Confined to Quarters
My Mum's just had a perfume party or something here, so the whole house stinks. I had to spend all of the day in my room so that I didn't intrude. I spent the day writing out a justification for my position against homosexual marriage - it took me several hours. I went to great lengths to provide references and to be as reasonable as possible in everything that I wrote. Some bloke on a forum specifically asked for my justification for my opinion, and I didn't expect for a moment that he would be convinced by my argument, but my intention was to get him to realise that some of us do have reasons for opposing homosexuality and that not all of us hate gays. So after spending several hours writing out my justification, taking pains to be as objective and non-inflammatory as possible, I post it - and what do I get for a response?
You must be joking. Fuck off.
What is it about bloody left-wingers that makes them react with such hostility to any mildly conservative opinions? I'm not saying all left wingers are like this because they're not - and even the ones who are like this, I understand have good intentions, and think they are doing a good deed by directing hatred towards conservatives. But they're not. In fact, what they are doing is just as despicable as what they criticise conservatives for - apparently hating gays. Sure, there are some conservatives that do hate gays - but that does not give anyone the right to hate them in return. Even less someone who has gone to lengths to prove that they don't hate gays but instead has legitimate reasons for opposing homosexuality.
The modern world does not value the truth. The truth used to be something people would make great effort to ascertain - to examine all the evidence and reach an objective conclusion based on the most convincing arguments. But not these days. These days the truth is whatever you make it - and this applies equally to liberals and conservatives. None of them have a clue what they are talking about on any issue - they don't examine the facts and reach an objective conclusion, they simply think whatever it pleases them to think. In today's case, this bloke is liberal in the extreme and a homosexual apologist. He reads through my post, doesn't do any research or critical thinking in regards to my arguments, but instead he simply sums it all up by saying "This post is anti-gay, therefore it is wrong. This guy is an intolerant homophobic, therefore he is a dickhead." Oh YEAH, real objective stuff there! It’s laughable that this bloke thinks he has an informed view on anything. It wouldn’t have mattered what the hell I wrote, the fact that it conflicted with his preconceived ideology meant that he dismissed it right from the first passage. I suppose he’s done research on this subject and actually has knowledge about it? Of course he bloody hasn’t. Because he has an opinion, that therefore makes him an instant expert on the psychology of sexuality? Of course he wouldn’t know the first thing about the psychology of sexuality - not that I’m claiming to be an expert by any means, but I have done a hell of a lot of research on this subject and it’s taken a heck of a lot of solid arguments to convince me of this point. But the people who have replied to me wouldn’t have the faintest idea whether what I am saying is true or not - but they immediately dismiss it and say that I am wrong just because it conflicts with their preconceived ideologies. And people aren’t even willing to be reasonable and put up objections, with the intention of evaluating my response with the objection and thereby determining which point of view is more convincing. If they said “This point doesn’t convince me because of blah-blah-blah. What is your response?” Then I would be happy. But instead, their attitude is “Your opinion differs from mine, therefore you are wrong, and you are most likely a dickhead.” An example - last year Thomas wrote something about the art of cinema in which he said that it was necessary to use montage in order for the film to work and so on. I didn’t understand this opinion, because what does it really matter whether you use montage or not if the story sucks? And conversely, if the story is good then it doesn’t matter if the film is visually appalling. Sure, it makes the film better if the visuals are good, but as long as the story is good then it will stand up without good visuals - otherwise why do plays work? So I put this objection to Thomas and his reply didn’t convince me at all. But it doesn’t mean I disagree with him - what the hell right to I have to disagree with someone who has ten times my knowledge on this subject? I find his opinion unfathomable, but I don’t disagree with it because I don’t have the knowledge to. And if I could get into his head for just a moment, then I would see that he finds my opinion unfathomable. So if people genuinely want to know the truth, they must seek to understand others’ opinions and be willing to honestly consider them and understand why that person holds them, rather than just dismissing them with excuses such as “he believes this BS because he is a dickhead.”
