My Atheism and Religion galleries came with an expectation I'd be seeing a few individuals complaining against horrible subjects like gay rights and the folly of indoctrinating children. Since I also expected bullshit arguments using every logical faux-pas in the book, I posted an extra two galleries on Creationist Fallacies, and even a blog highlighting the answers to some of the more dumb questions obvious detractors to these subjects ask.
Stupid peeps coming back was also expected. But tonight I got a special treat: blog section regular Letemdangle. Now, usually it's easy to see where comments are going by who's making them, what's being said, and how these people are stuck like glue to your media. But there's nothing sadder than watching a supposed grown, mature man revert to a 12 year old over pictures on a website repeated a billion times across the net, all in an attempt to make a point about how I'm the one he feels sad for.
Since several fallacies (naturally) I had covered he employed for his purposes, I figured it a good time to further illustrate examples of what NOT to do if you expect anyone to see validation in your argument:
27 makes you out to be a hypocrite, by the statements you make against religious people, like, "Stupid, idiots, I hate them, etc...Kind of hate speech there too. It's good to have a cause, but this is a useless exercise, all it does is demonstrate your hatred for all things and all people who see things differently.
It's obvious he hit my gallery expecting to get pissed, and got what he wanted. As a result, for some reason he feels the need to make me hear about it over the simple choice to skip to other media instead.
First off, this is the #27 pic that got him heated:
A brilliant choice of words aimed at those closed-off to simple concepts far removed from religious-based arguments that would refute the saying above. That much is clearly obvious. Of course, it's also a good reminder to avoid judgement, deception, and plain making shit up so you can look good.
Dangle finds a need to quote me on my religious views for his own means in comment. In this case, shifting those quotes to a different context altogether, from religion to "all things and people who see things differently."
Now the quote mining references don't cover this, but I believe it to be under the same umbrella when those supposed quotes don't exist to begin with, to the best of my knowledge.
Appeal to Authority.
Keep in mind even Richard Dawkins wrote, "A supreme being probably doesn't exist", not that he doesn't exist and he too was against abortion, because it is just wrong.
Not only quote mining again, but he seems it convenient to cite a great mind like Dawkins as a means for turning the proverbial tables on the bad anti-creationist person.
Of course, the quote is taken out of context via selective paraphrasing. Not only is Dawkins' career famous for his denial of a supreme being, but he has been asked outright if he doesn't completely rule out the idea of a supreme being, to which he replied, "You can think so, if you think there's an opening for the tooth fairy." On that note...
It was suspect abortion would come up in the same sentence as Richard Dawkins. And it wasn't hard for me to spot (duh) that Dawkins' supposed anti-abortion stance is completely fabricated.
In discussion he tends to avoid the issue entirely, but is not shy on admonishing those who stand against women's reproductive rights and equates those who kill abortion doctors to Osama bin Laden.
Conveniently, right about here is where Heisenburg comes in with his two cents. The two proceed to discuss me on their own, as though a second fool getting involved makes the first one's bullshit valid. As we see with this fallacy, it wouldn't mean anything different if 100 of them were there. It's still made-up shit. Which brings me to...
The Ad-hominem Attack.
I guess when you are a dirty freeloading idiotic hipster, that is the way it has to be.
I think I've passed maybe four words with this guy in my 6 years here. Plus, I hate hipsters. Seeing as how I'm not even familiar enough to this dude for my character to come into question, it brings us to a different point:
I tried to state from the get-go I wasn't in the mood for going over everything wrong with every transparently religious/right-wing/homophobic/anti-woman/God-fearing/conservative asshole that comes by with every easily-recognizable tactic for shitty argument in the book. But to the same few people, it falls on deaf ears.
This is the reason the problem doesn't stem with me. To be honest? Like I've said in comments, I'm simply on a gallery kick these past few weeks. And as with all my atheism/religion posts, I choose them because they're of interest to me, and A LOT of people.
Sorry if it bothers you -- but I happen to stand for certain convictions like gay and women's rights, moderately detest most Republicans today, and could give a fuck about religious views and how "right" you think they are. If you don't like the subject matter, MOVE ON.
I'm not going to be converted, I will not reconsider creationism as an "equal and opposite possibility" (because it is not), and I'm not interested in pseudo-science. Fact is simply that, whether it makes you feel icky or not. It doesn't make me bigoted, a liar, hate-filled, incompetent, closed-minded, or anything else you make up about someone you don't know for challenging your fairy tale values. That kinda shit is what my galleries point out. The more you speak this way, the more you prove every quote, fact, fallacy, and idea being relayed.
And yes dangle, that ironically includes the very quote that got you mad, for being the type of person who'd maliciously ascribe it to anyone but YOU.