expect rational dialogue and decent conduct from her in future arguments.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I would delete the post, then, since I misunderstood your meaning. But I don't want to make it look like either of us were posting for no reason, so I'll just say I'm sorry I thought you were calling me a liar again. I'll believe you that that wasn't the case.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As do I. I wonder if they'll take into account your still going-on refusal to take responsibility for a single one of your lies?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was still hoping to find out from Caleb what word besides established, determined, formed (I can see these are all problematic in the same way) is used to describe orientation.
Edit: Now you are lying, kat, Lalo's posts were hardly "devastations"
posted
I prefer to have a little more faith in the Hatrack public. Though the volume of your lies force my responding posts to be ridiculously long, I hope some will struggle their way through each and every one of your lies and realize exactly the sort of person you are.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. The words we say and our conduct reveal what kind of person we are.
Added: Why did you feel it necessary to prepare dissertations on your greviances, then? There is no formal system, no standing in judgment, and I doubt anyone cares.
That isn't to say that no one cares about stuff at Hatrack; I think people just have their own lives. It's like being worried what you look when you dance; no one's watching except those who aren't dancing and they'll be distracted by someone else soon enough, and the person that really matters is your dance partner.
I see you’ve used your usual ad hominem attacks. I disagree with you so I’m “uninformed.” Plus, I haven’t experienced the thread. Because obviously, if I had, I would agree with you.
I’ve read the entire thread several times – I’ve participated sporadically throughout.
Just taking the most recent squabble, Caleb was sarcastic and arguably could be considered belligerent (i.e., aggressive). Kat did not concede the belligerent part, she just withdrew it. That means at worst Kat’s post was a mistake, not a lie.
As to whether or not she should have jumped in between Scott and Caleb, I wouldn’t normally have done it, but it does seem to be the way things are done here at Hatrack.
So I thought I’d give it a try here
You’ve provided no “polite” criticism of her “lies.” Calling what someone said a lie is a dead giveaway that politeness has been left behind.
Just because you’ve “responded” to her statements doesn’t mean the rest of us agree with you. You’re the one who dragged the rest of us into this squabble by insisting that everyone else at Hatrack agrees with your characterization of what she said as “lies.” Probably some do. Probably some don’t. That would mean it is a debatable issue – not fact.
As for insisting on a full response to your refutation of her posts, since you don’t respond to every refutation of your posts, I don’t think you’re in a position to insist on it.
Dagonee, declared by Lalo to be uninformed
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes. The words we say and our conduct reveal what kind of person we are.
Katie, I hate to say this, but it seems like you're the one who's being belligerent here. It seems like you're just trying to get Caleb all riled up.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes. The words we say and our conduct reveal what kind of person we are.
Heh.
And here I had hope that you weren't the person you conducted yourself as.
quote:Added: Why did you feel it necessary to prepare dissertations on your greviances, then? There is no formal system, no standing in judgment, and I doubt anyone cares.
Yes. If you didn't doubt people cared about your honesty, doubtless you would have apologized long ago. Is that really how your moral system works, Kat? You're only a decent person if you think you'll be disliked if you aren't?
quote:That isn't to say that no one cares about stuff at Hatrack; I think people just have their own lives. It's like being worried what you look when you dance; no one's watching except those who aren't dancing and they'll be distracted by someone else soon enough, and the person that really matters is your dance partner.
And there you go with another completely unrelated analogy.
Why do I care if people know you for the liar you are? Why have I documented your outrageous lies in this thread alone? Why do I continually call you on your ongoing lies and misrepresentation of other people's opinions and avoidance of responsibility for just a few of the lies you create?
I care because you're attacking a good man and friend of mine. I care because if I didn't, doubtless you would continue the attacks, escalating them the exact way you escalated the attacks on me when you thought I wasn't present to refute them.
Then, of course, I showed up -- and you immediately declared your need to depart for the weekend.
I care because you're going to pull this bullshit on someone else, and they'll have to go through the same process of listing and responding to your lies. That, or leave the lies standing as blemishes on their name.
Now that I've answered your question, mind answering mine? Why do you lie so often and in such great volume? When people respond to your lies, why not respond? Why not apologize? Why not take responsibility for your own actions? Why not stop lying?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I see you’ve used your usual ad hominem attacks. I disagree with you so I’m “uninformed.”
No, Dagonee. You are doing as Katharina does, and misrepresenting my position, albeit to a lesser degree.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So after Katharina posts saying she’ll do what Caleb wants and leave him alone you still feel the need to insult her?
Yes, the rest of us are reading and experiencing this entire thread and her disagreements with you two.
And your bullying and insults, too. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I knew some uninformed poster would pop in and offer an opinion.
Kat is offering a "truce" -- as though Caleb had performed any fraction of a degree of the lies and bullshit she's hurled his way. She takes no responsibility for her repeated lies, and has yet to offer even a single retraction. Let alone an apology.
It's not "bullying" to demand that she take responsibility, nor to be disgusted by her frantic self-righteousness in the face of her constant deceitfulness.
You have not, obviously, "experienced" this thread if you've never been given this ridiculous treatment by Katharina. Obviously you haven't, given that you're somehow offended that I've repeatedly requested some sort of acknowledgement of my repeated, accurate analysis of her constant lies. (Obviously you've skipped constant, polite criticisms of her lies. Click the link I provided in an above post. Or better yet, read the thread from the beginning. Then return and pretend nobody should be outraged by Katharina's egregious lies and irresponsibility for her own words.) Heh, god forbid that either of us receive an apology.
But from observation on this thread alone, Katharina'll be back to lying about other posters within a week of any major analysis of her moral character. I realize it's hopeless and useless to get a worthless apology from her, but at least other posters will know better than to expect rational dialogue and decent conduct from her in future arguments.
You aren't uninformed because you disagree with me. You're uninformed because you declare Kat isn't a liar -- contrary to nearly every post she's made in this thread. Must I repost my criticisms from a few pages ago, since you clearly haven't read them?
quote:Plus, I haven’t experienced the thread. Because obviously, if I had, I would agree with you.
