Yes, the expected response. When someone get's called on being a bigot the most clever defense is to say, "See, by calling me a bigot aren't you being bigoted?" It's the same with ideologues (another form of bigotry), as you so well demonstrate - they will interpret any disagreement with them (or even an objection to bringing ideology into the discussion) as being equally ideological. After all, I am complaining about your ideology and participating in a argument with you that is ideological - and so you win either way.
And that's why I get angry with ideologues injecting their mission into a discussion- there's really no way to prevent that from wrecking the discussion. It will always lead to a raising of the emotional stakes until everyone is compelled to either leave (like Alexandra) or become ideological themselves in defense. But, I understand. You are psychologically compelled to do that. You are addicted to the neorotransmitters generated by the public discussion of your ideology. You can not live for a day without getting that chemical hit - and the angrier you can make any detractors, the stronger that hit is.
You said,
Quote:
|
The flaw in your “morality†is that in practice it’s exceedingly conditional—you say that you “respect others in a discussion [even when you] disagree with them,†but from what I’ve observed, whenever you feel that your own ideology/beliefs are being the least bit challenged/threatened, or you perceive that someone is behaving contrary to the dictates of that ideology, you automatically go into attack/accusation mode.
|
What I actually said was,
Quote:
|
My sense of morality requires that I respect others in a discussion, especially when I disagree with them. You make that impossible. Therefore you make discussion impossible.
|
But, you knew that. Your accusation was to score points with others.
And, here we are again discussing who said what and why that was so nasty and, "doesn't that prove that your ideology is wrong". I imagine you're quite satisfied. As anyone can see, there is no defense from ideological attack in a discussion that doesn't hihjack the discussion - and that's why I get angry.
As far as what you know about my history I assure you you have no idea what you're talking about. I have no problem discussing it. I'd invite you to flesh out your innuendos to expose your ignorance but then we'd again be doing anything but discussing EP and you win again. Your willingness to bring my gender identity in as a weapon for your mission is proof enough of the lengths that ideologues are willing to go, to campaign for their ideology. Perhaps you thought your clever google search had given you some kind of napalm to use on me.
Did it not occur to you that if I didn't want anyone to know about my gender identity I could have simply used a fictitious name here? Gender identity does make for interesting discussions on its own (it is also part of evolutionary psychology) but it is definitely not a conversation I'd have with an ideologue.
It's becoming obvious that you have driven away anyone who has interesting things to say in this forum and wants to say them in a non-confrontational way. After this last exchange I can see that my days here are running short - so you will have eliminated yet another
heretic. Too bad, the idea for this forum was a good one - and there were so many things I wanted to discuss.
But, enjoy your neurotransmitter hit, Fred. This is all about you now, as you so need it to be. Let's see what wonders your next post holds for us all - wonders that will show the world how clever you are and how your ideology represents
ultimate truth in the universe.
Margaret