Joined: Jan. 2007
I could do, but it's old news now, and I've got better things to do.
FWIW, I don't think I'm "submissive " at all - I think that's a wrong reading completely. It might be to do with being female, but not because females are doormats, but because on the whole (I'd say) we don't do that dick-measuring thing.
tbh, I honestly don't notice half the time if someone is playing power games, because I am genuinely not interested in power games, especially virtual power games. Why should I care if someone else thinks they are superior to me? It's their problem, not mine. The only thing that seems to really get my goat, personally, is being accused of lying, and that's because it undermines the entire discourse.
I'm interested in why people think what they do, and why they come to different conclusions from the ones I come to. If I see a fallacious argument, I want to expose the fallacy. If someone points out a fallacy in my own argument, I'm grateful to have it pointed out.
If someone says something that I think is immoral, or dangerous, I say so. I use blunter language on some sites than others, but tbh, I'm bluntest with people I basically like, which is very unfair I guess, but I guess I trust them not to be offended.
But that doesn't stop me saying what I think when someone attempts to defend the indefensible. I'm still truly shocked by the defense of William Lane Craig at UD. I was shocked enough to read his essay when Dawkins linked to it on the Guardian, but naively thought: wow, this will disabuse anyone of the notion that his is a "Reasonable Faith".
Yet, it was Dawkins who got it in the neck.
Mind you, it was pretty stupid of Dawkins to tie it to his refusal to debate Craig.