You haven't experienced the lies Katharina seems to have a penchant for heaping on other people. If you had, doubtless you would agree with me. Or has she done this sort of treatment to you before?
quote:I’ve read the entire thread several times – I’ve participated sporadically throughout.
Just taking the most recent squabble, Caleb was sarcastic and arguably could be considered belligerent (i.e., aggressive). Kat did not concede the belligerent part, she just withdrew it. That means at worst Kat’s post was a mistake, not a lie.
I just posted what Caleb wrote. It was sarcastic, but not in any sense belligerent. Here it is, reposted again, since you don't seem to have understood Caleb's logic.
quote:Scott, thank you for the entirely relevant example from 1883, where the Governor of Missouri--no doubt because he saw no problem in letting his religious views hinder the rights of those with alternative views--proclaimed that it was okay to kill Mormons, because, after all, they were Mormon.
I can totally understand how this historical example of one group of believers oppressing a whole group of people because of their differences in beliefs would lead you to the conclusion that it was perfectly okay for modern Christians to keep homosexuals from their entitled pursuit of happiness.
Caleb isn't attacking Scott. He's pointing out the flaws in justification of social inequality through religious mandate by condemning another justification of inequality through religious mandate. Pray tell, Dagonee, how could that possibly be interpreted as offensive?
quote:As to whether or not she should have jumped in between Scott and Caleb, I wouldn’t normally have done it, but it does seem to be the way things are done here at Hatrack.
She didn't "jump between" Scott and Caleb. She read Scott's post and found it an opportunity to attack Caleb. Else, why didn't she justify her demands for an apology, especially in light of her refusal to give one to anyone else regarding her own outrageous lies?
quote:So I thought I’d give it a try here
You’ve provided no “polite” criticism of her “lies.” Calling what someone said a lie is a dead giveaway that politeness has been left behind.
I see. So, because my posts are dedicated to addressing her lies, and must by necessity declare them lies, they're not polite.
I've been more than polite in dealing with her -- three pages ago. Admittedly, I've lost my temper with her today; more than reasonable, considering the week I've given her to respond or apologize to my earlier criticism of her lies, and especially given her renewal of posting attacks without any supporting proof or logic behind them.
Or, if you want to see the inhumanly polite, read Caleb Varns' posts. The man's been responding politely for eight pages, and had it thrown in his face. The man has far more patience than I. Tell me, why aren't you leaping to his defense? And why Katharina's, of all people, in all threads?
quote:Just because you’ve “responded” to her statements doesn’t mean the rest of us agree with you. You’re the one who dragged the rest of us into this squabble by insisting that everyone else at Hatrack agrees with your characterization of what she said as “lies.” Probably some do. Probably some don’t. That would mean it is a debatable issue – not fact.
This is debatable? I haven't lied about her posts, or presented them in a misconstrued manner. She really did say it.
But if you believe this, clearly, I need to repost my last criticism. Despite giving you directions to it (sixth page, eighth post down) before, you don't seem to have read it if you believe I've somehow presented her lies in ways that would make them "debatable."
quote:As for insisting on a full response to your refutation of her posts, since you don’t respond to every refutation of your posts, I don’t think you’re in a position to insist on it.
I what? I beg you, provide a single example of me not responding to everything someone says. Doubtless you're basing this off the belief that nobody addresses every argument thrown their way -- unfortunately for you, I do, with every post I see. It's true, there have been times I've accidentally missed a post or accidentally skipped a paragraph -- I can't remember the last time it happened, but doubtless it has -- but every time, every time, when I've had my mistake pointed out to me, I've responded immediately and fully.
I take pride in my intellectual honesty. Do you? This claim of yours is rather outrageous, and brings me to question your own intellectual honesty. Exactly what did you base this insult from?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
But what I find absolutely amazing is your criticism of me over Katharina. Is my anger so much more offensive than her blatant, repeated, and ongoing lying and irresponsibility? Is my incivility so much more offensive than her indecency?
posted
Here, Dagonee. Typos and all, here's the post I created on the sixth page. Tell me, how am I misrepresenting what Katharina's said?
quote:
quote:This is fascinating.
Lalo, it isn't that you are open-minded. It isn't that you have a great understanding of what's going on.
What on earth is your opposition to polygamy? If everyone is an adult, who's the victim? Is it just squicky to you? *amused*
Does this mean you're a polyphobe? *warming up* What are you really afraid of in a polygamous relationship, that you'd be the one ignored?
Caleb's already ripped your lies apart, but you've ignored him, insisting that he's not "let[ting] me play" and you want me to waste more of my life dissecting the lies Caleb's already taken apart.
But even beyond the offense I take at your insinuation that Caleb's post about your lies isn't good enough because he wrote it, I'm more than a little amazed you seem to expect that demanding two dissections of your lies would be better rather than simply responding to Caleb's original post with a simple apology and affirmation of honorable intentions. With your continued behavior of ignoring his posts and misconstruing even them, I'm afraid I no longer have any hope that your intentions, while still enigmatic and unclear as they were before, can no longer be misunderstood as even remotely honorable.
In the section above, you start out by declaring that I'm not open-minded and disconnected from "what's going on." While this section seems a non-sequitor in the context of any post, you exacerbate the problem by moving away from these unjustified lies and declare my "opposition to polygamy," despite my repeated declarations of my unresolved stance on polygamy, neither condemning it nor supporting it.
This, by itself, is an inexcusable lie. I've reproduced below every judgement I've passed on polygamy up to the time you posted this crap -- please, tell me which ones you used to justify this lie.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Third, if we are going give "equal rights" to a minority of the population, then you must give it to all minority populations, like polygamy. What if someone wants to marry themselves? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow!
Yes, Doug. Allowing state-recognized monogamy between homosexuals and heterosexuals is exactly like polygamy.
And what if someone wants to marry themselves... Heh. Wow. There's a brainteaser for you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How is polygamy that different? If a man or woman wants several spouses and everyone agrees to it, why can't they do it? How would they be harming anyone in society?
