Thursday, December 15, 2005

Christmas (what I really think)

Many people are saddened by what they are coining “the war on Christmas”. Of course, I have not seen any war on Christmas yet, but I presume they are referring to the fact that companies are attempting to be equally polite to both people who do and people who don’t celebrate Christmas, by using more “vague” holiday greetings and such. Being fair to those who don’t celebrate it can hardly be construed as an attack on those who do, but we do live in a world where people are threatened by the knowledge than anyone in the world might possibly disagree with them.

I think the reason many people feel insulted by these recent changes is they fear it represents a mass back-turning on Christianity and perhaps even spirituality itself. Yes, there is most certainly a decline in spirituality in the modern world. Of course, Christians expect that, however unpleasant it may be, because it was foretold in the bible.

So, true Christians are all appalled at the world’s moral decline, just as the Muslims and Jews, and Buddhists are appalled at it, but then… someone is still watching Springer, so some people must enjoy our moral decline. I doubt that these people who wallow in moral depravity and relish it as great entertainment are the ones against Christmas, though, so let’s figure out who is… after all, a lack of moral stature doesn’t make you hate trees with lights on them, even if it might make you too lazy to put one up.

So, Why would anyone be offended by Christmas? Really, I kind of doubt that the atheists are terribly offended by Christmas. They may not care about it or associate it with spiritual things, but all the atheists and agnostics I’ve known have still been a-ok with drinking egg-nog and hanging lights. They may not participate in every aspect of Christmas, but I doubt they’d be offended by it enough to care if the checkout lady said “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays”. So, who could be offended by Christmas?

Well, if you are odd man out every year because you are Jewish, then even if you aren’t offended by Christmas, you would probably appreciate being properly recognized as a person who’s equal and who’s right to their beliefs is thereby equal. And before any “Christians” look down their noses on Judaism, please let’s remember what religion Mary and Joseph and baby Jesus WERE, ok? I’m not Jewish and I’m not saying they are right, but we could certainly show a little respect.

A brief aside; One “Christian” looked down on Jews because they, in HIS words “murdered their own messiah”. Before you go feeling all superior, let’s keep in mind that the largest and most popular variety of so-called “Christianity” in the world used to skin people alive for owning copies of the Bible. This seems highly unchristian to me, but since it is ancient history and I am weak and a sinner, I’ll hold onto these stones, for now. Stones make better landscaping around glass houses than they do projectiles, anyway. Just please check out your own houses, too, before you throw any rocks.

I can think of why some people would find Christmas offensive, but it seems to me that the people most likely to find it offensive would be Christians. We all know about the history of Christmas, that Jesus could not have been born at this time of year, that the tree is a pagan tradition, etc… and that the celebration was created to appease or under influence of the “converted” pagans. But, regardless of it’s origin, it has since become a tradition to attach different meanings to these symbols. No matter what the Christmas tree and Easter Bunny once were, they now remind some people of their religious affiliations. Because of this, I can respect why people celebrate Christmas. There is some logic to that reasoning and I hope they enjoy their eggnog and presents. I sincerely do.

Yes, I respect YOUR right to chose what these symbols mean to you. But, in turn, you should expect MY right to take no part in something I find offensive spiritually. To me, celebrating Christmas would be like bowing to pagan Gods, then having the nerve to pretend I wasn’t bowing, but just dancing in joy for Jesus. To do an act traditionally pagan and stamp Jesus’ name on it, feels like blasphemy to me. That seems as sacrilegious to me as putting a satanic symbol on a chain and renaming it the Jesus Star.

I’m not saying you’re evil if you celebrate Christmas or trying to put you down, but anyone with half a brain could see I have just as valid a reason for my beliefs as you do for yours. I don’t shove my beliefs down your throat or expect you to offer your condolences to me that it is, again, that month in which I must endure a world satiated with what I find morally dark and spiritually depressing. So don’t be offended that I don’t wish you a happy Christmas. When people all sing carols and talk holidays, I just bow out of the conversation. Of course, the holidays feel to me like strolling through a satanic goat-sacrifice might to you, but I know that the individuals who participate in Christmas actually mean well so I never get angry or take it personally, no matter how uncomfortable it is for me. I try never to be insulting or inconsiderate. When Christmas is in every angle of every view and on every tongue of passers-by, I stay out of it, but never take it as a personal attack (of course) So, it really steams me to hear people get their feathers ruffled because “Merry Christmas” banners aren’t strewn across every store front, as if they assume the entire world should bow to their feelings, but no one else’s matter.