If people were willing to have serious intellectual debates about topics, then there would never be any reason for me to become arrogant or get angry with others. I do get angry and arrogant with others because so few people are willing to be cool-headed, objective and reasonable about issues. Instead all they are willing to do is jump to conclusions about others, insult them and dismiss their opinions without even considering them. There are some people with whom I completely disagree on certain issues, yet because they are reasonable about discussing such issues, I never become arrogant or angry with them - I simply state my opinion and listen to the other person’s. And if I disagree with the other person’s opinion, I respectfully tell them why. I disagree with Richard on certain issues, for example, yet I never even raise my voice when discussing matters with him because he’s able to have a civilised discussion and be reasonable about my opinions. He also recognizes that 99% of people have good intentions, and that even though he might find a person’s opinion utterly unfair, they most likely hold that opinion for reasons other than evil.
That’s why I find it funny when people call me a conservative arsehole, as though I hate gays or whoever just because I disagree with what they do. Because anyone who knows me knows that I wouldn’t hurt a fly, and that I’m way too busy brooding over my many, many inadequacies to begin directing ill-will towards others because of theirs. This is not to claim any degree of righteousness, but merely to reject the charges others make against me of hating gays and so on. I don’t even direct ill-will towards the people on newsgroups who call me an arsehole. As I wrote earlier - they do this with good intentions, honestly believing that they are standing up for good by condemning perceived evil. But isn’t it funny how people are constantly accusing me of being judgmental towards others - gays or non-Catholics or whoever it happens to be at the time - getting up on their high horse about rash judgment; yet they will rashly judge me at the drop of a hat by assuming these things just because I’m a conservative and a Catholic.
A couple of weeks ago I was in an argument with someone about sexual abuse within the clergy. This person began to spout off about how the reason why there was sexual abuse in the clergy is because priests have their sexual desires repressed by the Church, which “demands purity and all that bullshit”. Oh yes, what a thoroughly researched and objective opinion. NOT! Anyone who thinks that is an objective analysis of the situation rather than just anti-Catholic vitriol is obviously in possession of just as many anti-Catholic prejudices as the person making that claim. The person who said that has absolutely zero knowledge of the Catholic Church - he is not a Catholic himself, nor has he ever been - he does not even know what the Church’s laws about sexual purity are. Sexual abuse in the clergy is a complicated issue and there could be a million reasons behind it - and something as complicated as this, with so many potential causes, cannot possibly be explained without a serious and informed analysis of the situation. And yet this person declares himself an instant expert on the situation and proclaims that, despite all the many other possible explanations for it - no, the reason for sexual abuse in the Church is because of the Church’s laws on sexual purity, "and all that BS". And if he had actually just bothered to ask a Catholic why the Church demands sexual purity then he would get a thorough justification for it. But instead, without bothering to wait for a Catholic’s explanation for the necessity of sexual purity - he goes straight ahead and declares it BS without even waiting to hear what Catholics have to say in favour of it. And if he had’ve been the slightest bit objective, and had’ve had the least bit of knowledge about what kind of training priests get in order to counter sexual desires, then he could not possibly argue that this causes sexual abuse. Priests are given comprehensive training on how to switch their minds off whenever sexual temptations enter their thoughts. They are shown the necessity and the virtues of sexual purity and the consequences of sexual immorality. Now who the hell in his right mind can argue that restraining and controlling sexual desires causes sexual abuse, rather than cultivating and not restricting sexual desires? That does not make the slightest bit of sense - if you ask this person how to counter the problem of priests not being able to control their sexual desires and having sex with children as a result, by this person’s logic, the answer is not getting priests to once again restrict their sexual desires, but to actually liberate their sexual habits further! Because liberating their sexual habits more will apparently lead to a decrease in the tendency of certain priests to rape children. Whereas, re-establishing a culture of purity, chastity and extinguishing sexual desires as soon as they appear will clearly lead to priests indulging in even more depraved acts of sexual perversion. Give me a break! That is the most backward, illogical purely anti-Catholic argument I have heard in quite a while.
