posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
12.20.06 (8:51 pm)
Cool! So when you call me a seventies liberal hippie, I win? Yipeeeeee!
Now, about this "Fatty" thing... As my Father would have said, "I resemble that remark." Cof-a-Cuppee?
posted by:
seochris (
reply)
post date:
12.20.06 (8:59 pm)
Amazing facts.
But cannot mean necesarily always.
Well some times it helps but sometimes not.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
12.20.06 (9:00 pm)
Reply to: surrogate
You are a pencil-headed geek fat seventies liberal. Oops, just lost another debate.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
12.20.06 (9:03 pm)
Reply to: seochris
What?
posted by:
seochris (
reply)
post date:
12.20.06 (9:31 pm)
Ok I mean that some one does the name calling thing then that does not necessarily mean that the opposite person has lost the debate. It cud also be some tactic to undermine you.
posted by:
babe4jesus55 (
reply)
post date:
12.20.06 (10:21 pm)
Name calling makes me laugh.
posted by:
Christine@swanktrendz (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (2:36 am)
Hi there Pastor Dave - I just popped in to your blog and read the first 5 entries. As usual, I find your writing to be reader-friendly in that it is interesting, not too drawn out or laborious to get through, and it is diverse in its topics. Thank you for making my blog visit so enjoyable. I may not always agree with what you write, but I am definitely led to ponder my reaction to your words. Thank-you again for a pleasurable read. Christine
posted by:
lisa (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (7:09 am)
excellent point. it amazes me how many adults end up resorting to name calling!
posted by:
thejongleur (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (7:34 am)
Even if the argument you are fighting against is contemptible?
I called someone homophobic on tblurt once, not because they were opposed to gay marriage, but because of the derogatory fashion in which he spoke of gay people, and of myself because I chose to defend them.
Incidentally, homophobic isn't a derogatory term, it is a technical term to describe someone who has resorted to... derogatory name calling and insults.
Nothing is black and white, as much as many would like it to be.
ams
posted by:
heavyarms (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (8:02 am)
Don't forget the liberal's ultimate "I just lost the argument and have to resort to name calling" insult...
NAZI!!!!!
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (8:03 am)
Reply to: thejongleur
Aw man, don't take the fun out of this... I liked thinking a homophobic person was simply someone who, because they questioned their own sexuality, lashed out at those he or she was afraid they might be a bit too much like if they allowed themselves to be themselves. Now you come in here and use real definitions... Geez.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (8:04 am)
Oh, and Dave, you're a butt-ugly-closeted-pool-shark.
How was that? Kinda weak, huh?
posted by:
69whisper (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (9:38 am)
right dave smiling is the best answer. the new weapons, you just delivered, are quite funny though :)
posted by:
bawdy (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (11:08 am)
You're a real jerk for pointing this out. ;-)
You're right, but some people are so abrasive, it's hard to refrain from calling them names. Usually it's not worth debating with those who resort to ad hominem attacks.
posted by:
FinalyFree (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (12:07 pm)
"Sticks and stones..."
I just wish some people would remember that words sometimes hurt more.
Nice post :)
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (12:35 pm)
Reply to: seochris
For sure. On the contrary, the moment you start calling names, you forfeit the debate. Name-calling is evidence of weakness.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (12:38 pm)
Reply to: babe4jesus55
Makes you laugh, I would think, at the pitiful effort to engage in an exchange with another with a moronic technique. If you're not careful, you laugh at someone when this happens. The problem is, you have no right to laugh at someone whom you also feel pity towards.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (12:38 pm)
Reply to: LadyG
I'm right, but not "so" right. Read on- an interesting challenge to my logic comes along.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (12:44 pm)
Reply to: Lezah
That is a tremendous compliment you have shared. I want my writing to be easy to read, not too laborious, and diverse. I'm glad that, at least every now and then, I accomplish this goal. I've always thought that when you finish a reading, you should be clear about what you have just read.
You've made my day. But, watch out, you've encouraged me to continue with my writing.
And, by the way, I don't want you to agree with everything I write. Why would any serious writer want total agreement? We discuss complicated and challenging issues. I do not want agreement from those who honor me by reading this stuff. Just civility.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (12:57 pm)
Reply to: thejongleur
You are right. It is contemptible for someone to disparage your person because you simply state a point of view, even if what you believe is in direct disagreement with the challenged individual.