I normally keep my mouth shut about a lot of this, unless I am asked, in order to be considerate of the many good people who love this holiday, since I wouldn't want to dampen their joy. But then, to be offended that their holiday doesn't carpet the planet as a universally accepted beleif? That's just too much. I mean, come on. I still respect your right to celebrate it. Respect my right not to. Who is offended by Christmas? I am. Why? Because I’m a Christian.

Now go and have a lovely December, whatever you chose to do with it, but leave your huffing, eye-rolling, and pompous egocentric need to have all humanity bow to your wishes at home. I sincerely wish for you all to have fun and enjoy your time together, but try to show some Christian attitude by showing a little more consideration and a little less bile.

Take care. Stay warm, and show a little love to your fellow man this month (and every month). Thank you for listening.

12 Comments:

Blogger Ray said...

See, you just do it. Every so often you post something I just have to toss in my two cents about…heh heh. A “few” thoughts on the subject:

I think you asked a really good question, but I don’t think you really answered it. “Who really is offended at Christmas?” And why are they? You stated who you thought probably isn’t offended or who should be, but I think the question of who REALLY is offended is very telling about why this cultural battle is taking place. I also think that the question should be asked, “Is one’s offense always legitimate?” Is the fact that I’m offended the end-all argument?

Personally, I think this is political correctness run amuck in much the same way that kids are now taught that Thanksgiving began when the Pilgrims were thankful to the Indians for helping them through the winter. The Pilgrims were Calvinists, staunchly religious and were primarily thanking GOD for getting them through the winter. It’s terrible that we cannot be honest in our society about things which have to do with religion -- lest we offend or think that by mentioning it, we promote it. Even if I am a pagan, why can’t I acknowledge in a public school that these people at a given time expressed thanks to God who they believed existed for sparing them? It’s almost a superstitious aversion to many in society that if they acknowledge something religious, that is an endorsement.

Christmas has been celebrated in Western Society for centuries – in our country overtly and publicly throughout its history. It’s part of the religious, cultural, and historical fabric of this society. It’s integrally part of the distinct American culture equally as much as cowardice is to the French…heh heh…I mean, as much as the Koran is part of arabic culture. The argument about its pagan or not pagan origins is another topic. Even if I do not celebrate Christmas, why should I be offended at the other 95% of the population doing so – even in the public sphere. Yes, Christmas is a national holiday, but no one is required to celebrate it. If one’s work has a Christmas party, one can choose not to participate. Say I have a moral objection to gambling. If my company planned an outing to a casino, yes, I’d be left out because I could not participate in that. Should I be offended and demand that the vast majority who wish to do that not be allowed to? I don’t think so. Should I feel less equal? Why so?

Taking persecution or restriction of human rights out of the equation, if I lived in the Mid-East in a Muslim country, should I and would I have the right to be offended if the 95% of the populous celebrated Ramadan in the public sphere? If someone at the local market wished me a “Happy Ramadan” or whatever they might, should I take offense at that? I don’t think so. Furthermore, I think it would be rather narcissistic of me to demand of the vast majority of the population that they restrict the public exercise of their celebration because it is not one I share. As a Christian, would I celebrate Ramadan with them? No. Would I feel left out of the festivities at work? Maybe. So what? Unfortunately, this freedom of refusal isn’t quite as extant there as it is here.

Some might say, “Yeah, but America has separation of church and state.” First of all, that is NOT in the constitution or any other government document – which is probably a surprise to most people. That phrase comes from a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson. The Constitution states that the State shall not restrict the free exercise of religion or establish a state run religion. Having Christmas as a national holiday or having a national Christmas tree is not establishing a state run religion anymore than having a Republican president makes everyone a Republican (it actually makes more people Democrats and vice versa…heh heh). If the President said that if you don’t become a Republican, than you’ll pay higher taxes or be fined, THEN that would be state establishment. In no way does the Constitution even suggest that religion (even the dominant one) cannot be expressed in the public sphere. Just look at all the religious references and biblical quotations in our government monuments and documents (starting with our Declaration of Independence). Again, whether you agree with Christianity or not is not the issue here, this is simple history. True, the American government was formed as a secular government, not a theocracy. But, from its beginning, it is replete with the acknowledgement and celebration of the Judeo-Christian heritage which served as the basis of this society -- the only society in history based both on the Jewish and Christian heritage. And it is BECAUSE of, not in spite of that, that the founders believed in the equal worth and autonomy of the individual to be able to choose who and how to worship – whether Christian or otherwise. It wasn’t perfectly displayed initially. There was slavery. Things happen in stages. But, it laid the foundation that would logically later abolish slavery.

