30 August 2005

Banging my head up a brick wall!!

I've been arguing with Blimpish and Andrew over at the Sharpener, about their extreme views on abortion. Like 6% of the population they want to ban it!

This went on for 2 days, despite reluctantly agreeing with most of the points that I made, they wouldn't budge an inch.

It's totally worn me out and its made me realise that trying to change people's opinions with facts is like banging your head up a brick wall.

From my experience, I question how much they live up to their claim 'Debate without dogma, arguments with edge. Politics without the party lines'.

27 comments:

  1. You won't get much joy from Andrew, I suspect. For someone who seems to believe that 200,000 murders of utterly innocent, completely defenceless humans occur in Britain each year two posts on the subject, out of 250+ total, seems a little lax. Especially as in March he was "not really in favour of legislating on what should be an issue of conscience" (everyone can change their mind, I guess. Just not very much.) In fact on nontrivialsolutions he posted as much about George Galloway as he did abortion - i.e. once.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Neil: The points you made that I agreed with have nothing to do with abortion, nor my views on it. They're spurious side issues relating to animal rights, capital punishment, God and the ability of men to empathise with women. If you posted something on the subject, I could argue with you.

    Paul: I'm a pragmatist. I recognise the law isn't likely to change. Why waste the effort? As you noted, I've changed my position on this issue through rational debate with sensible people. Sniping about me on someone else's weblog doesn't fit that bill. If you've got something to say, why not come to The Sharpener, and let all of our readers read it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also Neil, for someone so concerned with the selective use of statistics, you don't seem concerned with your own culpability. Like 58% of the population, I want tighter controls on abortion. Are statistics only useful when they back up your prejudice and bigotry?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ah, so you packed up your toys and went home, eh?

    You are possibly the most pompous, ignorant blogger I've encountered this side of the Atlantic


    What happened to playing the ball, not the man?

    Most people would have realised that after 180 or so comments, a blog discussion will be about 99% heat and 1% light, as the above sniping demonstrates.

    Perhaps everyone involved should publish a new post outlining their position, so that we can see if they've learned anything from the discussion?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Paul, Well said mate!

    Andrew, I'm going to do a post on where we ended up in the 'debate' at the sharpener, soon. I admit I outlined my views and your position in a stark way, but I only said stuff that was true. Offence was taken because you think religion should be above criticism!

    I only brought these 'spurious side issues' into the debate, to highlight the inconsistency of your abortion views and supporting capital punishment and animal experimentation and the lack of rational reasoning of basing arguments on religion.

    Like I say in this post, all surveys have to treated with caution. Which doesn't mean they are not useful but have to closely scrutinised. For instance you can have surveys which 'in their headlines' depending on the bias of the publisher, vary support for legal abortion from 40% as you suggest up to 70% as I would suggest, but when you look at the way the question is worded it tells you why this is so. I'm only interested in surveys that are neutrally worded (as far as that is possible!).

    Blimpish, it is very simple. You got upset because what I said was too close to the knuckle. But it was still true! Its not my problem that stark facts about what you believe offend you.

    If I heard voices in my head, I'd be very worried and go to the doctor, you would think it was instructions from God!

    This is why religion is so dangerous! It obliterates rational debate.

    If a bunch of people went about claiming little green men are going to beam them into the sky, they would be given short shrift, but when its religion claiming equally ridiculous things, we are supposed to 'respect' their beliefs and handle them with kid gloves incase we 'offend' them. Well I find religion deeply offensive!

    I had religion rammed down my throat when I was a kid when I could have been learning something far more useful!

    I think religion should be open to the same rational criticism as anything else!

    I only dismiss people as bigots and irrational if that is what their arguments suggest. (Although I never used the word bigot, Blimpish seems to have called himself this), and I try never to personally abuse people like Andrew and Blimpish did with me.

    B4L I think your comment about 99% heat and 1% light is correct. Cheers.

    As for casual use of evidence, I always try to back up stats with links and most people who complain just disagree with my interpretation of those stats, not the stats themselves.

    By the way, I didn't just leave the debate, after 2 days of arguing, I've just had a rest and gone and done something else for a bit. Banging your head up a brick wall is hard work!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Neil: I look forward to it. But this is incorrect:

    Offence was taken because you think religion should be above criticism!

    No, I think religion should be subject to criticism. I just didn't think you were doing it very well. Talk of voices in people's heads is just childish.

    I only brought these 'spurious side issues' into the debate, to highlight the inconsistency of your abortion views and supporting capital punishment and animal experimentation and the lack of rational reasoning of basing arguments on religion.

