Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tjhammer

Bestiality, Women's Underwear and the Slippery Slope away from my point of view

Recommended Posts

Let me be very clear, my first post was not intended as a personal attack on DedDad or anyone else. It was an observation about the style of debate used by him (and often you Rooster, and a few others). It was also an observation that what you so often state to be "the way it is" or "the way it ought to be" relies on a dangerous, slippery slope theory that simply isn't reality.

 

That said, this post will go a step further, and for the first time since I joined this board, I will actually use a little of that "moral equivalency" that DedDad relies on (hence, "bestiality, womens underwear and the slippery slope").

 

 

There is some deeper purpose to my thread, or direction that I expected it to go. Frankly, NJCubScouter and I agree on another thing: it is a good thing to have DedDad arguing so strongly against me on any issue; some people, I think, will rally to him and believe completely what he says. Many more people, I think, are simply disgusted by what and how he argues, and as a result they have difficulty "relating" to his point of view. It's sort of like saying "well, I don't know if Im comfortable allowing a gay Scout leader to take my boy camping, but I sure don't have the level of hate or fear that this other guy espouses". DedDad, I think, has a way of driving at least as many people away from his point of view as he does drawing people toward his point of view.

 

I have a friend who lives in Topeka, KS. Most of you probably don't know another infamous resident of that city. Reverend Fred Phelps and his "church" of followers are vehemently against homosexuality. Their tactic is extreme, by any measure. They're the group you often see in the news that shows up an funerals where a gay person has died with protest signs and bullhorns shouting "he's burning in hell now!". Their church's web site is www.GodHatesFags.com (I warn anyone reading, it's hardly worth your time to read the repulsive garbage at this web site, I only provide the link for those with a curiosity). For at least the last decade, they have wrapped themselves in the Leviticus Bible verse and used that to claim their moral ways.

 

DedDad immediately lumps anyone who believes the BSA is wrong in their position on gays into the same group: we're all radical gay activists, we're all morally bankrupt, or we are just horribly mislead and confused. If I were allowed the same hyperbole as DedDad, I would ask how far way from Reverend Fred Phelps is he? Isn't DedDads message the same, even if delivered slightly less offensively? How far away from cheering at someone's funeral is DedDad? Worse yet, how far away from that is the BSA?

 

Frankly, I'm not worried about DedDad's views, or Fred Phelp's views. They're entitled to see the world however they want. And I think both of them destroy their own credibility without need for too much help from others. Their extreme tactics are sometimes used by people even closer (slightly) to the mainstream; let's never forget Rev Falwell and Rev Pat Robertson blaming gays and liberals for the terrorist attack, and saying that God allowed it to happen because he hates how permissive we've become with gays. (Two days after the attacks on national television.)

 

And there in is really the biggest problem. Whatever the percentage of people inside Scouting that believe the current policy is correct, I think we can all (nearly) agree that very few of those folks can relate to DedDad, Rev Phelps or Rev Falwell's tactics or extreme view on the matter.

 

But as an organization, we're basically allowing that faction to speak for us. Arguably, those of us who oppose the policy should be happy that the other side can not string together a consistent, intellectual argument without using name calling, scare tactics and the slippery slope of moral equivalency. But I can take no satisfaction really in knowing that DedDad speaks for me as an organization. I can take no satisfaction knowing that his message, or the message of Rev Phelps, or the message of Rev Falwell and a "vengeful God" is the one that we're teaching 4 million youth members of our organization.

 

There's a slippery slope all right, on both sides of this issue. Before you know it, one day you wake up and realize that you've some how ended up in a pit of hate, fear, ignorance and bigotry that you never really intended to be in, and you wonder who this guy is thats speaking on your behalf.

 

 

(This message has been edited by tjhammer.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me be very clear, my first post was not intended as a personal attack on DedDad or anyone else. Well I hope everyone doesnt base their opinion of you on the validity of these words, telling the truth is not a priority of yours is it? I will actually use a little of that "moral equivalency" that DedDad relies on Im happy to take on the moral equivalency of the afford mentioned, I believe there a lot of BSA families who happily wear the label. Though I dont necessarily agree with Jerry Tele tubby Falwell, Pat Im Channeling your pain Robertson and your friend Rev. I know what God thinks Phelps, we do al have one thing in common, Homosexuality is wrong and to help those who practice the behavior find help.

