Gay Rights

How the hell is this thread still going

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 3, 2016, Original Post Date: Apr 3, 2016 ---

I mean yeah it's an interesting topic but at this point it's just become the Debathiest's stomping grounds

 

*the debathiest's iamverysmart extravaganza.

 

What, do I not get any attention </3

 

His arguments have been strong, its just that new people continuously bring up old easily refuted points, which aren't hard to look smart refuting because its been done so many times already.

 

@Fangdragon1998

> I wasn't debating anything but the sentence that chirp said.

But, @chirp1234 said: "Doesn't the bible say divorce and having a woman's hair short is also a "sin" too?"

That's the full sentence. You addressed divorce, but not having your hair short. Why?

> Don't over-analyze

If meant literally? I don't think one can analyse something 'too' much. If you mean, mis-analyse? Sure, but where?

> and don't think that I take the Bible literally. Because, as I've said before and which you should know by now, I don't.

I don't. I'm asking for you to explain the Church's (and yours, if you'd be comfortable doing so) stance regarding women's hair. (Among other things like slavery, retribution, the universe, etc.)

I'd also like to know why you go to the Bible for inspiration in some places but not others. As you admit here in this quote. How do you know which bits to take literally and which not to? If any at all?

> Don't correct my grammar

That's a shame. It's free advice. I don't know why people are so hostile to being improved for free.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics...itish_brother_larry_sanders/czwfouw?context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/..._off_coach_in_bristol_after/cxrk6au?context=3

Maybe I'm a rare breed, but improving my spelling/grammar is something I love to do. I appreciate anyone's attempts to help me do so.

> You are absolutely misinterpreting everything I say. Congratulations.
> Now listen.

For someone that claims to care more than I do about being civil and polite in conversations, you're doing a weird job of showing it. Sarcasm and condescension aside, let's tackle these "misrepresentations".

> If you're going to nitpick through every word I say to find an argument, be my guest. But pardon me if I don't respond like I care, because I don't. You're over-analyzing what I'm saying.

You do seem to care though, because you seem to be getting slightly irate. If you're not, my bad.

I don't think it's the reader's job to interpret unclear language. Just as it wouldn't be the student's fault for not comprehending a subject that the teacher is trying to teach. I appreciate that what you said seems clear to you. But it wasn't to me. I promise that I'm being entirely sincere with my criticisms, because I've heard lots of Theists use all sorts of vague language. Hyperbole and vagueness are an enemy of productive conversations. You might see it as 'nitpicky', but I'm just trying to pin you down, so I can concretely address an issue. I can only take you at face value, so I'm not sure what else you expect.

If you say: "you can never totally convince someone that there is or is not a God simply by presenting facts, opinions, and personal experiences"

Then unless you believe that no-one on the planet is totally convinced either way (that a god exists), then you must believe that being "totally convinced" requires something greater than facts. Right?

-- Premises --

1) Some people are totally convinced that a god either exists or does not exist.

2) One can never be totally convinced by facts, opinions or personal experiences.

-- Conclusion --

To be totally convinced, one must require something other than facts, opinions or personal experiences.

I'm genuinely struggling as to how this is considered "nitpicky". You clearly believe that there is something greater than facts, or disagree with my first premise (because you already said the 2nd one). Thus, I want to know how you support this conclusion.

> Literally, this is what I mean, since I guess I have to make it glaringly plain for you:

Huh. It gets worse. I hope this isn't a trend.

> People exist with different experiences, thoughts, feelings, etcetc than you, right?
> These people don't agree with you on many subjects, right?
> That's because they have different views on the matter, yes?
> For some, this is because they deny obvious evidence in front of them.
> For others, this is because they deny what seems to be obvious to you, but is obviously wrong to them. I.E. matters of opinion or theoretical discussions.

Different people believe different things. When differences in views occur, sometimes this is due to one party is denying the obvious evidence in front of them. Or both, I'll add that in there. You go on to say:

> People try to convince other people of these things through reason, morality, and emotion. Sometimes, it just can't be done.
> Example: Someone doesn't see what's wrong with killing people. Because they are on different MORAL PLANES, it would be extremely difficult to appeal to them why mass shootings are an issue if they don't believe they are for whatever reason.

You're splitting 'reason and logic' into a sub-section that doesn't need to exist. The homicidal maniac? They arn't using reason and logic properly. You don't need to bring in "moral planes".

I think we're going off-track here. My contention was never that, 'there are closed-minded people that cannot be reached with reason'. The whole "Silver Bullet" remark was regarding arguments and ideas, not the people that believe them. I even explicitly stated so, in the following:

Me: "I should be more clear. A 'Silver Bullet' against bad ideas. Fossil Records, Carbon-dating, Astronomy, and the DNA family tree combine to form the ultimate defeater in the case for a 'Young Earth' (One that is around ~6000yo). Whether this will be enough to convince someone that's been indoctrinated into their religious beliefs since they were a child? That's another story. A 'Silver Bullet' is an instant burst of information that destroys bad arguments."

Of course, my Silver Bullet comment is pertaining to my own position on gay-sex. So if you believe that you have the Silver Bullet, and that I'm just "denying the obvious evidence"? Then that would need to be explained. Neither implied nor asserted. (Not implying that you just said that. Just trying to be as clear as possible what I meant by Silver Bullet)

Note: I'm not criticising you for this lengthy conversation in which there is some confusion regarding the term "Silver Bullet". We're just getting on with it.

> Example 2: You think rhetoric is bad, manipulative, and shouldn't be used in argumentation (though everyone uses it all the time).

That's the 'Appeal to Popularity' fallacy. That you're justified because "everyone" else does it. I hold myself to much higher standards than what is deemed acceptable by the majority.

I don't think certain definitions of rhetoric are bad, is the sense that it can serve to keep a conversation productive. But I don't think it should honesty should be sacrificed to do so. The minute you start becoming disingenuous to further some other goals? That's when I'll take issue. Because that is by definition 'manipulative' and 'dishonest'. I also take issue with rhetoric in and of itself being used to win people over, rather than the substance. Again, this is another fallacy.

> Get it yet?

Fang, I can only assume that this condescending attitude continues throughout this particular post. Please, stop.