I'm not advocating it, but you blew that one off too quickly Eddie. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think so. The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The merits of polygamy -- as you may have noticed had you paid closer attention -- are arguable. I don't have a firm stance on it yet, neither condemning nor praising it. But homosexual monogamy -- pay careful attention to the subtle differences between the terms "polygamy" and "monogamy" -- has nothing to do with polygamy, no more than heterosexual monogamy has to do with polygamy.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- don't think so. The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They may not be equal, but they certainly are comparable. A heterosexual and a homosexual marriage aren't equal either from your own definition.
It has been argued that gay marriage should be allowed because it harms no one and gays should be afforded the same rights as everyone else. If all parties are in agreement in a polygamous arrangement, how are they hurting anyone else? Why should they not be granted the same rights? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZGator, like I said, polygamy's an entirely different can of beans. Heterosexual and homosexual monogamy are equivalent, especially by my definition of them. Both are an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between a couple. Polygamy, as I said above in my address to Kat, may be able to stand on its own in an argument -- but in an argument over monogamy, I'm afraid I fail to see how it's compatible with the discussion.
Why not introduce pedophila while we're trying to make intellectually false comparisons to homosexual monogamy?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
How? Monogamy is monogamy is monogamy. But monogamy is monogamy is polygamy?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'm sure many people don't find heterosexual and homosexual marriage to be equal -- however, that doesn't mean that homosexual monogamy and hetero/homo polygamy are anywhere near the same. While a Chevy pickup isn't a Ford pickup, neither are a bulldozer. They simply aren't the same institution, and trying to portray them as such is intellectually dishonest.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Am I the only one reading my posts?
ZGator, I've repeatedly testified that I don't have any committed problems with polygamy. While I'm no firm supporter of it, I'm not necessarily a critic of it, either. Polygamy, as I'm saying again for the third time, has its arguable merits. That doesn't mean polygamy is monogamy, no matter how you try to judge both based off their popular stigma.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oy. C'mon, Eddie, read the posts. I'm not necessarily condemning polygamy. But polygamy, as I've said over and over again, isn't monogamy. I expect better from you than to misconstrue my posts.
After lying about my supposed opposition, you then go on to wonder about why it doesn't exist. You come up with the oh-so-original that I find it "squicky" -- presumably, an obnoxious euphemism for the euphemism "icky." You base this lie off nothing, especially considering my willingness to consider (gasp!) sex between those sexual deviants, homosexuals, and even endorse the legalization of marriage in order to provide equal rights.
Doubtless you're projecting some arguments you've heard against intolerant or bigoted people who want to suppress equal rights for homosexuals, and you're trying to convince yourself that lying about my position, then lying about the reasons why I would hold such a position (even when your lies about my intentions are in blatant opposition to everything I've ever written). It's not very clever, Katharine.
From your lie about my dislike for the "squicky" aspect of polygamy, you move on to another lie -- and insult -- about supposed neediness in a relationship, and how I wouldn't like polygamy because I'm oh-so-high-maintenance in my relationships. This is probably the most surprising lie you've told yet, especially considering the source. But, of course, you go on to then pretend-retract the remarks, without actually doing so.
quote:Of course I don't believe any of that. However, you have produced less reason for opposing polygamy than anyone has for opposing homosexuality. One side can point to thousands of year old scripture and tradition and the commandment of God thing. Your argument seems to consist of "Ew. Gross. That's just not right."
Every justification used to defend gay marriage can be used to defend polygamy.
Of course you don't believe it. I don't really see how you could, unless you're particularly good at convincing yourself of the lies you concoct.
Speaking of which, you move on to your next lie. Technically speaking, it's not a lie -- I have produced less argument against polygamy than anyone else here has against homosexuality -- but in the context of your many, many lies, you accuse me of not only being weak-minded and needy, but inconsistent and cowardly. You imply that I've produced as little reasoning or proof behind my posts as you have -- an insult I take deeply to heart, especially considering my long labor to make my positions as clear as possible.
Of course, then you revert back to a former lie and declare that my supposed intolerance for polygamy stems from my supposed declarations of its "squicky" nature.
Then, of course, you make your first actual assertation on the topic. While it's incorrect, unreasoned, unwarranted, and probably an intentional lie, at least you're addressing the issue instead of making up fantasies about the people behind the positions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Then Caleb went on to dissect your post, pointing out a few lies and giving you a gentle and generous breakdown of your penchant for lies. You fail to respond to his post, or even acknowledge his position -- instead, you give him an emoticon instead of an actual response or apology.
From there, Caleb calls you on your avoidance of the issues. You respond with this:
quote:Caleb, it's abundantly clear that we argue about this. It's getting better, but I just don't feel like engaging that particular fray today. Lalo can take care of himself, I think. I want to see what he says. It'll be okay.
"This"? He didn't come anywhere near addressing the issue at hand in the thread, only your constant lies and avoidance issues. Then you ignore the work he put into pointing out your habitual lying and declare that you want me to respond for myself, a selfish demand that both insults Caleb's work and worth and takes precious time away from me to address the lies Caleb had already taken partial care of.
Caleb calmy responds with the following post, pointing out your rude and deceitful debate tactics.
quote:Acutally, I wasn't even arguing about "this" in my post. My purpose in that post was to call you on the way you try to "argue". Sure, Lalo can take care of himself, but I see no reason why I can't point out when you are using lies to forward your perspective. It HAS been better lately because you haven't been doing this as often.
And I'm sure you'll be offended that I'm implying that you're a liar. But surely you don't expect to get away with it when you put inconsistent words in other people's mouths just so you can appear to have footing in an argument where you have been shown to have none.
But then we already know that you don't respond to specific questions and you rarely--if ever--treat opposing viewpoints with respect, logic, or truth. I just keep pointing it out in the hopes that you might one day treat others the way you would like to be treated.
And that has many meanings in the context of this conversation, wouldn't you say?
You respond with the following, completely ignoring what Caleb had just posted in favor of pretending he had instead asked you a question about the issue you had been so diligently avoiding.
quote:I'm intrigued by the polygamy question because I see one aspect of marriage (male/female) as being demonized as narrow and quite rightfully changed, and another aspect (two people) as being characterized as essential and inherent in the definition and therefor not subject to change, despite the wishes of some people.
Why is one characteristic supposed to be fluid and the other unassailable?