I don’t understand your following quote, “Well, if you are odd man out every year because you are Jewish, then even if you aren’t offended by Christmas, you would probably appreciate being properly recognized as a person who’s equal and who’s right to their beliefs is thereby equal.” Why, if I have a Christmas party at work, should a Jew feel as though he’s not a person of equal worth or who has an equal right to his beliefs? If I carved a cross on his head or said that he would not be promoted or allowed to keep his job if he didn’t participate in the Christmas party, THAT would be a different story. Many Christians don’t celebrate Halloween. Are they less equal? The culture at large celebrates it. Well, abide by your conviction and let the others have their celebration. Being uncomfortable or not always included does not mean you have a legitmate right to take offense. It might mean your overly-sensitive and self-absorbed.

So, who is offended by Christmas? I agree that atheists by and large are probably not offended by Christmas. Why be offended by something you don’t believe exists? I understand why the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t celebrate Christmas. But, I think the people who are most offended by Christmas are secularists – which are birds of a different and more militant feather. Secularists wish not only that Christianity (especially) not show up in any way in government, but that it not show up in the public sphere at all. They want to erase the Judeo-Christian (whether you agree with it or not) heritage of the United States and religion from the public discourse. Secularists are not non-religious. They are anti-religious -- anti-religious because they believe that religion should be only “personal.” Of course, while religion should be personal, if it doesn’t affect who you are, how you relate to the world, how you vote or not vote, your world-view, it is religion which has been emasculated and made irrelevant. If my religion was LOVE, but I didn’t display it to anyone else or act in accordance with that, what is it? Nothing.

Plus, it’s just plain dumb calling it a “holiday tree.” What the freakin’ holiday do you think it’s about anyway? It’s not Arbor Day or Halloween. If someone Jewish takes offense if someone in good-natured friendliness wishes him/her a “Merry Christmas,” he’s just being a narcissist. If I take offense at someone saying to me, “Happy Halloween,” I’m being a narcissist. If someone wants to expunge a historic and culturally ingrained institution like Christmas from the public sphere because they take offense, they are self-centered and intolerant in the real sense of the word. So, celebrate or don’t celebrate, but don’t begrudge the VAST majority of the culture from doing it openly in their homes, in their places of work, and in the malls. And as you put it so aptly (though I direct it at the small, but vocal minority), “Now go and have a lovely December, whatever you chose to do with it, but leave your huffing, eye-rolling, and pompous egocentric need to have all humanity bow to your wishes….”

2:56 PM  
Blogger Cocaine Jesus said...

i guess that you are right, there are people out there who are foolish enough not to enjoy "christmas" makes you wonder why though doesn't it? after all "christmas was originally a pagan festival and one that the origianl christians kidnapped and used for to celebrate their gods only son but at the end of the day the inent of christmas be it pagan or christian is to be good and kind to fellow humans and on that note have a great christmas.

3:54 PM  
Blogger Ray said...

Thanks. I indeed hope to have a great Christmas.

That is not really historically accurate though regarding Christmas itself being a pagan festival. It is true that in various parts of the world, certain pagan customs either remained to have since been woven back into religious celebrations. In the Roman world when Christmas first originated, it is true that the date was originally a celebration to the god Saturnus. However, the Christians' intent at the time was to redeem the day from the pagans by saying, "You celebrate that false god. Here is the true alternative." We will choose to celebrate the coming of our Messiah on that day instead. No one was under any allusions that Christ was born that day. And the celebration of Christmas on that day was not an appeasement, but rather an attempt at a distinctive statement to the contemporary culture. The Christmas tree being of pagan origin is also not as cut and dried as often espoused, but I'll save that for another day.

Merry Christmas to you as well. It is as much a cultural holiday as a religious one in our society. It's message is largely positive, so why not embrace it? As my parent's are wont to say (they being German and having survived the bombings in WWII), people here have it so good that they have to find things to quibble and complain about. When you're starving or your house has been blown up, you're not going to be picketing against calling something a Christmas Tree.

