In which a Fundie gets sexist and Ely gets pissed

[Eilonnwy]

So sometimes I enter debates on examiner.com, which can be challenging given the character limit, but I try! Anyway I got into an argument with a Richmond Evangelical guy about US history and how our laws aren't founded on Christianity or the 10 commandments. Anyway, he tries to prove his case by pointing to examples in colonial times and then adds this nugget:

You are a nice looking lady. However, from what I am reading of your words, you seem to have caustic character. Why not be a person whom people will remember for the beauty you may bring to the world rather than be a bag of worms whom during life had the character fitting of such a description?

To which I exploded with:

As for the way I look, that has nothing do with my arguments, which you have failed to sufficiently respond to. Stop your hand waving and respond to my points, not my picture. Your comments are offensive, and not because you compared my character to a bag of worms, but because you seem to somehow think objectifying me is at all appropriate in the discussion we are having. I could care less about what you think of my personality. Respond to my arguments, or is it too hard for you to deal with a woman who can think for herself? Is that what counts as an ugly personality? Someone who tries to be intellectually honest and engage people in open debate?

What kind of woman suits my looks? Should I stay at home and make my man sandwiches and tend to the children? Shall I worry myself with matters of tea and cookies, not God because he's too big and complicated for little ol' me to understand?

This is how you respond to a woman & you're someone who is supposedly Good with God? You disgus

I got cut off and examiner.com won't let me fix it. It's supposed to be "You disgust me". However, my friend Zak thinks it's perfect, like I got cut off in a fit of rage. XD

Also, he added his own comments which I loved:

Is this Richmond poster James Leasure? Whoever, the poster is mistaken in his interpretation of our legal system. I don't want to discourage your efforts to engage him/her in discussion, Jackie, but to be frank my interest in educating him was dramatically weakened when he/she suggested that a pretty girl like you should shut off her brain.

I've been getting into these kind of debates for about a year now. I can get heated and passionate about my arguments, but this was the first time I felt absolute rage in a debate. I've dealt with sexism before, and every time it makes me so angry that I see red. This is the first time it's happened in a debate.

I await his response, no idea if I'll continue talking with him. If you want to read the whole debacle it's here: http://www.examiner.com/x-8776-Boston-At...vandalized

You have to read from the bottom up, because examiner.com posts the most recent comment first.

[Autumnlicious]

You did well.

Most people at one point get angry during a "debate". Or discussion. What happens next decides on how your audience sees you. You definitely hit the nail on the proverbial head, so to say. Keep on fighting and flaming. Sometimes idiots need to be burned, other times it is for your own blood pressure's sake.

I trashed a pair of Christians who tried to convert me while I was tabling for my local secularist and skeptic club. Apparently, it was such a route that I scared away a freshman who spent too much time playing nice to those clowns.

[fr0d0]

Well said Elie. What a plonker.

[Rhage]

I'd say you put him in his place. Good on you for calling him on objectifying you. What an asshole.

This is what people who have no basis for a return argument do, they find something insignificant and harp on that, hoping to divert you from the original subject. Please, after you're done fueling your rage over the pretty girl comments, don't forget to go back and trounce him on the original debate topic. Make it a clean sweep.

[Eilonnwy]

Oh I responded to his points before ripping him a new asshole for his sexism. They were weak and easily refuted.

[Minimalist]

Eilonnwy, I don't know why you would expect one of those assholes to be less of an asshole on any other topic.

[/quote]

[Rhage]

Oh I responded to his points before ripping him a new asshole for his sexism. They were weak and easily refuted.

Good!

[Meatball]

I just can't believe someone would say that. It's so blatantly mysogynisitic and shallow.

I mean, did he really think that was a valid response to refute your arguments or support his? Was he just giving up and trying to piss you off?

[leo-rcc]

That reminds me, I was listening to one of the Boston Atheists podcasts (well I had downloaded 2, but one was so soft I couldn't understand a thing) where one made a great comment on ripping up posters. Can't remember what it was though.

[Eilonnwy]

That reminds me, I was listening to one of the Boston Atheists podcasts (well I had downloaded 2, but one was so soft I couldn't understand a thing) where one made a great comment on ripping up posters. Can't remember what it was though.

Yeah for some reason, the one I wasn't on had terrible sound. Proof that the podcast revolves around me.


ANYWAY! Zach was talking about ripping down posters that had to do with "Womans concern" whose agenda was to get vulnerable woman to keep their baby when they are in an unfortunate situation. He finds it morally reprehensible, therefore he removes it and makes a point to tell others why when they ask. He thinks that people who vandalize for the sake of vandalizing are not worth your time. But if someone vandalized an atheist poster because they found it morally reprehensible, then he wants to talk to that person.

P.S. I'm pushing for better audio equipment.

---

I just can't believe someone would say that. It's so blatantly mysogynisitic and shallow.

I mean, did he really think that was a valid response to refute your arguments or support his? Was he just giving up and trying to piss you off?

No idea. He did reply back.

I never said, pretty. I said you are a nice looking lady. The same can not be said for how you innitially came at me with a caustic sense of seething hatred for people who are not atheist. Your attitude is plainly characterized by your words.
If you were more polite, I would not be "describing" your character as being fitting to belong to a bag of worms. You started it. If you don't like how I define what you have presented, be nice.
And I no longer care about proving my point. Colonist are the came here to begin a new way of life. In the 1600's a state, (you still have not told me what I want to know) was founded for the very purpose of being free of religious bias. The Mayflower compact has nothing to do with separation of church and State.
Now, is it not amazing how much more caustic you have grown in your resentment of my description of what you have shown me? In the end, we will all be a bag of worms. It is what we leave to our fellow man that matters. Not ugliness.

Saying your a nice looking lady is the only way I can describe your visual appearance. I could have said, "you are a lady who looks like you are nice". But, you know that is not how we extend verbage when we are trying to say something about character via appearances. You really got that whole idea twisted.
My thought was to say, you look like you could be a nice lady. That would have been the best way to phrase it. I did not think of it til now..However, you should have been able to put that together when I contrasted your character to your false appearances in your picture. If you had some respect for the people who want to come and read your post, instead of belittling them, you would not have had me telling you how deceptive you appear.
I don't like hurting people. For that, I am truly sorry. Your attitude gave me a false sense of what I could write. Usually, people with bad attitudes have more fortitude. You should not be so nasty if you have thin skin.

To which I said:

Your response is completely nonsensical.

First, We were discussing the laws and foundation of the US constitution and you bring up colonies, it's irrelevant!

As for what you said, I was offended because it was sexist. Apparently you feel like people who disagree with you are insulting. You should develop some thicker skin if you can't argue with someone who disagrees with you and bring their gender into it in such an insulting and demeaning way.

I have no interest in speaking with someone who thinks they have a right to make such chauvinistic comments because I don't agree with you and I'm assertive in my arguments. It should never have come up.

Nothing else you said deserves a response, I'm done with this conversation.

He has not posted a response.