Disagreeing with Dan

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

When termed "retarded" or "illiterate" by a person whose major claim to fame appears to be a pitiful grasp of argumentation then yes, I admit my gorge rises.

Chronologically, your argument is dishonest.

The conflict arose after you demeaned the fear and heartache gays endure when deciding when, if, and how to come out of the closet:

• No gay woman was traumatized because dad got her Barbie instead of dumbbells and pants with an elastic waistband.​

So I asked, "Do you have any idea whatsoever the weight of that confession?" Your response was that yes, you do. I then asked why you minimize and ridicule it. Your response was to slam Americans, and then accuse that it was my distorted personal view. I gave over on that point ("Whatever you say, Geoff") and quoted the point in question. You responded that you were giving me my due respect, which is to say, none.​

In the meantime, you were missing something quite obvious: the difference between an analogy and a tangent. Since you had consistently presumed, throughout the developing discussion, the worst and most intellectually-devoid possible constructions of people and ideas your imagination could manage, yeah, it did occur to me that you weren't actually stupid, but being obstinate and priggish. I thought to ask.

Tiassa has finally grasped that the truth or untruth - my evil "lie" here again - of a statement, and specifically my statement, has nothing to do with the weight of said statement. He realizes suddenly that a lie is a ... (deliberate)

.... omission; an untrue statement may simply be incorrect. Now, as I was stating a personal position, there is little reason in the common discourse to term a lie. It is a position which which Tiassa happens to disagree with, which makes his ego cringe and causes him to lash out, apparently. Ironically, Tiassa did earlier accuse of "lying", which ironically might actually itself be a lie, since he would actually have to be particularly ignorant to think that a statement of position was a lie, or that I was misrepresenting myself.

The question is whether you truly believe that the decision to come out of the closet is a light or heavy burden.

If you're actually ignorant of that answer, you should have simply admitted it, instead of deliberately pretending otherwise. Either way, you lied.

I was just trying to give you some leeway to justify yourself.

This is most amusing. I have referred to literature, mathematics and morality, which I - in my obvious ignorance - had thought specific enough; this tangent pops up again and again without any definition of why Tiassa thinks it so critically important to the central issue of whether or not one should have a frothing freakout at the determination of one's child's sexuality.

Your representation is dishonest:

G: I have a thought. How about instead, they just raise the kid and see what happens? Just for laughs, I mean.

T: But seriously, what does it mean, to "just raise the kid"? (1)

G: Feed, clothe, teach, instruct moral imperative and competitive perception. Play some sports.

T: Sounds great. It's one of those feel-good standards, though. I mean, we can all pretty much agree on that, but I'm not so naîve as to pretend that everybody agrees on what that standard means in practice.

G: Those are the standards. Do those things. What else? (2)

T: Your standard is a little like "teach her to sing pretty songs". Okay, what constitutes pretty? What is the perspective of moral imperative? These definitions differ. What is the perspective on competitive perception? (3)

G: That's kind of an absurd tangent. Are you really comparing a parent's responsibility to ensure their children meet or exceed standards in education in mathematics and English to "teach pretty songs"? .... Good lord. "Do unto others", the Golden Rule, that sort of thing. Frankly, that should be near-universal, if I am really being encouraged to consult around for their meaning before continuing with my child's personal syllabus.

T: Oh come now, you're smarter than that. .... In other words, we're back to interpretation. Which is fine with me. That's all I was after. (4)

G: Oh, lord: you made that comparison. It's false, though.

T: You're the one who called it a tangent. Are you simply illiterate, or were you just aiming to be a prig?

G: You compared the teaching of "purdy songs singing" to instruction in the essentials of civilization. This strikes me as a tangent.

T: In other words, a comparison of the vagaries of a standard is tangential?

G: It is tangential in that it is meaningless. A meaningless comparison. The importance of teaching a basic triune education is not reeeally comparable to your straw example. I see you were farsighted enough not to worry about such pedestrian issues, however.

T: Ah. So the specifics of raising children are meaningless?