The student is not responsible for failing to comprehend the subject matter, especially when they're trying hard to do so. And the teacher definitely shouldn't talk down the student, when there's a misunderstanding. At worst, you could politely tell me to give something you've said extra consideration, because you think it's easy to understand. Let me give you a quick example.

"I'm sorry? What does this mean?

Honestly, you might as well have just said: "When you speak about Mathematics, you only speak on a plane of numbers and equations. Which I find distasteful, because that is not my reality". This is, pretty much, what you sound like to me.

Can you please explain what you mean by:"

Look at the lengths I am going to, to remain charitable here.

Caveat after caveat. It seems like. Might as well. Pretty much. To me. I'm the kind of guy that would say:

"From what you've said, you seem to be wrong, to me."

But so far? I've received something closer to:

"You're wrong, don't you understand that?"

Let's keep it civil in the future, please. It's not like I'm trying to make this difficult. I promise.

> Remember that little discussion you and I had about rhetoric? That's what I mean ^-^
> You see logic and reason alone. I very much dislike debating with you because you are totally insensitive to the actual meaning I put behind my words. Example: what I'm quoting right now.

I can't do much but take you at face value. A repeating theme seems to be that, whenever you say something that's unclear? It's the reader's fault. That they are "insensitive" to the meaning.

I don't know what else to say. If you say, "Your reality", then I need to press for your definition of "reality" in case you believe... anything perculiar. That different realities can exist in different brains. Or that 'reality' can include concepts. Because I have met some people who claim that.

To you, it might seem like I'm nipicking. That... "Psssh, of course I don't believe in different realities. He's so insensitive to what I actually meant.". I can only work with what you put in front of me. I think you need to explain your positions more clearly and leave less room for ambiguity, so that you don't feel so frustrated when people ask you to explain what you meant by *insert something that seems silly on face value, here*.

> Your "logic-and-reason" approach is nice and all, but not everything is black-and-white...

So THIS, is exactly what I mean. Because... I'm confused as to what you're saying here. To me, logic and reason is all we have. That IS the spectrum.

> Now, if I had half of a cake and I wasn't sure how much to eat, I wouldn't go and calculate the exact caloric intake that would be most beneficial to my health. No. I want some damn cake, I'm gonna eat how much I feel like eating.

If the question is: "How much cake should I eat?" and your response is, "I'll eat however much I feel like eating", then this is clearly an unsatisfactory and sub-optimal response. Almost always. The answer to the question clearly has an optimal amount, depending on the desired results. How much cake should you eat if you're allergic to cake mix? None. How much should you eat if you want to put on some weight? All of it. How much should you eat, if you're just hungry and you don't care about your own future well-being? Well... "As much as you feel like eating", as you said.

To me, what you've done is throw away the only thing you have for making good, reliable decisions. All to act on a whim, on a primal impulse. This seems unreasonable.

I mean, people use reason and logic with your cake example all the time! Subconsciously even. There's a *reason* most people choose to eat approximately 1/8th of the cake, and not all of it or 1/50th of it. If you eat until you 'feel like' stopping, then there are subconscious reasons that made that decision on your conscious behalf. When pressed, we might even be able to express these reasons. As well as logical arguments to be made, as to why they stopped at 'that amount'.

> That's what I was saying about you and I butting heads. You look too specifically at situations, and it bothers me.

In my opinion, you don't look close enough. When we're having serious conversations, details matter. I'd rather be too precise, than not enough. Especially regarding philosophy.

> And your denial that you use rhetoric also bothers me. I can find quite a lot in your post above if you'd like me to prove you wrong.

Depending on your definition of rhetoric? Sure. But to me, I'm using reason and logic to determine which words to use. How to get the most out of this conversation. Rhetoric isn't this extent 'thing' separate from reason and logic. It's included. You use certain rhetoric for certain reasons. That's reason and logic! How would you argue against using reason, without using reason to explain that?

> So now you're blatantly saying that atheists are less close-minded. Would you just stop stereotyping?

Reactionary response aside, if you'd like me to link some studies to support why I believe, then I'll do so.

Example: Black men, are well hung. Stereotype, right? But it's true. That's a huge part of why stereotypes exist in the first place.

IMO, Atheists are typically more open-minded. Just last week there was a study (iirc) that supported the idea that Theists are worse at Critical Thinking than Atheists.

> It really isn't that difficult to avoid saying things like that. I promise.

But it's true! I don't think I should censor myself because you don't like stereotypes. Debates arn't the place to be easily offended.

>Additionally, since you are such a professional on the matter,

There it is. Will we get another patronising remark before the end?

> and you are such a fan of hard data proving your points, give me the evidence.

Sure thing. On one condition. You concede that Atheists and more open-minded than Theists.

Reason being? Too often, I scour the net for sources, data and studies, only for the goalposts to shift whenever I present evidence. I'm not saying that you will do that, but I'm offering this caveat as insurance against that possibility. Please, see it as that, and only that. So that I don't spend hours doing hard research, only for the occasional individual to claim that it doesn't matter anyway.

> Find every atheist and show me how open-minded they are. In the world .

That's not how it works. Consider why we don't need to poll 350,000,000 people in the U.S. to get a good idea of how candidates will do in the elections. We need only 0.0003% of that, to make accurate predictions.

> Or at least a large enough case study to be of valid argument.

This is what I meant a moment ago about goalpost shifting. In the chance that you don't fully grasp how sample sizes work, it's possible that you could reject my data outright, regardless of the result. Due to the study not having the number of participants that you deem sufficient. How many studies do I need? How many participants?

> Now find every Christian and show how rare it is to find someone who asks and receives tough questions, and is willing to have their minds changed.

Again, this just seems... crazy.

This is the big problem with the "you don't understand what I *really* meant" approach. It gives people the opportunity to change positions mid-argument. At face value, you seem to have a simple misunderstanding of how sample sizing works. But all it takes is one accusation of, "You were just being obtuse and difficult. Of course I only mean about 1,000 Christians", and then I'm painted as the villain. Regardless of how you originally felt, even if you are being totally honest. This is why I encourage clarity in conversation.

> Or, just don't mention it

If you were to say: "Atheists are less charitable than Christians", then this is a stereotype, right? One that paints Atheists in a negative light. But I won't hesitate to accept it as true, or ask you to refrain from saying it, just because it's an uncomfortable truth.

