DiscussMormonism.com

Last night, I got into a heated exchange with one of the board bigots. After he repeated oft-debunked lies, I called him names and engaged in "invective." I don't usually do that (anyone here can wade through my 1000+ posts to confirm), but occasionally I think that trying to engage in rational discourse with a hatemonger is simply impossible, and sometimes only a dismissal in the strongest rhetorical terms is appropriate. There is no sense trying to rationally "debate" a Young Earth Creationist or a Flat Earther or someone advancing a Geocentric Theory of the Solar System. Nor is there any point engaging in rational discourse with a Grand Wizard of the KKK on racial issues.

I find the mope's declaration that he "won" the debate an interesting glimpse into the mopologetic mindset. As if my use of invective magically transformed his idiocy into truth. The mope thinks he wins an argument by (a) stating something false and outrageous, (b) ignorantly repeating it after being corrected and called out on it, (c) goading someone into name-calling, then (d) declaring victory. In the mopologist's epistemology, not only do feelings Trump fact, but a proposition's verity apparently depends not on whether the proposition is established through the scientific method but on whether the person asserting the proposition becomes the object of personal invective from someone disagreeing with the assertion. It's a strange epistemology. But when the scientific method consistently produces results at odds with the mopologist's world view, it is, I suppose, a somewhat understandable defense mechanism to deal with the consequent cognitive dissonance.

The foolishness of the mope's declaration of victory based on the temperature of his opponent's rhetoric, of course, is easily demonstrated. If I assert that 2+2=5 and someone responds with "no, you idiot, it's 4," I can declare victory because my opponent called me a name. But it won't make 2+2=5. Likewise, the mope can repeat ad nauseam that there is a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia, and can cite all the junk science that delusional religious whack jobs can produce, but it won't change that lie into the truth, any more than the creationists erecting museum displays showing humans riding on the backs of dinosaurs changes the established facts about the age of the earth and the development of life on this planet.

Gosh, I wonder who you could be referring to?

Equality's problem is he can't distinguish between a personal attack and actual discussion of views he doesn't agree with and so tries to censor them because he can't refute them. What this illustrated is that this board is no longer a better board than the MADB because it works to protect a certain viewpoint. It's also no excuse to the invective. Equality showed that he cannot engage in difficult discussion without losing control (likely an attempt to get the whole thing removed the Telestial which further illustrates my censorship point).

Bottom line: Once Equality resorted to invective and censorship, I won.

bcspace wrote:Equality's problem is he can't distinguish between a personal attack and actual discussion of views he doesn't agree with and so tries to censor them because he can't refute them. What this illustrated is that this board is no longer a better board than the MADB because it works to protect a certain viewpoint. It's also no excuse to the invective. Equality showed that he cannot engage in difficult discussion without losing control (likely an attempt to get the whole thing removed the Telestial which further illustrates my censorship point).

Bottom line: Once Equality resorted to invective and censorship, I won.

Last I heard, winning involved you running away.

Essentially, when someone resorts to those tactics, they're the ones who've walked away and I have no more need to tend the subject as it devolves into something for the peanut gallery to consume.

Equality's problem is he can't distinguish between a personal attack and actual discussion of views he doesn't agree with and so tries to censor them . . . .

I never tried to censor anything. Having something moved to the appropriate forum is not censorship, dumbass.

because he can't refute them

This is the same whine the creationists bleat whenever a reputable scientist refuses to engage in a "creationism versus evolution" debate. The same whine we hear from geocentrists when reputable scientists decline invitations to debate whether the sun goes round the earth. It's not that the real scientists are afraid of the fight, not that they are unable to refute the quack theories that are advanced; it's that to do so is pointless. It's the same here. It's not that I could not refute the idiocy; it's that it has been refuted repeatedly in numerous threads here multiple times. And bcspace knows it, but still continues to peddle junk research that he knows is bogus and has been refuted, because bcspace is deliberately deceptive, animated by an ideology infused with hate, and dedicated to a world view that will not permit him to change his views when confronted with information that contradicts what he believes. He thinks what he believes determines what is true--if he believes it, it is true. And it won't matter how many peer-reviewed studies one cites, he will still refuse to believe anything that contradicts his cherished beliefs.

bcspace wrote:Bottom line: Once Equality resorted to invective and censorship, I won.

You only "win" when you have persuaded others that your position, and the facts supporting it, are correct.

You've persuaded no one. Rather, you continue to use critically denounced data to "prove" that good and decent human beings who happen to be gay are actually pedophiles. Your contention, and the data you use to back it up, is so vile that it angers people, one of them so much so that he used language he would not normally use. While I don't condone his language, it proves nothing insofar as your position is concerned.

You won nothing.

Elphaba wrote:You won nothing.

He's been on a win-free roll for years and he has no incentive to change that.

Bob Loblaw wrote:

Elphaba wrote:You won nothing.

He's been on a win-free roll for years and he has no incentive to change that.

So I've noticed.

I actually have been an on-and-off lurker of both MDB and this board for years, and am not really sure why I've come out of the woodwork at this point in time. But I am very familiar with BC's flawed debating skills as well as his obtuse stances. The fact that he thinks he "won" is both juvenile and pathetic. It would also be hilarious if his stance in this particular case weren't so contemptible.

Elphaba wrote:So I've noticed.

I actually have been an on-and-off lurker of both MDB and this board for years, and am not really sure why I've come out of the woodwork at this point in time. But I am very familiar with BC's flawed debating skills as well as his obtuse stances. The fact that he thinks he "won" is both juvenile and pathetic. It would also be hilarious if his stance in this particular case weren't so contemptible.

The only thing that redeems his posts is that execrable political, religious, and social positions are being made by someone who comes across as a buffoon.