G: This is most amusing. I have referred to literature, mathematics and morality, which I - in my obvious ignorance - had thought specific enough; this tangent pops up again and again without any definition of why Tiassa thinks it so critically important to the central issue of whether or not one should have a frothing freakout at the determination of one's child's sexuality .... (5)​

Now then:

(1) It's not that it's a bad idea to "just raise the kid". But it's awfully vague, and can include many things that either of us might disagree with.

(2) I don't get why you refused to be any more specific.

(3) For some reason, you split this in order to dodge the issue. Your response to the first part of the split missed the point by such a margin as to suggest that it was deliberate. The second part was a bit self-righteous, which probably would have been fine except for the fact that you were putting some effort into making no effort.

(4) I really did think you could tell the difference between an analogy and a tangent. Beyond that, I had my answer. As I indicated, your answer at that point was "fine with me", and, "That's all I was after".

(5) You have inappropriately combined issues. But that's okay. You've made your position clear.​

No. We are dealing with unnecessary parental angst, not unnecessary societal angst. Please stay on topic.

Says you. The original point was about the closeted kid's anguish. Please pay attention.

This was the entire geist of your synthesis - the parental response.

Well, we probably could have moved forward except for you. That we're hung at that point is your choice.

Is this your usual method of argumentation?

Only when stooping to accommodate people of your poor caliber.

I hope they're not paying you for this "moderator" gig.

Ah, if we were paid, our duties would require stricter attention and more exacting standards. Sciforums would be a different place. We wouldn't be bothering to accommodate discussions like these; we'd have thrown your insincere, dishonest ass out of here a long time ago.

Retarded"? Personal attacks from Tiassa?

Why take it personally that I'm trying to accommodate your preferred style?

I don't understand that about some people. They make an effort to be rude, but don't want people speaking their language.

There are many mentally disabled people out there who, I think, would be quite offended.

Coming from someone who impugns homosexuals and the mentally ill, your reproach is actually kind of cute.

The hand-wringing has been extensively defined above. Namely: yours. You routinely assume a maudlin puddle of a parent is the best response to such a major issue? Or is this a stance you instead personally assume from time to time?

Are you hallucinating? Seriously, what the hell does that mean?

Demeaning other people? I'm most interested. Who have I demeaned, precisely?

Closeted gays. And any homosexual who's ever come out of the closet. That adds up to most of them.

No idea what you were attempting to convey here;

Doesn't surprise me.

 

[greenberg]

I'll raise a glass.

Maybe it should be a different topic, but, in your opinion, estimate, or according to your best speculation, what do you think that ratio is? How many people reproduce for such reasons?

Too many. And if it is just one - it is one too many.
Bringing another living being into this world so that one's own life would "make sense" or be "fulfilled" - this is unfair to all.

 

[Tiassa]

And another round ... hear, hear!

Too many. And if it is just one - it is one too many.
Bringing another living being into this world so that one's own life would "make sense" or be "fulfilled" - this is unfair to all.

I haven't bothered digging it up because I've used it a bit lately, but why not drag it out once more, eh? Anyway, there's this paper that a University of Washington student published online several years ago in which she considered the persuasive techniques of a particular homophobic political campaign in Oregon. And there's a line in there worth noting:

Perhaps this is an effort to define restrictively the sexual exploiter of children as the sadomasochistic male homosexual in order, quite conveniently, to locate the source of child sexual abuse outside the home, safeguarding the family as the unregulated sexual property of the father?

(Butler, quoted by Kent)

Even without the suggestions of sexual abuse, it's a creepy phrase. And perhaps "unregulated" is a bit strong for, say, the homophobic father described in the topic post. But there is a curious sense of "sexual property" about it: "You will grow up to sleep with only those people I approve of," or something like that.

 

[GeoffP]

Amusing. A pedant writes in to say:

Chronologically, your argument is dishonest.

Ah, no. You appear to have lost that last tenuous grip.

