GirlChat #604350

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

Re: Poor poor Ethan

Posted by Dante on Friday, October 24 2014 at 11:59:01PM
In reply to Re: Poor poor Ethan posted by EthanEdwards on Thursday, October 23 2014 at 7:37:51PM

"I said their views on societal policies should be treated skeptically, which is quite different from saying they can't be trusted."

I am "skeptical" about whether that is a valid interpretation of ascribing a toxic motive to your rivals and requesting "skepticism" of their arguments.

Ferinstance, some might post such a claim in order to usurp the position and goodwill of their rival. Because of this, any claims you make to the contrary should be greeted skeptically. ( Please attempt to read the preceding as allowing others to come to a positive conclusion about your motives. )

The truly agnostic statement wouldn't introduce the disparaging motive as the only one proffered, nor that REAL skepticism ( ie, a critical evaluation ) should only greet one conclusion nor one side arguing something which is still debatable.

So sorry, the way you've structured it is as a slur. and the request to retract the hateful disparagement still stands.

"Our main complaint was that it was a political non-starter to take no position."

Acknowledged.

You misrepresent a statement of empirical fact as if it were resolved for political gain.

I also understand that in many districts its a political non-starter to admit that evolutionary theory is good science.

OTOH, you could just refrain from taking a position rather than willfully misrepresenting the facts as resolved in your favor. You could choose to advance important truths without advancing lies. But you'd rather jump-start your campaign for acceptance by offering rival arguments as bogeymen to appeal to the crowd that needs someone to hate.

"You tell us that you have no reason to believe we have ever denounced iatrogenic harm before you came here."

"I don't recall ever saying that. I've never believed it."


Ah, the convenient claim of amnesia.

You spent a lot of time demanding citations from the archives as proof that this happened.

"I'm having trouble figuring out on the basis of what free association you came up with that. I recall speculating that if you changed society so that girls really, truly had the freedom to choose sex or not with NO sense of an emotional connection expected (purely optional), with just "if it feels good do it, or if you feel like it, do it" then I thought many would choose prostitution. Some pro-contacters have said it should be about what feels good, and my speculation was a result of thinking about a world shaken up enough that that would apply. I was speculating on a side effect of the desired world, not that they wanted that effect."

Erm, no.

That was what we finally extracted from you after much "teeth pulling" from your attempt to respond to your claim that girls would choose prostitution in a world where they could choose anything.

And now you're inserting a "no emotional connection" assumption and a "feels good" qualifier that were not present when you first rationalized your ludicrous statement about what a girl with an uncoerced choice would freely choose.

Initially you posited the "lots of sex" assumption as the hidden result pro-choicers were claimed to want.

Not only do you put words you know to be false into the mouths of those who have their own views and into the mouths of those you claim to be "defending" but you also rewrite your motives and arguments so that they both sound better AND don't require correction as they were originally offered.

Its called "moving the goalpost."

However, all of this still fails to address the fundamental flaw of assuming that pro-choicers value a particular result at the expense of a truly free choice.

I myself have never heard a Pedo version of the old sexist argument from the pre-feminism days of the sexual revolution that any woman turning down a male comrade in the revolution was a frigid bourgeois counter-revolutionary.

The assumption that any single youth or any single adult pedo stands to gain a specific sexual encounter with the other is the same sort of malicious assumption of selfishness which informs your recent "available supply" notions about what kids are there to provide.

You just cannot allow that the pro-choice have the motives and goals they claim without assuming other motives and putting words in mouths which you cannot cite when requested to do so.

"I have not withdrawn the one saying that self-interest means pro-contact arguments should be greeted skeptically. It's quite a stretch to call that a hateful defamatory accusation. It's about averages, not applying to any individual, and it allows for views being held sincerely and with good intentions."

"About averages?"

No.

Its in the form of a slur targeting a population and spreading the fear of a few into a dismissal of all and you know it.

You are not asking that people withhold judgement until they can see what the other says in support of their claims. You are asking that the whole argument be rejected before it can be read because of what a few might ( no proof required ) be up to in their deceitful hearts.

Maybe I'm just some PC joke to you. But.....

Women drivers, lazy Mexicans, avaricious Jews...

The "not all are this way" defense is no defense at all after the claim to poison the motives has been made.

Heck, even the "most aren't this way" defense is a disingenuous way of deflecting blame for promoting a slur. It disregards the fact that statistically there will also be bad actors on the other side too. And that the guessed at motive ( no proof needed ) has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the argument you would single out for skepticism dismissal.

Its an ad hominem and deserves a retraction and apology, not further rationalizations.

"My dim recollection of the general form of this is that I say something and the response is roughly, "You made me feel bad. Apologize!" I will offer a blanket apology for making people feel bad. But I apologize for factual content only when I think it is incorrect."

Yup. That's what I've come to expect. "I can ask others to assume that you're a self-deceiving ( if not actually lying ) lust-addled sophist, and my only regret is that you get upset when I say this. Sorry you feel hurt, but I won't change the malicious slurs because I just call 'em like I see 'em."

The "horns" of your dilemma are that you want to be greeted as if you were civil and courteous without the requirement that you actually BE civil and courteous so as to merit the treatment.

Lets face it. You came here to be a gadfly.

That's not necessarily an awful thing to be if you believe that there are a lot of folks who, wittingly or unwittingly, need correction and whose arguments should be countered.

It sounds pretty futile to me to do that as one's main activity on a site; which is why I don't go to sites dominated by opposing view to butt heads with Keynesian Economists, Creationists, or even Antis. But if that's your main mission at a site, then you've got to accept that it will make you unpopular to be the guy arguing on a Harry Potter film fansite that the movies were bad and only the books were any good.

If you must tell the majority that they're deluded at best on ongoing basis as your raison d'etre, don't then claim that the lack of a friendly response prohibits your other activities.

And if you must. Refusing to listen and then making sh*t up is not the way to do it without being hateful.

Dante

Dante





Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?