Caleb points out that you are, again, lying -- nobody in the thread, Caleb asks: "Would you care to provide an example of someone arguing that the "[two person] aspect [is] essential and inherent in the definition [of marriage] and therefore not subject to change"?
Because as has been repeated more times than I care to count, no one is arguing this at all."
You respond to this calm and reasonable (and repeated) request for some, any proof behind your lies with another avoidance:
quote:Can I be intrigued by seeming hypocrisy? I think Lalo is a man of principle - maybe he can explain, maybe he's never thought of it in that way, maybe there's an acceptable case for treating the characteristics differently.
Now, as before, you respond to Caleb's question by answering one you made up. You flatter me by declaring, in direct opposition to your former posts, that I'm a man of principle -- a sudden transformation from the weak-minded, high-maintenance fool who relies on inconsistent principles and unreasonable argument -- then again lie and declare that I accept same-sex marriage but oppose polygamous union.
One final time, Caleb asks you to provide a shred of reasoning behind your lies.
quote:What you can't do without losing credibility is put that hypocrisy in someone else's mouth and then call on them to justify it. Again, I ask, can you provide a single quote from this entire thread that would indicate where someone felt--it would be great if it was Lalo, since you got so much glee out of bashing him with your post--that the "[two person] aspect [is] essential and inherent in the definition [of marriage] and therefore not subject to change"?
You respond by offering him a Klondike bar and asking if his question means he won't "let [me] play."
Caleb finishes with you with a quote that's etched on my memory.
quote:My only possible response to that post is that I think Lalo has the right to play whenever he wants to and with whomever he wants to, just like you and I. God bless America.
Heh. Brilliant, dude.
Of course, Kat, you ignore him once again in favor of putting the Klondike bar in a freezer, then going "back" to me, as though I had already responded to your lies.
"*waves around "Explain this" sign*"
I hope I've done so. I've explained each lie you've provided, and in great detail. Doubtless, you'll ignore it -- I notice when you saw I was posting, you immediately declared your departure for the weekend -- but I hope someone out there will have a better idea of who and what you really are.
I found out the last time Kayla reamed you. I remember Kayla posting posts longer than three pages in response to your lies, and getting one-sentence responses that wondered why Kayla was just so mean and aggressive? You avoided every question of hers you didn't lie about, and wound up frustrating her as a writer and infuriating myself and others like me, who were reading the thread.
You're a thrice-damned liar, Kat, just from the combined posting of Kayla, Caleb, and myself.
I hope I've answered your "Explain this" sign adequately.
quote:Lalo said: Must I repost my criticisms from a few pages ago, since you clearly haven't read them?
Must I reiterate that just because you post something doesn’t make it true or that others will believe you. Your claim that I haven’t read your criticisms from a few pages ago is lie #1 in this post.
quote: If you had, doubtless you would agree with me.
It’s possible for people not to agree with you even when they know the same facts you know. This is either unlimited arrogance or lie #2.
quote: Pray tell, Dagonee, how could that possibly be interpreted as offensive?
I didn’t say it was “offensive.” I said it could be construed as aggressive. See dictionary.com’s first definition of belligerent: “Inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive.” For me to show "how could that possibly be interpreted as offensive", I just have to show that some case can be made for it.
Scott obviously thought it was at least angry, based on his “count ten” comment. Katherine obviously thought so. I think so.
Scott was posting the example as a specific response to Caleb’s question about when a religion has been criminalized. Seems pretty on point to me.
Caleb responded in a sarcastic manner, and committed the cardinal crime as defined by Lalo and Caleb: he reinterpreted Scott’s post to say that was why Scott was against legally recognized homosexual marriages, despite Scott NEVER having said that is why he was against them. Sounds a lot like the tactics used by the polygamy side-trackers, doesn’t it?
The sarcasm, coupled with the outright dismissal and clear misstatement of the purpose of the example, can be interpreted as the actions of someone “hostile or eager to fight.”
quote: I see. So, because my posts are dedicated to addressing her lies, and must by necessity declare them lies, they're not polite.
You’re the one who said they were polite. I’ve read them several times. They strike me as very impolite. I don’t think politeness is necessary when attacking something you view as a lie. But you claimed it, not me. And your claim of politeness was designed to make Katharina look more unreasonable for not replying.
quote: But if you believe this, clearly, I need to repost my last criticism. Despite giving you directions to it (sixth page, eighth post down) before, you don't seem to have read it if you believe I've somehow presented her lies in ways that would make them "debatable."
Yes, do that. Because the problem isn’t your less-than-clear prose, it’s my inability to navigate on a UBB. (Note the sarcasm.)
I’ll pull the most extreme example – you take Katharina’s question if it’s the “squickiness” of polygamy that bothers you and say “from your lie about my dislike for the "squicky" aspect of polygamy...”
She never said you “dislike[d] ... the "squicky" aspect of polygamy.” She asked if you did. And you continue to characterize her characterization of your argument as a lie, without even acknowledging the possibility that it’s a misinterpretation of your position.
Remember, I think the polygamy slippery slope argument has always been disingenuous at best. But rather than rant and call people liars, I chose to argue the position on the merits.
However, from the position the polygamy-baiters were taking, an undecided position on the right to polygamous marriages is just as inconsistent with the rationale for allowing homosexual marriages as being against polygamy. The proper way to combat the polygamy ploy was to distinguish polygamy from homosexual marriage, not spend 3 pages saying you have no opinion on it.
The point is I agree with your overall position but thought the post in question was snarky, offensive, and mischaracterized Katharina’s post.
quote:I what? I beg you, provide a single example of me not responding to everything someone says. Doubtless you're basing this off the belief that nobody addresses every argument thrown their way -- unfortunately for you, I do, with every post I see. It's true, there have been times I've accidentally missed a post or accidentally skipped a paragraph -- I can't remember the last time it happened, but doubtless it has -- but every time, every time, when I've had my mistake pointed out to me, I've responded immediately and fully.
I take pride in my intellectual honesty. Do you? This claim of yours is rather outrageous, and brings me to question your own intellectual honesty. Exactly what did you base this insult from?
Single example, as requested: You totally ignored my response questioning your entire characterization of Lynch’s book and her interviews.
