From some remarks to a bisexual correspondent

[fpb]

They don't try to reverse or re-engineer anything or anyone, they want to be happy with their partners, to be able to be open about their relationships, and to be respected - which I do believe is their right, no quotation marks...

That sort of talk makes me wonder on what planet you live. I lived in the same house with an openly gay couple for years. There may be some place in the Muslim world where to " want to be happy with their partners, to be able to be open about their relationships, and to be respected" is an issue, but it is not anywhere in the West. I respectfully submit that respect is not what you are talking about. Respect is something that someone gains; I have great respect for you as a highly civilized person and as [an exceptionally talented person in a particular field]. Does that matter to you less than that I should genuflect to your tastes in sex? Frankly, that is the sort of demand that would make me think less of you; because it shows that you find what is between your legs more important than what is in your head. And then there is the issue of satisfaction - which, as the song says, you can't get. You are free to do anything you please, and to practice any trade (except Catholic priest). I am old enough to remember - and I am not very old - the time when homosexual advocates insisted that the notion of "gay marriage" was a smokescreen invented by the opponents of gay rightists to defame them. That, my dear, was less than a generation ago. And no sooner you have got everything you agitated for, than the agitation for "gay marriage" began in earnest. Now history has been rewritten to the extent that you lot speak not only as though this had always been your demand, without which nothing else is worth a thing, but also as though anyone who does anything to withhold it from you is denying something so obvious that only a complete moron could imagine otherwise. Someone had been lying; whether to the public, or to themselves, does not even matter. What you are saying is that unless you are allowed to destroy the very notion of marriage, by applying it to something it simply is not, you will not be happy. And what that tells me is that you will not be happy anyway, because anything you are granted will only generate another request. You really have to consider your own attitudes.

Comments

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, your excessive faith in your cleverness is betrayed by the fact that you see fit to charge me with lack of faith in my arguments. Nobody, my dear man, is paying me to say anything. I say it because I think it right; and that should be enough for you not to try and advance such a sorry claim. A claim, incidentally, that comes close to demanding the definition of moronic. And that falls under the same definition. If I say that an argument is moronic, is because I think it is. End of story. Incidentally, a person who is not a moron can say a moronic thing - like you just have.

[nicked-metal.livejournal.com]

If a man says 'The purpose of engaging in argument is to strengthen your arguments' it seems reasonable to believe that he wishes his arguments were stronger. Were they already strong enough, why attempt to strengthen them?

Had I claimed someone was paying you, your denial of being paid would be relevant.

Incidentally, a person who is not a moron can say a moronic thing - like you just have.

An interesting assertion. However, I'm a strong believer in the Zen saying, "It takes a certain kind of person to do a certain kind of thing." Therefore, people who say moron-like (moronic) things are acting like morons, and if it looks like a moron and talks like a moron, then we might as well say "It's a moron," instead of saying "They seem to be linguistically challenged."

However, it's a moot point. I will not deny any charge of moron-hood that you may make, and if my statements are foolish, all I can hope is that I will learn from having my foolishness exposed.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

If I have no faith in what I am saying - which, as it happens, I knew would be unpopular - then what on Earth reason can you postulate for me posting it? The only sane one would be that I am paid; but I am not. So you are postulating that I am saying something | do not believe in, for no reason. Well, if I ever did anything like that, I would deserve to be called a moron.

[nicked-metal.livejournal.com]

Faith can be lacking without being entirely absent. It is quite common for people to say something that they don't entirely believe in order to find support for their view - that support either coming from agreement from those they respect, or from a lack of respectable disagreement.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

None of the possible reasons for saying something I do not believe apply here. This is my blog. I do not have to flatter anyone, lie to anyone, conciliate anyone, or defend myself from anyone. And anyone who knows me will tell you that I am not very good at doing any of those things anyway.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

If a man says 'The purpose of engaging in argument is to strengthen your arguments' it seems reasonable to believe that he wishes his arguments were stronger.

If the Dodgers engage in training to improve their sporting skills, it seems reasonable believe that they did not have them.

The mistake in your reasoning here is in arguing that because a man may want to improve something of his, therefore he has it not. Only what is already functional can be improved.

[nicked-metal.livejournal.com]

If the Dodgers engage in training to improve their sporting skills, it follows that they are not completely confident that they'll win unless they improve their sporting skills.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

But that is not what you started out by saying. You spoke of a "lack of faith in [my] argument", which supposedly led me to what you regarded as underhanded shifts.

[nicked-metal.livejournal.com]

Please forgive the delay (and I accept that I did the wrong thing regarding the comment you deleted).

I do regard the tactics I was commenting on as underhanded, yes. And I continue to say that "Doing X implies a belief that not doing X will result in a bad outcome." Specifically, I believe that employing an underhanded tactic implies a belief that one might not win if the underhanded tactic is not used. Otherwise, the sacrifice of the moral high ground seems counterproductive.