But anyway, I have strayed from the point I was originally making. And for the sake of fairness, I will make mention of another unreasonable habit of arguing - this time, one that is mostly used by conservatives. Dismissing the opposition under meaningless titles such as “do-gooders” or “tree-huggers” and so on. Calling someone a do-gooder is utterly meaningless and unobjective, it ignores the points the person was making (which may have been good points) in favour of what amounts to a vacuous ad hominem. It is also based upon the subjective prejudices the person has against the kind of opinions that are held by “do-gooders”.
So the next time you’re in an argument with someone who holds an opinion that you find so utterly unfathomable that it is beyond your comprehension how anyone could hold it, consider that they feel exactly the same way about you. Shut up for a minute and listen to their opinion - whatever it is and however outrageous it may seem to you - honestly consider it, and try to understand why they hold this opinion. Only when you are willing to do this for each and every issue and to be willing to change every belief you have ever held, will you even approach a state where you can claim to have some knowledge of the truth. It is as though the world at the moment is full of people screaming out their opinions endlessly over the top of each other - never stopping to listen to what anyone else has to say, and never pausing, not even for a moment, to think about what they are going to scream out next before it comes out.
I just got another reply to my justification against homosexuality - “That is the biggest load of crap I’ve ever read in my life” he says. Honestly, how do people expect to come within a bull’s roar of the truth when they maintain that sort of attitude? The old saying is truer than ever - “Man will occasionally stumble upon the truth, but usually he’ll just pick himself up and continue on his way.”
And finally, what I said about “bloody left-wingers” earlier on was unfair, and was actually an example of the sort of thing people in newsgroups do that I was criticising. I wrote that in anger; in fact this whole article has been nothing but an outlet for the anger I felt by the crap that has been directed to me as a result of that post I wrote. And I do feel better having written this. As always, I have attempted to practise what I preach by being as reasonable and objective as possible - conceding even that conservatives are just as likely as left-wingers to be uninformed, possess prejudices against certain arguments or use ad hominems. Have I not been reasonable? I have certainly made every effort to be, and I would like to think I have succeeded. Yet if I posted this on a newsgroup, all I would get in response is a screenful of “piss off, conservative arsehole” replies. Which would only prove the point I am trying to make.
You must be joking. Fuck off.
What is it about bloody left-wingers that makes them react with such hostility to any mildly conservative opinions? I'm not saying all left wingers are like this because they're not - and even the ones who are like this, I understand have good intentions, and think they are doing a good deed by directing hatred towards conservatives. But they're not. In fact, what they are doing is just as despicable as what they criticise conservatives for - apparently hating gays. Sure, there are some conservatives that do hate gays - but that does not give anyone the right to hate them in return. Even less someone who has gone to lengths to prove that they don't hate gays but instead has legitimate reasons for opposing homosexuality.
