Ah, it’s good to be back….Attn: Sense to boot!

Dear Mr.  "Sense to Boot":

You left the following notes on my entry: http://opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=A414735&entry=20070, and I had a few comments. (For everyone else, the red text is the anon noter that I call SWBASTB (Someone with brains and sense to boot) because of the signed name).

 I really think that your tearing apart other people’s entries who would otherwise come and comment on yours. Is it the attention you seek from your pointless debates?

1. What does that first sentence say? Could you rephrase it?

2. The leading question, it’s a nice tactic… Too many assumptions embedded to respond.

There is nothing wrong with your commenting if one should come to your with a debate.

3. Agreed.

But to randomly choose diarists to tear apart solely because their beliefs differ from your own is an entirely different beast in itself.

4. Let me guess, you think that I am "randomly tearing apart diarists solely because their beliefs differ from mine."  Why do you think it’s random?  I very specifically target those that generally fulfill several criteria – they post an argument in public circle, which I assume is for people to read and comment on – especially when it’s an entry like this, pointing out the reasons for why they believe their beliefs are well-founded.  Also, I don’t "tear apart" because their beliefs differ from my own – their beliefs are different from my own, but that’s irrelevant.  I challenge those beliefs that are held for reasons that are spurious as far as I can tell.

 It is both wrong and well honestly pointless.

5. Nice assertion. Why is what I do wrong? And why is it pointless?

People have a right to believe what they want. YOU have a right to be an atheist and others have a right to believe in God, Allah, or Buddha.

6. True, people have the right to believe whatever they want, but they do not have the "right" for their beliefs to be accepted or respected. 

That doesn’t give you are right to tear them apart because of it.

7. Unclear antecedent. I do have the right to challenge people’s beliefs – especially on my own diary.

Because in the end, who knows who is right?  Certainly not you.

8. Fantastic, you’re on my side! I’m all about promoting uncertainty! We don’t know for sure how we got here, or the nature of reality! Thanks for joining me in pointing out to those who think they know something like "God exists" that they don’t "know" such a thing!

There are many things in this world without a plausible and logical explaination. That doesn’t mean that they don’t exist just because you didn’t see it.

9. Again, brilliant! I totally agree. Just because we cannot fathom how the universe "began" if it did in any normal sense of the word, doesn’t mean that "God must have done it" – I don’t know is a perfectly good (and totally honest answer).

You need to get a life. Honestly. I can’t believe you are still on here. Drama Queen and Note Whore. That’s what you are. Nothing more by volumes.

10. Yes, we’re rounding out the rhetorical techniques…the personal attack! Get a life? Can’t a person have a hobby? I spend less time on here each day that some people spend doing the daily crossword puzzle. Interesting how you only seem upset with the way I spend my time.

–Sincerely–

Someone with brains and sense to boot.

11. All right, here’s where it gets fun.

SWBASTB – it was a good effort, but I’ve seen better. 

To begin with, your argument goes, "there is nothing wrong with debating someone who comes to you, but to pick diarists solely because their beliefs differ…"

To which there is an identical parallel with what you’re doing. You came to my diary, and started arguing (and trying to tear apart) an entry of mine. I have no problem with it, especially when you botch the job – but you’re admonishing me unprovoked, for admonishing another, unprovoked.

The reason for your admonishment of me, though, is given in the next line – "because it is wrong and pointless."  Well, clearly, reasoned debate isn’t entirely pointless, or you wouldn’t have written a line of argument. Also, since you recognize that people have different beliefs, your saying that it is "wrong" means that you believe it is wrong for me to do such a thing.  That’s fine.  I believe it is wrong that the citizens of the US spend billions/year on building and maintaining churches, paying pastors, and generally wasting time and effort "praying" when that money, time, and effort could go to something beneficial, like, an education. So, you doing your little part to end the "wrongness" that you see in my entry, is exactly parallel to me doing my little part to end the "wrongness" that I see in the wasting of resources that could be put to good use.  Whether what you or I think is wrong is actually wrong, of course, is up for debate.

But at this point we get to the next interesting part. I cannot think of how you would word what you are arguing without being perfectly hypocritical.  "Admonishing an entry that you find to be mistaken…or, promoting something that is wrong…is wrong unless you are directly provoked…" No, that doesn’t work.

Try it, you, or anyone reading this. See if you can come up with a statement of "what not to do" that condemns my entry (http://opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=A414735&entry=20070), while exempting SWBASTB’s comments.

We can work on this, SWBASTB. Next time you want to leave an argument, stop and think about what you are trying to say.  Make sure you aren’t doing exactly what you are condemning, or you’ll look silly.  Also, make sure that the grammar works, at least to the extent that someone making an honest effort could figure out what you were trying to say. Finally, if you’re going to state that you’ve got brains in a manner that suggests a contrast with the diarist, be darned sure you’ve got all your ducks in a row, or you’ll get shredded. (The personal attacks don’t help in the end either, as cathartic as they may be at the time).

Good luck!

– BUM