I am glad that we are not in dispute.

I wondered how you could have gotten any other impression, but after re-reading what I had written, I could it that it was possible to interpret what I had written as being a challenge to your overall statement that we should work with conservative churches. I still can’t say if that interpretation was a stretch or not, but I clearly had failed to put in any disclaimer saying I wasn’t challenging the broader argument. I just hadn’t expect that interpretation of what I’d written.

That’s the main thing, I think. We don’t have any points of contention, just differences in a few areas.

I’m becoming more confused with each exchange.

It appears that we are in more agreement than I had thought. You agree that we should work with conservative (and other) churches that share our goal of reducing suicide. I agree that genuinely malevolent and hateful churches exist (though in small quantity).

Beyond that, I’m not sure what is our point of contention.

If you want to share with me where I’ve misunderstood you, I’ll be happy to read and learn. I know that clarifying a point to someone who clearly isn’t getting it (me, in this case) can be a chore though, so I’ll leave that decision to you.

Timothy Kincaid wrote,

But the real issue here, I suspect, is that you don’t want to work with conservative churches (and give away the store). I understand and appreciate that disinclination… I just happen to think that the kids are more important

You suspect wrongly. I think we should work with those conservative churches that we can. That fact that there are some genuinely malevolent and hateful churches out there doesn’t mean we can’t work with the big majority that aren’t.

I don’t want to misrepresent your views. I know what that is like; my views are regularly treated to straw man treatment. (I once had someone who not only told me what my views were and why they were wrong but went so far as to inform me that they were the result of my skin tone and hair color AND then informed me of what that hair color and skin tone were. That they were wrong on every point didnt make it any less frustrating).

So if I misrepresented your opinion, I apologize.

That being said, I am not certain of what you think I distorted.

In my commentary I said we should work with churches to have a common and universal condemnation of bullying. I said that they share our goal of saving lives.

You countered by challenging that assertion.

If your intention was to suggest that such a church exists, then that’s likely true. But that would be an irrational rebuttal. That A church hopes for suicide would not matter in a nation with tens of thousands of churches. Working with those church’s, as a general policy, would still be wise.

So I assumed that you were suggesting that so many churches support gay teen suicide as to be relevant when considering with whom we work.

But the real issue here, I suspect, is that you don’t want to work with conservative churches (and give away the store). I understand and appreciate that disinclination… I just happen to think that the kids are more important

Donny,

Thanks for bringing this up. I was hoping someone would.

And then, after you express some disagreement with what I actually wrote, you spend much of your post knocking around a straw man that has nothing to do with my position. Obviously the position contained in the straw man part of your post was something you felt needed addressing, but to be honest I don’t appreciate you using something I wrote as an excuse to do that.

When I write of likelihood, I meant exactly that, that there was a possibility that the leadership of a particular activist anti-LGBT church might have no problem with LGBT young people killing themselves. That’s all. If you think that is synonymous with ascribing with certainty and without further evidence a particularly egregious anti-LGBT position to a group of people who may very well not hold that position, you misread what I wrote.

I could go on in this post to reply to your substantive disagreements with what I wrote, but I don’t want to blunt the impact of the two paragraphs above.

I think the straw man argument is one of the most destructive logical fallacies for online discussion. That’s why I’m making it a point to object to your misreading of what I wrote. I’ve found that if that isn’t done in cases where the misreading is derogatory toward me, as I feel this one is, others might believe that I think what you claim I think. That misapprehension needs to be nipped in the bud.

I’m sorry to hear that. Ultimately morality is about what helps us thrive and what harms us and that is a scientific question we need to answer to have the best possible world.

Clearly we have very different perspectives on what it means to live free.

I’ll stick to my own set of values, ethics, morals and principles and will continue to share them here at Box Turtle Bulletin. And you are, as ever, entitled to your own opinion.

I responded “Right, just like whether or not blacks are inferior is one of those subjects on which words of only one side are permitted – that’s been such a terrible thing.

Timothy said “I’m certain that “reflects adversely” goes quite a bit further than “blacks are inferior”.

That may be, however the point is that whether or not blacks are bad people or inferior is one of those subjects on which words of only one side are permitted but we never have people like you complaining that that’s a bad thing. Somehow its supposed to be different with gays, somehow its important to let people feel okay about badmouthing gays when we don’t think people should feel okay about badmouthing blacks. Somehow many people seem to think homophobes deserve more respect than racists do – that’s most certainly not the case.