Monday, February 03, 2014

Agenda Lies 8: A Dialogue---Such As It Is

The dialogue in this Dan Trabue thread is not so much an example of an Agenda Lie as it is a defense of it.  It begins with his New Year's Resolution for his blog pertaining to how he intends to act in discussions where opinion and fact might be confused.  He claims too many of his opponents don't know the difference and often put forth opinion as if it were fact.  My initial response is that he has claimed for himself the ultimate authority to decide what is fact and what is opinion and in a very subjective and self-serving way.

From there, he tries to insist that I present my definitions for both, and I respond that I am certain we both know the difference well enough, but that I don't have any confidence that he will rule according to those definitions.  I felt it more appropriate that he simply get down to arguing why what was stated as a fact in not in fact...a fact.  Otherwise, without doing so, what he is really doing is merely stating his opinion about what is a fact or an opinion.  You can see where the trouble is.

Anyhow, as he uses an example in his post that refers to religious argument, I decide to use this opportunity to once again explore Lev 18:22 to hopefully force him to face certain realities, or to provide, finally after all these years, an actual argument based on Scriptural evidence (primarily) and then perhaps scholarly interpretations that haven't been refuted or contradicted by other scholars.  One would expect that at some point, each argument runs into a barrier of logic and fact against which the other side cannot return volley.  I believe it is clear that has already happened in this debate, and that the only reason it rages on (where proponents of the Agenda That Doesn't Exist do not bolt the debate for lack of legitimate argument) is due to the unwillingness of people like Dan to truly respond to the points raised about the Scriptural prohibition.

If you've a mind to do so, check it out and see what you think.  I know some of you have no desire to spend/waste your time at Dan's blog, so you can post comments here if you feel so moved.  But I think you'll see a clear example of Dan's fancy two-stepping as I try to get him to answer a few simple questions.  Kinda humorous, really.