And I do believe there are homophobes. I understand homophobia to be a fear of, or contempt, for gays. I don't come down too hard of those who fear others. Fear can be changed through education and personal experience. Now, contempt is something different. If I have contempt for another person, then I have judged him/her to be baiscally inferior to myself. If I have contempt for someone, then it is easy to treat that person unfairly and with abuse. And, in my heart, I know that is never the right way to treat another.
So, show me someone who deliberately treats another with contempt because that person happens to be gay, and you have shown me a homophobe.
But, my point is that the word, the accusation, comes out far too quickly and injuriously. Because someone disagrees politically or religiously does not make that person a homophobe. Now, his reason and viewpoints may be suspect. Fine- then seek to engage and change that person through debate- not name-calling.
Make sense?
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (1:00 pm)
Reply to: heavyarms
Nazi? In this post I've tried to pass along some insults mostly used against me at one time or another. I've never been called a Nazi. May I have your permission to consider your comment to be a name-calling insult hurled my way? You've called me a "Nazi", right? Now I can add it to my list. Thanks.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (1:02 pm)
Reply to: surrogate
So a "homophobe" is a closet gay in self-denial? You've never been in my closet.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (1:03 pm)
Reply to: surrogate
Alright, I'm going to have to tell the Nickster about this....
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (1:04 pm)
Reply to: 69whisper
I do wish I was a person of such confidence and peace with self that I could smile when called a name. That's coming, but not yet.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (1:07 pm)
Reply to: bawdy
Yeah. When the other guy abandons all semblance of reason and debate, and goes on the attack with name-calling, I'm liable to roll up my sleeves and punch right back. I'm good at it, although not as good as those who practice it with so much more regularity and lack of conscience/decency. And when I'm finished trading insults, I feel like I need to go take a bath. It's not worth it, as you say.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (1:08 pm)
Reply to: FinalyFree
Yep. Even when we pretend to be tough, if we are honest we must admit they hurt.
posted by:
thejongleur (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (2:07 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
"Make sense?"
Hmm.. perhaps it is the nature of the medium through which we communicate, but I'm not sure if you are being condescending there. If you are not, I apologise.
The incident in question wasn't simply a difference of opinion, it was an expression of disgust and revulsion, and I called him on it.
I treated him neither with contempt, nor abuse, but expressed why I felt it wrong to judge/belittle/hate based on sexuality.
His argument, his opinion and attitude to gay people, was contemptible. He was showing a loathing for a section of mankind. He was being homophobic.
It isn't (really) in my nature to be "unfair and abusive" as I'd hope you would attest from our own.. disagreements.
I'm also certain you'd accept that those most full of dislike/fear/hate for another "kind"; be it race, creed, politics, sexuality, or whatever, are the least interested in being engaged, and are the least open to debate.
The closed mind really is a horrifying thing.
ams
posted by:
thejongleur (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (2:08 pm)
Reply to: surrogate
*smile*
There are a few very public examples of this, no?
ams
posted by:
thejongleur (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (2:38 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
oh yes, I meant to add:
"It isn't (really) in my nature to be "unfair and abusive" as I'd hope you would attest from our own.. disagreements."
If there are examples which show the above quote to be crap, I'm happy to be proven wrong.
A little introspection and self reflection is never a bad thing.
Ta,
ams
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (5:09 pm)
Reply to: thejongleur
I am, sometimes, guilty of being condescending. Sometimes it's a blind spot, readily noticeable by others but not myself. But not this time. Simply asking if what I have written makes sense- since it was typed in haste.
I don't remember much about the details of our previous exchanges, except that you were pretty strong with your comments. That's o.k. I have no hard feelings, and if you had been patently unfair or unnecesarily mean, I would remember.
posted by:
akelso (
reply)
post date:
12.21.06 (6:00 pm)
Reply to: thejongleur
"I called someone homophobic on tblurt once, not because they were opposed to gay marriage, but because of the derogatory fashion in which he spoke of gay people, and of myself because I chose to defend them."
What a pleasure to interact with the jongleur here.
