Louis
Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 08 2008,16:28) | by the way Anti-Bigots are Bigots too. Embrace your bigotry Louis. Discriminating palates must choose. For instance, I am bigoted towards politicians. That's right. They're all douchebags by definition. Just lowered my BP by the same effect as praying for rain and it was for free. Now I'm free from wondering who I should vote for. No Body, since I don't vote for douchebags!
It's fun to win debates. that's why you debate people who you know are wrong. |
1) Wrong! Anti-bigots are not necessarily bigots too. There is a subset of anti-bigotry which is not like in kind to bigotry.
You keep repeating this. It will not make it true. Opposition to group/idea X does not make one immediately a member/proponent of X, nor does it follow that the only other position to occupy is -X. Not only that, one can actually be correct in some matter of dispute. Holding to a demonstrably correct position, perhaps forcefully, in the face of ignorant opposition to that position does not equate to bigotry.
Mind you, I do cheer for England when we play rugby and I fulsomely engage in international banter during test matches. That ain't bigotry, that's comedy.
2) Vile calumny and slander, I've never won a debate in my life! Well apart from those ones I didn't lose or draw.
Actually debating the perpetually unarmed and clueless is pointless, so I don't bother. Knocking holes in their crap and mocking them is an entirely different matter. Agreement or disagreement is not, and never has been, the issue.
The reasons for engaging in "serious" debate with creationists or whoever (and I am leery that this is even a good idea on occasion) is not because it is easy to win those debates, far from it, it's because creationists or whoever are trying to acheive some political or social goal that it demonstrably destructive. Demonstrating the vacuity of the claims in a public debate format is one way that the message that these chaps are full of shit can be gotten across. Personally, I don't think that in the case of creationists this is a 100% good idea. But other people's mileage may vary, and I am happy to admit that a pluralist approach to tactics is the one I favour. I am also happy to concede that for some people debate works.
From a selfish perspective engaging in debate has caused me to go and re-learn things I thought I knew well, but obviously didn't. It's helped me as a person and as a scientist. From that perspective, it's been a highly productive pastime. Never doubt the potential of debate to cause someone to learn a new thing, even in that someone is you.
3) Don't vote, the government might get in. Alternatively don't vote, it only encourages them. Personally, I don't think ALL politicians are douchebags, no more than I think all people are douchebags or all religious people are douchebags. Some people are undeniably douchebags, and some groups have a higher douchebag quotient than others. That still doesn't mean one can reliably dismiss a whole group as douchebags. Even though I know you were being tongue in cheek.
Take Margaret Thatcher for instance. Best leader any country ever had, the finest Prime Minister of the UK of all time and damn sexy to boot.
{Waits for Ian to go up in flames}
Only kidding.
Louis
--------------
Bye.
|
