 |
"Ask a Dog"
| Tuesday, July 21, 2009 |
|
Pardon me, that petard is already occupied
|
In a previous post, we discussed how it is possible in theological controversy to hold the moral high ground, while at the same time, firmly shoving your opponent off it. Today we will see how one can subtly affirm one's own moral or equilateral superiority by using the very weaknesses of one's position to hoist an opponent on the petard sticking out of one's body.
Take the case of the theological debate current in some circles* about whether the RPW dictates purified or unpurified water in the baptismal font. This is a difficult case to settle, with inconclusive arguments on both sides, generally leading the honest reader to indecisiveness. The nature of the discussion being such, one can only win by deviously engaging in moral superiority, masquerading as brotherly concern.
The devious argument from charity is especially effective when coupled with some aspersion on the other man's character. For instance, when arguing that we should not waste costly purified resources on those who are up in years, you might be tasked by your opponent with unconcern for the health of the elderly. At which juncture, you can either concede his point, or employ the devious argument from Christian charity, coupled with character asperion, thus: 'I believe your position requires you to violate the ninth commandment, but in Christian charity I'm willing to leave it at that.' The charity consists in merely accusing the man of gross sin, and in the gracious willingness to dismiss further discussion with such an one. Everyone can see that you are charitable, and the man is a flagrant violater of 'the ninth'. It seems rather petty for him to cry 'foul' when the only charge he can reasonably bring against you is a ninth commandment violation -- and you called that one first. You have in one bold, swift move put him in the position of a moral copy-cat, deprived him of ethical authenticity. Any move he makes from this point on in the discussion is doomed: tainted with moral ambiguity; pre-dismissed by your graciousness, and branded with his sneaking ninth commandment problem.
If the man is of obtuse intellect and doesn't get the obvious -- that you are now morally unassailable while his position can only be the handmaiden of moral turpitude -- he may persist in battering pathetically against the logical weaknesses of your position. At this time it is advisable to make out that his point of view is actually responsible for the weaknesses in your own. So for instance, in the case study of purified vs. unpurified font water, if the man tasks your 'argument in favor of impurity' with all the deaths caused by water borne bacteria in the baptised, you can turn this neatly around and point out that those who have not built up an immunity to water borne bacteria are more susceptible to death, and exposure promotes immunity: thus making his position ultimately liable for all water borne bacteria related illness in the history of the world. The fact that only those exposed to bacteria in the water have actually died of water borne illness will escape everyone's notice. Death by water borne bacteria has now been so closely linked in the mind of the auditor with purified water that no case can be made to defend it.
If however, your opponent persists in hassling you with the apparent incongruity of this argument, you can pull out the rejoinder to end all rejoinders: the hydrogen bomb rebuttal: the straw that breaks the camel of his argument's humpity back: 'I find your statements overly diametric.'
This implies a certain reprehensible misalignment in his argument which is at the same time so precisely delineated as to be impossible to locate in coarse meaning, making rejoinder a logical impossibility. You can develop this argument with other geometric concepts, such as:
'I find your statements overly pentagonal around the perimeter', or 'I find your statements to be nauseatingly contrapositive and transversely biconditional. I cannot in conscience accept such an isosceles position.'
The discussion is over, and it is apparent to all that you have said nothing but what is axiomatic. Your language has been restrained to the most reasonable terms of mathematical discourse, while the other man is proved to be a base slanderer, who has aligned himself with a position that would terminate the believer in the waters of baptism -- and aligned himself diametrically, at that.
*that is, between the two communicant members of Presbyterian Uber-Reformed EvangelicalsLabels: baptism, PURE, theological controversy |
posted by Zack @ 7/21/2009 04:27:00 PM   |
|
|
|
Strugr | Blogger Templates by Gecko & Fly.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| The E-Book! |
|
| Previous Posts |
|
| Archives |
|
|
| Links |
|
| Affiliates |
|
|
|
|
