Paul Manata has a long post up responding to me, but as so often happens there, the comment stream went off onto other topics. In this great moment, is waxing intellectual over the morality of Israelite enslavement of the virgins of conquered foes in the Old Testament:
Paul Manata:
Good, you're catcvhing on. I *want* you to keep coming back. I'm *banking* on your pride. it only allows me to rape your arguments in diffeent ways. (12/16/2007 6:51 PM)
This said in response to a poster named "Nikki".
Classic! Nikki put up a long response last night, too much for Manata, apparently. He deleted it, and announced the discussion closed. I guess his "rape your arguments" urge has passed.
8 comments:
Hi TS,
Mayube you can help me out.
Can you point out where she proved that a rapem took place.
Thanks so much.
I saidm early on that if she didn't attempt to prove that, the discussion would be over.
I think allowing 50 some odd comments was ample time. I wonder why you think someone would need more than 50 comments to prove something.
Anyway, any help you could give would be appreciated.
Here was her one shot at a proof:
"'Unconsensual sex' is exactly what he's describing. What else would you call it when you hide in the bushes an wait to kidnap a couple hundred virgins. Get real."
You'll notice that she's referring to Judges 21.
If you follow our discussion, you'll notice that I agreed this was an immorality. You'll notice that I proved that it wasn't commanded/condoned by God, though.
You'll then notice that she dropped that discussion for the rest.
She focused on Num. 31 and Deut. 21.
Numbers 31 says nothing about sex, marriage, or anything like that. Thus she can't make her case from there.
Deut.21 was he other shot. I asked her to prove rape from sex that took place over a month after she lived with the Israelite, and then marriend him. Shem couldn't prove rape there, either.
Since I said that I was going along with the off topic discussion for a time, and if she didn't prove her assertion I would delete/end the comments, and since she didn't prove what she needed to, thus violating the policy I set up towards the beginning of the thread, your little post here looks rather petty. Infatuated with T-bloggers a bit?!
Hey Paul,
From what I could tell, I don't Nikki "proved" God commanded rape directly. The text isn't specific enough to overcome any doubts, which you of course grant in your favor. So, you can pat your self on the back, there.
I didn't get a chance to read the very long set of comments Nikki put up -- just noticed it was there, and when I returned, your manly sense of fair play had taken over.
Don't trifle me about "the discussion would be over". That's just pathetic. Anyone who reads it can see what happened. You talk tough, you're confident, you want to "rape her arguments". But in the end, it's just something you solve with the delete button when the testosterone surge has passed.
So Nikki failed at "proof", I grant. This case is highly problematic, though, from a moral standpoint, for those of us who aren't voluntarists, or willing to don that position when it is polemically convenient.
-TS
Paul,
You said:
Since I said that I was going along with the off topic discussion for a time, and if she didn't prove her assertion I would delete/end the comments, and since she didn't prove what she needed to, thus violating the policy I set up towards the beginning of the thread, your little post here looks rather petty. Infatuated with T-bloggers a bit?!
Well, so long as Manata is judge of what is "proved" or not, she's pretty well hosed. You're committed to giving yourself the benefit of the doubt, you're your own jury, so that's that. It's your blog, so have it. I just wonder if you see the message you're *really* projecting here.
She doesn't meet your standards for proof, which is just a euphemism for saying she failed to do the impossible, then after the all the fun wordplay on sexually aggressive lines, you decided her latest, very long comments just didn't satisfy you, so they should just be deleted. And you're suggesting I'm petty...
You screwed her good, didn't ya Paul?
-TS
Hi TS,
"Very long" set of comments? It wasn't.
Okay, so "Nikki" didn't prove that rape occurred in the passages where God commanded or condoned actions.
Now, since I said, at the beginning of the combox, that comments off topic would be deleted, and then since I gave "Mason" (who was banned but came back as "Nikki") a good go at it, at proving what was asserted, and since there are over 50 comments in that thread, and what I asked to be done wasn't, then why are you faulting me?
Everyone knew the score, TS. The rules where: You will not post off topic. But, since I'm gonna bend them for now, you had better prove your case. If you don't, then the discussion will be over.
So, since you just admitted that Nikki didn't do that, and since if she didn't do it up at around the 8th, 9th, comments, why think it will be done around the 60th!
Now, as is your want, you can run with the rhetoric I employed in the discussion and make all sorts of psychological evaluations about me that just aren't there. Whatever. If that's the way you have to debate, and cast positions, so be it.
Let's note that you admitted that she didn't prove what I asked her to. Let's note that you also know that I said she needs to do that or else the discussion would end.