The conflict arose after you demeaned the fear and heartache gays endure when deciding when, if, and how to come out of the closet:

No gay woman was traumatized because dad got her Barbie instead of dumbbells and pants with an elastic waistband.​

Wow. Your miscomprehension is staggering. I was pointing out that you ridiculous angst over microparenting was absurd and overwrought. You have now compared that to demeaning "coming out"; yet your entire basis for doing so was your own personal feelings about them doing so. I reiterate: it is of no matter, be they gay or otherwise. One wonders at the kind of social damage possible from a father playing at being a soccer mom.

I gave over on that point ("Whatever you say, Geoff")

Implying from my statement - since you gave no qualifiers at all - that I am indeed an American-hater. Ridiculous and juvenile.

In the meantime, you were missing something quite obvious: the difference between an analogy and a tangent. Since you had consistently presumed, throughout the developing discussion, the worst and most intellectually-devoid possible constructions of people and ideas your imagination could manage, yeah, it did occur to me that you weren't actually stupid, but being obstinate and priggish. I thought to ask.

More base insults! What liberty it must be to be a moderator without any ethical underlay.

"Intellectually devoid". Laughable. Illustrate, please.

The question is whether you truly believe that the decision to come out of the closet is a light or heavy burden.

The question, as represented by you, is the parental response.

If you're actually ignorant of that answer, you should have simply admitted it, instead of deliberately pretending otherwise. Either way, you lied.

I'd ask for an apology at this point but a) you don't have a firm enough grasp of your own comments and b) being apparently unethical, you have essentially no need to admit fault, or be less than condescending.

Now then:

(1) It's not that it's a bad idea to "just raise the kid". But it's awfully vague, and can include many things that either of us might disagree with.​

I have given a quite direct list several times now.

(2) I don't get why you refused to be any more specific.

Because I assumed - wrongly, it seems - that even a colossal pedant wouldn't require me to write out "reading, classical literature, comparative religion, addition, subtraction, fair moral balance" and the like. I assumed your readings in the arts would have permitted you to fill in the gaps; I was apparently wrong. Perhaps you have a more specific question I can answer.

(3) For some reason, you split this in order to dodge the issue. Your response to the first part of the split missed the point by such a margin as to suggest that it was deliberate. The second part was a bit self-righteous, which probably would have been fine except for the fact that you were putting some effort into making no effort.

Awe-inspiring misreading. I commend you. I have never seen the like.

(4) I really did think you could tell the difference between an analogy and a tangent.

I can. Your analogy was tangiental.

Says you. The original point was about the closeted kid's anguish. Please pay attention.

No, it was about the parent's reaction, as several posters pointed out, if you'll excuse the popularum.

Only when stooping to accommodate people of your poor caliber.

Ah, if we were paid, our duties would require stricter attention and more exacting standards. Sciforums would be a different place. We wouldn't be bothering to accommodate discussions like these; we'd have thrown your insincere, dishonest ass out of here a long time ago.

Please do try. Be as you actually are, without your pretence to social convention or fairness.

Why take it personally that I'm trying to accommodate your preferred style?

:yawn: Reversal. Atrocious. The absurd caging with the comment "please, you're smarter than that" constitutes your own style, it seems. Straw language for your straw commentary.

Coming from someone who impugns homosexuals and the mentally ill, your reproach is actually kind of cute.

Oh really? How is that? Again: an apology from you would be dignified here.

Are you hallucinating? Seriously, what the hell does that mean?

Unsurprisingly, that one went right over your head.

Closeted gays. And any homosexual who's ever come out of the closet.

Ah, no. I have consistently - as any reader can see - discussed the issue from the vantage of parental panic, including yours. (A less fair poster might call your reaction homophobic; but I would never raise that canard, especially given your fair discussion to date.)

Anything else that tickles your misdirected outrage represents humour, of which you seemingly have none.​

 

[Tiassa]

Oh really? How is that? Again: an apology from you would be dignified here.

Why should I apologize to a cheap liar?

Ah, no. I have consistently - as any reader can see - discussed the issue from the vantage of parental panic, including yours. (A less fair poster might call your reaction homophobic; but I would never raise that canard, especially given your fair discussion to date.)