4:12 PM  
Blogger Andy N. said...

Ms Noggin, nice post. Neither do I participate in Christmas, and neither do I condemn those who choose to for whatever reason. When wished some form of Christmas greeting, I thank them and explain in very concise and polite terms that historically it is a pagan "holy" day and it is unsupported by Scripture, so to be true to my conscience, I don't celebrate it, then wish them a wonderful day.

lord conifer, I have to laugh. Why is it that the athiests I've come across for the most part have had a far better knowledge and understanding of Christmas than the bulk of "Christians"? (and I have to use that in quotes, because there is far too often a very large difference between what people call themselves and what their words and deeds speak of them). It would seem that Yahshua ben Yoseph was right: that broad is the gate and smooth the road ... the one that is comfortable and easy and mindless... and many there are which blindly follow it

And yes, it is the anti-religion secularists who are making the big stink, who would find offence when if one of them sneezes, I say "God bless you" (a corruption / contraction of "God has blessed you" from the belief that the heart stops during a sneeze). Somehow I have no problem picturing one secularist sneezing before another, and the "correct" reply being "damn you!".

9:26 AM  
Blogger TwistedNoggin said...

Conifer:
"It's message is largely positive, so why not embrace it?" If you found something to be morally offensive, blasphemous, and an slap in the face to God and Jesus, would you just embrace it as long as it claimed a few feel-good values along with the bad? That is absolutely absurd. You've lost your marbles.

As for who finds Christmas offensive, I did answer that. That would be me. I don't take a "merry christmas" personally offensive, because it is meant kindly, but it is extremely awkward. I don't think it is only the anti-religious who are against christmas being absolutely everywhere, but frankly, I don't think it matters. What bothers me is this, when everyone and their brother is practically shoving christmas down my throat, I remain polite and don't take it personally. But, when people are asked to share it just with others who celebrate it, instead of plastering it over every corner of the US, they do get all up in arms, and that is egocentric and childish. Be a little respectful towards others. I never threw a fit about people always preaching christmas in my ear. You have no right to throw a fit if the stores start saying something a little freindlier to those who celebrate kawanza and hanuka or whatever. If you find it offensive that stores are trying to be a little more considerate to a wide variety of beleifs, perhaps it is you who is overly-sensitive and self-absorbed.
Andy N:
Thank you for an intelligent comment. It's also good to know you're still reading my ramblings now and then. :)

10:42 AM  
Blogger Ray said...

Andy N.:

You mentioned you don't condemn anyone who celebrates Christmas and then you speak of those (presumably me) who "call themselves Christians" saying, "you have to laugh" at we who are uninformed and then you go on with, "It would seem that Yahshua ben Yoseph was right: that broad is the gate and smooth the road ... the one that is comfortable and easy and mindless... and many there are which blindly follow it." I presume you're putting me in the mindless category.

Aside from being condeming AND extremely condescending in tone toward someone you have no idea about, you don't actually refute anything I've said but merely engage in ad hominem remarks regarding my status in the comfortable and mindless category. Actually stating specifically what is incorrect about what I wrote instead of looking impressive by saying "Yahshua ben Yoseph" instead of Jesus might make you more credible.

That being said, I completely respect that fact you don't wish to observe it. It is true, we are not instructed to do so in Scripture. There is also no prohibition on it either, so everyone must make up his or her own mind. The Bible also is silent regarding driving a car or what style of architecture is suitable for a church. So, latitude is the operative word.


Noggin':

You can also disagree without ad hominem comments about my losing my marbles and my absurdity. My quote about it being largely positive is in regards to the general tone of the cultural holiday is one of peace, good will, and doing good for others. Yes, it's not always played out, and sure, there's commercialism, but nothing is played out perfectly in society. I have many wonderful memories, both religiously and from my family which stem from Christmas, and the fact that other use it for personal gain is their problem. I acknowledged in my long posting that I understand the reasons that Johovah's Witnesses do not observe it, so I'm not sure why your vitriolic reaction.