> get off your damn high horse and get into the real world

Ah. There we go. It seems there was another patronising remark left in the chamber.

> Do you realize that people of faith often question their faith?

Yes. Though not enough.

> I have had countless friends that alternate between religions or atheism/agnosticism.

I swear I'm not trying to sound inflammatory, but they sound like very unskeptical, incredibly confused people. It's almost certainly not healthy to be changing ideologies so regularly. If you have friends that are alternating between different worldviews and religions on a regular basis? They don't need you, and they don't need me. They a long sit down with themselves to truly decipher what their genuine beliefs are about the world. And a critical thinking class too.

> It's NORMAL to converse about things like that, and people do it literally all the time.

I'm not sure that rapidly switching between ideologies is normal. If it is, I certainly don't consider it to be a good thing.

> Please stop assuming it is, because it is considered quite rude.

Hmmmm.

I hope the conversation can take a significantly more positive tone from hear on out. I'm not sure if your brash and patronising language at times was just 'rhetoric', but I don't think it puts you in a particularly positive light. Let's keep it civil and polite.

I also see that you replied to everything bar:

"2) You believe that there are facts that can be presented, to make a case for the existence of a god.

I'm all ears. Let's hear them!"

Could you address that, please? Thank you.

 

Because I was CLARIFYING. I thought it was obvious that the Church isn't against peoples' hair being cut short. You're looking for an argument where there's not one. This is a thread about gay rights, not about women's hair. Which is why I didn't strike an argument about anything like that, just was clarifying that that's not what the catholic church believes. K?

You can definitely analyze something "too much". I don't mean mis-analyze. I meant what I said. Again: you were picking a fight where there wasn't one to pick. That's why I got upset with you. You took something out of context and made it into a big deal over something I've argued again and again. By this point, all I'm doing is repeating myself, and all you're doing is trying to find fallacies with an argument that doesn't exist in the first place.

Why don't you google it? Again: I was clarifying on the divorce thing, because the Church does maintain that it's wrong. This wasn't an argument. This was a clarification of fact, since I wasn't sure if Chirples knew or not.
This is a discussion about gay rights. This isn't a thread about how literally I take the Bible.

I haven't been writing run-on sentences for years Just happened to be a typo.
Rhetorically, correcting someone's grammar is a way to undermine their argument. It makes them less credible, taking away their ethos. Look at you, you rhetor, and not even knowing it. I'll speak more on this later.

I do care about being civil, but I am fed up with your passive-aggressiveness (ex. "Sarcasm and condescension aside""Huh, it gets worse." "One hell of a run-on" "Could you address that, please? Thank you." "Ah. There we go. It seems there was another patronising remark left in the chamber." to name a few. If they weren't intentionally so, they sure as hell came across that way) and the fact that you keep trying to start debates over side comments that weren't intended to start one, that you nit-pick through everything trying to find SOMETHING to argue. It's irritating.

I'm irate. Doesn't mean I care about responding to what you were trying to address (the question at the end. Which is still irrelevant.)

There it is.
Why are you trying to pin me down? I was clarifying an issue I thought might be unclear. Why is that a problem? Why do you find the need to pore over every detail and respond like a minute response was outlined, written, and rewritten over a period of ten hours. (hyperbole. heh.)
And WHY do you group me as a theist? Why? Do you think all theists are the same, always trying to preach their religion and thump bibles? Ffs, I was CLARIFYING. I don't understand why you think this is such an issue.

This is a nonissue.
To refresh, this is what chirp and I said:

There's nothing in there that justifies you going and starting a debate about it. I was clarifying that yes, the Church still maintains that divorce is a sin. Problem? I don't see one. If your "face value" is your judgement that I am obviously anti-gay because I said what the Church believes to clarify a statement Chirp said, then you might consider that I wasn't debating. I was clarifying.

It's nitpicky because there was never an argument there in the first place. You're looking for a debate where there's not one. It irritates me, honestly. You keep claiming fallacies and that I'm vague and hyperbolic when in reality, I haven't said anything that was intended to be debating. I was clarifying and correcting. Does that make sense?

Sure they are.
Let me use another example, maybe one more believable: war.
Morally, war is bad, right? Killing people is bad, right?
Well, using pure logic and reason, no, war is very good. War brings prosperity to industry, boosting production and so boosting the economy. WWII brought us out of the Great Depression.
But morally, should we go to war? Probably not.
Another example, using the original a bit tweaked.
Logically, it would make perfect sense for me to commit many crimes. Killing someone and getting paid for it (hitman, ye?) is a perfectly logical thing to do when you value money over a human's life.
Would you disagree that a life is worth more than x amount of money?
If you disagree, then you are on a different moral plane than exampleme is. It would be extremely difficult to ever argue that this job that is giving me money to provide for exampleme and my family is illogical, because example-I value money over a human life.
Do you understand better what I mean? There are such things as moral planes; it's a difference of opinion. You can't change someone's opinion when it's purely based on what they believe, and follows logic.
Why is it illogical to kill someone in that scenario, then? When it comes to values, you discuss on both moral and logical planes, because there is a difference. There really is. I can talk to you about this somewhere else, because obviously this is a thread about gay rights, unless you want to derail it further.

I never said anything about the silver bullet, at least nothing important. All I mentioned was that it seemed very rude of you to group theists into a category of close-minded people, and I took offense to it. So I pointed it out.

No, it's not a fallacy. I literally, word for word, meant what I said. EVERYONE uses rhetoric. It's inherent in the English language. Like, diction - the very words you use - is a subset of rhetoric. You can't deny the entire english language, or any language for that matter. It's not a fallacy, it's a fact. Body language is rhetoric. Eye contact is rhetoric. Every bit of communication, ever, is rhetoric. Do you understand what I mean by rhetoric now? If you want, I will go through and pick out examples of how you used rhetoric to strengthen your argument. I'll even write an essay for you bb <3
But really. Everything is rhetoric. You yourself use it. If you really don't want to, don't say anything at all.

