vincentML
Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
We all choose sides every time we enter a debate. Some people only choose once, and stick with that side on every issue, no matter what position it requires them to take. And no; that wasn't a swipe at you - we both see posters like that every day here; no need to name names. But me, I'm closer to the other end of the spectrum. I pick a somewhat different side on almost every single issue, depending upon what feels like the right side to be on. I criticize Obama as much as I lambasted Bush. I'm as vehemently anti-capital punishment as I am pro-gun ownership. I'm for exterminating every member of al Qaeda we can locate, and I despise Bush for invading Iraq. I'm passionately, almost rabidly anti-religion, and for many of the reasons that doublesweetness is; yet deeply spiritual and more than a little prickly about being called an ignorant fool for that. I'm just a peculiarity on many levels, I'm the first to admit.
Panda, I agree with most of what you say here and applaud your assertion that your position in a debate is determined by the issue. However. looking back through the posting by doublesweetness I could not find anywhere she "lumped us all into one category and called us all ignorant, deluded fools," as you said in your post #207.
Quite the contrary, she addressed each person individually and called no one an "ignorant, deluded fool." If you can find it please point it out to me.
To you specifically she said: "You are calling a tool of investigation with a proven track record a belief system, trying to make it as useless and ineffectual as actual belief systems." If you feel she is incorrect you might wish to offer a rebuttal on the point.
Calling someone a zealot or condescending and dogmatic hardly rises to the level of point/counterpoint in debate.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
And that gives you license to call someone a zealot?
quote:
Yes. It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck; I have no qualms about labeling it a duck. By their own words ye shall know them....
Anyway, what's the big deal? Since when is "zealot" such a slur? Granted, it's not exactly a compliment, but not necessarily an insult either. It's simply a descriptive term. One who argues with zeal, by one definition. Another would be "fanatic," but even that's not necessarily an insult. That was an entirely appropriate term under the circumstances, and I've got no problem with having used it.
The problem is you used it in place of defending your position. And so it becomes an insult in my opinion.
Vincent
_____________________________
vML
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.
|
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread