Yes, I become angry when my argument is repeatedly straw-manned even after I have explained what I am and am not saying numerous times, and I see the strawman version gaining momentum. Even now, people are claiming I called you a homophobe (and thus a bigot) simply because I said that there may be unexamined elements of homophobia in your thought processes (and mine, and theirs).
My illustrative analogous example, about the difference between the traditional use of the term "racist" and the actuality of having a culture-shaped thought process that may include some elements of racism, even though the person is not "a racist", was ignored.
The usual time when I have this kind of wall-of-misunderstanding type of argument is when trying to talk about racial bias issues and the culture behind racism, when people will repeatedly say "how dare you call me a racist!!" and assert that I am misusing the term, etc, all as is going on here. It's infuriating, and it's a way of refusing to really look at the issue being raised. Perhaps reading the article "I, Racist" will help to understand why I consider the two issues to be parallel, and why I get so angry at my words being twisted because people are butt-hurt about the suggestion that they might harbor some feelings they have not examined, and which they would expunge from their thought processes if they did examine them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-metta...70652.html
I never called anyone immature. I never called anyone bigot. I never said that anyone should be ashamed of their sexual tastes, nor that they are bad people for not having a particular taste. And yet this keeps being said as if I said it. None of these things are in any way related to what I said.
If you wish to ignore my suggestions/ideas, fine. But please don't turn them into arguments I did not make, and then use the strawman to attack me, and then suggest that I have some kind of problem when I reacted to that attack.
My illustrative analogous example, about the difference between the traditional use of the term "racist" and the actuality of having a culture-shaped thought process that may include some elements of racism, even though the person is not "a racist", was ignored.
The usual time when I have this kind of wall-of-misunderstanding type of argument is when trying to talk about racial bias issues and the culture behind racism, when people will repeatedly say "how dare you call me a racist!!" and assert that I am misusing the term, etc, all as is going on here. It's infuriating, and it's a way of refusing to really look at the issue being raised. Perhaps reading the article "I, Racist" will help to understand why I consider the two issues to be parallel, and why I get so angry at my words being twisted because people are butt-hurt about the suggestion that they might harbor some feelings they have not examined, and which they would expunge from their thought processes if they did examine them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-metta...70652.html
I never called anyone immature. I never called anyone bigot. I never said that anyone should be ashamed of their sexual tastes, nor that they are bad people for not having a particular taste. And yet this keeps being said as if I said it. None of these things are in any way related to what I said.
If you wish to ignore my suggestions/ideas, fine. But please don't turn them into arguments I did not make, and then use the strawman to attack me, and then suggest that I have some kind of problem when I reacted to that attack.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