It's. Not. Deceitful. It's communication. Saying that it's a fallacy? That's rhetoric. Destroying ethos, and in turn building up your own. The question you asked - "The minute you start becoming disingenuous to further some other goals?" - a rhetorical question, in this case used to emphasize your point.
It's all rhetoric. I'm afraid that's what you're missing in this puzzle.

I find it hard to believe that you think yourself the student. It seems to me that you often demonstrate the condescending attitude through passive-aggressive comments such as mentioned before, through the stereotyping that will be mentioned later, and through your never-ending repetition of "that's a fallacy." You talk down to people, and it's annoying. It's rude. And if you fancy yourself to be either the teacher or the student, you should probably re-evaluate what you've been saying yourself, since you're the one who suggested that we should not be talking down, yes?
I have full realization that what I was saying came across as rude. I had no intention of it being polite, because I was offended and irritated that you seem to think you are better than me. It really comes across that way. Do you intend it to? I've tried to ignore it, constantly, since we first began debating. But it has spilled over, it seems.

Rhetoric, ethos/pathos - building credibility through emotion; by demonstrating how 'charitable' you are, you make yourself out to be "the victim", degrading my ethos and improving yours.
And you say you didn't like rhetoric

I was referring to the fact that you don't seem to understand that logic and reason are not the only things I take into account when making a decision. I also include emotion, because that is important to me too. Thus, logic and reason alone are not my reality. I'm not frustrated that you asked me to explain. I'm frustrated in the way you went about it. It seemed rude.
"I'm sorry? What does that mean?" is worse than "I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean, can you clarify?." Maybe I'm a bit sensitive, maybe I take into account past experiences too much, but it came across as rude and talking down to me.

To other people, it's not. Different realities. That's not the only spectrum you can measure things by... it's like measuring something in miles per hour versus centimeters per second; while they can be compared, it's difficult to continually convert the two, and if you use one system, hard to immediately understand the other. You often act like that's the only way to experience life and make decisions, but it's not. Maybe that's why you come across as rude.

You're perfectly right! Logic and reason do play a part! But they're not the only thing making the choice. If you're full, you aren't going to eat more. But logic doesn't dictate that you're full, your feelings do.
Maybe it's not the best metaphor, but do you understand what I'm saying? Different realities.

Your specificity comes from something other than simply inquiring about details. It's nitpicking. "Why didn't you respond to the other half of the sentence" is not being more specific, it's looking for an argument. I can be precise all day, but when you're looking for arguments where there aren't, or you're looking at arguments solely to find fallacies or holes in them, not to understand what they're trying to say, you're looking too closely. And that's what I feel you're doing, constantly.

I'm not arguing against using reason. No one is.
There is actually a subset of the three main points of rhetoric that is called "logos" - aka logic. This, combined with ethos - basically explained as credibility, and pathos - basically appeals to emotion/emphasis (usually diction plays in here, not logos), create an argument. If you're lacking even one, the argument isn't really convincing.
Rhetoric isn't an opinion thing; it's just something we all (yes, all) use. You're right, it isn't separate from logic and reason - but logic and reason are PART of it. That's why it bothers me so much that you don't understand it, because it makes you hypocritical.

Show me the study, I'm actually curious.
There you go, though. IMO. In your experience is fine. But don't just straight up say that theists are more close-minded. In my experience, theists are more ignorant, but atheists are more close-minded.

You sure as hell haven't proved it true yet. Say "In my experience", not stating it as a fact - because it isn't one.

I highly doubt that you can find enough information to prove that atheists are more open-minded. Why?
First off, in my own experience, that is absolutely untrue. I have encountered more atheists saying that I'm an idiot for believing what I do (for reasons they don't even know) than I ever have seen Christians that can think (I'm not including children under 9 or so, because they usually haven't developed a sense of the world yet) stubbornly say 'No, everything you say is wrong'
Though my best friend is a creationist. ; - ;
Love her anyway xD
Secondly, I find often that there is a tone of superiority among atheists that I don't find a lot in theists. I have been exposed mostly to ones prideful that they know so much more or that have been enlightened and are free from religion! It's almost sickening, because that's the way many think that hardcore theists are about their god - so stubbornly entrenched that they can't even see the other person's point of view.
Thirdly, there are just too many factors to include for accurate results... not to mention open- and close-mindedness are also spectrums. Demographics, personal experiences, family belief, childhood, age, etcetc all play huge roles in this judgement.

Not to mention biases.
I really, honestly don't think you should waste time doing research, because it just isn't something that can be measured. Have your opinion, but at least clarify that it's your opinion, because it can't be a fact. Just like how blacks are inferior was a "fact" a long time ago, but an opinion now, eh?

*relatively accurate. But how many of those 350 mil vote? On top of that, it's easy to say this person or that person. There's no judgement there. Close- and open-mindedness are matters of opinion, scale, and just can't be assumed.

I should mention the whole thing about cold hard evidence was more a poke at your responses to many arguments; sometimes you ask for data where there is none that can be found, because it's not black-and-white. Like this. If you want to call it goalpost shifting, you can, but it's just not something that can be measured. Try if you want, but it's like measuring how nice some group of people is. It's relative and opinion-based.

No, I meant all, because it was a satire in the form of hyperbole. If I wanted to not point out how ridiculous it was to continually ask for facts on matters of opinions, I would have just said "It's stupid you used that stereotype as a fact, because it's an opinion-based matter that cannot be quantified. Additionally, please refrain from doing so again, because it is rude and unnecessary in this debate." Which might have been more reasonable, but no fun at all. Nor would it emphasize how silly it is to demand it.

It's... not true... There's no way to quantify it. You just can't. So it's pretty rude of anyone to assume that.

The reason they do alternate is because they think critically. I didn't mean constantly, I meant they change. Sometimes they go back and forth. Everyone experiences issues with their faith. If you don't question yourself, you can never improve yourself. Atheist, Theist, whatever - you should always be wondering if you're really right, because it opens you to more suggestions. Immersing yourself in a faith isn't a bad way to do that. Saying you're agnostic for a while isn't a bad thing to do while you're examining what it really means to be ____, and if you really believe that. There is no problem with that, and if don't think that's critical thinking, then I'm afraid we have totally different definitions of what that means.

