Let’s all be Controversial to counter that Controversial Post that bothered us so much.
March 25th 2008 12:16
Let’s all be Controversial to counter that Controversial Post that bothered us so much.
It never ceases to amaze me have quickly double standards are applied when arguments are over polarizing controversial subjects. Too often emotions run wild as there is a desperate search from some quarters to destroy the opponent rather than the argument. The obvious position of agreeing to disagree seems to be beyond the grasp of some people. Why is so hard to understand that no one is going to be converted to any position over a blog. Preaching to your own choirs is easy but it is hardly the substance of social change. At best all a person can do is to write an essay that either has logical holes in it or holds up to scrutiny. Yet it does not mean that anyone will believe what you have written. In the end only those looking to be influenced by your words will be influenced and all others will not care. Many a brilliant word of wisdom has been lost in the sludge of mediocrity and lethargy.
How is it that a simple post written in a public forum can draw such attention and trigger so many raw emotions? Really Long Link There was nothing new about the subject, nor was this a subject that had not already been argued to death (no pun intended) on Orble many times over. A simple search on the subject will show who has written posts and what comments have been put. This goes for every controversial subject ever posted. Yet this post had one of the most hostile reactions I have ever seen in a long time. The comments continued to build up. Initially I did not bother to read the post as I figure controversial subjects in themselves are not my interest. I am happy to stir the pot once in a while but usually I prefer either satire or the neutral reporting viewpoint. The rest normally sounds like ‘yadayadayada – you’re wrong and I am right.’
The controversial post was no exception. We had a significant volume of responses that were answering comments that were never in the post. I could go on for hours about why that is an invalid line or reasoning but that would bore everyone and few would bother reading so I will break it down for everyone as simply as possible.
Rule 1 – Would you only bring a knife to a gun battle? Yet people try to do the same thing when they bring an irrelevant ideology to a theological discussion. What relevance does atheism have to a post based upon biblical quotes? None. This is called ‘quoting an irrelevant source’.
Rule 2 – Defeating an army of Straw Men does not make sense. You put them there and you tore them apart but the enemy army is unharmed. How about sticking to what was said? And would it be too much to even ask the author for clarification before going on the attack. Silly question, there are always straw men left to tear apart for no reason.
Rule 3 – (I like this one) Get off the Logical Merry go Round. Circular arguments impress only one person - The person who uses them. No, your opinions are not more valid because you have rejected theism or any other ‘ism’. That is just ‘special pleading’.
Rule 4 – Whose home are you in? Is this the forum you think it is or are trying to use it as your echo chamber for other issues? If I write a blog about cars do you honestly think that it should be changed into one about white rabbits? Yet if some writes a post based upon Bible quotes suddenly we are expected to wade through all sorts of history and stories that have not bearing upon the central questions.
Rule 5 – Are you addressing issues that the writer has presented? Are you even using the same language and terminology? Or are you looking for meanings that are not there?
In the reply to the controversial post I saw all these rules were broken because people were so fixated on the emotions that the post created that no one did a point by point breakdown to look for logical holes. Rather it was just a contest of who could find the most irrelevant source to quote as an answer.
The whole point of the post was this: that is a Christian Biblical Argument and here are the Biblical quotes to back them up. Yet not one of these so called educated detractors managed to pick that up and find counter quotes to destroy her thrust. Furthermore no one even asked the question that was begging to be asked: What denomination of Christian are you TBT? This is important in so far as there are vastly different beliefs in many denominations. Yet the attack was against all Christians as if they are one homogenised entity. That is as insane as treating all atheists as if they believe the same thing. Collective guilt and collective innocence are merely two sides of the same bad logic.
As such the post still stands unchallenged and logically as intact as when it was written. All that has changed is the volume of comments added to it. The author had every right to put this piece out in the public despite the hostile reaction it undeservingly received.
It never ceases to amaze me have quickly double standards are applied when arguments are over polarizing controversial subjects. Too often emotions run wild as there is a desperate search from some quarters to destroy the opponent rather than the argument. The obvious position of agreeing to disagree seems to be beyond the grasp of some people. Why is so hard to understand that no one is going to be converted to any position over a blog. Preaching to your own choirs is easy but it is hardly the substance of social change. At best all a person can do is to write an essay that either has logical holes in it or holds up to scrutiny. Yet it does not mean that anyone will believe what you have written. In the end only those looking to be influenced by your words will be influenced and all others will not care. Many a brilliant word of wisdom has been lost in the sludge of mediocrity and lethargy.
