After a stupefying, yet oddly enlightening exchange with Edward T Haines (http://www.aleksandreia.com/2012/08/05/boy-scouts-in-the-news-again/#comments), in which I initially came to the conclusion that “Ed sure hates him some gayness,” I’ve subsequently taken into account Ed’s very advanced age – I believe he’s posted somewhere that he’s like 90 years old or something – and have changed my mind about Ed’s intentions! That’s his intentions, NOT the whacky way he makes an argument.
My own error was in apparently taking Ed’s arguments at face value, after all, he decides (in the above post) to defend the premise that “gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights” by pointing to (GULP!) yet ANOTHER widespread homosexual child-sex scandal!
REALLY Ed?! Sure, why not point to NAMBLA the world’s preeminent pedophile advocates being ENTIRELY comprised of. . .gay MEN! What else would the “North American Man Boy Love Association be comprised of?
See what I mean? It generally DOESN’T pay to point to examples that undermine your own premise as “proof” of that premise. It’s a flawed strategy that can (on rare occasions, like as in ALWAYS) make your own initial premise appear somewhat suspect.
Yes, what better way to prove that “gays are no more likely than straights to be pedophiles” then by jumping up and down (or in Ed’s case panting heavily), “LOOK! Here’s yet another homosexual child-sex scandal. If THIS doesn’t finally and definitively prove that homosexuals are no more likely than straights to be pedophiles, I don’t know what will convince you homophobic jerks!”
I thought, at first that Ed was snarkily sliming gays, before I realized that at his advanced age, things like pointing to a gay child-sex scandal as “evidence” that “gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights” makes perfect sense, just as his pointing out significant performance disparities between males and females seems like a peachy way to “prove” that “There’s actually very little difference between male’s and female’s athletic abilities.”
Of course, and that would explain the widespread segregation of sporting events by gender and the widespread use of things like “lady’s tees” in GOLF, probably one of the least “athletic “sports” this side of Chess.
ANYWAY, I’ve noticed that a number of discussions have gotten pretty contentious around here and as always, I’m here to help.
Lance C. Johnson (LCJ) recently left in a huff after some contentious exchanges with DaDvocate (DaD) and maybe myself, but I think his main issues where with DaD, but I’m a self-centered jerk and am always “impressing the hell out of myself,” so much so, in fact, that when I DO look at some of my own self-congratulatory utterances, even I have to exclaim; “Whatta DICK!”
At any rate, LCJ seemed very sensitive (that means “AWARE” to all you bibliophiles out there) to insults against himself, virtually ANY “disagreement” by DaD was apparently an “insult” to LCJ, but he was not at all sensitive (AGAIN that’s “AWARE”) to the very overt insults he routinely heaped on DaD simply because DaD was religious and didn’t believe the same things LCJ did.
I note that ONLY to show that Ed’s condition may NOT be entirely due to the feebleness we normally associate with advanced age, as LCJ made some very similar (highly suspect) leaps of faith – assuming (WRONGLY), for instance, that the day of outrage in support of Chic-Fil-A was support for homophobia, AND NOT, what it actually was – widespread support for freedom of expression and against governmental over-reach!
OK, while that may NOT be as bad as Ed’s arguing “for” a position by actually presenting evidence to the reverse, it still sets up a premise so absurd that it stifles actual discussion.
Here’s what I’m humbly suggesting, when discussing topics on which there is widespread disagreement (and virtually every topic, aside from “Aren’t kittens cute,” seems to fit that bill) actual affirmative arguments should be made – various Appeals Fallacies (ie. Appeal to Authority, like “9 of 10 Cosmetologists believe in AGW is “fo real y’all”. . .please few, if any of those posting seem to know the actual difference between a Cosmetologist and a Climatologist), or derision, “Only an idiot would believe X, Y and Z,” SHOULD BE off limits. Present facts, or just paint yourself blue and grab an axe and broad sword and go on the berserker rampage.
Moreover, “offense” should NOT be permitted. When I take “offense” to another’s posts, I’m looking for a bullshit, “face-saving” way to end the debate. . .usually because I’m embarrassing myself. It’s the mental equivalent of coitus interuptus. . .and I know we all hate that.
Communication is the key to understanding. . .and while it may be painful attempting to communicate with a self-centered, highly impressed with himself jerk like myself, that doesn’t excuse making arguments AGAINST your own positions (as Ed and others have done here) and proclaim them to be “proofs” of what they serve to undermine.
Personally, I think a LOT of the anger and contentiousness around here is due to faith-based believers attempting to defend faiths they don’t even recognize as “faiths.”
You see, that puts DaD at a distinct advantage. He doesn’t feel compelled to defend his own faith – it’s something you either accept or you don’t. He KNOWS it’s a faith, but those who want to believe that AGW is “settled science” (no such thing) or that “gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights,” don’t want to accept that they’re espousing a “faith” just as much.
In fact, they’re much more dogmatic about their faiths – and they won’t accept dissent! They see those who disagree as out-and-out heretics.
Interestingly enough, when I got up this morning I’d received an email from an adjunct professor of Statistical Analysis on the subject of gays and pedophilia. He’d seen how I went after Ed for, what I thought was snarkily sliming gays, and mentioned that the statistics may not bear out my presumption (one I’d taken on FAITH for years) that “gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights.” He made clear that I and others were falsely over-inflating the number of homosexuals in society to rationalize that premise. That will have to be looked into in its own right, but it highlights how each of us (even ME) can fall prey to “faith-based thinking.”
I will say, that I (of course) took that challenge to my own faith much better than most. No charges of heresy to my former classmate, no angry outbursts, I. . .Godammit! I just can’t seem to help myself from tooting my own f*cking horn. AGAIN, I’ll say it (about me). . .Whatta DICK!