I never said rapidly >.>

*here
Of course it doesn't paint me in a positive light. If I were trying to care about being polite, I wouldn't have said what I did
Everything's rhetoric, so I can't very well say that it wasn't.
Would you like me to call you out every time you make a snide comment as well? Because your own page there was full of passive-aggressiveness too.

No.
This is not what I want to debate here or now, so no. I won't.


Finally done. Took me an hour to respond to all of this.

 

The posts on this thread are getting longer and longer. Dang.

 

It aint even bout gay rights anymore.

 

Sadly, I had to stop reading at the 5th paragraph.

Almost everything that I'm saying in this conversation is being taken in the least charitable way possible, and spun in such a way that paints me as attacking you personally.

"That is one hell of a run-on sentence."

I'm commenting on your run-on sentence. No mockery. No insults. I never implied that your argument was wrong or less credible on this basis either. It was free advice, nothing more.

But how did @Fangdragon1998 see it?

As a personal attack. That I am purposefully bringing this up (despite my comments to the contrary) as a way to reduce the credibility of her arguments. Then, divulging us about my use of rhetoric and ethos, and how I am undermining her by pointing out her mistake.

"Could you address that, please? Thank you."

I'm trying to be as polite and cordial as possible at this point. Merely pointing out that she's failed to address something that I would like addressing.

What does @Fangdragon1998 think?

It was irritating and clearly passive-aggressive.

The fact that, "Could you please do X, thank you." is seen by you in such a hostile way? It says it all, and is the greatest indictment on your character than anything else you've said here.

I feel like my words don't matter at this stage, because you're claiming to have something akin to ESP. That regardless of the words on the page in front of you? You will infer something negative. You 'know' my true intentions, and that my words are just some sugar-coating for how I truly feel.

You also took issue with: "Sarcasm and condescension aside...". Regarding your comment:

You are absolutely misinterpreting everything I say. Congratulations.
Now listen.

Is that not sarcastic and condescending? I wanted to voice my objection in a swift manner without making a big deal of it. Why is my off the cuff comment being seen in such an incredibly uncharitable way? If I asked you to, "Please stop doing it, thank you?", it's clear that even this probably wouldn't be good enough either.

These examples could continue.

Your attitude has been relentless. Reactionary responses that seem to be based more on 'how I've made you feel', than what I've actually said. Constant belittling. All while inferring ulterior motives and refusing to take me at face value. The only reason I quoted your entire post, was so others can watch and learn from this experience in the future. How not to have disagreements. Because your infatuation for 'ethos', along with your uncharitable attitude and mind-reading skills have destroyed any chance of something worthwhile coming from this.

Take the very first paragraph. It doesn't seem to be possible from your PoV, that I could be trying to make a point about the Church. It's entertained for 0 seconds here. Because my line of questioning is immediately interpreted as intentionally hostile.

All I can do is implore you to read through this conversation in a day or two. I know I will be. Fingers crossed we can find enough common ground to chat in a cordial manner.

TLR -- There conversation has actually got worse. Every paragraph seems to involve an insult and an extremely negative interpretation of what I've said. Rather than just taking me at my word. Even in the first paragraph, we had:

Example 1) Aggressive rhetorical questions have no place in serious conversations. Mmmk? <--- Like that.

Example 2) You don't need to shout and patronize, ---> UNDERSTOOD? <---

Example 3) 'Fang, you're intentionally insulting me to get a rise out of me and claim the moral high ground.' <---- (Claiming to know your opponent's *true* intentions.)

P.s. How can someone analyze something "too much"? I always thought the more time spent researching, investigating, breaking something down? The better decision we can make regarding 'whatever we're analyzing'. I was sincerely trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by floating around 'mis-analyze'.

E: Grammar

 

Inherently, correcting someone's grammar instead of assuming it was a mistake undermines credibility. If you want me to take it at face value, it was unnecessary and pointless to any argument. It didnt need to be said.

Because there were no objections to be made in the first place. Because I am constantly irritated by your very own condescending tone. Because you seem to think that you are gracious and kind and generous and patient when in reality all you're doing now is demeaning me.
In fact, I dont think you have responded to any points I made in the entire thing. Regardless if I acted reactionally, why can't you see past that? I know it I hate debating you because you act so pompously, but I still respond to your arguments (the exception being now), do I not?
If you are really here to learn and open your mind, you really ought to stop, what is it, straw manning this argument? You exaggerate what I have done while ignoring the actual issues that I have been presenting?

Honest question. 100%. Do you think you were really being polite and are 100% free of blame?

I find that you are destroying this yourself. I am perfectly content to continue arguing about this subject, which you've stopped arguing.

Are you not being hypocritical? I was irritated, but I was not attacking you, was I? Yet now all you harp on is how horrible I've been, assuming that you are being negative; yet you ignore every damn point I have made to simply say that I am "making a big deal out of it", have an "uncharitable attitude"
Yet what have you done but the same thing?
Stop trying to make yourself the innocent victim. I acknowledged I was upset, I acknowledged that I was irate.

What, can you now mind-read?
I didn't want to debate that. Why cant you accept that? I know you were trying to go somewhere with that. I knew you were. So don't even start saying you know what I'm thinking, especially when you accuse me of doing just that. That is being hypocritical.

See above, was actually responding to this.

I will, and I will hold the same opinion then as now. I hope so too. It would be much easier if only we both understood each other. As far as I understand, you want to debate about the Church. Which doesnt belong here.

Debathiest failed to show any signs of progress throughout this entire post, consistently attacking the method of speech instead of the argument itself.

Would you like to respond to what I said? Was I not clarifying? Why did you try to make it something it was not? Why did you demand a response for something that you created?

I wasn't shouting. It was for emphasis. I had forgotten how to italicize/bold.
Take the same point for yourself. Don't patronize me without arguing against what Ive been saying. I don't care, unlike you it seems, if people are rude as long as they have substance. It's why I've put up with you. Usually.

Debathiest, don't try to read my mind. It is quite hypocritical. I am not intentionally insulting you. I am specifically saying I am irate with you. I am specifically arguing anyway. Have I once personally attacked you? I have said what you are saying is hypocritical, I have said that your methods of phrasing and debating are rude. If I wanted to claim the moral high ground, I wouldnt need a rise. If I wanted to claim the moral high ground, then I would not have admitted that I was irate. I would not have said that what you said has validity.
Dont claim my intentions. You don't understand them, apparently.