How is it that a simple post written in a public forum can draw such attention and trigger so many raw emotions? Really Long Link There was nothing new about the subject, nor was this a subject that had not already been argued to death (no pun intended) on Orble many times over. A simple search on the subject will show who has written posts and what comments have been put. This goes for every controversial subject ever posted. Yet this post had one of the most hostile reactions I have ever seen in a long time. The comments continued to build up. Initially I did not bother to read the post as I figure controversial subjects in themselves are not my interest. I am happy to stir the pot once in a while but usually I prefer either satire or the neutral reporting viewpoint. The rest normally sounds like ‘yadayadayada – you’re wrong and I am right.’
The controversial post was no exception. We had a significant volume of responses that were answering comments that were never in the post. I could go on for hours about why that is an invalid line or reasoning but that would bore everyone and few would bother reading so I will break it down for everyone as simply as possible.
Rule 1 – Would you only bring a knife to a gun battle? Yet people try to do the same thing when they bring an irrelevant ideology to a theological discussion. What relevance does atheism have to a post based upon biblical quotes? None. This is called ‘quoting an irrelevant source’.
Rule 2 – Defeating an army of Straw Men does not make sense. You put them there and you tore them apart but the enemy army is unharmed. How about sticking to what was said? And would it be too much to even ask the author for clarification before going on the attack. Silly question, there are always straw men left to tear apart for no reason.
Rule 3 – (I like this one) Get off the Logical Merry go Round. Circular arguments impress only one person - The person who uses them. No, your opinions are not more valid because you have rejected theism or any other ‘ism’. That is just ‘special pleading’.
Rule 4 – Whose home are you in? Is this the forum you think it is or are trying to use it as your echo chamber for other issues? If I write a blog about cars do you honestly think that it should be changed into one about white rabbits? Yet if some writes a post based upon Bible quotes suddenly we are expected to wade through all sorts of history and stories that have not bearing upon the central questions.
Rule 5 – Are you addressing issues that the writer has presented? Are you even using the same language and terminology? Or are you looking for meanings that are not there?
In the reply to the controversial post I saw all these rules were broken because people were so fixated on the emotions that the post created that no one did a point by point breakdown to look for logical holes. Rather it was just a contest of who could find the most irrelevant source to quote as an answer.
The whole point of the post was this: that is a Christian Biblical Argument and here are the Biblical quotes to back them up. Yet not one of these so called educated detractors managed to pick that up and find counter quotes to destroy her thrust. Furthermore no one even asked the question that was begging to be asked: What denomination of Christian are you TBT? This is important in so far as there are vastly different beliefs in many denominations. Yet the attack was against all Christians as if they are one homogenised entity. That is as insane as treating all atheists as if they believe the same thing. Collective guilt and collective innocence are merely two sides of the same bad logic.
As such the post still stands unchallenged and logically as intact as when it was written. All that has changed is the volume of comments added to it. The author had every right to put this piece out in the public despite the hostile reaction it undeservingly received.
| 125 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
A Global Citizen
Paranormal Paranormal
Is Why
Alaska Chronicle
Sleezer's World
Your point is made, the worst of these writers fail to realize that one sided dialog is a speech, performed for their own benefit.
Raven
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
Why would people read a post that upsets them then complain about what was not written?
What someone write when the attitude is hostile?
Everyone is free to write their own posts on the same subject and many have.
The warning was on the label.
Warning this site contains Biblical Quotes.
Warning this site is about Biblical Quotes.
Warning the target audience is aimed at the people who like to read Biblical quotes.
What reply did anyone expect?
Too many came armed with the wrong weapons and now want cry about the result.
You don't come to gunfight with just a broken bottle.
And you don't come to a theological discussion armed with Secular ideologies.
You are not even on the same page.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
The post said that it was only intended to teach the Bible to Christians but then also had passages such as "it is not my intention to provoke any one to anger but merely to teach right from wrong".
Not right and wrong according to the writer or right and wrong as the Bible sees it, but right and wrong, period. End of story. End of discussion. The Bible is right. Everyone else is wrong.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I do get a lot of pleasure from your replies.
I think the Choir is starting to do its own preaching.