 

Dont be fooled by his analogy of my arguments, if you read them you will find they havethe usual talking points used by GLAAD and the other homosexual lobby groups. His, like GLAAD, et al, tactics are to interject key words like hate, bigotry, and name-calling in the labels of those who oppose their agenda. For instance: but I sure don't have the level of hate or fear that this other guy espouses". that the other side can not string together a consistent, intellectual argument without using name calling, realize that you've some how ended up in a pit of hate, and fear and bigotry The fatal flaw in their argument and tactics lies in the transitive aspects of their words. All there buzzwords rely on labeling the individual and not the action or behavior. I would ask anyone interested in reviewing my comments to produce one time Ive name-called, directed hate towards, or been bigoted to the individual and not the behavior. I will point out here, for those unaware, bigotry by definition cannot be against behavior. Anyway, these labels are right out of the pro-homosexual propaganda playbook and should be taken as such. I would ask how far way from Reverend Fred Phelps is he? Isn't DedDads message the same, even if delivered slightly less offensively? How far away from protesting at someone's funeral is DedDad? That would be pretty far indeed. I dont claim to know what god is thinking, nor would i. Weve all heard the verse Judge not lest you be judged, which speaks to whether you should claim to know Gods opinion of your destiny. This doesnt mean we shouldnt judge right and wrong while on earth, indeed its up to us to know what is right and wrong and not allow it into our lives. Youll notice tjs has struggled with the truth in the past because hes tried to associate me with knowing Gods intent, for example: I can take no satisfaction knowing that his (DD) message, or the message of Rev Phelps, or the message of Rev Falwell and a "vengeful God" , I make no claim to know His end. I think we can all (nearly) agree that very few of those folks can relate to DedDad Not true, see previous post for current polling data. You of all people should change your opinion now, right? All the polls are over the 50% plurality threshold. Anyway youve and NJ have made reference to my use of the nasty vivid imagery associated with the practice and from your perspective you think this hurts my cause, I think the opposite, it illustrates the deprave reality of those who define themselves by their sexual acts. It is sick and the more people see its reality the more they will take issue with the behavior. Gotta go now, be back later, see if you can address the previous issues how the practice of perversion is any more or less equal to incest and bestiality and see if you can muster what seems to be a difficult task to declare your orientation. Sorry in advance for all the typos no time to correct.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DedDad, I have created a new thread for you, titled "Why tjhammer lacks any credibility". Like usual, you're trying to shift this current thread. I encourage you to take your debate to this new area, and I'll see ya there. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You fail to understand my earlier statement.

 

I have tried to respond at least five times now and each time I decided not to hit Submit.

 

Let me leave it at this.

 

My earlier statement was in direct response as to how we treat each other as Scouters on this board as of late.

 

I repeat.

 

I am simply disgusted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As DD noted in his last post, the tactic used by TJ and NJ, is one of character assignation. They do not argue for or against any specific statements using logic. Instead, they paint a very ugly picture of the author, their opposition. This is a much easier, and sometimes a very effective way to counter an opposing argument that has intellectual merit.

 

Personally, I would shy away from some of the graphic depictions and/or giving light to the apparent thought processes of the individuals participating in the same. However, DD does successfully convey the depravity of which he speaks. He is the messenger, not the participant. Perhaps, some folks will not make the distinction. Nevertheless, I think the brainpower of most in this country, especially among Scouters, is sufficient enough to see his point and separate the two.

 

While DD has a very blunt debating style, I have not seen him lash out at any individual unless he felt he was unfairly treated. When that has been the case, he clearly specifies the offense for which he is responding to and why. He is, if nothing else, honest in his approach...by some folks reaction, brutally so...but honest nonetheless.

 

Conversely, I don't think TJ and NJ can make the same claim. Time and time again, they prefer to attack the person than address the question. They rather make inferences about a person's character than state facts. When they do use logic, it is usually employed to counter a straw man argument. Misrepresenting DD's position is apparently one of their favorite pastimes. Arguing their position based on the merits of reasoning must not be winnable, because I rarely see examples of that reasoning. Guilt by association is more likely to be brought into play than any valid argument. Of course, it has all the honesty of a wooden nickel, but it can be effective. Apparently, TJ thinks all Christian conservatives support the Reverend Fred Phelps. Here's a tip for you guys. Ask DD if he is has any German ancestry. Perhaps you can link him to Hitler.