You have consistently insisted on your own context. Given how much of your argument depends on telling me what I think, maybe you should have dropped the condescending crap somewhere other than all over the carpet.

 

[Xev]

No gay woman was traumatized because dad got her Barbie instead of dumbbells and pants with an elastic waistband.

I also fail to see how this minimizes or even addresses the heartache of "coming out," or how a reference to another's "adolescent angst" is unacceptable but calling another poster a "cheap liar" is.
I'm sorry, but that is disappointing.

 

[Tiassa]

I also fail to see how this minimizes or even addresses the heartache of "coming out,"

You're right, Xev. The angst of a young, closeted homosexual really is about such stupid things.

or how a reference to another's "adolescent angst" is unacceptable but calling another poster a "cheap liar" is

In the first place, I think he's being dishonest. And cheaply. To the other, the infraction wasn't about the adolescent angst crack. Take a look at the post preceding that one. He'd made his point. And then he rushed to get another post out in two minutes in order to repeat the insult. If he'd just stuck to the one that was included in his discussion with me, there would have been no problem. After all, the insult was included in the broader discussion, and you know very well that I let scads of insults fly around here as long as they're included in the broader discussion. But making an adolescent rush to post the insult again really is the kind of extraneous crap that, in theory, I'm actually supposed to do something about.

I'm sorry, but that is disappointing.

And life still goes on, doesn't it?

 

[GeoffP]

Why should I apologize to a cheap liar?

*sniff* It's so touching! Look away! Look away! *sniff*

I resent the "cheap" thing though. I'm a very expensive and well paid liar.

You have consistently insisted on your own context. Given how much of your argument depends on telling me what I think, maybe you should have dropped the condescending crap somewhere other than all over the carpet.

Bleh bleh bleh - I derived my talking points from your own position, which had nothing to do with their angst, and all to do with yours. I'm surprised we've argued this long, but meh.

I also fail to see how this minimizes or even addresses the heartache of "coming out," or how a reference to another's "adolescent angst" is unacceptable but calling another poster a "cheap liar" is.
I'm sorry, but that is disappointing.

Xev, I want to have your babies.

You're right, Xev. The angst of a young, closeted homosexual really is about such stupid things.

Now you're avoiding Xev.

In the first place, I think he's being dishonest.

Wrong.

And cheaply.

And meanly. And Geoff has poor hygiene. He isn't all that and a bag of chips. He hates puppies, too.

To the other, the infraction wasn't about the adolescent angst crack. Take a look at the post preceding that one. He'd made his point. And then he rushed to get another post out in two minutes in order to repeat the insult.

No - I called you on changing your schtick right after making such a huge deal about my statement. Now: coming out is - I agree - not easy, but the point is that making a gigantic issue of it is stigmatizing in its own way. I reiterate my position since it was more subtle and has been lost in the bleating: I wouldn't freak out, and I think it would be silly to do so.

 

[Tiassa]

So what was your point, then?

I derived my talking points from your own position, which had nothing to do with their angst, and all to do with yours.

I would have thought the dialogue segment the giveaway.

I'm surprised we've argued this long, but meh.

Well, it happens from time to time.

No - I called you on changing your schtick right after making such a huge deal about my statement

Changing my schtick? Are you suggesting I shouldn't acknowledge other people's relevant contributions to the topic? Because as I recall, and the record quite clearly indicates, the infraction was issued on a post (#32) that:

• Responds to my response to Greenberg
• Is simply intended to insult, and
• In deference to Xev's point ("adolescent angst"), and as I noted before, repeats an insult that did not receive an infraction when included in our actual dispute​

Additionally, considering that the offending post came two minutes after your prior post, you haven't much of a leg to stand on. Hell, you probably would have gotten away with it if you'd just edited the prior post. No, I take that back. I just don't see what it has to do with my response to Greenberg.

I wouldn't freak out, and I think it would be silly to do so.

I agree, and I'm glad we agree. I just don't get why you were so hard on the young, closeted homosexual. I mean, you may not see the Barbie crack as anything severe, but what was the point of including it, anyway? Is it just a hostile irrelevance you decided to throw in because it sounded cute?

