“Every single of Smallvice’s posts where he calls me either a Christian Fundamentalist or a Christian Fanatic or a Christian heretic (as if he understands what that means), is an ad hominem, because it totally misrepresents my actual position, and paints me in a monolithic colour” [#406].

I have tried scouring the messages posted by smallvice in this thread for evidence of ad hominem against you and the only piece of evidence, provided we can all agree it is indeed ad hominem, is the line you quoted “We are dealing with a person infected with Christian Fanaticism on this thread.” [#248]. I cannot deny that the person referred to is you but I am skeptical as to whether saying someone is infected with fanaticism amounts to an ad hominem or can be considered derogatory. I would like to hear the views of the others.

In none of the other posts initiated by smallvice in this thread have I found anything that can be termed as ad hominem. If I am correct, smallvice initiated 35 messages [taking #421 as his last] of which 10 were addressed to you directly. And all the ones addressed to you were couched in very civil language.

Thus your assertion “…most of smallvice’s posts are personal attacks/ ad hominems” {#412] is completely baseless and I would challenge you to read through all the posts initiated by smallvice and come up with something of substance to support your assertion, for all of us to see. Otherwise, you were just asserting a falsehood.

In post #113 under the TLA thread, smallvice said:

“Dear Christians and Muslims,

Please beware of blindly pledging your support for Arix. As a religious heretic, he wrote the following in #305 of “the India decrimanalising Gay Sex” thread:

(1) I believe that all religions – including Christianity – should aim back towards First Religion;

(2) I believe that the role of the Pope and Curia in the Roman Catholic Church should be re-evaluated and re-examined;

(5) I believe that there should be talks of integrating the Koran into the Bible;

(7) I believe that The Church and other religious groups need to be open to re-examination of their own social-administrative structures.

Please pause and think for a while – Who are your real enemies? Atheists defending minority rights? Or heretics denigrating religious structures and beliefs?”

Again, it is debatable whether smallvice was guilty of ad hominem when he referred to you as a religious heretic for making known your beliefs as expounded in (1), (2), (5) and (7) above which, coming as it were from someone who professed to be a Catholic, can be construed as heretical.

In posts #244 and #366 you accused smallvice of being a Militant Atheist. In #115 you accused sllim and smallvice of being sophists. Would you say you were not guilty of ad hominem yourself?

You have also accused smallvice of “poisoning the well.” Can you recall the many occasions when you were poisoning the well yourself?

You say: “the brain “interprets” the person to be of the opposite sex; a form of cognitive dissonance, but at the sub-conscious level.”

The implicit assumption here is that there is some ‘pre-interpretive’ (sub-conscious) understanding of what the person’s sex is, which conflicts with the brain’s interpretation and thus produces the “cognitive dissonance”. My contention is that a person’s sex has no inherent meaning at all, so that a male who believes himself to be female would not necessarily have any form of inner psychological conflict. The conflict usually arises because his interpretation clashes with social norms around him.

Also, I think your programming analogy is wrong, isn’t it? Shouldn’t the second function be:
function f(){
if (s==m) do_f1
}

In any case, the mechanistic causal link you seek to draw between sexual identity and sexual attraction is dubious (you say that because of the reversed sexual identity, “the target of attraction changes, but the mechanics of implementing the attraction does not.”) If there is anything like a causal link, it seems to flow the other way, i.e. a person is first attracted/repelled on a sexual level to one or the other sex (or both), and after several iterations, this feeds back into his or her sexual identity.

The even better account is that sexual identity and sexual attraction have no necessary connection at all, i.e. each develop separately, and a person has to try to reconcile them (especially at society’s behest). This seems to capture reality far more accurately than your model: gays and lesbians often report a time growing up when they struggle with, e.g. feeling entirely male (with predominantly male traits such as competitiveness, physicality, self-motivation, emphasis on logic, less attention to grooming, etc.) and yet being attracted to other males (contrary to expected gender roles). This indicates that sexual attraction is a free-standing component of the human psyche, and that the linkage between sex and sexual attraction is made by society.

Whether it is psychological or biological….it still does not justify discrimination. Adult/ human has free will. We are allow to make choices. If I chose to be single all my life, if I chose to be gay, If I chose to be straight, it is my life….It has nothing to do with you, state and God. PERIOD. No amt of verbal intercourse will swing otherwise. Can I ask u to chose this girl to marry and not that one because I think God says so? Of course if u are ’silly’ enough, u will do it. But let me tell u this, life is too short. Why short change urself over sthing u cannot prove (Existence of God). And whatever it is, u only live once. And u r too young to limit ur life this way.

all you get now on television is some MP fast asleep while the other’s talking.

Should I be expecting a response to 371,372?

The ludicrous basis that homosexuals must be discriminated against because it’s both biological and psychological notwithstanding, are left-handers born with only with left hands? If so then it is clearly a pure biological condition. However, nearly all left-handers are born with a set of healthy right and left hands, but yet we observe a significant minority of people using their left hands dominantly, and yet a even smaller number of people who are able to use both hands dominantly.

