Rhetoric is necessary, don’t get me wrong. But there’s a certain class of rhetorical tricks that’s blatantly dishonest, and it really ticks me off when people use them (and then try to act all innocently outraged when they get called on the bullshit). Especially since the tricks are generally used in order to allow a dishonest SJW weasel to pretend he’s “won” a “discussion.” That behavior is not to be encouraged, especially not in people “on your own side,” so to speak, and throwing your hands in the air and walking away from the tinfoil hattery functions as encouragement in this kind of situation. In my opinion.
Anyway, for those interested in internet drama, have the Dalrock link. It’s a bit much to wade through, but if you want to see where I came in, just search my handle, pancakeloach. (Off-topic: if the AI folks would kindly go over to scifiwright.com and at some point bring this up with John Wright, I would be quite interested in the resulting discussion.)
It’s not that I bear any particular animus towards feministhater. In fact, I’m in agreement with him roughly 98% of the time. It’s just that the last 2% is just so [censored][censored][censored][censored] stupid that I couldn’t let it pass in good conscience. And the usual guy, Lyn87, very sensibly bowed out as this is definitely something he’s already beaten to death in Dalrock commentary before. So, allow me to bring to “main post” status a very good message he left me about rhetoric in discussions like this one, which generalizes things ever so much better than I could:
This is fairly typical faulty argumentation that I usually see coming from leftists, atheists, and feminists: the idea that if you don’t give them the answer they want that you haven’t really answered their question. In my experience, there are four ways people respond to me when I give an answer with which they disagree:
1) “I disagree, and these are the factual/logical reasons why: Reason1, Reason2, Reason3, etc.”
I don’t get that often, but I tend to respect the people who do that, especially if their reasons are at least plausible, and even more so if they can show me where I’m actually wrong.
2) “I disagree” (usually unstated is that their philosophy will not let them accept the answer given).
I get that lot from people who are blinded by their bias and unwilling to examine their underlying paradigms. Sometimes good-faith arguments can end when both sides “agree to disagree.”
3) “You did not answer my question.”
What FH did – an attempt to “keep the ball in play” without proffering anything specific that could be rebutted.
4) Some sort of ad hominem attack.
What people say when the know they’re beaten or are afraid to let me put their beliefs to the test. That is usually the starting position of leftists, atheists, and feminists before they attempt one of the other three … and often the final one before they slink away beaten.
It should be obvious to any fair-minder observer that I and others answered feministhater’s question several times over: marriage confers the benefit of legitimizing sex, and that he’s stuck on Response #3 (“You haven’t answered my question”). Neither I nor anyone else has said that there are guarantees: the only person who is guaranteed sex is someone able to take it by force, but that’s true of pretty-much everything when we get right down to it. Obviously nothing worthy of the term “civilization” cannot exist in such a “Darwinian” state for very long.
What it boils down to it that feministhater and a lot of other guys don’t think marriage is worth the risk. Fine: I support their right to think so and to order their own lives accordingly. Nobody is disputing their right to order their own lives according to their own best judgements and assessments of risk. What I will dispute is that they have the right to speak for anyone but themselves, or to deny the clear teaching of scripture regarding the benefits of marriage.
Basically what Lyn says. Options 1 and 2 are totally fine and I have no problem with that. It’s the lying that I have a problem with. Like I said, I basically agree with feministhater 98% of the time. His perspective is absolutely valid, and if he says marriage is impossible for him, I have no grounds for saying otherwise. And if anyone wants to critique me, please do so. I do not wish to persist if I am wrong about something, and I normally spend so long pouring over my own words that some advice on what to look for in my already-obsessive editing won’t bother me in the slightest!
Anyway, if you’re of a praying sort, pray for this particular man and those like him. He’s in distress and he needs God’s power, grace, and comfort. No mortal power can fix any of us, after all.
Something Fishy 