Community > Religion and Philosophy

Why I'm Not Going Back to Christian News Network

(1/2) > >>

Ambulance Chaser:
I created a separate thread so as not to derail the main one.

A lot of people have asked me if I'm going back to CNN under a new name. And I'm pretty sure my answer is no. To begin with, they don't want me. They made that clear by banning me. Why would I go to a place where I'm explicitly not wanted? If my friend told me I wasn't welcome at his house, I wouldn't go put on a fake nose & mustache and come back telling him my name is "Fambulance Waser."

Secondly, and more importantly, there's no reason to. I'm not accomplishing anything by being there.

As I've said here before, my main reason for going to CNN was not simply to stir the pot. I was, naively, attempting to raise the overall discourse of the discussion on the site. I had three rules that I would follow: 1) No profanity, 2) Always cite a valid source, and 3) Always keep the conversation on the issue, as laser-focused as possible--and not on the person.

My method was, as often as possible, Socratic. That is, I would ask questions that would incrementally direct my mark into a position. And that position was always one or the other of these things:

* The speaker would be able to espouse a collegiate-level understanding of the topic being , i.e. able to understand the mechanisms of how it worked, correctly cite prominent experts in the field, and take an educated, evidence-based position on it; or
* The speaker would be unable to do #1 and be forced to admit that they were in over their heads, in which case they couldn't state a valid position.My style would be to play dumb, and ask questions that pretended to presume the speaker was an educated expert in whatever field. I would give them the opportunity to prove that they could maturely discuss a topic or admit that they couldn't.

What I didn't count was that there was a third option: Dodge, evade, and avoid. This was the one that CNN users, by and large, chose. In other words, they would take any tactic, including changing the subject, answering a question I didn't ask, or refusing to accept reality, to avoid actually having to admit that they're wrong. They are, on the whole, too stupid to discuss a topic intelligently and too arrogant to admit it. This is a dangerous, depressing combination.

So I could never box them into the corner that I expected. If I presented scientific evidence, I would get Amos Moses who doesn't believe in science. If I cited to case law, I would get Oboehner saying it doesn't matter. The worst was Jason Todd/Matt Mason/Whatever sock, who used to sneer at me that I thought judges made the final decisions on matters of law. Yes, I do think that, because it's true, and literally every lawyer and judge in America will agree with me.

THESE ARE NOT RATIONAL, INTELLIGENT POSITIONS. I can't discuss a topic with someone who refuses to accept basic, reasonable ground rules In science, we cite to peer-reviewed journals. In law, we cite court decisions. This is how it works. The systems we have wouldn't work any other way. But if you're so anti-intellectual that being right supersedes living in reality, then I can't help you.

So for this reason, I'm not going back. There is no value in arguing with people who simply refuse to be argued with. I thought I could teach them out of their stupid, but I didn't realize how important being stupid was to them.

BobRumba:
While this post saddens me, I respect your position and thank you for all the contributions you made.

Sharon_at_home:
I am very sad to hear that you think you didn't make a difference. You might have made a difference to some of the silent posters that read our posts.
Ambulance Chaser you were great at what you were doing. If you are helping others understand without posting their thoughts, it is worth it, don't you think?
Just don't sweat the idiots and keep posting knowing someone out there might really need your help.
I have to do exactly that or I would quit trying too. But the silent readers are the ones I reach out to for the most part now.
I just write my post and make sure there is more than what Amos would read, and still do my reaching out to others for Jesus.
I don't hear from the silent posters very often, but they have contacted me and told me that I should keep going and that makes me feel like just maybe I can make a difference for even one person, it is worth ignoring what the Fundies say and work on my own efforts while I do it.  ::)
I asked you for help a number of time A.C. You are the only one that anyone who is intelligent would understand what you say.
I understand, as I have considered it many time myself, but I wish you would stay so others can learn from you. You  can't be sure it is helping but you can't be sure it isn't either.
I won't get upset with you if you quit, because you have valid arguments against staying, but I think you should consider the people who only read our posts too.
Besides, who am I going to turn to when I need a lawyers advice.  ;D
Take care of yourself A. C. and if you find another site like CNN let us know so we can join you in frustrating the Fundies! It would be our joy to help you out!
God bless you A.C.

Bob J.:
Thank you for all the time and energy you have spent on this endeavor. I agree with Sharon, your efforts may be the hidden readers who never post, but have heard a voice of reason.

Some minds, however, are beyond reach.  But you have had some success, afchief is gone.

Good luck in your future endeavors. You will be missed.

BobRumba:
Maybe you can stay connected to us via Live Action News, home of WorldGoneCrazy.  See my new thread (which I'm about to write).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page