I am absolutely intellectually honest. Take this thread as an example – I dismissed the polygamy/homosexual marriage analogy on several occasions and declared it shallow. In fact, I agree with you and Caleb on the issue of legalizing homosexual marriage. But I also don’t think your behavior in this thread has been beyond reproach.
quote: And why [are you leaping to] Katharina's [defense], of all people, in all threads?
...
But what I find absolutely amazing is your criticism of me over Katharina. Is my anger so much more offensive than her blatant, repeated, and ongoing lying and irresponsibility? Is my incivility so much more offensive than her indecency?
It's stunning.
*Hands Lalo the smelling salts.*
I’m not so much supporting Katharina as opposing your attacks on her. You’ll notice the only position of hers I supported was the statement that Caleb was sarcastic and belligerent, and even then I said I didn’t think she should have said it.
The reason I didn’t “defend” Katharina before was because I didn’t agree with her before. I was perfectly willing to just keep my opinion to myself about who was being a jerk to whom in this thread (and there’s plenty of people to think that about). I only said anything because of the line in your post about everyone at Hatrack seeing your point (and implying their agreement with it). In doing that, you stated my opinion for me. And I won’t tolerate that.
We’re left with two choices here. We could debate endlessly about who shares what amount of blame for the generally hostile tone of this thread, which doesn’t sound like a whole lot of fun to me.
Or you can accept the fact that not everyone thinks Katharina is the only one at fault here, and I can accept the fact that you and Caleb (and probably others) think she is.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lalo said: Must I repost my criticisms from a few pages ago, since you clearly haven't read them? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Must I reiterate that just because you post something doesn’t make it true or that others will believe you. Your claim that I haven’t read your criticisms from a few pages ago is lie #1 in this post.
And now you're lying about my own moral backbone. Your findings of Katharina's potential, possible, maybekindasorta innocence are inconsistent with the evidence. What possible justification can you take to point out that Katharina's fantasies aren't lies?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you had, doubtless you would agree with me. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s possible for people not to agree with you even when they know the same facts you know. This is either unlimited arrogance or lie #2.
And because you're repeating your argument again, I have to repeat my response to it. The fact is that Katharina has lied. Your denial of it makes it clear that either you haven't read the thread, or are in turn lying about Katharina's lies. Or are you seriously denying that she's lied, repeatedly, and has refused to take any responsibility for her harassment and insults?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pray tell, Dagonee, how could that possibly be interpreted as offensive? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t say it was “offensive.” I said it could be construed as aggressive. See dictionary.com’s first definition of belligerent: “Inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive.” For me to show "how could that possibly be interpreted as offensive", I just have to show that some case can be made for it.
Scott obviously thought it was at least angry, based on his “count ten” comment. Katherine obviously thought so. I think so.
Out of interest, why? Caleb showed the logical inconsistency of Scott's statement, and wrote no ad hominem attack against Scott himself. If you're willing to classify Caleb's mild post as "belligerent," so be it -- but by the same extreme interpretation of "inclined or eager to fight," you can classify every post in any controversial thread as "belligerent." Obviously they're inclined to argue; otherwise they wouldn't be posting in such a thread to begin with.
Caleb did nothing more than point out Scott's logical fallacy. Using sarcasm to point out Scott's mistake wasn't aggressive or hostile -- in fact, I'd say Scott's response of ignoring Caleb's response and instead using an ad hominem attack on Caleb himself, suggesting Caleb was flustered and infuriated, was far more offensive and, yes, belligerent.
quote:Scott was posting the example as a specific response to Caleb’s question about when a religion has been criminalized. Seems pretty on point to me.
Caleb responded in a sarcastic manner, and committed the cardinal crime as defined by Lalo and Caleb: he reinterpreted Scott’s post to say that was why Scott was against legally recognized homosexual marriages, despite Scott NEVER having said that is why he was against them. Sounds a lot like the tactics used by the polygamy side-trackers, doesn’t it?
The sarcasm, coupled with the outright dismissal and clear misstatement of the purpose of the example, can be interpreted as the actions of someone “hostile or eager to fight.”
It's true, Scott's response, if provided in a vacuum, was on point. Unfortunately, Caleb asked "Since when has any religion been criminalized?" against an argument that if homosexual monogamy is legalized, conservative religions will be banned. When Scott provided the link, his post was easily translated as a supporting the claim that religion can be banned based on prejudiced religious majorities.
In light of the argument, Scott's link only strengthened Caleb's point. Caleb showed how it did so through extremely mild sarcasm, and was immediately criticized by Scott as being flustered. Katharina jumped on that, then as before without any reason or argument, and demanded an apology for Scott.
I like Scott a great deal, and we've known each other some time. He knows the respect I have for him. But he needed to provide some sort of qualifier stating how he wasn't taking sides in the argument, or possibly how his link did not, in any way, contradict Caleb's argument. The way Scott presented his link, however, seemed to argue against Caleb's position that making monogamy equal to all would not criminalize a religion. Caleb was entirely within his rights as a non-psychic reader to understand Scott's argument as such.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So I thought I’d give it a try here
You’ve provided no “polite” criticism of her “lies.” Calling what someone said a lie is a dead giveaway that politeness has been left behind. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I see. So, because my posts are dedicated to addressing her lies, and must by necessity declare them lies, they're not polite. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re the one who said they were polite. I’ve read them several times. They strike me as very impolite. I don’t think politeness is necessary when attacking something you view as a lie. But you claimed it, not me. And your claim of politeness was designed to make Katharina look more unreasonable for not replying.
[inserted speech in bold]
You claimed that any post that pointed out a lie was impolite -- thus my post. Your response has nothing to do with what I wrote. But to respond to it anyway...
No, I don't think what I've written to Katharina today is polite. It's intentionally so -- I'm angry and disgusted with her, and my posts are written to reflect my emotions. Frankly, I have trouble believing I ever took her seriously, given her dishonest conduct in this thread. Katharina's been damn dishonorable throughout this thread, regardless of whether she refuted my criticisms or not -- I don't expect it of her, especially given her utter guilt in her own lies. How could she possibly refute it?