This is analogous to sexuality, whereby the majority are heterosexual, and we have a significant minority who are homosexual and bisexual.

Till this date it remains murky to why some people are left-handers, and why some people are homosexuals. To be so sure that one condition is purely biological while the other is both biological and psychological takes a certain kind of arrogance. What facts are there to back these claims?

And even if so, why should it matter what is psychological or biological? Religion is purely psychological. Shall we postulate ways to cure the religious now?

It’s a rich tinge of hypocrisy when Arix, a left-handed minority himself, discriminates against homosexuals, and tries to come out with ways to cure something he has none the slightest idea about. Shall we, the right-handed majority, come up with ways to cure you of your left-handedness?

There is no need for you to provide any evidence to the attacks your are being subjected to by smallvice. Those of us who have been in TOC long enough knows very well that smallvice is one very anti-Christian fanatic.

Having said that, it can also be a good thing, only if one cultivate the skill to read only those comments from him that make any sense. Other than that, ignoring them would be the best and wisest option.

Thanks for the link. I stand corrected, insofar as suggesting that it was for health reasons that 377 was decriminalized by the Delhi Court.

I admit I have not been able to read all the 205 pages of the written judgement but glancing through it, it gives the impression that the link between HIV/AIDS and gay is one factor that had prevented the decriminalization of 377.

However, taking this outside of the judgement settings, it cannot be helped that the general perception (or misperception, as the gays would have it) is that there is a link between the two. This is why the issue was painstakingly deliberated upon during the judgement.

Once again, thanks for the lesson. It is arguments like yours that wins the debate. This is something I hope we can all learn from, instead of useless jibes and meaningless self-centered opinions.

Why are you giving Arix’s pseudo-science legitimacy by engaging it?

Arix is a follower of American Mystic Ken Wilber’s Theory of Everything (ToE).

I am sure you have engaged Arix’s understanding of ToE on the discussion of integralism.

Thanks for your swift reply.

1) okay.

2) Ah, now I see that you have misinterpreted the Bridge/Fence aspect. The Bridge/Fence is emotional/psychological, not structural. It is a semantic disjunct between interpretation and reality.

In other words, the brain “interprets” the person to be of the opposite sex; a form of cognitive dissonance, but at the sub-conscious level. It is a rationalization, that then becomes conditioned when it is repeated several times.

The relation is not inherent, but extrinsic.

To analogize, take a software program:-

function f(){
if(s==m) do_m1
}

now changes to

function f(){
if (s==f) do_m1
}

the condition changes, but the task remains the same. (i.e. the target of attraction changes, but the mechanics of implementing the attraction does not.)

(to be con-d)

It is pointless talking to a satire wall, but I shall try anyway.

Handedness is only biological; homosexuality is both biological and psychological.

On the issue of “physiological identity”, thanks for clarifying that you meant ““the way our bodies work in relation to our evolved reproductive function”. I do not deny that our bodies, or individual body parts, have specific evolved ‘functions’ which go towards ensuring the human species’ survival.

I do deny that such functions have any inherent relation to our psychological identity and self-understanding. Traits like skin colour, height, reproductive organs, hair curliness, hand preference etc. are meaningless and inert, unless interpreted by our conscious self. And each trait may or may not play a role in our psychological identity (hair curliness is irrelevant for most people), and is liable to be interpreted in different ways (some regard skin colour as irrelevant, others not so). As such, I fundamentally disagree with your ‘Bridge’/'Fence’ analysis, because it suggests a connection between our psyche and our evolved reproductive functions is necessary for any complete self-understanding.

Next, on the Individualist/Conformist divide. Any theory is to some extent a simplification of reality, because it’s only through models and representations that reality makes sense to us. Nevertheless, we must be wary of over-simplification. I think you’re verging on over-simplification:

(1) Even along the Individualist/Conformist axis alone, there is a continuum of ‘Individualists’ and ‘Conformists’. Voltaire was more ‘Individualist’ than Locke, who was more ‘Individualist’ than Hobbes.

(2) More importantly, a single person or class of persons is usually scattered across the whole continuum, rather than fixed on a single point. The Enlightenment philosophers were also in one sense ‘Conformist’, because they were conforming to the intellectual spirit of their age, as well as to the fashionable beliefs of their social class (both nobility and bourgeois). Free market can be ‘Conformist’ too, as seen by how the U.S. Republicans support the tyranny of Big Business, which largely dictates power relations in American society today. Nationalism can be ‘Individualist’, when you’re talking about a separationist ethnic/religious minority within a State.

