Dan’s been deleting a number of my comments recently, and it’s understandable why he’s doing it. I keep mentioning the fact that he won’t personally and specifically condemn the anti-Semitism in his political party as well as in the political movements he’s supported. Pointing out that he won’t do what he demands of others makes him uncomfortable in his sense of occupying the moral high ground, so it’s easier to delete the comments than to take a stand.
Dan, I understand why you’re choosing to act the way you are. I understand that you’re committed to a political philosophy that supports and endorses groups that engage in slavery, allow anti-Semites a platform, and kill innocents (children and adults), in our present enlightened modern day society. I understand that there’s a cognitive dissonance between killing of children that you accept and that you don’t accept.
There’s a meme that goes something like “Ask questions to hear the answer, not to simply respond.”, I’d add that asking questions to acquire ammunition in an argument is similarly problematic. Asking questions that you already know the answers to, simply to generate an excuse to delete comments and stifle conversation seems like bad faith.
Just know, that you’re welcome to comment here without fear of being deleted for answering questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Well that's pretty much his standard operating procedure now, isn't it? There's no discussion, no debating of diverse opinion. There's only his way. I like also how he insists that you call for Trump to step down for imagined crimes...none of which he can name or list. There is no legitimate reason to call for his ouster. None whatsoever. And even if one hangs his hat on the results of the Mueller investigation...hoping against hope that finally Trump's many misdeeds will be exposed to the world (*snicker*), there has been nothing since he's taken office that should compel anyone he needs to be removed from office. Nothing. AT ALL!!!
In the meantime, Dan won't speak boldly against that which is exposed about Dems while in office. That is, unless compelled by comments from those like you or me. At that point he pretends that we should not have dared suspect he wouldn't be opposed. Yet, as I say, without someone like one of us forcing the issue, he's NEVER done such a thing about ANY center-left figure. Not on his blog, anyway. I know this because I actually took the time to go through his archives beginning with the last 3 or 4 months of the Bush years on through today.
I like his new tactic. Instead of calling our specific instances where people who’s policies and organizations he explicitly supports for specific instances of whatever the “ism” is, he’s concocted this generic Teflon shield so he doesn’t have to get specific.
This wouldn’t be quite as big an issue if he wasn’t demanding that others do what he apparently is afraid of doing himself. As long as he quotes other people, he absolves himself from actually having to take a specific stand on actual incidents.
It’s judt more of the hypocrisy of double standards and fear of specifically calling out those on his side.
“Look, other people have the courage to stand up for some minimal level of accountability, so because other people do you should assume that I do to.”
Of course you do, because it’s your step toward deleting comments.
No, I don’t support chattal slavery. Never have, never will. I don’t support or make excuses for those who currently practice chattal slavery.
Are all instances of killing children in battle equal? Are all instances of killing children equal?
Does the nature of the circumstances bear on whether killing children is wrong?
Are there circumstances where killing children might be unavoidable in the pursuit of a greater good?
Is it wrong to kill a child because they are a particular gender?
Is it wrong to kill a child for a kiss?
Is it wrong to kill a child because they choose to follow Christ?
Is it wrong to impose an economic system on s country that forces children into prostitution?
Is it wrong to ingest legal substances that harm children?
You’ll need to be much more specific in your question, or provide some clarification.
It’s wrong to intentionally, specifically target children for killing? Is it wrong to place a bomb factory under or next to a children’s hospital? If it is wrong, then wouldn’t those who choose to do so be at fault?
As a general rule, I’d suggest that killing anyone who is innocent, who has caused no harm, or who should be protected rather than killed is wrong.
The above is one of two comments I tried to post at Dan’s post, it’s clear that he has no desire for discussion, just more of him imposing his will on others.
Dan has officially given up any pretense of wanting conversation, I gave him exactly what he demanded and he deleted it. What a coward.
The problem with your Hiroshima example, it the lack of context.
