Everyone else who read it seemed to find it funny. I'm sorry you did not. I think that saying bad things about people is sometimes justified, if they are dumb and snarky.
But aren’t you engaging in the same behaviour your declaring as immoral? Aren’t you being needlessly hostile to this author?
I don’t share this author’s broader views (i.e. also a Catholic, not an atheist) but this author is really just presenting an opinion piece on a dialogue exchange on Twitter in a humorous manner. Could it have been written more politely and perhaps more charitably, probably. But the point of the piece is to reflect on the nature of the dialogue itself. Bogardus, a professional philosopher presented his argument clearly and requested counter examples. PZ Myers presented an initial counter response which wasn’t well structured or supported and didn’t use the fundamentals of philosophy and logic appropriately. Unfortunately for PZ Myers his argument eventually descended into ad hominum attacks againsy Bogardus which were unfounded. Like the pigeon in the proverb, PZ Myers could have engaged in the same debate more fruitfully without descending into poor argumentation tactics.
Your behaviour is similar. You have called this author “hostile” and then descended into a spiral by equating Bogardus’ personhood to his beliefs and suggesting he is a “bad person”. Well, if you follow that logic, your behaviour here can likewise dictate you are a “bad person”. Or can it?
“I don't care because his work has been hateful towards lgbtq+ people. He is a believer in eternal hell. He believes that lgbtq+ people deserve eternal hell.”
You may like to provide some examples of “hateful” conclusions in Bogardus’ work and of his beliefs that homosexual persons “deserve hell”, a quotation would suffice. Holly Lawford Smith a scholar in this area and an atheist lesbian scholar supports the same arguments as Bogardus. I’m not sure you could draw the same conclusion about Holly.
“His reasoning is motivated reasoning.”
What is motivated reasoning?
“Tomas Bogardus's publications against lgbtq+ people is not in some kind of hugely respected academic journal that requires attention of everybody anyways.”
His work published in a multiple very highly regarded journals that dissenters of his position also publish in. Dissenters that you would agree with. This is the point of academic publishing, to provide an avenue for discourse.
“One of the journals he published his work in is the same journal that allowed Nazi stuff in this decade.”
You may wish to provide evidence of this “Nazi stuff” to support your argument. Nazis and Marxists published heavily, both had very strong negative opinions towards homosexuals persons and most of their work still existed and is utilised by society today. Own a Volkswagon? Designed by a Nazi. Buy anything from Hugo Boss, a Nazi. Happen to benefit from social services like public health care? Thank Marxism, the same Marxists that imprisoned, sterilised and executed homosexual persons.
“What you are doing is this awful tactic of - "oh.. if you are anti-fascist, then you are a fascist!"”
I don’t understand this claim, it’s a logical contradiction.
“lgbtq+ people don't tell you that being straight or living straight lifestyle, or being cis gender is a crime.”
Some do. You’ve just not met them. Some so called “LGBTQ+” persons have said very hateful things about heterosexual persons, wishing them dead, especially religious heterosexual persons. It still doesn’t make them “evil” for thinking so.
“But people like Bogardus and catholics like you do tell them that they are immoral for living their consensual mostly innocuous lifestyles or relationships.”
Nope, I’ve never done this. If Bogardus has, you’d be better placed to support this argument by finding some evidence.
“Don't try to gaslight me or psychologically manipulate me. Don't try to use the "I am being rational and you are being emotional" attitude with me thinking that you have made some dunk on me and think that that will convince me that - "hey thanks you are right my friend... now I should become straight and non queer catholic".”
Why do you think I want you to be a “non-queer Catholic”. You can easily a “queer Catholic” or a “queer atheist” if you wish. I can’t tell you what to believe or how to act. I can however express my opinion, so can you.
You seem emotional but I wouldn’t say you’re irrational.
“Due to your response, I find traditional catholics even more painful and I feel more sad around you all traditionalist. It is suffocating to me to be around you all.”