On to personality traits. I’m not sure how this fits in with the rest of your thesis, or with your recommendation of reparative theory. After all, you also say that these personality traits are hardwired in our genes, so we can’t change those, can we? Unless you mean some form of reverse psychology: e.g., somehow persuade the ‘opposite sex’-tending Individualist to think that it’s cool to stick to traditional gender roles…

Also, you’ve only referred to 2 personality traits. Throw in other traits which interact with gender roles in different ways, and you get an extremely complex portrait of the human psyche that will frustrate any attempt to ‘tweak’ people through counselling and therapy. To borrow from 16PF: if you’re high in ‘Dominance’, you may tend towards the ‘Masculine’ gender role; if you’re high in ‘Warmth’ (easygoing) or ‘Sensitivity’, you may tend towards the ‘Feminine’ gender role; if you’re low in ‘Vigilance’, you may be more suggestible to what people in your immediate environment tell you are proper gender roles; and so on.

Really? I have not yet seen you addressing rebuttals to #341.

Why the bias? Let the normal right-handed, heterosexual majority discriminate against deviants like homosexuals and left-handers alike.

1) Apology accepted. I like talking with you; you are sensible, unlike a certain smallvice.

2) You can catch me for clumsy terminology again. “physiological identity” as used in context really refers to “the way our bodies work in relation to our evolved reproductive function”.

4) In #362, I type “Conservatism/Conformism” to indicate that in my writing context, Conservatism is equalized with Conformism. To use your examples:-

If this guy is a Conformist, then he will adapt to like vanilla ice-cream. If this guy is an Individualist, then he will think of himself as a girl. This is independent of whether he chooses to favour the free market or endorse absolute monarchy. This is a personality trait, not a political ideology.

Dear Christians and Muslims,

Please beware of blindly pledging your support for Arix. As a religious heretic, he wrote the following in #305 of “the India decrimanalising Gay Sex” thread: …

Some of smallvice585’s comments are “not the model of calm deliberation”, as WKS would say. And to the extent that his aggressive tone may chase you off these threads, we’d be left the poorer, because it’s mainly your contributions which have been the focal point of most of the debate.

However, I would also urge you to show some fortitude dealing with offensive remarks, or alternatively, ‘avert your eyes’ (a reasonable step in these circumstances). In any robust debate, it’s inevitable that people will get offended, but that shouldn’t dictate the parameters of our conversation. Some of what you’ve said in this thread is offensive to some GLBTs and to some atheists, for example. But as I said, the onus is on the audience to grow thicker skin, not for the speaker to hold his/her tongue.

Lastly, might one not characterize smallvice585’s comment (extracted above) as precisely the sort of ‘disclaimer’ you wished to append to Alex Au’s article? :P

Thanks for clarifying the meaning of “Ad Hominem”.

Why don’t you check the India Thread #113 and explain why that isn’t a Ad Hominem? For one, it is not even related to any arguments about the topic of the thread – homosexuality.

4) You said you read most, and indeed most of smallvice’s posts are personal attacks/ ad hominems.

5) Yes, you could have missed them. But there is more than 1 reason why you could have missed them.

6-7) I know that I am the only one who is actually arguing a case against homosexuality here. Apart from buda, who occasionally intervenes in the debate to support my general points, there really isn’t any other person supporting me. (I don’t count people like interested as supporters.)

Unfortunately, the words “bigot” and “Fundamentalist” are used so often in a LGBT Rights debate that people sort of forget that these are terms of personal attack as well. Therefore, I stand by my comment. I would not rule it out that your pro-gay position makes you filter out any personal attacks made on a person of the so-called “anti-gay” position (which is a slight, but tolerable, misnomer) as something “normal” and “acceptable”.

8) Evidence?

#248: “We are dealing with a person infected with Christian Fanaticism on this thread.”

That is one.

#113 (TLA course thread): “Or heretics denigrating religious structures and beliefs?”

that is another.

There is 2 for starters. And I have made exact quotes, not paraphrased.

9) The messages are in SMS. Andrew posted his reply in #268 (still trying to be friendly) and emailed me that he had a talk with smallvice (who is one of TOC’s sub-editors).

“If you can’t see the personal attacks, it is because you are overly pro-gay.”

Arix, let’s analyze this argument of yours.

In my #401 I say: “I have read most if not all of smallvice585’s posts and I have not detected any ad hominem in them. I would like Arix to pinpoint smallvice585’s message[s] that Arix perceived as ad hominem, and we can assist by reevaluating whether Arix is correct.”

Arix, please read these sentences carefully; have I said that I have read all of the messages posted by smallvice585? The obvious answer is a resounding NO, right?

Could I have missed those posts that were tinted with ad hominem? The answer must be Yes, right?

So, how could you say “If you can’t see the personal attacks, it is because you are overly pro-gay.”?

If I didn’t see the personal attacks. It could mean that I didn’t come across them. But even if I did see them I might have interpreted them as non ad hominem, from my subjective viewpoint, right?

Thus the conclusion that I am overly pro-gay is a non-sequitur, would you agree?

Arix, please extract smallvice585’s messages [and post ref no] wherein smallvice585 calls you “a Christian Fundamentalist” or “a Christian Fanatic” or “a Christian heretic”.

You claim you talked with Andrew and he agreed that that “Smallvice was throwing personal attacks on you”.

Let us have the evidence, Arix – show us the messages.