Sometimes a tree is just a tree. You don't need to analyze its root structure to understand that it is a tree. It is a tree. Going and bringing a leaf back to the lab to discover that is as a tree is unnecessary. That is over-analyzing. You are doing the same thing by assuming that there was a reason I left out the second half of the sentence. There wasn't. I was just clarifying. Yet you demanded a response to something that I never started debating.

Now, please go back and reread my post. It has much more information that you have implied, but you haven't seen, because you were too busy being upset with me for being "sarcastic and condescending".
If you really are here to learn and to be open-minded, you need to start learning that regardless of how people argue, you can't just ignore what they're saying because you don't like it. What I have been saying has substance. But you've been ignoring it because you have been upset by the /way/ I've been saying it.

 

All you've done thus far is call me an idiot while undermining my integrity. (As if I'm not genuinely interested in conversations. That I just want to look smart.) I'm trying to be as charitable as I can here, man. Is it so hard to do the same? Give us some reasoning. Rather than just claiming you have psychic powers, and that you know who I am *really* am.

It's a hefty indictment on your character when you see someone that's trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and have a conversation with you? As pompous or a pseudo-intellectual. Heck, you even undermined me for using big/complex words. I... how am I supposed to respond to that? Do you want me to *not* respect your intelligence, and use lots of little tiny words? I don't get it.

No, not at all. If you have some data that proves that Atheists are more closed-minded than Theists? By all means go right ahead. Show it, and I'll be the first to concede my point. THAT is how an open-minded person should think. Always being willing to accept the contrary if sufficient evidence presents itself. But in my experience, and from the studies that I have seen (the most recent one regarding 'critical thinking'), Theists are more closed-minded. And I'm willing to show you why I think that, if you can hear me out for 2 seconds without hurling more insults my way.

Honestly, I think it's really sad. You see ^^this^^ as a mark against my character. Yet:

"tbh you are actually the most idiotic person i've had the mispleasure of knowing"

While ^^that^^ is completely fair-game in your eyes.

I... yeah.

 

This is my main issue with the claims that you're making here. ^

I trust you on your claim that the majority of atheists that you've met have been more open minded than theists and that the theists that you've met have usually neglected to discuss beliefs; however, you can't generalize and say that, "Christians don't even want to talk about what they believe," or that, "Christians are more closed minded than atheists." You claim to be a man of logic and science, so you should be completely aware that you can't make a justifiable claim on which of two groups is more of something based off of what you've experienced in your regular, day-to-day life. As I've already explained, there are cultural aspects and other reasons for why people tend to see more closed minded theists (such as the fact that in many areas, many theists are raised that way, unlike atheists, who are more likely to be people that converted to their belief later on, and therefore are likely to have more arguments for it) and that theists aren't inherently more closed minded. As I've also already said, to even make a justifiable claim on whether or not atheists are more open minded, you would need to complete a study on an equal number of atheists and theists from around the world, including an equal number of converts and people who were raised with the belief on both sides. Even if that study were to show that there are in fact more open minded atheists, you would still be unjustified to say that, "Christians don't even want to talk about what they believe," because even if you can prove that a much smaller amount of Christians are open minded, there are still always going to be some that are.

 

You missed me again

 

however, you can't generalize and say that, "Christians don't even want to talk about what they believe," or that, "Christians are more closed minded than atheists."

I think you're quoting me out of context here. I made multiple caveats and clarifications outside of the 1-line that you're quoting.

"I find productive conversations overwhelmingly happen with the former than the latter. [One group, moreso than another. I.e. I do get productive conversations with Theists, it's just more common with Atheists]

This usually scales with religiosity too, unsurprisingly. I typically get more productive conversations from 16 year old Deists than I do with Christians. I typically get more productive conversations with 16 year old Atheists that I do with Deists. [Caveat City!]

Even if we were being Meep specific? Look at the demographic of this forum.... [A non-anecdotal example follows.]

Lastly, my primary objection was that Christians don't even want to talk about what they believe. [<-- Your quote of me] There usually isn't even a base curiosity there, to talk about their beliefs. Set solid discourse aside. We can't even get to that stage, because Theists en mass rarely seem courageous enough have their beliefs examined/challenged. Religious or otherwise."

To be clear, my claim is a generalisation that is largely based on personal experience. These claims are not stated as scientific fact, it is merely conjecture. Though an extremely reasonable one, I would submit. And one that has been rationally justified.

You claim to be a man of logic and science, so you should be completely aware that you can't make a justifiable claim on which of two groups is more of something based off of what you've experienced in your regular, day-to-day life.

I absolutely could. Making logical deductions about the way the world works, is something we do every day. We'd have no spare-time if every largely inconsequential claim needed vast data and study before we accepted them. "The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence is required."

E.g. -- Everything I know about pop-culture seems to suggest that men are better drivers than women. From what I've seen in my own life? My personal experience, to insurance rates, this seems to conform to the stereotype.

Would I then go on to claim as fact that all men are better drivers than women? Or that men are typically better drivers *as fact*? No. But I think, "Men seem to be typically better drives than women" is such a reasonable claim, that one could tentatively accept it. So long as we're willing to look at the science to be proven wrong, and so long as no largely consequential decisions are being made as a result of this belief.

I'd argue that the same case could be made for the claim I made earlier. Do you need a scientific study to assume that black guys are well-hung too? I wouldn't submit that we do.

As I've already explained, there are cultural aspects and other reasons for why people tend to see more closed minded theists (such as the fact that in many areas, many theists are raised that way, unlike atheists, who are more likely to be people that converted to their belief later on, and therefore are likely to have more arguments for it) and that theists aren't inherently more closed minded.

I've already given my justification. Could I have yours? I have a wealth of personal interactions across many forms of media. I also cited an example that you can look into, regarding MeepCraft discussions. Along with the 'threat' of citing a study regarding the Critical Thinking skills of Atheists V Theists. What do you have to back-up your hypothesis?

As I've also already said, to even make a justifiable claim on whether or not atheists are more open minded, you would need to complete a study on an equal number of atheists and theists from around the world, including an equal number of converts and people who were raised with the belief on both sides.