If the context was that a couple of liberal Democrat American presidents decided that it was appropriate to drop a horrible weapon (that they developed) on an unsuspecting city, out of the blue, then it would be the most horrific act in the annals of humanity. But, by removing the context from that one act, to try score a rhetorical point, you reveal your purpose.
You’ve deleted clear answers, while hiding from clarifying questions like the coward you are. You’ve chosen to lie about the content of the comments you’ve deleted, like the coward you are.
I completely understand why your asking the questions. You’re trying to come up with ammunition, and diverting attention from the questions your afraid to answer.
Dan’s gone all in on hypocritical cowardice.
It's what "embracing grace" is all about, Craig.
Dan kicked his selfish and one sided concept of embracing grace to the curb long ago.
Anyone who looks at Dan’s blog for a picture of what Christianity looks like will conclude that it’s a bitter, harsh, loveless religion.
A rather formless religion...like Play-Doh...that can mean whatever he needs it to mean, allowing whatever he needs it to allow, with no more than the most superficial of similarities to Christianity in order to legitimize cheap rationalizations.
I won't generally be commenting here, but just fyi:
What people like Dan do is generally recognized as quite beautiful. This is not about me, but about the progressive model, which...
Works to get homes for those without homes;
Jobs for those without jobs;
Release for those imprisoned for the "crime" of seeking refuge;
Uniting families for those who've had their families torn apart;
Providing safe places for LGBTQ folk, for immigrants and refugees who are less than safe, who have been oppressed and harmed by others - sometimes specifically by conservative Christians, sadly;
Supported honest dialog, and opposed false claims, demonization and stupidly false attacks against oppressed groups, against women, against the free press, against liberals;
Worked for health care for children in need;
Worked for clean energy and opposed actions that lead to, for instance, coal slurry spills wiping out small, impoverished towns, or asthma in the elderly, sick and children;
Working strategically and seriously to see ALL these things happen... which INCLUDES holding people accountable and sometimes making conservatives uncomfortable or calling out false claims and stupid demonizations for what they are.
Now, most people see these sorts of progressive actions and recognize them for what they are, Beautiful, strong, loving, courageous, grace-full.
BUT, there are those who see such good work as an "attack..." or "lacking in grace..." Who are those people? The oppressors and those who side with them.
So, IF regular people see the actions and behaviors of progressive folk as the beautiful and wonderful actions they are, and YOU don't, perhaps it's because you're on the wrong side of honesty, morality and/or justice.
Just like so many "good christian white folk" in the US were strongly opposed to the actions of the Civil Rights movement, SOMETIMES, something seems harsh because you're on the wrong side.
Consider that possibility.
Dan,
Of course you won’t regularly comment here, you are clearly too fearful of truth and disagreements to venture out of any area where you can’t exert complete control.
The the fact that you’ve provided a list that bears absolutely zero relationship to my comment, is amusing but pointless.
Anyone frequenting your blog will get a glimpse of a version of Christianity that is full of expletive laden vitriol, a haven for falsehoods, and a place where slander goes unremarked on.
Your increasing hatred is concerning, and your abandonment of grace is pronounced.
You may give away the whole world, but I suspect you’ve lost your soul. Your list of “good works” won’t buy You righteousness and the self centered pride apparent in you announcing that you are the “right side”, is the antithesis of the humility modeled by Christ.
Dan is specifically addressing me at his blog, but doing so in ways that preempt or discourage me from commenting unless I do exactly what he wants.
"Works to get homes for those without homes;
Jobs for those without jobs;"
Didn't you do that in Haiti, Craig? Hell, I do that by voting for conservatives who understand what policies result in the level of growth that allows for people to work and provide for themselves. Dan's participation in such activities do not mean a damned thing with regard to his corrupt "Christianity". Even other, more honest than Dan, unbelievers do good works for those about whom they care greatly.
"Release for those imprisoned for the "crime" of seeking refuge;"
Dan is such lying sack. He refers to people imprisoned for the CRIME of crossing our borders illegally or overstaying their legal welcome. Legitimate seekers of refuge are not "imprisoned", but detained until their refugee claim can be verified. Even then, they are usually released into the general population after which too many refuse to appear for their hearings.
