Now THIS is Reasoned Discourse™!
James did indeed print my reply to him (see the post below), and responded.
Here’s what I would have left, if he was still allowing comments:
“. . . my stated suspicions at the outset were correct – that your honeyed words in challenging me to a debate were bogus, and that you are not remotely interested in meaningful dialogue . . . .“
Except, James, I never even suggested that we were going to be engaged in “meaningful dialogue” – I don’t know where you even got that idea. I was quite clear on the fact that I HAD NO ILLUSIONS THAT I WOULD CHANGE YOUR MIND, NOR YOU MINE:
I did not engage you in Rachel’s comment thread because I came to it too late, but I now invite you to actually debate this topic. I suggest that the forum for this debate be our two blogs. We can trade posts, or I’ll be more than happy to give you guest posting privileges at my blog.
I’m quite serious. And I promise that you will learn things you didn’t previously know. I don’t expect to change your mind, but I do predict that you will be made uncomfortable by what you learn.
—
No, James, it’s not about “winning” or “losing,” it’s about the philosophy. As I said above, I don’t expect to change your mind, nor you mine. What I want to do is get the discussion out there where “fence-sitters” can find it.
You seem like the type capable of defending his position, and (given your performance at Rachel’s) willing to.
You have no idea how rare that is. On my side of the fence we have a running joke about “reasoned discourse” – it’s what your side does here on the internet generally when confronted with facts and reasoned arguments. They close their comments and often delete them. I don’t think you’d do that.
(Emphasis added.) Obviously I was wrong about the “closing comments” part, and we’ve yet to see about deletion, but I can honestly say that you you totally mischaracterized what I promised, now you’re all butt-hurt and your taking your ball and going home. As I said:
So much for defending his philosophy.