Katharina looks pretty unreasonable throughout the thread regardless of my own level of politeness. I don't declare myself polite to make her look somehow worse -- why would I, when I could point to Caleb's own polite performance and how he was treated?
So where the hell are you getting it that I'm portraying my angry posts as "polite"? Or are you making it up to make me look more the villain? I've repeatedly pointed out that my critical posts are rude -- but given Katharina's own vile behavior in the thread, I believe my anger's more than justified. Don't you? After all, being polite only re-targeted Caleb on Katharina's libel list.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But if you believe this, clearly, I need to repost my last criticism. Despite giving you directions to it (sixth page, eighth post down) before, you don't seem to have read it if you believe I've somehow presented her lies in ways that would make them "debatable." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, do that. Because the problem isn’t your less-than-clear prose, it’s my inability to navigate on a UBB. (Note the sarcasm.)
I’ll pull the most extreme example – you take Katharina’s question if it’s the “squickiness” of polygamy that bothers you and say “from your lie about my dislike for the "squicky" aspect of polygamy...”
She never said you “dislike[d] ... the "squicky" aspect of polygamy.” She asked if you did. And you continue to characterize her characterization of your argument as a lie, without even acknowledging the possibility that it’s a misinterpretation of your position.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The point is I agree with your overall position but thought the post in question was snarky, offensive, and mischaracterized Katharina’s post.
Heh! And now you're re-writing Katharina's post. Here, I'll post it.
quote:What on earth is your opposition to polygamy? If everyone is an adult, who's the victim? Is it just squicky to you? *amused*
Does this mean you're a polyphobe? *warming up* What are you really afraid of in a polygamous relationship, that you'd be the one ignored
Of course I don't believe any of that. However, you have produced less reason for opposing polygamy than anyone has for opposing homosexuality. One side can point to thousands of year old scripture and tradition and the commandment of God thing. Your argument seems to consist of "Ew. Gross. That's just not right."
Yes, Dagonee. And she's asking if I'm emotionally insecure and high-maintenance, not claiming it. And she's asking that my argument "consist of 'Ew. Gross. That's just not right.'"
Heh. Jesus. But of course, it's a "mis-interpretation" of something I never said. From your repeated assertations of your intellectual honesty, I would have expected better than to re-write history.
quote:Remember, I think the polygamy slippery slope argument has always been disingenuous at best. But rather than rant and call people liars, I chose to argue the position on the merits.
However, from the position the polygamy-baiters were taking, an undecided position on the right to polygamous marriages is just as inconsistent with the rationale for allowing homosexual marriages as being against polygamy. The proper way to combat the polygamy ploy was to distinguish polygamy from homosexual marriage, not spend 3 pages saying you have no opinion on it.
Again!
Read what I wrote, Dagonee. Not only did I repeatedly declare my neutral opinion on the virtue of polygamy, I constantly and consistently differentiated polygamy from monogamy. Please, I don't want to accuse you of not reading what I write again.
quote: Single example, as requested: You totally ignored my response questioning your entire characterization of Lynch’s book and her interviews.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Was that in this thread? Or some other thread I left long ago?
quote: I am absolutely intellectually honest.
Which would be why you just re-characterized Katharina's post and declared I didn't take a position I repeated for over three pages.
quote:Take this thread as an example – I dismissed the polygamy/homosexual marriage analogy on several occasions and declared it shallow. In fact, I agree with you and Caleb on the issue of legalizing homosexual marriage. But I also don’t think your behavior in this thread has been beyond reproach.
Nor do I, for that matter. I'm more than aware that I've been rude. In fact, much of it has been intentional. It's clear Katharina's not going to respond to anything that calls her on her dishonest character -- no matter whether polite Caleb writes it or today's angry Lalo -- so I'm not as careful as I would be with a person with a spine, who would respond (and honestly) to posts about her lies.
For example, I think I've been fairly polite with you, though I think you're mis-representing several important positions in order to better improve your own argument. You seem more or less honest and reasonable, which means you merit polite conduct. In fact, beyond the occasional blow-up, I try to respond to everyone on Hatrack equally and fairly.
But Katharina's gone beyond the point of no return, especially with her still-ongoing refusal to take responsibility for her lies. If she did so, maybe I could have built up some small measure of respect for her in the future. Maybe I wouldn't be as disgusted with her. Maybe if she apologized and swore never to repeat this crap again, I may even believe her. But she's contradicted every hope I could have held for her, and thus I resign myself to curling my lip when I see her name and moving on to another name more deserving of reading.
I don't think I've ever felt this way about another Hatracker. Even Baldar, asshole that he could be, was a fundamentally honest person. Thing is, I like most people on Hatrack. But as far as Katharina goes, I'm resigned to disgust and distrust.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And why [are you leaping to] Katharina's [defense], of all people, in all threads?
...
But what I find absolutely amazing is your criticism of me over Katharina. Is my anger so much more offensive than her blatant, repeated, and ongoing lying and irresponsibility? Is my incivility so much more offensive than her indecency?
I’m not so much supporting Katharina as opposing your attacks on her. You’ll notice the only position of hers I supported was the statement that Caleb was sarcastic and belligerent, and even then I said I didn’t think she should have said it.
You've also, may I remind you, just mis-represented Katharina's post as an innocent question instead of one in a series of character assassinations.
And believe me, I don't support attacks in general. Personally, I think I'm wasting my time pointing out her lack of character or backbone -- which makes this all the more frustrating. I doubt I'll continue, given what a waste of energy and time it is to write honest posts toward her.
quote:The reason I didn’t “defend” Katharina before was because I didn’t agree with her before. I was perfectly willing to just keep my opinion to myself about who was being a jerk to whom in this thread (and there’s plenty of people to think that about). I only said anything because of the line in your post about everyone at Hatrack seeing your point (and implying their agreement with it). In doing that, you stated my opinion for me. And I won’t tolerate that.
Yes, goodness, how righteous.
No. I mean that anyone who reads her series of lies must come to the inescapable conclusion that she is, in fact, a liar. The same way anyone who looks at the sky will see blue. I don't mean to imply that everyone on Hatrack has e-mailed me with their support, but that Katharina's unethical character is inescapably obvious through her behavior throughout this thread.
quote:We’re left with two choices here. We could debate endlessly about who shares what amount of blame for the generally hostile tone of this thread, which doesn’t sound like a whole lot of fun to me.
