(August 3, 2016 at 9:08 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:I said he was being dogmatic about something else, not about abortions.(August 3, 2016 at 9:02 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: I understand nuance as much as the next person, but there are certain topics, it seems, that certain people can't help but be dogmatic about, just like you are about this. I have stated a very innocuous position, one you would agree with if not for the fear inculcated in you by a regressive culture. I notice you didn't directly address anything I said, but continued to talk about what you think I'm doing and how this is really about you or me somehow - diversion tactics, plain and simple. I'm still waiting for this wisdom of yours you like to allude at so much.
Bold mine. EP, this is why I asked you before if condescension comes naturally to you. It seems like whenever someone disagrees you immediately insult them, then say something about how they're being dishonest or deliberately obfuscating their point (like you said to Bennyboy in the Agnostics thread), or you claim that your viewpoint is clearly correct and something is preventing them from seeing your obviously correct stance (like with Ham here).
It's only exacerbated when you admit just a couple posts ago that you "aren't the most informed" about abortions, and yet you accuse Ham of being dogmatic and claim that you are flatly and blatantly correct.
Criticism serves its purposes. Dishonesty takes a lot of forms, a lot of them being disguised as politeness. Except the problem with it is it encourages laziness of thought and a feeling of complacency about one's own ideas.