If 95% of a population observes something, then it's just part of life that you are going to have to learn to cope with that if you choose not to. But there's no reason to begrudge those who do -- especially when it's 9 out of 10 people. There might be a small percentage of people who might be offended if I say, "hello" to them. Well, what can I do about that? Maybe they need to think, "Hmmm...I'm only one of a small percentage of people who don't like anyone to say, 'hello' to me. Since I can realize most people who say 'hello' to me do it with good intent and in the spirit of friendliness, maybe I can accept that positively without be offended." I remember long ago when you worked at the mall and you got so infuriated with people wishing you a Merry Christmas. People were just being nice. They had no idea that you didn't celebrate it. Just say, "thanks" and move on. It's not persecution, it's a cultural and religious difference.

If I lived in India, I as a Christian would have to understand that I am in a culture which holds values far different from my own and be cool with that. I would not be offended at that whatsoever, and I'm not sure why you are. I would disagree with them, yes. I would seek to explain my position with them, yes. But, would I be offended because the country which is dominently Hindu acts overtly Hindu? I think it would be childish of me and an exercise in frustration to be offended and seek to repress the expression of the dominent majority. I do find every other world religion besides Christianity to be a slap in the face to God ultimately. I am saddened by but not offended by the exercise of those religions. So, for me to be in a predominently Islamic or Hindu or Buddhist or whatever society does not cause me to be offended at their cultural practices. In fact, I can admit when they might have a positive role in the society even if I disagree with underlying religious foundations. Seeing the way Daniel reacted in Babylon is a case study in how I should react when the dominent culture is different from my own. Stand for my principles with charity respect. Granted, I'm part of the majority when it comes to celebrating Christmas, but I'm not in other ways.

Actually, THIS culture holds many different values from me, and I have to accept and deal with that as well. A very religious Jew I listen to often has spoken much about Christmas. And while he doesn't observe, he is not offended by people saying, "Merry Christmas" or seeing the overt observances of it out in society. He understands that they are doing it out of a friendly spirit and not seeking to offend (they have no idea he's a Jew). Unless we all seek to wear signs around our necks stating who we are and what things not to do to offend us, we might have to suck it up.

And while I understand you agree with the direction of Andy N.'s comments, there wasn't really anthing intelligent (though I can tell he's probably an intelligent dude) about them unless you consider refuting the person as opposed to refuting one's ideas intelligent.

3:19 PM  
Blogger TwistedNoggin said...

You obviously haven't really read my post or my comment. I made it quite clear that I take no personal offense at someone saying "merry christmas", although I find the holiday itself morally offensive in several ways. I appreciate the good intentions behind people saying such things say "Merry Christma", of course. If you had read my post, though, you would know that already. I very plainly stated (and restated) that it is not a "merry christmas" here and there or office christmas parties or what have you that offend me, personally. What offends me is people being so egocentric that they take offense at christmas not being on the lips of every checkout girl in america. You are wasting a lot of breath arguing without even knowing the opinion you are trying to counter. Next time, pause and read or listen before typing your speal.

Andy's comment was intelligent because he made his point clearly, consicely, and without ranting at anyone.

3:32 PM  
Blogger Ray said...

Here is the main problem I have with the war over Christmas. And, if you think about it, you should be concerned about it too. Let me give you an example: the wave of anti-smoking legislation. I personally, benefit from anti-smoking legislation because I hate the stuff, and I hate smelling it when I'm out, and I hate my clothes smelling like it when I get home. That being said, the anti-smoking crowd is getting to the point where I believe they are doing serious damage to civil liberties. You can't smoke OUTSIDE ON THE STREET in LA. Cities are banning smoking from bars, of all places. Isn't that a place that's built around vice? Plus, drunkeness causes more deaths than second-hand smoke ever did.

The way this ties in is this. The militant secularists (not to be confused with those who merely are of no faith) are trying to expunge religious expression from the public sphere and from any influence on society as a whole. They are doing it by trying to keep people from expressing faith in the public sphere and also by taking references to it out of our historical record. Even though YOUR religion isn't the one in question, it should concern you anyway. This is akin to what the Soviets did during communism. My mom has likened it to what she experienced when the Nazis first began to take control. They take your past. It's the seemingly insignificant stuff at first -- under the guise of fairness or inclusiveness. You might be glad that Christmas is being turned into "the holidays," and think that it's more fair to the small minority who don't celebrate it, but don't think it will not some day come to your doorstep. We have to see the macroview and understand how trends will play out. This will one day intrude on what you believe in -- perhaps you won't have the right to refuse a blood transfusion for your child or some other sort of decision based on religious grounds.