I’m not a traditional Catholic and I’m sorry you feel suffocated. However this is likewise an unusual claim. I am surrounded by people who disagree with me profoundly and I don’t feel suffocated by them. Perhaps trying to engage with people you disagree with would help you understand them better.
“All those sayings of "love your neighbors" from you all is just a robotic saying.”
Yep! This is a Catholic teaching and we adhere to it.
“All the things about love, compassion and mercy that you all say are false and seem like a lie or a manipulative tactic instead of genuine compassion and love and care for others well being.”
Not sure what you’re trying to say here? That people who disagree with you are manipulative and uncompassionate? I guess the same applies to you as you disagree with me.
“All you trad catholics want is controlling others and if they don't listen, then they shall suffer for eternity if they do commit the "victimless crimes."... and I know you tradcatholics believe that victimless crimes deserve suffering and torture because of "disobeying God's [arbitrary and awful] commands".”
Nope - this isn’t Catholic teaching.
“Please, I beg you. Please stop.... I have harmed no one and have not violated any rights or have not stolen anything or caused suffering to others like that.”
Not sure this is easily substantiated. You are capable of immoral behaviour the same as all other persons.
“Please do not restrict my innocuous freedoms with your manipulative tactics of "haha i have good arguments... you lose lol" and please stop telling me that I will go to hell for being queer.”
Nope, not Catholic teaching, and I’m not saying these things. I believe “your freedoms” are not “innocuous” if what you term “your freedoms” are genuine human rights. Human rights are profound. But I could easily make this claim myself. You are restricting “my freedoms” through your vicious and erroneous judgement when all I’m doing is expressing my opinion.
Your response indicates a lack of understanding of Catholic theology and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Likewise there are plenty of non-Catholics and non-religious persons that have very staunch and uncompromising beliefs about homosexual persons, I personally know more atheists who wish homosexuals to be burnt alive then in an eternal hell. There are also numerous homosexual persons who are religious, including Catholic, and who live in keeping with the Church’s teachings and have just a great a chance of entering heaven as any other person.
The teachings of the Catholic Church are besides the point. What you are trying to demonstrate here through your admonishment of this author’s article is a moralistic behaviour that doesn’t appear to apply to you, this is called hypocrisy.
You also appear to express the same judgement that you accuse Bogardus of. You don’t know Bogardus, you don’t know his views on homosexual persons, you don’t know his past and his interaction or experiences with homosexuality. Same for me, I could easily be a homosexual person who is Catholic, you simply assume I am not. You also appear to assume I am a Traditional Catholic, I am no such thing, whatever it is that a “Traditional Catholic” is.
“Bogardus and catholics like you who tell them that they are evil?”
I’m not sure where you have drawn that conclusion from. By your logic I can call you evil for stating that Catholics are evil. That’s a tough argument to support.
“I would consider the person with awful beliefs an awful person.”
This is unfortunate. People and their beliefs shift over time and some people have false beliefs not of their own doing. And this is also just an unusual position to maintain. I could easily argue that your beliefs about Catholic persons are “awful” and therefore you are an “awful person” but I struggle to believe that to be true. Your probably a decent person living the best you can. However I think you should take a leaf out of your own book and suspended your judgement, focus on the argument rather than the person underneath the argument.
“Bogardus's work shall go in obscurity and I truly hope that it does.”
No published work fades into obscurity. Historians still read and evaluate Marxist texts, most of which historically were very critical of homosexuals. These texts are still important for their historical value and will continue to be.
“I do not like your patronizing and condescending response to me...Now please reply with charity next time”
Same to you. You too please.
“Please stop with your interference in my private and personal lives”
No one is interfering in your private life. We’re just two internet persons having a disagreement. Unfortunately your response here perhaps illustrates the concept this blog author was trying to illustrate and that could give you some pause for thought when engaging with people in the future.
I watch Joe Schmid, thanks. Joe’s also a Catholic. He features pretty heavily on Catholic channels too. I wouldn’t say he’s a better philosopher than Tomas Bogardus, they have different specialities.
This is pretty hilarious
😂
Everyone else who read it seemed to find it funny. I'm sorry you did not. I think that saying bad things about people is sometimes justified, if they are dumb and snarky.