So, as I've pointed out with you before, *even if* your comments about my psychological state are correct, that doesn *nothing* to overturn the *objective* merits of the discussion. I know you love to turn the discussion away from the objectiove merits, take it into the mud, get into a battle over subjective arm chair psychologizing, but that's just not my thing, TS. I'm a Christian. Truth and objectivity actually matter to me.
Your comment:
"Don't trifle me about "the discussion would be over". That's just pathetic. Anyone who reads it can see what happened. You talk tough, you're confident, you want to "rape her arguments". But in the end, it's just something you solve with the delete button when the testosterone surge has passed."
is what is pathetic, TS. There are a total of 61 comments in that thread. I think all but 4 or 5 are on the topic of my post. I have had a long standing rule that comments must be on topic or they will get deleated. I then gave someone an opportunity to make a case for something they felt strongly about, but I made a caveat, if the case isn't proved, the discussion will end. I think she had, what, about 25 comments? If, as you *just admitted*, she didn't prove it in 25 SOME ODD COMMENTS then why should I keep a discussion going, especially given my time situations?
So, I talked tough, and I showed she couldn't make her case. Maybe you would have thought I'd be more "manly" if I gave her, what, 30, 40, 50, chances to prove what she said took place. Get real, TS.
"So Nikki failed at "proof", I grant. This case is highly problematic, though, from a moral standpoint, for those of us who aren't voluntarists, or willing to don that position when it is polemically convenient."
Maybe that can be the subject of your next stellar blog entry. I am not a voluntarist, and I don't find any problem. (And, you started off on the wrong foot. Just like "Nikki." *Which* case. There were at least 3 mentioned and they were all vastly different.) Anyway, keep up the good work here, TS. I know most people think you sound like a jilted lover, an obsessed fan, stalker, maybe even a psycho, but I appreciate what you're doing here. Keeping us intellectually accountable 'n all. Someone has to do it. If no one else wants the job, then I guess it falls to you. You fill that role as "one crying in the wilderness."
Touchstone said...
Well, so long as Manata is judge of what is "proved" or not, she's pretty well hosed. You're
-TS
December 17, 2007 8:16 AM
**********
Well, as you admitted above:
"From what I could tell, I don't Nikki "proved" God commanded rape directly."
And,
"So Nikki failed at "proof", I grant."
So I guess you just admitted that Touchstoned and Manata have the same standard of proof!
:-P
Paul,
You said:
Okay, so "Nikki" didn't prove that rape occurred in the passages where God commanded or condoned actions.
Now, since I said, at the beginning of the combox, that comments off topic would be deleted, and then since I gave "Mason" (who was banned but came back as "Nikki") a good go at it, at proving what was asserted, and since there are over 50 comments in that thread, and what I asked to be done wasn't, then why are you faulting me?
Because "proving" is just a self-serving euphemism for you, Paul. You have an obviously vested interest in finding "no proof". So the fault is simply your being small-minded and self-serving about what constitutes proof, and who gets to decide what is proof. I don't think Nikki proved her case, although I'm not convinced she was committed to the claim you think she had to prove, but something more general.
But no matter. The fault is in your conflicted interests, Paul, which is especially problematic given your penchant for self-congratulation and triumphalism. It just diminishes any gravitas your ideas would otherwise have.
Everyone knew the score, TS. The rules where: You will not post off topic. But, since I'm gonna bend them for now, you had better prove your case. If you don't, then the discussion will be over.
Yeah, the "off-topic" card. You think that's anything but a transparent hedge, Paul. Read some of your comboxes sometime, and ask yourself: Do we enforce "on-topic" discussion?
Only when it's convenient for you.
So, since you just admitted that Nikki didn't do that, and since if she didn't do it up at around the 8th, 9th, comments, why think it will be done around the 60th!
Hmmm, well I hadn't actually read the whole exchange, but the "later" comments from Nikki seemed much more potent than the earlier ones. Still, you're not obligated to respond tit for tat; if you're satisfied with your position, no problem in standing pat. But it's very small to appeal to "no proof" and "off-topic" rules to shut her down. Transparent. You might as well complain that you're concerned about "saving bandwidth".
Now, as is your want, you can run with the rhetoric I employed in the discussion and make all sorts of psychological evaluations about me that just aren't there. Whatever. If that's the way you have to debate, and cast positions, so be it.
It's not a debate, Paul. It's just an observation. Here you have Manata, Calvinist apologist, holding forth thusly. You may be completely right on the merits of the debate, but you've missed the forest for the trees if you take solace in that. I don't suppose my observation tilts things one way or the other regarding God's countenance, or not, of the rape of Midianite women. The more important point is just to take in the glory of Manata, apologist for the Christian faith.