The modern world does not value the truth. The truth used to be something people would make great effort to ascertain - to examine all the evidence and reach an objective conclusion based on the most convincing arguments. But not these days. These days the truth is whatever you make it - and this applies equally to liberals and conservatives. None of them have a clue what they are talking about on any issue - they don't examine the facts and reach an objective conclusion, they simply think whatever it pleases them to think. In today's case, this bloke is liberal in the extreme and a homosexual apologist. He reads through my post, doesn't do any research or critical thinking in regards to my arguments, but instead he simply sums it all up by saying "This post is anti-gay, therefore it is wrong. This guy is an intolerant homophobic, therefore he is a dickhead." Oh YEAH, real objective stuff there! It’s laughable that this bloke thinks he has an informed view on anything. It wouldn’t have mattered what the hell I wrote, the fact that it conflicted with his preconceived ideology meant that he dismissed it right from the first passage. I suppose he’s done research on this subject and actually has knowledge about it? Of course he bloody hasn’t. Because he has an opinion, that therefore makes him an instant expert on the psychology of sexuality? Of course he wouldn’t know the first thing about the psychology of sexuality - not that I’m claiming to be an expert by any means, but I have done a hell of a lot of research on this subject and it’s taken a heck of a lot of solid arguments to convince me of this point. But the people who have replied to me wouldn’t have the faintest idea whether what I am saying is true or not - but they immediately dismiss it and say that I am wrong just because it conflicts with their preconceived ideologies. And people aren’t even willing to be reasonable and put up objections, with the intention of evaluating my response with the objection and thereby determining which point of view is more convincing. If they said “This point doesn’t convince me because of blah-blah-blah. What is your response?” Then I would be happy. But instead, their attitude is “Your opinion differs from mine, therefore you are wrong, and you are most likely a dickhead.” An example - last year Thomas wrote something about the art of cinema in which he said that it was necessary to use montage in order for the film to work and so on. I didn’t understand this opinion, because what does it really matter whether you use montage or not if the story sucks? And conversely, if the story is good then it doesn’t matter if the film is visually appalling. Sure, it makes the film better if the visuals are good, but as long as the story is good then it will stand up without good visuals - otherwise why do plays work? So I put this objection to Thomas and his reply didn’t convince me at all. But it doesn’t mean I disagree with him - what the hell right to I have to disagree with someone who has ten times my knowledge on this subject? I find his opinion unfathomable, but I don’t disagree with it because I don’t have the knowledge to. And if I could get into his head for just a moment, then I would see that he finds my opinion unfathomable. So if people genuinely want to know the truth, they must seek to understand others’ opinions and be willing to honestly consider them and understand why that person holds them, rather than just dismissing them with excuses such as “he believes this BS because he is a dickhead.”
If people were willing to have serious intellectual debates about topics, then there would never be any reason for me to become arrogant or get angry with others. I do get angry and arrogant with others because so few people are willing to be cool-headed, objective and reasonable about issues. Instead all they are willing to do is jump to conclusions about others, insult them and dismiss their opinions without even considering them. There are some people with whom I completely disagree on certain issues, yet because they are reasonable about discussing such issues, I never become arrogant or angry with them - I simply state my opinion and listen to the other person’s. And if I disagree with the other person’s opinion, I respectfully tell them why. I disagree with Richard on certain issues, for example, yet I never even raise my voice when discussing matters with him because he’s able to have a civilised discussion and be reasonable about my opinions. He also recognizes that 99% of people have good intentions, and that even though he might find a person’s opinion utterly unfair, they most likely hold that opinion for reasons other than evil.
That’s why I find it funny when people call me a conservative arsehole, as though I hate gays or whoever just because I disagree with what they do. Because anyone who knows me knows that I wouldn’t hurt a fly, and that I’m way too busy brooding over my many, many inadequacies to begin directing ill-will towards others because of theirs. This is not to claim any degree of righteousness, but merely to reject the charges others make against me of hating gays and so on. I don’t even direct ill-will towards the people on newsgroups who call me an arsehole. As I wrote earlier - they do this with good intentions, honestly believing that they are standing up for good by condemning perceived evil. But isn’t it funny how people are constantly accusing me of being judgmental towards others - gays or non-Catholics or whoever it happens to be at the time - getting up on their high horse about rash judgment; yet they will rashly judge me at the drop of a hat by assuming these things just because I’m a conservative and a Catholic.
