I had just clarified that I was talking about what the Catholic Church claims about God and not about the nature of God, and then you try to play this card again? No, I brought that up to reemphasize my own position vis a vis lameness. The argument is inherently about fantasy stories; your argument, ArgumentativeMonotheist’s argument, the catholic church’s argument, the whole damn thing. And it’s dumb to be getting this heated over what the catholic church said a thousand years ago. It just is, and you’re letting the “Someone Is Wrong On The Internet (And They Just Disagreed With Me)” aspect of this drive your interaction - and that’s beneath you. Seriously, this topic has come up, on the whole of lemmy, twice before. Twice. This isn’t worth getting this angry about. it has to do with how you people behave when confronted with evidence that proves something you said is wrong Remember this is based on “[…] what the Catholic Church claims about God […]”, and it’s just really goofy because of it’s applicability within the broad context of this conversation, to claim this is unreasonable behavior. Like it totally is unreasonable behavior, but you know, religion and all that *adjusts fedora*. This reaction shows both purposefully missing the point of the analogy, and trying to discredit me. In fact I simply didn’t understand the relevance of the analogy, nor where the analogy came from. It’s a weird thing to start talking about liberals and their opinions about to north korea in the middle of a conversation about the history of the catholic church. For one thing, this argument doesn’t, you know, matter. It’s not relevant to boo in the modern era, unlike NK, which very much is a real thing. I don’t know why you brought this in as an example, and I similarly (and I genuinely am confused here) don’t understand how being confused about it could be reasonably construed as an attempt to discredit you. What the specific point is, fictional or otherwise, is far less important than what the response to it tells me The response to it is that you’ve made this into a moral crusade about interpretations of fanfiction, and are drawing sweeping conclusions about topics as unrelated as north korea from the fact that you’re being downvoted, and that people are arguing about a topic that has been argued about for a thousand years. It’s lame. Not a single thing I’ve said implies that I agree with his views generally, beyond the specific point of misinformation that I corrected, with evidence. So… besides the one big thing you’re doing and that I’m talking about this is a totally baseless claim for me to have made, got it. Yes, I know you’re trying to minimize your behavior, but the reality is that you came in to argue the same thing as a transphobe. You have, through your actions, taken his side. I think perhaps you’re misunderstanding my concern here - the drive to define the truth about a minor historical point about the fucking catholic church from a thousand years ago is far less important than you leaping to the same argument as a transphobic islamic supremacist. You’re making yourself appear more concerned with long-disputed and incredibly boring ‘facts’ than about the moral implications of attacking someone alongside, again, a transphobic supremacist. “If twelve people are at a table, and a nazi sits down…” doesn’t just hold with nazism - while you yourself may have made and accepted that there’s a distinction in your behavior so clear that you can rationalize what you’re doing here (“I’m not defending him, I’m just defending the truth against liberals who hate the truth”) what you are actually doing is being willing to take the side of yet again a transphobic supremacist because you appear to care more about being right in a conversation with people you’ve decided are liberals than you do associating with an utterly reprehensible person. Seriously. You’re better than this.