In Unix "/" has spoken the case is closed.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Don't just ridicule me Damo, don't just accuse me of preaching. Tell me why am i am wrong. Show me why you just know so much more than I do.
I have put forward my argument to you. What is your response?
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
No where did I mention your name.
Your comment has no validity.
You can assume what you wish but you have no reference point to make such and accusation.
(In case you are wondering what I just said. It is called deconstructing your logical fallacies)
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Well done.
I don't wish to get embroiled in a war of words with you Damo. Quite frankly, I know I don't stand a chance.
However, at least I am willing to defend my position with clear points and not just intellectual put downs.
Thanks for allowing me to comment on your blog.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
To the first post.
Jeez Ruby don't you have a life out side of this issue?
There are over 3000 people blogging on Orble all expressing their opinions.
There is absolutely no way that everyone can check things with you before they post them.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Sorry I didn't bother reading the last comment before writing this.
I was too busy sending an email out to the 3000 other bloggers on Orble to see how they feel about my posts before I place in the public forum.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Where did I say that the writer had to inform me before she posted the article?
All I did was give a reason for my reaction.
She had a right to write what she wrote and I had a right to respond. Free speech in action. Isn't freedom grand?
I can't believe you just told me to get a life.
Next you will be telling me that I am ignorant.
Oh, oh, if you really want to put me in my place tell me I am going to get AIDS and die a slow painful death. That's a sure fire argument winner, right there.
Oh, boy, how the mighty fall.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
You have just written 3 comments within the lasts few hours on this post.
What you call a reason for action others may describe as an excuse for bad manners and bigotry. But who am I to listen to others?
Your whole justification for your hostility, accusations and bigotries is that someone said that they believe that their opinion is an objective truth. (look up the term if you need to).
Then your whole attack was based upon the premise that your 'objective truth' was better. In short you were trying to push your 'Pro-Choice' (Pro-Abortion) dogma down someone else's throat then trying to claim only religions could possibly have dogmas.
Needless to say no one can respond to your inner fears and imagined enemies. No one can respond to a whole army Straw men that you have been painting crosses on because they are of your own making. I never mentioned AIDS, that is your straw man so have fun with it.
Far be it for me to suggest that you lack even basic theological knowledge to understand what was written. Despite the fact it was pretty basic. However since you keep going down the "Christian Conspiracy' path, I have my suspicions.
I am happy that you responded Ruby because now that Blog is being kept alive by you own actions.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
You may not have mentioned my name but it does not take Sherlock Holmes to deduce that many of the scathing remarks in your recent posts were aimed squarely at me. Particularly considering that you brought up virtually all the same issues in the comments section of that other blog.
So far as I can tell you are annoyed with me because I am pro-choice. Silly me, I thought that you could disagree with someone and still have an intelligent thoughtful debate on the issue. Apparently not.
Now, first things first, you realise that calling 'pro-choice' a dogma is a contradiction right? A dogma is by definition a doctrine that cannot be disputed, doubted or changed. The very word choice, indicates that an individual is free to approach the matter as they see fit. Choose abortion or reject it, it is up to you. You make the decision that is best for you. That's not a dogma. That's a human right.
This, is of course, unlike the pro-life dogma, which is indeed that, since it says that all abortion is forbidden and no-one is to have one under any circumstances. Unflinching, unchanging, indisputable.
As for me forcing this 'dogma' down other people's throat (how funny, Bradish accused of the exact same thing. Were you taking notes?), well if i brought up the subject, apropro of nothing, then you would be right. But since I was simply responding to a post on, funnily enough, abortion, then your accusation holds no water.
As for these straw men you keep mentioning:
1. The issues I brought up were in the original post. In fact, I quoted the post directly. The problem is, since you are so dogmatically pro-life, you cannot see an attack when it is been hurled. I saw that post as an attack on my rights as a woman. Since you are not a woman, then you have nothing to worry about right? Easy for you to be anti-abortion. You know you will never need one.
2. The AIDS remark. Do I even need to qualify my intention there? I did not claim that you brought it up, I was simply demonstrating to you how childish your comments to me had become. You had resorted to name calling in the absence of any real argument. Much like so many of your pro-lifers who claim to be caring, loving Christians but resort
to the vilest insults because they do not properly understand the issue, much less have anything productive to say about it.