A couple of weeks ago I was in an argument with someone about sexual abuse within the clergy. This person began to spout off about how the reason why there was sexual abuse in the clergy is because priests have their sexual desires repressed by the Church, which “demands purity and all that bullshit”. Oh yes, what a thoroughly researched and objective opinion. NOT! Anyone who thinks that is an objective analysis of the situation rather than just anti-Catholic vitriol is obviously in possession of just as many anti-Catholic prejudices as the person making that claim. The person who said that has absolutely zero knowledge of the Catholic Church - he is not a Catholic himself, nor has he ever been - he does not even know what the Church’s laws about sexual purity are. Sexual abuse in the clergy is a complicated issue and there could be a million reasons behind it - and something as complicated as this, with so many potential causes, cannot possibly be explained without a serious and informed analysis of the situation. And yet this person declares himself an instant expert on the situation and proclaims that, despite all the many other possible explanations for it - no, the reason for sexual abuse in the Church is because of the Church’s laws on sexual purity, "and all that BS". And if he had actually just bothered to ask a Catholic why the Church demands sexual purity then he would get a thorough justification for it. But instead, without bothering to wait for a Catholic’s explanation for the necessity of sexual purity - he goes straight ahead and declares it BS without even waiting to hear what Catholics have to say in favour of it. And if he had’ve been the slightest bit objective, and had’ve had the least bit of knowledge about what kind of training priests get in order to counter sexual desires, then he could not possibly argue that this causes sexual abuse. Priests are given comprehensive training on how to switch their minds off whenever sexual temptations enter their thoughts. They are shown the necessity and the virtues of sexual purity and the consequences of sexual immorality. Now who the hell in his right mind can argue that restraining and controlling sexual desires causes sexual abuse, rather than cultivating and not restricting sexual desires? That does not make the slightest bit of sense - if you ask this person how to counter the problem of priests not being able to control their sexual desires and having sex with children as a result, by this person’s logic, the answer is not getting priests to once again restrict their sexual desires, but to actually liberate their sexual habits further! Because liberating their sexual habits more will apparently lead to a decrease in the tendency of certain priests to rape children. Whereas, re-establishing a culture of purity, chastity and extinguishing sexual desires as soon as they appear will clearly lead to priests indulging in even more depraved acts of sexual perversion. Give me a break! That is the most backward, illogical purely anti-Catholic argument I have heard in quite a while.
But anyway, I have strayed from the point I was originally making. And for the sake of fairness, I will make mention of another unreasonable habit of arguing - this time, one that is mostly used by conservatives. Dismissing the opposition under meaningless titles such as “do-gooders” or “tree-huggers” and so on. Calling someone a do-gooder is utterly meaningless and unobjective, it ignores the points the person was making (which may have been good points) in favour of what amounts to a vacuous ad hominem. It is also based upon the subjective prejudices the person has against the kind of opinions that are held by “do-gooders”.
So the next time you’re in an argument with someone who holds an opinion that you find so utterly unfathomable that it is beyond your comprehension how anyone could hold it, consider that they feel exactly the same way about you. Shut up for a minute and listen to their opinion - whatever it is and however outrageous it may seem to you - honestly consider it, and try to understand why they hold this opinion. Only when you are willing to do this for each and every issue and to be willing to change every belief you have ever held, will you even approach a state where you can claim to have some knowledge of the truth. It is as though the world at the moment is full of people screaming out their opinions endlessly over the top of each other - never stopping to listen to what anyone else has to say, and never pausing, not even for a moment, to think about what they are going to scream out next before it comes out.
I just got another reply to my justification against homosexuality - “That is the biggest load of crap I’ve ever read in my life” he says. Honestly, how do people expect to come within a bull’s roar of the truth when they maintain that sort of attitude? The old saying is truer than ever - “Man will occasionally stumble upon the truth, but usually he’ll just pick himself up and continue on his way.”
And finally, what I said about “bloody left-wingers” earlier on was unfair, and was actually an example of the sort of thing people in newsgroups do that I was criticising. I wrote that in anger; in fact this whole article has been nothing but an outlet for the anger I felt by the crap that has been directed to me as a result of that post I wrote. And I do feel better having written this. As always, I have attempted to practise what I preach by being as reasonable and objective as possible - conceding even that conservatives are just as likely as left-wingers to be uninformed, possess prejudices against certain arguments or use ad hominems. Have I not been reasonable? I have certainly made every effort to be, and I would like to think I have succeeded. Yet if I posted this on a newsgroup, all I would get in response is a screenful of “piss off, conservative arsehole” replies. Which would only prove the point I am trying to make.