 

[GeoffP]

Changing my schtick?

Yup.

Are you suggesting I shouldn't acknowledge other people's relevant contributions to the topic?

You changed your line of argument. I'm not sure what you're really understanding out of this discussion.

Additionally, considering that the offending post came two minutes after your prior post, you haven't much of a leg to stand on. Hell, you probably would have gotten away with it if you'd just edited the prior post. No, I take that back. I just don't see what it has to do with my response to Greenberg.

:yawn: My unconcern is boundless.

I just don't get why you were so hard on the young, closeted homosexual.

Please stop misrepresenting my position. Thankyou.

I mean, you may not see the Barbie crack as anything severe, but what was the point of including it, anyway? Is it just a hostile irrelevance you decided to throw in because it sounded cute?

No - it was a humourous point to illustrate the ridiculousness of your position. It was well within the range of acceptability - as other comments on the board illustrate. Your seizing on it comprises taking advantage. Desist.

 

[Tiassa]

You changed your line of argument. I'm not sure what you're really understanding out of this discussion.

Whatever you say, Geoff.

My unconcern is boundless.

Then quit whining about it.

Please stop misrepresenting my position.

Whatever you say, Geoff.

No - it was a humourous point to illustrate the ridiculousness of your position.

No, it was a humorless attempt to demonstrate your own lack of understanding. You made a mistake, stuck your foot in your mouth, and now even as you whine that I should stop "misrepresenting" your position, you continue to tell me what I think.

I'd call that absolutely cheap, dishonest, and full of crap. Oh, wait, I shouldn't, though, because the truth might hurt your feelings.

My bad.

It was well within the range of acceptability - as other comments on the board illustrate. Your seizing on it comprises taking advantage. Desist.

I don't recall citing you for the Barbie crack. Maybe I'm wrong. But the fact that it's within the range of acceptability doesn't mean it's not stupid, brutal bigotry on your part.

See, the sad thing is that you've had your chance for a more gentle out. I made the point that you seemed to have taken me wrongly. I even tried to explain why. But you were more interested in having a fight about it.

So quit whining. I'm not the one who crammed your foot in your mouth.

 

[GeoffP]

Whatever you say, Geoff.

That's best, I generally find.

Then quit whining about it.

Calm down, Tiassa.

Whatever you say, Geoff.

I can't help but agree with you again here. Thanks for commenting; although the position switching between Fisks is jarring.

No, it was a humorless attempt to demonstrate your own lack of understanding. You made a mistake, stuck your foot in your mouth, and now even as you whine that I should stop "misrepresenting" your position, you continue to tell me what I think.

That is, classically, incorrect. You may refer to the opinions of several others above, including Sam, who rarely agrees with me about anything.

I'd call that absolutely cheap, dishonest, and full of crap. Oh, wait, I shouldn't, though, because the truth might hurt your feelings.

My bad.

My impression is that your association with the truth is growing ever more tenuous. Amusingly, you cite my supposed hurt feelings, while you rely on infractions to protect your eggshell ego.

I don't recall citing you for the Barbie crack. Maybe I'm wrong. But the fact that it's within the range of acceptability doesn't mean it's not stupid, brutal bigotry on your part.

You have just implied homophobia on my part. You will retract, and immediately.

...Tiassa, I write this more in the spirit of assistance than competition: you are possibly the most notably odious example of a bad and foolish moderator. You should resign and turn the reigns of power over to someone more inclined to fairly use them. At the least, you should resign from "Ethics", as it provides fodder for any number of philosophical jokes at your expense. I would recommend String, frankly, Spider, and a few others.

 

[Tiassa]

Tiassa, I write this more in the spirit of assistance than competition: you are possibly the most notably odious example of a bad and foolish moderator.

Geoff, if you could ever be bothered to explain what you're whining about, that would be one thing.

But you can't.

So, like anything else, whatever you say.

 

[GeoffP]

None so blind as will not see.

Good day.