    Which you have so far failed to do, as we've happily explained the points where you claim we're inconsistent. Additionally, my argument isn't based on religion. As I keep saying, I am an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Andrew, sorry, the religious argument was for Blimpish not you. I know you are an atheist.

    Although I was crude about religion, I was only stating what they believe.

    Personally I think both you and me should be more crude about religion. As Monty Python showed, the potential for ridicule is enormous!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Andrew, as for the capital punishment/ abortion consistency discussion, you now say this;

    "The point is that consistency leads to all sorts of logical dead-ends. It doesn’t alter the strength of an argument."

    Which is basically a round about way of saying. 'YES, I am being inconsistent'.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not really - just that the 'inconsistency' that you highlight is only from your point of view. As I've said before, I don't see my views as inconsistent. I've also tried to explain why I think that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh come on, Andrew, please! What do you take people for?

    Why would you point out that consistency doesn't affect your argument, if you weren't admitting you were being inconsistent?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Blimpish, if I've lost the argument, why has Andrew changed his position on abortion closer to mine?

    ReplyDelete
  12. You haven't answered any of the points, you've just gone on and on about what you have read. Just answer the points I made.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "If you can't understand the responses, maybe that's your problem."

    This comment just doesn't go anywhere. I'm not going to go down the route of personal abuse.

    You keep throwing these insults, keep 'em coming! It is the arguments that matter to me, I don't need to personally abuse someone to win an argument.

    Andrew has moved closer to my position on abortion since we started the debate, you cannot deny this.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Blimpish, this is ridiculous. Apart from mis-representing points. I had many more points than that, that were developed over the 2 day discussion. In all that time you are trying to make out that I come up with no valid points.

    Andrew changes his position (and admits a moral victory for the other side) and yet you still cling to this line of 'no change'.

    If he hasn't gone and deleted even more of my comments, people can clearly see how Andrew has admitted he was inconsistent to argue for capital punishment AND anti-choice on abortion.

    I can understand after calling me an idiot and lots of other insults, why you wouldn't want to admit that you were wrong, but this is ridiculous!

    Another thing, religious people are irrational. There is no evidence for God, but you believe it anyway, how rational is that?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Neil: Andrew changes his position (and admits a moral victory for the other side).

    If it helps, this comment was flippant. In the course of a fairly sensible discussion with Ilona, it was a reference to being open minded.

    ReplyDelete
  16. No it wasn't! You were stating you had changed your position on abortion.

    You are trying to re-write history here because you don't want to admit defeat to someone you've labelled an 'idiot'.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "I'm with Einstein, Newton, Kant, Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Alfarabi, Arvo Ponzias, Charles Darwin (sometimes), etc, etc. You're with Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. Good luck, sugar"

    Talk about rational argument. How rational is this? To claim Darwin as on your side is ridiculous, because much as he tried to match the idea of a god with the evidence he was finding, he found it impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Darwin's revulsion at a parasitic wasp and the inconsistency of such cruelty with any providential design is how I remember him, this seems more relevant.

    But fair play you did say 'sometimes', however ridiculous, you are right. I mean I suppose I 'sometimes' agreed with you as well about the existence of God, in my un-enlightened past.

    ReplyDelete
  19. No it wasn't! You were stating you had changed your position on abortion.

    But I haven't. I've just changed my position on the law. I still think abortion is morally wrong, equivalent to murder, and should be banned outright as soon as possible. Let me try to explain it in terms you might understand: What did you think of the Iraq war at the time it started?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Look, Andrew I know who is being honest here. If you can live with your lies, then fine. Goodbye!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Blimpish, Darwin was scared to utter his theory for many years because he knew the implications for religion. So don't give me this, 'he was on your side' rubbish. In those days, your lot threatened anyone with serious punishment if they renounced God. In those circumstances even I would keep quiet.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Blimpish, It mattered to Darwin what people thought. Especially his devout wife. Thats all that matters. Keep trying to rewrite history and distort argument, but I don't believe a word you say, anymore!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yes, I heard Darwin in my head, Blimpish. And he's telling me to tell you to ***k off!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Better keep your promise and go see the doctor, Neil. Unless you think it might be God?

    ReplyDelete
  25. You guys, are so funny!! NOT! You think you are so clever, but it is the people in life who don't think they are clever who really are. Think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Blimpish, you should know by now that I don't censor people's views so I can win an argument, unlike some people.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Read your own post for your answer as to who claims to be clever, You fell into that trap like a dream.

    ReplyDelete

Pages