I'm not making a scientific claim of absolute fact. I'm explaining my thought-process for this belief.

By your reasoning, it would be unreasonable/unjustified to assume that there are still species of fish that we have yet to identify. Because... I can't produce a study demonstrating it. All I can do is appeal to what I've learned about the world from my own experience. I can also give you examples of where this has happened previously, along with reasonable arguments that are a sufficient explanation for why I think there are still undiscovered species of fish.

Even if that study were to show that there are in fact more open minded atheists, you would still be unjustified to say that, "Christians don't even want to talk about what they believe," because even if you can prove that a much smaller amount of Christians are open minded, there are still always going to be some that are.

I think I have to nip this conversation in the bud at this point. I've repeatedly caked my claims in caveats and hedges. Never stating it as fact, merely as my own belief. Switching the subject in your comment shows us how depressing this disagreement as become.

Even if that study were to show that there are in fact more men in hetero relationships are taller than their partner, you would still be unjustified to say that, "Men are taller than women". Because even if you can prove that a much smaller amount of women in hetero relationships are taller than their partner, there are still always going to be some that are.

My claim was a generalisation, something even you claimed earlier. 'You'd still be wrong, because there are always going to be some open-minded Christians.' is a dirty move. Because all I'm making is a generalisation. "Men are taller than women" doesn't mean "All men are taller than women". The same goes here.

 

The issue is that you've stated it in a way that makes it sound like a factual statement (Example: "Christians don't even want to talk about what they believe"), which makes it unclear whether or not you claiming it as a fact or simply as a conjecture. As long as it's clear that it's a conjecture, there's not a problem with you making the claim; my point was just that you can't present a generalization based off of personal experiences as a factual statement.

I wasn't clear enough on what I mean by "justified;" you can definitely use your personal experiences to make justified hypotheses in your life, but you can't use your personal experiences to make justified claims to use in a debate like this. There's a difference between using deductions and generalizations based off of your personal experiences in your regular life and using them to make arguments in debates.

For example, on this topic of whether or not atheists are more open minded, I'd probably hypothesize that they are. While I've made it clear that I do not believe that theists are inherently closed minded and that there are other factors that can contribute to a lot of them being closed minded without them inherently being that way, I have seen enough closed minded ones that I feel like it's likely that they are averagely more closed minded. This might affect some of the judgments that I make in my personal life (for instance, I might be more likely to assume that someone is open minded if they tell me that they are an atheist); however, because of the fact that I have nothing to back any of this up outside of my personal experiences, I am not justified to use this in a debate. Furthermore, I am definitely unjustified to claim that theists are inherently closed minded, because I obviously know that not all of them are, but since you've already addressed this and clarified that you weren't trying to claim that all theists are closed minded, I won't go into this anymore.

Sure, if you've personally seen more men that are good drivers/more women that are not good drivers, you could validly hypothesize that men are typically better drivers, and you could base situations/judgments in your life off of this hypothesis; however, since this is another claim based off of personal experience, you'd once again be unable to justifiably use this claim in a debate.

Well, there are studies supporting that. If you look up average ***** sizes by race, you can see that black males are above males of other races.

My justification for what hypothesis? Up until this post, I hadn't stated my hypothesis on whether or not atheists or theists were typically more closed minded. I had only 1. stated my opinion that theists are not inherently closed minded/that not all theists are close minded and 2. stated that you were unjustified to make the claims that you were making. I'm assuming that you want my justification for my hypothesis that more theists are raised that way and that more atheists are converts (correct me if wrong):

Well, I thought that I could easily find some simple age demographics on average beliefs to use as justification here, but it seems that most demographics on this subject don't include people under eighteen. A lot of people who do convert away from religion seem to do it during their teens, so data that doesn't include those younger than eighteen isn't very helpful here. So, I'll admit that without the justification that I was looking for, I don't have any actual way to prove this claim, and therefore, I was unjustified to claim this; however, the fact remains that out of the atheists that I've met, most of them have been converts, whereas most of the Christians that I've met have been raised that way. If you still feel like you're justified to make arguments based solely off of your personal experiences, then I'm still justified to stick to this claim of mine in this debate, right?

Not at all.

It would be perfectly reasonable and justifiable to assume that there are still species of fish that we haven't identified; however, it would be 1. unjustifiable to state this as a fact, and 2. unjustifiable to use this claim in a debate without evidence outside of your personal experiences. This situation is different than ours though, because anyone can gain information about the ocean/fish, leading their experiences to support this claim, whereas not everyone can have the same personal experiences involving atheists and theists as you have.

A big difference with this claim is that it is proven that men are averagely taller, whereas it is not proven (or supported outside of personal experiences) that atheists are more open minded, but I see what you're going for. I'd still have a problem with someone saying that, "Men are taller than women," because whether they incorrectly mean it literally or not, it's obviously untrue. So, it's better to just say that, "Men tend to be taller than women," or, "On average, men are taller than women," to save everyone from confusion. Again, the difference between this and you saying that, "Atheists tend to be more open minded than theists," is that there is more than personal experience to back up the claim that men are averagely taller.

 

Here's what I see when @TheDebatheist is on debate forums.

1>Forum Question
2>Same Answers from everyone
3>Controversial answer from @TheDebatheist
4>everyone attacks him
5>@TheDebatheist is right, proves his point.
6>Everyone is mad because they got rekt
7>Everyone comes up with petty complaints about @TheDebatheist instead of debating
8>@TheDebathiest flames everyone
9>Repeat steps 6-8

Seriously though, stop getting mad at @TheDebatheist, just because he voices his opinion with precision doesn't mean you need to bash him.

 

This is intentional. I'm going to explain why as quickly as I can. Highlights for onlookers in blue.

1) The notion of 'Over-analyzing'? From what I've seen, you condemn it. "Sometimes a tree is just a tree.".

Apart from my posts, it seems. Whether that's regarding spelling mistakes, logical fallacies, or polite requests? You interpret it in the least charitable way possible.

(I think you're analyzing me incorrectly, rather than doing it too much. The more we analyze, the more we understand, typically speaking.)

2) You become extremely defensive and hostile regarding faulty grammar and spelling. You even said you don't want to be improved in this regard. I think this speaks volumes of the attitude that you bring to conversations where others disagree with you.