Or you can accept the fact that not everyone thinks Katharina is the only one at fault here, and I can accept the fact that you and Caleb (and probably others) think she is.
Dagonee
Oh? Was she provoked? Was she encouraged? Was anyone unclear in pointing out that her lies or how they reflected on her lack of an ethical backbone? How exactly could Katharina's lies be someone else's responsibility?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I only have one thing I want to quibble with about your post, Dagonee:
quote:Caleb responded in a sarcastic manner, and committed the cardinal crime as defined by Lalo and Caleb: he reinterpreted Scott’s post to say that was why Scott was against legally recognized homosexual marriages, despite Scott NEVER having said that is why he was against them. Sounds a lot like the tactics used by the polygamy side-trackers, doesn’t it?
The sarcasm, coupled with the outright dismissal and clear misstatement of the purpose of the example, can be interpreted as the actions of someone “hostile or eager to fight.”
If I understood it correctly, Scott's argument was bascially:
"One reason to not allow homosexual marriage is that the government could conceivably persecute churches that don't agree."
So in response I ask for evidence to prove that such a thing has ever taken place, since I find the proposed situation to be very unlikely.
In response to that request, Scott gives me an example: Missourians killing Mormons back in 188? at the behest of the state.
In response to his example, I point out that the current relationship between Mainstream Christianity and homosexuals is not all too dissimalar from that of the Mormons of the 1880's and their surrounding culture. I found it ironic that his reasoning behind fearing a government crackdown on his religion (which was the rationalle he had suggested as a case for not affording homosexuals their equality) was a case in which the moral majority was totally intolerant of a group of people's sexuality. That that group of people were Mormons was additionally ironic.
Irony inspires sarcasm, I guess.
I don't feel that my post was in any way purposefully misinterpreting Scott's post or position. I reacted only to what I read and said only what I felt in response. I also see my post as a perfectly logical rebuttal of Scott's position.
I do believe that there's nothing wrong with using sarcasm in a debate, but I'm understanding more fully now that it needs to be tempered to avoid giving the aggressive or dissmissive impressions that are often associated with sarcasm. I wish I had written more of my thoughts, but again: I was inspired by irony.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
I wrote a long reply but decided to delete it (twice now). I’ll make a few brief points and then I think we can part ways on this (though of course feel free to respond).
1. See this thread for one example of a post you ignored. And this was a thread you started.
2. The continued insistence that Katharina admit she’s wrong and apologize goes against Caleb’s request that she just leave him alone, which is how I interpreted her offer of truce. My first post on this issue was only about that. I suspect some activity from outside this thread was resurfacing here, but I just reacted to this thread.
3. “Three pages” referred to a single post (the infamous page 6, post #8) that took up 3 full screens on my monitor, not three thread pages of your arguments in different posts. My point there was that calling someone a liar is not productive. You say you have faith in Hatrack’s membership – if so, just compare her argument to your quote, point out the fallacies, and let it go. Don’t call people names.
3. My whole point has been that it is possible for well-intentioned, reasonable people to think that Caleb’s post was belligerent. It is possible for well-intentioned, reasonable people to think that Katharina’s earlier posts on polygamy were the result of the most common error of novice debaters – mischaracterizing their opponents arguments to make them easier to refute – rather than lying. I don’t want you to agree with me, just admit it’s possible for someone to disagree with you on this without lying.
In short, go ahead and think I’m stubborn, foolish, wrong-headed, or obtuse. Just don’t think I’m lying, either about reading the discussion or my beliefs on it.
quote:For example, I think I've been fairly polite with you, though I think you're mis-representing several important positions in order to better improve your own argument. You seem more or less honest and reasonable, which means you merit polite conduct.
I think it’s fair to say that this is my opinion of you.
Dagonee PS, yes, that was MUCH shorter than my first two attempts. I’m simply trying to find ground we can both disagree on.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm just telling you how I reacted when I read it. You were in an obviously superior logical position and instead of going with that, you went for the easy score. It seemed to me like piling on in football, or when the ref doesn't stop a bout when a fighter can't lift his gloves any more.
Also, notice I didn't mention it when it happened – I didn’t think it was so over the top as to be abusive or inappropriate (especially in this thread). I was merely trying to show that it is possible for a reasonable person to react that way to your post.
But you’re right about sarcasm not being that useful in a written debate. You may have noticed I rely on it too much myself sometimes.
posted
"So, out of interest, does anyone still believe you to be an honest or moral person after this constant bullshit?"
I do. Sincerely. I DO.
I believe that kat is both an honest and a moral person. I also think that she's very stubborn and occasionally lets her principles get in the way of her sociability. She's also rather emotionally sensitive, although she goes to great lengths to hide it, and will ALWAYS hit back -- sometimes hiding her claws in the pads of her paws, sometimes not -- if someone hits her.
Ironically, I believe exactly the same things about Eddie and Caleb.
-------
Frankly, Caleb should have known better than to leap into this thread, guns blazing. He's still too close to this issue to discuss it maturely, and keeps trying to force people to figure out where they stand. While that's ultimately an admirable approach, it puts a lot of Hatrackers in the position of having to choose between friendship with him and loyalty to their God -- and he seems determined not to permit both. It'll bring him grief, and bring grief to a lot of other Hatrackers who, quite frankly, don't deserve it.
For her part, I think kat needs to decide whether it's worth it to her to stay in this kind of conversation -- and when she decides it ISN'T, she needs to learn how to actually back out, instead of just making noises about backing out but really sticking around. I've been the subject of the same kind of character assassination that Eddie and Caleb are throwing around, and the ONLY way to fight it is to let the peanut gallery have their say; I've tried bowing out gracefully, I've tried tirelessly rebutting each point, and I've found that the only thing that works is simply letting the kids run their mouths off until everyone else sees how hateful and inaccurate they're being.
----
This is petty crap. Do you hear me? It's PETTY. It's shameful. It makes me sad just to read it.
