<Christine, you speak about treating people politely and not ridiculing them, and yet that's all your posts are about. Look at how many people you get into these kinds of arguments with?>
Gee, I don't know, Michael, I talk to all sorts of people all the time, and I post a lot, and I can count on the fingers of one hand the people I have seriously and repeatedly argued with, where we did not ultimately resolve the disagreement, so I would say that seems about par for the course. I am certainly not in the habit of ridiculing people. That does bring up a question I have though. You keep mentioning other people. Are you attempting to get brownie points of some sort, or become more popular, by dragging other people into this? I think it is easier to solve conflicts if the focus remains on the two people who disagree. This really has nothing to do with anyone else.
<Don't you ever wonder why??>
I think it is very normal for people to form affinity groups, and also to have very different opinions about issues. I would hope that everyone would think for themselves, and not create such exclusive cliques that someone who disagrees with one member is attacked by the others in a knee-jerk reaction, but I cannot control the behavior of anyone else. I have fairly radical opinions, and have always encouraged controversy and open debate about ideas at the Feelings thread, and have never made any attempt to please everyone, so it is natural that there would be a variety of opinions about me. Are you saying that you are universally popular, liked and respected by everyone at SI?
<I have tried in the past to have reasonable discussions about issues with you, but as soon as someone disagree's with your idea's, you attack them with a kind of mean spirited venum found nowhere else.>
Really? I have noticed plenty of mean-spirited venom, and plenty of attacks, all over SI, by all sorts of people. Sometimes it seems like a not very civilized place, and I think that is unfortunate. I do think you believe your discussions are reasonable, but I am certainly not the only person here who has tried to talk about an issue with you and run up against some sort of brick wall, because you do not really argue facts, or present your case logically, and then when you feel you may be losing, you get very defensive and start imagining that things have been said that really were not. Speaking of venom, then you tend to start name calling and make things up, and throw labels at people instead of calmly discussing the actual issue, point by logical point.
<This last post is but one example. I share my feelings and attitudes about parenting on another thread, and describe that I never hit my children except one time when the child broke a window with a hammer, and you bring it up as if to suggest I'm a child abuser or something.
This is mean spirited harassment of the worst kind.>
You first brought up the issue of hitting children up on this thread, and then discussed it at another thread. I guess I am wondering first whether you are saying that in a public place like this, where people can post anywhere, your posts in other places are not open to discussion? Secondly, my real feelings about you as a parent are that you are probably a good one, and I have told other people at SI exactly that. You are certainly actively involved with your children, spend a lot of time with them, and are concerned about children's issues in general. I have no doubt that you love your children very much.
But the issue of hitting your child with a belt is certainly relevant if you are going to make statements like this one, from a very recent post: "The parents of runaway teenagers are much more likely to have come from Godless pagan, non-christian homes than christian ones." Since domestic violence against women and children is a major cause of homelessness, and it is you who hit your child with a belt, not me, I don't see how you can conclude that the statement you made is accurate, or logical. It certainly unfairly maligns pagan and atheist parents.
<If you don't feel the need to corporally punish your child, fine. You don't see me condemning you for that. Yet because my views differ from yours in child rearing, you spitefully bring it up as if to be a victor in some sick contest.>
I was not being spiteful, I was being logical, and I have no desire to be a victor in any kind of sick contest. It sounds like you may be labelling the discussion a sick contest because you have not been victorious. I do think children's issues are very important, and I believe strongly that children should never be spanked, and I feel that it is as appropriate for me to voice my beliefs as it is for you to voice yours.
<As to the question of, why am I defending Christians? Because they are being so maligned by you on this thread. You blame them for Hitler, for homelessness, for child abuse, and on and on and on.>
Well, that's where we get to you perceiving your role at the Feelings thread as some sort of crusader or avenger. You have Christian beliefs, and advocate hitting children, but I am certainly not following you all over SI presenting my dissenting opinion whenever you say something about your beliefs. Certainly, there is an argument to be made that Christianity has not been a totally positive political and historical force, and since we have freedom of speech here, I believe I am free to make that argument. But that is so different from saying that I am attacking individual Christians, when I have said so many positive things about Christians and have so many of them in my life, that I am getting tired of saying the same thing over and over again.
Do you regularly visit all the universities that teach religious history courses, and picket the lectures that say anything that is less than totally positive about Christians? Do you burn all the books that mention some of the historical negatives, the divisiveness, the wars by Christians fighting about their particular faith, or trying to impose it on nonbelievers? Why am I your particular hobby? There are plenty of Christian threads on SI, and I am not running around them bothering people who are trying to worship. Why can't you accept that people have different belief systems, and let them be?
<If I were constantly attacking a certain people's religion night after night in an open forum. I would expect someone to defend them. For you to now twist my defense into some condemnation of pagans or non-christians is simply more of your sick tricks.>
There have certainly been religious discussions here, Michael, but you exaggerate when you say they are every night. Maybe once a month is more accurate. I like to discuss all sorts of issues, and am certainly not fixated on discussing religion.
<How would you feeeeel if I sat here night after night and spewed forth the worst kind of hatred toward your religion, "The Wicca's".>
Well, you have done that, and your assumption that more Godless pagan parents have homeless children than do Christians is just one of many, many examples I could pull from the archives, but I have other things to do today. Certainly, you do have freedom of speech, and I would defend your right to spew forth hatred, even as I again reiterate that this is not what I am doing.
<A big part of our problem in this country is we have allot of people like yourself, who see something on a television show and immediately believe it is an undisputed fact or something. 60 minutes has been grossly wrong about a lot of things in the past. To watch a forty minute program and now believe you are the fountain of knowledge about homelessness is ridiculous.>
As I have said before, 60 Minutes is generally well respected. What specifically has it been grossly wrong about in the past, that is not simply a difference of opinion and has something to do with gathering of facts and statistics that are inaccurate? Do you have any evidence that their statistics about suicide and homelessness among gay teenagers are inaccurate? I have never pretended to be a fountain of knowledge about the homeless, incidentally. I got most of my knowledge from reading several web sites, and observing the homeless all over San Francisco, and generally reading about the issue over time.
<I would place my understanding of the issue, by actually walking the streets and talking with counselors and kids above that program any day.>
Well, as I said before, your anecdotal knowledge about homeless youth in a relatively small community is certainly valuable, but not complete. If you read all urls I provided, or did some reading on your own, I think you would see that the causes of homelessness are quite complex, and that it is not due simply to children growing up in one-parent families, and illiteracy, as you claim. I think it is really commendable, incidentally, that you participate in helping the homeless teenagers in your community.
<Your problem is you sit and pontificate about issues, and believe everything you see on T.V. instead of actually going out and trying to learn something for yourself.>
I am not pontificating, Michael. One of the reasons I enjoy SI, and the Feelings thread, particularly, is that it is a place to learn about new ideas. I think it is very important to keep an open mind, and keep learning new things all your life. I do not implicitly distrust everything I find out through reading, however.
<I will ask you one last time. Stop posting to me. It is my right to ask this and I have done so more than 4 times now.>
Yes, you do keep asking me to stop posting to you. However, at the same time, you continue to post to me, making all sorts of outlandish allegations and attempting to damage my reputation, and also promising to be a vigilant Christian crusader, posting over here whenever I make a comment about Christianity historically or as a social force.
So, again I offer you my word that if you stop posting to me OR about me, I will certainly immediately do the same. But what you seem to want is for me to remain silent while you continue to post about me, and that is inherently unfair. |