I also HATE dishonesty. I hate politically correct masks. I'd rather have honest dissent and even argument than appeasement though wordgames. At least then the items are on the table for discussion, and clarity can be achieved. Without clarity, there can't be profitable discussion or true resolution. And when companies have Christmas trees and decorations and the like and call it "Holiday" whatever, it's being disingenuous. As I said earlier, what holiday do they mean?

Oh, and one can make an unintelligent point clearly, concisely, and with condescension rather than a rant. It happens on NPR all the time. Again, I can respect Andy N. taking issue with specific points I make, but I don't respect his very articulate though ad hominem and guilt-by-association comments. I'm sorry, it's one of the foundational rules of debate, and anyone of any intellectual integrity shouldn't have to resort to them.

7:28 PM  
Blogger TwistedNoggin said...

your comments are very long, which makes replying to every "point" extremely tedious. Also, I don't really see a lot of what you said as being particularly relevant, so I have no real desire to reply to all of it. I can't blame him for stating his opinion without addressing every line of your comment.
As for your most recent comment, I agree with parts of it. I think seperation of church and state is extremely important, though. ESPECIALLY to prevent the demise of religious freedoms. I think that seperating the two would help, not hinder, our religious freedoms.

If you hate people putting up christmas trees and calling them holiday trees, why do you have no problem with people now calling christmas trees what were once known as sun god totums? I agree with you about not calling things what they are. That aggrivates me as well, but for me that is part of why I don't celebrate Christmas.

I think the problem with the smoking legistlation, and one day with where anti-religious legistlation will prbably go, is that people can't seem to tell the difference between protecting human rights (like protecting your right not to inhale my second hand smoke, and protecting a jewish person's right to not have christmas thrust upon them even at government buildings) with serving a selfish majority to the extent of infringing on human rights (like taking away my right to smoke in the friggin parking lot, or eventually putting restrictions on public worship).

Balance is lost on our society. It's all me or all them, never a thought of fair and reasonable... never a desire to protect everyone's basic rights equally, Never a real effort to see things from various perspectives.

We can't teach creation in school, and I'm glad of that. They'd teach it wrong, no doubt, and do the argument of creation more harm than good. But, they can indoctrinate our children with anti-religion through teaching evolution and presenting it as fact, not even as a theory. (and honestly, it's a flimsy theory at best, with no where near the logic and evidence that most theories are required to have before being accepted in the science world) This is a major failing of seperation of church and state. But I really digress, now, and I'm too far behind at work to review and re-type. I gotta get some work done.

7:49 PM  
Blogger Sean said...

Alright, who was the moron that taught Bill O' Riley how to blog?

Somebody has waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
too much time on their hands. If I had one wish, it would be to be beside this 'lord conifer' person on his death bed so I could hear about all the things he'd wished he did instead of campaigning for wal-mart.

:) Don't let 'em break you tiger.

5:35 AM  
Blogger Ray said...

That was a posting of supreme intellectual depth. Someone espouses something even remotely right of the perceived center (whatever that is), and he's accused of being a Bill O'Riley. And "conservatives" label and stereotype? Funny how you didn't mention that 'noggin had too much time on her hands with her extended posting -- nay, with the whole blog itself. Oh, I see...they only have too much time on their hands if it's a long post you disagree with. Ah, that makes sense.

Actually, I've been good friends with the "tiger" for nearly 15 years, and it has never been my intention to "break her." I happen to have friends who come from a variety of religious and political viewpoints and those differences don't keep us from enjoying each other's friendship. That might also be hard for you to swallow since you seem to have me pegged so securely in the rigid, ultra-conservative caricature which is always much easier to dismiss.

I don't remember mentioning anything about Walmart -- oh yeah, another erroneous assumption on your part. Yeah, it's much easier to berate the person than actually addressing what he says substantively. That would take effort. You're not making yourself look very good.

9:59 PM  
Blogger Ray said...

By the way, Sean, I went to your blog to learn a little more about you, and I came across this interesting quote defining an abusive adhominem as...

"the most common fallacy committed. It is when a would be interlocutor calls into question the credibility of someone by making an attack on that person�s character while not addressing the argument being put forth by that particular person."

You should read some of your own posts.

10:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home