 

NJ, you said, Those of us who choose to debate here should be able to handle what goes on, or we can leave. I submit this: DD's debates are well thought out, employs sound reasoning, uses imagery that can be offensive, but above all else - is honest. I don't think you or TJ can say the same, because above all else - I find your debating style to be dishonest. But hey, morality is relative, right? In a few more years, maybe your dishonesty will be viewed as virtuous.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm offended by everything TJ and NJ have said including the completly inappropriate name tj chose for this thread...I think it should not just be stopped but removed. Scouter-Terry, what can done?

I also doubt that either of you truly care about scouting but that you are simply here to promote your own perverse lifestyle. Luckily, most scouters disagree with with your views.

 

DD, I understand that you were personally attacked and you are perfectly justified in defending yourself...however, I don't understand why we keep talking to these two...we know what they are!!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply amazing. In more than 60 posts on this subject on this forum, I have never once resorted to a personal attack; that's pretty much all that I have come to expect from DedDad. All I have EVER argued is the logic of this debate. This thread marks the first divergence from that practice (hmmm, that must be why some think it's so wrong, because it is a perversion of my previous debate style).

 

Rooster, nearly your entire post could be directed right back at you and DedDad.

 

>They do not argue for or against any specific statements using logic.

 

Where is the logic in the arguments you have put forward? Forgive me for oversimplifying (but not misrepresenting) your basic positions: DedDad's "logic" is based completely on one premise, that gay = perversion and perversion = immoral. Though when pressed, there is no "logical" defense offered by him of these leaps. Rooster's "logic" is based completely on one premise (which I do give him credit for stating), that gays are immoral because his religion has taught him that. I have consistently limited every post I have made to only debate this issue on logic.

 

>Instead, they paint a very ugly picture of the author, their opposition.

>This is a much easier, and sometimes a very effective way to counter an

>opposing argument that has intellectual merit.

 

Again, until this thread, this is a tactic that has been used solely by DedDad, Rooster and some others on that side of the debate.

 

>Personally, I would shy away from some of the graphic depictions

 

Wow, in this and another post I'm now being blamed for being too graphic because I used DedDad's words in my subject line. Simply amazing.

 

>While DD has a very blunt debating style, I have not seen him lash

>out at any individual unless he felt he was unfairly treated.

 

That's pretty much all DedDad has ever done in his posts, I'm surprised you have missed that.

 

>TJ and NJ... time and time again, they prefer to attack the person than

>address the question. They rather make inferences about a person's

>character than state facts.

 

Again, amazingly hypocritical. Outside of this current threat, please show the "time and time again" examples of where I have attacked my opponents character. I've limited my debate only to the inconsistencies, illogic or fairness of the policy and arguments made in support thereof.

 

>When they do use logic, it is usually employed to counter a

>straw man argument. Misrepresenting DD's position is apparently one of

>their favorite pastimes.

 

>Arguing their position based on the merits of reasoning must not be winnable

 

Maybe now would be a good time for you to restate, just so we're all clear, what the merits of reasoning are in your debate. It seems, frankly, that you, Rooster, can not make your case without invoking your religious principles (and fair enough, I really, honestly, respect you for claiming such a basis, I just don't think that's a basis suitable for our entire organization). And DedDad's merits of reasoning have been to invoke (though only by stretching) B-P and Webster's dictionary.

 

 

>Guilt by association is more likely to be brought into play than any

>valid argument. Of course, it has all the honesty of a wooden nickel,

>but it can be effective. Apparently, TJ thinks all Christian conservatives

>support the Reverend Fred Phelps.

 

Wow. Rooster, guilt by association is the primary tactic of DedDad. That's pretty much the essence of this thread. If you are opposed to the BSA policy, then you must be a radical gay activist following an agenda of evil. If you are gay, then you are the same as someone who practices bestiality. These are his premises. For the first time in this debate, I have stood up and said "if I can be allowed the same hyperbole as DedDad" I would associate him with Fred Phelps. Suddenly, guilt by association is not a valid tactic.

 

>DD's debates are well thought out, employs sound reasoning, uses imagery that can

>be offensive, but above all else - is honest.