My lack of theological knowledge? Sorry to disappoint but if you had read the last comment on the other blog, you will know that I did indeed belong to a quite strict Christian religion at one point in my life. You don't think I could be this critical of something I did not have a direct experience of do you? I also never mentioned the word 'conspiracy'. So far as I can see the actions and intentions of Christianity are out in the open. It wants to deplete women of their rights. It wants to continue the deprivation of rights to gay couples. It wants to rot the minds of children with the garbage of creationism dressed up as "intelligent" design.
And Damo, I too am happy that blog is living on. The more obscene and vile comments that are posted on there by these kind and loving Christians, the more other people will see Christianity for what it truly is.
Comment by KylieW
Celebrity Obsession
I really like your comment earlier about why would you read a post that you don't agree with and then complain about it.
There have been so many posts on Orble that have made my blood boil. But usually I get halfway through typing my angry response only to calm down and think to myself "what will this achieve". The answer of course is NOTHING.
Making rational comments or questioning and discussing the content of a post - go ahead. That's the whole point of it. But do we really think we'll make someone change their mind about their position on an issue because of a tirade? Hasn't worked yet, doubt it ever will.
Well thought out post. By the way, really liked your comments on THAT post.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Remarks aimed squarely at you?
You do have a big ego don't you?
This post was about the general hostility from many sides. Yet if you wish to take all the credit I think that you are overrating your own importance.
I have no interest in going through a petty he said / she said debate.
Whether you were in one religion or twenty it does not mean that you have obtained the adequate skills to debate the subject. After all you cannot even find a list of Biblical quotes that proves TBT to be a liar.
Coming from any other angle is just noise.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
I think I was born luckier than most people. My blood rarely boils about anything.
I have to confess I normally avoid such debates as they often seem bottomless. Yes verses No camps that get dragged in every direction and will never reach an agreement.
I have been around a bit, done my share of protesting, meetings and lobbying so I have fair idea about what does not work. Letters to editor and Blogging does not work. I am yet to have Kevin Rudd call me to offer some input because of what I wrote. I am still waiting for the call for the 2020 Summit.
What about you? Have you gat your invitation yet?
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Nicely done post, by the way!
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments
This is a surprise.
I think that I must have woken up in negative land.
Who knows what tomorrow will bring?
Comment by Truth B. Told
Hidden Eternal Treasures
I feel as though I should say something on this momentous occasion as the torch of the all mighty blog writers has changed hands. You now are in total control of the entire internet and all manner of thinking--But remember, with great powers come great responsibility... (cue in the ooooohhhs and aaaahhhhhhs now)
Thank you
PS
See, I do have a funny side, I am not serious all the time (just most of it). I hope no one takes offense, I am just trying to lighten the tone is all...
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for comments.
I think you overrate my powers.
I am an essayist that is all. And I only blog to practice my writing. If people comment it is fine and if people disagree with me it is also fine.
Everyone cops flack for what they have written once in a while.
It seems that you post must have hit a few raw nerves to get such a reaction. Which is fine in my book as long as they people stick to the subject and have some sort of manners.
Yet I thought that the level of uninhibited bigotries and wild conspiracy theories from people who should know better was malicious beyond reason. The tactic was design to stifle any rational debate and shut you up for bothering their safe little mental empires.
Let me just say that I would oppose a similar line of attack if it was against: Muslim, Jew, Hindu or Buddhist etc. As I have done in the past.
Comment by Kim L
Diving About
I read the post (via your link) and I must say this is precisely the sort of post I avoid - simply because, I have my thoughts, you have yours and the arguement is older than it cares to admit. For this reason I only commented once on the euthanasia post - despite several - shall I say - heartfelt comments aimed directly at me.
I was rescued, however, by your good self, taking the mantle of the blogger with the objectionable opinion.
Excellent, I was free to skulk away, back to my underwater haven!!
Kim
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
You have me laughing a bit.
Personally I do dislike getting involved in these sorts of debates. Yet they have been handled on orble in a better manner in the past.
I must say that the intellectual bar has been very low lately.
I don't normally putting like on the apologists hat, It seems so humourless to me. I would rather go through an issue and try to understand what the other persons position is. Then decide where I agree and disagree.
Comment by Miswanderlust
Killer Beats
Ramble On
Hipnotherapy
HAHAHA!
Mis
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
That is how I remember it.
good Luck.
Damo
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Read your questions and yes those were the questions that should have been asked 100 questions back.
The actual issue is never going to be sorted out on a blog site.