Is This Conducive To The Pursuit Of Truth?

I was still waiting for the last Power Commenter to respond to Pt. 3 in my response to DD's so-called Evidence Against Christianity when, after a most exuberant and joyous night out enjoying life with my friends (yes, some people actually like me, no I don't pay them, no I don't mean MySpace friends and no, I'm not referring to prostitutes) I hopped online to find 631 very flattering words titled The Heckler's Defense which – like The Loser's Compromise – I fully expect DD to deny are about personalities.

I decided not to respond on DD's blog for a few reasons. Although I disagree that I'm a troll, and I feel that my arguments at EvangelicalRealism are both well-reasoned and made in good-faith, some who disagree are likely to see anything I say as further evidence that I'm indeed a troll. Like a shark to blood, I can sense that DD's just about to his breaking point, and although getting banned from atheist blogs is always flattering, it's also always annoying because it's honestly never my goal – my real goal is the pursuit of truth which entails either emendation or procuring agreement from reasonable individuals that my opponent's argument is not cogent as formed. I hope our new Power Commenting experiment can offer something standard threads seem to have difficulty delivering. At the very least, I can proceed with confidence my Power Commenters won't call each other "mealy-mouthed pricks" or "intellectual cowards," and that they're committed to issues as opposed to personalities. That can't be a bad place to start, right?

Even though my response to The Heckler's Defense is well-reasoned and not trolling, I feel that if I were to leave it in the original thread, such would simply knock the focus further off the issues and reinforce the negative stigmas I earnestly desire to overcome. So, I'm responding here and I'm going to chill off DD's blog in general for a while. 

This is not a concession of defeat for those who like to jump the gun. I will still be very much in this discussion. What better way to disable your accuser than to steal his bullets? Refusing to comment there should swiftly undermine DD's concerns about me being an "infiltrator", "troll", "heckler", "loser", etc. Once his emotions return to equilibrium, once he's exhausted and done contradicting himself by addressing his perception of my personality, I'm hoping DD will return to the issues. Trust me, the last thing I want to do is get banned from his blog before that happens.

I'd like to bring DD's following claim to everyone's attention:

Hopefully we’re pretty much done with the Loser’s Compromise series. I think it’s gone pretty well, and a big part of the reason for that is that this series focuses entirely on the issues, rather than on personalities. I think that’s a good strategy, for a number of reasons. (June 11, 2009)

To me, that translates to saying the Loser's Compromise series focuses on issues vs. personalities, and that such is a good strategy. Presuming DD considers focusing on issues vs. personalities a good strategy outside the Loser's Compromise series, am I the only one who finds that statement odd or perhaps even contradicted in light of The Heckler's Defense, which focuses entirely on personalities and not issues?

DD, 

Is The Heckler's Defense another one of those sneering posts that aren't supposed to be about me? Was your stated interest in discussing personalities vs. issues merely rhetorical, or like the god you criticize, is it just not right here, right now? Where's that cold logic I've seen before? It's feeling quite heated and emotional to me around your blog lately. First we had the Loser's Compromise, now the Heckler's Defense, all sorts of name-calling… what's next? Inside The Mind Of The Internet Troll?

Were I equally willing to stray from the issues, I might rebut these cute posts of yours with a few cute posts of my own. For example, The Winner's Dilemma came to mind as a potential candidate. In our particular discussion, The Winner's Dilemma occurs when you refuse to address valid strawman claims from people, then decry them as "infiltrators", "trolls", "hecklers" and "losers." Your so-called "exoneration" was nothing more than straight-up word twisting, although I'm unsure if you realize it. 

Or he might try and goad other people into personal attacks, and then make a few attacks of his own, in order to drag everyone into a big flame fest.

I didn't try to goad anyone into personal attacks. I did return a few with a few of my own. Hell, I'm human. At least I aptly conceded such was "wrong" which is more than my detractors can say. Lastly, the only reason I tried to rock the boat by returning insults for a minute was to get you to step up to people in the name of Alathea. Once I realized that wasn't going to happen, I abandoned that strategy swiftly.

