I am just getting sick of this

[fpb]

What the Devil is the matter with supporters of "gay marriage"? Why do they have to renounce all claims to reason and manners whenever one gets on the subject? Why is it that you are not allowed to even discuss the possibility that "gay sex" may not have the same status as straight? And why is it that they all use the same ugly and stupid insult - namely, "batshit insane" - for anyone they disagree with?

Honestly, I am sick of this to my back teeth. Three times I have tried to engage supporters of this idea in serious, calm, reasoned debate. Three times I have met with livid rage, utter refusal to even try to reason or argue, and the astonishing fact that these people take pride and brag of their rage, their irrationality, and their hatred. I have had enough. People who take this attitude are asked to defriend themselves from me now, and spare everyone the grief.

Comments

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

People who are convinced they have the high moral ground on any issue I've discovered feel entitled to display rage and so forth.

[patchworkmind.livejournal.com]

Cha-ching!

We have a winner!

Very well put.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I do not think that is the case, actually. I think that people who suspect that they may not, after all, have a good case, but who want to cling to the illusion that they have the high moral ground, are the ones who indulge in rage. To them, the fact that they are angry is evidence that they have something to be angry about; and that, in turn, is evidence that they are right to be angry. Honestly, when do you find shrillness or rage in the wartime speeches of, say, Winston Churchill or Abraham Lincoln?

[patchworkmind.livejournal.com]

I believe that generally the notion is quite right. Practically everyone with whom I wind up engaging in what turns out to be a piss-fest (if you will pardon the term) believes that their own opinion's self-evident truth is enough to vanquish any foe. The more evidence and reason to the contrary, the more shrill and enraged they become. They simply connot abide that someone is actually telling -- no, proving -- that their opinion is no more than self-congratulatory folly... So they simply become self-righteously indignant.

Churchill did have the moral high ground, yes. Lincoln did too, but it was the fact that he jailed and exiled those who tried to argue with him that really bothered (and still bothers) people.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Ahem. Perhaps the fact that he was fighting with his back to the wall, not only against a huge rebellion inside his country, but also with the justified suspicion that the Great Powers (Britain and France, in an unusual and scary alliance) were eagerly hoping for the collapse of his country or at least for its permanent weakening, might have something to do with it.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Mind, I don't take the high moral ground in saying it because I've seen the reaction in me as well as other people. But one thing old age can bring is the ability to laugh at oneself, take a little break, breathe, and try to engage brain instead of adrenalin.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, this has to do with something in which I may be in the wrong - in terms of not having properly understood what the other person was saying. I shall be clearer about the whole matter in a day or two; meanwhile, have a look at my next post, which was written in less of a rage.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I saw that one first, actually (LJ Friendslist scrolls backwards, that is, most recent first) but since I don't know the people and didn't know the particular issue I didn't want to jump in and gas when I am totally ignorant.

[becomethesea.livejournal.com]

I know exactly what you mean. I'm always very open to hear the other side of the argument (always a good thing to know in the event of debate over a subject), but 90% of the time I get personally insulted because of whatever reason since I'm not a supporter. It's just a lack of maturity and (in my opinion) hypocrisy by said people - they often describe themselves as "progressive" and "open-minded", yet they don't have the open-mindedness OR maturity to engage in calm discussion with someone who doesn't share their opinion. SIGH.

[patchworkmind.livejournal.com]

You should read Thomas Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed. Really.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Sowell is brilliant in many ways, and I quoted him a couple of times in the past. Pity that his economics, which are the thing he takes pride on, should be quite remarkably bad.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I also think that they have never been taught to argue. They have had it drummed into them that certain positions are "progressive" - argal unarguably just, because progress is just, is it not? - and that all you need to be in the right is to be progressive yourself. They have been taught to ignore leaps of logic and to make immense assumptions. And when they find that someone not only disagrees with them but has the presumption to present reasons to do so, all they know to do is to become aggressive.