 

Hmmm. I wonder how many others can make that same statement with a straight face.

 

>I don't think you or TJ can say the same, because above all else - I

>find your debating style to be dishonest.

 

For over a month and through hundreds of posts we have debated this issue. The first time that I actually use the debate tactics of my opponents, I'm suddenly indicted for it. You don't see the hypocrisy in your response?

 

>completely inappropriate name tj chose for this thread

 

These were not my words; they were the mantra of DedDad through dozens of posts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have avoided this thread, but I feel compelled to comment on Weekender's comment: "I also doubt that either of you truly care about scouting but that you are simply here to promote your own perverse lifestyle."

Also: "I don't understand why we keep talking to these two...we know what they are!!!"

 

Oh, enlighten us Weekender, don't beat around the bush! And since I have agreed with NJ on the other threads, do you also know what I am?

 

Scouters can disagree with you and still "truly care about scouting." A number of councils have petitioned for a change in this policy. Weekender, is it your position that these councils do not care about scouting?

 

This in the same post where Weekender discusses personal attacks! I can only read this comment to be an assertion that tj and NJ are gay, and they are only here to push a gay agenda. There is no basis for this labeling, and it does not serve any debate. Weekender's comment can only be labeled an attack on the person, an attack that Rooster just condemned. In fact Rooster just posted the following: "Time and time again, they prefer to attack the person than address the question. They rather make inferences about a person's character than state facts." Seems like this is a perfect description of Weekender's last post. I am curious, Rooster, do you also condemn Weekender's attack on NJ and tj, or is an attack by someone who agrees with you OK?

 

To quote Mike Long: "I am simply disgusted."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been trying to stay out of this one, but enough is enough.

What ever TJ and NJ are, guess you can say I'm one too (except I think they are male, and I am female).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It amazes me the amount of time and energy wasted here on these topics when there are boys out there who need Scouting. Come on guys let it go and get back to some real Scouting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weekender figures it all out, and says about tj and me (or is it I):

 

I also doubt that either of you truly care about scouting but that you are simply here to promote your own perverse lifestyle.

 

How did you know? Yes, the 20-year marriage, the 3 kids, the hours spent as a den leader and assistant cubmaster (and before that as a "Girl Scout parent"), it's all a sham and a fraud to cover up the "perverse lifestyle" that I "promote."

 

I mean, it couldn't possibly be that someone who is not "perverse" could be opposed to discrimination against gays, right? And I'm not alone in this deception, it must be a massive conspiracy. After all, if my opinions are evidence of a "perverse lifestyle," then at least 4 U.S. Supreme Court justices, a majority of the New Jersey Supreme Court, most Reform Jewish rabbis, many Christian clergy-members, at least the last 6 governors of my state (mostly Republicans) and a majority of my state legislature during the 90s (mostly Republicans), and many others, have a "perverse lifestyle" as well. All of their spouses and all of their children must be part of the deception also, just part of the charade to cover up their true lifestyle.

 

I'm glad we were able to get that cleared up.

 

(And yes, I know Justice David Souter is a lifelong bachelor and there has been "speculation," but Bush the First never would have appointed a gay Supreme Court justice, would he?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMEN to Featherswilly!

 

This entire topic seems to be always devoted to the gay issues. While it is important, there MUST be other issues pertinent to Scouting we can discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To those who say "there must be other things we can discuss", or words to that effect, I would ask this:

 

Do I tell you how to spend your time? Why do you care how I spend my time? Is someone holding a gun to your head making you read these threads? If you don't want to read them, don't read them.

 

And the fact is that there are plenty of discussions on "day to day" Scouting topics going on at scouter.com -- just not in Issue and Politics. The other day a woman was trying to help her son with his Citizenship in the Nation and several people (including me) joined in. Someone just asked for comments about the new Merit Badge changes and I am waiting to see what other people have to say, so I can learn something. (My only son is still in Webelos.) Uniforms and training are always hot topics and I read them with interest and chime in when I think I have something to say.

 

But when you come into an area that has a warning label saying "this is the area for topics that a lot of people don't want to read about," what do you think you're going to find? A discussion about service stars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take my response about why this debate is so relevant to a new thread. That's an important enough discussion as to not bury in this current thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×