Disagreeing with Dan

(Insert title here)

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.

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.

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.​

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

Doesn't surprise me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And another round ... hear, hear!

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:

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Amusing. A pedant writes in to say:

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

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.

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

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

"Intellectually devoid". Laughable. Illustrate, please.

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

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.

I have given a quite direct list several times now.

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.

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

I can. Your analogy was tangiental.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

: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.

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

Unsurprisingly, that one went right over your head.

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.​

 

Why should I apologize to a cheap 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.

 

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.

 

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

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.

And life still goes on, doesn't it?

 

*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.

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.

Xev, I want to have your babies.

Now you're avoiding Xev.

Wrong.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

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.

 

So what was your point, then?

I would have thought the dialogue segment the giveaway.

Well, it happens from time to time.

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 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?

 

Yup.

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

:yawn: My unconcern is boundless.

Please stop misrepresenting my position. Thankyou.

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.

 

Whatever you say, Geoff.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Then quit whining about it.

Whatever you say, Geoff.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

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.

 

That's best, I generally find.

Calm down, Tiassa.

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

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

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

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.

 

None so blind as will not see.

Good day.