Let's note that you admitted that she didn't prove what I asked her to. Let's note that you also know that I said she needs to do that or else the discussion would end.
That's right, and that's the smallness of Paul, in action: prove yourself to my satisfaction, or you're silenced. You've given yourself an easy escape hatch anytime you want to use, and you did.
So, as I've pointed out with you before, *even if* your comments about my psychological state are correct, that doesn *nothing* to overturn the *objective* merits of the discussion. I know you love to turn the discussion away from the objectiove merits, take it into the mud, get into a battle over subjective arm chair psychologizing, but that's just not my thing, TS. I'm a Christian. Truth and objectivity actually matter to me.
Oh, the irony! If your head doesn't explode typing that, Paul, that might be a clue that there is no God at all, eh? Maybe read what you wrote in the actual post there, above all of Nikki's comments.
There are a total of 61 comments in that thread. I think all but 4 or 5 are on the topic of my post. I have had a long standing rule that comments must be on topic or they will get deleated. I then gave someone an opportunity to make a case for something they felt strongly about, but I made a caveat, if the case isn't proved, the discussion will end. I think she had, what, about 25 comments? If, as you *just admitted*, she didn't prove it in 25 SOME ODD COMMENTS then why should I keep a discussion going, especially given my time situations?
Paul, it's foolish to think you're a legitimate judge for proof, here. You're an advocate, a lawyer for one side of the debate. And advocacy is fine. But you're not in a position to serve as judge, then. As for me, I don't think she had yet proved her case, if indeed she was committed to the claim you say (which is not at all clear). But the idea of "proof" here is just a disingenuous euphemism -- a little lie you get by on.
Do you understand the poverty of your 'I'm the advocate and the judge' position, here?
Maybe that can be the subject of your next stellar blog entry. I am not a voluntarist, and I don't find any problem. (And, you started off on the wrong foot. Just like "Nikki." *Which* case. There were at least 3 mentioned and they were all vastly different.) Anyway, keep up the good work here, TS. I know most people think you sound like a jilted lover, an obsessed fan, stalker, maybe even a psycho, but I appreciate what you're doing here. Keeping us intellectually accountable 'n all. Someone has to do it. If no one else wants the job, then I guess it falls to you. You fill that role as "one crying in the wilderness."
Ahh, such melodrama. Didn't you just say you eschewed the 'armchair psychology' thing? This post was nothing more than a pointer to a 'classic' moment in Manata-style apologetics.
In a later comment, you said:
So I guess you just admitted that Touchstoned and Manata have the same standard of proof!
I've no problem at all "admitting" that there is not a clear, direct and compelling case for God commanding rape in the Bible. If that strikes you as relief from the moral problems that surround the texts in question, though, I think you have your head in the sand. That is, while you're patting yourself on the back for successfully defending that small patch of ground, there's a lot of ground all around it that's pretty shaky.
You can console yourself that the patch you are staunchly defending remains secure, though. Just look down, and not around.
-TS
TS,
"Because "proving" is just a self-serving euphemism for you, Paul. You have an obviously vested interest in finding "no proof".
Right back into your home - pop arm chair psychologizing minus any empirical data or evidence to back your position. How utterly "scientific" of you.
Anyway, I see that you have busted a neuron in your latest response. Being as it is so close to Christmas, and you're obviously getting stressed out and overheated, I'll bow out of this discussion too, now. Don't want your family having a stressed out Touchstoned during the holidays.
Anyway, we have all agreed on the facts of the matter:
* Nikki didn't prove her case (this according to Tocuhstoned as well as myself).
* Nikki was given ample opportunity to do so.
* The most likely explanation for not being able to do so in 25 some odd posts is that you cannot do so.
* It is our blog, our rules, our combox. We can chose to make exceptiosn to the rules as we see fit.
* Giving someone 25 some odd posts to make their case is mroe than enough to silence a critic who claims that "we just want to quiet the discussion."
* In fact, someone who says that someone who gave an interloctor more than 25 chances to prove his/her position is "running from debate" and "afraid to debate" is someone who makes demonstrably false statements. they are so far removed from reality that one might think they are using drugs.
Anyway, those are the accepted facts of the situation.
Debating Toucstoned's arm char, pop psychological evaluations is something I consider a waste. Now, perhaps this too can be a "great momment" in how I ran from Touchstoned's devastating amateur foray into psychology.
:-P
You're a hoot, buddy.
Post a Comment