When examining your beliefs, I don't think it's a shock as to why you see these corrections in a terrible light. Because you can't seem to get this notion of 'rhetoric' or 'ethos' out of your mind for long enough to take my words at face value. (i.e. I'm correcting you for no other purpose than to help you)

The belief in 'rhetoric' and 'ethos' as causal to your actions, is merely my own hypothesis.

3) You have also described, "Please could you address X, thank you." as passive-aggressive and irritating. One wonders how I could have asked any nicer for you to talk about 'X'. I believe that this kind of thing is enough to end any conversation.

4) Pointing out logical fallacies? Again, these are looked upon with such disdain. As if the validity of logical fallacies are up for debate, or if it's just a cheap trick to undermine what you've said.

I hope others can learn how not to have a conversation, from this one. Until your attitude changes, where every paragraph is sprinkled with insults or the most uncharitable interpretation of what was said (despite multiple corrections to the contrary), I have no choice but to block you on MeepCraft. Though, from your PMs, this seems like a good thing for both of us.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To shake any suggestion that I'm just trying to be incredibly inflammatory (or that I'm chickening out) by not replying to what you said? I'll try to respond to as much as I can, before I decide to call it quits.

Inherently, correcting someone's grammar instead of assuming it was a mistake undermines credibility. If you want me to take it at face value, it was unnecessary and pointless to any argument. It didnt need to be said.

Sure, I didn't *need* to correct your grammar. I was merely trying to be nice. To 'help a brother out'. Sadly, the fact that you react so poorly to having your grammar corrected, should have been the only 'Red Flag' I needed to bail out of this conversation a long time ago. Honestly, the correction was well-intended. Just as my examples showed earlier:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics...itish_brother_larry_sanders/czwfouw?context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/..._off_coach_in_bristol_after/cxrk6au?context=3

You said it best in your next point.

"Because I am constantly irritated by your very own condescending tone. Because you seem to think that you are gracious and kind and generous and patient when in reality all you're doing now is demeaning me."

Either, I'm genuinely trying to be gracious, kind, generous and patient. Or... I'm condescending and demeaning. You had the choice to give your opponent the benefit of the doubt. To be charitable. To see 'please' and 'thank you' as polite requests. Yet you havn't done so, in many (if any) of your responses thus far. This is *exactly* what I was talking about earlier when I referenced "Taking what I've said in the least charitable way possible".

I understand the this charge (of using uncharitable interpretations) may be levied against me also, though this is a claim that I believe to be untrue. Because the examples I've given of your tone, are unambiguously mean spirited. Let's take 2.

Example 1 ) "You are absolutely misinterpreting everything I say. Congratulations. Now listen."

Taking you at face value? You are congratulating me for misinterpreting what was said. You also think that I havn't been listening up 'til now, and you want me to focus.

Or the more plausible option? You're sarcastically congratulating me, and you're "Now listen" is nothing more than venting your frustration by talking down to me.

Example 2 ) "get off your damn high horse and get into the real world"

I have no idea how this can be seen as something other than mean-spirited. If you can find a similarly unambiguously insulting comment made by me, I'd love to see it.

In fact, I dont think you have responded to any points I made in the entire thing. Regardless if I acted reactionally, why can't you see past that? I know it I hate debating you because you act so pompously, but I still respond to your arguments (the exception being now), do I not?

I still addressed everything despite your (imo) incendiary attitude, right? "Sarcasm and condescension aside... [insert counterarguments here]". I briefly make my objections regarding your 'remarks' before I tackled the substance. Doing so in a big way too. The only time that I havn't done so thus far (including this one), was in post #1510 where I called for an end to this conversation.

"Pompus" is an insult. That is not ambiguous at all. These are explicit insults and completely unacceptable in formal or informal discourse.

If you are really here to learn and open your mind, you really ought to stop, what is it, straw manning this argument? You exaggerate what I have done while ignoring the actual issues that I have been presenting?

Straw-man's are for content, Ad-Hom for character.

Your words are here for all to see, and I encourage everyone to read through them. I've not ignored much (if anything) that you've said up until this point. Engaging with every paragraph. But it stops here (#1510). Because you have demonstrated that you can't have a civil disagreement on this issue, and that you see nothing wrong with manipulating intent to demonise your opponent.

I find that you are destroying this yourself. I am perfectly content to continue arguing about this subject, which you've stopped arguing.

Should someone invest time and energy into a conversation with someone that almost never takes them at their word? Because there are dozens of people on MeepCraft et al that desire fierce disagreement, but won't manipulate my intentions or talk down to me in every other paragraph.

The minute you start taking others at face-value, and stop slipping in unambiguously degrading comments? Please let me know.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the rest of your post... it continues to get worse. You even took one of my examples, in which I was emulating your behaviour? Criticised and lambasted it, without realising that you're essentially criticising yourself. Telling me how unfair it is to assert intent. When that was exactly what I was trying to 'get at' by emulating your debating style.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, I can't help myself. One more.

If you want to call it goalpost shifting, you can...

I think it *is* goalpost-shifting though. Because you asked for evidence, only to later admit that you were only doing so to mock my request (asking for evidence). Which is... interesting?

"the whole thing about cold hard evidence was more a poke at your responses to many arguments"

...but [Open-mindedness] is just not something that can be measured. Try if you want, but [Open-mindedness] is like measuring how nice some group of people is. It's relative and opinion-based.

But we can measure it. It's basic neurology. We've done real-time brain scans showing that some people are more open-minded than others. The ability to 'have one's mind changed, according to the evidence' is not subjective.

This only echoes a prominent theme in this thread. Whereby you assert a mystery to the universe where there is none. Or at least, a mystery that hasn't yet been justified. That there's something more important than evidence. That reason and logic only give you a "black and white" view of the world. That open-mindedness is subjective. This is one of the many reasons that I believe this discussion as run its course.

 

What does one mean when they say "Gay rights"?
If its legalized gay marriage then cool, sure, there's nothing wrong with it.

BTW, its nice to see Rosenow destroying everyone. I kind of regret being such a doucher to him in the past, we are pretty alike.

 

Being gay is a-okay..

 

Can we please stop this trhread, I mean look above those are friggen essays.