|
May 24, 2004
Oh brother!
One of the most irritating things I've had to put up with as a blogger is not disagreement, which I can handle. It's when people put words in my mouth, then attack and refute their own words as if I had said them. This is an ancient rhetorical trick, and it really shouldn't require much of a defense, because there is no need to defend what one did not say. But then, if one remains silent, the folks who launch this kind of attack will maintain that they defeated your "argument" -- even though the argument was constructed by them and not you, and was thus theirs to defeat. Most of the time, this sort of attack has come from leftists (example here), but today I saw it coming from someone I can't call a leftist, but don't want to call a rightist. He calls himself a Jacksonian Christian and he finds me guilty of hypocrisy based not on things I said here, but on things he must have wanted me to say. Excerpt: ....the writer hopes that the sexual connection is made by the public in hopes that such behavior would be seen as acceptable.I'm not sure who the S and the G are in this dialogue, but they certainly have me saying and implying a lot of things I neither said nor implied. I guess I should look at this piecemeal. the writer hopes that the sexual connection is made by the public in hopes that such behavior would be seen as acceptable How the hell do they know what I hoped? I never argued that sexual humiliation is acceptable; only that I do not see it as the equivalent of physical torture. While I would prefer sexual humiliation (I mentioned the man leashed as a dog) to physical torture, to say that I hoped such behavior would be seen as acceptable is absurd. Bear in mind that I was responding to a man named Robert Knight, who made the illogical assertion that homosexuals, pornography, and Howard Stern (!) are guilty of creating a climate which led to Abu Ghraib, and the beheading of Nick Berg. I cannot imagine anything more ridiculous, and hence my post (as well as an earlier one). False dilemma. By demanding that a choice be made between the lesser of the two evils, actual torture and sexually based humiliation, the author hopes to obscure the fact that the American people have the choice of choosing to support neither. Where did I "demand" that such a "choice" be made? Both are bad, but saying the latter is worse than the former is as valid as if I said that beatings and sleep deprivation are not as bad as being fed feet-first into a plastic shredder. If I said the latter, would that be a "false dilemma?" S: The motive imputed to our brothers is sexual repression, with the implied threat of violence, while the author's motives is disinterested freedom and liberty. G: But the accusation is not true. If anything, the evidence of honor slayings, the imposition of the veil, and of female circumcision (or I should say, clitoral mutilation), upon the part of the Islamists, with a corresponding lack of such acts on the part of Christians, should prove that a difference should be made between the two. First, what's with this "brothers" business? If Robert Knight is the man's brother, then I see his point. But if not, then why does he call Knight a "brother"? Are not all men brothers? Or does he refer only to Christians as brothers? If so, does he include Christians who do not subscribe to his particular interpretations of religious texts? Or are those Christians who disagree with him not Christians? I don't know, but because of the tone, I tend to suspect the latter. As to "sexual repression, with the implied threat of violence," I don't impute such a thing to anyone except those who believe in it. Those who would utilize the power of the state to arrest and imprison other people for unapproved, consenting sexual acts between adults do, by their own admission, believe in sexual repression by means of an explicit threat of violence, directly applied to the sexual offender. I don't believe it is a good form of Christianity, but in fairness they have just as much right to call themselves Christians as I do. What bothers me is when they assert that those who don't share their view are not Christians. Damned right there is a difference between the two, and I have said so in this blog. Why the need to attack me for saying things I not only did not say, but do not believe? But that's because right after that I must stand convicted of "deliberately counfound[ing] and conceal[ing] the differences between Islamists and Christians, and hoping that nobody notices." As I have said before, there is a vast difference between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists: Despite my regular differences with Biblical literalists of the Christian variety, I should make it clear that Koranic literalists are far worse -- and far more dangerous.Once again, words are placed in my mouth even though my opinions are quite the opposite, and beyond that, I am said to have hoped nobody noticed what I never said and do not believe! Remarkable! Then there's the conclusion, which I find troublesome. we Christians are not as good as the Islamists, who rise up in response to the pains and sufferings of their bretheren more readily than we rise up in response to the sufferings of our own. That depends on how you define "brethren," doesn't it? There are Muslims like Sayyid Kutb who believe that Muslims who disagree with them are not Muslims, and (as I have said before) there are Christians who believe that Christians who disagree with them are not Christians. Of course, I have not read enough of this blog to know one way or another whether he believes those who disagree with his interpretations of religious texts are not Christians, so I will not put words in his mouth. (Saying someone said something he did not say is inconsistent even with my low standards.) posted by Eric on 05.24.04 at 11:09 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1043 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Oh brother!:
» The Bonfire of the Vanities from PoliBlog
Bonfire 48!* Brian J. Noggle: Hockey Has Made Me Multi-Cultural : Say Branko Radivojevic three times fast. No, say it just once. Can't do it, huh? Classical Values: Oh brother! Kevin Alyward: In the middle of an excellent day of... [Read More] Tracked on June 2, 2004 08:09 PM
Comments
S: Off with ye then, o gallant knight, to the Crusades! G: Aye, to defend the honor of my fair maid. S: Yea, and to defend our Western Christian civilization against the Mahometans. G: Prithee tell us what dost thou mean by "Christian"? S: Gladly. This One And Only Holy Christian Apostolic Tribadentine Catholic Church of this Cathedral of Our Most Holy Virgin Mother. G: The Queen of Heaven! S: Yes! Our Most High Goddess. G: And prithee tell us what thou dost mean by "Virgin"? S: That She was never touched by _man_. G: Yes. Lesbianism. Only. Holy Lesbianism! S: Yea, verily. The eternal Divine embrace of TRIBADISM! G: Then I must go off to battle, to our Holy War, to fight for the power and the glory of Her Holy Clitoris! S: Yea, verily. And thou shalt be blessed, o gallant knight. G: How blessed we all are, all we true Christians, that holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma became the high priestesses of our holy Cathedral! S: Yes! Ohhhh, yes! And theirs is the absolute power to sanctify and to decree all holy DOGMA! Damned are they, anathema, who deny our holy dogmas of LESBIANISM! G: Yes, cursed, sons of the Devil! Off to the Crusades then, for the Cross and the Clitoris! Holy! Holy!! Holy!!! Holy!!!! Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · May 25, 2004 01:55 PM Dude, you spent entirely too much time trying to make a coherent response to a lot of incoherent non-sequiturs. There comes a point in such disputes when you just have to say "This rubbish is not worth my time," and if they take that as "proof" that they were right, well, you never would have convinced them anyway. Trust me, I speak from experience of much stupider threads and allegations on much stupider blogs. The trouble with arguing with a five-year-old, is that you eventually begin to sound like one. Raging Bee · May 25, 2004 02:30 PM I found the _style_ of Eric's adversary to be interesting. Therefore, I decided to extrapolate from it, and at the same time, to elevate the level of the discourse to the High end of the Starboard side of a 2-dimensional spectrum. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · May 26, 2004 02:10 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I'm trying to think up a comment worthy of all this.