Can I say here, my father was probably a bisexual man. He had a collection of letters from a lover in Paris where he studied voice; my mother captured and held them until she died. For the duration of my life, she clung to these letters thinking she could levy an advantage over his interest in parenting *me*.
When my mother died, my brother delivered those letters to me (something like thirty years after my dad told me they existed.)
My saying this is to say, alternate sexual orientations are *not* particularly interesting to me - I'm interested in being able to *love* one another.
- Andrea
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
12.22.06 (4:53 am)
Reply to: breakouttheglass
Well, I haven't noticed you wandering around here in your blogging community beating up on many folks. Of course, that could change.
posted by:
laydeepulse (
reply)
post date:
12.23.06 (1:24 am)
i like this blog alot. thank you very much.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
12.23.06 (8:27 am)
Reply to: laydeepulse
Appreciate it. You have a great Christmas!
posted by:
musicalhair (
reply)
post date:
12.23.06 (2:23 pm)
Yeah, I guess what you're saying is it sucks when people start slinging back the same mud that they've been buried in.
Here are some for you:
Card carrying member of ACLU
Feminazi
secular-prgressive (and their "agenda" which I never ever get a copy of at the meetings)
liberal
Tax and Spend Liberal (I love it when defending the clowns that gave us our biggest deficits ever)
millitant feminist (and thir agenda too)
Cut and runners
Blame America First crowd
tree hugger
Bleeding Heart Liberal (back when Christian Values included public policies that helped those in need)
Intelectual elite
Cultural Elite
Ivory Tower Intelectuals
Pinko
Dave, you're old enough to know who started that name calling. IT would be the demagogues that were losing the debate on the future of our country, so the resorted demonizing and fearmongoring and suddenly claiming their "faith" as the source of their views, because in the court of reason they were losing.
As for "Homophobe", well there is a lot of that going on. If you can point me to something that shows that anything two gays can do to attack heterosexual marriage, please do. I'd say it seems irrational to think two gay people can attack my marriage or your marriage-- though I'm not surprised closted gays like Ted Haggerty would think it, because it reminds him of his true orientation-- and if it is rational, the help me out. The irrational might be accurately described as a "phobia" of some kind sometimes.
posted by:
musicalhair (
reply)
post date:
12.23.06 (2:27 pm)
OH, where is nick's townhall? I see a ... I don't even know what they're called, but those things on the right side of the tblog home page, where you're asking about something at nick's townhall.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
12.23.06 (6:59 pm)
Reply to: musicalhair
I'm pretty sure you and I do not have the same political leanings. But as to the intent of this post, I think we do see similarly. Name-calling does not further the search for truth and right. It is but a diversion, no matter what political/religious side it comes from.
And, it sounds as if you sneak around and listen to Rush Limbaugh. He is on my radio ocassionaly, but I tire of him quickly.
And, I don't hold it against you that you are a commie-pinko-wacko-liberal....Just kidding! Just kidding!!!!
posted by:
musicalhair (
reply)
post date:
12.26.06 (10:43 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
Well, my point was that you were pretty selective about the "name calling" that was objectionable. I'm guessing you've been hit with alot of these and they feel/are unfair, but to generalize from the experience and see it in a bigger societal context would have to include some of the labeling and name calling of the right.
I don't listen to Rush. I knew people that did but I could never take it. I dont' find him funny or entertaining. It doesn't help that I've read my share of books that debunk his lies and false facts he conjours up.
I think it is tough to listen to someone when I knew that he is probably lying to me, making up stats, intentionally misquoting people, and then "Carrying water" for people he says he don't like anyway. He's kinda spinless and evil I think. He is one of the embodiments of "Truthiness".
And for all the stuff he said about drug addicts and the ACLU, he really is quite pathetic when he turns out to be an addict and accepts the ACLU's help. Who stood on principle then, the ACLU or him? That is why I'm proud to be a member of the ACLU and pround I'm not a ditto-head.
posted by:
Farfarello (
reply)
post date:
01.18.08 (12:37 pm)
I'm a freak and proud of it! :D
posted by:
Farfarello (
reply)
post date:
01.18.08 (12:44 pm)
I'm a freak and proud of it! :D
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
01.19.08 (7:53 am)
Reply to: Farfarello
Freak? It's a good name.
Smile, because you've won the debate.
