Since you were banned from Inverarity's LJ, I have to post this here:
For Fpb's context:
I was the Anon who posted asking Inverarity for a Dawkins recommendations, the one you jumped on as a "prospective Dawkins groupie." I figure I will address the personal insult before actually moving on to the substance of my post.
I'm not a "Dawkins groupie" anymore than any other writer's "groupie" (Except for perhaps GEM Anscombe and Bernard Williams. They are amazing.) I was asking for recommendations because he has been referenced in so many textbooks, and is largely respected in the Atheist community. As I said on Inverarity's LJ, I found TGD to be less than pleasing(my exact statement was that he addressed the book to the "talk-show audience." You know, a polite way of saying "He was a purile, inane, historically-citation-less crank with extremely weak arguments fueled more by emotion than logic.") and don't understand the acclaim the man has. Rather than pass him off as the Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck of the Atheist movement, I wanted to educate myself. I figured Inverarity, as someone I respect and see as a highly intelligent individual, may have read some books worth reading; so asking him for a recommendation on the subject seemed like a worthwhile first post.
Now for the substance:
You annoy me. Not because you attacked the character of my intellect on a baseless assumption, I've been on the internet too long for that. Not because you are uneducated, unintelligent, or illiterate, in the way most posters on the internet are; on the contrary, you annoy me for the opposite reason. You are clearly an intelligent, well informed person... But you can't convey that worth shit.
You are an erudite toddler. If someone disagrees with you, you throw a temper tantrum. For example, you addressed the Hitler's Pope idiocy and then had a hissy-fit when that Virginia person asked for citations. In fact, you went off on the tangent about modern day sex abuse without addressing the citations problem; or indeed, addressing the scandal in an appropriate manner ("You are a shareholder in the lie factory" is not an adequate response in any context.).
Honestly, this is the internet and I normally wouldn't care. But this is a personal issue to me. I'm a person who has, for the 20 years of his life, been consistently on the fence concerning his own Catholicism. My intellectual integrity is far more important to me than my faith, but there are some cases where those go hand in hand. For instance, historically inaccurate readings of the Church's behaviour. To see someone intelligently argue a position I would (mostly) defend, then have them undercut that with obnoxious personal attacks and a refusal to share sources is infuriating. This is acutely annoying because of the lack of intelligent Catholic writers on the internet.
This is also indicative of your behaviour on Inverarity's journal. You blow up over nothing, attack people rather than their ideas, and mope around about being victimized and misunderstood. Certainly, there have been times when TealTerror and others argue passed you, but do you honestly think you are the blameless incarnation of Christ on the internet? Inverarity has, in fact, addressed why he doesn't directly debate you. Because, simply put, he didn't believe you could do so reasonably. His assumption is a valid one. Your posts are consistently filled with self-righteous martyr-complex induced vitriol. If you want him to respond with something other than "mockery" give him a reason to think it will be worthwhile.
As a fellow Catholic, I implore you: grow up, or shut up. As someone who has posted on LJ only once (twice with this post) I hope you will take what I have said into consideration. It's easy to pass over the words of people you have been at odds with for three years, but you don't really have the "You're biased against me!" excuse with my writing.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-08-02 12:54 am (UTC)For Fpb's context:
I was the Anon who posted asking Inverarity for a Dawkins recommendations, the one you jumped on as a "prospective Dawkins groupie." I figure I will address the personal insult before actually moving on to the substance of my post.
I'm not a "Dawkins groupie" anymore than any other writer's "groupie" (Except for perhaps GEM Anscombe and Bernard Williams. They are amazing.) I was asking for recommendations because he has been referenced in so many textbooks, and is largely respected in the Atheist community. As I said on Inverarity's LJ, I found TGD to be less than pleasing(my exact statement was that he addressed the book to the "talk-show audience." You know, a polite way of saying "He was a purile, inane, historically-citation-less crank with extremely weak arguments fueled more by emotion than logic.") and don't understand the acclaim the man has. Rather than pass him off as the Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck of the Atheist movement, I wanted to educate myself. I figured Inverarity, as someone I respect and see as a highly intelligent individual, may have read some books worth reading; so asking him for a recommendation on the subject seemed like a worthwhile first post.
Now for the substance:
You annoy me. Not because you attacked the character of my intellect on a baseless assumption, I've been on the internet too long for that. Not because you are uneducated, unintelligent, or illiterate, in the way most posters on the internet are; on the contrary, you annoy me for the opposite reason. You are clearly an intelligent, well informed person... But you can't convey that worth shit.
You are an erudite toddler. If someone disagrees with you, you throw a temper tantrum. For example, you addressed the Hitler's Pope idiocy and then had a hissy-fit when that Virginia person asked for citations. In fact, you went off on the tangent about modern day sex abuse without addressing the citations problem; or indeed, addressing the scandal in an appropriate manner ("You are a shareholder in the lie factory" is not an adequate response in any context.).
Honestly, this is the internet and I normally wouldn't care. But this is a personal issue to me. I'm a person who has, for the 20 years of his life, been consistently on the fence concerning his own Catholicism. My intellectual integrity is far more important to me than my faith, but there are some cases where those go hand in hand. For instance, historically inaccurate readings of the Church's behaviour. To see someone intelligently argue a position I would (mostly) defend, then have them undercut that with obnoxious personal attacks and a refusal to share sources is infuriating. This is acutely annoying because of the lack of intelligent Catholic writers on the internet.
This is also indicative of your behaviour on Inverarity's journal. You blow up over nothing, attack people rather than their ideas, and mope around about being victimized and misunderstood. Certainly, there have been times when TealTerror and others argue passed you, but do you honestly think you are the blameless incarnation of Christ on the internet? Inverarity has, in fact, addressed why he doesn't directly debate you. Because, simply put, he didn't believe you could do so reasonably. His assumption is a valid one. Your posts are consistently filled with self-righteous martyr-complex induced vitriol. If you want him to respond with something other than "mockery" give him a reason to think it will be worthwhile.
As a fellow Catholic, I implore you: grow up, or shut up. As someone who has posted on LJ only once (twice with this post) I hope you will take what I have said into consideration. It's easy to pass over the words of people you have been at odds with for three years, but you don't really have the "You're biased against me!" excuse with my writing.