But aren’t you engaging in the same behaviour your declaring as immoral? Aren’t you being needlessly hostile to this author?
I don’t share this author’s broader views (i.e. also a Catholic, not an atheist) but this author is really just presenting an opinion piece on a dialogue exchange on Twitter in a humorous manner. Could it have been written more politely and perhaps more charitably, probably. But the point of the piece is to reflect on the nature of the dialogue itself. Bogardus, a professional philosopher presented his argument clearly and requested counter examples. PZ Myers presented an initial counter response which wasn’t well structured or supported and didn’t use the fundamentals of philosophy and logic appropriately. Unfortunately for PZ Myers his argument eventually descended into ad hominum attacks againsy Bogardus which were unfounded. Like the pigeon in the proverb, PZ Myers could have engaged in the same debate more fruitfully without descending into poor argumentation tactics.
Your behaviour is similar. You have called this author “hostile” and then descended into a spiral by equating Bogardus’ personhood to his beliefs and suggesting he is a “bad person”. Well, if you follow that logic, your behaviour here can likewise dictate you are a “bad person”. Or can it?
And here’s a blow-by-blow for more detail.
“I don't care because his work has been hateful towards lgbtq+ people. He is a believer in eternal hell. He believes that lgbtq+ people deserve eternal hell.”
You may like to provide some examples of “hateful” conclusions in Bogardus’ work and of his beliefs that homosexual persons “deserve hell”, a quotation would suffice. Holly Lawford Smith a scholar in this area and an atheist lesbian scholar supports the same arguments as Bogardus. I’m not sure you could draw the same conclusion about Holly.
“His reasoning is motivated reasoning.”
What is motivated reasoning?
“Tomas Bogardus's publications against lgbtq+ people is not in some kind of hugely respected academic journal that requires attention of everybody anyways.”
His work published in a multiple very highly regarded journals that dissenters of his position also publish in. Dissenters that you would agree with. This is the point of academic publishing, to provide an avenue for discourse.
“One of the journals he published his work in is the same journal that allowed Nazi stuff in this decade.”
You may wish to provide evidence of this “Nazi stuff” to support your argument. Nazis and Marxists published heavily, both had very strong negative opinions towards homosexuals persons and most of their work still existed and is utilised by society today. Own a Volkswagon? Designed by a Nazi. Buy anything from Hugo Boss, a Nazi. Happen to benefit from social services like public health care? Thank Marxism, the same Marxists that imprisoned, sterilised and executed homosexual persons.
“What you are doing is this awful tactic of - "oh.. if you are anti-fascist, then you are a fascist!"”
I don’t understand this claim, it’s a logical contradiction.
“lgbtq+ people don't tell you that being straight or living straight lifestyle, or being cis gender is a crime.”
Some do. You’ve just not met them. Some so called “LGBTQ+” persons have said very hateful things about heterosexual persons, wishing them dead, especially religious heterosexual persons. It still doesn’t make them “evil” for thinking so.
“But people like Bogardus and catholics like you do tell them that they are immoral for living their consensual mostly innocuous lifestyles or relationships.”
Nope, I’ve never done this. If Bogardus has, you’d be better placed to support this argument by finding some evidence.
“Don't try to gaslight me or psychologically manipulate me. Don't try to use the "I am being rational and you are being emotional" attitude with me thinking that you have made some dunk on me and think that that will convince me that - "hey thanks you are right my friend... now I should become straight and non queer catholic".”
Why do you think I want you to be a “non-queer Catholic”. You can easily a “queer Catholic” or a “queer atheist” if you wish. I can’t tell you what to believe or how to act. I can however express my opinion, so can you.
You seem emotional but I wouldn’t say you’re irrational.
“Due to your response, I find traditional catholics even more painful and I feel more sad around you all traditionalist. It is suffocating to me to be around you all.”
I’m not a traditional Catholic and I’m sorry you feel suffocated. However this is likewise an unusual claim. I am surrounded by people who disagree with me profoundly and I don’t feel suffocated by them. Perhaps trying to engage with people you disagree with would help you understand them better.
