In the comment section of a blogpost by Barry at FSB I have left the following remarks:
I made those remarks in response to the attempt of SSMers there, including Barry and Fannie (two pro-SSM bloggers guesting at FSB), to belittle the observations I made regarding the conflict between the marriage idea and the SSM idea.David Blankenhorn and Maggie Gallagher who have written extensively on the social institution of marriage have each used the supposed jargon, “the marriage idea”. It is one and the same as “the core meaning of the social institution of marriage,” as a fair reading of their work shows.
The SSM idea is simply the idea set against, and thus in conflict with, the very thing that David and Maggie have articulated. David has referred to the conflict of goods, for example.
Maligning me unfairly is not good form, Barry et al. Your blogposts and your comments are filled with jargon and so you expect to frame the discourse to suite yourselves. That, too, is poor form on your parts.
Barry would brush me off with the following:
Chairm, FSB has a rule: “Please limit your comments to 3 per post to help foster conversation among all readers.” I habitually waive that rule for all comment-writers on my posts, but I don’t waive it for you.
In my experience, as we’ve seen on this thread, you tend to dominate the discussion to such a degree that it becomes difficult for other discussions to flourish. Furthermore, your comments are long and so full of opaque jargon that I worry your comments may discourage other people from participating.
Please do not post any further comments on this thread, and in the future please limit yourself to no more than three comments on any of my threads.
It is his comment section so he can do as he likes, of course. However, readers will note that there are pro-SSM commenters there who have already left more than three comments. La Lubu, Christopher, and Barry.
Jargon-filled? Dominating? Discouraging participation? The SSMers there, particularly Barry, might take a look in the mirror at themselves and reconsider their abuse of language, their reliance on misrepresentations, and their belittling and mocking attempts to dismiss the real argument that stands against their SSM argumentation.
Sometime ago, Barry wrote a "gotcha" type blogpost in which he brought up "cis-gender" theory as somehow debunking the writings of Robert George et al on marriage's core meaning. That blogpost of Barry's is a startling example of the jargon-filled, domineering, and dismissive approach that features prominently in SSM rhetoric, far and wide. He was answered with a proper dressing-down.
I'll look for the links to that exchange. No doubt Barry is most proud of his part in it. Heh.
Technically you can't be a troll on your own blog, but with Barry he's itching for you to respond. It not even if his points are weak or strong, he sounds paranoid. And that's is what I've encountered through out life, that of course not all gay people or gay marriage supporters are paranoid, but they can be. It can happen with any subject.
ReplyDeleteI actually like to discuss with individuals who can compose their thoughts without disparaging the other side are actually more willing to hear out the differences we have. If they're sane, the more likely you'll stay sane.
I can't think of one post that Barry could defend in any way that would be considered reasonable.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite was the day he posted about legalizing drugs as a way to save marriage, and also legalizing selling your own body organs as a way to get cash if you really want/need it.
To be honest while Family Scholars does a lot of good work, I'm ashamed of them because of what kind of people they have writing there.
Barry offered his version of the SSM idea and his fellow SSMers at FSB are on board with it.
ReplyDeleteOf course, they also think this SSM idea is the only fair marriage idea. All others must be subordinated as merely personal views or religious views of marriage.
We, it seems, live in a different universe than them. And they may be right. Heh.
See, they have knocked Robert George for having defended the marriage idea; they complain that George would impose the one idea over and above all other views.
Barry's approach is openly hypocritical. There is a conflict of ideas. He called my saying so, jargon. Phil chimed in to back-up Barry. Together they brilliantly forgot that one of their hosts at FSB has described the conflict much the way I had.
And David Blankenhorn and myself are not alone in this approach to the actual disagreement between SSMers and marriage defenders.
Also note that the ordinary American who supports marriage and opposes the imposition of the SSMidea, well, they understand the basics very well. When a marriage defenders uses very plain language to describe this marriage idea, the SSMers nitpick and whine about how it seems too simplistic. But when they are met with a thoroughly substantiated argument, they whine and moan that it is too intellectual.
The more intellectually inclined marriage defenders merely amplify the ordinary understanding the marriage. There is no actual split. Barry has it wrong, again.
It's interesting that you say that. I used to comment occasionally on the Opine Editorials, but I stopped because a moderator on this blog told me that he would delete my comments unless I said what he wanted me to say. It wasn't just a situation where he told me to stop posting; rather, he specifically instructed me to address certain issues in a manner that suited him if I wanted to continue the discussion.
ReplyDeletehe would delete my comments unless I said what he wanted me to say
ReplyDeleteAnd just what was that? What was the concern and how were you directed to address it?
On Lawn,
ReplyDeleteDoes it matter? When a moderator on a site, in the context of an argument or discussion, tells dissenting commenters that they must write what he wants them to write, isn't that a step beyond telling commenters not to post any more?
Somehow, Phil, I knew you wouldn't say. As with all of your arguments, they work much better in abstract than in the reality of the situation :)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePhil, please watch your profanity. I know you are frustrated and think Opine is odious, but it is exactly such odious verbiage that we don't allow here.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePhil, once again you accuse instead of actually doing something meaningful. Sorry, deleted.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOh, and Phil, regarding your issue with responding to Chairm. Send us a front page post that you want to use to reply, and you'll be given open reign in that thread.
ReplyDeleteAs it is, you are banned from the general comment section for the reasons explained in the other thread.
You'll win the debate by being honest about yourself and what is actually going on. You won't win by handing out baseless accusation after another hoping to divert us from scrutinizing your posts.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSure, just make a comment and say "this is for the front page". This is true for anyone on Opine, actually. We do have some editorial standards, but for the most part if you avoid profanity and answer Chairm's question, you won't need to worry about them.
ReplyDeleteThe comment will be deleted, but the content will be posted to the front page.
Just note, we've had this policy for a while, and you've been notified of it before.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe full editorial guidelines is that it has to be about marriage (on topic for the site) or issues directly related to marriage. No profanity. Description of sexual activity relayed in any way that can be construed as a how-to manual is not allowed. Only in pure medical terms is it every entertained.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, John Howard has availed of that opportunity. If you don't believe me ask him.
I won't delete it until it is posted or you re-write it on your own accord in a new comment. But I won't post it while there may be and editorial discussion going on, which will be public for everyone to see.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePhil you are banned from commenting. Your probation was already outlined to you. That is an extra-ordinary circumstance that you and others share.
ReplyDeleteHowever we do allow an outlet if you wish to make a front page post outlining your points on marriage, with the editorial guidelines above.
Sorry that should have read "you and a few others" share.
ReplyDeleteJust to go down the list again...
John Howard, for trying to make every thread about a single topic.
John Hosty, for trying to phish people's addresses, talking about how much he likes to shoot "vermin" like Opine Editorials, and wanting gays to wear pink triangles, and other creepy behavior.
Sean and Phil for complete disregard of intellectual honesty. When in the course of events their comments start to contradict or they make absolutely provable errors (anything to make the point of the moment) and they simply ignore recognizing those contradictions or errors, you know they are punch drunk. Time to throw in the towel and let them regroup their thoughts and try for something more consistent and coherent.