Remember Ross, the progressive who compared me to the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition and who said he was like Jesus, the martys, and the Prophets because I criticized him?
Well, he finally wrote this to me:
I’m not altogether sure why you have to make such continuous poisonous criticisms of people who do not happen to share the same narrow minded mindset as you. I thought it might have been pointless getting into any form of discussion with you after your last little polemic and I probably shouldn’t have.
I shall treat you like Tildelb [a new atheist], a person not worth conversing with. If only everyone else would do the same maybe you’d faff off and leave this particularly site for its intended purpose, which is intelligent and open discussion about such subjects.
I await to see you post a link to your own little poison blog, wherein you declare the evil of myself and those like me. I won’t bother reading it.
The reason he wrote this? A response to this comment, where the strongest language I used against him was this:
Once again, you’re using this as a dodge to avoid the fact that “knowing and living with Him” [as in, instead of converting people we should help them “know and live with” Jesus] involves believing he is our Lord who died and Resurrected for us, and that this implies that we will have to change a lot of what we previously believed about the world.
You claim that it is “only partially an intellectual action” and missing the point that even if it’s not intellectual it still requires believing certain doctrines and beliefs, and by extension rejecting others. In other words: converting people.
There’s really no way to get around this no matter how many vague platitudes you’d care to use. I think you realize this too, and you are doing your best to find ways to circumvent this conclusion.
Behold the “open-minded progressive”. Look at how his “open-mindedness” leads him to conclude that people who criticize his views shouldn’t be talked to.
Truly, he is the open-minded one here, who treats all points of view equally. That’s why he compared somebody who disagree with him to the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition.
So far every time Ross has claimed that my criticisms are outrageous or insulting he’s never actually quoted me to illustrate his point. At least Marc has done that. And Ross really can’t quote me in this case, since I didn’t actually insult him, just accused him of poor argumentative techniques and of succumbing to the natural human tendency to rationalize away things we know will force us to admit we’re incorrect about something. If this is apparently so horrible it means I’m not worth responding to, well, I suppose I struck a nerve.
So, the “Ross Method”:
1) Claim you are open-minded
2) Backhandely mention people you think are mean and close-minded
3) When asked to prove why they are close-minded, condescendingly reply that you “don’t have enough time to do so” and it “should be obvious to those who read what you write”
4) When called out on this, accuse your accuser of persecuting you. Referencing a famous persecuted group, especially Jesus, gets you bonus points
5) If this is still not enough to make the person you disagree with go away, insult them one more time, make a claim about them without quoting them, and then refuse to talk to them ever again, thus allowing you to pretend that you’ve “won” the argument.
Really, it’s foolproof.