He might even contradict himself and then deny the contradiction, in order to keep everyone talking about himself and whether or not he really said what he said.

I didn't contradict myself because I never claimed that the GH was both Christianity and not Christianity. I'd be more than willing to discuss this with you in further detail. And what do you mean by contradicting? As in gloating about commitment to issues vs. personalities and asking people to stop feeding "the troll" one day, then coming out with another post feeding "the troll" and focusing on personalities as opposed to issues the next?

.. the goal is to get people talking about himself, and thus not talking about the things that are wrong with his beliefs.

That's not the goal at all. I don't want people to talk about me. As I've stated I don't know how many times now, my goal is to resolve this discussion reasonably, with you and I making all the necessary concessions, apologies and emendations to our arguments so we can walk out of this with real-world intellectual respect and a handshake. This would be much easier if you'd just talk to me directly for even the same amount of time it took you to write today's kitzche.

Incidentally – if your false assertion was my goal, why be such a willing accomplice? Look how much you've been talking about your perception of my personality as opposed to the issues over the past week. Surely, mine can't be the only eyebrow rising.

..the heckler makes it possible to view his critics as enemies, and thus naturally inferior folk.

Please, control your emotions here, as I feel you're stepping a bit over the line here. For the record – I do not view my critics as enemies, nor do I view anyone as inferior – not even my rudest critics. We are all human beings worthy of baseline respect, regardless of our flaws.

A telltale sign of the Heckler’s Defense is that the heckler will be very cagy about revealing what his own beliefs are.

I don't see how personal beliefs enable discussions about cogency, but I get this complaint a lot. I'd actually rather not know what people believe personally in these types of discussions. I'm confident things would be different had I posed as a dissenting atheist here.

He’s not in the discussion to let his beliefs go head-to-head with a competing conclusion in the kind of debate that forces both parties to put up or shut up.

If that was the case, why would I repeatedly invite you to a real-time, one-on-one, moderated discussion? We can't say who's right or wrong while we're still in the middle of the discussion, can we? I think it's entirely natural to expect strong disagreement in discussions about (a)theism, as the stakes are quite high. I think it's unfortunate for the pursuit of truth that you're so quick to pass judgment. All I want to do is take you on head to head and force us to either put up or shut up! Isn't your assertion a bit disingenuous? 

It’s a self-reinforcing cycle, because the heckler can fill his comments with all sorts of explicit and implicit accusations and insinuations, thus directly attacking the character of his opponents and taunting them to respond in kind, which in turn diverts the discussion into a flamefest, which reinforces the heckler’s conviction that his enemies are unfair, unkind, and by implication, wrong, etc., etc.

Indeed. Are you the heckler, then? You've filled this post with all sorts of explicit and implicit accusations and insinuations, thus attacking my character and taunting me to respond in kind, except I'm staying non-emotional about it and backing off so you can gather your wits. Incidentally, I do feel you're being unfair and unkind, and I do feel many of your guests are unkind, but by no means would I ever claim that weakens arguments. 

It’s a rather nasty maladaptive response to finding out the facts aren’t consistent with your beliefs,

1) Are you saying entire The Heckler's Defense isn't a nasty, maladaptive response? If so, I disagree.

2) You haven't shown that the facts are inconsistent with my beliefs. You've shown they're inconsistent with your beliefs. If you want to show that the facts are inconsistent with my beliefs, the onus is on you to show how the Bible permits this "right here, right now, god" (RHRNG) of your GH. Remember, the burden of proof falls on the positive claimant. Although I could easily supply some for you, to date, I've not seen a single scripture that you fancy justifies even a single tenet of the GH.

..we have to admit that there’s no real hope the Heckler will ever make an honest and sincere contribution to the discussion. That’s not his goal. His goal is to disrupt any discussion of the evidence, and to slander everyone who disagrees with him.

We never have to admit what's untrue. As stated, my goal is to resolve this discussion reasonably, with you and I making all the necessary concessions, apologies and emendations to our arguments so we can walk out of this with real-world intellectual respect and a handshake. This would be much easier if you'd just talk to me directly for even the same amount of time it took you to write today's kitzche.

My offer stands.