I like each and every one of you, and can't understand why you can't allow yourselves to like each other.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:"So, out of interest, does anyone still believe you to be an honest or moral person after this constant bullshit?"
I do. Sincerely. I DO.
I believe that kat is both an honest and a moral person. I also think that she's very stubborn and occasionally lets her principles get in the way of her sociability. She's also rather emotionally sensitive, although she goes to great lengths to hide it, and will ALWAYS hit back -- sometimes hiding her claws in the pads of her paws, sometimes not -- if someone hits her.
Ironically, I believe exactly the same things about Eddie and Caleb.
Hit back?
Tom, I don't know if you've been following the thread, but she hit first. Not only did she hit first, but she lied then, she lied now, and she has yet to accept responsibility for any of her actions.
Your description is touching, and I once had a good opinion of Katharina myself, but I'm disgusted by her conduct in this thread. While I'm not proud of being rude, for my part, I at least have anger to justify whatever offensive bits may be in today's posts. What justification does Katharina have? I gave her a week to respond to my last analysis -- rebut, apologize, whatever. She never even acknowledged it, but instead began a new crusade against Caleb. She has yet to acknowledge a single offensive bit on her part, or address a single issue anyone's raised regarding her ethical backbone.
I'm afraid I have trouble understanding where you're coming from with your declaration of Kat's inner goodness.
Let alone mine.
Heh.
quote:Frankly, Caleb should have known better than to leap into this thread, guns blazing. He's still too close to this issue to discuss it maturely, and keeps trying to force people to figure out where they stand. While that's ultimately an admirable approach, it puts a lot of Hatrackers in the position of having to choose between friendship with him and loyalty to their God -- and he seems determined not to permit both. It'll bring him grief, and bring grief to a lot of other Hatrackers who, quite frankly, don't deserve it.
Out of interest, Tom, can you point out a single example in this thread where Caleb's acted immaturely? Or forced people to "figure out where they stand"? I think you're judging him unfairly. He didn't leap into this thread "guns blazing" -- in fact, he was giving damn good arguments up until Kat started libelling me, at which point he stood up for me in my absence. And he did it pretty freaking politely.
I can't fault a single action he's taken thus far; in fact, I'm pretty proud of the guy for his restraint.
quote:For her part, I think kat needs to decide whether it's worth it to her to stay in this kind of conversation -- and when she decides it ISN'T, she needs to learn how to actually back out, instead of just making noises about backing out but really sticking around. I've been the subject of the same kind of character assassination that Eddie and Caleb are throwing around, and the ONLY way to fight it is to let the peanut gallery have their say; I've tried bowing out gracefully, I've tried tirelessly rebutting each point, and I've found that the only thing that works is simply letting the kids run their mouths off until everyone else sees how hateful and inaccurate they're being.
Ah. Which party, again, is being hateful and inaccurate? Which party's lying?
I'm rather annoyed that you're making Kat out to be the victim, here. Does calling her on her lies somehow make her the suffering heroine? Does her refusal to answer a single question or her penchant for lying about others make her a victim of merciless, evil Eddie & Co.? I don't see how you can empathize with her at all -- let alone call my insistence for some kind of acknowledgement of her lies "character assassination," when in fact I'm the emotionally needy, hypocritical, close-minded fool.
quote:This is petty crap. Do you hear me? It's PETTY. It's shameful. It makes me sad just to read it.
I like each and every one of you, and can't understand why you can't allow yourselves to like each other.
Yeah. It is petty crap.
Okay, dude. I'll back out. I don't like who I am when I'm angry and disgusted, in any case.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I'm going to apologize. I've just spoken with someone who I believe is a friend of Katharina's. If she has quality friends like this, doubtless there's a reflection of them in herself -- maybe this lying of hers is just a temporary phase. Maybe she's just playing obnoxious games. Whatever it is, I liked her once, and I'm sure I learn to do so again.
If this guy can be her friend, I can at least learn to like her again.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, I submit that all of these fears are just that: Fears. They are not concerns. They are not even arguments, for the most part. It's just the irrational idea--not unlike the irrational ideas presented by Lilburn W. Boggs, whom Scott pointed out with his link--that people who don't want to live according to your religion are going to start ruining society.
--Caleb Varns
This is what prompted me to ask you to calm down. In your own words, you called people who disagree with you fearful and irrational.
:shrug:
quote: I hadn't seen that it was officially rescinded in 1976. I do fail to see the relevance of that fact, however. That this order was not rescinded for nearly a hundred years tells us... what?
--Caleb Varns
The relevance is that there was continuing (though unenforced, thank goodness) legislation against a particular religious group, in contrast to your statement that religion had never been criminalized.
I wasn't trying to make a statement about homosexuality. I was correcting your misunderstanding of religious persecution in America.
Odd as that may seem in a thread about homosexuality.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:f I understood it correctly, Scott's argument was bascially:
"One reason to not allow homosexual marriage is that the government could conceivably persecute churches that don't agree."
So in response I ask for evidence to prove that such a thing has ever taken place, since I find the proposed situation to be very unlikely.
In response to that request, Scott gives me an example: Missourians killing Mormons back in 188? at the behest of the state.
This is not at all how the conversation went, Caleb.
Pooka said
quote: it occured to me this morning that if it is a hate crime to disallow gays to marry, then when/if gays become allowed to marry my religion will be criminalized.
You said:
quote:How does it follow that if the government allows, say, pornographic films to be made, that the religion against that freedom of speech would be criminalized? They are not. How does "my religion would be illegal" follow the government's allowing of homosexual marriage? It doesn't. Since when has any religion been criminalized? Do you have any precedents for this?
posted
Just thought I'd chime in, being uninvolved in this whole shebang and thus presumably a bit more obejctive: I think this bit (no comment on the rest of this thread!) is a simple misunderstanding. Caleb thought you were responding to a point other than the one you were actually responding to (I thought so too at first, due to careless reading). On your part, you weren't initially very clear on what the link was meant to prove. Miscommunication, that's all.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought so. Just trying to pre-empt another round of "You're lying!" "No, you are!" involving different people this time, as it wasn't clear whether you thought Caleb was being disingenuous or just dense. Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