“All those sayings of "love your neighbors" from you all is just a robotic saying.”
Yep! This is a Catholic teaching and we adhere to it.
“All the things about love, compassion and mercy that you all say are false and seem like a lie or a manipulative tactic instead of genuine compassion and love and care for others well being.”
Not sure what you’re trying to say here? That people who disagree with you are manipulative and uncompassionate? I guess the same applies to you as you disagree with me.
“All you trad catholics want is controlling others and if they don't listen, then they shall suffer for eternity if they do commit the "victimless crimes."... and I know you tradcatholics believe that victimless crimes deserve suffering and torture because of "disobeying God's [arbitrary and awful] commands".”
Nope - this isn’t Catholic teaching.
“Please, I beg you. Please stop.... I have harmed no one and have not violated any rights or have not stolen anything or caused suffering to others like that.”
Not sure this is easily substantiated. You are capable of immoral behaviour the same as all other persons.
“Please do not restrict my innocuous freedoms with your manipulative tactics of "haha i have good arguments... you lose lol" and please stop telling me that I will go to hell for being queer.”
Nope, not Catholic teaching, and I’m not saying these things. I believe “your freedoms” are not “innocuous” if what you term “your freedoms” are genuine human rights. Human rights are profound. But I could easily make this claim myself. You are restricting “my freedoms” through your vicious and erroneous judgement when all I’m doing is expressing my opinion.
Your response indicates a lack of understanding of Catholic theology and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Likewise there are plenty of non-Catholics and non-religious persons that have very staunch and uncompromising beliefs about homosexual persons, I personally know more atheists who wish homosexuals to be burnt alive then in an eternal hell. There are also numerous homosexual persons who are religious, including Catholic, and who live in keeping with the Church’s teachings and have just a great a chance of entering heaven as any other person.
The teachings of the Catholic Church are besides the point. What you are trying to demonstrate here through your admonishment of this author’s article is a moralistic behaviour that doesn’t appear to apply to you, this is called hypocrisy.
You also appear to express the same judgement that you accuse Bogardus of. You don’t know Bogardus, you don’t know his views on homosexual persons, you don’t know his past and his interaction or experiences with homosexuality. Same for me, I could easily be a homosexual person who is Catholic, you simply assume I am not. You also appear to assume I am a Traditional Catholic, I am no such thing, whatever it is that a “Traditional Catholic” is.
“Bogardus and catholics like you who tell them that they are evil?”
I’m not sure where you have drawn that conclusion from. By your logic I can call you evil for stating that Catholics are evil. That’s a tough argument to support.
“I would consider the person with awful beliefs an awful person.”
This is unfortunate. People and their beliefs shift over time and some people have false beliefs not of their own doing. And this is also just an unusual position to maintain. I could easily argue that your beliefs about Catholic persons are “awful” and therefore you are an “awful person” but I struggle to believe that to be true. Your probably a decent person living the best you can. However I think you should take a leaf out of your own book and suspended your judgement, focus on the argument rather than the person underneath the argument.
“Bogardus's work shall go in obscurity and I truly hope that it does.”
No published work fades into obscurity. Historians still read and evaluate Marxist texts, most of which historically were very critical of homosexuals. These texts are still important for their historical value and will continue to be.
“I do not like your patronizing and condescending response to me...Now please reply with charity next time”
Same to you. You too please.
“Please stop with your interference in my private and personal lives”
No one is interfering in your private life. We’re just two internet persons having a disagreement. Unfortunately your response here perhaps illustrates the concept this blog author was trying to illustrate and that could give you some pause for thought when engaging with people in the future.
I watch Joe Schmid, thanks. Joe’s also a Catholic. He features pretty heavily on Catholic channels too. I wouldn’t say he’s a better philosopher than Tomas Bogardus, they have different specialities.
Okay! Sure. I’ll take that as an inability to engage in a dialogue due to reticence rather than an ability to respond to a set of arguments well.