"Uniting families for those who've had their families torn apart...."
Because they chose, with full knowledge of the consequences, to ignore our laws regarding illegal border crossings. Dan lies by implying law enforcement were responsible for "tearing apart" their families. Another example of the false Christianity of Dan Trabue.
"Providing safe places for LGBTQ folk, for immigrants and refugees who are less than safe, who have been oppressed and harmed by others - sometimes specifically by conservative Christians, sadly;"
Law enforcement stats show that "LGBTQ folk" are harmed far more often by other "LGBTQ folk" than by anyone else, much less actual Christians (who Dan labels "conservative" Christians so as to portray them as somehow less Christian than the "progressives" like Dan who aren't Christian at all). Similar is true of illegal immigrants and refugees, as they are more often than not victims of other illegals and other exploiters of refugees. Rarely are they harmed by American law enforcement or American citizens (as to the latter, no more or less than criminal Americans victimize other Americans). Indeed, the legitimate refugess (those confirmed by immigration authorities as such) are protected.
"Supported honest dialog, and opposed false claims, demonization and stupidly false attacks against oppressed groups, against women, against the free press, against liberals;"
This one was highlighted due to the obviously egregious nature of this lie. Dan does NOT support honest dialog, and he does very little to prove that those he opposes lodge false claims. There is little reason why anyone would lodge a false claim about liberals as there is little time available after lodging all the legitimate claims about their low character that are so obvious to honest people everywhere.
No one attacks "the free press" except where they stray from their purpose to attack a president they still can't accept was legally elected to office and who has proven himself beyond the wildest expectations of even many who held their nose to vote for him rather than allow the greater evils who people like Dan support and still do.
"Worked for health care for children in need"
The policies of those Dan supports results in more children in need. This is a fact.
continuing...
"Worked for clean energy and opposed actions that lead to, for instance, coal slurry spills wiping out small, impoverished towns, or asthma in the elderly, sick and children;
It would be an enjoyable exercise to have Dan point out anyone who supports "actions that lead to, for instance, coal slurry spills wiping out small, impoverished towns, or asthma in the elderly, sick and children;" It would also be fun to see him point to anyone who does NOT work for cleaner energy. All existing industries produce cleaner energy than ever before. It's an ongoing endeavor.
"...sometimes making conservatives uncomfortable..."
As if you could, Dan. What's far more troubling is how you never feel shame for all that you do that is shameful while pretending you are a Christian because you also do some good works. It just doesn't work that way. You and those like you are the cause of so much you pretend you are fighting. Yet you never feel uncomfortable about any of it.
"Now, most people see these sorts of progressive actions and recognize them for what they are, Beautiful, strong, loving, courageous, grace-full."
Most "progressives" perhaps...but they're self-deluded liars...like yourself. Normal people see them as band-aids over wounds your kind have inflicted.
"So, IF regular people see the actions and behaviors of progressive folk as the beautiful and wonderful actions they are, and YOU don't, perhaps it's because you're on the wrong side of honesty, morality and/or justice."
"Regular" people are not "progressives", despite your attempt to conflate the two here. True honesty, morality and/or justice are things of which those like yourself have an incredibly poor understanding. True honesty, morality and justice would result in an environment where that which you believe yourself to be improving wouldn't be happening in the first place. Again, your ideology perpetuates all of it.
"Just like so many "good christian white folk" in the US were strongly opposed to the actions of the Civil Rights movement, SOMETIMES, something seems harsh because you're on the wrong side.
Consider that possibility."
And therein lies the hubris and self-delusion so clearly obvious in Dan Trabue. He never....NEVER...considers that possibility, even when sound, logical and...proven by his unwillingness to engage...irrefutable arguments and evidence makes it obvious he's on the wrong side of an issue.
Dan saying he supports honest dialogue and opposes false claims is like a an orthodox rabbi walking into Joes KC and ordering the Rocket Pig on a Saturday afternoon.
Now I'm hungry.
Post a Comment