Round #4 of exchange with conservative acquaintance

[TXlib]

Round #3
Italics are his comments...

---

>Why do you even respond? Everything you said below is merely proving my
>point right here. Because you studied physics you know what real research
>is? No, I'm sorry, but your arguments are proving otherwise.

So, it's "neener neener" time, is it? :-)

>I probably should have written my other email to you earlier, but here's
>what I see the problem as being:
>
>You called me the 'prosecutor', but I (nor groups that agree with me) did
>not bring this issue about marriage up; the liberals, like yourself, and
>homosexual groups are the ones taking this to court, and claiming that the
>rest of us are wrong. There are a number of factors that ought to make you
>cringe with your understanding of things. Instead, you act out the
>"emotional arguments, anecdotal evidence, and moral judgments" that you say
>you won't accept!

It does not matter who "brought it up". One side claims that behaviour X is harmless. Another claims that X is harmful, and should be (or remain) outlawed). The burden is on the group claiming X is harmful to prove why.

>Everything you've brought into this has been emotional and personal, and
>based on your friends.

All I'm trying to do is explain why I feel as I do. I am not the one claiming that gay marriage should be illegal or that homosexuality is harmful.

>Also, your use of "left-handedness, albinoism, red
>hair, etc" as an example of minorities fails because these are actually
>physical traits that are proven by science. Homosexuality, on the other
>hand, is purely psychological and cannot be proven as an actual trait by any
>medical standard. If it could be, why hasn't that been shown in all these
>years of liberation?

I never claimed that homosexuality was a physical trait; my point was simply that just because something is rare, it is not necessarily bad.

Based on your argument, we should declare conservatism as a mental defect, and confine all conservatives to mental hospitals.

Lobotomies for republicans!

Wait, you disagree? Bad idea? Well, *prove* to me that conservatives are not dangerous!

Yes, it's silly...

[orwell]

1. Head Butting

The key to arguing with someone who is diametrically opposed to your viewpoint is to understand his/her base motivation and be respectful of it. His paternalistic, strong father worldview dictates that he be suspicious, even fearful of that which is not black and white.

I suggest you find common ground and make that your central theme.

For example, I'm sure this individual would champion things such as States Rights or even (gasp) civil rights. Narrow the discussion to these points by not accepting his attempts to change the subject to such things as deviance. Deviance is irrelevant to the central issue.

Unfortunately, like many Progressives, you are allowing him to change the subject and frame the debate. This is a loser strategy.

Good luck.

O

[TXlib]

7. Yes, he does that a lot, actually.

They must teach that in Conservative School.

[orwell]

8. Barf Bags

A lot of rhetoric on both sides is based on talking points that are disseminated by the media. We accept these points and regurgitate them dutifully shedding precious new light in the public debate.

I work to get people to begin to open their eyes to the meta-agendas and logical fallacies at work behind the talking points. Hence my screen name.

While I can be as self-deceived as the next prole, I try to apply this same sort of de-programming to my own logical assumptions. This is what is demanded of us in a democratic civil society.

O

[VelmaD]

2. Never argue with an idiot...

they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. :-)

[orwell]

3. Nice

I like it. I'm going to steal it...

O :evilgrin:

[VelmaD]

4. Pay it forward...

I've heard it for years from my momma but I'm sure she stole it from somewhere too. :-)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. You, ma'am, are now Line 4

See sig.

[VelmaD]

6. WOOHOO!!!

Go Me!!!

Thanks. I'm honored. *big smooches*

[geniph]

9. Never try to teach a pig to sing

it just wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Really, unless there's others reading the exchange, what's the point? Clearly neither of you are going to be "converted" to the other's mindset - or even see some validity in the other's views - so all you're doing is annoying one another.

[TXlib]

10. The benefit to both of us, that we have both agreed upon

is that it teaches each of us how to argue our points.

Although in his case, "arguing his points" simply means saying "I'm right, and you're wrong."